An investigation of the trinity of Plato and of Philo Judaeus, and of the effects which an attachment to their writings had upon the principles and reasonings of the father of the Christian church

Toronto University Hibrary.

y ὙΦ —

>

PX" PRESENTED BY

9 he U. tere Of Ὁ ΟΣ ΤΣ

through the Committee. ν᾿ mm
τ
4 :

ΤῈΣ —E~ =
/ - “5 J ¥

᾿ 4

+ ταν -- ἢ

me

the Old Country.
ὶ

to aid in replacing the loss caused by» thé “δασίγομς δ γε

of February the 14th, 1890.

a ge re er
‘ - «αἴ

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/investigationoftO0Omorguoft

ΑΝ

INVESTIGATION

OF THE

ἘΜ Θ᾽ Aero

AND OF

ΗΕ 3 OD AWS.

Βέλτιον ἴσως ἐπισκέψασθαι, καὶ διαπορῆσαι, πώς λέγεται, καίπερ

, - * , ΄ οὖ ‘ ΄ » ἢ
προσάντους τῆς τοιαύτης γενομένης ζητήσεως, διὰ τὸ φίλους ἀνδρας
εἰσαγαγεῖν τὰ εἴδη. δόξειε δ᾽ ἂν ἴσως βέλτιον εἶναι, καὶ δεῖν ἐπὶ
, eps ; SE ΟΣ αν; Aap ι
σωτηρίᾳ γε τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ Ta οἰκεῖα ἀναιρεῖν, ἄλλως TE καὶ
φιλοσόφους ὄντας" ἀμφοῖν yap ὄντοιν φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾷν τὴν

ἀλήθειαν.
AnistoT. Ethic. Nicom. Lib. 1. Cap. iv.

φ..
δὰ ΑΝ INVESTIGATION

ἘΠΥΕΝΊΤΤΥΎΥ OP ον To

AND OF

PHILO JUD AWS

AND OF THE EFFECTS WHICH AN ATTACHMENT TO THEIR WRITINGS
HAD UPON THE PRINCIPLES AND REASONINGS OF THE

FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

By

CASAR MORGAN, D.D.
CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY
Epited for the Sundies. of the Aniversity ress

Cambridae :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Hondon: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

Adbertisement to the Wresent Edition.

Czsar Moraay, the Author of the following work,
was educated at the Grammar School of Haverford-
west, and at Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he was
admitted a scholar in the year 1769. He took the
degree of B.A. in 1773, that of M.A. in 1776, and
that of D.D. in 1793. In the year 1775 he was
elected to a Fellowship of his College, which he vacated
by marriage in 1776, the year in which his tutor,
Archdeacon Patxry, ceased to be a member of that
Foundation.

He subsequently became Chaplain to Bishop Yorxe,
by whom he was presented to the Vicarage of Littleport
and to a stall in the Church of Ely in 1804, having
been previously a minor canon in the same Cathedral.

In 1785 Mr Moraan obtained the honorary prize
given by TeriEr’s Theological Society at Haarlem
Jor an essay, of which the following is the title, A
demonstration that true philosophy has no tendency to
undermine divine revelation, and that a well-grounded
philosopher may be a true Christian*. The essay was
originally printed at Haarlem in 1786, subsequently
at the Cambridge University Press in 1787. In 1795
Dr Morean published his ‘Investigation of the Trinity

* See note, page 164.
a3

VI

of Plato and of Philo Judzeus, ete.’ a treatise which
probably attracted much attention at the time of its
publication: but is now very little known, although
it forms a most valuable, indeed necessary, supplement
to the writings of Bull, Alliw and Horsley on the same
subject. The republication of the work will, it is hoped,
procure for it a wider circulation than it has hitherto
Found.

The present edition has been carefully revised,
the references of the quotations have been verified and
completed, (all additional matter being enclosed between
brackets), and a synoptical Table of Contents has been
prefixed. The paging of the original Edition is noted
in the margin.

H, 4. HOLDEN.
Trinity CoLLEce,

1853, February 5.

TO

THE HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND

JAMES,

LORD BISHOP OF ELY.

My Lorp,
The work which I have now the honour
of addressing to your Lordship, though begun, and in a
great measure executed, under the pressure of bodily
infirmity and amidst numerous daily avocations, has
been often carefully reviewed by me at leisure. For
this leisure, I am proud thus publicly to acknowledge
that I am indebted solely to your Lordship’s unsolicited
patronage. It has been sometimes a subject of debate
among nice observers of human nature, whether a
relaxation from business and an encrease of income
bring with them those means of real enjoyment, which
men fondly expect from them. But of this there can
be no doubt, that it is a great consolation to the weary
spirit not to be obliged to toil when the strength faileth.
Whatever, therefore, shall be my future designation in
this life ;
Seu me tranquilla senectus

Expectat; seu mors atris circumvolat alis;

Dives, inops, Romz, seu sors ita jusserit, exul ;

Quisquis erit vite color;

Vil Dedication.

As long as I support this ‘frail and feverish being ;’
I shall ever retain the warmest sense of the favours

conferred upon,
My Lorp,

Your LoRDSHIP’s

Most grateful and devoted
Servant and Chaplain,

CESAR MORGAN.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.

InrRopuction. Value of acquaintance with the writings of ancient
philosophers, particularly those of Plato: ‘his acquaintance
with the doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the Divine
nature, heretofore not doubted : passage in the Philebus mis-
construed by Cudworth: doctrines of Plato generally mis-
apprehended by the Fathers of the Christian Church: hence
necessity for original examination of his writings: Ammo-
nius, Plotinus, Cudworth, Le Clerc: plan pursued by the
Author: anecdote: Mosheim differs from Cudworth in his
SERGI CAME OF PURE.) 27200200 tht boce se uecne see sevcbevdocd-cerbent p.i

Plato’s Epinomis, passage in examined and meaning of the word
λόγος deduced: doctrine of the Dialogue, what ............... pl

The Parmenides, difficulty of, arising from its being so abstracted :
variety of opinions about, Serranus, Le Clere: Cudworth
follows Plotinus: peculiarity of the Dialogue in relation to
Socrates: examination of it: subject of the debate: illustrated
from the Philebus: from the Republic, Book vy: Aristotle’s
exception to the reasoning of Melissus and Parmenides ... p. 8

Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas: Aristotle’s doctrine on the same: division
of knowledge into two kinds in the Philebus .......ἁἀννννννννος p. 23

Determination of the meaning of τὸ ἀγαθόν in Plato: mistake of
Plotinus, Cudworth: the question concerning the greatest
good considered of the highest importance by all sects of
heathen philosophers : Cicero: Socrates, his exposition of it
in Plato, in Xenophon: Aristotle’s conclusion that there is not

a common good, directed against Plato’s theory: Τὸ ἀγαθόν
never intended by Plato to express ἃ pe7'sOn .......:0s:002+00 p. 27

The Philebus: misinterpretation of passage in (νοῦς ἐστὶ yevotorns
τοῦ πάντων αἰτίου) : Context of it examined: Platonic doc-

x Synopsis of Contents.

trine, that the soul of man is akin to and derived from the
soul of the Universe, supported by quotations from Cicero

end ΜΘ ΣΧ τα iyriis i ooe-ne-cna tector ater stessbees cvee-. vn vader-- p. 36
Plato's Epistles gwseisscs.t.cca ta cdeass see sae tpaceg pays taken saoaedenioes p. 43
The Craiylus—passage in, examined ...2:.<c:,-.<--0<<ccoesseteares-: p. 47

The Timeus—subject of investigated: derived from the Treatise
of Timeus the Locrian, concerning the Soul of the world:
meaning of terms employed in: Plato’s opinion concerning the
Eternity of the world: doctrine of Pythagoras, of the Stoics:
hypothesis of Plato’s acquaintance with the doctrine of three

τος hypostases in the Divine nature not countenanced by any of
HG -ADOVE ὑεῖς ΟΕ 2 nccb>-<ndanattvedopo ate demas πο 7: p. 48

This doctrine not attributed to him by the subsequent philosophers
of “Greece Or ROMEG Aye. 0352.4. siee.csseevacsveccdseane anne sceeeaeee p- 61

Philo Judeus the cause of its being so attributed: conformity
between his principles and those of Plato proved against the
assertion of Allix: his use of the term λόγος θεῖος : design
of Philo’s writings overlooked by his interpreters: his use
OL 'κοσμὸς νοηπός: OL λύγος 1 -|0π| || Πρ πη p. 63

Allegorical method of interpreting Scripture was derived from
Philo: notion that the philosophical principles of Pagan
antiquity were directly or indirectly derived from Scripture,
common to Jewish and Christian writers of old, e.g. Josephus,
Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus: Origen: Philo’s al-
legorical method in high estimation among the Fathers,
Clemens and Theophilus: effect of these two circumstances
on the reasonings of the Christians of the second century
traced in Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian :
error of Praxeas: orthodox writers and heretics of the second
century agreed in their original general principles, but
differed in their application of them: illustration of this
from a passage of Tertullian concerning the system of Va-
lentinus: Gnostics, their doctrines said by Ireneus to be
primarily derived from the philosophy of Plato: testimony

Synopsis of Contents. xI

eee a ONE τ ᾿ ὀ νε΄
of Clemens Alexandrinus to the same effect: of Plotinus:
Gnostic heresies wrongly supposed to owe their origin to
the Oriental Philosophy alone: true statement of the case:
establishment of the school of Ammonius Saccas at Alex-
andria: important effect of on Christianity: frequent en-
deayours on the part of Christian writers to make out a
conformity between their own profession and heathen tra-
dition, not responded to by the Pagan philosophers till this
time, when they began to proclaim that there was nothing
new in Christianity: Plotinus, his writings: the principal
doctrine which he endeavours to prove by abstract reasoning,
and to support by Plato’s authority, is a Trinity in the
Divine nature: quotations from: allegorical mode of inter-
preting Pagan mythology assailed by Arnobius: Origen an
admirer of Philo’s system: heresy of Sabellius, refuted by
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who was defended by Atha-
nasius because the Arians tried to shelter themselves under
his authority: controversy between Arius and Alexander to
be understood by a reference to the sophisticated doctrines
Siege iN pe ees coven Ἐπ τ <Bangencesepeocennesssesvescaccnevevesns p- 120

DRE WREST et cy cece ons shores asus dan senaskeniens <p sn snes Vadaenus osu0 p. 149

LIST OF EDITIONS USED BY THE AUTHOR.

ATHANASIUS Ν 3 Ξ Paris. 1627
ATHENAGORAS . . Ἢ . Paris. 1636 fo.
CieMENS ALEXANDRINUS . Paris. 1640

Cupwortn’s Intellectual System . London 1678

IRENZUS . : νυ: é Paris. 1639

Justin Martyr : 5 . Paris. 1636

OrIGENES : 4 ° ‘ Huet. Roth. 1668

OricEnEs contra Celsum. . . Spencer. Cant. 1677.

Puro JupHus. . c C Turneb. et Heschel, Paris.1640
PLato : A : , . Serranus, Paris. 1578
PLOTINUs - : : : : Basilee 1580

TERTULLIANUS . : ς . Pamelius, Paris, 1608

INTRODUCTION.

LL the works of God are wonderful in their
kind and display, in either a minute or stupen-
dous manner, the wisdom and benevolence of the
Creator. Philosophy, in its several branches, initi-
ates men into the great mysteries of the creation,
and, by unfolding the principles, upon which it was
at first conducted and is still supported, leads us to

admire, to reverence, and adore the author of all

i things. It is for this reason the most valuable gift,

that by the ordinary course of nature has been
bestowed upon man.

There is nothing in the whole order of exist-
ence, upon which the supreme Being has not im-
pressed unequivocal marks of himself; and there-
fore nothing in nature is so insignificant, or so far
removed from us (provided it can be subjected to
the notice of our understanding or our senses) that
the contemplation of it will not be highly gratifying
to a rational mind, and useful for some of the
yarious purposes of human life. But, as intellectual
and moral beings assert an undisputed claim to the
first place in the scale of nature, and approach
nearest in rank and excellence to the Deity; the

MORGAN, A

li Introduction.

contemplation of the mind itself, the source of that

distinction and superiority over other less favoured

animals of its powers and defects, and of the best —

methods of extending the one and correcting the
other, must be the most noble, the most exalted,
and at the same time the most useful exercise of
the human intellect.

On this account I have ever set.a high value

upon the knowledge of pagan antiquity, particularly

upon an acquaintance with the writings of the phi-
losophers of ancient Greece. In them we see the
human understanding in its natural and unassisted
state, putting forth its most vigorous and best
directed exertions in the pursuit of truth; and we
may thence learn to set a just value upon that
communication of wisdom, so pure, so simple, and
so unadorned, which is tendered to us in the
Gospel of Christ.

But, besides this general advantage which at-
tends the study of all the philosophic writings of
ancient Greece, that have escaped the wreck of
time; the writings of Paro stand eminently dis-
tinguished by a privilege almost peculiarly their
own. They were for some ages the principal study
of the Fathers of the Christian Church; and the
doctrines which I have undertaken particularly to
discuss, were, by their fond partiality, in a manner

incorporated into the system of Christianity. By a

11

| iv

Introduction. lil

strange fatality, all sects of religion, however they
differed from each other in the conclusions which
they deduced from it, agreed in this opinion, that
the great and distinguishing doctrines of Christian-
ity were to be found in the writings of Ptaro.
Nor is that opinion abandoned by the generality of
the Christians of the present day, who recur to the
writings of the early defenders of our faith, for a
knowledge of the doctrines maintained by the
Church in those primitive times.

The course of my own reading had led me to
adopt the commonly received opinion, that PLatro
had some knowledge of the profound and mystical
doctrine of the Trinity. I was the less inclined to
question the truth of this opinion, as it was almost
the only one in which the controversialists of the
present day were generally agreed. When, there-
fore, I was excited to enter into a minute examina-
tion of this subject, my original object was not to
ascertain the truth of the opinion, that PLaro was
acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity of per-
sons in the divine nature. Of this I entertained
no doubt. But I wished to know by what autho-
rity, or by what train of reasoning, he was led to
embrace this doctrine; by what arguments he sup-
ported it; and in what sense he explained it. So
far was I from entertaining prejudices in favour of
the side of the question, which I have since found

A2

iv Introduction.

reason to maintain, that I did not even suspect the
possibility of its being true, at the time when I
instituted the inquiry.

When I first read the Philebus, I was much

more disposed to distrust my own understanding,

<

than to believe that Cupwortu could possibly have

been guilty of so glaring a mistake in the meaning
[Plato 20, of the passage, ὅτι νοῦς ἐστὶ γενούστης τοῦ πάντων.
τῇ αἰτίου. I read over the passage many times, and
considered it with the most intense exertion of
thought; nor could I prevail upon myself to adopt
my own interpretation of it, till 1 was clearly con-
vinced by repeated examinations, that it could not
admit of any other.

When I discovered that the doctrine could derive
no countenance from this passage, I still supposed
that I should find it clearly proved in others. But
the same disappointment still attended me in my
inquiries. The farther I proceeded, the more I was
persuaded, that the abstract doctrines of PLato are
at present but little understood: that false notions
of them were gradually introduced among the early
Fathers of the Christian Church, in a great mea-
sure by mistaken interpretations of the writings of
Puito Jupmus: and that those erroneous opinions
were extended and formed into a system by Ammo-
nius Saccas. The most essential parts of this sys- vi
tem have, by the authority of him and his immedi-

Introduction. Vv

ate followers, been almost implicitly embraced ever
since.

It may perhaps be thought a proof of great
presumption, to undertake to oppose the concur-
rent voice of the best and wisest men for so many
ages. But when it is recolleted, how, many errors
of antiquity have been confuted since the revival of
literature and the introduction of sound philosophy
into this kingdom, some will, I trust, be disposed
to pay a candid and unprejudiced attention to the
reasonings which I shall produce in the following
Treatise, and will pass an impartial sentence, ac-
cording as they shall be influenced by the prepon-
derating evidence.

The writings of the Fathers abound with many
fanciful and mystical interpretations of the Holy
Scriptures themselves, which the sober criticism of
the present age would hardly be prevailed upon to
admit. If, therefore, we submit not implicitly to
their authority in matters which fell more regularly
within their province; why should we think them
infallible upon subjects which were more remote

vii from their immediate department, and more ob-

scure and abstracted in their own nature ?

To urge in their fayour that they lived nearer
the time of PLato than we do, by many hundred
years, is a mere fallacy. They were too far re-

moved from him to derive any authority from that

vi Introduction.

presumption. Even at their time and in their cir-
cumstances, the best and only satisfactory method
of arriving at a correct knowledge of the opinions
of Piato, was by a careful perusal of those writings
in which they are maintained.

This source is open to us as well as to them.
To those writings I appeal, and shall endeavour to
extract their genuine sense by a careful attention
to the context, to the chain of argument which the -
author is carrying on, and to the point which he is
endeavouring to establish. If any ambiguities still
remain, I shall endeavour to clear them up by
recurring to other dialogues of the same author,
where the same terms are used, the same topics
explained, and the same arguments enforced in a
more simple or more perspicuous manner. ‘This
I have ever considered as the most certain and
only rational method of arriving at the genuine Vili
meaning of any author, sacred or profane. i

I shall produce in support of many of my inter-
pretations, pointed, and, as I think, decisive pas-
sages from other ancient authors. I do not know
that my general doctrine is in one instance
contradicted by the testimony or reasoning of
any pagan writer, from the time of Pxato to the
latter end of the second, or the beginning of the
third century of the Christian «ra, when the Lec-

tures of Ammontus, and the writings of his scholar

Introduction. Vii

Piorinus, gave a new turn to the heathen philoso-
phy. The sages who lived in the intermediate
time, however distinguished they may have been
by their genius and industry, and how much soever
they may have reverenced and imitated Piaro, had
not sagacity enough to make those discoveries
which were reserved for the sophists of Alexandria.
They, in the decline of all other branches of learn-
ing, were able to explore the dark recesses of the
Platonic philosophy, and to point out in it, and
develope mysterious doctrines, which had escaped
the penetration of Greece and Rome, when they
ix were supposed to have cultivated philosophy and
the arts with the greatest celebrity and success.

In the course of my inquiry, I shall be under
the necessity of differing very widely from Dr Cup-
wortH, whose authority is deservedly held to be of
the greatest weight in all speculations of this kind,
when there is nothing but man’s authority to which
we can appeal. But when the case is capable of
being examined and determined by legitimate rea-
soning, that decision is superior to all human au-
thority. At a time when these kingdoms were
distracted by contending parties in Church and
State, Dr Cupwortn must have been closely em-
ployed in laying up that fund of knowledge, from
which he afterwards so copiously drew his materials,

while he was composing his True Intellectual System

Vill Introduction.

of the Universe. In that work he has repelled the
assaults of Atheism, and defended the principles
of natural religion with astonishing skill and erudi- -
tion. But, by resigning himself too implicitly to
the guidance of Piotinus and Procuvs, he has given
his sanction to opinions, which in earlier times em-

barrassed the reasonings of the orthodox, and dif-

‘

fused a specious air of consistency over the doc- x
trines of heretics.

While I detect a few inadvertencies in the wri-
tings of this great man, which are the more dan-
gerous on account of his general excellencies, I
never for a moment forget, or cease to reverence,
his superior attainments; and 1 always rejoice that
his destination in life was conformable to his fa-
vourite pursuits, which is almost the consummation
of the earthly happiness of a literary man. For,
next to his intellectual endowments, it was the
peculiar felicity and distinguishing honour of Cup-
wortn, to be placed at the head of a great literary
society*, at a time when it was highly renowned
for having recently produced Mepre and Mivron,
both eminent for their various learning, and the
one as profound a Divine, the other as sublime a

Poet, as the world ever saw.

* Fuller, in his History of the University of Cambridge,
which was published in the early part of the mastership of
Dr Cudworth, speaks of Christ College in the following terms:

jee og enny κῆρ «ῳξ

ΧΙ

χὶ

μ᾿

Introduction. 1X

I conceive that what I have said about differing
in opinion from Cupworrtu will justify me in not
submitting implicitly to the authority of Le Cuerc,
and other ingenious men, whose names are, with
the greatest reason, in the highest esteem, and
whose learning, abilities, and laborious exertions,
have contributed much to the support, illustration,
and advancement of rational religion and genuine
Christianity.

When a train of reasoning appears to any mind
to be founded upon solid and incontrovertible prin-
ciples: when each succeeding step of the argument
is apprehended to arise necessarily out of that which
preceded it, and the conclusion seems to be a clear
and satisfactory deduction from the whole; I do
not see what room there can be for the interposi-
tion of any human authority. While the mind is
so circumstanced, it cannot submit to the authority
without renouncing its reason. However modest a
man possessed of such a mind may be; however
diffident of his own powers; how much soever he
may be disposed to submit to the opinions of others
upon proper occasions; he cannot, in this instance,
listen to the voice of authority, till he shall be con-

‘It may without flattery be said of this house, Many daugh-
ters have done virtuously, but thow excellest them all; if we con-
sider the many diyines, who in so short a time have here had
their education,’ p. 91.

A5

x Introduction.

vinced that his principles are uncertain, or his de-
ductions fallacious. Nor is he unreasonable in re-
questing those who undertake to accompany him in ~
the investigation, to confine their attention entirely
to those essential points which exclude the consi-
deration of all foreign and adventitious circum-
stances, till they are invalidated.

When I seriously entertained the thought of
laying my sentiments before the public, I was im-
pressed with so strong a sense of the dignity of the
subject, that I thought myself bound in duty to
lay by the produce of my labours till the warmth of
inquiry had subsided: to review it repeatedly at
distant intervals: and to peruse, with the strictest
attention, what had been advanced by others that
seemed to bear any relation to the subject.

It would have been a much more easy task to
me to have been diffuse, and seemingly more ela-
borate, in exhibiting as well my own opinions as
those of others. But I have taken some pains to

be as brief in my expositions as was consistent with

order and perspicuity.

It would answer no useful purpose to combat xiii |
all the systems which appear to me to be erroneous;
or to invalidate the many arguments that may seem
to bear some weight against the opinions which I
have advanced. I thought it would best answer

the purpose that I had in view if I confined myself

Introduction. xi

chiefly to a simple exposition of the genuine mean-
ing of the passages which are usually produced in
defence of the opposite doctrine, and of the prin-
cipal reasons that induced me to adopt the inter-
pretation which I have exhibited.

I therefore request that no reader will, from a
slight and superficial view of the subject, and under
the influence of a few popular positions and obvious
objections, hastily condemn, in a summary manner,
what I have here laid down; but will give me cre-
dit for having bestowed much consideration upon
the arguments usually advanced on the other side
of the question, and for having satisfied myself after
deep reflection, of the insufficiency of them to main-
tain the cause, for the support of which they were
produced.

To induce him the more readily to grant me

xiy this indulgence, I will take the liberty of reciting
to him a well-authenticated story. When the pre-
sent authorized translation of the Old and New
Testament came out under the auspices of King
James, that great work did not escape critical cen-
sures. It happened that one of the translators,
soon after the completion of that arduous under-
taking, made a visit to a friend in a part of the
country where he was not generally known. On
the Sunday he accompanied his friend to the parish
church, where the officiating clergyman, in the

[Hom. Iliad.
X. 242.

ΧΙ Introduction.

course of his sermon took an opportunity of depre-
ciating the new translation in general terms, and in
particular assigned five reasons why a certain pas-
sage ought to have been differently translated. As
the preacher dined that day with the gentleman,
the translator did not omit to advert in private to
the discourse that had been publicly delivered.
Among other things, qua dicenda forent, he told the
preacher that those five reasons which he so pom-
pously displayed in the pulpit had been all consi-
dered and deliberately weighed by the translators ;
but that thirteen more forcible reasons had con-
strained them to render the passage in the manner
in which it stood in the present translation.

J am not insensible to the great weight of op-
posing authorities. I have, however, the satisfac-
tion to find that I do not stand quite alone in many
of my opinions. The very learned and judicious
Mosnerm has taken frequent opportunities of con-
demning the subtilties of the later Platonists.

Εἰ μὲν δὴ ἕταρόν ye κελεύετέ μ᾽ αὐτὸν ἑλέσθαι,
Πῶς ἂν ἔπειτ᾽ ᾿Οδυσῆος ἐγὼ θείοιο λαθοίμην,

Οὗ πέρι μὲν πρόφρων κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ
Ἔν πάντεσσι πόνοισι, φιλεῖ δὲ ἑ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη ;

In those valuable notes which accompany his
Latin Version of Cupwortu he often expresses his
dissent from his author’s interpretations of Piaro

and Puito; though the nature and extent of his

XV

ae

Introduction. ΧΙ

undertaking did not require that he should always
enter into a minute examination of the precise
meaning of the passages in question*.

xvi In my investigation of the opinions of the Fa-
thers of the Christian Church, I acted exactly in
the same manner as I did when I examined the
writings of PLtaro and Puito, as far as concerned
the doctrines which they taught, and the meaning
of the passages in which those doctrines were ex-
pressed. When they quoted the writings of other
authors, whether sacred or profane, in defence of
their tenets, I took the same liberty with them
which I have always thought myself not only author-
ized, but bound to take in matters of such high im-
port with every other uninspired writer. I exam-
ined with all possible care and attention the fidelity
and accuracy of the quotation, the justness of the
exposition, and the foree of the application and
deduction. If I seemed to myself to detect errors
in any of those particulars, the respect which I en-
tertained for the venerable authors on account of
their industry, learning, and piety, did not suffer
me to judge of them lightly or rashly. No fondness

for novelty, no pleasure in discovering the defects

* Nimis mihi longa, eaque huic instituto parum conducens
ingredienda esset disputatio, si totam explicare vellem οὐ ex-
planare Platonis augumentationem.—MosnHeEmm. Observ. ad Pag.
627. Tom. I.

XIV Introduction.

of others influenced my judgment. Genuine truth
was the only object of my inquiry; and indeed I
was conscious that nothing but truth could bear mexvii !
up against such great, such long-established, and
such accumulated authority.

When I endeavoured, with all the candour that
I was capable of exercising, to trace their errors
and false reasonings to their source, I thought I
saw them originate from an ardent zeal for the
advancement of the great cause which they had
undertaken, the cause of Gop and of his Curist,
This led them, without due consideration, to em-
brace the opinion that the doctrine of a Trinity of
Persons in the Divine Nature is taught in the writ-
ings of Prato and Puito Jup£us; an opinion, ac-
cording to my conception, so remote from the truth,
that nothing but error can be founded upon it.
With an examination of this opinion, I shall begin

the investigation.

EPINOMIS.

HE following passage in the Epinomis is sup- [p.986. ¢1
posed by !some to establish Plato’s belief of
the creation of the world by the Logos, the second
person of the Holy Trinity: ξυναποτελῶν κόσμον,
ov ἔταξε λόγος 0 πάντων θειότατος ὁρατόν.
Before the design and general reasoning of

the Dialogue be considered, it will be proper to
observe, that a strong tincture of Pythagorean
principles is conspicuous in many of the Dialogues
of Plato, but in none more than in the Dialogue
now under contemplation,

The Epinomis is to be understood to be a
continuation of the dialogue Περὶ Νομοθεσίας, and
is carried on by the same characters. This cir-

2 cumstance, as well as the subject of their future
inquiry, is stated very clearly by Clineas? in the
beginning. The Athenian, who undertook to dis-
cuss the subject, having touched upon the neces-
sary, the ornamental, and the useful arts, con-
cludes, that the knowledge of none of them will

1 Vide Clerici Epist. Critic. vu. p. 241. Amst. 1700, and
Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philosoph. Pars 11. Lib. ii. cap. 6, § 1,
Ῥ. 692.

2 Τὰ μὲν yap ἄλλα, ὥς φαμεν, ἅπαντα διεξήλθομεν, ὅσα ἦν περὶ
νόμων θέσιν: ὃ δὲ μέγιστον εὑρεῖν τε καὶ εἰπεῖν, τί ποτε μαθὼν
θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος σοφὸς ἂν εἴη, τοῦτο οὔτε εἴπομεν, οὔτε εὕρομεν.
νῦν δὲ πειρώμεθα τοῦτο μὴ καταλιπεῖν. [p. 978. A,B.]

2 ΠΡΙΔΟΜ΄15."

intitle any one to the name of ἃ wise man. He
then proceeds to inquire, what knowledge that is,
the want of which would render man the most
irrational of animals. This, he says, is the know-
ledge of number, which he considers as the gift of
some god to man. For it would be absurd to sup-
pose, that the author of all other good things
to us should not be the author of the greatest
also, which is Wisdom. Without the knowledge
of number a man cannot have reason (Aoryos®;) if -
he were destitute of sound reason, he would not be
wise, if he should not attain wisdom, which is a3
very considerable ingredient in all virtue, he would
not be completely good or happy.

The God, that gave number, is the heaven,
who taught men the first principles of numera-

3 Στερόμενος δὲ ἀληθοῦς λόγου, σοφὸς οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο"
ὅτῳ δὲ σοφία μὴ προσείη, πάσης ἀρετῆς τὸ μέγιστον μέρος, οὐκ
ἂν ἔτι τελέως ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος, εὐδαίμων ποτε γένοιτο' οὕτως
ἀριθμὸν μὲν ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ὑποτίθεσθαι. [p. 9177 ν.] This doctrine
is similar to what he says in his Republic, (Lib. vii. p. 522.) τὸ
ἕν te καὶ τὰ δύο καὶ τὰ τρία διαγιγνώσκειν. Λέγω δὲ αὐτὸ ὡς ἐν
κεφαλαίῳ ἀριθμόν τε καὶ λογισμόν: ἢ οὐχ οὕτω περὶ τούτων ἔχει,
ὡς πᾶσα τέχνη τε καὶ ἐπιστήμη ἀναγκάζεται αὐτῶν μέτοχος γίγνε-
σθαι; and in the Philebus: Πασῶν που τεχνῶν ἄν τις ἀριθμητικὴν
χωρίζῃ, καὶ μετρητικὴν, καὶ στατικὴν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, φαῦλον τὸ
καταλειπόμενον ἑκάστης ἂν γίγνοιτο. [p. 55 Ε.]

4 The same method of instructing men in number is like-
wise mentioned in the Timeus, p. 39[B]: Ἥλιον: ἵνα ὅτι pa-
λιστα εἰς ἅπαντα φαίνοι τὸν ovpavov, μετάσχοι τε ἀριθμοῦ τὰ ζῶα,
ὅσοις ἦν προσῆκον, μαθόντα παρὰ τῆς ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιφορᾶς.
Philo also, adopting the same doctrine, says, the stars were
placed in heaven to answer many purposes—IloA\Gv χάριν----
ἡμερῶν, μηνῶν, ἐνιαυτῶν, ἃ δὴ καὶ μέτρα γέγονε---εὐθύς τε τὸ χρη-
σιμώτατον, ἡ ἀριθμοῦ φύσις ἐδείχθη, χρόνου παραφήναντος αὐτήν"
ἐκ γὰρ μιᾶς ἡμέρας τὸ ἕν, καὶ ἐκ δυοῖν τὰ δύο, καὶ ἐκ τριῶν τὰ τρία.
Περὶ Κοσμοποιίας: pag. 11, 12.

EPINOMIS. 3

tion by the ‘succession of day and night, the varia-
tions of the moon, &c. He likewise taught them,
what is more important, the mutual® relations and
proportions of number by the arrangement of the
seasons and the elements, which renders the earth
fertile and productive.
He then considered the heavenly bodies, and
asserted them to be ‘animated, and endued with
4 perfect wisdom, on account of the regularity and
constancy of their motions, so different from those
of men. Know, says he, that there are round the [p. 986. 4.)
whole heaven eight powers, akin to each other (adeA-
φὰς ἀλλήλων) one of the sun, one of the moon, &e.
Let not any of us suppose, that some of them are

5 Πρὸς ἄλληλα πάντα ἀριθμὸν dei λογίζεσθαι----ἀνέμων τε καὶ
ὑετῶν γιγνομένων οὐκ ἐξαισίων οὐδὲ ἀμέτρων. [p. 979 A.]

6 This sentiment is adopted by Philo, Περὶ Κοσμοποιΐας,
Ῥ. 16. ὥσπερ of ἀστέρες: οὗτοι yap ζῶά τε εἶναι λέγονται, καὶ
ζῶα νοερά. Origen, who was an admirer of Philo, is thus ren-
dered by his translator Ruflinus in the Prowmium to his
Treatise Περὶ Ἀρχῶν: “De sole autem et luna et stellis, utrum
animantia sint, an exanima, manifeste non traditur.’ This, as
well as many other opinions of Pythagoras and Plato, appears
to have been originally derived from the East. Pococke, in
stating Sharestanius’s account of the Sabians, who sprung from
Chaldea, says, ‘it was a tenet of one sect of that religion, that
the bodies of the seven planets were the abodes of spiritual
beings or intelligences, who possessed them in the same manner,
as our bodies are possessed by our souls; and that they are
living, rational bodies, animated by intelligences: ‘ Sacellorum
cultores sacella vocant septem planetarum corpora, esse hie
spiritualium seu intelligentiarum habitacula, que eodem loco
illis sunt, quo animabus nostris corpora. Esseque ea corpora
viventia, rationalia, ab intelligentiis animata.’ Pocock. Specimen
Hist. Arab. p. 139. The Indians held this doctrine concerning
the fixed stars, and with them agreed the Arabians, ib. and
p- 163. Vide Maimon. de Fund. Leg. p. 33.

4 EPINOMIS.

gods, and some not—but let us all say, that they
are all brothers and in kindred departments—and
let us not assign to one the honour of the year,
to another the honour of a month, and to others
none of that portion of time, in which each per-
forms his course, accomplishing, in conjunction
with the others, that visible order which the most
divine reason of all established”. Inasmuch as that
harmony, which is at present to be illustrated, and 5
which produces the year and the seasons (by the
contemplation and imitation of which a wise man
will attain an harmony of soul, the source of per-
fect happiness) is not the result of the motions of
any of them taken separately, but is the joint
effect of all—_tIn the same manner Plato likewise

Dee ἢν describes σωφροσύνη in a state, or public virtue,
comparing it to ἁρμονία.

Goodness and happiness, both in this world
and the next, are to be attained by first admiring
this harmony, and then endeavouring to under-
stand and acquire it in ourselves, as far as is
possible for human nature. Thus is made out the
importance of the knowledge of number, which
was taught men by the heaven. Without the

a ΑΨ
7 Πάντες δὴ πάντας λέγωμέν τε καὶ φῶμεν αδέλφους τ᾽ εἶναι, καὶ
ῆ if ἢ
» 5 - , Ν A > a“ ‘ - AN >
ἐν ἀδελφαῖς μοίραις" καὶ τιμὰς [oftice] προ ποτ μὴ τῷ μὲν ἐνιαυ-
lod “- “ ‘ » Cx) , ‘
τόν, τῷ δὲ μῆνα, τοῖς δὲ μήτε Twa μοῖραν τάττωμεν, μήτε τινὰ χρό-
» - ΄ A © , σι , a »
νον, ἐν ᾧ διεξέρχεται τὸν αὑτου πόλον, ξυναποτελῶν κόσμον, ὃν ἔταξε
λόγος ὃ πάντων θειότατος ὁρατόν.
8 This doctrine is likewise adopted by Philo, Περὶ Κοσμ.
» ν ‘ a , a ei s »
p.17: To δὲ, παντοίων θεαμάτων ἃ καταπληκτικωτάτας μὲν ἔχει
τὰς οὐσίας, καταπληκτικωτάτας δὲ τὰς ποιότητας, θαυμασιωτάτας δὲ
τὰς κινήσεις καὶ χορείας, ἐν τάξεσιν ἡρμοσμένας καὶ ἀριθμῶν ἀνα-
e
Noyiats καὶ περιόδων συμφωνίαις. Ἔν οἷς ἅπασι τὴν ἀρχέτυπον

“=

EPINOMIS. 5

knowledge of number and its proportions there
cannot be reason (λόγος), without reason, wisdom,
without wisdom an harmony of soul, virtue, and
happiness 8,

According to this interpretation of the passage

6 before us, it does not immediately relate to the

creation of the world, nor does it at all express
the personality of the Logos. Pythagoras first
called the world κόσμος, on account of the order
and symmetry of its parts. The word is here used
in its original signification, and the passage alto-
gether means, that the heavenly bodies, by their
regular and well-proportioned motions, conjointly
produce that beautiful order, which the divine wis-
dom marked out. It is to be observed, that the
word λόγος, ὃς ἔταξε κόσμον, has not even an article
prefixed to it; which, I conceive, it would have had,
if it had been intended to express a person.
Nothing is more common in all authors, than
to attribute effects to qualities in the abstract with-
out intending to attribute personality to the qualities
themselves, or to signify any thing more of them,
than that beings, endued with such qualities, have,
by the exertion of them, produced such effects 9,

καὶ ἀλήθη Kat παραδειγματικὴν μουσικὴν οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἶναι
λέγων: ἀφ᾽ ἧς οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα ἄνθρωποι γραψάμενοι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν
ψυχαῖς, ἀναγκαιοτάτην καὶ ὠφελιμωτάτην τέχνην τῷ βίῳ παρέδοσαν.
9 Thus Cicero, Le Legibus, i. 7: Dasne igitur hoc nobis, Pom-
poni (nam Quinti novi sententiam) Deorum immortalium na-
tura, ratione, potestate, mente, numine, sive quod est aliud
verbum, quo planius significem quod yolo, naturam omnem
regi?—Id, quod tibi concessi, quorsum pertineat, expecto.—
Hue pertinet, animal hoc quem yocamus hominem generatum
esse a summo Deo—Solum est—particeps rationis—Quid au-

6 EPINOMIS.

In the Dialogue before us, Plato, when he 7
speaks of the universe merely as a production,
ascribes it to soul (ψυχῆ), an active and governing

p.988.(0.] principle (ψυχῆς οὔσης αἰτίας τοῦ ὅλου), in opposi-
tion to body, which is passive and subject to con-

p.983.(0] [10] (ἀρχόμενον καὶ ἀναίτιον πάσης πάθης). But when
he is speaking of the harmony and congruity of
the parts of the whole, he assigns it to reason or
intelligence, that faculty which is conversant with
order and proportion, in opposition to chance or
the random tendencies of matter.

The doctrine maintained in this Dialogue, is
essentially the same, as that which has been em-
bellished in modern times by the pens of Shaftes-
bury and Hutcheson, viz. that virtue is founded in
a love of order and proportion. It is a doctrine 8
which appears everywhere in the writings of Plato,

tem est, non dicam in homine, sed in omni ccelo atque terra,
ratione divinius? Qu cum adolevit, atque perfecta est, no-
minatur rite sapientia. Again, ii. 13: Cum summos Deos esse
concedamus, eorumque mente mundum regi, et eorundem be-
nignitatem hominum consulere generi. And to this same pur-
pose in his Dialogues, De Nat. Deor. ii. 38: Quis enim hune
hominem dixerit, qui, cum tam certos cceli motus, tam ratos
astrorum ordines, tamque inter se omnia connexa et apta vide-
rit, neget in his ullam inesse rationem, eaque casu fieri dicat,
quze quanto consilio gerantur, nullo consilio adsequi possumus ἢ
An cum machinatione quadam moveri aliquid videmus, ut
spheram, ut horas, ut alia permulta; non dubitamus, quin illa
opera sint rationis? Cum autem impetum cceli cum admirabili
celeritate moveri vertique videamus, constantissime conficien-
tem vicissitudines anniversarias cum summa salute et conser-
vatione rerum omnium; dubitamus, quin ea non solum ratione
fiant, sed etiam excellenti divinaque ratione? Xenophon
Memorab. i. 4. speaks of ἔργα γνώμης and ἔργα προνοίας, which
he likewise attributes σοφοῦ τινος δημιούργου καὶ φιλοζώου τεχ-
νήματι.

a

EPINOMIS. 7

In his Republic”, he discourses at large upon the
importance and connexion of harmony and rhythm
in music, arts, and manners. In the same book
Plato compares knowledge, passion or anger, and
appetite, to the council or senate, the military,
and the artizans, &c. in a state. It is the preroga-
tive of knowledge to direct passion, and the duty
of passion to aid knowledge in keeping the appe-
tites in subjection; and that harmony, which is the
result of their performing each their stveral fune-
tions in due order, constitutes the just and perfect
state of the mind of man, and, as it were, the
health of the soul. Hence he concludes, that as a
city, whose members preserve a regular subordina-
tion, will flourish more than one that is torn by
contending parties ;—and as sound health is better
than disease ;—so virtue is, on its own account,
more desirable than vice.

10 Τούτων ἕνεκα κυριωτάτη ἐν μουσικῆ τροφὴ, ὅτι μάλιστα
, 5 ‘ > A ΄- ΄ o « A 4 c , 4
καταδύεται εἰς TO ἐντὸς τῆς Ψυχῆς 6 τε ῥυθμὸς καὶ ἁρμονία, καὶ
ἐρρωμενέστατα ἅπτεται αὐτῆς, φέροντα τὴν εὐσχημοσύνην: καὶ ποιεῖ
, A a “ i” ,
εὐσχήμονα, ἐάν τις ὀρθῶς tpapy—[kal ὅτι ad τῶν παραλειπομένων
ΝΜ ΝΜ x ΄ 4 ‘ ΄ , »» 7 2A >
καὶ μὴ καλῶς δημιουργηθέντων ἢ μὴ καλῶς φύντων ὀξύτατ᾽ ἂν ai-
, c > ΄ ‘ « »» ‘4 > ~ A , A ‘
σθάνοιτο] ὁ ἐκεῖ τραφεὶς [ws ἔδει καὶ ὀρθῶς δὴ δυσχεραίνων] τὰ μὲν
Waa ε ‘ , ‘ , > 1 ‘ , >
καλὰ ἐπαινοῖ, καὶ χαίρων, καὶ καταδεχόμενος εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν τρέφοιτ'
a ΄ > .
ἂν am αὐτῶν, καὶ γίγνοιτο καλός τε κἀγαθός : Lib m1. p. 401 [Ὁ].
Again, Ὃρᾶς οὖν ὅτι ὡς ἁρμονίᾳ τινι ἡ σωφροσύνη ὡμοίωται. 1Υ. p.

431 [Ε].

PARMENIDES.

HE Parmenides is perhaps one of the most diffi- 9

cult of the Dialogues of Plato. The expression
and the reasoning are so general and abstracted,
particularly’ in the part where ἕν; ἕν πολλὰ, and ev
kal πολλὰ are discussed; that it is not easy to
determine precisely the meaning of those terms.

Serranus supposes the one infinite Being and
second causes to be the subjects of discussion.
Other authors, deservedly of great name, have
thought that they have discovered the three per-
sons of the ever-blessed Trinity delineated under
the articles ἕν, ἕν πολλὰ, and ἕν καὶ πολλὰ. Le Clere,
in his Ars Critica, P. τι. 8.1. exiv, delivers his opi-
nion concerning it in the following terms: Primus
omnium tria principia constituit Parmenides, et post
eum Plato ; qui an consenserint, non satis liquet, quod
Parmenidis non supersit preter obscura fragmenta.
Plato autem dixit primum esse τὸ ὄν, αἴτιον ἀπάντων,
ens, causam omnium rerum: secundum vero λόγον,
Rationem et Rectorem presentium et futurorum : ter-
tium denique ψυχὴν κόσμου, animam sive spiritum
mundi.

The passages, referred to in support and illus-
tration of this opinion in other parts of Plato’s
writings, will be considered in their order. I shall
at present confine myself to the Parmenides, con-

PARMENIDES. 9

cerning the subjects of which Dialogue Cudworth Ine, Sy
had before acceded to the same opinion upon the δ ἡ δ **
authority of Plotinus, as appears from the following
extract : “ Wherefore Parmenides his whole philoso-
phy (saith Plotinus) was better digested, and more
exactly and distinctly set down in Plato’s Parme-
nides, where he acknowledgeth three Unities subor-
dinate, or a Trinity of divine hypostases. Which
observation of Plotinus is, by the way, the best
key, that we know of, for that obscure book of
Plato’s Parmenides” The last part of the quo-
tation seems to me to imply that he accepted
this key, not because he was perfectly satisfied
with it, but because he knew of no other so
good for unlocking the intricacies of that obscure
book. He in fact appears to have considered it
as the most plausible hypothesis that had fallen
in his way. If, therefore, we can obtain a key
from the book itself, which will unlock its intri-
cacies in a manner consistent with the subject of
the discourse, with the train of reasoning adopted
in it, with the philosophic principles of the charac-
ters introduced, and with the manner of their ap-
plying those principles ; I am persuaded that every
judicious reader will acknowledge such a key to be
infinitely more valuable, than any arbitrary hypo-
thesis of Plotinus, however specious it may have
appeared, before this key was presented to him.
Before I enter upon the investigation, it will
be proper to observe, that Parmenides is the chief
speaker of the Dialogue; and that the princi-
ples, advanced in it, are the principles of that

10 PARMENIDES.

philosopher, from whom Plato differed in opinion
on some particular points, as we are told by Aris-
totle.

Let it be no objection to this observation, that
the discourse was held in the presence of Socrates,
that he bore a part in the beginning of it, and that
he was in a great degree the occasion of the
whole. Socrates was the master of Plato; and
the sentiments and reasonings which are assigned
to him, may in general be safely considered as the
sentiments and reasonings of Plato himself. It
was likewise the usual custom, and indeed the
chief employment of Socrates, to correct what he
saw amiss in the practice and opinions of those
with whom he conversed; and, above all, to detect
the fallacious principles, and refute the false rea-
sonings of the philosophers and sophists of his
time. His express approbation, therefore, and his
tacit aquiescence, had commonly the same ten-
dency, though perhaps not so often the same
force.

But upon the present occasion, Socrates is
represented in a situation, in which he does not
often appear in the works of Plato. He is intro-
duced in this Dialogue at a time of life when he
was not a teacher, but a learner; when it was
customary with him, as he tells us in his Phedo, to
attend the different philosophers of distinguished
note; in order that he might be able, by impartial
observation, to discover whose doctrine was most
consistent with the reality of things, and of course,
under whose guidance he should put himself in his

PARMENIDES. 11

future inquiries. It was not till he despaired of
receiving any effectual assistance from others, that
he struck out a method of philosophizing pecu-
liarly his own. In this Dialogue, therefore, con-
trary to what is the case in most others, we must
not consider the acquiescence and approbation of
Socrates as the same.

Yet even here Plato appears to treat his mas-
ter with exquisite delicacy. He makes him indeed
propose his objections to the principles of Zeno,
and defend the consequences deduced from those

objections with an ingenuousness suitable to his
age; and he at length makes him, with the same
ingenuousness, acknowledge himself confounded by
his veteran antagonist, who was by long practice
versed in all the subtleties of disputation. But
13 when Parmenides is prevailed upon to explain his
own principles, the office of replying, and of
course either of opposing or of expressing an
acquiescence, is transferred to Aristotle; and So-
crates takes no part in the remainder of the Dia-
logue.

I have thought it necessary to make these
observations, lest any one should think, that it is
a serious objection to the interpretation here pro-
duced, if the principles attributed to Parmenides
should seem not always exactly to agree with the
principles maintained by Plato under the character
of Socrates, in other parts of his writings. I will
now proceed to examine the Dialogue itself.

Among the persons of the Dialogue was Par-
menides, an old philosopher, who had maintained

MORGAN. B

12 PARMENIDES.

ἕν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, 1“ that the universe is one thing’ ;
by which, I conceive, he meant one system; and
that all the things which subsist have a mutual
connexion with each other, and subsist in it as-
parts of one whole. Zeno was a friend of Parme-
nides, and some years younger than himself. He
had maintained, ov πολλὰ εἶναι, ‘that it is not
many’, does not consist of separate unconnected
parts. Socrates, then a youth, was desirous of
knowing the meaning and foundation of those
doctrines, which Zeno affirmed not to be pre-
cisely the same, though his reasoning operated as
a defence of the doctrine of his friend.

The first point which demands our attention, is
to discover what is the real subject of the Dia-
logue. The nature of the objection urged by
Socrates, the reply to it by Parmenides, and the
defence of it afterwards by Socrates, deserve our
serious consideration ; as they may fairly be sup-
posed to be founded upon the subject of debate.—
As so many parts enter into the composition of the
universe, it is obvious, that, if it can be deno-
minated one thing, it must be so, because it is
capable of being comprehended under one εἶδος or
general abstract form. Now the difficulty that oc-
curred to Socrates in the doctrine of Zeno, which

1 It is probable, that his theological opinion did not essen-
tially differ from that of Thales: @AAH® νοῦν rod κόσμου τὸν
θεόν: τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες. Stobeei
Τοίοσω Physic, τ. {2.§ 29]. This was also the great outline of
the theology of the Stoics.

2 Οὐ νομίζεις εἶναι αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ εἶδός τι ὁμοιότητος, καὶ τῷ
τοιούτῳ αὖ ἄλλο τι ἐνάντιον, ὃ ἔστι ἀνόμοιον ; τούτοιν δὲ, δυοῖν

PARMENIDES. 13

denies a plurality, was this, that there are many
distinct 3 εἴδη, general abstract forms, each sub-
sisting separately and independently. What does
Parmenides reply to this? Does he say, You mis-
take the nature of the thing or being, the unity of
which I maintain? No. He undertakes to shew

15 the contradictions, which, according to his rea-
soning, would arise from supposing, that the
several εἴδη, ‘species’ or general abstract forms,
subsist unconnectedly, and in a manner that
is inconsistent with the unity of τὸ πᾶν, ‘the
universe’ ὃ.

I am well persuaded that the language and
mode of reasoning adopted in this Dialogue, will
appear very harsh and forced to modern appre-
hensions, which are more conversant and better
pleased with the dictates of sound sense confined
within its proper limits, than with the logical sub-
tilties of ancient metaphysics. But if we would
arrive at the genuine sense of an author, we must
be contented to accompany him upon his own
terms, and to reason with him upon his own prin-
ciples.

The specimen, which I have produced, will
perhaps be sufficient to convince most people that
I have rightly stated the subject of the debate. If

ὄντοιν, καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ Ta ἄλλα, ἃ δὴ πολλὰ καλοῦμεν, μεταλαμ-
βάνειν ; καὶ τὰ μὲν, τῆς ὁμοιότητος μεταλαμβάνοντα, ὅμοια γίγνε-
σθαι, ταύτῃ τε καὶ κατὰ τοσοῦτον, ὅσον ἂν μεταλαμβάνῃ ; τὰ δὲ
τῆς ἀνομοιότητος ἀνόμοια; [p. 128 Ε.}
3 Ὃρᾶς οὖν, φάναι, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅση ἦ ἀπορία, ἐάν τις ὡς εἴδη
ὄντα αὐτὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ διορίζηται. [p. 133 Α.]
B2

14 PARMENIDES.

any be yet doubtful concerning it, I would recom-
mend it to them, to peruse with attention the
whole of the conversation, if I may so call it, be-

tween Parmenides and Socrates, as it is set down-

at large in the original. Will they then be able
to believe, that Socrates found a difficulty in ac-
knowledging a perfect Unity, or in denying a
plurality in the Deity, as distinct from the Uni-
verse; because he supposed different abstract forms
of equality and inequality, of greatness, justice,
beauty, and the like, to subsist by themselves sepa-
rately and independently of each other, and seve-
rally to belong, either connectedly or disjunctively,
to the several individual external Actions or
Beings? Will they be able, in the next place, to
conceive, that Parmenides, instead of urging the
want of connexion between the doctrine and the
objection, should undertake to point out the incon-
sistencies that would arise from admitting the
truth of the opinion upon which the objection
is built; and that the whole of the following con-
versation should be employed, on one part, in
endeavouring to explain away those inconsistencies;
and on the other part, to shew the insufficiency of
the explanations, and the still greater difficulties,
that would result from them? If, besides con-
ceiving and believing all this, they can think it
possible, that the discourse should be carried on
through so many debates, objections, replies, and
rejoinders, without either party mentioning, or in
the most distant manner alluding to the real and
original subject of doubt and dispute; I confess,

16 |

PARMENIDES. 15

I know of no argument or mode of reasoning that
is capable of reaching them.

When Socrates seemed disposed to acknow-
ledge that he was puzzled with the difficulty of
the question, Parmenides told him that he had

17 plunged into the depths of philosophy in the morn-
ing of life, before he was sufficiently exercised. He
praised indeed his ingenuity, but recommended it
to him to exercise himself first in the discussion of
more simple topics; by which means he would
afterwards be able with less difficulty to investigate
more intricate and complicated subjects. The kind
of exercise which Parmenides recommended, as
suited to the present state of Socrates, was hypo-
thetical reasoning both positively and negatively
upon the same subject. For instance, *If a thing
be so, what will be the consequence? Again, If
a thing be not so, what will be the consequence ?
After some entreaty, Parmenides is prevailed upon
to give Socrates a specimen of what he meant.
He says, *he will begin from himself and an hypo-
thesis of the truth of his own tenet, which was the
unity of the Universe, ἕν εἶναι τὸ wav. Concern-
ing which he will enquire, first, If it be true: se-
condly, If it be not true, what will be the con-
sequence.

4 Χρὴ δὲ καὶ τόδε ἔτι πρὸς τούτῳ ποιεῖν, μὴ μόνον, εἰ ἔστιν
ἑκαστὸν ὑποτιθέμενον, σκοπεῖν τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἐκ τῆς ὑποθέσεως,
ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ μή ἐστι τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑποτίθεσθαι, εἰ βούλει μᾶλλον
γυμνασθῆναι. [p. 135 Ε.}

5 [Βούλεσθε] dm ἐμοῦ ἄρχωμαι καὶ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ ὑποθέσεως, περὶ

σὰς 6 > a ¢ , » - > 4 Vaid , \
τοῦ ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ ὑποθέμενος, εἴ τε ἕν ἐστιν, εἴ TE μὴ ἕν, TL χρὴ Evp-

βαίνειν. [p. 137 B.]

τό PARMENIDES.

From the hypothesis of his tenet with respect
to unity being true, he shews, first, that unity itself
in its most simple state, as it is predicated of the
Universe, indicates nothing beyond itself but mere
unity. It contains no other quality whatever. It
implies neither beginning, nor end, nor shape, nor
identity, nor diversity, nor time, nor place, nor ex-
istence, nor non-existence, nor any other property.
Secondly, if in the hypothesis of unity be included
existence, which must be the case when you come
to consider the several parts that are comprehended
under this most simple unity, and as it were tied
together by it, an infinite multitude will immedi-
ately branch out from it. For the unity according
to the hypothesis thus stated will imply existence,
and existence unity; so that they necessarily become

ὁ τό re yap ἕν τὸ ὃν ἀεὶ ἴσχει, Kal τὸ ὃν τὸ ἕν, ὥστε ἀνάγκη,
δύ᾽ ἀεὶ γιγνόμενον, μηδέποτε ἕν εἶναι----οὐκοῦν ἄπειρον ἂν τὸ πλῆθος
οὕτω τὸ ἕν ὃν εἴη, [p. 143 A.] This will appear very peculiar
reasoning to those, who have not some acquaintance with the
language of ancient metaphysics. But Aristotle tells us, that
this verb, ἐστί, is, by its efficacy to destroy the unity of unit
in being predicated of it, gave such disturbance to the philoso-
phers, who maintained an unity of principle, that some of them,
as Lycophron, struck it out. Others changed the form of the
expression; as, for instance, they would not say, The man as
walking, but, The man walks; lest, by applying the word is,
they should make one thing to be many. As if, says Aristotle,
unity and existence were expressed only in one manner: Ἔθο-
ρυβοῦντο δὲ καὶ of ὕστεροι, καθάπερ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι; μή ποτε συμβαίνῃ
αὐτοῖς ἅμα τὸ αὐτὸ ἕν εἶναι καὶ πολλά. Διὸ οἱ μὲν τὸ ἔστιν ἀφεῖ-
λον, ὥσπερ Λυκόφρων: οἱ δὲ τὴν λέξιν μετερρύθμιζον, ὅτι ὁ ἄν-
θρωπος οὐ λευκός ἐστιν ἀλλὰ λελεύκωται, οὐδὲ βαδίζων ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ
βαδίζει: ἵνα μὴ, τὸ ἔστι προσάπτοντες, πολλὰ εἶναι ποιῶσι τὸ ἕν, ὡς
μοναχῶς λεγομένου τοῦ ἑνὸς ἢ τοῦ dvros.—Natur. Auscult. Lib. 1.
[Ch. 2.ed. Bekk.] Plato in Thecetetus gives ἃ similar account of the

PARMENIDES. 17

two, and consequently can be no longer one®. Now
19 says he, unity, when by the hypothesis it partakes
of existence, becomes many; though, when it is
contemplated alone by the understanding in its
simple state, it appears only an unit’. This rea-
soning of our author is thus ridiculed by Theopom-

ἃ ; > PVA ΤΟ ΣῈ \ ν᾽ Ws , Seong Diog. Laert.

pus, εν γὰρ εστι οὐδὲ ἕν᾽ τὰ δὲ δύο μόλις ἕν ἐστιν, Vite. Philos.

᾿ Ρ 10.111. Segm.
ὡς φησι ἸΪλατων. 26.]

Moreover, not only ἕν, when it partakes of
οὐσία, ‘existence’, will become many in number,
that is, branch out into an infinite multitude of
units or species; but also each of those will be
rendered limited in its nature, (πεπερασμένον ἂν εἴη)
distinguished by a particular form. The specific
forms, thus infinite in multitude, though they
branch out from ἕν, ‘ unit’, and centre in it, will be

doctrine of some philosophers concerning the material elements:
᾿Εγὼ yap αὖ ἐδόκουν ἀκούειν τινῶν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν πρῶτα οἱἷαπερεὶ στοι-
χεῖα, ἐξ ὧν ἡμεῖς τε συγκείμεθα καὶ τἄλλα, λόγον οὐκ ἔχοι: αὐτὸ
γὰρ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἕκαστον ὀνομάσαι μόνον εἴη, προσειπεῖν δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο
δυνατόν, οὔθ᾽ ὡς ἔστιν, οὔθ᾽ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν: ἤδη γὰρ ἂν οὐσίαν, ἢ μὴ οὐ-
σίαν αὐτῷ προστίθεσθαι. δεῖν δὲ οὐδὲν προσφέρειν, εἴπερ αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο
μόνον τις ἐρεῖ, p. 201, 2.

7 Αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν, ὃ δή φαμεν οὐσίας μετέχειν, ἐὰν αὐτὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ
μόνον καθ᾽ αὑτὸ λάβωμεν, ἄνευ τούτου, οὗ φαμὲν μετέχειν, apa γε ἕν
μόνον φανήσεται ἢ καὶ πολλὰ τὸ αὑτὸ τοῦτο; ἕν, οἶμαι ἔγωγε,
[Ρ. 148 Α.}]

8 Plato in the Philebus explains at large the process of re-
ducing many distinct things to one. Things, which in their
own nature admit of more or less, such as hot, cold, swift, slow,
&c., are not only many and yarious, but also opposite to each
other. Yet being collected and classed under the genus of un-
limited, they become one. Or, as he expressed it again, The
unlimited presented many genera; but being impressed with
the genus of more and its opposite, it appeared one: Πολλά ye
καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον παρέσχετο γένη: ὅμως δ᾽ ἑπισφραγισθέντα τῷ τοῦ

18 PARMENIDES.

not only different, but often directly opposite to 290)

each other, and thus express all the qualities that
can come under observation; limited in their na-
ture, as being severally one, and confined to a par-
ticular and appropriated form; and unlimited in
number, as there is many a one: καὶ πεπερασμένον
καὶ ἄπειρον πλήθει.

Again, after ἕν πολλὰ, many species, each of
which is properly an unit, partaking of existence
and limited in its form, there arise from the hypo-
thesis the several particulars in nature one and
many (ἐν καὶ πολλὰ) connected with time, and
partly partaking of existence and partly not?
These individuals, subject to generation and de-
struction, are unlimited both in number and in
nature’, The specific form gives them a limitation
in their relation to other species; while their own
nature produces an unlimited variety in the parti-
culars of the same species.

This will receive illustration from the Philebus,
in which Dialogue Plato makes Socrates divide the

μᾶλλον καὶ ἐναντίου γένει ἕν ἐφάνη, p. 26 [Ὁ]. How much more
easy is it, says he, to reduce under one head those things,
which by their nature are limited, and are not severally many!
Καὶ μὴν τό ye πέρας οὔτε πολλὰ εἶχεν, οὔτ᾽ ἐδυσκολαίνομεν ὡς οὐκ
5 a ,

ἦν ev φύσει.---ἴ0.

9 Τὸ ἕν εἰ ἔστιν, οἷον διεληλύθαμεν, ἄρ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάγκη αὐτὸ, ἕν τε
KR ‘ ν ν , ἁ “ ἣν a , , ef ‘
ὃν καὶ πολλὰ, καὶ pte Ev μήτε πολλὰ, Kal μέτεχον χρόνου, ὅτι μὲν
ἔστιν ἕν, οὐσίας μετέχειν ποτέ; ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστι, μὴ μετέχειν αὖ
ποτὲ οὐσίας, [». 1ὅδ Ε.}] They are called ἕν καὶ πολλὰ, as con-
sisting of idea or form, which is one, and matter, which is de-
nominated many.

10 Οὐκοῦν οὕτως del σκοποῦντι αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν τὴν ἑτέραν φύσιν
τοῦ εἴδους, ὅσον ἂν αὐτῆς ἀεὶ ὁρῶμεν, ἄπειρον ἔσται πλήθει ;—Tois
+ \ ye ΤΑῚ , > ‘ im. Bes ἃ Δ... ς ~
ἄλλοις δὴ τοῦ ἑνὸς συμβαίνει, ἐκ μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν κοινω-

τὸ

ry

PARMENIDES. 19

principles of things into two kinds. Tirst, matter
and its qualities, which admitting in its own nature
degrees of more and less, and having nothing in
its nature to confine those qualities, he calls ἄπειρον,
‘unlimited’. Secondly, specific form, which con-
taining in its own nature a principle of limitation,
he calls πέρας, and ἔχον πέρας".

The first he likewise calls πολλὰ, as being many
in its nature’. But the latter is opposed to it as
being characteristically different; since it does not
admit of that denomination in its nature’, Though
he had" before said that each kind is divided into

“many in number. Out of these two conjoined
arises a third class, which comprises all particular
things},

2 Of this union he produces several instances:
among others, in disorders a proper limitation, ap-
plied to the constituent parts of the body, produces
health'®, Again, limitation being applied to sharp,
flat, swift, and slow sounds, which are in their own
nature unlimited, constitutes music.

, ε » o , , » > “ ἃ ‘ ,
VNTAVT@V, ὡς EOLKEV, ETEPOV TL γίγνεσθαι εν αὕὔτοις, O δὴ περας

πάρεσχε πρὸς ἄλληλα: ἡ δὲ αὐτῶν φύσις καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ, ἀπειρίαν.
[p. 158 c.]
11 Τὸν Θεὸν ἐλέγομέν που τὸ μὲν ἄπειρον δεῖξαι τῶν ὄντων, τὸ
δὲ πέρας. [p. 28 α.]
12 Ὅτι δὲ τρόπον τινα τὸ ἄπειρον πολλά ἐστι πειράσομαι φρά-
few. [p. 21.4.]
13 Kal μὴν τόγε πέρας οὔτε πολλὰ εἶχεν. [p. 26D.]
14 τὰ δύ , , 6 AAG C.F > », ‘
a δύο τούτων πειρώμεθα πολλὰ ἑκάτερον ἐσχισμένον καὶ
διεσπασμένον ἰδόντες, εἰς ἕν πάλιν ἑκάτερον συναγαγόντες. p. 23
[E].
r , A
158 Τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τούτοιν ἕν τι ξυμμισγόμενον.
10 % ..» > > \ , ς ’, > \ , \ G ,
Ap’ οὐκ ἐν μὲν νόσοις ἡ τούτων ὀρθὴ κοινωνία THY ὑγιείας
φύσιν ἐγέννησε; p. 25 [Ε].
BS5

20 PARMENIDES.

Plato, in the fifth Book of his Republic, has
put into the mouth ‘of Socrates a doctrine of εἴδη,
‘species’, similar to what is here laid down. ‘ Since’,
says he, ‘handsome and ugly are opposite to each
other, they are collectively two, but separately one.
The same may be said of just and unjust, of good
and evil, and all species. They are each separately
one, though by a participation of actions and bo-
dies, and of each other, they appear severally to ©
be many’!”. ‘These’, he says, ‘ consisting partly of 23
existence and partly of non-existence, are the ob- |
jects of opinion (δόξα), that holds a middle place
between knowledge, which embraces essential
forms, and ignorance, to which absolute non-entities
are assigned’,

When Parmenides had shewn that the present
state of things would result from the positive hypo-
thesis of the unity of the universe; he proceeded
to argue upon the negative hypothesis, which was
found to lead to very different conclusions.

The reasoning of Parmenides is founded upon
the abstract nature of an unit, and is intended to
shew, that the present state of things results from
the unity of the universe. Hence if this reasoning

17 9 , > > , A “ “-“ , > ΄“ > »“Ἢ
Ἐπειδή ἐστιν ἐναντίον καλὸν αἰσχρῷ, δύο αὐτῷ εἶναι. πῶς
> ΕΣ > “ » ΜΝ ’ , ἢ δι κ᾿ a A ‘
δ᾽ οὔ; οὐκοῦν, ἐπειδὴ δύο, καὶ ἐν ἑκάτερον. Καὶ τοῦτο. Καὶ περὶ
δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ, καὶ πάντων τῶν εἰδῶν
΄ ε SN , een | 5 a 9 πα a ‘ a ΄
πέρι 6 αὐτὸς λόγος: αὐτὸ μὲν, ἕν ἕκαστον εἶναι, τῇ δὲ τῶν πραξέων
4 , 4 > 4 , a , A
καὶ σωμάτων καὶ ἀλλήλων κοινωνίᾳ πανταχοῦ φανταζόμενα, πολλὰ
φαίνεσθαι ἕκαστον, p. 407 [aA]. Again in the tenth book: Eidos
, ’ ἃ o ἌΓ Ψ' , A oa ‘A ‘
γάρ πού τι ἕν ἕκαστον εἰώθαμεν τίθεσθαι περὶ ἕκαστα τὰ πολλὰ,
ε 7 A 3᾿ > , ΩΝ > , , “
οἷς ταὐτὸν ὄνομα ἐπιφέρομεν. ἢ οὐ μανθάνεις; Μανθάνω. Θῶμεν
δὴ καὶ νῦν ὅ,τι βούλει τῶν πολλῶν. οἷον, εἰ θέλεις, πολλαί πού
εἰσι κλῖναι καὶ τράπεζαι. ἸΤῶς δ᾽ οὔ; Ἀλλὰ ἰδέαι γέ που περὶ

PARMENIDES. 21

were allowed, the necessity of a Creator would be
superseded, and the universe, considered as a whole,
would have the principle of existence in itself, be
independent and eternal.

Aristotle, in his Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις, examines the
opinions of the different philosophers concerning
the principles of things. In the second chapter

24 of the first book he accuses Melissus and Par-
menides of assuming false principles, and of rea-
soning unsyllogistically from them. He says, that
the assumption of their first principle was inconsis-
tent with an investigation of nature; that a true
natural philosopher could no more dispute with
them, than a geometrician could dispute with one
who denied the first principles of geometry. The
force of the objection consisted in this, that they
deduced a system of physics from a metaphysical
principle. In the following chapter he urges the
absurdity of treating unit as a principle of produc-
tion, which is considering that as a substance,
which in itself expresses only quantity or number.
In the first chapter of the thirteenth book of his
Metaphysics, Aristotle himself acknowledges unity
and existence to be true metaphysical principles

ταῦτα τὰ σκεύη δύο: μία μὲν κλίνης, pia δὲ τραπέζης, p. 596 [8].
In the latter of which passages in particular it is to be observed,
that several εἴδη or ἰδέαι are said to be πολλὰ, many in number,
and the particulars classed under each ἰδέα are τὰ πολλὰ, ‘the
many,’ and that each separate εἶδος or ἰδέα is ἕν ἕκαστον περὶ
ἕκαστα τὰ πολλά. Thus Aristotle, stating the difference of the
language that was held by Plato, and some other philosophers,
concerning the principles of things, says, ‘O μὲν (Πλάτων) ταῦτα
ποιεῖ ὕλην, τὸ δὲ ἕν τὸ εἶδος" οἱ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐν τὸ ὑποκείμενον ὕλην, τὰ

δὲ ἐναντία διαφορὰς καὶ €idn.—Nat. Ause. τ. 5. (Ch. 4. ed. Bekker.]

22 PARMENIDES.

and to comprehend all subsisting beings: was γὰρ
~ ? , ΄σ ΄
λόγος καὶ πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη τῶν καθόλου καὶ οὐ τῶν
, e a Ἃ εἴ σ΄ -
ἐσχάτων, WoT εἴη αν OUTW τῶν πρώτων “γένων" ταυτα
De , ow if A \ Weta a \ , 3
€ γίγνοιτ αν ΤΟ TE OV και ΤῸ εν ταυταὰα yap μαλιστ.

ΕἾ ε , , \ 7 ,
av ὑποληφθείη περιέχειν τὰ OVTA πάντα.

25 PEAEO’S

DOCTRINE OF IDEAS.

T may not be improper in this place to say

something of Plato’s general doctrine of Ideas.
He divided all objects into two grand classes, de-
nominated, from the different methods by which
we become acquainted with them, rather than
from their own nature, Jntelligibles and Sensibles :
(νοητὰ καὶ αἰσθητά) The first are the objects of
the understanding, and the other of the senses}.
The intelligibles, which were single in their several
kinds (ἕν ἕκαστον), were considered as the only
real existences and the objects of knowledge. The

sensibles, which were the many (τὰ πολλαὶ), being
of a very different description, were the founda-
tions of opinion only.

Under the class of sensibles he comprehended
not only every particular external object, of what
kind soever, but also every particular act or con-
crete quality belonging to it. ‘There were many
beautiful, many good, and many just things (πολλὰ

καλὰ, πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ, καὶ πολλὰ δίκαια), which were
all classed under sensibles (αἰσθητά); since the
26 notice of all particulars is conveyed by the senses.
But the intelligibles (τὰ νοητὰ) were those things
which are to be comprehended only by the under-

1 Ta μὲν δὴ ὁρᾶσθαί φαμεν, νοεῖσθαι δ᾽ οὔ: τὰς δ᾽ αὖ ἰδέας
νοεῖσθαι μὲν, ὁρᾶσθαι δ᾽ οὔ.----.1)6 Rep. vi. p. 507 [8].

24 PLATO’S Doctrine of Ideas.

standing with reason?. In this class were included
not only spiritual substances, but also all general
abstract qualities (τ. ε. τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον.)
So that, in fact, ev ἕκαστον νοητὸν was the general
or abstract idea, and τὰ πολλὰ αἰσθητὰ the several
particulars arranged under it.

Aristotle, who viewed nature with a more
curious eye, and who was not so much under the
influence of a lively and refined imagination,
formed a very different judgment upon the sub-
ject. He maintained that bodily or material ob-
jects were most properly entities’, He divided
entities (οὐσίαι) into primary and secondary. By
primary entities he meant particulars, as a particu-
lar man or a particular horse. By secondary en-
tities he meant the species and genus, under which
the particulars are classed. ‘Thus the primary
entity is a particular man: and the secondary en-
tities are the species man and the genus animal!.
His doctrine, therefore, is in this respect directly
opposite to that of his master. For he maintains

2 Nonoet μετὰ λόγου περιληπτόν .--- Timeeus, p. 28 [A].
3 Οὐσίαι δὲ μάλιστ᾽ εἶναι δοκοῦσι τὰ σώματα.----.1)6 Anima, I. 1.
. ΄ > , ~ , © ~
And again: Λέγω δ᾽ οὐσίας μὲν τά τε ἁπλᾶ σώματα, οἷον πῦρ
Ν led Arey, » , Nee > ’
καὶ γῆν, καὶ ὅσα σύστοιχα τούτοις, καὶ ὅσα ἐκ τούτων .----1}6 Calo,
1th Its
4 , δὲ DEW, λέ 2 i ἴδ [ , 2 Jv.
Δεύτεραι δὲ οὐσίαι λέγονται ev ois εἴδεσιν ai πρώτως οὐσίαι
λεγόμεναι ὑπάρχουσι: ταῦτά τε καὶ τὰ τῶν εἰδῶν τούτων γένη"
40) ς Ν BA > » ᾿ ς , ~ 2? , yp ‘
οἷον, 6 τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν εἴδει μὲν ὑπάρχει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ: γένος δὲ
ΟΣ ἡ πρὶ - a δ , ie
τοῦ εἴδους ἐστὶ τὸ ζῶον: δεύτεραι οὗν αὗται λέγονται οὐσίαι, οἷον 6
»», “A
τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὸ C@ov.—Categor. 5.
a a " “ a
5 Ai πρῶται οὐσίαι, διὰ τὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ὑποκεῖσθαι----
id fod > “
κυριώτατα οὐσίαι λέγονται---Μὴ οὐσῶν οὖν τῶν πρώτων οὐσίων,
397 τ: 3 5
ἀδύνατον τῶν ἄλλων τι εἶναι.----Πϊά.
r “ ee.) A Ma} “~
6 Πᾶσα δὲ οὐσία δοκεῖ τόδε τι σημαίνειν ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν

PLATO’S Doctrine of Ideas. 25

that particulars are the only proper entities: that
the species and genus exist only in a second-
ary sense; and that they could not exist at all,
were it not for the particulars or primary entities>.
Now, says he, an entity seems to point out some
actual and particular thing, which a primary entity
truly and indisputably does. Indeed by. the con-
struction of the sentence a secondary entity ap-
pears to do so, but does not in reality. It expresses
only the quality δ,

The reason why many philosophers held general
ideas to be the real entities, was, as Aristotle very
justly observed’, that they regarded particular
objects as transitory and fleeting. On this account

28 Plato characterizes his entities as always the
same, and permanent in their nature and rela-
tions to each other (ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως
ἔχοντα). In the Philebus he divides knowledge
into two kinds: First, experimental knowledge,
which he places in a secondary class, as being con-
versant about fluctuating and perishable things.

, > , > , 4 > 4 3 a ,
πρώτων οὐσίων ἀναμφισβήτητον καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν ὅτι τόδε TL ση-
΄ μ᾿ ‘ \ a 3 a \ ’ , > SN: ‘
μαίνει"----ἄτομον yap καὶ ἕν ἀριθμῷ τὸ δηλούμενόν ἐστιν. ἐπὶ δὲ
τῶν δευτέρων οὐσιῶν φαίνεται μὲν ὁμοίως τῶ σχήματι τῆς προσ-
γ᾿, “-
ηγορίας τόδε τι σημαίνειν, ὅταν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπον ἢ ζῷον: οὐ μὴν
ἀληθές γε" ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ποιόν τι σημαίνει: ov γὰρ [ἕν inserit Bekker]
» ‘ A ig , ΄“ e , > , > A ‘A ~ c
ἐστὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ὥσπερ ἣ πρώτη οὐσία, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πολλῶν ὁ

ἄνθρωπος λέγεται καὶ τὸ (Gov.— Ibid.
q ‘ ν᾿ > > a > a , ean ay) \
Ta μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς καθέκαστα ῥεῖν ἐνόμιζον καὶ
‘ ~ ᾿ c -~
μένειν οὐδὲν avtav.—Metaph. xi. 12. Συνέβη δ᾽ ἡ περὶ τῶν
΄- ΄- - lol »" » Col
εἰδῶν δόξα τοῖς εἰποῦσι, διὰ τὸ πεισθῆναι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῖς
c , , c , “ > - ΟΣ a Ld >
Ἡρακλειτείοις λόγοις, ὡς πάντων τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀεὶ ῥεόντων. ὥστ᾽,
᾿» ΄ πε
εἴπερ ἐπιστήμη τινος ἔσται καὶ φρόνησις, ἑτέρας δεῖν τινας φύσεις
+ δ > - «
εἶναι παρὰ τὰς αἰσθητὰς μενούσας ; οὐ γὰρ εἶναι τῶν ῥεόντων ἐπι-
[
ornunv.—lb. cap. 4.

ἹΤερὶ τῶν
Χερουβίμ,

p. 116, 8 15.

26 PLATO’S Doetrine of Ideas.

Secondly, abstract knowledge, which is entitled to
the first class, as it respects things unchangeable
and permanent®.

Philo Judzus, no inconsiderable Platonist,
founds a curious interpretation of Scripture upon
this doctrine of Plato. He says that the sacred
writings on this account style Gop the husband,
not of a virgin; for that is changeable and mortal
—but of virginity, which is of a permanent na-
ture,

8 ᾿ΕἘπιστήμη δὴ ἐπιστήμης διάφορος, ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ γιγνόμενα καὶ
ΕΣ , > , c \ SEN BY , , , 3
ἀπολλύμενα ἀποβλέπουσα, ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ μήτε γιγνόμενα μήτε ἀπολ-
λύμενα, κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ ὡσαύτως ὄντα ἀεί. ταύτην εἰς τὸ ἀληθὲς
> ΄ ε , yey) > ΄ >
ἐπισκοπούμενοι ἡγησάμεθα ἐκείνης ἀληθεστέραν εἶναι, p. ΟἹ [Ὁ].
This is similar to what he had said a little before; Τὴν περὶ
τὸ ὃν καὶ τὸ ὄντως καὶ τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀεὶ πεφυκὸς, πάντως ἔγωγε
οἶμαι ἡγεῖσθαι ξύμπαντας ὅσοις νοῦ καὶ σμικρὸν προσήρτηται,
μακρῷ ἀληθεστάτην εἶναι γνῶσιν, p. 58 [A].

9

ες

Διόπερ 6 χρησμὸς [Jerem. iii. 4.1] πεφύλακται θεὸν ἄνδρα
>. N > Ld A A ec A A U > δὰ ,
εἰπὼν, ov παρθένου---τρεπτὴ yap ἡδὲ καὶ θνητή----ἀλλὰ παρθενίας,
τῆς ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐχούσης ἰδέας.

CONCERNING TO ΑΓΑΘΟΝ.

E will now examine what Plato has discoursed
in his Treatise De Republica, περὶ τῆς τοῦ

ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέας, Which he calls μέγιστον μάθημα. AS
Plotinus, Cudworth, and many others, suppose τὸ πμοιείναι
ἀγαθόν to mean the Supreme Being}, it will θὰ ὅδ ΚΤ ῸΝ
proper to consider it with some attention.
We know that all the sects of heathen philoso-
phers did, with the greatest reason, look upon the
question concerning the Greatest Good? as one of
the most important that could engage their atten-
tion. Cicero, in his Treatise concerning Laws, teu ΟΦ]
which he wrote in imitation of Plato, says, that the
question is immediately connected with that sub-
ject; as it is the business of him who draws the
30 plan of a State always to have an eye to the great-
est good of the subjects, which he can never do,
unless he knows wherein that good consists.

But let us observe in what manner Plato makes

1 Brucker seems to think that Plato here describes the
second hypostasis in the divine nature. Historia Critica Philo-
sophie, Pars 1. Lib. 1. 6. § 1.

2 Quid est enim in vita tanto opere querendum, quam cum
omnia in philosophia, tum id, quod his Libris quzritur, quid
sit finis, quid extremum, quid ultimum, quo sint omnia bene
vivendi recteque faciendi consilia referenda? quid sequatur
natura ut summum ex rebus expetendis, quid fugiat ut extre-

mum malorum? Qua de re cum sit inter doctissimos summa
dissensio, etc.—De Finibus, τ. 4.

28 Concerning TO ΑΤΆΘΟΝ.

Socrates enter upon this discourse περὶ τῆς τοῦ

ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέας, or, as he elsewhere calls it, to dis-

cover what is the most excellent of human posses-

ΝΣ sions or acquirements: πρὸς τὸ διελέσθαι τί τῶν
' ἀνθρωπίνων κτημάτων ἄριστον.

He states it as the most difficult and at the
same time the most important attainment; without
which indeed every other possession and attainment
would be of no value*. Having warned his hearers
of the difficulty and importance of the question, he
proceeds to state the opinions of others concerning
it. The multitude think it to be pleasure; but
those who are more refined, esteem it to be know-
ledge or wisdom’. The subject of enquiry, there-

[Detey.i. fore, was plainly that which Cicero calls controver-

é
Ἴ0. ; ὙΠ τὸν bea!
sam rem et plenam dissensionis inter doctissimos®, and
which he describes to be that to which all things

are referred, and for the sake of obtaining which

it must have been what the nature of the enquiry
implies, and what all philosophers, how much soever
they differed in other respects, esteemed it, either
the possession of some external object capable of
being enjoyed, or some personal qualifications,
either corporeal or mental, capable of the most

3 Ἢ οἴει τι πλέον εἶναι πᾶσαν κτῆσιν ἐκτῆσθαι, μὴ μέντοι
ἀγαθήν; ἢ πάντα τἄλλα φρονεῖν [ἄνευ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) καλὸν δὲ καὶ
ἀγαθὸν μηδὲν φρονεῖν ; vi. p. 505 [8].

4 Τοῖς μὲν πολλοῖς ἡδονὴ δοκεῖ εἶναι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τοῖς δὲ κομψο-
τέροις φρόνησις. [Tbid.]

5 These are terms very similar to those which Socrates uses
in speaking of it: οὐκοῦν ὅτι μὲν μεγάλαι καὶ πολλαὶ ἀμφισβη-
τήσεις περὶ αὐτοῦ φανερόν. [Ibid. Ὁ.]

Concerning TO ΑΓΆΘΟΝ. 29

perfect enjoyment, or a mixture of those several
ingredients’.

Socrates was asked again, whether he thought
the greatest good to be knowledge, or pleasure, or
something else different from those’. Ue told
them that he could not display to them τὸ ἀγαθὸν
itself; but he would set before them its offspring
most like itself, which he afterwards explained to
be knowledge in the mind and truth in things. By
which I conceive him to mean, that τὸ ἀγαθόν, the
most general idea of good, must be an abstract of
the universal good, an object infinitely beyond the

capacity of the human intellect, at least in the
present state of man; but that some resemblance
of it may be attained by knowledge exercised upon

32 the truth of things. These, he says, are not TO ν. 509.

ἀγαθόν, but ἀγαθοειδῆ. They spring from the uni-
versal good. In the Second Alcibiades, Socrates is [p. 14581
made to ask what kind of state that would be which
should be composed of men skilled in all other arts

and sciences ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ βελτίστου ἐπιστήμης.
Alcibiades is soon prevailed upon to acknowledge

that it would be a state of the greatest confusion

and anarchy: “Ap οὐκ av ὀρθῶς λέγοιμεν, φάντες [Ρ. 146 B.]
πολλῆς ταραχῆς τε καὶ ἀνομίας μεστὴν εἶναι τὴν
τοιαύτην πολιτείαν.

6 Finem bonorum, quo referuntur omnia, et cujus apiscendi
causa sunt facienda omnia,—De Legg.1. 20. Or, in the lan-
guage of Plato, ὃ δὴ διώκει μὲν ἅπασα Ψυχὴ, καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα
| πάντα πράττει.

7 Τἀγαθὸν δὲ οἰκεῖόν te καὶ δυσαφαίρετον. ---- Αὐἰδῦ. Ethic.
Nicom. τ. 3.

8 Πότερον ἐπιστήμην τὸ ἀγαθὸν φὴς εἶναι, ἢ ἡδονήν, ἢ οἄλλ
τι παρὰ ταῦτα, p. 506 [8].

20 Concerning ΤῸ ATAOON.

p. 990] Plato, in the Phedo, makes Socrates, in dis-
cussing the doctrine of Anaxagoras, speak with
disapprobation of his not referring things to good-
ness and fitness as their causes: ws ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγα-
θὸν καὶ δέον ξυνδεῖν καὶ Evvéyew οὐδὲν οἴονται. Here
δέον, and of course τὸ ἀγαθόν, to which Socrates
would refer the composition and support of things,
must be the final cause. If any doubt of this
could remain, it would be completely dispelled by
a reference to what Socrates said in the pre-
ceding page he expected from the profession of
Anaxagoras. ‘When’, says he, ‘ Anaxagoras pro-
fessed that things were disposed by mind, I never
imagined that he would assign any other cause for
them than this, that it is best they should be in the
manner in which they are’®.

I will endeavour to throw some light upon this 33 |
subject from the works of contemporary writers.

Xenophon was a scholar of Socrates at the
same time with Plato, and has also handed down
to posterity many of the discourses of that great
teacher of morality to the Gentiles. Not being,
like Plato, the founder of a sect and a lecturer by
profession, he did not study to form an ingenious
system with materials, culled with the nicest art
from the traditions of diverse countries and the spe-
culations of diverse masters. He told his artless
tale with an unaffected though elegant simplicity.

9 Οὐ yap ἄν ποτε αὐτὸν ᾧμην, φάσκοντά ye ὑπὸ vod αὐτὰ
nap DENY, y τα
- ΕΣ > “ dest > ~ ney, ,
κεκοσμῆσθαι, ἄλλην τινα αὐτοῖς αἰτίαν ἐπενεγκεῖν, ἢ ὅτι βέλτιστον
. “
αὐτὰ οὕτως ἔχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ἔχει.

10 Εἴ τι εἰδείη ἀγαθόν: [1. 6. if he knew of any thing good.]

Concerning TO ΑΤΆΑΘΟΝ. 31

It is not wonderful that the discourses of Socrates
should appear different in the hands of such differ-
ent relators. One of the most striking points of
distinction is this, that in Xenophon Socrates
always leads those who dispute with him from ab-
stract and general reasonings to particulars.

It happens that he has preserved a discourse
between Socrates and Aristippus concerning the
very subject of which we have been treating. As
Xenophon is supposed not to have been on the
most friendly terms with Plato, I cannot help think-
ing that by a particular expression he meant to cast

-some ridicule upon this doctrine of our author,

which Aristotle likewise seems to have thought very
open to reprehension from the frequent strictures
which he has passed upon it.

34 Xenophon tells us that Aristippus, desirous of Memorab. i
ensnaring Socrates, asked him if he knew what
good is’? Do you mean, says Socrates, good for

afever? No. For weakness of eyes? No. For

hunger? No. Then, says he, if you ask me whe-
ther I know anything good, that is good for nothing,

I neither know nor desire it. He then proceeded

to shew that there was nothing absolutely and uni-

versally good; for that good referred to some end;
and things that were handsome and good for some
purposes, were unseemly and bad for others.

Aristotle begins his Ethics with asserting that

11 “Apa yap [leg. ye] ἔφη, ἐρωτᾷς pe, εἴ τι οἶδα πυρετοῦ
ἀγαθόν ; οὐκ ἔγωγ᾽, ἔφη. ἀλλ᾽ ὀφθαλμίας ; οὐδὲ τοῦτο. ἀλλὰ λιμοῦ ;
οὐδὲ λιμοῦ. ἀλλὰ μὴν, ἔφη, ely’ ἐρωτᾷς με, εἴ τι ἀγαθὸν οἶδα, ὃ
μηδένος ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, οὔτ᾽ οἶδα, ἔφη, οὔτε δέομαι.

32 Concerning TO ATA@ON.

some good is the object of all our aims and pursuits;
therefore that which all things desire is called good
in an absolute sense, or The Good!2.. This in the
second chapter he farther styles happiness. But
here he gives us the same account that we have
seen before in Plato and Cicero. Men doubt about
the nature of this happiness’, The many, (οἱ
πολλοί), as Plato also calls them, think that it con-
sists of external things—as pleasure, riches. Some
were of opinion that there was something good in |
itself which was the cause to other things of their
being good",

Haying in the third chapter confuted the
opinions of the multitude, he undertakes, in the
fourth chapter, to controvert the latter opinion,
which was entertained by those whom he deno-
minates the wise. This he calls τὸ καθόλου and
the opinion of some friends. He maintains that
there can be no common or general idea of good
(οὐκ ἂν εἴη κοίνη τις ἐπὶ τούτων ἰδέα), because good
is expressed in so many different ways: in the
subject, as in God and the soul; in the quality,
as in the virtues; in the quantity, as in modera-
tion, in time, and place, and so forth. Again,
having distinguished good into ends and means
(τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ αὑτὰ, θάτερα δὲ διὰ ταῦτα) let us,
says he, consider, if they be expressed according
to one idea. The conclusion, which he draws from

12 Πᾶσα τέχνη καὶ πᾶσα μεθόδος, ὁμοίως δὲ πρᾶξίς τε καὶ mpo-
αίρεσις ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἐφίεσθαι δοκεῖ. διὸ καλῶς ἀπεφήναντο τἀγαθὸν
οὗ πάντα ἐφίεται. 1. 1.

13 Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας, τίς ἐστιν, ἀμφισβητοῦσι.

Concerning TO ΑΓΑΘΟΝ. 33

his reasoning, is, that there is not a common good
according to one idea (οὐκ ἔστιν ἄρα τὸ ἀγαθὸν
κοινὸν τι κατὰ μίαν ἰδέαν). Thus Xenophon and
Aristotle arrive at the same point by different
roads.
It appears most evident to me, that Aristotle
36 throughout this whole chapter is controverting
the doctrine of Plato concerning τὸ ἀγαθόν; and
all his reasonings imply, that he understood his
master to mean by it one general abstract idea
of good, under which all other things intitled good
are classed, which he calls κοινόν τι καθόλου καὶ ev,
-and again, ἕν τι τὸ κοινῇ κατηγορούμενον ἀγαθόν.
Aristotle begins his Great Morals with an
enquiry about the same τὸ ἀγαθόν, which he pro-
nounces to be the end of all knowledge and
power (πάσης ἐπιστήμης καὶ δυνάμεως ἐστί τι τέλος),
and says, that the idea of good is that by par-
taking of which other things are good". Having
come to the same conclusion by nearly the same
reasoning as before, he attacks Plato more closely
for introducing such general and abstract specula-
tions into political disquisitions. The profession
of no particular art or science comprehends the
knowledge of the good of every one. The phy-
sician knows not what is good in the art of a
pilot, nor again the pilot what is good in the pro-
fession of a physician; but each knows and is con-

14 Παρὰ τὰ πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ, ἄλλο τι καθ᾽ αὐτὸ εἶναι, ὃ καὶ τοῖσδε
πᾶσιν αἴτιόν ἐστι τοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθά.

15 Οὗ τἄλλα μετασχόντα ἀγαθά ἐστι: τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ ἰδέα
τἀγαθοῦ.

34 Concerning TO ATAOON.

cerned about the good of his own occupation. So
neither does it concern politics to treat of a good
which is common to all things. Wherefore, when
any one undertakes to discourse of good, he ought
not to speak of the idea. But the men, against |
whom this reasoning is directed, think, that they 37
ought to treat of the idea; for they ought to τ
treat of what is most completely good.—This,
says he, can have no relation to politics, con-
cerning which we are now speaking._But perhaps
the person professes to use this general good as
a first principle, from which he will proceed to the
particular good. But neither is this right; for he
should use the principles peculiar to his subject
(δεῖ τὰς ἀρχὰς οἰκείας λαμβάνειν). Otherwise he
would resemble a man, who, in order to prove that
the angles of a triangle are equal to two right
angles, should begin with proving the soul im-
mortal. Now we can prove the proposition, with-
out proving the immortality of the soul; and in
like manner we can speculate upon other goods,
without the abstract universal idea of good (ἄνεν
Tou κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν ἀγαθοῦ). Therefore this is
not the peculiar principle of that good which you
are seeking.

Lib. 1. & Most of this reasoning is repeated in his Ethics
to Eudemus, particularly that a general abstract
good is of no use in politics'®* He calls it likewise
τὸ Tov ἀγαθοῦ εἶδος. And that you may not sup-

16 σ Q > ΕἸ y+ >. τὴν 3 θό - 3 , ,
Ort μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτό τι ἀγαθόν, ἔχει ἀπορίας τοιαύτας,
ἈΝ > ‘ “ “ > id
καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρήσιμον τῇ πολιτικῇ, ἀλλὰ ἴδιόν τι ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ καὶ
“ a
ταῖς ἄλλαις.

Concerning TO ΑΤΑΘΟΝ. 35

pose it different from other species or general

ideas, he says, ὥστ᾽ εἶναι αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθὸν τὴν
38 ἰδέαν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ" καὶ yap χωριστὴν εἶναι τῶν μετε-
χόντων, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἰδέας.

I think, I have now said enough to prove that
Plato did not intend by the term τὸ ἀγαθὸν to
express a person, and therefore that he could not
mean by it the supreme Being, the first person of
the Trinity ; but rather the final cause of things,
as he says in the Philebus, τό γε μὴν ov ἕνεκα τὸ
ἕνεκά Tov “γυγνόμενον ἀεὶ “γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐν τῇ τοῦ
ἀγαθοῦ μοίρᾳ ἐκεῖνο ἐστι.

In the Philebus, in which Plato professedly
treats of the same subject, he does not soar quite
so high into the regions of abstraction. The ques-
tion having been started, whether pleasure (ἡδονὴ)
or intellect and knowledge (νοῦς καὶ ἐπιστήμη)
are the greatest good; in the course of the en-
quiry he divides both pleasure and*knowledge into
two kinds, differing from each other in degrees
of truth and reality; and concludes, that neither
of them separately, but that a mixture of the most
pure parts of each, constitutes that good which is
the subject of enquiry.

17 Nov δή τις λόγος ἐμήνυσεν ἡμῖν, ὥσπερ Kal κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, μὴ
(nreiv ἐν τῷ ἀμίκτῳ βίῳ τἀγαθὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ μικτῷ, [p. ΘἹ 8.7---Οαὶ
τὰ ἀληθέστατα τμήματα ἑκατέρας ἴδοιμεν πρῶτον ξυμμίξαντες, ἄρα
ἱκανὰ ταῦτα ξυγκεκραμένα τὸν ἀγαπητότατον βίον ἀπεργασάμενα

παρέχειν ἡμῖν ; p. 61 [FE].

MORGAN. C

p. 578. See
also p. 591.

[p. 84¢.]

PHILEBUS.

‘i Cudworth’s Intellectual System is the follow-

ing passage: “In his Philebus, though he agree
thus far with those other ancient philosophers,
Ws ἀεὶ τοῦ παντὸς νοῦς ἄρχει, ‘that mind always
rules over the whole universe”; yet does he add
afterwards, ὅτι νοῦς ἐστι “γενούστης τοῦ πάντων
αἰτίου, ‘that mind is’ (not absolutely the first
principle but) ‘cognate with the cause of all things;’
and that therefore it rules over all things with
and in a kind of subordination to that first prin-
ciple, which is Zagathon, or the highest good.—
Where when Plato affirms, that mind or his second
divine hypostasis is syevovorys with the first; it
is all one as if he should have said, that it is
ouryyevns, and ὁμοείδης, and ὁμογένης with it; all
which words are used by Athanasius as synony-
mous with ὁμοούσιος ‘coessential’ or ‘consubstan-
tial’ ”’.

Plato often speaks of the authority which the
mind or soul in general exercises over the body,
which it animates and informs. He applies to them
severally the epithets, governing and governed
(ἄρχων καὶ apxouevoy).—In the Timeus, speaking
of the creation of the universe, he says, ‘ The soul,
which was prior in time and superior in dignity,
was appointed by the Creator as a mistress and

PHILEBUS. 37

governor over the subject body’. Hence it is
reasonable to suppose, that νοῦς, ὃς ἄρχει τοῦ
παντὸς, is the mind of the universe (τοῦ παντός).----
But, in order to arrive at the full meaning of the
passage upon which Cudworth has given this com-
mentary, it will be proper to consider the context,
and to observe the train of reasoning that led
to it.

A dispute had arisen between Philebus and
Socrates, whether pleasure or intellect contributed
most to the good of man. In the course of the
enquiry Socrates divided all things now existing
in the universe (πάντα τὰ νῦν ὄντα ἐν τῷ παντὶ)
into four parts. First, what is unlimited (ἄπειρον) [p. 27 B.]
viz. those things which admit of degrees, and have
no principle of limitation within themselves, such
as hard, soft, harder, softer, &e. Secondly, limi-
tation (πέρας). Thirdly, things produced by the
union of limitation with what is in its own nature
unlimited (κοινόν. And fourthly, the author or
cause of the union (τὸ τῆς αἰτίας yévos.. —Having
proved that pleasure is of the kind of the unli-
mited, he then asks, To which of the foremen-
tioned divisions can we without impiety assign
wisdom, and knowledge, and mind, or intellect ?
(φρόνησιν δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ νοῦν εἰς τί ποτε [p.132]
τῶν προειρημένων vuv θέντες οὐκ ἂν ἀσεβοῖμεν 3) or,
as he asks the same question again in other
words, Of what kind they are (νοῦν καὶ ἐπιστήμην fy, 9c)
ἐρόμενος ὁποίον “γένους εἶεν. This, says he, is

1‘O δὲ καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν ψυχὴν
σώματος, ὡς δεσπότιν καὶ ἄρξουσαν ἀρξομένου συνεστήσατο.

C2

38 PHILEBUS.

easy; for all wise men agree, that mind is king of

heaven and earth. And perhaps they say well.

But let us, if you please, enter into an examina-

tion of the kind itself (αὐτοῦ ποῦ “γένους) more δὲ
large.

[p. 28D] Shall we, says he, assert that an irrational
power and chance preside over the universe; or on
the contrary, as those who have gone before us
say, that some wonderful mind and intelligence ar-
ranges and directs it? (νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα͵
θαυμαστὴν συντάττουσαν διακυβερνᾷν ;) Protarchus,
one of his opponents, readily admits that mind
disposes all things (νοῦν πάντα διακοσμεῖν). Socrates
encourages him to persist in this opinion, and as-
sures him that he will take his share of the danger
and censure, if any doughty disputant should affirm
that those things were not so disposed, but pro-

[p21 ceeded in a disorderly manner (ὅταν ἀνὴρ δεινὸς
φῆ ταῦτα μὴ οὕτως ἀλλ᾽ ἀτάκτως ἔχειν).

He then states the constituent parts of the visi-
ble world and human nature. The fire with which
we are conversant, is supplied and replenished by
the elemental fire which subsists in the universe 42
(ἐν τῷ παντὶ) in a-perfect state. It must be said
also of our bodies that they proceed from and are
supported by the great body of the Universe. Do
we not say that our body has a soul?? Whence

2 See this reasoning adopted in Cic. De Nat. Deor. τι. 6, 7.
3 We find an argument similar to this both in Xenophon
and Cicero. Νοῦν δὲ μόνον ἄρα οὐδαμοῦ ὄντα σὲ εὐτυχῶς πως
δοκεῖς συναρπάσαι; καὶ τάδε τὰ ὑπερμεγέθη καὶ πλῆθος ἄπειρα Ov
ἀφροσύνην τινα, ὡς οἴει, εὐτάκτως ἔχειν ; ---- Xen. Memorab. I.

4. [§ 8].

PHILEBUS. 39

did it receive it, if the body of the universe be not
animated, and have the same things as this of ours,
and still more beautiful? There are, therefore, in
the universe a kind, unlimited limitation, and some
cause, not unimportant, presiding over them (ἄπει- [p.30¢1
pov, πέρας; καί τις ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς αἰτία ov φαύλη) arrang-
ing and constituting years, seasons, and months,
which is most justly called wisdom, and mind, or
intellect? But wisdom and intellect cannot sub-
sist without soul‘. Therefore, we must acknowledge
that there is in the nature of Jupiter (that is, the
universe) a royal soul, and a royal mind, on account
of the power of the cause. Think not, says So-
crates, that I have produced this reasoning to no
purpose. It supports those who said of old that
mind always governs the world. It also furnishes

this answer to my enquiry, That mind is of the
same kind with the cause of all things.

It is evident, first, that the following passages

all mean the same thing, viz., Νοῦς ἐστὶ βασιλεὺς

ἡμῖν οὐρανοῦ καὶ “γῆς----Ν οῦν καὶ φρόνησίν Twa θαυμα-

στὴν συντάττουσαν διακυβερνᾷν-----Ν οὖν πάντα διακοσ-
peiv—Aet τοῦ παντὸς νοῦς ἄρχει; and that they are

put in opposition to the following sentences; Ta p.2»1
ξύμπαντα καὶ τόδε τὸ καλούμενον ὅλον ἐπιτρο-
πεύειν τὴν τοῦ ἀλόγου καὶ εἰκῆ δύναμιν, καὶ τὰ ὅπῃ

ἔτυχεν, and Ἄτακτως ἔχειν. Secondly, that the two

Quid est enim verius, quam neminem esse oportere tam
stulte arrogantem, ut in se rationem et mentem putet inesse,
in celo mundoque non putet ?—Cic. de Leg. τι. 7.

4 Philo says, that intellect (νοῦς) is to the soul what the
pupil is to the eye. Ψυχῇ τινα ψυχὴν καθάπερ κόρην ev ὀφθαλμῷ.
Περὶ Κοσμοποιΐας, p. 14.

[p. 28 a.]

[p. 28 c.]

[p. 80 Ε.}

[p. 814.

40 PHILEBUS.

following passages express, and the third refers, to
the same question: @povyow δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμην Kat
vouv εἰς τί TOTE τῶν προειρημένων νυν θέντες, οὐκ ἀσε-
βοῖμεν :--Νοῦν “καὶ ἐπιστήμην ἐρόμενος ὁποίου “γένους
εἶεν----Διὰ μακροτέρων δ᾽, εἰ βούλει, τὴν σκέψιν αὐτοῦ
τοῦ γένους ποιησώμεθα----Αα that the answer to this
question is, Νοῦς ἐστὶ yyevovotns Tov πάντων αἰτίου
λεχθέντος τῶν τεττάρων, ὧν ἣν ἡμῖν ἕν τοῦτο. AS
Socrates himself immediately after expresses in di-
rect terms, ἔχεις γὰρ δήπου νῦν ἡμῶν ἤδη τὴν ἀπό-
κρισιν. Thirdly, that Νοῦς, which is said to be
ryevovoTys τοῦ πάντων αἰτίου, of the same kind or
akin to the cause of all things is the human mind
or intellect considered as a source of good in oppo-
sition to pleasure (ἡδονή), which, consisting of sen-

sations, was stated to be of the kind of unlimited 44

(ἄπειρον). For Socrates proceeds thus: It has now
been satisfactorily shewn by us of what kind it is,
and of what power it is possessed (οὗ μὲν γένους ἐστὶ
καὶ τίνα ποτὲ δύναμιν κέκτηται); διά also the kind
(γένος) of pleasure in like manner some time ago
appeared. He then repeats the result of the pre-
ceding investigation: ‘We should remember these
things concerning both; that mind is akin to the
cause, and in a manner of the same kind with it
(vous μὲν αἰτίας ἣν ξυγιγενὴς καὶ τούτου σχεδὸν τοῦ
γένους) ; but pleasure is itself unlimited, and of a
kind that neither has nor ever will have in and of
itself, either beginning, or middle, or end.’

This doctrine, that the soul of man is akin to
the soul of the universe and derived from it, ap-
pears frequently in the writings of Plato and his

PHILEBUS. 41

followers. In the tenth book of his Republic, he p.m)
characterizes it as related to the divine and immor-
tal, and always existing (ws cuyyevys οὖσα τῷ TE
θείῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντι).
It abounds everywhere in Cicero: Quod previ-
deat animus per se, quippe qui Deorum cognatione
teneatur. De Divin, 1. 30: Necesse est cognatione
divinorum animorum animos humanos commoveri, 49.
When we consider how copiously Cicero drew his
materials from Plato, and what a variety of passages,
almost literally translated, he has transfused into
45 his works; it is not unreasonable to suspect that
he had our author and his doctrine immediately in
his eye when he wrote the following part of his
Treatise concerning Laws: Cumque alia, quibus tuiv.i.s)
coherent homines, e mortali genere sumserint, que
Sragilia essent et caduca; animum esse ingeneratum ὦ
Deo: ex quo vere vel agnatio nobis cum ceelestibus vel
genus vel stirps appellart potest. Jam vero virtus

eadem in homine ac deo est, neque ullo alio ingenio
preterea: est autem virtus nihil aliud quam in se
perfecta et ad summum perducta natura. Est igitur
homint cum Deo similitudo. Quod cum ita sit, que
tandem potest esse prior certiorve cognatio ?
Moreover, both Cicero, and Maximus Tyrius,
another professed admirer and follower of Plato,
have applied this very doctrine of the human mind’s
being derived from the divine, as an argument to
prove the very same point for which Plato has
here produced it, viz., the superior efficacy of intel-
lect above sensual pleasure to promote the real
good of man, Cicero prefaces his reasoning with

42 PHILEBUS.

Buscilane an immediate reference to Plato: Ew hoc igitur
ΐ ΣΎ,
pr 28°71 Platonis quast quodam sancto augustoque fonte nostra

omnis manabit oratio. Having spoken of the nature
and origin of vegetables and irrational animals, he
next proceeds to man, the proper subject of his en-
sid capxii. quiry. Ut bestits aliud alii preciput a natura da-
tum est, quod suum queeque retinet nec discedit ab 60;
sic homini multo quiddam prestantius: etsi prestantia 46
debent ea dict, que habent aliquam comparationem :
humanus autem animus, decerptus ex mente divina,
cum alio nullo, nist cum ipso deo, si hoc fas est dictu,
comparart potest. Hie igitur, si est excultus, et sr
ejus acies ita curata est, ut ne cecetur erroribus, fit
perfecta mens, id est, absoluta ratio, quod est idem
virtus. Et δὲ omne beatum est, cut nihil deest, et quod
in suo genere expletum atque cumulatum est idque vir-
tutis est proprium: certe omnes, virtutis compotes,
beatt sunt.
The passage in Maximus Tyrius stands thus :—
ot \ \ 7 - \ , \ \
ἔχει μὲν γάρ, ἔχει νοῦν καὶ Aoyor—kal παρὰ μὲν
θνητῆς πλημμελείας τὸ σῶμα ἔχοντι, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀθα-
if > ΄ \ - ἣ , a be
VaTOU απορροῆς τον νοὺυν ιαλαμβανοντι-----ῖ tov O€ oap-=
~ \ τὰ \ ΄ oe , ᾽ cod , ,
κων MEV HOOVAL, VvoU O€ Aoryos—evTavda τοίνυν ζήτει
᾽ 3 ε of > a
τὸ ἀνθρώπου ἀγαθὸν, ὅπου τὸ ἐργον----ἐνταῦθα τὸ
» εἰ » 2 ω », ε
ἔργον, ὅπου τὸ ὄργανον" ἐνταῦθα τὸ ὄργανον, ὅπον
rad a » ~ , Vi»
TO σῶζον----τί ψυχῆς ὄργανον; vous. ζήτει το ἔργον.
’ ~ Sf , ἊΣ Ὁ , .
τί νοῦ ἔργον; φρόνησις " evpes τὸ ἀγαθὸν. Dissert.
ΧΧΧΙΨ,

EPISTLES,

Tue Seconp Epistte τὸ DIONYSIUS.

HE reasoning and expression used in the Phi-

lebus will serve to throw some light upon a
passage in the second Epistle to Dionysius: ys jp. 812».
yap δὴ κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνου λόγον, οὐχ ἱκανῶς ἀποδεδεῖχ-
θαί σοι περὶ τῆς τοῦ πρώτου φύσεως. Φραστέον δὴ
σοι δι αἰνιγμῶν---- ὧδε γὰρ ἔχει" περὶ τὸν πάντων βα-
σιλέα πάντ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκείνου ἕνεκα πάντα" καὶ ἐκεῖνο
αἴτιον ἁπάντων τῶν καλῶν. δεύτερον δὲ περὶ τὰ δεύτερα
καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα.

When we consider the character of Dionysius,
and call to mind that the 'purpose of Plato’s visit-
ing him was to inculeate moderation upon him; it
is natural to suppose, that the reasoning used in the
Philebus, would constitute a very important part of
the Lectures delivered by the Philosopher to the
48 Prince. He would state to him that there are in
the universe three principles, ἄπειρον, πέρας, καὶ τὸ
τῆς αἰτίας “γένος : and as in the universe the most
noble and beautiful productions are formed by the
operation of mind or intellect connecting limitation,

1 Plato explains this purpose in his seventh Epistle, which
was directed to the friends of Dio. He says, that Dio, having
attached himself to virtue in preference to pleasure and luxu-
rious living (ἀρετὴν περὶ πλείονος ἡδονῆς τῆς te ἄλλης τρυφῆς
ἠγαπηκώς, p. 327 [Β]}, was desirous that Dionysius also should
be brought to the same state of mind. He therefore prevailed
upon Plato to make a yoyage to Syracuse for that purpose.

C5

ἢ EPISTLES.

with the things that are in themselves unlimited;
so also in man the greatest good is produced by
connecting limitation (πέρας) with the pleasing sen-
sations (ἡδοναί) which are in their own nature un-
limited.

We might likewise expect to find, that as long
as the prince thought proper to continue the con-
nection with the philosopher, this subject would
engage a considerable part of their attention.

The passage in question confirms this reasoning, .
and is illustrated by it; though it is designedly
involved in obseurity, that, in the case of the let-
ter’s miscarrying, it might not be understood by
any but those who had some previous knowledge
of the principles of the author. In it is contained
an enumeration of the three principles; the first of
which, τὸν πάντων βασιλέα, is the same as τὸ παν-
των αἴτιον, βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν οὐράνου καὶ “γῆς, by which,

[Phitebus, from a mixture of the other two principles, wpai τε
καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα πάντα ἡμῖν γέγονε, τῶν τε ἀπείρων καὶ
τῶν πέρας ἐχόντων συμμιχθέντων.

‘The human mind,’ proceeds Plato, ‘is earnestly
desirous of learning the nature of these things,
looking into the things of itself that are related to
them; none of which it has in a perfect state. 49
But there is nothing of this kind (that is, of a state,
which is not perfect) with respect to the king, and

[Ρ. 8181 the things which I have mentioned: τοῦ δὴ βα-
σιλέως πέρι καὶ ὧν εἶπον οὐδὲν ἐστὶ τοιοῦτο. Conse-
quently, the knowledge which the mind acquires of
the nature τοῦ πρώτου, by looking into the corre-
sponding things of itself, must be inadequate.’

EPISTLES. 45

Plato here alludes to what is taught in the
Philebus ; first, that the constituent parts of man
are of the same kind with the constituent parts of
the universe ; secondly, that those parts in man are
imperfect, but in the universe they are perfect.

[p. 323 ».]

Toe SIXTH EPISTLE.

εἰμὴ the latter end of Plato’s sixth Epistle is

the following passage: tov τῶν πάντων θεὸν,
ἡγεμόνα τῶν τε ὄντων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων, τοῦ TE ἡγε-
μόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα κύριον. The author here ap-
pears to me to express himself according to the
system of a creator and a creation. I conceive,
that τὸν πάντων Θεόν corresponds with τὸ πάντων
αἴτιον and βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν x. 7. A. in the Philebus,
the universe or the soul of the universe. Accord-
ing to this interpretation αἰτίου πατέρα κύριον must
mean the eternal, self-existent being, the Creator
of the universe, who is called in the Timeus δημι-
ουργὸς and πατήρ.

CRATYLUS.

HE same terms in the Philebus are likewise ex-
planatory of the following passages in the
Cratylus: Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν;
ὕστις ἐστὶν αἴτιος μᾶλλον τοῦ ζῆν, ἢ ὁ ἄρχων τε καὶ
βασιλεὺς τῶν πάντων. συμβαίνει οὖν ὀρθῶς ὀνομάζε-
σθαι οὕτως (Ζῆνα) τῷ θεὸς εἶναι, δι ὃν ζῆν ἀεὶ πᾶσι
τοῖς ζῶσιν ὑπάρχει. Cudworth saw the necessity of
referring here to ψυχὴ", the third hypostasis of his
Platonic Trinity, those very titles, which in other
passages he supposes to be applied as distinguishing
characteristics to the two other hypostases. But
the truth is that they all refer to that one principle
of life and intelligence, which was supposed to per-
vade the universe, and regulate all its motions and
operations,

1 Hane ego mallem interpretationem junioribus, a quibus
profecta est, Platonicis, Plotino et ceteris reliquisset vir doctis-
simus, quam suam fecisset. Nec enim, quamyis Plato Saturni,
Joyis et Cceli loco isto mentionem faciat, ullum ego ibi vesti-
gium video trium illorum principiorum, multo minus cum tri-
bus his Platonicorum principiis tria Greecorum nomina componi
cerno. Pessimi, meo judicio, Platonis interpretes sunt, qui
post natum Seryatorem Platonicorum adoptarunt sibi vocabulum.
Quorum quidem animi, quoniam tribus illis principiis toti erant
infecti et imbuti, ideo ubivis ea quoque sagacius, quam fas erat,
in Platone yenabantur, cujus quippe precepta videri volebant
unice inculcare.—Moshem. in loc. Tom. 1. p. 380.

[p. 396 a.]

[p. 21 D.]

TIMEUVS.

Se Timeus of Plato cuts so distinguished a
figure in the present question, and has been so
often quoted and referred to by authors, that we
may venture to enter upon an examination of it
without any further preface.

Timzus, who is the supposed expositor of the
system advanced in this Dialogue, divides things
into two classes. First, what is without beginning
and unchangeable, which is comprehended by the
understanding with reasoning. Secondly, what is
made, and perishes, and is the subject of opinion
only, being in its nature variable, and having no-
thing in it so stable, as to furnish the materials of
knowledge properly so called.

What is made, necessarily implies an author.
Now whatever the Creator forms, looking at what
is invariable and using such a pattern, must be
completely beautiful. But whatever he forms,
looking at what has been made and using such a
pattern, will not be completely beautiful.

' Having considered the universe, and concluded
from its being visible, that it was made; he next

55.

enquires whether the Creator in forming it looked 53

at an invariable pattern, or at one that was made,
and asserts, it is manifest, from the beauty of the
work and the excellence of the Creator, that he

TIM AUS. 49

looked at what is unchangeable. For, says he, that
is the most beautiful of the things which have been
made, and he is the best of causes. ‘Thus it was
formed according to a pattern, comprehensible by
reason and thought, and unvarying.

Having thus distinguished the image and the
pattern, he states the nature of the account which
he is about to give. He calls it only a probable fp. 290]
story and probable reasonings (εἰκότα μῦθον καὶ
εἰκότας λόγους) Which they must be content, on
account of the imperfection of their common
nature, to accept, instead of such expositions as
would correspond with the dignity of the subject.
These latter, in opposition to the others, he calls
αὑτοῖς ὁμολογουμένους Kat ἀπηκριβωμένους λόγους. τἋν.390]

He then proceeds to inquire into the reason
and manner of the creation. The first he attri-
butes to the goodness of-the Creator. With re-
spect to the manner, he says, the Creator took
what is visible, viz. matter!, which moved irregu-
larly and disorderly, and reduced it to order from
disorder, on account of the excellence of the former
above the latter.

54 He considered also (λογισάμενος) that what is fp. 80 5]
intelligent is more excellent than what is devoid of
intelligence; but that there cannot be mind or
intelligence without soul or life. On account of
this reasoning (διὰ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε) haying con-
stituted a mind in a soul and a soul in a body,

1 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτου []. τούτῳ] πάλιν ὁ μεγαλόφωνος Πλάτων οὐχ
ὁμολογεῖ, λέγων ἀρχὰς εἶναι Θεὸν, καὶ ὕλην καὶ παράδειγμα.---ΠοΥ-
mi 1γγίϑῖο Gentil. Philosoph. (c. xi. p. 221].

[p. 88 6]

p. 44[c].

50 TIM AUS.

he composed the whole, that he might complete a
work most beautiful and excellent in its nature.
Thus ought we. to say, according to a probable
account (kata λόγον Tov εἰκότα) that this world
was in truth made an animated and intelligent
being by the Providence of God (dia τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ
γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν). The whole composition of
the soul, he says, was completed according to the

mind of the composer (κατὰ νοῦν ξυνιστᾶντι).
When he speaks afterwards of the production
of time, in which this animated and _ intelligent
being should exist, he says, Therefore from such
reasoning and consideration of God (ἐξ οὖν λό-
ryou καὶ διανοίας Θεοῦ τοιαύτης) the sun, &c. was

made.

From all this it appears most evident to me,
that λογισμός, πρόνοια, λόγος, and διάνοια Θεοῦ
are only operations of the supreme intelligence, as
προνοίας θεῶν is of the inferior gods.

I will now examine the nature of the pattern
and the image spoken of in this discourse.

' LT have already shewn at large, that, in the writ- 55
ings of Plato, general or abstract ideas are con-
sidered as the real entities, on account of the
stability of their nature, different from particular
existences, which are in a state of perpetual
change; and that he denominated them eyver-
existing, as they bear no relation to time, nor are
they affected by it. I will, however, produce a
passage or two more to confirm a point of so much
importance in determining the meaning of the pat-
tern mentioned in the Timeus, a misconception

56

TIM 4 US. BI

concerning which has been yery extensive in its
operation.

It is one of the leading principles of the Pla-
tonic Philosophy, that general or abstract ideas
only can be the foundation of real knowledge; as
they only are exact and permanent in their nature
and relations 2.

The Timeus of Plato is derived from the trea-
tise of Timezeus the Locrian, concerning the soul
of the world. In this treatise the pattern (παρά-
deryua) is called ἰδέα and εἶδος, the idea and the
specific form, which was eternal and co-existent
with ὕλη, matter, but distinct from and opposite

2 Arguing upon this principle in his Dialogue concerning a
Republic, (Lib. v. [p. 479 4]), he reprobates the pretensions to
wisdom adyanced in favour of those men, who are conversant
with particulars only. Ἀποκρινέσθω ὁ χρηστὸς, ὃς αὐτὸ μὲν κάλον
καὶ ἰδέαν τινὰ αὐτοῦ κάλλους μηδεμίαν ἡγεῖται ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύ-
τῶς ἔχουσαν' πολλὰ δὲ τὰ καλὰ νομίζει ἐκεῖνος 6 φιλοθεάμων, καὶ
οὐδαμῇ ἀνεχόμενος, ἄν τις ἕν τὸ καλὸν φῇ εἶναι καὶ δίκαιον καὶ τἄλλα
οὕτω. True philosophers he characterizes thus, [p. 479 ΕἸ:
τοὺς αὐτὰ ἕκαστα θεωμένους καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ Ta αὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ὄντα.
Again, in the beginning of the following book, he defines phi-
losophers, [p. 484 A], οἱ τοῦ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος
δυνάμενοι ἐφάπτεσθαι. The terms in which he describes the
unphilosophic, deserve our particular attention: τοῦ ὄντος ἐκά-
στου ἐστερημένοι τῆς γνώσεως, καὶ μηδὲν ἐναργὲς ἐν TH Ψυχῇ ἔχοντες
παράδειγμα. Again, (p. 486 [Ὁ]}, speaking of the turn of mind
to be expected in a philosopher, he says, ἔμμετρον ἄρα καὶ εὔχα-
pw ζητῶμεν πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις διάνοιαν φύσει, ἣν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος
ἰδέαν ἑκάστου τὸ αὐτοφυὲς εὐάγωγον παρέξει. By the two last
cited passages it appears, that the terms ἰδέα and παράδειγμα
are used to express abstract ideas. Agreeable to this is the ac-
count which Diogenes Laertius gives of the philosophy of Plato:
Ἔστι δὲ τῶν εἰδῶν ἕν ἕκαστον ἀϊΐδιόν τε Kal νόημα, Kal πρὸς τούτοις
ἀπαθές: δίο καί φησιν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὰς ἰδέας ἑστάναι καθάπερ παρα-
δείγματα: τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ταύταις ἐοικέναι, τούτων ὁμοιώματα καθεστῶτα.

{Lib. iii, Segm. 13],

ot

Ξ
=

82 TIM AUS.

to it. What was formed at the creation by the
conjunction of these two, is called their offspring
(τὰ ἐκ τούτων. ἔκγονα). Information concerning
these three is attained by three different ways—
concerning idea or specific form, by the mind
according to knowledge — concerning elemental

[ν.9481 matter, by spurious reasoning (λογισμῷ vow), 50
called, because it does not arrive at that certainty
and precision which are attained by abstract rea-
soning—concerning their offspring, particular ma- —
terial objects, produced by the union of specific
form with elemental matter, by sensation and opi-
nion.

pee) We are to understand, says the philosopher,
that, before the creation, there were Idea or ab-
stract form, Matter, and God the Creator. Now
God saw matter assuming specific form (τὴν ἰδέαν)
and changing, in all ways indeed, but disorderly.
He was therefore desirous of bringing it to order, 57
of converting it from its indeterminate state, and of
making it determinate—that there might be dis-
tinctions of bodies, and that they might not receive
undirected changes.

Let us now consider Plato’s description of the
pattern. He says that it contained within itself all
intelligible animals; as this world contains us and
all other living creatures. For God, desiring to
make this world resemble, as much as possible, the
most gbeautiful of intelligibles which was in all
respects perfect, made it one visible animal, having
within it all corresponding animals, according to
its nature. If due allowance be made for the

TIM AUS. 53

peculiar language of the Pythagorean and Pla-

tonic schools, nothing can be more plain than that

the pattern signifies no more than the abstract

idea, according to which the universe was formed,

with parts in the one answering to parts in the

other 3. .

Aristotle distinguishes the causes of things into Natu. ause

four kinds: First, the subject matter, as brass

in the composition of a statue, &c. Secondly,

the specific or generic form. Thirdly, the author.

Fourthly, the final cause. The terms in which

he describes the second kind, or specific and

generic forms, are these, τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ παρά-
58 derypa’ τοῦτο ὃ ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ τί ἣν εἶναι

καὶ τὰ τούτου “γένη.

With respect to the nature of the soul of the

universe, it may be proper, first, to observe that

mind and soul do not signify two distinct inde-

pendent existences, as some have supposed. Ψυχή,

soul, when considered separately, signifies the prin-

ciple of life: Νοῦς, mind, the principle of intelli-

gence. Or, according to Plutarch, soul is the prt. erst,
cause and beginning of motion, and mind of order” ae
and harmony with respect to motion’. Together
they signify an intelligent soul (ἔννους ψυχῆ) which
is sometimes called a rational soul (ψυχὴ λογική).
Hence, when the nature of the soul is not in ques-
tion, the word ψυχὴ is used to express both. Thus

3 Νοητὸς ἐπάγῃ κόσμος τὸ τοῦ φαινομένου τοῦδε ἀρχέτυπον,
ἰδέαις ἀοράτοις συσταθεὶς ὥσπερ οὗτος σώμασιν dpatois.—Philo
Judzeus, De Confus. Ling. p. 345.

4 Ψυχὴ yap αἰτία κινήσεως καὶ ἀρχή, νοῦς δὲ τάξεως καὶ συμ-
φωνίας περὶ κίνησιν.

p. 1910].

“4 TIM AUS.

)
in the Phedo the soul (ψυχὴ) is said sometimes to
use the body for the examination of things (τῷ
σώματι προσχρῆται εἰς τὸ σκοπεῖν τι); at which β
times, according to the principles of Plato, it |
forms confused and imperfect notions of things,

and is involved in error. But, when it examines
things by itself, it arrives at what is pure and
always existing and immortal and uniform, and

is free from error. Here the highest operations

of vous, ‘mind,’ are indisputably attributed to ψνχὴ,
‘soul.’

Aristotle, describing ψυχῆ, ‘soul,’ says, that 59
during anger, confidence, desire, &e. it participates
with the body; but that the act of understanding
belongs peculiarly to itself5. Again, he says, Plato
in the Timeus, in the same manner as Empedocles,
makes the soul out of the elemental principles of
things; for that like is known by like®. Soon after
he says, that soul has in it a principle both of mo-
tion and of knowledge’.

It is evident, that πᾶν τόδε or κόσμος, here
treated of by Plato, is the system of heaven and
earth, and of the several natures contained in them®’.

And that νοῦς καὶ ψυχὴ κόσμου is, as Cicero ex-
presses it, vis guedam sentiens, que est toto confusa
mundo, performing the same functions in the great
body of the universe at large, that human souls do
in our bodies, giving life and motion to its several

5 Φαίνεται δὲ τῶν πλείστων οὐθὲν ἄνευ σώματος πάσχειν οὐδὲ
ποιεῖν, οἷον ὀργίζεσθαι, θαρρεῖν, ἐπιθυμεῖν, ὅλως αἰσθάνεσθαι. μά- |
λιστα δ᾽ ἔοικεν ἴδιον τὸ νοεῖν. Περὶ Ψυχῆς, Lib. τ. cap. 1.

ὁ Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ Πλάτων τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τῶν
στοιχείων ποιεῖ: γιγνώσκεσθαι γὰρ ὁμοίῳ ὅμοιον. cap. 11. |

TIMAUS. Bs

parts, directing those motions with consummate
wisdom, and communicating different portions of its
essence to the different beings that are contained

60 within the bounds of its all-comprehending circum-
ference ; thus effecting and maintaining the varia-
tions of times and of seasons, the changes of or-
ganized and unorganized matter, and the uninter-
rupted succession of animated and rational beings.
The proof of the existence of this rational soul,
animating and directing the universe, was derived,
as has been already observed, from the observable
fecundity of nature, and the order and harmony of
its parts and motions.

That πᾶν τόδε or κόσμος was not eternal a parte
ante is manifest from the whole tenor of the rela-
tion. We have the reasoning of the Creator con-
cerning this future God, before he was created
(λογισμὸς θεοῦ περὶ τὸν ἐσόμενον θεόν). We have app.s21
direct assertion of the creation of it: διὰ δὴ) τὸν [ν. 80 5]
λογισμὸν τόνδε, νοῦν μὲν ἐν ψυχῇ; ψυχὴν δὲ ἐν σώματι
συνιστὰς, τὸ πᾶν ξυνετεκταίνετο: on account of
this reasoning having constituted a mind in a soul
and a soul in a body, he composed the whole.
Thus this world was made by the providence of
God an animated and intelligent being (ζῶον ἔμψυ-
χον ἔννουν Te).

Nay, the philosopher does not even stop here,

7 Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ κινητικὸν ἐδόκει ἡ ψυχὴ εἶναι καὶ γνωριστικόν.
Ibid.

8 Κόσμος μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ σύστημᾶ ἐξ ovpavov καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν
τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων .---ΑὐἸδίοῦ. Περὶ Κόσμου, Cap. 1.

Δῆλος γὰρ ὁ λογιζόμενος θεὸς ὁ δημιουργός: ὁ δὲ ἐσόμενος καὶ
γιγνόμενος αἰεὶ ὁ xéopos.—Stobeci Ποῖ, Phy. τ. [2. § 28.]

[p. 84 8.]

[p. 88 B.]

[p. 41 Α.]

p. 94 [p].

26 TIM EUS.

but lays before us the order of the work and the
particulars of the composition; the result of which
is contained in the following words: διὰ πάντα δὴ
ταῦτα εὐδαίμονα θεὸν αὐτὸν ἐγεννήσατο. Time is
said to have been made with it; that, having been
made together, they might also be dissolved toge-
ther, if there should ever be a dissolution of them

δὲ « , ee \ “ » ,
(wa ἅμα γεννηθέντες ἁμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἂν ποτε λύσις

61

αὐτῶν yéevnra). That it is not incapable of being —

dissolved is clear from the declaration of the Cre-
ator to the Gods, whom he styles θεοὶ θεῶν : ‘ every
thing that has been compacted is dissoluble.
Wherefore since you have been made you are not
immortal (τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν---δ ἃ
καὶ ἐπείπερ “γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστέ).
It is manifest, likewise, from the terms in which
τὸ wav, the universe itself, is described in the
treatise of Titheus the Locrian! τοῦτον ἐποίη θεὸν
ryevvaTov, οὔποκα φθαρησόμενον ὑπ᾽ ἄλλῳ αἰτίῳ, ἔξω
τῷ αὐτὸν συντεταγμένω θέω, εἴποκα δήλετο αὐτὸν
διαλύεν.

It will be proper to repeat here an observation,
which was made at the beginning of the examina-
tion of the Parmenides. Plato in the Timeus, as
well as in that Dialogue, is unwilling to make him-
self or Socrates responsible for the truth of the
doctrines which are maintained in it. He therefore
does not, according to his usual custom, advance
them as the sentiments of Socrates; but attributes
them to another for whose credit he is not so much
concerned. He, moreover, does not pretend that
the knowledge of them was attained by the princi-

TIM EUS. 57

ples of reason; but he founds their truth upon the
authority of tradition.

62 This observation will serve to explain a cireum-

stance which must otherwise appear very extraor-
dinary. The real opinion of Plato concerning the
eternity of the world has been much controverted
at different periods of time. Ifthe Timeus repre-
sented the genuine sentiments of Plato, it would be
impossible for any rational doubts to be entertained
upon the subject. For this Dialogue not only con-
tains the most express declarations that the world
had a beginning, but also explains the nature of the
different parts of which it was composed; and states
the order in which they were at first severally cre-
ated and afterwards compacted. But if we consider
him in this Dialogue as only representing the senti-
ments of another, without intending to pledge him-
self absolutely for the truth of them; nothing deci-
sive and incontrovertible can be derived from this
Dialogue for settling the controversy.

In this Dialogue the Creator, who existed eter-
nally, is distinguished from the intelligent soul of
the world, which, we are told, was actually created,
though prior in time and superior in dignity to the
body of gross matter which it animates and modifies.
This intelligent soul is generally considered by the
ancients as the principle and source of life and in-
telligence, and the supporter of order and harmony
in the universe; and therefore in all ordinary cases

63 an investigation of the nature and origin of things
usually terminates in it.

Minucius Felix informs us, that the God of Py- Octo, ca

58 TIM 4 US.

thagoras was described in terms of the same im-
port: Pythagore Deus est animus, per universam
rerum naturam commeans et intentus; ex quo etiam
animalium omnium vita capiatur.

Recourse was seldom had to any other being,
except to account for the origin of the universe in
opposition to those who maintained, that it existed
from eternity. They, who asserted that the uni-
verse was created, were under the necessity of pro- |
viding a Creator. But they seldom made any other
use of him, than just to-account for the origin of
the world. Hence Plato excuses himself from en-
larging upon the nature and attributes of this su-
preme Being, by saying that it is difficult to disco-
ver the Maker and Father of this universe; and
when he has been discovered, it is impossible to

ima p.2s declare him to all: Tov μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα
τοῦδε τοῦ παντὺς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς
πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν. In this case, however, ἐπ,
soul of the world, the principle of life and intelli-
gence, the supporter of the succession of beings,
and the maintainer of order in the universe, held
only the second place. Whereas, on the other
hypothesis, this same principle is held to be the

first cause. |

What Origen says of the Stoics and Platonics 64)
is perfectly agreeable to this: the Greeks affirm
that the whole world is a God: the Stoics that it
is the first God: the Platonics that it is the second’,

9 Σαφῶς δὴ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον λέγουσιν εἶναι θεὸν, Στωϊκοὶ μὲν
τὸν πρῶτον" οἱ & ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος τὸν Sevrepov.—Contra Celsum,
Lib. v. p. 235.

ΤΙΜΖ σ 5. 59

The Stoics maintained the eternity of the world.
They had therefore occasion to account for no
more than the succession of beings, and the wisdom
and order with which the affairs of the universe
; were conducted. For this the soul of the world
was sufficient, and was esteemed their first God.
The Platonics derived most of their opinions from
the Timeus, in which the doctrine of a Creator is
taught. He therefore was necessarily the first God;
and the soul of the world could occupy only the

second place of dignity in this system. An atten-

tion to this distinction will serve to account for

that apparent inconsistency in the principles of

Plato, to which Cicero makes Velleius the Stoic iy Sle
object.

It would be easy to produce a great number of
instances from the writings of Plato, Cicero, and
others, in support of what is here laid down. But,
as on any supposition it is equally impossible to
discover in this Dialogue the doctrine of the Holy

65 Trinity; it would lead me too far from the imme-
diate subject of my enquiry to dwell any longer
upon this topic. For the same reason, because I
would not meddle with anything that is not imme-
diately and necessarily connected with my subject,
I have declined entering into the controversy con-
cerning Plato’s opinion of the nature and mode of
the subsistence of ideas. Whether it be determined
that Plato taught that they subsisted notionally or
substantially in the divine intellect; the decision,
I conceive, will not of itself tend in the slightest
degree to prove Plato’s doctrine to have been, that

MORGAN D

60 TIMAUS.

the intellect is personally distinct from the Supreme
Being, to whom it belongs. Still less, if possible,
can the question be affected by any other hypo-
thesis concerning the nature and mode of the sub-
sistence of ideas.

Having examined all the principal passages,
-which are produced from the writings of Plato, to
prove that he was acquainted with the doctrine of
three hypostases in the divine nature; and having
shewn, as I conceive, that none of them, in their
true and genuine signification, do actually counte-
nance the hypothesis; I will endeavour to inves-
tigate the subject farther, and trace out the origin
and progress of the opinion in later times,

66 OF THE ORIGIN. AND PROGRESS OF THE OPINION OF
THE PLATONIC TRINITY.

EVERAL sects of Pagan Philosophy in a man-

ner derived their origin from the school of
Plato, yet no one of them, whether it professed to
adopt his opinions in the whole, or only in part,
either affirmed or denied this article, which, if it
had been really maintained by Plato, must have
held so distinguished a place among his tenets.
Even Cicero has taken no notice of this striking
peculiarity ; though he not only was a passionate
admirer and imitator of Plato, but also made it
the chief employment of his latter days to trans-
pose into the Roman language the most important
doctrines and reasonings of the several sects of
Grecian Philosophy. This profound silence is too
remarkable and too general to be attributed to
chance. Neither the high estimation in which the
writings of Plato were held, nor the penetration
and industry of the many learned men, who either
propagated or avowedly deviated from his opinions,
will permit us for a moment to suppose that this
article could have been wholly overlooked, or re-
garded as a circumstance of no moment.

67 If this opinion cannot be found in the writings
of Plato, and is not attributed to him by the sub-
sequent philosophers of Greece and Rome, it is of

D2

62 Of the PLA TONIC ΤΗΙΔΙΤΎ.

importance to investigate, by what means it gained
admission among men. For this purpose it will
be necessary to examine at large the writings of —

Philo, an Hellenist Jew, who studied at Alex-
andria.

68

69

AN ENQUIRY INTO THE DOCTRINES OF
PHILO JUDAUS.

Num censes igitur subtiliore ratione opus esse ad hee refellenda ?
Nam mentem, fidem, spem, virtutem, honorem, victoriam, salu-
tem, concordiam ceteraque ejusmodi, rerum vim habere vide-
mus, nen Deorum.—Cic. de Nat. Deor. m1. 24.

ee ORE I enter upon this enquiry, I wish to
remark, that it is confined entirely to the opi-
nions of Philo himself. I do not mean to deter-
mine any thing about the doctrines of the Jews
relative to the divine nature in the time of Philo:
though all expositions of them, which are founded
upon different interpretations of Philo, must, as
far as they depend upon such interpretations, be
affected by my reasonings, if they be allowed to
be valid. Least of all would I have it supposed,
that I mean to deny that many passages of the
Old Testament refer to the second person of the
ever-blessed Trinity, when I deny that Philo’s in-
terpretations of them have any such reference.

A distinguished ‘writer upon this subject has
affirmed that Philo was not a Platonist. If he
had meant by this assertion that Philo did not
adopt all the opinions of Plato, it must have been
admitted. For it was scarcely possible for him to
do this, without abandoning the religion of his
fathers, which, with all his bias towards philo-

1 Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 354.

De Opificio
Mundi, p. 2.

p. 16.

64 Doctrines of PHILO JUDAEUS.

sophy, he does not appear to have entertained any
thought of doing. But the author, to whom I

refer, goes farther. He says, Philo had been so -

little acquainted with Plato’s works, that he brings
some of Plato’s opinions upon the credit of Aris-
totle®. It is a question of words, whether he
should be called a Platonist or an Eclectic; be-
cause he did not abandon Judaism, and, embracing
all the opinions, prove his doctrines. by the au-

thority of Plato. But it is of importance to the -

present enquiry to shew, that Philo was so well
acquainted with the principles of Plato, that he
made great use of them in his own theological
works.

Philo has adopted Plato’s division of things
into the two great classes, Intelligibles and Sen-
sibles (νοητὰ καὶ αἰσθητὰ), the former of which he
characterizes in the language of Plato, as always
the same in their properties and relations (ae
κατὰ Td αὐτὰ Kal ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα) ; but the latter
he states, on the contrary, to be subject to per-
petual changes (πᾶν γὰρ τὸ αἰσθητὸν ev “γενέσει
καὶ μεταβολαῖς, οὐδέποτε κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄν) Like
him in Philebus, he calls the stars living and intel-

ligent beings ((wa τε εἶναι λέγονται καὶ ζῶα νοερά 3) 70

where likewise he says, that man derives his ideas
of music, and virtue, which consists in well-har-
monized affections, from the harmony that is con-
spicuous in the works of creation. From this men,
who were formed after them, inscribed on their

2 I presume he alludes to what Philo says, Περὶ Ἀφθαρσίας
Κόσμου, p. 941.

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. 65

own souls, and delivered down the most necessary
and most profitable rules of life (αφ᾽ ἧς οἱ μετὰ ν τ΄.
ταῦτα ἄνθρωποι ἐγγραψάμενοι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν Ψυχαῖς
ἀναγκαιοτάτην καὶ ὠφελιμωτάτην τέχνην τῷ βίῳ
παρέδοσαν. In conformity with this doctrine, he

styles wisdom a well-harmonized and completely
musical symphony of virtues (εὐάρμοστον καὶ πάμ- Περὶ συγχ.
μουσον συμφωνίαν ἀρετῶν.) In the same language Ρ 35
he describes vicious folly to be an inharmonious,
discordant, untuneful symphony (ἀνάρμοστον καὶ p. 3%
ἐκμελῆ καὶ ἄμουσον συμφωνίαν.) Again, as Plato
in his Timeus calls time an image of eternity,
so Philo calls eternity the archetype and pattern

Περὶ τοῦ ὅτι

”

of time (ἀρχέτυπον τοῦ χρόνου καὶ παράδειγμα ἄτρεπτον

τὸ θεῖον.

αἰών). ὍΝ
But, above all, it is most evident that he had
the Timeus of Plato in his eye when he wrote
his treatise of the Creation of the World, and that
he grounded his explanations upon the same prin-
ciples. Thus, having divided things into intel-
ligible, which are eternal, unchangeable and per-
manent; and sensible, which are generated, are
changeable and fleeting; he enquires, whether the
world had a beginning. This question he answers
as readily as Plato did, and upon the same prin-
ciple: Since it is visible and the object of sense, it
must have been made (ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁρατός τε καὶ αἰσθη- [p. 3
TOS ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, ἀναγκαίως ἂν εἴη καὶ “γενητός.)
This is precisely the reason which was before as-
signed by Plato in Timeus for the world’s having
had a beginning: It was made; for it is visible
and tangible, and has a body, that is, a body of

[p. 28 B.]

66 Doctrines of PHILO JUDMUS,

gross matter (γέγονεν" ὁρατὸς γορ ἁπτός τέ ἐστι
καὶ σῶμα ἔχων).

Again Philo tells us, that God foresaw that an -
imitation could not be beautiful without a beau-
tiful pattern; and that nothing material was fault-
less, which had not been framed according to an
archetype and intelligible idea. On this account,
when he resolved to create this visible world, he
first modelled the intelligible one, that by this
incorporeal and most divine pattern he might
construct the material world’. This material world,
which was to be the image of the intelligible,
was to contain as many kinds of sensible beings
as there were intelligibles in the pattern4 This
intelligible world, according to Philo, was com-
posed of ideas. It is not allowable, he said, to
affirm or suppose that it subsisted in any place.
But we shall know where it did subsist, by pur-
suing the analogy of things in ourselves®>, When
a city is to be built for some great prince or poten-
tate, a man, well-instructed in architecture, comes
forward, and, having examined the situation, first
describes within himself almost all the parts of the

3 Προλαβὼν ὁ Θεὸς ἅτε Θεὸς, ὅτε μίμημα καλὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε
γένοιτο καλοῦ δίχα παραδείγματος, οὐδέ τι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀνυπαίτιον,
ὃ μὴ πρὸς ἀρχέτυπον καὶ νοητὴν ἰδέαν ἀπεικονίσθη, βουληθεὶς τὸν
ὁρατὸν τουτονὶ κόσμον δημιουργῆσαι, προεξετύπου τὸν νοητὸν, ἵνα
χρώμενος ἀσωμάτῳ καὶ θεοειδεστάτῳ παραδείγματι, τὸν σωματικὸν
ἀπεργάσηται, p. 3. In this passage he clearly had in his eye
the following one of Plato upon the same subject in the dia-
logue above mentioned: Ὅπου μὲν οὖν ἂν ὁ δημιουργὸς, πρὸς τὸ
κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον βλέπων ἀεὶ, τοιούτῳ τινὶ προσχρώμενος παραδείγ-
ματι τὴν ἰδέαν καὶ δύναμιν ἀπεργάζηται, καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὕτως
ἀποτελεῖσθαι πᾶν" οὗ δ᾽ ἂν εἰς τὸ γεγονὸς, γεννητῷ παραδείγματι

73

Doctrines of PHILO JUDAEUS. 67

city that is to be built, temples, places of exercise,
courts of justice, market-places, harbours, docks,
&e. Then, having received the types of each of
them in his mind, as in wax, he frames an intel-
ligible city, and stamps the images of the several
parts on his memory. To this model he looks
when he begins to execute his well-arranged plan
with stone and wood, making the material sub-
stances like each of the incorporeal ideas. Some-
thing of this kind must we conceive of God, who,
haying purposed to build a capital city, first ima-
gined the types of it; of which he constituted the
intelligible world, and then used it as a pattern,
when he finished the sensible world. As _ there-
fore the city, predelineated in the architect, had
no external place, but was stamped upon the mind
of the artist; in the same manner also the world
composed of ideas cannot have any other place
than the divine intellect, which arranged it.
Having discoursed a little upon the cause of
God’s creating the world, he returns to his ana-
logy. If, says he, any one would use plain words,
unadorned by figures, he would say, that the intel-

προσχρώμενος, ov καλόν, p. 28. [Β].

4 Πρεσβυτέρου νεώτερον ἀπεικόνισμα, τοσαῦτα περιέξοντα ai-
σθητὰ γένη, ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νοητά, [p. 3.] This is evidently
taken from the description which Plato gave of the pattern,
according to which the Creator formed the present world: ra

‘ \ ‘ ~ , > HE > ¢ “ Qs » , a
yap δὴ νοητὰ ζῶα πάντα ἐκεῖνο ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιλαβὸν ἔχει, καθάπερ ὅδε
ὁ κόσμος ἡμᾶς, ὅσα τε ἄλλα θρέμματα συνέστηκεν ὁρατά.----ἰ Timeeus,
p- 30p.]

5 Tov δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν συνεστῶτα κόσμον ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ λέγειν ἢ
© - > , τ By τα , EN. ,
ὑπονοεῖν, ov θεμιτόν: ἡ δ᾽ ὑφέστηκεν εἰσόμεθα, παρακολούθησαντες
εἰκόνι τινὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν. [p. 4].

DS

68 Doctrines of PHILO JUDMUS.

ligible world is nothing else but the ® intellect of
God, while he was now making the world. For

the intelligible city is nothing else but the rea- ~

soning of the architect, while he is now projecting
to build the material city.

The plain meaning of all this is, that the
divine Being, when he purposed to create the
world, first conceived ideas of the several parts

74

of which it was to consist. These ideas he formed

into one plan, and thus constituted the intelligible
world, ‘This he used as a pattern in his creation
of’ the material world, which he made to corre-
spond with it in every particular, the several sub-
stances which composed the one answering to the
several ideas which composed the other. It is not
allowable to assert or suppose that this intelligible
world, thus composed of ideas, had a real and
external existence, as some philosophers may have
maintained. It was no more than the ideal plan
in the intellect of the Creator; in the same manner
as the ideal plan of a city, which is to be built,
subsists only in the intellect of the architect, and
has no existence external to it. So that, to use
plain language, the intelligible world is nothing
else but the reasoning of God, when he was about
to create the material world; just as the intel-

6 If the reader wishes to see a complete specimen of the
exertions of a subtle genius in support of a system, let him look
into Norris’s Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World. He will
there see how much that ingenious writer, aided by St Augustin
and Malebranche, could extract from this doctrine.

7 Τῶν μελλόντων ἀποτελεῖσθαι σωμάτων ἀσωμάτους ἰδέας τῇ
ψυχῇ θεωρῶν, πρὸς ἃς ἔδει, καθάπερ ἀπ᾽’ ἀρχέτυπου γραφῆς καὶ

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. 69

ligible city was only the reasoning of the architect,
when he was about to build a material city.

He uses the same language in the third book
of the Life of Moses, when he is speaking of the
pattern of the tabernacle and the several parts
of the furniture of it, which was shewed to Moses
in the mount, and according to which he formed
the earthly tabernacle. The incorporeal ideas,
which were impressed upon his mind, served as

75 a pattern according to which he formed the mate-
rial objects’.

Philo was not satisfied with giving this general
account of the nature of the intelligible world. He
proceeded to state the principal parts of which
it was composed, and the order in which they were
framed. First, the Creator formed in the intel-
ligible world an incorporeal heaven and an invisible
earth, and the idea of air, and a void: then the
incorporeal essence of water, and breath or spirit,
and light, which was also incorporeal, and the intel-
ligible pattern of the sun, and of all the luminous
stars, that were to subsist throughout the heaven.

In his treatise Περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων πραγ-
μάτων κληρόνομος, he attributes the formation of
things to the art of God (ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ τέχνη-τ-- ν. δ05.
δεδηκιούργηκε.) And again he styles nature the
sacred logos or reason (ἡ φύσις-τ--ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος). P- 506.

νοητῶν παραδειγμάτων αἰσθητὰ μιμήματα ἀπεικονισθῆναι-----ὁ μὲν οὖν
τύπος τοῦ παραδείγματος ἐνεσφραγίζετο τῇ διανοίᾳ τοῦ προφήτου,
> - ’ ‘ / > ~ aA or > U

διαζωγραφούμενος καὶ προδιαπλαττόμενος ἀφανῶς ἄνευ ὕλης ἀοράτοις
εἴδεσι: τὸ δ᾽ ἀποτέλεσμα πρὸς τὸν τύπον ἐδημιουργεῖτο, ἐναποματ-
τομένου τὰς σφραγῖδας τοῦ τεχνίτου ταῖς προσφόροις ἐκάστῳ ὑλικαῖς

οὐσίαις. [p. 665.]

40 Doctrines of PHILO JUDAEUS.

If it had been the professed design of Philo
to guard against the possibility of annexing a dis-
tinct personality to Λόγος θεῖος or Λόγος θεοῦ,
which I have rendered ‘the divine intellect’ and
‘the intellect of God,’ I do not see how he could 76 |
have used terms more precise, or illustrations more |
apposite.

Yet the author, to whom I before referred, has
maintained that the passages in Philo for the exist-
ence of the Λόγος, as a person coeternal with the
Father, are so evident, that they cannot be denied.
Indeed he conceives them to be so evident, that,
though he has quoted abundantly upon the same
subject from the Chaldee Paraphrasts, yet he rests
the weight of his cause upon Philo, who, he says,
writ much larger and clearer than they did; and
will contribute to explain some of the quotations

p14. taken out of the Paraphrases in use at Babylon and
Jerusalem.

However, notwithstanding this confidence in
the authority of Philo, and in the propriety of his
own interpretations of his doctrines, he makes
some concessions, which detract much from the
efficacy of either the authority or the interpreta-
tion. ‘After all that I have alleged from Philo
and the Paraphrases, says he, ‘I do not pretend
to affirm that they had as distinct notions of the
Trinity as we have; nor do I deny but that some-
times they put a different construction on the
texts which we have cited in proof of this mys-
tery: nay, I own that their ideas are often con-
fused when they speak of these things, and par-

Doctrines of PHILO JUDZEUS. 71

77 ticularly they refer sometimes that to the second
person which should be ascribed to the third, and
that to the third which properly belongs to the
second.’

But this is not all. He allows that Philo, in

one instance at least, fell into error by endea- p. 154
vouring to accommodate Moses his notions to
the notions of a particular philosophy. He next
admits that Philo, who had gathered his notions,
as other Jews did, from reading the books of the
Old Testament, together with their traditional in-
terpretations, was not so much a master of them
as to make them always consist with one another.
In the next sentence he does not deny that Philo pp. 155, 156.
was not constant to himself. Indeed he could
not deny this; as he had himself before charged
him with inconsistency, in making God, when he
was engaged in his work of creation, address him- De conn
to the angels, and employ them as assistants in
his work. pp. 128, 129.

An animated and ingenious 8 writer of the pre-

8 Whitaker, in his History of Arianism. Without entering
into the general merits of the question discussed by this learned
author, I beg leave to make a remark upon his interpretation
of a passage of Scripture, which appears to me not to be well
founded. St Matthew, xxii. 34, tells us, that when our Saviour
had answered the ensnaring question of the Sadducees con-
cerning the resurrection, the Pharisees also assembled, and put
a question to him on their part. St Mark, xii. 28, informs us,
that the Pharisee who put the question was a scribe. But Mr
W. asserts, that these scribes were outwardly Pharisees and in-
wardly Sadducees, that they came in to the aid of the baffled
Sadducees, and that our Saviour alluded to this repugnance
between their external profession and internal sentiments, when

92 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

sent day, who has trodden boldly in the steps of 78
Allix, and enforced the same mode of interpreta-
tion with great energy, has been obliged, in sup-~
port of that mode, to impute to Philo not only
Ρ. 36. exertions of his fancy at the expence of his judg-
p17. ment, but also a spirit of subtilizing being into
power, and of dividing the Logos in two.
I readily allow that Philo’s interpretations of 79
Seripture are generally very fanciful, and that —
his works exhibit a curious mixture of Pagan phi-
losophy and Rabbinical learning. But I am per-
suaded that many of those inconsistencies, and all

he addressed this question to them, ‘ What think ye of Christ?
Whose son is he?’

I dissent from this explanation for the following reasons. First,
Neither of the Evangelists, who mention the transaction, give
any direct intimation that they were inwardly Sadducees. They
call them simply either Pharisees or scribes. Secondly, St Mark
says, that the scribe who put the question to Jesus knew that
he had answered the Sadducees properly (εἰδὼς, ὅτι καλῶς αὐτοῖς
ἀπεκρίθη). This he would not have known, or have thought, if
he had been a Sadducee. Thirdly, St Mark says, that Jesus,
perceiving that the scribe who had asked him the question,
replied intelligently (νουνεχῶς), said to him, ‘Thou art not far
from the kingdom of God.’ Fourthly, St Mark says, ‘That
Christ, as he was teaching publickly in the temple, asked, How
say the scribes, that Christ is the son of David?’ Whereby it
seems to be implied, not merely, that it was the opinion of those
particular men then present, but that it was the established
opinion of the doctors of the Law. Fifthly, the question is
put by St Luke, xx. 41, in terms still more general: ‘How say
they, that Christ is Dayid’s son?’ By this it may be intimated,
that it was the received opinion of the Jews in general at that
time. Mr Whitaker supposes, that a difference between the
opinion of the scribes and that of the people at large is inti-
mated by the evangelist, Mark xii. 37, when he subjoins, ‘ the
common people heard him gladly.’ It is surely taking too much
for granted to maintain, that our Saviour’s reasons would not

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. 3

that spirit of subtilizing being into power, with

80 which he has been charged, are not justly to be
imputed to him, but to his interpreters, who have
not attended to the avowed design of his writings,
and to the principles which he laid down τ the
accomplishment of that design.

The design itself he declares explicitly in his
Treatise Περὶ Συγχύσεως AtaXextwv; in which he [ν. 319.
undertakes to shew, that under the literal nar-
rative is contained a moral or spiritual meaning,
which is to be considered as the true sense, the other
being only a shadow®. After he had gone through

have been able to work conviction in the people, unless they had
been ‘ consentaneous to all their notions of the Messiah,’ p. 410.
It is fully as natural to suppose, that the common people, not hay-
ing speculated so much upon the subject, and being less enslaved
by preconceived opinions and rooted prejudices, were more open
to conviction, and more ready to acknowledge the justness of his
reasonings. St Mark, vi. 20, uses the same expression, when he
speaks of the manner in which Herod heard John the Baptist ;
in which passage it is scarcely to be conceived that he has any
allusion to Herod’s preconceived opinions. Again, in the Acts
of the Apostles, xvii. 11, it is said, ‘That the Bereans received
the word with all readiness of mind,’ (μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας).
Yet this word, which they thus received, appears to have been
so far from being consentaneous to all their previous notions of
the Messiah, that they searched the Scriptures daily, to see
whether those things were so. Sixthly, These men must have
been very shallow pretenders indeed, if, when a question of
that kind was asked them in public by a person, whom they had
obviously been endeavouring to ensnare, they should immedi-
ately return an answer according to their concealed opinions
and not according to their outward profession. Without, there-
fore, forming a precise opinion of the system maintained by the
learned author, I think he can derive no support for it from the
transaction in question.

9. Origen adopted from Philo the principal of allegorizing the
Scriptures. His account of it is thus rendered by his transla-

ΓΡ. 347.]

44 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

the whole of his explanation, These, says he, are
my opinions. Others, following the plain and ob-
vious meaning of the words, think that the origin
of the Greek and Barbarian languages is here
described. I do not censure them. Perhaps they
also give a true account. I would, however, ex-
hort them not to rest in it, but to pass on to the
figurative interpretations, and assure themselves
that the literal circumstances recorded in the
Scriptures are, as it were, shadows of bodies, but
that the qualities indicated by them are the things
which in reality subsist”.

It is natural to suppose, that a man who deals
in such subtilties should occasionally vary in the
degrees of his refinements. He may also naturally
be expected to be sometimes led into a seeming
inaccuracy of expression, by his having in some re-
spects adopted the sentiments and in more respects
the expressions of Plato. But it is not so natural
to suppose that he should argue upon contradictory
principles, which are generally the result of cooler
judgment and more deliberate consideration. Nor
is it quite so customary for a writer to subtilize
being into power, as it is to personify power, and
by so doing to invest it with a figurative being.

But whatever judgment may be formed of these

tor: Cum ergo de his talibus et horum similibus Spiritui Sancto
esset intentio illuminare sanctas animas, quce se mysterio dederant
veritatis; secundo loco habetur ille prospectus, ut propter eos, qui vel
non possent vel nollent huic se labori atque industrice tradere, quo
heee tanta et talia doceri vel agnoscere mererentur, involveret et
occultaret sermonibus usitatis sub preetextu historice cujusdam et
narrationis rerum visibilium arcana mysteria. —Tept Ἀρχῶν.
Lib. Ly. cap. 11.

8x |

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. 5

observations, every body, I think, must allow, that
Philo himself is the best explainer of his own prin-
ciples; and that those, which he has exhibited in
his cooler moments, must be the genuine interpre-
tations of them, how extravagantly soever he may
seem to have refined upon them in the fervor of
his imagination.

I have already shewn how careful he was to in-
culcate upon his readers, in the beginning of his
treatise Περὲ Kocuororias, that κόσμος νοητὸς, Which
he placed in the intellect of the Deity, and which
he sometimes denominated the divine intellect,
meant nothing more than the abstract design or
the reason of God, when he purposed to create the
world; and was similar to the plan of a city formed
in the mind of an architect. Most of the authors
who have written upon this subject, instead of tak-
ing this declaration as a guide, when they examine
what Mr Whitaker calls the exertions of his fancy
at the expence of his judgment, have collected a
multitude of detached passages seemingly attribut-
ing a direct personality and agency to the λόγος,
and have applied the conclusions, deduced from
them, to what they call an explanation of this clear
and explicit declaration. I shall therefore take the
several appellations by which the Logos has been

10 [Ταῦτα μὲν ἡμεῖς: of δὲ τοῖς ἐμφανέσι καὶ mpoyeipors μόνον
ἐπακολουθοῦντες οἴονται γένεσιν διαλεκτῶν Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Βαρβά-
pov ὑπογράφεσθαι---οὗς οὐκ ἂν αἰτιασάμενος----ἴσως γὰρ ἀληθεῖ
καὶ αὐτοὶ χρῶνται λόγῳ----παρακελεύσαιμ᾽ ἂν, μὴ ἐπὶ τούτων στῆναι,
μετελθεῖν δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς τροπικὰς ἀποδόσεις, νομίσαντας τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν

, +
χρησμὼν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι, Tas δ᾽ ἐμφαινομένας
δυνάμεις τὰ ὑφεστῶτα ἀληθείᾳ πράγματα.

[Legis Allegor.
ΠῚ. § 3l, p.
79.]

[8 32, p. 79.]

"6 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

denominated, and consider a few instances under
each, which may serve to explain all others of the
same class. ε

First, we will consider it as being the image of
God (ewv) and the shadow of God (cxia). Philo
has explicitly declared, in the explanation of Bese-
1661, how κόσμος νοητός, the intelligible world, the
reason or intellect of God, the abstract form of
the universe, is entitled to these appellations.
“The shadow of God is his λόγος, or reason, which
he used as an instrument or organ, when he made
the world. This shadow and image is also another
archetype. For as God is the pattern of the image
which we have now ealled the shadow; in the same
manner the image is the pattern of other things".”
Having thus shewn that the pattern and shadow
and image are relative terms, and that κόσμος νοητός,
the intelligible world, which he also calls λόγος θεοῦ,
and which is the pattern of the sensible world, is
also itself the shadow or image of God, he pro-
ceeds to shew in what sense it is the shadow.
“The wisest philosophers have maintained, that it

\ a GG ΄ > a 5 Ξ , > ,
11 [Skid θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ mpo-
, a
σχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίε. Αὕτη δὲ ἡ σκιὰ καὶ τὸ ὡσανεὶ ἀπεικό-
νισμα ἑτέρων ἐστὶν ἀρχέτυπον. “Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς παράδειγμα τῆς
a e
εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰν νυνὶ κέκληκεν, οὕτως ἡ εἰκὼν αλλων γίγνεται παρά-
δειγμα.]
12 [Οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄριστα φιλοσοφεῖν ἔφασαν, ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου
καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐνυπαρχουσῶν τούτοις δυνάμεων ἀντί-
A 3} my
AnWw ἐποιησάμεθα τοῦ αἰτίου. “Ὥσπερ yap εἴ τις ἴδοι δεδημιουρ-
“ ΄- > ΄“
γημένην οἰκίαν ἐπιμελῶς, προπυλαίοις, στοαῖς, ἀνδρῶσι, γυναικωνίτισι,
΄σ 2, > , »Ἅ , “- , > BY
τοῖς ἄλλοις οἰκοδομήμασιν, ἔννοιαν λήψεται τοῦ τεχνίτου,---οὐ yap
ἄνευ τέχνης καὶ δημιουργοῦ νομιεῖ τὴν οἰκίαν ἀποτελεσθῆναι, τὸν
> A ‘ , ‘ 9: ἐὰν Φ' ‘ ‘A 4 A > , a
αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ πόλεως, καὶ νεὼς, Kat παντὸς ἐλάττονος ἢ

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. "7

is from the world and its parts and their powers
that we must derive our conception of its author.
For if a person should see a house, a city, a tem-
ple, or any other building, constructed with their
several parts harmonizing with each other, he would
form a conception of an artist. For he would sup-
pose that those things could not have been exe-
euted without skill and a builder. So also, when a
person has entered into this world, as into a very
great house or city, and has beheld the heaven re-
volving in a circle, and all things contained within
it; and the planets and fixed stars moving harmo-
niously, &c.—and moreover, living beings, mortal
and immortal, and different kinds of plants and
fruits; he will truly reason, that those things were not
formed without perfect art; but that God was and
is the disposer of this universe, They, who reason
thus, have a conception of God by means of his
shadow, forming a notion of the artist by means of
his works!”,
84 The plain meaning of this is, that the mind of
man in its natural state, represented by Beseleel,
is not able by its own strength to attain any idea

, , a 4 μὴ π , “ >
μείζονος κατασκευάσματος----οὕτω δὴ καὶ εἰσελθών τις ὥσπερ εἰς
μεγίστην οἰκίαν ἢ πόλιν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον, καὶ θεασάμενος οὐρανὸν
> ΄ - \ , > SY , i s
ἐν κύκλῳ περιπολοῦντα, καὶ πάντα ἐντὸς συνειληφότα, πλανήτας δὲ
καὶ ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως κινουμένους, ἐμμελῶς

4 > ld A ~ ‘ > , ~ ‘ A /

Te καὶ evappoviws, καὶ τῷ παντὶ ὠφελίμως, γῆν δὲ τὸν μεσαίτατον
΄- - a ΄
χῶρον λαχοῦσαν, ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος χύσεις ἐν μεθορίῳ τεταγμένας,
ἔτι δὲ ζῶα θνητά τε αὖ καὶ ἀθάνατα, καὶ φυτῶν καὶ καρπῶν διαφορὰς,

cal ~ -~ ,
λογιεῖται δήπου, ὅτι ταῦτα οὐκ ἄνευ τέχνης παντελοῦς δεδημιούργηται,
> a ἧς
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς δημιουργὸς ὁ θεός. Οἱ δὴ
2 » , ‘ - ‘ \ , ‘ ~
οὕτως ἐπιλογιζόμενοι, διὰ σκιᾶς τὸν θεὸν καταλαμβάνουσι, διὰ τῶν
ἔργων τὸν τεχνίτην κατανοοῦντες. ]

[8 33, Ρ. 79.]

[p. 15, § 28.]

78 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

of the Deity, but by contemplating those marks of
his attributes which he has impressed upon his
works, These exhibit an image and reflect a
shadow of the Supreme self-existent Being. But
the perfect and thoroughly-purified mind, repre-
sented by Moses, which is initiated into the great
mysteries, does not acquire its knowledge of the
author from the things that were made, of the per-
manent being from the shadow; but, rising above
what was made, receives a manifest representation
of him, so as to derive from himself a conception
of him and his shadow, which was, his Logos and
this world".

This process of the understanding in tracing out
the Deity through the sensible and intelligible
world is described in a similar manner in his Trea-
tise Περὶ Κοσμοποιίας. ‘The mind, having tra-
versed sea and land, and surveyed the several na-
tures, rises into the air, and examines its several
productions; whence it is carried higher into the
ether and the heavenly courses of the stars.
Thence, led by a love of wisdom, it is elevated

" 4 “ a
13 [Ἔστι δέ τις τελεώτερος καὶ μᾶλλον κεκαθαρμένος νοῦς, τὰ
, ΄
μεγάλα μυστήρια μυηθεὶς, ὅστις οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν γεγονότων τὸ αἴτιον
΄ « a ᾿ ῬΕ ΣῪ a” \ 4 IAN’ ς , A \
γνωρίζει, ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ σκιᾶς τὸ μένον. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερκύψας τὸ γεννητὸν,
ἔμφασιν ἐναργῆ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου λαμβάνει, ὡς ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ αὐτὸν κατα-
\ “ Μ-
λαμβάνειν, καὶ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ, ὅπερ ἦν, τόν τε λόγον καὶ τόνδε τὸν
κόσμον. |
Ἂν , , “
14 [Καὶ τέχναις καὶ ἐπιστήμαις πολυσχιδεῖς τε ἀνατέμνων ὁδοὺς,
\ Ὰ φ , soe? ὃ ἌΝ, πος κεν \ 6 ἊΝ ΄ 8 ΘΝ ἐξ ΄
καὶ λεωφόρους ἁπάσας, διὰ γῆς ἔρχεται καὶ θαλάττης, τὰ ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ
Ἂν, " Ν , A > Ν Ν A 27 ΑΥ 3!
φύσει διερευνώμενος. Καὶ πάλιν πτηνὸς ἀρθεὶς, καὶ τὸν ἀέρα Kal τὰ
’ , , > ¢ 2 A 5 , εἶ
τούτου παθήματα κατασκεψάμενος, ἀνωτέρω φέρεται πρὸς αἰθέρα καὶ
A “ἡ .
Tas οὐρανίους περιόδους. Πλανήτων τε καὶ ἀπλανῶν χορείαις συμ-
‘ ~ ΄
περιποληθεὶς κατὰ τοὺς τῆς μουσικῆς τελείους νόμους, ἑπόμενος ἔρωτι
, - ΄΄
σοφίας ποδηγετοῦντι, πᾶσαν τὴν αἰσθητὴν οὐσίαν ὑπερκύψας, ἐν-

Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. 79

above all sensible, and advances to the intelligible

85 essence ; and, having contemplated in it the patterns

and ideas of those sensible things which it saw here,
surpassing beauty, it is seized with a sober ebriety,
and grows frantic like the Corybantes, being filled
with a different and better desire and longing, by
which it is conducted to the very highest top of
the intelligibles, and seems to proceed to the great
king himself. But while it desires to see him, the
pure and unmixed splendors of heavenly light rush
forth asa torrent, so as to darken the eye of the

understanding with their brightness".”

Moreover, the Deity is said to be attended by
two shadows, which are also called powers (duva-
pes), De Abrahamo, p. 367. By means of these
there is a threefold representation of one subject.
Not that, properly speaking, there can be any
shadews of God; but the term is used in a figura-
tive sense to assist the illustration of the subject.
In the middle is the Father of all, who is called in
the Holy Scriptures the existent Being, and on
each hand are the oldest and nearest powers of the

ταῦθα ἐφίεται τῆς νοητῆς. καὶ ὧν εἶδεν ἐνταῦθα αἰσθητῶν, ἐν ἐκείνῃ
τὰ παραδείγματα καὶ τὰς ἰδέας θεασάμενος, ὑπερβάλλοντα κάλλη,
9 , ‘ a « “ > a
μέθῃ νηφαλίῳ κατασχεθεὶς, ὥσπερ of κορυβαντιῶντες, ἐνθουσιᾷ,
CY ‘ « , ‘ , , e ? bl ‘ \ ᾿,
ἑτέρου γεμισθεὶς ἱμέρου καὶ πόθου βελτίονος, ὑφ᾽ οὗ πρὸς τὴν ἄκραν
ἀψῖδα παραπεμφθεὶς τῶν νοητῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἰέναι δοκεῖ τὸν μέγαν
βασιλέα. Τλιχομένου δὲ ἰδεῖν, θείου φωτὸς ἄκρατοι καὶ ἀμιγεῖς αὐγαὶ
χειμάῤῥου τρόπον ἐκχέονται, ὡς ταῖς μαρμαρυγαῖς τὸ τῆς διανοίας
ὄμμα σκοτοδινιᾶν.
15 Plato in his Dialogue De Rep. Lib. v. p. 477. [c], gives this
8
definition of powers: Φήσομεν δυνάμεις εἶναι γένος τι ὄντων, αἷς δὴ
καὶ ἡμεῖς δυνάμεθα a δυνάμεθα----ῶἂπα knowledge he denominates
the most energetic of all powers : Πασῶν γε δυνάμεων ἐῤῥωμενε-
,
στάτην.

8ο Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

existent Being, which are denominated the creative
and the regal powers. The creative power is God;
for by this he founded and arranged the world.
The regal power is Lord; for that which made has
a just right to control and govern what is made.
Thus, being in the middle, and attended by each of
his powers, he presents an appearance sometimes of
one, sometimes of three: of one, to the completely
purified mind that can attain to the simple and
complete idea without any other aid; of three, to
the mind that cannot form a conception of exist-
ence from itself alone without something else, but
conceives of it from its actions either as creating
or as governing '®,

When the supreme Being is called the existent,
he is spoken of in an absolute sense, and by his
proper denomination (κυρίως) ; but when he is called
God, it is catachrestically: for those several powers,
which he exerted in the creation, express not the

16 [Μὴ μέντοι νομισάτω τις ἐπὶ θεοῦ τὰς σκιὰς κυριολογεῖσθαι"
κατάχρησις ὀνόματος αὐτὸ μόνον ἐστὶ, πρὸς ἐναργεστέραν ἔμφασιν
τοῦ δηλουμένου πράγματος. “Emel τό γε ἀληθὲς οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει"
ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν, ὡς ἄν τις τῆς ἀληθείας ἐγγύτατα ἱστάμενος εἴποι, πατὴρ
μὲν τῶν ὅλων ὁ μέσος, ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς κυρίῳ ὀνόματι
καλεῖται ὁ ἔν: αἱ δὲ παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα πρεσβύταται καὶ ἐγγύταται τοῦ
ὄντος δυνάμεις, ὧν ἡ μὲν ποιητικὴ, ἡ δὲ αὖ βασιλικὴ προσαγορεύεται.
Καὶ ἡ μὲν ποιητικὴ Θεός: ταύτῃ γὰρ ἔθηκέ τε καὶ διεκόσμησε τὸ
πᾶν. Ἢ δὲ βασιλικὴ κύριος: θέμις γὰρ ἄρχειν καὶ κρατεῖν τὸ
πεποιηκὸς τοῦ γενομένου. Δορυφορούμενος οὖν ὁ μέσος ὑφ᾽ ἑκατέρας
τῶν δυνάμεων παρέχει τῇ ὁρατικῇ διανοίᾳ τοτὲ μὲν ἑνὸς, τοτὲ δὲ
τριῶν φαντασίαν" ἑνὸς μὲν, ὅταν ἄκρως καθαρθεῖσα ἡ ψυχὴ; καὶ μὴ
μόνον τὰ πλήθη τῶν ἀριθμῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν γείτονα μονάδος δυάδα
ὑπερβᾶσα, πρὸς τὴν ἀμιγῆ καὶ ἀσύμπλοκον καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν οὐδενὸς
ἐπιδεᾶ τὸ παράπαν ἰδέαν ἐπείγηται" τριῶν δὲ, ὅταν μήπω τὰς μεγά-
λας τελεσθεῖσα τελετὰς, ἔτι ἐν ταῖς βραχυτέραις ὀργιάζηται, καὶ μὴ

Doctrines of PHILO JUDAUS. 81

principle of his existence, but his relations to other
things (ὡσανεὶ πρὸς τ. As, when his regal and
beneficent powers are spoken of, he must be a king
of some thing, and a benefactor of some thing;
that which is governed or benefited being alto-
gether distinct from it. Akin to these is also his
creative power, which is called God: for by this
power, the father, who begat and framed, establish-
ed all things, Περὲ τῶν Μετονομαζομένων, p. 1048.7
It may be proper to observe, that in the former
instances which I quoted, the image, or shadow of
87 God, is spoken of as one, as it referred to that
power of God which was delineated and shadowed
out in the creation of the world; but in the latter
quotations, there is also another shadow of him, as
governor and judge of that world which he created.
Those who have maintained from this and other
similar passages, that Philo had a knowledge of a
plurality of persons in the Godhead, have done it
principally to shew, that he had a more accurate

, La * oe, A > > “ , - > ‘ ‘
δύνηται τὸ ὃν ἄνευ ἑτέρου τινὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ μόνου καταλαβεῖν, ἀλλὰ διὰ
~ Ral ΔΨ
τῶν δρωμένων, ἢ κτίζον ἢ ἄρχον.
17 [Ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνο προσῆκεν ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι τὸ ἐγώ εἰμι
a =
θεὸς σὸς λέγεται καταχρηστικῶς ov κυρίως. Τὸ yap ὃν, 7 ὄν ἐστιν,
οὐχὶ τῶν πρός τι' αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ πλῆρες, καὶ αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ ἱκανὸν,
καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, καὶ μετὰ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἐν
ts , ”, \ x > , - «-.4 ‘ ,
ὁμοίῳ. Ἄτρεπτον yap kat ἀμετάβλητον, χρῇζον ἑτέρου τὸ παράπαν
a =
οὐδενὸς, ὥστε αὐτοῦ μὲν εἶναι τὰ πάντα, μηδενὸς δὲ κυρίως αὐτό.
Ὡς a -*

Τῶν δὲ δυνάμεων, as ἔτεινεν εἰς γένεσιν en’ εὐεργεσίᾳ τοῦ συστα-
ΜῈ far , id c Ἁ , 4 ‘ A
θέντος, ἐνίας συμβέβηκε λέγεσθαι ὡσανεὶ πρός TL, THY βασιλικὴν, τὴν
εὐεργετικήν: βασιλεὺς γάρ τινος καὶ εὐεργέτης τινὸς, ἑτέρου πάντως
βασιλευομένου καὶ evepyeroupevov. Τούτων συγγενής ἐστι καὶ ἡ
ποιητικὴ δύναμις, ἡ καλουμένη θεός: διὰ γὰρ ταύτης τῆς δυνάμεως

, td
ἔθηκε τὰ πάντα ὁ γεννήσας καὶ τεχνιτεύσας πατὴρ, ὥστε τὸ “ἐγώ
εἰ θεὸ . »» διε CONT Oe ‘ ὶ ὃ ΄ς."
μι θεὸς ads” ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ “ἐγώ εἶμι ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργύς.

82 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS.

knowledge of the divine nature than he could be
supposed to have had, if he had conceived it to
have been in all respects a simple monad, as much
one in personality as in essence. Whereas Philo
says, that the terms are catachrestically used which
represent him under the appearance of three, as
the existent'’® Being attended on either hand by
those two of his powers which were first exerted,
and are most closely and intimately connected with ©

his essence, viz. first, his power of creation, and 88
secondly, his power of governing that which he had
created.

This mode of expression and illustration was
adopted, he said, in order to aid the conceptions
of imperfect minds, which are unable to compre-
hend the simplicity of one self-existent, independent
being, and by arguing a priori to perceive how |
from this pure essence as from their proper foun- ἡ
tain, proceed the powers of creation and govern- |
ment, and the several objects upon which those
powers are to be employed. Finite intelligences,
which cannot thus contemplate him at once in his.
essence, are obliged as it were to divide him, and
view him in detached parts in his acts, but chiefly

18 Origen in his first Homily on Isaiah, viz. on chapter vi.,
seems to have derived his ideas from hence, when he is ex-
plaining the vision of the Lord sitting upon a throne high and
lifted up, surrounded by Seraphim. The passage is thus ren-
dered by his translator: Si video eum regnantem ccelestibus
virtutibus, video eum sedentem super thronum excelsum et
elevatum, Quid est, quod dicit, Coelestibus virtutibus ἢ Throni,
dominationes, principatus, potestates, virtutes ccelestes sunt.—
Que sunt ista duo Seraphim? Dominus meus Jesus et Spiritus
Sanctus. Testimonium enim dat Scriptura, quia ejus mundan-

Doctrines of PHILO JUDZUS. 83

in those acts of his which are prior in time to all
others, most immediately arise out of his essence,
and extend to all created beings, viz. his acts of
creation and government. Thus arguing ὦ poste-
γἱογὶ they ascend to the summit of intelligibles,
and there contemplate images of the power and
goodness of the first cause impressed upon his
works, and catch as it were a shadow of him who
cannot be contemplated in his essence.
These powers are called (Περὶ Χερουβὶμ, p. 112)
his goodness and authority or sovereign power, and
are denominated the two highest and first powers
belonging to the one truly existing God. By his
89 goodness he created the universe, and by his sove-
reign authority he governs what he created. Be-
tween both these is his λόγος, which is expressed
by the symbol of the flaming sword. This con-
nects them together; for it is by his λόγος that
God is governor and good. This preceded all
things, and was meditated before all things, and is
conspicuous in all things'!®. Here λόγος is the plan,
the design, by which (to speak after the manner of
men) God acted in the creation and government of
the world. The unity of design in both so con-
nects his goodness and authority, that there are
tur labia ab uno ex seraphim, qui missus est ad auferenda ejus
peccata. Unus autem ex seraphim Dominus meus Jesus Chris-
tus est, qui ad auferenda peccata nostra a patre missus est.

19 Tp, 113. Ἔλεγε δέ μοι, κατὰ τὸν ἕνα ὄντως ὄντα θεὸν δύο τὰς
ἀνωτάτω εἶναι καὶ πρώτας δυνάμεις, ἀγαθότητα καὶ ἐξουσίαν. Καὶ
ἀγαθότητι μὲν τὸ πᾶν γεγεννηκέναι, ἐξουσίᾳ δὲ τοῦ γεννηθέντος ἄρχειν.
Τρίτον δὲ συναγωγὸν ἀμφοῖν μέσον εἶναι λόγον: λόγῳ γὰρ καὶ
ἄρχοντα καὶ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸν θεόν. αὐτὸ πάντα φθάσαν παρημεί-
ψατο, καὶ πρὸ πάντων νοούμενον καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι φαινόμενον].

MORGAN E

84 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. bs

manifest indications of each in the acts of the
other.

When the general design of the universe, form-
ed by the existent Being, is spoken of, it is called
λόγος. His several designs of the separate parts,
though included in the general design, are cailed
plurally λόγοι, and are said to be sent, as well as

Περὶ τῦ {π6 singular: τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ λόγους ἐπικουρίας ἕνεκα

5 ΄ ΄ > ,
Tien Sys τῶν φιλαρέτων ἀποστέλλει. By these powers was

σεως διαλεκ-

σαν pss formed the incorporeal and intelligible world, the
archetype of this which appears, being composed
of invisible ideas, as this is of visible bodies.

Περὶ τοῦ The supreme Being is perpetually said to be
ὅτι ἄτρεπτον

το ΩΝ surrounded by these powers, as guards of state and 90
p. 309, § 24.

attending ministers, δορυφορουμένῳ πρὸς τῶν δυνά-
μεων.

Not to mention that Isocrates uses the same
expression to signify a person’s being guarded by
the good-will of the citizens (τῇ τῶν πολίτων εὐνοίᾳ

περὶ κοσμος δορυφορούμενος); Philo uses it to express the human
mind’s being attended by the senses, whose busi-
ness it is to furnish it with notices of colours,
Περὶ ovyys sounds, tastes, and smells. Again, wealth, glory,
pr epi τοῦ and honours, are said to be the attendant ministers
Pies. (δορυφόροι) of the body, the senses those of the
Περὶ ovyx- soul. Again, reasons are said to be the attendants
p. 828, and guards of the soul of the wise: δορυφόροι καὶ
ὑπέρμαχοι ψυχῆς. And sacred and holy reasonings
and words are called the garrison and sentinels of
Ρ. 824. the soul: ἱεροὺς καὶ ὁσίους λόγους αὐτῆς φρουροὺς i
καὶ φύλακας ὄντας.

These powers of the one existent Being, and

Doctrines of PHILO JUDZAUS. 85

the external expressions of them, his words and
actions, are said to be spoken of in the Scriptures
under the emblems of angels. Thus, when young
and old in Sodom are stated to have combined
against the angels, the spiritual doctrine contained
under that narrative is that there was a general
disposition to wickedness; and that young and old,
with one accord, as if they had bound themselves
gi together by an oath, set themselves in opposition
to the divine words and actions, which it is cus-
ΟΠ tomary to call angels: Πᾶς δ᾽, ὡς φησιν, ὁ λαὸς
ra περιεκύκλωσαν ἅμα τὴν οἰκίαν, νέοι τε καὶ πρεσβῦται,
κατὰ τῶν θείων ἔργων καὶ λόγων συνομοσάμενοι, οὗς
καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους. Again, ἀθανάτοις λόγοις, ous
καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους.

One of the passages produced to prove the
personality of the λόγος, according to Philo, is that
wherein he says that the angel who met Hagar,
when she fled from the face of Sarah, and brought
her back, was the divine λόγος. But who or what,
according to the same interpretation, was Hagar,
and Sarah from whom she fled? By Hagar is
meant human discipline and the circle of the arts
and sciences, who departed from her mistress, Sa-
rah, the emblem of virtue, and was brought back
by the angel, who is the divine λόγος 9 (ὅς ἐστι
ιθεῖος λόγος), which he elsewhere calls! right reason

20 \ , , \ a > , ΄ ἘΝ
20 Τὴν μέσην παιδείαν τὴν τοῖς ἐγκυκλίοις χορεύουσαν ὁρῶμεν
΄- ΄- , ΄- va S
Ἄγαρ, δὶς μὲν ἐξιοῦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχούσης ἀρετῆς Sappas, [ἅπαξ de
7 4 ΄“ ,
τὴν προτερὰν ὁδὸν ὑποστρέφουσαν. ἣ τότε μὲν ἀποδρᾶσα) κατάγεται,
ὑπαντήσαντος ἀγγέλου, ὅς ἐστι θεῖος λόγος.
21 Τ , ‘ > 06 ε a χὰ , BH 4

ροστησάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον, πρωτόγονον υἱόν.

| E2

[p. 3241

Περὶ τοῦ
θεοπέμπτ.
p. 583.

Περὶ Χερουβ.
p. 108.

86 Doctrines of PHILO JUDEUS. |

(ὀρθὸς λόγος). Hagar fled to avoid the austere and
gloomy life of the virtuous”. Afterwards Hagar 99 |
and her son Ishmael, who signifies the sophist,
were driven out by Abraham, an emblem of the
wise man, at the instigation of Sarah, perfect
virtue or wisdom.

In like manner Philo says (p. 114) that the
angel, who stood armed to oppose Balaam, was the
λόγος of God. But in order to understand the
true meaning of the assertion, it is requisite to
consider who or what Balaam was, who is said to
have been thus opposed. Balaam, says Philo, sig-
nifies a foolish people (μάταιον λαόν) who ride in
pursuit of gain upon an ass, which signifies hus-
bandry, merchandize, or any other lucrative em-
ployment. When he finds that these stop in their
course, and do not carry him to the object at which
he aims, he wishes for a sword, that is, a power of
reasons and words, to chastise them for the failure.
But those things, though destitute of the organs of
speech, utter a language more distinct than that of
any tongue, and point out to him an angel, that is,
the word of God, standing armed with divine ven-
geance to oppose his progress.

It is manifest that, in these instances, θεῖος
λόγος and Θεοῦ λόγος, are no more persons, because

Περὶ Τεωργίας Νῶε, p. 195. Οἷς ἂν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος ὑποβάλλῃ
πεισθησόμενον, τ. ε. λογισμὸν, ὥσπερ τινὰ δικαστὴν ἀδωροδόκητον.
Περὶ τοῦ ὅτι ἄτρεπτ. p. 801. Ὃ θεῖος λόγος----ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος.
Περὶ τοῦ Θεοπέμπτ. p. 583. ‘O τῆς φύσεως ὀρθὸς λόγος, ὃς
κυριωτέρᾳ κλήσει προσονομάζεται, θεσμὸς, νόμος θεῖος ὧν, καθ᾽ ὃν
[τὰ προσήκοντα καὶ ἐπιβάλλοντα ἑκάστοις ἀπενεμήθη.}1 Περὶ Κο- |
σμοπ. p. 33. |

Doctrines of PHILO JUDAEUS. 87

they are represented by the emblems of angels,

93 than merchandise or agriculture is an animal, be-
cause they are supposed to be represented by the
ass.

In the same spirit of emblematizing he says,
that by Eye is meant the senses. It would be
too tedious to discuss the several moral and reli-
gious doctrines, supposed to be conveyed under
the characters of Cain, Jacob, Laban, his daugh-
ters, his cattle, &c. p.119: the ark and the ani-
mals contained in it, p. 186: Joseph, his wife, and
father-in-law, p.577: Rebecca, p. 379: Leah, and in
short all the persons and places mentioned in the
Pentateuch. The specimens already given are suf-
ficient to shew that they are emblematic and
figurative. Now it is well known that the per-
sonality of an emblem by no means proves the per-
sonality of the thing signified by that emblem,
which is some quality, virtue, or duty, as the gene-
ral result of the whole story is some moral or
religious doctrine, which is inculeated under the
form of a narrative.

In the same figurative language the Lord’s host
signifies the several virtues*4; and the leader of
the Lord’s host, that divine order and harmony
displayed in the arrangement of the universe, from
which men derive the principles of virtue and

22 Ἄγαρ, ἡ μέση Kal ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία, κἂν τὸν αὐστηρὸν Kal
σκυθρωπὸν τῶν φιλαρέτων ἀποδρᾶναι βίον σπουδάσῃ. p. 109.

38 Προσηγορικῶς μὲν γυναῖκα, ὀνομαστικῶς δὲ Εὔαν, αἰνιττόμενος
αἴσθησιν. Περὶ Χερουβίμ, p. 118.

24 Στρατὸς δὲ θεῖος αἱ ἀρεταὶ, φιλοθέων ὑπέρμαχοι ψυχῶν.
Ῥ. 198.

Ῥ. 48.

88 Doctrines of PHILO JUDREUS.

wisdom. It is also called the first-born λόγος, the gq |

eldest angel, being as it were the archangel with
many names: The sensible world is called the
younger son of God, and the intelligible world
is called the elder son. In the passage, “The
horse and the rider hath he thrown into the sea,”
the rider, he says, is the mind, and the horse
the passions®. And when the lawgiver forbids
the use of horses in war, he says, he does not !
speak of real cavalry, which is necessary for both
offence and defence, but of the irrational and un-
restrained and ungovernable motions of the soul 35,
Virtue in general is expressed by paradise, and
the several virtues by the trees planted in it.

The divine λόγος is said to be the cement,
the bond of union, by which the several parts of
the universe are kept together?”. But the same
properties are likewise ascribed to the order and
plan according to which the universe was con-
structed”,

Mosheim supposes that Philo (De Abrahamo,
Ῥ. 367) alludes to some among the Jews who as-
serted the doctrines of three natures in God.
Whereas in the passage alluded to Philo appears
most evidently to me to be speaking of those
who are not, as he figuratively expresses it, initi-
ated into the great mysteries, and who are not

25 Τετράπουν καὶ σκιρτητικὸν καὶ ὑπέραυχον---παθῶν τε καὶ
κακιῶν ἀλκιμώτατον στῖφος----πρὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐπιβάτης αὐτῶν νοῦς,
Ῥ. 199.

26 Ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν ἀλόγου καὶ ἀμέτρου καὶ ἀπείθους

φορᾶς, p. 200.

Doctrines of PHILO JUDZAUS. 89

able to contemplate the existent Being in his simple
state, without something else to aid their concep-
tions. They are therefore obliged to have recourse
to his acts, and to consider him as creating or
governing, when they endeavour to form a notion
of him. Indeed the notion, which is formed in
this circuitous manner, partakes of a pious opi-
nion; but that which results from a direct view,
does not partake of, but is, a pious opinion, or
rather, surpasses opinion and is the truth itself.
This is the language in which he generally speaks
of the popular and the sublime theology, as distinct
from each other in degree rather than in kind.

27 Λόγῳ σφίγγεται θείῳ: κόλλα yap ἐστι καὶ δεσμὸς οὗτος,
Ρ. 507.

, ~ ~ Φ , ~ ,
28 Παγκάλῳ τῷ τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμῷ κέχρηται, p. 14. Takis δ᾽
> ΄
ἀκολουθία καὶ cipuds ἐστι προηγουμένων τινων και ἑπομένων.

THE
FATHERS of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

᾿Ἐγέννησε τοίνυν αὐτὸν οὐχ οὕτως, ὡς ἄν τις νοήσειεν ἀνθρώπων,
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς οἶδεν αὐτὸς μόνος. οὐ γὰρ τὸ, πῶς ἐγέννησεν, εἰπεῖν ἐπαγ-
γελλόμεθα, ἀλλὰ τὸ, οὐχ οὕτως διαβεβαιούμεθα: καὶ οὐχ ἡμεῖς
ἀγνοοῦμεν μόνον τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννησὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσα
γεννήτη φύσις.----ΟΥ71}. Catech. χτ. p. 96.

HOTIUS informs us that from Philo was

derived the allegorical method of interpreting
Scripture, which prevailed in the primitive Church.
This arose from very natural causes.

First, they who have been favoured with a
divine revelation, and have by grace availed them-
selves of it, enjoy a great and manifest advan-
tage over those who are left in a great measure to
the exertions of their own minds, and are obliged
to trace out the invisible things of God by intri-
cate reasonings and deductions from the things,
which do appear in the constitution and govern-
ment of the world. What even learned men
among the latter do hardly guess and with labour
find out, is plain and obvious to the meanest
and most uncultivated understandings among the
former.

Yet this advantage, great as it really is, has
not always been sufficient to satisfy the pretensions
of those who have been blessed with a divine reve-
lation. Not contented with the bright sunshine
which blazes around them, they will scarcely allow

The Fathers of the Christian Church. gt

the benighted heathen the dim taper of human
reason to guide their steps in their laborious travels
over the dark mountains. Whatever the Apostle
Paul may have said in his various expostulations
with the Gentiles, and particularly in his Epistle to
the Romans, there are some far wiser, in their own
conceit, than seven men that can render a reason,
who boldly maintain, that whatever glimmerings of
light the Pagans of old have been able to strike
out by mere dint of labour and study, have been
all either directly or circuitously derived from the
sacred writings!

Traces of this opinion are to be found in some
degree in the works of ancient authors, both Jewish
and Christian, though it did not shoot up to the
extravagant height to which some have carried it
in later days. I should depart from the tenor of
my subject, if I did more than barely mention the
well-known example of Josephus among the former.

98 Among the latter, the instances are numerous. As
I proceed with my work, I shall, in confirmation of
what I have here advanced, produce some strong
and pointed passages from Justin Martyr and Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, both of them writers of the
second century,

To Christians who had embraced these senti-
ments, the writings of Philo must have been an
invaluable treasure. The manner in which he has
applied the principles of Plato to illustrate the Mo-
saical account of the Creation and other parts of

1 Ἐξ οὗ (Φίλωνος) οἶμαι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀλληγορικὸς τῆς γραφῆς ἐν
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ λόγος ἔσχεν ἀρχὴν εἰσρυῆναι. Photius, p. 96.
E5

92 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

the Old Testament, was admirably calculated to
flatter their prejudices, and furnished them with |
specious arguments in support of the opinion which
they so strenuously maintained.

Secondly, many were converted to the Christian
religion who had previously made considerable pro-
gress in the Platonic or? Eclectic Philosophy, and
retained many of their former prejudices. Others
were struck with the great respect that was paid to.
philosophy, and with the superior skill which its 99
professors displayed in the arts of controversy. On
this account they frequented the schools of Alex-
andria, in which masters of profound learning and
great celebrity explained and inculeated, with be-
witching eloquence, the speculations of the sages
of ancient Greece.

These men, having the sacred volumes in one
hand and the writings of Plato in the other, if they
believed them both to be true, must have thought
the principles and doctrines of each consistent with
those of the other: for it is impossible that one
truth should be opposite to, or at variance with,
another. To these men, therefore, the writings of
Philo must have been as acceptable as to those

2 The following is a description which Clemens Alexandri-
nus gives of the Eclectic philosophy. “By philosophy I mean
neither the Stoic, nor the Platonic, nor the Epicurean and
Aristotelean. But whatever things have been properly said by
each of those sects, inculcating justice and devout knowledge,
this whole selection I call philosophy.” Φιλοσοφίαν δὲ, οὐ τὴν
Στωϊκὴν λέγω, οὐδὲ τὴν Πλατωνικὴν, ἢ τὴν ᾿Επικούρειόν τε καὶ ‘Apt-
στοτελικὴν: ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα εἴρηται παρ᾽ ἑκάστῃ τῶν αἱρέσεων τούτων κα-
λῶς, δικαιοσύνην per εὐσεβοῦς ἐπιστήμης ἐκδιδάσκοντα, τοῦτο
σύμπαν τὸ ἐκλεκτικὸν φιλοσοφίαν φημὶ. Stromm. Lib. 1. p. 288.

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 93

whom I mentioned before; and indeed, for the
same reason, namely, for his having so industriously
and speciously marked out a seeming conformity
between two works, if I may so eall them, both of
which they so highly reverenced.

The writings of Philo came the more strongly
recommended to these men, because the method
of interpretation, which he has adopted, may be as
commodiously applied by Christians to reconcile

1oothe principles of Plato and the doctrines of the
Gospel, as it was by Philo to explain the contents
of the Old Testament by the same principles,

First, there are to be found in the writings of
many of the fathers of the Christian Church eyvi-
dent traces of the opinion, that the heathens de-
rived all the principles of their knowledge from the
sacred Scriptures; and even that the wildest stories
of their mythology originated from the same source.
Thus, in the Address to the Greeks*, attributed to
Justin Martyr, the author boldly asserts, that Or- ν τὸ τὲ is
pheus, and Homer, and Solon, the legislator of the “ οἴ.
Athenians, and Pythagoras, and Plato, and some
others, received great assistance from the writings
of Moses, ἐκ τῆς Μωυσέως ἱστορίας ὠφεληθέντες.
He affirms, that hence they derived the knowledge

But though the followers of the Eclectic philosophy professed
to select the truth from the doctrines of the several sects; yet
the authority of Plato, in their estimation, far surpassed that of
any other, and the bulk of their tenets concerning God and the
human soul was composed of his doctrines.

3 Though there is reason to doubt whether this address
was really the work of Justin, it serves to shew, in conjunction
with the other quotations, that this opinion prevailed among
the early Christians.

94 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

of the unity of God, and some of the mysteries of
ee the divine nature. He maintained, that Plato, in
the beginning of the Timeus, in describing the
principle of existence, obscurely alluded to the ap-
pellation which the supreme Being assumed to him-
self in the book of Genesis; but that he varied the
form of expression, in order to evade the censure
oe of the court of Areopagus: that when he speaks _
of an ancient account, he means the law of Moses?: 101
that when he mentions men beloved of God, he
thinks of Moses and the other prophets, from whose
writings he learned the doctrine of a future judg-
ment®: that when he made εἶδος, ‘specific form,’ the
third principle after God and matter, he was led to
the use of the expression by a passage in the writ-
ings of Moses, which, for the want of an enlight-
ened instructor, he did not correctly understand :
Exod. χχν. 40. Took, that thou make them after the pattern
which was shewed thee in the Mount.” And again,
« According to all that I shew thee, after the pat-
tern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the
instruments, even so shall ye make it®” Plato,
says he, having met with these passages, supposed
that some separate specific form existed, before

4 ᾿Ἐνταῦθα 6 Πλάτων σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς τὸν παλαιὸν λόγον
Μωῦσέως ὀνομάζει νόμον, τοῦ μὲν ὀνόματος Maicéws, φόβῳ τοῦ
I Po le iH > t
΄ ,
κωνείου, μεμνῆσθαι δεδίως. p. 24 [8].
v πε a >
5 Ἄνδρας δὲ τίνας ἑτέρους τῷ Θεῷ φίλους εἶναι νομίζει, εἰ μὴ
Μωῦσέα καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς προφήτας ; ὧν ταῖς προφητείαις ἐντυχὼν,
καὶ τὸν περὶ κρίσεως παρ᾽ αὐτῶν μεμαθηκὼς λόγον, ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς
[p. 330 1, Πολιτείας λόγῳ οὕτω προαναφωνεῖ, p. 24 [E].
901 A.] 6 , Y A A A ‘ ‘ \ σ' A 53 δ' > A
Πλάτων δὲ μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὴν ὕλην τὸ εἶδος τρίτην ἀρχὴν
> ΄ -
εἶναι λέγων, καὶ [οὐκ 1, Otto] ἀλλόθεν πόθεν ἀλλὰ παρὰ Μωῦσέως
\ , >) \ , A A ~ a ay, > A ΄“΄
τὴν πρόφασιν εἰληφὼς φαίνεται, τὸ μὲν τοῦ εἴδους ὄνομα ἀπὸ τῶν

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 95

what is the object of the senses; which form he
also often calls the pattern of the things that were
1ozmade’. He then proceeds to point out the mis-
~ takes into which Plato fell in reading the Mosaical
account of the Creation, and the manner in which
he was led by those mistakes to imagine an intelli-
gible world, and other opinions that appear in the
Timeus. It is unnecessary to give a minute detail

of these things, and of the allusion which, in the
second Apology for Christians, Justin states the τέρας τε
Philosopher to make to the shape of the cross, the
knowledge of which he is supposed to have obtained

from the story of the brazen serpent in the history

of Moses.

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew he asserts, p. 39:10]
that the devil formed many of the mythological
stories of the Greeks in imitation of the several
circumstances foretold of Jesus Christ; in the
same manner as the magicians of Egypt imitated
the miracles that were performed by Moses. One
instance of this is Bacchus, the son of Jupiter, who,
having been torn to pieces, after his death rose
again and ascended into heaven; whose mysteries
also are celebrated with wine. Another instance is
Jsculapius, who is represented as curing diseases
Moicéws μεμαθηκὼς ῥητῶν, ov διδαχθεὶς δὲ τηνικαῦτα παρὰ τῶν
εἰδότων ὅτι οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς μυστικῆς θεωρίας τῶν ἀπὸ Maicéws εἰρη-
μένων σαφῶς γιγνώσκειν ἐστὶ δυνατόν. Τέγραφε γὰρ Μωῦσῆς ὡς
τοῦ Θεοῦ περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰρηκότος οὕτως, κιτιλ. Pp. 28,

[p. ᾧ 29. p. 98.]

7 , > > \ ε λ , \ > 4 “ ,
Τούτοις οὖν ἐντυχὼν ὁ Πλάτων καὶ ov μετὰ τὴς προσηκουσὴς

, , BS , ςε \ 27 3 ‘
θεωρίας δεξάμενος τὰ γεγραμμένα ῥητὰ, φήθη εἶδος τι χωριστὸν

” / - a , ΄- ’, ,
προὐπάρχειν τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ" ὃ καὶ παράδειγμα τῶν γενομένων ὀνομά-
ζει πολλάκις. p. 29 [A].

οὔ The Fathers of the Christian Church.

[Apetog 1. ©. and raising the dead. Again, we hear of Perseus,

ἜΝ 1 was born - a virgin. Again, when the Per-103 —
sians say that Mithras was born of a rock, they are
supposed to have taken the idea from the book of
the prophet Daniel,where the kingdom of God is pre-
figured by a stone cut out of a rock without hands.

p. 46. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his 4dmonition to the
Gentiles, expostulates with Plato, and asks him
whence arose his conjecture about truth and genu-.
ine piety. I know your teachers, says he, though
you may wish to conceal them. You are indebted
to the Hebrews for such of your laws as are true,
and for your opinion of God*. To the same origin
he refers the knowledge which Xenophon had at-
tained of the Supreme Being ®.

In the first book of his Stromata he gives an
instance of a law which, he says, Plato borrowed
from the Hebrews; wherein he orders every one
to abstain from the water of his neighbour, till he
has tried every method, without success, of pro-

Sx teet Curing water in his own possessions’ In page
8 Πόθεν, ὦ Πλάτων, ἀλήθειαν αἰνίττῃ ; πόθεν ἡ τῶν λόγων ἄφ-
θονος χορηγία τὴν θεοσέβειαν μαντεύεται ;----οἷδά σου τοὺς διδα-
σκάλους, κἂν ἀποκρύπτειν ἐθέλῃς----ὡνόμους, ὅσοι ἀληθεῖς, καὶ δόξαν
τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὠφέλησαι τῶν Ἑβραίων: [p. 60. ed. Pott.
§ 70.]

9 Πόθεν ἄρα 6 τοῦ Τρύλλου σοφίζεται ; ἢ δηλαδὴ παρὰ τῆς προ-
φήτιδος τῆς Ἑβραίων θεσπιζούσης ὧδε mas; (Ibid. § 71.]

10 Ἔν γοῦν τοῖς Νόμοις ὁ ἐξ Ἑ βραίων φιλόσοφος Πλάτων
κελεύει τοὺς γεωργοὺς μὴ ἐπαρδεῦσαι μήδε λαμβάνειν ὕδωρ παρ᾽
ἑτέρων, ἐὰν μὴ πρότερον ὀρύξαντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἄχρι της παρθενίου
καλουμένης, ἄνυδρον εὕρωσι τὴν γῆν: p. 274. [p. 321. ed. Potter.]

11 Φιλοσοφία δὲ οὐκ ἀπεστάλη ὑπὸ Κυρίου: ἀλλ᾽ ἦλθε, φησὶ,
κλαπεῖσα, ἢ παρὰ κλέπτου δοθεῖσα" εἴτ᾽ οὗν δύναμις ἢ ἄγγελος μαθών
τι τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ μὴ καταμείνας ἐν αὐτῇ, ταῦτα ἐνέπνευσε καὶ

᾿“΄.

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 97

104304, he says that Numa was a Pythagorean ; but
that it was in consequence of what he learned from
Moses, that he prohibited the Romans from making
an image of God. In page 309 is quoted, from [svi p. 366.
the Gospel of St John, the saying of our Saviour, [s.Jonnx. 81
that all before him were thieves and robbers. This
some men applied to the philosophers, to whom
the! arch-apostate surreptitiously communicated
detached portions of divine wisdom. Yet, says
Clemens, this philosophy, stolen as it were by Pro-
metheus, retained a little fire emitting some useful
light, a faint resemblance of divine wisdom. The
Grecian philosophers, who lived before the coming
of our Lord, may indeed be called thieves and
robbers, for having, without acknowledging it, taken
portions of truth from the Hebrew prophets, and
appropriating them, as if they were their own doc-
trines'. He produces the authority of Aristo-
bulus to prove that Plato was guided by the law of

to5the Jews". He quotes the following passage from
Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher: What is
Plato but Moses speaking the Attic language '?
κλέψας ἐδίδαξεν. p. 310. [ὁ 17, p. 366.]

12 Ἐστὶν οὖν κἂν φιλοσοφίᾳ τῇ κλαπείσῃ, καθάπερ ὑπὸ Προ-
μηθέως, πῦρ ὀλίγον εἰς φῶς ἐπιτήδειον χρησίμως ζωπυρούμενον,
ἴχνος τι σοφίας καὶ κίνησις παρὰ Θεοῦ: ταῦτα δ᾽ ἂν εἶεν κλέπται
καὶ λῃσταὶ οἱ map Ἕλλησι φιλόσοφοι, καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου
παρουσίας παρὰ τῶν Ἑ βραϊκῶν προφητῶν μέρη τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ
κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν λαβόντες, GAN ὡς ἴδια σφετερισάμενοι δόγματα.
p. 312. [§ 17, p. 369.]

18 Κατηκολούθηκε δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ, καὶ
φανερός ἐστι περιεργασάμενος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λεγομένων, p. 342,
[p. 411.]

14 Ti γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων, ἢ Μωῦσῆς ἀττικίζων; Ὁ. 342, [$ 22,
p. 411.]

98 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

That Plato was assisted by the writings of Moses,
when he composed his treatise on Laws, is again

zp 619 asserted (p. 349). In the second book (p. 367) he
says, that the fable of Minos associating with Jupi-
ter was invented by some who had heard that God
had conversed with Moses, as a man converses with
his friend.

[ὲ
[§

I will not stop to remark the many conformi-
ties and resemblances which he has pointed out.
in the moral injunctions and observations of the
Gentile philosophers and the inspired writers, par-
ticularly in the fourth book of his Stromata. Nor

tp.642] will I dwell upon what he says at the end of that
book, that the Hyperborean and Arimaspian cities,
the Elysian fields, and the Republic of Plato, are
images (εἰκόνας) of the church, the heavenly Jeru-

fsxi.p.638.] salem. In the fifth book, p. 580, after mentioning
some doctrines of Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato,
he affirms that they were derived from Moses. In

[

Lo}

70.) the 592d and the following pages, he enumerates
many doctrines in confirmation of the same posi-
[705.1 tion concerning Plato. In p. 595, he alleges the
authority of Aristobulus, that the Peripatetic phi-
losophy was taken from the law of Moses. I shall 106 |
conclude this topic with the following passage:
[p. 707.] Kal τὸ σύνολον, Πυθαγόρας καὶ Σωκράτης καὶ Πλα-
των λέγοντες ἀκούειν φωνῆς Θεοῦ, τὴν κατασκευὴν

τῶν ὅλων θεωροῦντες ἀκριβῶς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ γεγονυῖαν

15 ἸΙαρὰ Μωῦσέως τοιαῦτα φιλοσοφήσαντες οἱ τῶν “Ἑλλήνων
ἄκροι.

16 Avo δὲ παρειλήφαμεν Ἱζέλσους γεγονέναι ᾿Επικουρείους" τὸν
μὲν πρότερον κατὰ Νέρωνα: τοῦτον δὲ κατὰ Ἁδριανὸν καὶ κατωτέρω.

δ 2

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 99

kal συνεχομένην ἀδιαλείπτως" ἀκηκόασι yap τοῦ Μωὺῦ-
σέως λέγοντος, Εἶπε καὶ ἐγένετο.

Secondly, these sentiments naturally led those
who entertained them to regard with a favourable
disposition the writings of Philo, in which the plan
is laboriously pursued of reconciling Divine Reve-
lation and Pagan philosophy, and of expounding
Scripture history upon heathen principles.

Origen, in the beginning of his treatise against
Celsus, being desirous of giving his readers some
idea of the qualities of his antagonist, and of the
time in which he lived, says, We are told that
there were two men, Epicureans, of the name of
Celsus; the first in the time of Nero, but this in
the time of Adrian and later'®& Now, whatever
practices Celsus really observed and objected to in
the Christians, may fairly be presumed to have
been of some duration and extent in his time;
particularly if the charges were avowed and de-
fended by the Apologist. One of the things,
which Origen states him to impute to the Chris-
107 tians is, that they, in conjunction with the Jews,

adopted allegorical explanations of the transac-

tions recorded in the Books of Moses", Origen
supposes that Celsus referred to the works of

Philo, and of some still more ancient, such as

Aristobulus; and concludes, that he had never

read those works himself, but had only heard that

there were writings which contained allegorical

Lib. I. p. 8.
Ὁ" - »
17 Φησὶν, ὅτι καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν οἱ ἐπιεικέστεροι

ταῦτ᾽ ἀλληγοροῦσι. Lib. iv. p. 196.

100 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

explanations of the law; otherwise he would not
have spoken in so contemptuous a manner of ΟΣ
valuable compositions 18.

These instances seem to me to prove that the
writings of Philo, and the allegorical mode of inter-
pretation adopted by him, were in high estimation
among Christians very early in the second century
at the latest. The works of the Fathers of the
Church in that age, particularly among the Greeks,
abound in imitations, allusions, and direct refer-
ences to him.

[δ νι, 333. Clemens Alexandrinus, (Strom. Lib. i. p. 284.) 108

ed. Potter.]

discoursing about heavenly wisdom and philosophy,
undertakes to confirm his reasonings by the tes-
timony of Scripture. For this purpose he intro-
duces the allegorical interpretation of Abraham,
Sarah, and Agar, which interpretation he sup-
ports by the authority of Philo, and then pursues
the same train of thought through Rebecca, Jacob,
e Φ . ᾿

Lib. i. cap. 5, . c S
Hees and Thamar. In like manner in his Παιδαγωγός
he allegorizes the characters and story of Isaac,
Rebecca, and Abimelech. In the same style he
interprets the command of Moses to abstain from
the flesh of swine, the eagle, &c. which he makes
to signify a prohibition from voluptuousness and
[δ viii. p. 67] rapacity (Strom. Lib. v. p. 571). Thus also he ex-
(iid. p. 678] plains (p. 572) Joseph in his coat of many colours
18 Δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ ἀκηκοέναι, ὅτι ἐστὶ συγγράμματα περιέχοντα
τὰς τοῦ νόμου ἀλληγορίας: ἅπερ εἰ ἀνεγνώκει, οὐκ ἂν ἔλεγεν, αἱ
γοῦν δοκοῦσαι περὶ αὐτῶν ἀλληγορίαι γεγράφθαι, πόλυ τῶν μύθων
αἰσχίους εἰσὶ καὶ ἀτοπώτεραι, τὰ μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς ἁρμοσθῆναι δυ-
νάμενα, θαυμαστῇ τινι καὶ παντάπασιν ἀναισθήτῳ μωρίᾳ συνάπτουσαι.
ἔοικε δὲ περὶ τῶν Φίλωνος συγγραμμάτων ταῦτα λέγειν, ἢ καὶ τῶν

The Fathers of the Christian Church. IOI

to signify a man endued with various knowledge.

In p. 583, the three days which Abraham spent [§xi. p. 6901
in going to the place where he was to sacrifice his

son, are made to signify the degrees by which a

man advances to the knowledge of spiritual things.

And in p. 574, he bestows high encomiums UpoON [ὃ ix. p. 679.]
the utility and dignity of these allegories, and the
interpretations of them.

Theophilus, in his second book of Autolycus, tg 13 fou
p. 94 foll. partly with hints taken from Philo, partly
with additions of his own, to make the whole apply

to Christianity, deduces a variety of allusions to
1o9the great mysteries of religion, the nature of God,
the doctrine of the Trinity, the condition of man,
and the dispensations of Providence, from the
number of days employed in the creation of the
world, the portion of them which preceded the
creation of the luminaries of heaven, and the differ-
ent productions of the several days.

I think I have now incontrovertibly established
these two facts.

First, That the early Christians entertained the
opinion that the philosophical principles and my-
thological stories of Pagan antiquity were de-
rived either immediately or circuitously from the
books of the Old Testament.

Secondly, That the allegorical writings of Philo
ἔτι ἀρχαιοτέρων, ὁποῖά ἐστι τὰ Ἀριστοβούλου. στοχάζομαι δὲ τὸν
Κέλσον μὴ ἀνεγνώκεναι τὰ βιβλία, ἐπεὶ πολλαχοῦ οὕτως ἐπιτε-
τεῦχθαί μοι φαίνεται, ὥστε αἱρεθῆναι dv καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἕλλησι φι-
λοσοφοῦντας ἀπὸ τῶν λεγομένων: ἐν οἷς οὐ μόνον ἡ φράσις ἐξή-
σκηται ἀλλὰ καὶ νοήματα καὶ δόγματα καὶ ἡ χρῆσις τῶν ὡς οἴεται
ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν μύθων ὁ Κέλσος, p. 198.

102 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

were in high estimation among the same people,
and that the principles of interpretation which he
had adopted were received as just and wise.

I shall now proceed to enquire into the effects
which these two opinions conjointly produced in
the reasonings of the Christians of the second
century.

The first effect which I shall point out is this.

We saw that Philo by an allegorical mode of |

interpretation explained the things, persons, and
transactions, recorded in the Old Testament, to
signify moral and intellectual qualities and opera-
tions. The Fathers of the Christian Church pro-
ceeded farther, and again converted those quali-

ties and operations, with the supposed emblematic 110

things, persons, and transactions, into other per-

sons and transactions under the Gospel covenant,
Because in the Timeus of Plato the Creator

is said to have used an ideal world as a pattern

when he formed the present sensible one, Philo —

also, when he commented upon the Mosaical ac-
count of the creation, and applied to it the prin-
ciples of Plato, represented the Supreme Being as
forming within himself a plan of the work which
he was about to accomplish. This plan, he says,
was nothing else but the reason or reasoning of
God, in the same manner as the plan of a city,
formed by an architect, is the reasoning of that
architect. Because the arrangement of this plan
of course preceded the creation of the things
which were to be formed according to it, he calls
it the first-born (πρωτότοκος), by which word he

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 103

expresses likewise the difference of its nature from
that of external things, since it was the natural
production of the divine intellect by a reflex act,
if we may so express it. In other parts of his
works he makes several things, persons, and actions,
emblematically representative of the divine wis-
dom and its dealings with men. Because St John
has called Christ ὁ λόγος, and he is elsewhere
styled πρωτότοκος, it has been concluded that all

11 which Philo has said of what he calls ὁ λόγος, is

expressive of Christ in a literal sense.

Philo asserted that the two Cherubim over the
mercy-seat were intended to signify the creative
and governing powers of God. The creative power
is said by Justin Martyr to be Christ, and is called
by him a certain rational power, which God begat
of himself in the beginning, before all created
beings’. In his second Apology for the Christians,
he calls the author of our salvation the reason,
of which the whole human race partakes; and
asserts, that they who lived according to reason
are Christians, even though they were esteemed
Atheists; as among the Greeks Socrates and
Heraclitus, and such as were like them”.

In like manner Athenagoras, stating the eter-
nity of the son of God, and his consubstantiality
with the father, says, I will tell you in short what

19 Ἀρχὴν mpd πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ Θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν
τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν: p. 284 [A. Dialog. c. Tryph. § 61. ]

20 Λόγον ὄντα, οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μέτεσχε' καὶ of μετὰ
λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν" οἷον ἐν

Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς : p. 83,

[p. Apol. τ. § 46.]

104 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

his being a son means: That he was the first pro-
duction of the father, not as a thing that was
made ; for God, being an eternal mind, from the
beginning had reason in himself, being eternally

reasonable 3], |

Theophilus, in the second book of his Address to 112
Autolycus, explains in the same manner the λόγος
as being always resident in the heart of God:
for, before any thing was made, God had him as
his counsellor, being his own mind and intellect, ~
And when God willed to make whatever he coun- —
selled, he begat this prophoric logos, the first-born
of all creation 23,

Tertullian, in his Treatise against Hermogenes,
seems to pursue the same idea, Speaking of the
nature of wisdom, he says, When he perceived
it necessary for the works of the world, he imme-
diately establishes it and generates it in himself—
Wisdom was born and established as soon as God
began to dispose himself to set in order the works
of the world—Though he had been about to make
it of matter, he had before made it in wisdom, 1 13,
by meditating and arranging—He afterwards sets |

21 Ὃ mais τί βούλεται, ἐρῶ διὰ βραχέων: πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι
τῷ πατρὶ, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον: ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς, νοῦς ἀΐδιος ὧν,
εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον, ἀϊδίως λογικὸς ὦν. [ϑιρρίϊο.
pro Christian. § 10.]

22 ᾿Ἀληθεία διηγεῖται τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθετον
ἐν καρδίᾳ Θεοῦ. πρὸ γάρ τι γίγνεσθαι, τοῦτον εἶχε σύμβουλον,
ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν, καὶ φρόνησιν ὄντα: ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν 6 Θεὸς ποιῆσαι
ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτό-
Tokov πάσης κτίσεως: P. 100, Ed. Paris. 1636. fo. [Ch. x.]

23 Denique ut necessariam sensit ad opera mundi, statim
eam condit et generat in semetipso—Sophia scilicet ejus exinde

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 105

forth this order in a more distinct manner. Wis-
dom was first established. After that was sent
forth the word, by which all things were made,
and without which nothing was made. In this
passage the author evidently meant by sophia,
wisdom, the internal conception, and by sermo,
word, the external expression or command. Athe-
nagoras has expressed something of the same kind,
though not exactly in the same manner: the son
of God is the logos of the father in idea and
energy 4.

Upon this order Tertullian enlarges in his
Treatise against Praxeas. Before all things God
was alone, being to himself both world, and place,
and all things. Now he is said to have been alone,
because there was nothing externally beside him.
Yet he was not even then alone; for he had with
him what he had in himself, namely, his own
reason. Even God is reasonable, and reason was
in him first, and so all things were by him.—
Although God had not yet sent forth his word,
he had it within himself with and in his reason,
by secretly considering and arranging with him-

nata et condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponen-
da ceepit agitari, p. 416. Tertullian, contrary to some other
of the Fathers, reprobated refinements upon the word Ἀρχή.
“Principium sive initium inceptionis est verbum non alicujus
substantia nomen—Etiam ex materia facturus fuisset, ante in
sophia cogitando et disponendo jam fecerat.—Primo sophiam
conditam initium viarum in opera ejus: dehine et sermonem
-prolatum, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est
nihil.” [p. 275, ed. Rigalt. Paris. 1634.]

24 Ἐστὶν ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ.

[Supplic. pro Christ. § 10.]

τού The Fathers of the Christian Church.

self what afterwards he was about to utter by 114)
the word*, This he proposes to illustrate by |
what takes place in man, who was made after the
image of God, and has also reason in himself.
Whenever he thinks, he speaks within himself, has
a collocutor, and holds a conference with his rea-
son, Thus, says he to his adversary, there is
in you a kind of secondary speech, by which you
speak in thinking, and by which you think in
speaking. Your very discoursing faculty becomes
another person. How much more fully does this
take place in God?

Tertullian seems to have been aware that the
wisdom and word of God, according to his ex-
planation, might be taken for a quality or an act.
He therefore supposes his opponent to ask, if he
maintained the word to be a substance; to which
question he answers decidedly in the affirmative.
In reply to this his adversary is made to object,
that a word is something void, empty, and incor-

25 Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et
locus et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrinsecus
preter illum. Ceterum ne tune quidem solus; habebat enim
secum, quam habebat in semetipso, rationem suam scilicet.
Rationalis etiam Deus, et ratio in ipso prius: et ita ab ipso
omnia—Etsi Deus nondum sermonem suum miserat, proinde
eum cum ipsa et in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat,
tacite cogitando et disponendo secum, que per sermonem mox
erat dicturus. p. 845. [p. 637, a, B ed. Rigalt.]

26 Ita secundus quodammodo in te est sermo, per quem
loqueris cogitando, et per quem cogitas loquendo. Ipse sermo
alius est. Quanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo? p.846. [ Jb. p.]

27 Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem,
spiritu et sophie traditione constructam? Plane—Quid est,

dices, sermo, nisi vox et sonus yocis, et (sicut grammatici tra-
dunt) aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu; ceterum, vacuum nescio

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 107

I15poreal, the mere voice and sound of the mouth
?

and, as grammarians call it, impelled air, intel-
ligible by hearing. Our author therefore in sup-
port of his assertion advances the following reason:
I say that nothing empty and void can come forth
from God—and that what proceeded from so great
a substance, and made such great substances, is
not itself void of substance 3, He afterwards pro-
ceeds to illustrate the mutual relation of the three
persons of the Holy Trinity by the root, the tree,
and its fruits; a fountain, a river, and a stream;
the sun, a ray of light, and the apex of the ray.
We have seen, that, according to Philo, in
order to assist the understandings of men, who
were unable to contemplate God under the simple
character of the one self-existent Being, he was
represented as attended by two principal powers
and attributes, and considered under the threefold
character, as the principle of existence, the prin-
ciple of wisdom and goodness, and the principle of

quid et inane et incorporale? At ego nihil dico de Deo inane
et vacuum prodire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum;
nec carere substantia, quod de tanta substantia processit, et
tantas substantias fecit, [p.638D]. The language which Gazalius
uses in speaking of the Coran is similar to this: Ipsum (Deum)
preeterea loqui, imperare, prohibere, promittere, minari, ser-
mone «eterno, antiquo, qui subsistat in essentia ipsius, nec simi-
lis sit sermoni creaturarum, quique non consistat voce, que
oriatur e commotione eeris, et collisione corporum, neque literis
que conficiantur concursu labiorum, aut motione linguee, et esse
Alcoranum, Legem, Evangelium, et Psalterium, libros ab ipso
demissos super Apostolos suos, et legi Alcoranum linguis, inscribi
libris, reponi cordibus, ita tamen ut interim sit antiquus, sub-
sistens in essentia Dei, nee obnoxius fiat separationi et divisioni.
Pocock. Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 288.

MORGAN F

108 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

power and authority. These were supposed by
Christian writers to indicate the three persons of
the Holy Trinity, revealed in the Gospel Dispensa-
tion. According to this doctrine, the second per-
son is spoken of either as the *mind of the first,
or as the “reasoning faculty of that mind, or as
the *internal operation or production of that fa-
culty, or as the 31 external expression of that pro-
duction. *Athenagoras combines three of those114
senses together.

Hence Praxeas, perceiving, that by this mode
of interpretation, personality was to be attributed

28 Νοῦς καὶ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς 6 vids τοῦ Θεοῦ. Athenag. p. 10.
[Suppl. pro Chr. §ix.] Ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον. Clem.
Alex. [Stromm. Lib. vii. cap. 2, p. 831.]

29 Rationalis enim Deus, et ratio in ipso prius—que ratio
sensus ipsius est. Tertullian, p. 845, [p. 687 8.]

30 Sophia scilicet ipsius exinde nata et condita, ex quo in
sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponenda ccepit agitari. Tertull.
Ῥ. 416. Cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens ser-
monem, eam efficiebat, quam sermone tractabat, p. 845. Cle-
mens Alexandrinus [Stromm. Lib. v. cap. 3, § 16, p. 654] having
quoted John xvii., I am the truth, thus expatiates upon it:
Ὁ δὲ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ᾿Εγὼ, φησὶν, εἰμὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια. νῷ ἄρα θεωρητὸς
ὁ λόγος: τοὺς δὲ ἀληθινοὺς, ἔφη, φιλοσόφους, τίνας λέγεις ; τοῦς τῆς
ἀληθείας, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγὼ, φιλοθεάμονας. ἐν δὲ τῷ Φαίδρῳ (p. 247) περὶ
ἀληθείας, ὡς ἰδέας λέγων 6 Wdrov δηλώσει. ἡ δὲ ἰδέα ἐννόημα τοῦ
Θεοῦ: ὅπερ οἱ βάρβαροι λόγον εἰρήκασι τοῦ Θεοῦ.

31 Cum dicit Deus, Fiat ἴθ; hee est nativitas perfecta
sermonis. Tertullian, p. 846, [p. 638 B.]

32 Νοῦς, λόγος, σοφία, vids τοῦ πατρὸς, p. 27 [ὁ x]. This mode
of explaining the nature of the second and third persons of the
Holy Trinity, led some of the principal sects among the Maho-
metans to deny the existence of the divine attributes; lest by
admitting them they should seem to infringe the fundamental
article of their faith, the simple unity of the Deity. The ac-
count of Abul Farajius is: “Quod ad Motazalas attinet, illud,
de quo inter eos in universum conyvenit, hoc est, quod attributa
eterna ab essentia Creatoris, qui supra omnia excelsus, amove-

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 109

18to mere qualities, operations, and relations, main-
tained that the Trinity in the divine nature was
not a Trinity of persons, but was intended to ex-
press the different offices and relations of the same
identical Being. In consequence of this position
he asserted, that God the Father himself descended
into the womb of the Virgin; that he was born of
her; that he suffered; in short, that he was Jesus
Christ*,

In all these cases it is highly necessary to ob-
serve the mode of reasoning which is adopted; and
to distinguish between the general doctrine laid

ant, fugientes distinctionem personarum, quam constituunt
Christiani.” Poc. Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 18. Another author
reasons in this manner upon the same principle: “ Infidelitatis
arguuntur Christiani, quod tria statuunt eterna; quid ergo de
lis pronuntiandum, qui septem aut plura statuunt?” Jb. p. 216.
Wasel, the founder of this class of sects, thus expresses himself
upon the subject in general terms: “ Quicunque asserit signifi-
catum aut attributum sternum, duos statuit Deos.” Ib. By
this language they meant nothing more, than to assert the
simple and indivisible essence of the Deity, which, according to
the metaphysical notions of those ages, would not be consistent
with an acknowledgment of his attributes. For instance, when
they denied the attribute of knowledge to the Deity, they
affirmed, “ Deum per essentiam suam scire, non per scientiam.”
That in this embarrassed mode of expressing themselves, they
had an eye to the metaphysics, which then prevailed among
Christians, seems evident from the following passage of Share-
stanius: “ Dicunt illi, qui se equitatis assertores yocant, Deum
excelsum unum esse essentia sua, nullam esse ei divisionem,
nullum attributum, unum etiam operibus suis, nec socium ipsi
esse, nec eeternum alium preeter essentiam ipsius, nec consortem
in operibus ipsius, nec fieri posse, ut reperiantur duo eterna,
atque hoc est unitatem asserere.” Ibid.

83 Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea
natum, ipsum passum, denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum.
Tertull. Adv. Praxeam. p. 844, [p. 634 A].

1τοὸ The Fathers of the Christian Church. |

down, and the explanations made use of to illus-
trate the nature of it. Thus the most approved
writers of the second century rested upon the au-
thority of the Scriptures, the general doctrine of
the eternal generation of the Son of God, his unity
with the Father, and his being the person by whom
all things were made, and without whom nothing
was made that was made. But when they proceeded
to particular explanations of this general doctrine,
they had little or no assistance from the Scriptures,
if we except a few figurative passages, which they
explained in a literal sense*4. Their principal de- |
pendence was upon their own ingenuity and imagi- 119
nation, furnished with wrong conceptions of things
and modes of reasoning, by their mistaking the
principles and designs of Plato and Philo. This
led them to explain the unity of the second person
of the Holy Trinity with the first, by denominating
the second the mind of the first, thus making a
distinction between God the Father and his own
mind, and assigning a separate personality to each;
as if God the Father were any other than mind,
or it were conceivable that any being should un-
derstand by an intellect which was personally dif-
ferent from it, and which of course possessed a
separate consciousness. This led them to explain
the eternity of the second person, by denominating
him the reason of the first, who existed from eter-

34 An obscure expression is a weak basis for an elaborate
system. Critic. Obs. on VIth Book of the Aineid.

85 Clemens Alexandrinus says, that the heads of the prin-
cipal heresies of his time were born in the reign of the emperor

The Fathers of the Christian Church. Til

nity, and was always possessed of reason. Hence
it was, that the second person is described to be
the wisdom of the first, or that operation of the
divine reason and that plan of proceeding which
was laid in the divine intellect before all creation.
Hence, likewise, the author of our salvation is as-
serted to have been literally that word which was
projected from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
when he said, Let there be light, and there was
light; which is termed by Tertullian, the perfect
nativity of the word.

720 ©$The orthodox writers of the second century

seem to have differed from the heretics® not so
much in their prime abstract principles and modes
of reasoning, as in their superior reverence for the
canonical Scriptures and the doctrines obviously
contained in them, and their ready reference to
them alone in confirmation of their tenets. The
former steadily adhered to the doctrines of the
Scriptures, but had recourse to peculiar principles
and modes of reasoning, in order to explain and il-
lustrate the nature of real beings, whose existence
and general character are revealed in the word of
God, and to make them appear consistent with the
philosophical tenets or popular opinions of those to
whom they wished to recommend them. Many of
the heretics set out with similar principles and
modes of reasoning; but instead of confining them

Adrian, and lived to the time of the elder Antoninus: περὶ τοὺς
Ἀδριανοῦ τοῦ Βασίλεως χρόνους of τὰς αἱρέσεις ἐπινοήσαντες γεγό-
νασι, καὶ μέχρι γε τῆς Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου διέτειναν ἡλικίας.

Stromm. Lib. για. [p. 764, p. 898, Potter.]

112 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

to the explanation of acknowledged doctrines es-
tablished upon the authority of the Scriptures,
they gave up-the reins to a wild imagination, and’
unchecked by authority, they proceeded as far as
their fantastical principles and reasonings would
carry them, in quest of new and unauthorized doc-
trines and imaginary personages.

I shall endeavour to illustrate what is here as-121
serted, by a passage in that treatise of Tertullian, to
which I have so often referred. Tertullian, having
advanced what has been already stated concerning
the reason and wisdom and word of God, seems to
have been aware of the resemblance which his
principles and reasonings bore to those that were
maintained by Valentinus. He therefore under-
took to obviate the objection, by pointing out the
difference that was between them. Observe now
in what he represents that difference to consist.
It is not in the principles which he lays down; it is
not in the reasonings and illustrations which he
uses; but it is in the doctrines to which those prin-

[p.639n.] ples, reasonings, and illustrations are applied: Hoc
st qui putaverit me προβολὴν aliquam introducere, id
est, prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod Jacit Va-
lentinus, alium atque alium onem de one produ-

[oatur, LR cens; primo quidem dicam tibt, non ideo non utitur

fevnon 1. Ri et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac sensu ejus, quia et he-
resis utitur ; immo heresis potius ex veritate accepit,
quod ad mendacium suum strueret. Prolatus est sermo
Dei an non? Hie mecum gradum fige. St prolatus
est, cognosce probolam veritatis ; et viderit heresis, si
quid de veritate imitata est. Jam nunc queritur,

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 113

quis quomodo utatur aliqua re et vocabulo ejus. Va-
lentinus probolas suas discernit et separat ab auctore

122et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut Aion patrem nesciat.—

Apud nos autem solus filius patrem novit, et sinum
patris ipse exposuit, et omnia apud patrem audivit et
vidit, ete. p. 846.

What those doctrines of Valentinus were, may
be seen at large in Ireneus. The fact seems
to be, that Valentinus and other heretics, in the
same manner as the orthodox, adopted erroneous
principles, which led them into false doctrines.
They learned at one time to speak of mind, as a
person distinct from the principle of existence; at
another time, to attribute substance and personality
to reason; at another time, to wisdom; at another
time, to the word expressive of power and autho-
rity. But they did not sufficiently attend to a very
material circumstance, to which the orthodox paid
more regard, that all those positions were originally
advanced to explain established and well authenti-
cated doctrines, and the nature of real personages.
They began with them as first principles and un-
questioned truths, and framed such doctrines as
seemed to arise out of them. Thus they were in-
duced to adopt the doctrine of a perfect Alon be-
fore all things, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible,
and unbegotten. Considering mind, reason, wis-
dom, truth, life, &e. as distinct in their meaning,
they attributed a distinct personality to each, and
devised a series of ons, projected one from an-
other in a long course of succession.

123 We have seen that Plato maintained the spe-

v14 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

cific forms to be the real entities. By these, Philo
stated him to mean the mere motions of the mind.
But the several sects of Gnostics considered them’
as real things, that had a proper and actual subsist-
ence, and held that every species of sensible fleet-
ing things had an ideal permanent representative.
It was easy and natural for them, thus disposed,
and in a great measure free from the restraints of
the doctrines of the canonical Scriptures, to fall in
with the Eastern philosophy, and to embrace a
doctrine which admitted of an extensive list of
AXons, such as man, church, thought, will, &¢., each
the chief of a particular order of beings similar to
himself.
This primary derivation of the doctrines of the
Gnostics from the philosophical opinions of Plato,
Ai» Hers. 18 expressly affirmed by Irenzus, in which chapter
it is stated that they also borrowed many of their
notions from the theories of other philosophical
sects, and from the poetic mythologies of ancient
Greece. Non solum que apud comicos posita sunt
arguuntur, quast propria proferentes ; sed etiam que
apud omnes, qui Deum ignorant, et qui dicuntur phi-
losophi, sunt dicta, hee congregant, et quasi centonem
ex multis et pessimis panniculis consarcientes subtili
eloquio sibi ipsis preparaverunt. He says, indeed,
that they affected to confirm their wild theories by |
Scripture ; but it was by the most forced and arbi-124
trary interpretations of it, by collecting detached
expressions and names, and treating them as one
continued narration, just as if a person should un-
dertake to frame a story by tacking together verses

The Fathers of the Christian Church. fie

widely dispersed through the works of Homer. But,
says he, when the Word, the Only-begotten, and
Life, and Light, and Saviour, and Christ, and Son
of God are proved to be one and the same Being,
and it is shewn that this same person was made
flesh for us, the fabric of their Ogdoad is dissolved ;
and, when this is dissolved, their whole hypothesis
falls to the ground*®,

Clemens Alexandrinus also, in the third book
of his Stromata, discourses upon the use which Epi-
phanes, Carpocrates, Marcion, and other heretics,

-made of the principles and doctrines of Plato, and
other philosophers. He says, that Epiphanes was
instructed by his father, Carpocrates, in the doc-

125trines of Plato*®’, some of which he had mistaken:
that Marcion derived some improper notions from
the same source, and that he made an unskilful use

of others. He attributes some of the errors of
Cassianus to too great an attention to Plato; and he
quotes from the writings of some of those heretics the
very expression in the Parmenides, ἐν ἣν τὰ πάντα,

36 “Ἑνὸς γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ δεικνύμενου λόγου καὶ μονογένους καὶ

ζωῆς καὶ φῶτος καὶ σωτῆρος καὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τούτου
αὐτοῦ σαρκωθέντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, λέλυται ἡ τῆς ᾿Ογδοάδος σκηνοπηγία.

ταύτης δὲ λελυμένης, διαπέπτωκεν αὐτῶν πᾶσα ἡ ὑπόθεσις. Trenze.
adv. Her. Lib. τ. p. 40.

37 ᾿Επαιδεύθη μὲν οὖν παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ τὴν τε ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν
καὶ τὰ Πλάτωνος, p. 428. [p. ὅ11.1 Δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ τοῦ Πλάτωνος
παρακηκόεναι ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ [φαμένου], p. 480, [514], Οἱ φιλόσο-
got δὲ, ὧν ἐμνήσθημεν (Πυθαγόρας τε καὶ Πλάτων) παρ᾽ ὧν τὴν
γένεσιν κακὴν εἶναι ἀσεβῶς ἐκμαθόντες οἱ ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος, p. 431,
[6160]. οὐκ ἀσαφῶς δεδεῖχθαι ἡμῖν νομίζω, τὰς ἀφορμὰς τῶν ξένων
δογμάτων τὸν Μαρκίωνα παρὰ Πλάτωνος ἀχαρίστως τε καὶ ἀμαθῶς
εἰληφέναι, p. 434, [620]. ἡγεῖται δὲ ὁ γενναῖος οὗτος Πλατωνικώ-
τερον, p. 466, [608].

F5

116 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

p. 466.—Tertullian calls Valentinus apostate, here- ἢ

(375a] tic, and Platonist. (De Carne Christi, cap. xx.) _
Relucere ideis. semina Gnostide et Valentinine here-
seos. De Anima, p. 322.

It would be easy to multiply passages from

Tertullian and others, in support of what is here
advanced. I will close this topic with one testi-
mony from the writings of an author in the begin-
ning of the next century; a testimony upon this
subject as unexceptionable as any one that can be
obtained. The author whom I mean is Plotinus;
a man inferior to few in application, acuteness of
genius, and profound knowledge of the various me-
thods in which the men of those times interpreted
the philosophical opinions of Plato, and applied
them to subjects of theology.

The ninth book of his second Ennead was writ-
ten professedly to discuss the doctrines of the
Gnostics. After having examined some of their
principal doctrines at large, he says, ‘ These things
have been partly taken from Plato; but whatever 125
new things they have introduced, in order to form |
their own system of philosophy, those are found to
be destitute of truth®” He then produces one in-

(ieee p. stance of this from the Timeus. Plato said, that
as mind sees ideas in that which is a living being,
the Creator devised that the universe should con-

8 Ὅλως yap αὐτοῖς τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος εἴληπται" τὰ
δὲ, ὅσα καινοτομοῦσιν, ἵνα ἰδίαν φιλοσοφίαν θῶνται, ταῦτα ἔξω τῆς
ἀληθείας εὕρηται, p. 203 [Ὁ].

89 Εἰπόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ, ἧπερ οὖν νοῦς ἐνούσας ἰδέας ἐν τῷ, ὃ

ἔστι ζῶον, καθορᾷ, τοσαύτας καὶ 6 τόδε ποιῶν τὸ πᾶν cae) see
οἱ δὲ, ov συνέντες, τὸν μὲν ἔλαβον ev ἡσυχίᾳ ἔχοντα ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 117

tain asmany. But the Gnostics, not understanding
this, conceived one mind at rest, having in it all
entities; another mind beholding what was in it;
and a third mind devising®®.. He next shews in
what manner their ideas of the corruption of matter,
and the impurity of all terrestrial things, were de-
rived from Plato’s direction to abstract the thoughts,
and to withdraw the mind as much as possible from
the influence of the body. He again intimates, p. 215 («1
that they were led to hate the nature of the body
in consequence of having heard Plato* complain

᾿ς much of it, on account of its being so great an im-
pediment to the soul.

127 The conclusion, which I would draw from the
whole of the topic, is this: First, that the original
general principles, adopted by both the orthodox
and the heretics of the second century, were the
same, and that the latter differed from the former,
chiefly in consequence of the more unrestrained
and licentious use which they made of those princi-
ples. Secondly, that the chief of those principles
were derived immediately from the mythological
stories and the tenets of the philosophers of Greece,
particularly of Plato.

I have been the more particular in this enquiry,
because Mosheim, and after him Brucker, has as-
serted, that the Gnostic heresies were derived

, » \ ‘ a ¢ ‘ > ah a ‘ ‘ ’
τὰ ὄντα" τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἑτερὸν παρ᾽ αὐτὸν θεωροῦντα, τὸν δὲ διανοούμε-
νον, p. 204 [Α.]

40 Καίτοι εἶ καὶ μισεῖν αὐτοῖς ἐποίει τὴν τοῦ σώματος φύσιν,
, > , Uy ‘ , ~ , τ > ,
διότι ἀκηκόασι Πλάτωνος πολλὰ μεμψαμένου τῷ σῴματι, ola ἐμπό-
’ » δ
διον παρέχων [ἐμποδία παρέχει, Creuzer] τῇ ψύχῃ.

118 The Fathers of the Christian Church. ἡ

solely from the oriental philosophy. The real state
of the case seems to me to be this:

First, The genuine doctrines of Plato, in many
points, bear a strong resemblance to the oriental
philosophy ; whence indeed they were derived by
Pythagoras and Plato. The same may be said of
the mythologies of ancient Greece, which in a
great measure originated from the same source.

Secondly, This resemblance was: increased by
the manner in which the philosophy of Plato was
taught at Alexandria, when that city became a
distinguished seat of learning.

Thirdly, It was customary for those who aspired
to eminence in their profession, to affect a more
profound knowledge of the sublime doctrines of |
philosophy relating to God and the human soul, 128
For this purpose they were not satisfied with what
Plato taught upon those subjects; but, after they
had gone through the course of education in his
school, they applied to the oriental philosophy,

Stromm. Lib. from Which Plato himself drew. Clemens Alex-
andrinus enumerates the several masters under
whom he himself studied. Among these one was
from the east. Plotinus, who was himself a kind
of second father of the later Platonists, undertook,
though he failed to accomplish, a journey into the
east, for the purpose of perfecting himself in the
philosophy of those countries.

We may hence be able to account for the high
pretensions to wisdom which the Gnostics ad-
vanced, and for the contempt with which they
treated Plato and his followers, with whom they

129

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 110

had set out in the pursuit of truth. They looked
upon him as one who had made but very little pro-
gress in the ways of true knowledge, and was
qualified to teach men only the first rudiments of
science. But they arrogated to themselves the
name of sages, who were initiated into the great
mysteries of God and nature. This contemptuous
treatment of Plato and his doctrines could not
fail to produce a proportionable degree of animo-
sity in the later Platonists, whose vanity was se-
verely wounded by the arrogant pretensions of the
Gnostics.

These patch-work systems of heresy (if I may
be allowed to borrow the idea of Irenzeus) will
the less surprise us, if we recollect an opinion,
which generally prevailed in that age, that most
of the sects of Grecian and Barbarian philosophy
contained severally some scattered portions of
truth, which it was the business of a wise man to
collect and combine in one consistent scheme ",

While these general principles prevailed, as
well among the orthodox Christians as among
heretics, Ammonius Saceas, who was educated a
Christian, established a school at Alexandria. Phi-
losophy at this time had gained an undoubted

41 This opinion is thus stated by Clemens Alexandrinus : ξύμ-

> ὁ , \ , “ > a wae c ‘

παντες οὖν “Ἑλληνές Te Kal BapBapot, ὅσοι τἀληθοῦς ὠρέχθησαν, οἱ μὲν

οὐκ ολίγα, οἱ δὲ μέρος τι, εἴπερ ἄρα, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγου ἔχοντες

ἀναδειχθεῖεν-----οὕτως οὖν ἥ τε βάρβαρος ἥ τε Ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία,

‘ cr > , , > ΄- , ᾿ a“

τὴν ἀΐδιον ἀλήθειαν σπαραγμόν τινα ov τῆς Διονύσου μυθολογίας, τῆς

δὲ τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀεὶ Θεολογίας πεποίηται. ὁ δὲ τὰ διῃρημένα

‘ > 4 ε , , ‘ , ες , > >

συνθεὶς αὖθις, καὶ ἑνοποιήσας τέλειον τὸν λόγον ἀκινδύνως εὖ ἴσθ
ὅτι κατόψεται τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Stromm. Lib. 1. p. 298, [p. 349. ]

120 The Fathers of the Christian Church. “ἡ

ascendency in the church; and the nature of the
situation, in which Ammonius was placed seemed
to call upon him to support at once the character.
of divine revelation and human philosophy. As he
left no writings behind him, we can judge of his
abilities only from their effects, and the testimony
of others. These unite in placing him in the most
conspicuous point of view. In his endeavours to
render more complete the agreement between the 130
several stories of Pagan mythology, the tenets of
the Grecian and Oriental philosophers, and the
doctrines of the Gospel, he entirely changed the
whole state of the question, effected a complete
revolution in philosophy, and made no inconsider-
able impression upon the Christian profession. By
the refinements of his speculations and the copi-
ousness and force of his eloquence, he seems to
have exercised an almost uncontrollable influence
over the minds of men in the personal discharge
of his office as a public teacher. And from him
sprung a sect, the members of which, for their
learning and acutenesss, have been the admiration
of great numbers in all succeeding ages.
Ammonius is said to have differed in prin-
ciples from Clemens in the following respect.
Clemens affirmed, that truth was dispersed in dif-
ferent portions through most of the stories of
Pagan mythology and the several sects of philo-
sophy; and that the great error of the heathens
consisted principally in this, that each nation, party
and sect, having but a portion of truth, and some
of them a very small portion of it, persuaded

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 121

themselves that they possessed the whole*2. Where-
as Ammonius is said to have affirmed, that each
sect and party would be found to be possessed

131of all the most important doctrines of true reli-
gion, if their principles, tenets, and mythologies,
were properly interpreted. This step alone was
wanting in order to make the junction between
Christianity and Paganism complete. If the point
could be fully accomplished, it would follow of
course that the school of Ammonius would be
frequented by men of all parties who repaired to
Alexandria for instruction in philosophy and reli-
gion. The event was answerable to the greatness
of the undertaking, and the splendid abilities of the
undertaker.

Before the time of Ammonius, Christian writers
had for different purposes endeavoured to make
out a conformity between their own profession and
the traditions and principles of those to whom they
addressed themselves. Sometimes they did this in
order to mitigate the abhorrence in which they were
held by their Pagan persecutors, and to convince
them of the innocence and reasonableness of the
doctrines which they taught and practised. At other
times their views were more extensive and disinter-
ested, and were directed to the conversion of those
to whom their discourses were delivered. They
represented to them, that the mythological tradi-
tions and philosophical speculations, which were so

42 Ai τῆς φιλοσοφίας τῆς τε βαρβάρου τῆς τε Ἑλληνικῆς αἱρέ-
ἮΝ , oe » « “ > “ A > ,

σεις, ἑκάστη, ὅπερ ἔλαχεν, ὡς πᾶσαν αὐχεῖ THY ἀλήθειαν. Stromm.
] χεν, χ ἢ μ

Lib. 1. p. 298, [p. 349.]

122 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

highly esteemed by the Gentiles, were but faint
and very imperfect copies of divine wisdom that
was to be found only among Christians complete 132 |
in all its parts, and with undiminished lustre. They
exhorted them therefore to repair to the sacred
volumes, where those celestial treasures are depo-
sited, and to enrol themselves in that order of
men who glory in professing and practising the
most sublime truths and the purest morality, and
in inculeating the same profession and practice
upon others. Sometimes their object was to make
philosophy appear respectable in the eyes of their
fellow Christians, from a conviction that it tended
to strengthen their intellectual powers, to enlarge
their capacities, and refine their conceptions, and
give them more just and comprehensive views of
the ways of God in man. Perhaps also those good
men were not quite free from some tincture of
vanity in this respect. As they were undoubt-
edly ambitious of being reputed philosophers as
well as Christians, they probably felt some plea-
sure in exalting their profession.

Yet all this while, Christianity, its doctrines,
and language, seem to have engaged very little of
the attention of Pagan philosophers. They saw no
purposes of interest, ambition, or vanity, that were
to be answered by concurring in those forced
interpretations, in order to promote a seeming
conformity. They were indeed often pressed by
the Christian apologists with the gross impurities
that were recorded in the histories of their gods; |
and the Stoics, whose system of religious faith 133

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 123

comprehended them all, had given them a spe-
cimen of the excellent use that might be made of
physical interpretations. Yet all those circum-
stances appear to have made but a slight impres-
sion upon their minds before.the time of Ammo-
nius; and they betray no symptoms of having even
suspected that their popular mythologies, poetical
fables, and philosophical tenets, contained either
those express declarations of theological doctrines,
or those obscure allusions to them, in which their
successors so confidently affirmed that they every

~ where most obviously abounded.

But when the reputation of Ammonius gave
a consequence and dignity to the doctrines which
he professed, the scene was suddenly changed.
The Pagan philosophers seemed at once to be
roused, as it were, from a profound sleep. A
thick veil appeared to have been drawn from their
eyes. Men of the most refined wit, the most
acute genius, and the most extensive learning,
thought it an employment worthy of their noblest
faculties and attainments to search for the great
mystery of revelation, the Trinity of Persons in
the Divine Nature, among the doctrines and tra-
ditions of men. They tortured their invention a
thousand ways in order to accomplish their pur-
pose; and they did not disdain to use scriptural
language and scriptural figures and illustrations in

134the prosecution of it. Now the withered arm was

impiously lifted up against him who gave it strength.
Now the Pagan ventured to enter into competition

124 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

with the Christian concerning the purity of their
respective moral precepts. Now he presumed to
assail the authenticity of the revelation, by assert-
ing that Christ and his disciples proclaimed no-
thing new concerning either the nature of God or
the duty of man, but only set forth in a new form
what was known to the world long before.

The most illustrious of the Pagan scholars of
Ammonius was Plotinus, He stands eminently |
distinguished by the manner in which he applied
the hypothesis and principles of his master to the
decoration of the mythology and philosophy of
Greece. The acuteness of his genius, his ab-
stracted mode of reasoning and expression, and
his unremitting application of metaphysical sub-
tilties, gave a wonderful degree of reputation to
his system.

It seem’d

For dignity compos’d and high exploit:

But all was false and hollow4s,
If we refer to the detached original stories and
reasonings which he undertook to illustrate and
conjoin; if we attempt to explore the foundations
of what, by the power, as it were, of his magic art,
appeared in the eyes of some men to be a solid
and stately building; we shall be surprised to
discover that it is nothing more than the baseless 135
fabric of a vision.

[48 Milton, Paradise Lost, Book 1. vy. 110.]
44 > ΄ © X 10 Sate. ’ Uy 4 >
ἈΑρχέτυπον οἷον καὶ παράδειγμα εἰκόνος τούτου ὄντος καὶ δὲ
ἐκεῖνον ὄντος. Enn. mi. Lib. ii. cap. 1. [p. 255 8.]
45 WT a A ‘ a } δεν» , Nn ς ἐλ θ κ᾿ Ν
Του νου Και Του Οντος φύσις κοσμος εστιν O αλῆσινος Kat

πρῶτος. [Ibid.B.] ; |

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 125

The writings of Plotinus are to be considered
as philosophical lectures, in which he undertakes,
not to investigate, but to prove and illustrate cer-
tain doctrines by a variety of arguments and state-
ments. The principal of those doctrines, to which
his chief attention is directed through all-his works,
is a trinity in the divine nature; (Ennead IL. p.209)
Lib. 1x. Cap. i. and elsewhere.) This doctrine,
so conspicuous and important in the Christian dis-
pensation, he endeavours to prove by abstract
reasoning, to support by the authority of Plato,
and to illustrate by mythological stories. He calls
his three principles, the first, the good (τὠγαθόν)
or the existing (τὸ dv), the second, mind (νοῦς),
the third, soul (ψύχη). He says, that mind is the
archetype and pattern of this world, which is the
image of it, and which exists by means of it“;
that the nature of mind and the existing is the
true and first world. Mind, having imparted
something of itself to matter, made all things,
itself remaining motionless and quiet. That which
136flowed from it was reason*®, It was reason that

gave harmony and an unity of composition to all
things“. But this universe is not, like the intel-
ligible one, mind and reason. It only partakes of
mind and reason. Wherefore it stood in need
of harmony by the concurrence of mind and
necessity. The latter tends to defect and dis-

46 Νοῦς τοίνυν Sods τι ἑαυτοῦ εἰς ὕλην, ἀτρεμὴς καὶ ἥσυχος τὰ
πάντα εἰργάζετο: οὗτος δὲ ὁ λόγος, ἐκ νοῦ ῥυεὶς. Cap. 2, [p.
256 A. |

47 Tod δὲ λόγου ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁρμονίαν καὶ μίαν τὴν σύνταξιν
εἰς τὰ ὅλα ποιουμένου. Ibid. [c.]

126 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

proportion; but mind controls necessity 8, He -
again repeats this sentiment, that the reason or
soul, which presides over this universe, is not,
like that of the intelligible world, pure mind and
soul, but suspended from the latter, and, as it
were, an effulgence from both*®. This reason
therefore, though it proceeds from one mind and
one life, each of them perfect, is neither one life
nor one mind, nor every where perfect; and does
not impart itself whole and entire to those things
to which it imparts itself.

τ In his treatise on the nature of Love, he

«till makes use of these principles to explain the birth 137
of that urchin, as related by Plato in his Sym-
postum. There was, he says, a twofold Venus:
one the daughter of Jupiter and Dione, the other
the heavenly Venus or the divine soul, descended
from Ccelus the first principle, but the immediate
production of Cronus, mind, the second principle,
without a mother, that is, without any commu-
nication with matter, and without any relation to
marriage; as there is no marriage in heaven, every
thing there being pure and unmixed. It is more
immediately connected with mind than the light
with the sun. This heavenly Venus, following

48 ᾿Ἐστὶ yap τὸ πᾶν τόδε οὐχ, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ, νοῦς Kal λόγος, ἀλλὰ
, ον Aa ‘ r , 5 ὃ A 4 ἐδ 16 « if λθό Aa 4
μετέχον νοῦ καὶ λόγου: διὸ καὶ ἐδεήθη ἁρμονίας, συνελθόντος vod καὶ
ἀνάγκης. τῆς μὲν πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον ἑλκούσης καὶ εἰς ἀλογίαν φερούσης
+ iy a eee .
—apxovtos δὲ νοῦ ὅμως ἀνάγκης. Ibid.

49 ᾿Ἐστὶ τοίνυν οὗτος (ὁ λόγος) οὐκ ἄκρατος νοῦς, οὐδ᾽ αὐτονοῦς,
3.4.2 ’, a A ΄ > 2 A τα , \ e
οὐδέ ye ψύχης καθαρᾶς τὸ γένος: ἠρτημένος δὲ ἐκείνης, καὶ οἷον

ἔκλαμψις ἐξ ἀμφοῖν νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς. [p. 267 D.]

o a a a
50 ὝἭκων τοίνυν οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐκ νοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ζωῆς μιᾶς, πλή-

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 127

Cronus, or, if you please, his father Calus, asso-
ciating with him and beloved by him, brought
forth heavenly love.

But the soul of this universe also has a love [p. 2401
attending her, who is concerned in marriages.
This love was begotten at the birth of Venus, in
the gardens of Jupiter, upon Πενία, poverty, by Πόρος,
abundance. In this fable, he says, that Jupiter [p. 2».
does not mean the third principle, as it usually
does, but the second, viz. mind. For Venus signi-
fies the divine soul. Πόρος signifies the reason of
all things: not abstract universal reason, or, as
he expresses it, reason remaining in itself, but an
effulgence from it, and mixed with Πενία, inde-
finite matter void of qualities>!. Nectar, with which

138 [Iopos is said to have been intoxicated, signifies
divine wisdom, flowing into the soul at the birth of
Venus. The gardens of Jupiter are the glory and
splendor of the divine mind. (C. viii. ix. x). [pp. 298, 299.]
In the fifth Ennead, the first book, and the
seventh chapter, he applies the story of Cronus
or Saturn, Rhea, and Jupiter, to a similar pur-
pose. Cronus, the wisest God, signifies the divine [p. 4992,
intellect, which devours its own offspring; that is,
absorbs within itself the divine reasons, not suffer-

a” ¢ , > » » , , a” ~ e »
ρους ὄντος ἑκατέρου, οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε ζώη μία, οὔτε νοῦς τις εἷς, οὔτε
c “ , Pee! ‘ = \ ΜῈ , μέ Ν
ἑκασταχοῦ πλήρης, οὐδὲ διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν οἷς δίδωσιν ὅλον τε καὶ
πάντα. Ibid. [6].

51 Ἔκ λόγου οὐ μείναντος ἐν αὑτῷ, ἀλλὰ μιχθέντος ἀοριστίᾳ.
Enn. τι. Lib. v. cap. 7. [p. 297 B.]

52 The Stoics interpreted Cronus to signify time, his off-
spring days, months, and years, etc. “Κρόνος dicitur, qui est
idem χρόνος, id est, spatium temporis. Saturnus autem est

128 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

ing them to sink into matter, and to be fostered
by Rhea. From him, however, sprung Jupiter, the
divine soul, the light and impression of the mind,
revolving round it, and attached to it: a power
too great to be unproductive.

In aid of this solemn trifling he had recourse
to the philosophical principles of Plato. In the
prosecution of his plan, he considers the Par-
menides, the Timeus, and τὸ ἀγαθόν or universal |
good, and contemplates them as if they all treated
the same subject in exactly the same point of
view; though the Parmenides was intended to
explain the phenomena of the universe, accord-

ing to the principles of Parmenides, on the sup- 139
position of its having existed from eternity. Ti-
meus, on the other hand, proceeds upon the sup-
position that the world was created, and under-
takes to delineate the order in which that great
work was performed, the relative dignity of the
separate parts, and the ingredients of which they
were severally composed. In neither of these trea-
tises does Plato make himself absolutely respon-
sible for the doctrines which are advanced in
them. And in his dialogue concerning a Republic,
he is not treating of the first and efficient cause,
appellatus, quod saturetur annis. Ex se enim natos comesse
fingitur solitus, quia consumit etas temporum spatia, annisque
preteritis insaturabiliter expletur.” Cic. De Nat. Deor. Lib. ii.
cap. 25.

53 Αὔταρκες ὃν αὑτῷ εἰς ἀγαθὸν, οὐδὲν ἂν δέοιτο τῆς νοήσεως τῆς
περὶ avtov. Enn. vi. Lib. vii. cap. 38, fp. 780 4]. The terms
in which he describes it, are not unlike the account, which

Cicero gives of the Gods cf Epicurus: “ Nihil agit: nullis occu-
pationibus est implicatus: nulla opera molitur: sua sapientia

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 129

but of the final cause. It is obvious how forced

an interpretation it must be that aims at blend-

ing such inconsistencies in one system. But this

is not all. The manner in which this scheme is
conducted adds greatly to the confusion that
necessarily arises from the nature of the scheme
itself.

He affirms that the terms ἕν, ἕν πολλά, and

ἕν καὶ πολλὰ in the Parmenides signify the three
principles in the divine nature; and that τὸ ἀγα- [» 490 5]
θόν, which I have shewn to signify the final cause,
is equivalent to ἕν the first principle, (Ennead VL. wp. 7311
Lib. vu. C. xl. and elsewhere) the root, as it were,

of the tree, (Ennead VI. Lib. vim. C. xv. Ennead V. ip, 150 Dp
Lib. 1v. C.i.) the first intelligible, a simple unit
(Ennead Y. Lib. u. C. i.) ungenerated and selfsuf- pp. 5131
ficient, not standing in need of intellect to com-
4oplete its perfection. Whereas the second prin-
ciple, mind, which, he says, is the same as ἕν πολλὰ,

requires the intelligible for the exercise of its
powers and the fruition of its enjoyment, and of
‘course for the perfection of its nature®4. Mind

has essence and intelligence, which are many.
(Ennead VI, Lib. vu. C. xxxvii, [p. 728]). It is
also all things, and therefore many. (nnead III.

et virtute gaudet: habet exploratum fore se semper cum in
maxumis tum in zeternis voluptatibus.” De Nat. Deor. I. 19.

54 Ὃ μὲν yap νοῦς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, τὸ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν od δεῖται ἐκείνου.
Enn. τπ. Lib. viii. cap. 10, [p. 352 0]. ‘Opa 6 νοῦς ἐκεῖνον καὶ
δεῖται αὐτοῦ μόνου" ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτου οὐδέν. Enn. vy. Lib. i. cap.
6, [p. 487 F]; Lib. iv. cap. 2, [p. 518].

δῦ Avo ὄντα τοῦτο τὸ ἕν ὁμοῦ νοῦς καὶ dy, καὶ νοῦν καὶ νοούμενον.
ὁ μὲν νοῦς κατὰ τὸ νοεῖν' τὸ δὲ ὃν κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον. Enn. Υ.

Lib. i. cap. 4, [p. 48 Ε].

[p. 273 B.]
[p. 560 a.]

130 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

Lib: ny °C. iii.—Einnead: V. Lab, rx. Ὁ: vit)° Its
generated of the first principle by a reflex view of
itself *,

As mind is generated from the first principle

by a reflex view, so it also, being at rest, out of 146

its essence produces soul. The soul, not indeed
at rest but in motion, begat likewise an image.
Looking at the principle whence it sprung, it was
filled; and having proceeded to different and con-
trary motion, she generated an image of herself,
sensation, and the nature which is in plants,
Soul is the reason of the mind, and an energy of
it; as that is of the first principle. But the rea-
son of the soul is obscure *. As the emitted reason
is an image of the reason in the soul, so is the
soul the image and reason of the mind; and it is
all energy and life, which it sends forth for the
subsistence of other things. One may be com-
pared to the heat which resides in fire, the other
to that which it communicates ®. The soul, being
one as subsisting in the divine nature, is also many

a > = a i 2 ~ a ,
56 ἸΤῶς οὖν νοῦν γεννᾷ, ἢ ὅτι τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ πρὸς αὐτὸ ἑώρα. ἡ δὲ
¢ o an . .
ὅρασις αὕτη νοῦς. πη. v. Lib. i. cap. 7, [p. 488 a]: ὃν yap
τέλειον τῷ μηδὲν ζητεῖν μηδὲ ἔ δὲ δεῖσθ iov ὑ ὀῥύ ὶ
ν τῷ μηδὲν ζητεῖν μηδὲ ἔχειν, μηδὲ δεῖσθαι, οἷον ὑπερεῤῥύη. καὶ
τὸ ὑπερπλῆρες αὐτοῦ πεποίηκεν ἄλλο, τὸ δὲ γενόμενον εἰς αὐτὸ
> ΄ ν > , \ ΝΣ cd A yea 4 ΝΥ δ
ἐπεστράφη καὶ ἐπληρώθη, καὶ ἐγένετο πρὸς αὑτὸ βλέπον. καὶ νοῦς
οὗτος καὶ ἡ μὲν προεκεῖνο [πρὸς ἐκεῖνο 1. Creuzer] στάσις αὐτοῦ τὸ
> > ,’ «ς ‘ A > A A A ~ > A > » a+
ὃν ἐποίησεν: ἡ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ θεὰ, τὸν νοῦν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔστι [ἔστη L.
Creuz.] πρὸς αὑτὸ ἵνα ἴδῃ, ὁμοῦ νοῦς γίγνεται καὶ ὄν. Ἐπ. Υ.
Lib. ii. cap. 1, [p. 494 8].
“ > 2 a a ,
57 Οὕτως οὖν ὃν οἷον ἐκεῖνος, τὰ ὅμοια ποιεῖ, δύναμιν προχέας
λλή 3 μὴ A “ > a σ > A ἐξ. a ,
πολλὴν. εἶδος δὲ καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ πρότερον
, “ a rn
προέχεε. Καὶ αὕτη ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐνέργεια ψυχῆς [ψυχὴ Ll. Creuz.],
a ’ ~ tA ~
τοῦτο μένοντος ἐκείνου γενομένη. Kal yap 6 νοῦς μένοντος τοῦ πρὸ
> Ὧν" ΣΎ να - “ Yj
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. ἡ δὲ ov pevovea ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ κινηθεῖσα ἐγέννα εἴδωλον.

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 131

made ©.

She made all animals, breathing into them Eun τ. ΤᾺ. 1.
life: whatever the earth or the sea nourishes, and Ρ 355.
whatever are in the air or in heaven, the stars and
the sun. She arranged this great heaven, and
makes it revolve in regular order, being a nature
different from the things which she arranges, and
moves, and causes to live. When she communi-
cates life to them, they come into being; when
she quits them, they perish. Without her, matter
is a dead carcass; but she flows into it, and en-
lightens it. As the rays of the sun, illuminating
a dark cloud, make it shine, and give it an aspect
of golden splendor, so also soul, entering into the
body of heaven, gave it life and immortality.

It should seem that it would be a bold under-
taking and an arduous task to reconcile this
theory with the doctrines laid down in Timeus.

In this theory mind and soul are stated to be
the second and third principles, and to be co-

ἐκεῖ μὲν οὖν βλέπουσα ὅθεν ἐγένετο, πληροῦται. προελθοῦσα δὲ εἰς
κίνησιν ἄλλην καὶ ἐναντίαν, γεννᾷ εἴδωλον αὑτῆς, αἴσθησιν καὶ φύσιν
τὴν ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς. Ib. [p. 494 α.]

δ8 « A , ΄- Ν ius F 2 uA > A > ,

Η ψυχὴ λόγος νοῦ, Kal ἐνέργειά τις, ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ἐκείνου.
ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς μὲν ἀμυδρὸς ὁ λόγος. Enn. γ. Lib. i. cap. 6, [p.
χῆς μὲν ἀμυδρ όγ » [p

487 F].

59 Ἢ ψυχὴ---εἰκών τίς ἐστι νοῦ. οἷον λόγος 6 ἐν προφορᾷ λόγου
τοῦ ἐν ψυχῇ, οὕτω τοι καὶ αὐτὴ λόγος νοῦ. καί ἡ πᾶσα ἐνέργεια. καὶ
ἣν προΐεται ζωὴν εἰς ἄλλου ὑπόστασιν. οἷον πυρὸς, τὸ μὲν ἡ συνοῦσα
θερμότης, ἡ δὲ ἣν παρέχει. πη. v. Lib. i. cap. 3, [p. 484 B.

Ῥμοτης, ἢ θεῆ χ
‘ A > - a” “ - > ΄-“

60 Τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν ἦν Ψυχὴ, τοῦτο ἄρα πλῆθος ἕν. τί οὖν τὸ πλῆ-
Bos; οἱ λόγοι τῶν γιγνομένων. πη. vi. Lib. ii. cap. 5, [p.
599 8].

MORGAN G

132 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

eternal and co-essential with the first principle,
and to flow necessarily from it by a gradual
process; that is, mind from the first principle, and
soul from mind. Soul, in like manner, from the
same necessity of its nature diffusing the emana-143
tions of its essence through matter, and giving it
form and life, constituted the visible world, with all
that it contains. In the Timeus the three prin-
ciples, as has been justly observed, are the Cre-
ator, Idea which is denominated the pattern, and
Matter. Out of the two last the first is said by a
voluntary and deliberate act (βουληθεὶς καὶ λογισά-
μενος) at the beginning of time to have made the
universe, consisting of mind in soul and soul in
body. But Plotinus was not discouraged by the
difficulty, that would have deterred a less enter-
prizing genius; and he has shewn by the manner
in which he surmounted it, that nothing is arduous
to a sophist, who is indulged with an arbitrary
assumption of abstract principles and eenigmatical
interpretations. He says that Plato does not always
appear to assert the same doctrines; so that it

61 Οὐ ταὐτὸν λέγων πανταχῆ φαίνεται, ἵνα ἄν τις ἐκ padias τὸ τοῦ
ἀνδρὸς βούλημα εἶδεν. Enn. tv. Lib. viii. cap. 1, [p. 469 B.]
Cicero in his dialogue, De Nat. Deor. Lib. i. cap. 12, makes
Velleius the Stoic bring the same charge of inconstancy of
principles against Plato: De Platonis inconstantia longum est
dicere, etc. 'The instances which he produces, are taken from
the Timceus and the Books of Laws. If he had thought that
the Timceus and the Parmenides treated precisely of the same
subject, and that in both those dialogues Plato intended to
convey his own sentiments; the strongest possible argument
that could have been advanced, might haye been obtained from
a comparison of the different doctrines maintained in those two
dialogues. For Velleius clearly perceived, that the positive

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 133

- is not easy to ascertain his opinion®: that he
44does but obscurely intimate, (ἠνυγμένος ---- αἰνιττό-
μενος. Ennead VI. Lib. u. Cap. xxii.), that mind ιν. 61441
sees ideas in the first principle, together with the
principal consequences deduced from it: that when
the production of mind or soul is mentioned, it is
not intended to signify a production in time, but
only to point out the order of causes®: that ac-
cording to Plato mind sees ideas in the living,
which he calls also the intelligible: that by the
contemplation of those ideas is generated reason
or soul, which divides them into the several exist-
ing reasons or souls: that the universal soul was
not any where, and did not come any whither ;
but body, being near it, partook of it: it was not
in body, nor does Plato say so; but body was in
it. Other souls proceed from it, and return to it;
but itself is always above, in that, whose nature is
existence. Fnnead III. Lib. rx. Cap. 1. ii. [pp. 866, 857. ]
145 If we consider the almost innumerable stories
of Pagan mythology, together with the various me-
thods of relating and explaining them, we shall
creation of the world was taught in the Timeus. But Cicero
understood the principles of reasoning too well to put such an
objection into the mouth of any of his disputants, whom he
represents as the leading men of their several sects: tres trium
disciplinarum principes. It was incumbent upon Plato to pre-
serve a consistency of principles and doctrines in the same dis-
course. But it was by no means necessary, that he should
maintain the same doctrines in explaining the physiology of
Parmenides and the cosmogony of Timezeus.

62 ᾿Εκποδὼν δὲ ἡμῖν ἔστω γένεσις ἡ ἐν χρόνῳ, τὸν λόγον περὶ
τῶν ἀεὶ ὄντων ποιουμένοις. τῷ δὲ λόγῳ τὴν γένεσιν προσάπτοντας
αὐτοῖς, αἰτίας καὶ τάξεως αὐτοῖς ἀποδώσει. Enn. Vv. Lib. i. cap. 6,
[p. 487 c.]

G2

[Adv. Nati-
ones. Lib. iii.
cap. 37, sqq.]

134 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

readily see that it would not be difficult for so sub-
til a genius to cull something from them, which to
those, who revered his authority, might seem to
carry with it an air of probability, and to fall in
with his favourite system.

The allegorical method of interpreting the Pa-
gan mythology was attacked with great spirit and
acuteness by Arnobius. The new theological mode
of interpretation does not appear to have attracted |
his notice. He confines himself chiefly to the phy-
sical explanations, which were more ancient and
general, though most of his observations are equally
applicable to the other. One of the most obvious
objections is, that both the accounts and interpre-
tations of different authors are at great variance
with each other. Among other instances he men-
tions the Muses, who, according to Mnaseas, were
the daughters of Tellus and Celus. Other accounts
made them the daughters of Jupiter and Memory,
or Mind. Some said, that they were virgins;

63 [Nec defuerunt, qui scriberent Jovem, Junonem ac Miner-
vam Penates existere, sine quibus vivere ac sapere nequeamus
sed qui penitus nos regant ratione, colore ac spiritu. Ut videtis,
et hic quoque nihil concinens dicitur, nihil una pronuntiatione
finitur, nec est aliquid fidum, quo insistere mens possit veritati
suse proxima suspicione conjiciens. |

64 From this account it should seem, that very little stress
can be laid upon the following passage in Cudworth’s True
Intellectual System, p. 451. ‘ Nevertheless it may justly be sus-
pected, as G. J. Vossius hath already observed, that there was

yet some higher and more sacred mystery, in this Capitoline
Trinity, aimed at; namely, a Trinity of divine Hypostases.

For these three Roman or Capitoline Gods, were said to have |

been first brought into Italy out of Phrygia by the Trojans, |
but before that, into Phrygia by Dardanus, out of the Samothra-
cian Island; and that within eight hundred years after the |

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 138

others affirmed, that they were mothers. Ephorus
said, that they were three in number; Mnaseas,
that they were four; Myrtilus, that they were
seven; Crates, that they were eight; Hesiod, that
_ they were nine.

i146 Again, concerning the Penates, Nigidius as- p72. ¢.40,sq0.1
serted, that they were Neptune and Apollo who
encircled Troy with walls. The same man, in other
places, mentions four kinds of Penates. Cesius
thinks, that they are Fortune, Ceres, Genius Jovi-
alis; and Pales, a male, an attendant of Jupiter.
Varro maintains, that neither their number, nor
their names are known. The Tuscans affirm, that
they are six males and six females. ‘“ Nor, says he,
have there been wanting men who maintained that
they are Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva®, So that,
you see, there is nothing consistent in all this, no-
thing determinate, nothing upon which the mind
can rest with even a probability of truth.”

147 ‘You may interpret the connexion of Jupiter

Noachian Flood, if we may believe Eusebius. And as these
were called by the Latins Dii Penates, which Macrobius [Sa-
turnalia, Lib. iii. cap. 4, § 6. ed. Janus], thus interprets, Dii
per quos penitus spiramus, per quos habemus corpus, per quos
rationem animi possidemus, that is, The Gods, by whom we
live, and move, and have our being; but Varro in Arnobius
[1. c.] Dii qui sunt intrinsecus, atque in intimis penetralibus coli,
‘the Gods, who are in the most inward recesses of heaven; so
were they called by the Samothracians Κάβειροι or Cabiri, that
is, as Varro rightly interprets the word, θεοὶ δυνατοί, or Divi
Potes, the powerful and mighty Gods. Which Cabiri being
plainly the Hebrew ὩΣ gives just occasion to suspect, that
this ancient tradition of three divine hypostases (unquestionably

᾿ entertained by Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato amongst the
Greeks, and probably by the Egyptians and Persians) sprung
originally from the Hebrews.’

136 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

with Ceres, to signify rain gliding into the bosom
of the earth. Another may give it a more plausible
meaning: a third may assign a different one; and
each particular thing may receive an infinite num-
ber of interpretations, according to the different
geniuses and dispositions of the interpreters. For
as the supposition of an allegory is adopted in ob-
scure cases, and there is no certain and determinate
end to which the meaning is necessarily directed,
every man is at equal liberty to strain it to his own ©
opinion. How then can you extract certainties
from ambiguities, and affix one signification to a
story, which admits of innumerable expositions® ?”
Again, ‘Why do you select particular stories, or
parts of stories? If they be all allegory, give the
interpretation of each particular. If they be partly
allegorical, and partly literal, by what rule or art
do you distinguish one from the other® Ὁ’

‘Your interpretations are directly opposite to148

[65 Vos Jovis et Cereris coitum imbrem dicitis dictum tel-
luris in gremium lapsum: potest alius aliud et argutius fingere
et veri cum similitudine suspicari, potest aliud tertius, potest
aliud quartus atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum opinantium qua-
litates, ita singule res possunt infinitis interpretationibus ex-
plicari. Cum enim rebus ab occlusis omnis ista que dicitur
allegoria sumatur, nec habeat finem certum, in quo re que
dicitur sit fixa atque immota sententia, uni cuique liberum est
in id quod velit attrahere lectionem et affirmare id positum, in
quod eum sua suspicio et conjectura opinabilis duxerit. Quod
cum ita se habeat, qui potestis res certas rebus ab dubiis su-
mere, atque unam adjungere significationem dicto, quod per
modos videatis innumeros expositionum varietate deduci? Ar-
nobius adv. Nat. Lib. v. cap. 34.]

[8° Eligitis queedam vestree conyenientia voluntati, et ex
ipsis obtinere contenditis nostras atque adulteras lectiones in-
teriori esse superpositas vertitati. Quod tamen ut vobis ita

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 137

ancient usage. Allegories were formerly adopted
in order to clothe mean and impure things in a
comely dress, and to invest them with a dignity
which did not naturally belong to them. But, ac-
cording to your expositions, the most august and
chaste things are recorded in most obscene lan-
guage. Why were not things stated in literal
terms? Was there no danger in making gods
adulterers ? If the shade of allegorical obscurity
had not involved the subject, the truth would have
been obvious to the learner, and the dignity of the
gods would have been preserved inviolate™,’

The most eminent of the Greek fathers of
the third century was Origen. He was educated
at Alexandria, and one of his name was a scholar
of Ammonius. Whether it was he, or a Pagan
philosopher, is not quite so certain. He was a
man of great industry, genius, and learning. But
his judgment was not always able to moderate the

sese habere, quemadmodum dicitis, annuamus qui scitis aut
unde cognoscitis, utra pars sit sententiz histori scripta sim-
plicibus, utra vero sit dissonis atque alienis significationibus
tecta. Ibid. cap. 36.]

(67 Antea mos fuit in allegorica dictione honestissimis sensi-
bus obumbrare res turpes et foedas prolatu honestorum conves-
tirier dignitate. At vero vobis auctoribus per turpitudinem
dicuntur res graves et castitate pollentia obscenis commemo-
rantur in vocibus, ut quod olim pravitas veterum yerecundia
contegebatur, nune verniliter turpiterque dicatur, dignorum
elocutione mutata. Quid prohibet, quid obstabat suis unam-
quamque verbis et suis significationibus promere.—An deos
adulteros dicere periculum habuit nullum?—Quod si allegoricze
czcitatis obumbratio tolleretur et facilis ad discendum res esset
et deorum dignitas conservaretur illesa. Arnob. adv, Nat.
Lib. y. cap. 41.]

138 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

fervor of his imagination. He was a warm admirer
of Philo, and adopted without reserve the alle-
᾿ gorical mode of interpreting Scripture, which an
injudicious use of his principles in the second cen-
tury had introduced into the church of Christ.
Like the Valentinians, he maintained, that ἀρχή,
[OnpTom.rv. ὁ beginning,’

p. 193, ed.
Bened.}

indicated a person; and discoursing |
upon the first chapter of St John’s Gospel, he says, 149)
that it may signify the supreme Bejng. ‘Thus:
‘The word was in the beginning will signify, that
it was in God the Father®.’ Christ is also the be-
ginning, being the wisdom of God, and ‘the begin-
Ham. ἐμ Gen. ning of his ways: Proverbs viii. 22, Thus, com-
pbc, ™ menting upon the first verse in the book of Genesis,
‘In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth,’ he says, What is the beginning of all
things but our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, the
first-begotten of every creature? In this begin-
ning therefore, that is, in his word or reason, God
made the heaven and the earth. Like Plotinus, he
says, the Father is in all respects one and simple;
but our Saviour is many®, on account of the va-
riety of his names and relations, as being the way,
the truth, and the life; as being wisdom and right-
eousness, and sanctification, and redemption—av-
τοαλήθεια, the ‘ prototype of the truth,’ which is in

68 Οὐκ ἀτόπως δὲ καὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν ἐρεῖ τις ἀρχὴν, σαφῶς
προπίπτων ὅτι ἀρχὴ υἱοῦ 6 πατὴρ----ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, λόγον νοῶν
τὸν υἱὸν παρὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐν τῷ πατρὶ λεγόμενον εἶναι ἐν ἀρχῇ; p. 17.

69 Ὃ Θεὸς μὲν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἔστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν. ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν
--- πολλὰ γίγνεται, p. 19, [Opp. Tom. Iv. p. 21 Ὁ.]

70 Ἀσώματον ὑπόστασιν ποικίλων θεωρημάτων, περιεχόντων τοὺς

τῶν ὅλων λόγους, ζῶσαν καὶ οἱονεὶ ἔμψυχον. Comm. in Johann. ,
Ῥ. 36, [Opp. Tom. tv. p. 898.]

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 139

reasonable souls, p. 99..----οπὐτοδικαιοσύνη ἡ οὐσιώδης, [Opp.Tom. 1.

‘substantial righteousness,’ p. 100.—proceeding from ee

the Father, as will does from mind. He terms him

the living, and, as it were, animated incorporeal
5°substance of various theorems, containing the rea-

sons of all things”. He distinguishes the divine

intellect or wisdom from the logos, though he as-

signs them both to Christ. For the Scriptures so

explicitly declare the logos, to which they attribute

the Creation, to have been Christ, the second per-

son ; that he could not, as Plotinus did, assign it an

hypostasis distinct from intellect, and denominate

it the third person in the divine nature. Having

quoted Psalm xlv. 1, he says, the heart signifies the

intellectual power of God; the logos that power

which declares the things contained in 101}; and he

says, that the logos always was in wisdom.

In explaining the derivation of the third person
of the Holy Trinity, he approaches very near the
doctrine of Plotinus. ‘The Holy Ghost,’ says he,
‘seems to stand in need of the Son, who adminis-
ters to his subsistence, not only that he might be,
but also that he might be wise, and reasonable, and
just, and whatever else we ought to understand him
to be, by a participation of the forementioned con-

151 ceptions of Christ”. And I think, that the Holy

7. Τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν νοητικὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ προθετικὴν
περὶ τῶν ὅλων δύναμιν ἐκληπτέον, τὸν δὲ λόγον τῶν ἐν ἐκείνῃ
ἐπαγγελτικόν []. ἀπαγγελτικόν), p. 42, [Opp. Tom. tv. p. 45 £.]

72 Mévov τοῦ μονογενοῦς φύσει υἱοῦ ἀρχῆθεν τυγχάνοντος, οὗ
χρήζειν ἔοικε τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, διακονοῦντος αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποστάσει,
οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ σόφον εἶναι, καὶ λογικὸν, καὶ δίκαιον,
καὶ πᾶν ὁτιποτοῦν χρὴ αὐτὸ νοεῖν τυγχάνειν, κατὰ μετόχην τῶν

προειρημένων ἡμῖν Χριστοῦ ἐπινοιῶν k.T.A., Ὁ. 57, (Ibid. p. Θ1 ¢.]
αὖ

140 The Fathers of the Christian Church.
a Ὁ ΘΝ

Spirit communicates the matter, if I may so call it,
of the gifts from God to those, who are sanctified
by him and the participation of him, the said matter
of the gifts being wrought by God, administered
by Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit.’
This likewise bears some resemblance to what
Philo says of the divine powers; principles, which
Origen, unawed by the example of Praxeas and
the Patripassians, whose heresy probably sprung
from them, has in other places expressly applied
to the second and third persons of the blessed
pout opp. Trinity. In his first Homily on Isaiah, he says, that
‘ae the two seraphim who stood round the throne were
our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He quotes
the authority of Philo for this interpretation in
Ρ. 757, [tom both the third chapter of the first book, and in the

pn second chapter of the fourth book, of his treatise
περὶ ἀρχῶν.

It is not easy to ascertain exactly the precise

opinions of so fanciful an interpreter and so loose

a reasoner as Origen. But this, I think, we may

venture to affirm, that they were not so exception-

able as the principles and reasonings which he ad-

vanced in the defence and explanation of them.
His principles and reasonings contain in them the 152
seeds of many heresies; but he often protests

73 Λόγον οἷον τὸν ἐκ καρδίας ἀνθρώπου νομίζουσι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Ν , c , τὴ > = ‘ A τ , Δ \
καὶ σοφίαν ὁποίαν τὴν ἐν ψυχῇ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρόσωπον ἕν τὸν
Θεὸν ἅμα τῷ λόγῳ φασίν ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἅμα τῷ
ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ ἄνθρωπον ἕνα. Athanasius contra Sab. Greg. p.
651, [Opp. Tom. 1. p. 87 π.]
74 Οὐδὲ ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς Sis ὀνομαζομένου, ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν ἀλλότε
μὲν πατέρα, ἀλλότε δὲ υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ γίγνεσθαι: τοῦτο γὰρ Σαβέλλιος

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 141

against those heretical applications of them, and
advances, in opposition, sound doctrines.

The most important heresy which sprung up in
the third century was that of Sabellius, whether we
consider it in itself or in its consequences. He
adopted the usual method of explaining the nature
of the Son by stating him to be the wisdom or the
reason of the Father. But he maintained that the
reason of God was identically the same with God,
constituting one person with the Father; in the
same manner as a man together with his reason
composes one man’. Thus the same person, being
really one but having two names, is at one time the
father, and at another time his own son”.

This opinion of Sabellius was embraced by
some bishops of Pentapolis in Upper Libya; inso-
much that scarcely any other doctrine relative to

153the son of God was taught in the churches of those
parts®, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to whom
the care of those churches belonged, sent and
counselled those who had been guilty, to relinquish
that impious doctrine, and return to the true faith.
When he found that his expostulations had not
produced the intended effect, he wrote them a let-
ter in which he undertook to prove the falsehood
of the doctrine which they were so strenuous in

φρονήσας αἱρετικὸς ἐκρίθη. Athan. contra Arian. Orat. Iv.
p. 456, [Orat. ut. ὃ 4, Opp. Tom. 1. p. 553.) Τὸ ἕν διώνυμον,
Σαβελλίου τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ πατέρα λέγοντος, Ibid.
Υ. p. 525, [Ογαΐ. τπ. ᾧ 9.]

75 Ἔν Πενταπόλει τῆς ἄνω Λιβύης τηνικαῦτά τινες τῶν ἐπισκόπων
ἐφρόνησαν τὰ Σαβελλίου: καὶ τοσοῦτον ἴσχυσαν ταῖς ἐπινοίαις, ὡς
ὀλίγου δεῖν μηκέτι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις κηρύττεσθαι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Athan. De Sent. Dion. contra Arian. p.552,[§ 5, Tom. 1. Ρ. 246 ».]

Τ42 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

propagating. In this letter, while he was perhaps
too earnestly insisting upon the difference between
the Father and the Son, he made use of reasonings
and expressions, which seemed to some men to en-°
trench too much upon the dignity of the second
person of the Holy Trinity. However, when he was
accused, he extricated himself from the difficulty
either by retracting his error, or by explaining
away the seemingly offensive passages in his letter,
and by solemn professions of a true faith. Athan-
asius defends him by comparing his conduct to
that of a skilful physician, who, when he is called
in to a patient, considers only the nature of the
disorder under which he labours, and administers
such remedies for the removal of it, as if applied
without any reference to a case of that particular 154}
description, might have a tendency to produce a
malady of a directly opposite nature.

Whatever ground there was for these insinua-
tions to his prejudice, it is certain that in the ensu-
ing century the followers of Arius endeavoured to
shelter themselves under the authority of the name
of Dionysius. Athanasius, who carefully watched
every movement of the Arians, did not suffer them
long to enjoy this advantage without molestation.
He composed an elaborate treatise, in order to
vindicate his venerable predecessor from the impu-
tation of favouring those opinions, for the suppres-
sion of which he himself was exerting all the powers
of a vigorous mind and an ardent spirit.

Arius was a Presbyter at Alexandria; and the
heresy that goes by his name, and which occasioned

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 143

so much confusion in the church in the fourth cen-
tury, either originated from or gave rise to a vio-
lent contest between him and Alexander, the bi-
shop of Alexandria. Arius explained and defended
his principles in a treatise, which he denominated
Thalia. But as neither that work nor any writings
of his opponent, Alexander, are extant; all the
knowledge that we can have of their respective
principles, must be derived from the writings of
others. Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander in
the see of Alexandria, and was considered from

155 the first as the strongest bulwark of the cause, may

be safely deemed to have given a just representa-
tion of the principles of his own party. And as he
entered into the controversy more deeply than any
other ; it is from him that we have the best chance
of collecting the principles of Arius.

I wish it to be observed that I am now enquiring
not about the respective doctrines of the contending
parties, (for these are notorious,) but about the
principles which led to those doctrines and the
modes of explaining them. Arius accused Alexan-
der of professing the doctrine of Sabellius, who
confounded the persons of the Father and the Son.
Alexander accused Arius of degrading the Son to
the rank of a creature.

In order to understand clearly this controversy,
it will be proper to call to mind the sophisticated
doctrines of Philo, which were composed of hetero-
geneous principles, derived from the books of the
Old Testament and the writings of Plato. These
doctrines were still further distorted by the early

144 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

writers of the Christian Church, and rashly ap-
plied to explain the sublime mysteries of our holy
religion.

The word Λόγος is used by Philo in three dis-
tinet senses, in each of which it has been applied
by Christian writers to the second person of the
Holy Trinity. He denominates by it, first, the
divine intellect; secondly, the conception of that156 |
intellect, the idea or system of ideas which is the
production of its reflex act, and the internal object
of its contemplation; thirdly, the external expres-
sion of that conception. Thus, when he is speak-
ing of the intelligible world, of that plan or pattern
which the Deity formed before he created the
external world; he says, it is not allowable to
say that it is in any place. For as the plan that
an architect forms of a city which he is about to
build, is not in any place, but in the soul of the art-
ist; in the same manner the world of ideas can have
no other place but the divine intellect which ar-
ranged those things”. Farther on he says, if a
man would use plain words he would say, that the
intelligible world is nothing else but the reasoning
of God, while he was in the act of making the
world”. The use of the word in the third sense is
too common for it to be necessary that I should
quote any passages to prove it.

78 Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον οὐδ᾽ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδέων κόσμος ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι

a a A
τόπον, ἢ τὸν θεῖον λόγον τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμήσαντα. Περὶ Κοσμοπ.

p. 4.
" ΄ 2 a
Ei δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνοτέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν,
ὑδὲ Ἅ ΄ EY i A = , a a ΄ 2Q\
οὐδέν ἂν erepoy εἶποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον, ἢ Θεοῦ λόγον ἠδὲ
κοσμοποιοῦντος, Ὁ. ὅ.

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 145

I have already produced instances, in which
the early fathers applied the term in these several
significations to Christ.

If the principles of Alexander were the same

157as those which were advanced by Athanasius; he
applied the word Λόγος to the second person of the
) Holy Trinity in the first sense only. When he is
disputing with the Arians about the eternity of the
second person, he, with an air of triumph, bids
them add this to their question, Whether there
ever was a time when the essentially existent God
was destitute of reason or intellect’®, But in his
exposition of faith, in order to make his meaning
clearly and accurately understood upon so import-
ant a subject, he asserts this doctrine with all ima-
ginable caution, to the absolute exclusion of the
explanations of Arius, Sabellius, and other here-
(1.519, He said, that the error of the Sabellians
arose from their false notions of this reason or wis-
dom and word of God, which constitutes the second
person of the Holy Trinity. They conceived of
God as of man, and supposed that the Word of
God was similar to that which issues from the heart
of man; and that the wisdom of God was such as
that which is in the soul of man. On this account
they say that God together with his word consti-

78 Ὃ dy Θεὸς ἦν πότε ἄλογος ; Cont. Arian. Orat. τι. p. 330,
[1. p. 421, § 24, ed. B.]
79 Eis ἑνὰ μονογενῆ λόγον, σοφίαν, υἱὸν, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς avapxes
Ἀ Dew , ’ / ‘ > ‘ > > ‘
καὶ ἀϊδίως γεγεννημένον. λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικὸν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον,
οὐκ ἀπορροίαν τοῦ τελείου, οὐ τμῆσιν τῆς ἀπάθους φύσεως, οὔτε
προβολὴν, ἀλλ᾽ υἱὸν αὐτοτελῆ, ζῶντά τε καὶ ἐνεργοῦντα. κ.τ.λ.

Expos. Fidei, p. 240, (Tom. 1. p. 99, ed. B.]

146 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

tutes but one person; in the same manner as a Ἢ
man together with his word or reason composes |
[Opp. Pom. τι. but one man. Cont. Sab. Greg. p. 651. Upon this158 |
he remarks that the word of a man neither lives”
nor subsists, and is only the motion of a living and
subsisting heart ; and passes away as soon as it is
uttered. But the word of the Lord, as the Psalmist
declares, endureth for ever in heaven. This he
elsewhere calls substantial word and substantial
wisdom 80,

Arius maintained, on the contrary, that this
principle which stated the real wisdom and reason
of God to be the Son in the Holy Trinity, is mere
Sabellianism. When he denied the eternity of the
Son, he did not affirm that there ever was a time
when God was without wisdom or reason. He has
in himself his own wisdom and his own reason,
which is not Christ, but in which he made
Christ*!,

There are some passages in the writings of
Athanasius, which seem to intimate that the prin-
ciples of Arius were connected with some Jewish
and Grecian tenets. He says, that impiety is intro-
duced by their principles, or rather Judaism, differ-
ent from that contained in the Scriptures, which
has Hellenism closely following it®. In another1 59 |

80 Οὐσιώδης λόγος καὶ οὐσιώδης σοφία. Contr. Arian. Orat.v.
p. 520, [1v. § 1, p. 618 A, ed. Ben. ]

81 Σόφος μέν ἐστι Kat οὐκ ἄλογος, ἰδίαν δὲ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ
σοφίαν καὶ ἴδιον λόγον, οὐ τὸν Χριστὸν δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν
ἐποίησε. Orat. v. Contra Arian. p. 522, (Or. Iv. p. 620 Β.}] See
to the same purpose the third oration, p. 408, [Or. 11. p. 487, sq. ]

82 Ἀθεότης yap ἐκ τούτων εἰσάγεται, Kal μᾶλλον παρὰ τὰς ypa-

The Fathers of the Christian Church. 147

passage he exhibits a more particular account of
the principles of Arius. By comparing that with

a passage of the same import near the beginning

_ of Philo περὶ κοσμοποιίας, it will be obvious from
| what source Arius, as well as Tertullian, derived
_ his notions. God, says he, was alone, and reason
and wisdom were not yet. But when he was dis-
posed to create us, he then made one being, and
named him reason, and son, and wisdom, that by
means of him he might create us. There are then,
says he, two wisdoms; one God’s own, and subsist-
ing with him. In this wisdom the other, the son,
was formed®. In this passage we have the strong-
est features of the twofold logos of Philo; viz. The
intelligible world, which he calls also the reasoning
of God when he was in the act of creating the
world, the pattern according to which this sensible
world was made: and secondly, The wisdom and
intellect of God, in which that pattern, the intelli-
(60gible world, was formed. Athanasius in a great
number of places controverts the principle of Arius,
that the son was produced on our account, and for
the express purpose of forwarding our creation;
and that he is called the wisdom of God in a figu-
rative sense, on account of the great display, which

φὰς ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸς, ἔχων ἐγγὺς ἐπακολουθοῦντα τὸν “EdAnucpér,
p. 296, [Epist. ad Epise. 42g. Opp. Tom. 1. p. 288 8, ed. B.]

83 Ἦν yap, φησι, μόνος ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ οὔπω nv ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ
copia: εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὲ [δὴ 1. B.] πεποίηκεν
ἕνα τινὰ, καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ υἱὸν καὶ σοφίαν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δὲ
αὐτοῦ δημιουργήσῃ: δύο γοῦν σοφίας φησὶν εἶναι, μίαν μὲν, τὴν
ἰδίαν καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν τῷ Θεῷ, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐν αὐτῇ [ταύτῃ ἱ. 15.) τῇ

σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι. Ογαΐ. τι. pp. 310, 11, [Or. 1. p. 409 8, c.]

148 The Fathers of the Christian Church.

his nature exhibits, of the divine wisdom in which ¢
he was formed. "

These modes of explanation and defence were
now so thoroughly established, and from this time
assumed so regular a form, that it is unnecessary
to pursue the subject farther.

CONCLUSION.

HE inferences which I would draw from the
preceding investigation are two: first, That a
Trinity of Persons in the divine nature was the
genuine and peculiar doctrine of the primitive
Christian Chureh. Secondly, That it is extremely
dangerous to affect to be wise in holy things above
what is written in the word of God.

I. How much soever the early writers of the
Church differ in their method of explaining the
nature of the three divine persons, and their relation
to each other; they are in a manner unanimous in
their profession of the general doctrine. The great
and important question seems to be, From whence
did they derive this opinion? Most of the defend-
ers and opposers of this doctrine in modern times
agree in maintaining that the doctrine of the Trinity
is delivered and inculcated in the writings of Plato.
Hence the orthodox conclude, that, though this
great mystery is more fully set forth in the Holy
Scriptures, and derives its chief authority from
162 divine revelation; yet, either the doctrine itself is
congenial to the mind of man, and regularly dedu-
cible from principles of reason; or, that it was
handed down in the heathen world by uninterrupted
tradition from remote antiquity. The opposers of
our faith, on the contrary, infer from the same

150 Conclusion. ἊΝ

premises, that the doctrine itself is no part of genu-
ine Christianity: that it is the natural production
of philosophy, falsely so called: and that it was
introduced into the Church of Christ by men, who
with their subtleties distorted the graceful form,
and corrupted the simplicity of our holy religion.

In the course of the preceding enquiry, I have
found myself obliged to differ in some points from
both those parties. After a minute and impartial
examination of the writings of Plato, I cannot find
anything which sufficiently proves him to have had
even an obscure knowledge of the mysterious doc-

’ trine of the Trinity. None of his immediate fol-
lowers taught it: none of his personal enemies or
philosophical rivals urged it as an objection against
him: none of the sects which branched off from .
the academy professed it. When the arts and
learning of Greece were imported into Italy: when
poets, philosophers, and statesmen considered it as
the most noble employment

τ inter sylvas Academi querere verum:

when Plato was esteemed to have spoken as it were
the language of the gods; and all the ingenuity 163
and eloquence of Rome were exerted to unfold his
principles, and recommend his conclusions—during
this long and enlightened period, no traces are to

be found in the works of heathen writers of this
profound, this peculiar doctrine.

The discovery was not made till philosophers
became Christians, and Christians became philoso-
phers. The converted philosopher endeavoured to
shew to his unconverted brethren the superior bril-

Conclusion. 151

lianey of the light which he enjoyed as a Christian.
To this purpose he contended that Christianity
was not without his evidences even among them-
selves: that intimations of the sublime doctrines
of revelation were to be found in the writings of
the philosophers of Greece: that those sages to
whom they looked up with so much reverence had

_ nothing whereof to glory: that they were mere
retailers of scraps and fragments from holy writ,
mutilated by their ignorance, and obscured by their
speculations.

The conceit was captivating : it was seized with
avidity. The Apologist urged the Pagan to ap-
proach the pure fountain of God’s word, and not
to drink of the muddy stream of human specula-

, tion. The Christian teacher, while he traced out
fanciful resemblances, conveyed to his hearers a

164¢reat idea of the extent of his knowledge and the
subtilty of his wit.

If the expedient tended at all to promote the
progress of Christianity ; it did so for a very short
time. Error is multiform, and its cause may be
advanced in ten thousand different ways. But
nothing that is not entirely founded on fact, and
perfectly conformable to the nature of things, can
coalesce with the simple texture of truth, or accord
with the symmetry of its parts. The unnatural
conjunction will inevitably, sooner or later, weaken
the good cause which it was intended to support.
It is, to use the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘a staff
of a broken reed, whereon if a man lean, it will go
into his hand and pierce it.’ So are false conceits

152 Conclusion.

to all that trust in them. ‘The battery was soon
turned against Christianity by the sophists of those
times.

The author of our holy profession disclaimed
all compromise and communication with the several
religions of the heathen world, which he repre-
sented to lie in darkness and the shadow of death.
He was a light to lighten the Gentiles, and rose
with healing on his wings. He told his followers,
that no one knew the Father but the Son, and he
to whom the Son should reveal him. He unfolded
such mysteries concerning the divine nature and
proceedings, as even the angels of God had before
desired in vain to look into.

The disputers of this world soon saw the ad-165
vantage which the indisereet preachers of our holy
religion gave them against the high claims of their
master and his immediate followers; and they
availed themselves of it to the utmost extent. They
readily admitted the supposed fact, that the doc-
trines contained in the writings of Plato, and those
propounded in the Gospel, were essentially the same.
But the conclusion which they drew from this
common principle was widely different from that
which was held forth by the Christians. They de-
nied that the Holy Scriptures were the original
fountain of ali wisdom. They maintained, on the
contrary, that the founders of the different sects of
Grecian philosophy and popular mythology, more
especially Plato, derived their information from the
same source as the author of Christianity, which
was no other than the genuine dictates of reason

Conclusion. 153

and nature. Where then, they triumphantly asked,
is the superiority for which you contend over all
the nations of the earth? Why do you eall upon
us to relinquish the wise and venerable systems
and institutions of our ancestors, when you have
nothing essentially different to offer us in their
stead ?

The sophists of those times satisfied themselves
with the positions, that the characteristic doc-
trines of Christianity were really, though obscurely,
166taught in the writings of Plato; and that they
' were concealed under allegories in the fables of
popular mythology. The state of religion and
philosophy did not admit of the possibility of their
going farther than this point at that time. It was
reserved for the disputers of later ages to assert,
that those profound doctrines are in truth no part
of genuine Christianity: that they were the subtil
inventions of men: and that they were originally
introduced into Christianity from the writings of
Plato. As this assertion has been frequently re-
peated, though without the shadow of a proof,
it deserved a minute enquiry.

In assertions of this kind some particular time
or person must be pointed out, in order to give
a kind of plausibility to the thing asserted. Justin
Martyr has been almost unavoidably fixed upon in
the instance before us. ‘To have carried up the
general corruption much nearer to the time of the
apostles would have been scarcely consistent with
probability. To have brought it down lower would

154 Conclusion.

have been impossible, as the doctrine of the Tri-
nity is manifestly asserted in the works of that
Apologist. He was, moreover, familiarly conver-
sant with the principles of Plato and other Gre-
cian philosophers before he embraced Christianity;
and he was particularly fond of proving to his un-
converted brethren, the superior advantages which
he derived from the study of the Holy Scrip-
tures, in consequence of the originality, the purity, —
and the extent of the discoveries relating to divine 167
things that were contained in them.

If Justin derived his opinion of a Trinity of
Persons in the divine nature from the writings of
Plato, and from thence transplanted them into
Christianity; either he adopted the received no-
tions of the Platonists of his own or preceding
times; or by his sagacity he had discovered in the
writings of Plato some doctrines, which had es-
caped the scrutiny and penetration of all others.
That Justin by his sagacity discovered what had
eluded the diligent search of the long list of sages
of Greece and Rome, who flourished between the
days of Plato and the second century of the Chris-
tian sera, is, I conceive, what our opponents will
not be very forward to advance, or even admit.
If they affirm, that the followers of Plato had
actually discovered that doctrine in his writings,
and had openly and explicitly avowed it in or be-
fore the days of Justin, it rests upon them to prove
it. As far as my researches have extended, I
have not been able to find any one instance, in

Conclusion. Iss

which the doctrine had been maintained by Pagan

168philosophers', in the same plain and decided

manner, as by the Fathers of the Christian Church.
By these it was propounded as the criterion of
their orthodoxy, as the ground-work of their faith.
But the cultivators of human wisdom appear to
have been total strangers to it; till it was dis-
closed to them by a teacher of philosophy, who
had been educated in the bosom of Christianity.
Then, and not till then, they used it, as a key

1 The high estimation, in which Lord Montboddo and Dr
Heberden are deservedly held by the learned world, obliges me
to take notice of the following note in that noble lord’s Treatise
on the Origin and Progress of Language, Book τι. cap. 2, p. 339:
“A Jearned and worthy gentleman of my acquaintance in Lon-
don, Dr Heberden, shewed me a passage in Seneca’s Consolatio
ad Helviam, from which it appears, that it, (the doctrine of the
Trinity) was known to the Stoics. His words are, speaking of
the misfortune that had befallen this woman: Id actum est,
mihi crede, ab illo, quisquis formator universi fuit, sive ille
Deus est potens omnium, sive incorporalis ratio, ingentium
operum artifex, sive divinus spiritus, per omnia maxima et
minima eequali intentione diffusus, sive fatum et immutabilis
causarum inter se coherentium series.” Senecze Consol. ad
Helviam, cap. 8. To my mind this passage does not appear
to have the least tendency towards proving the point, in sup-
port of which it is cited. I should as soon undertake to prove,
that Pope inculcated the doctrine of the Trinity, from the last
line of the first stanza in his Universal Prayer:

Father of all! in ev’ry age,

In evry clime ador’d,

By saint, by savage, and by sage,

Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!
The poet asserts, that the first cause is worshipped by men in
all states, however they may differ about the name, by which
they address him. In like manner the philosopher refers the
calamity to the appointment of the supreme Being, however he
may have been characterized by philosophers, and by whatever
appellation he is to be distinguished.

MORGAN ἘΞ

156 Conclusion.

to unlock the abstract subtilties of Plato, and to 16g |
throw a decent veil over the extravagant and |
licentious fables of Pagan mythology.

Again, the manner in which Plotinus conducts
his argumentation, is an object deserving our
attention. The Christian opened the sacred vo-
lume; and, as he read, he found, or believed that
he found, the profound doctrine of the Trinity of
Persons in the Godhead revealed in it. The truth
of the doctrine he rested upon the authority of
Holy Writ. For an explanation of the nature
of those beings whom it concerns, and of the
relation which they bear to each other, where his
heavenly guide was silent, he had recourse to the
subtilties of human wit. This was the natural
course for those to take who derived their inform-
ation from another, and rested the truth of their
tenets upon the authority of their teacher.

But this was not the course which Plotinus
followed. His object was not to prove the truth
of the doctrine by the authority of Plato, but to
bend the language of Plato to a consistency with
the doctrine. He does not even profess to have
learned it from that great master of philosophy;
but undertakes to deduce it by general reasoning
from abstract notions of entity, mind, and soul.
Having thus drawn his conclusions, he next ap-
plies them in illustration of the doctrines of Plato.

This, I conceive, is the exact course which aman 170 |
would pursue, who had derived the doctrine from
another source, and wished to prove, that it was
also to be found in the writings of Plato. I ask,

TOPE

Conclusion. 157

Would any one, but a man thus circumstanced,
haye discovered this profound doctrine in the
story of the birth of Venus, or in the mythological
fable of Cronus, Rhea, and Jupiter?

I will not dwell upon the inconsistencies that
frequently occur in the explanations, which are
given by the advocates for the Platonic Trinity.
They are obliged by their system to make the
mythological Zevs sometimes the first, sometimes
the second, and sometimes the third hypostasis.
And, in their interpretations of Plato, they some-
times make δημιουργὸς the first, νοῦς the second,
and ψυχὴ the third hypostasis: at other times they
make δημιουργὸς, at other times ἰδέα ἡ παράδειγμα,
at other times ψυχὴ the second hypostasis.

II. The second inference which [ would make
from the preceding investigation is, that it is ex-
tremely dangerous to affect to be wise in holy
things, above what is written in the word of Gop.
It is to this disposition, I conceive, that we are to
attribute, in a great measure, the present miserable
condition of the Jewish nation. They would not
be satisfied with that degree of information which

171 Jehovah condescended to give them of the order

of his dispensations, and of the nature of that
being, who was to come from Gop as their Saviour
and their King. They rashly speculated upon
things that were not revealed, and they framed
to themselves a system of belief widely different
from the truth. Hence, when in the fulness of
time Gop sent his Son into the world, the world

158 Conclusion.

knew him not: when he came unto his own, his
own received him not.

The same spirit of curiosity and desire of pry-~
ing into heavenly things have, though in a different
manner, produced very pernicious consequences in
the Church of Christ.

The writings of Philo Judzeus furnished the
Fathers of the Christian Church with the fatal
means of deceiving themselves and others. The
figurative language in which that author delivered
himself concerning the Logos, whenever he meant
by it either the divine intellect, its internal opera-
tion, the ideal object of its contemplation, or the
external expression of it, led them to imagine that
he attributed to it a real and essential personality.
From the epithets affixed to this supposed person,
they naturally conceived that he could be no other
than our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. To
make this plausible they maintained, that what was
expressed by the word Logos, was not in God, as
it was in man, a mere power, or operation, or |
notion, or word; but was a real and living sub-172 |
stance, possessed of a personality distinct from |
the great principle of existence, to which it be-
longed. This received countenance from the doc-
trines of Plato, that ideas were most properly the
real entities.

Hence was devised the metaphysical argument
for the eternity of the second person of the Tri-
nity, which was built upon this plain and incontro-
vertible maxim, that God the Father could never

ay

Conclusion. 159

have been destitute of reason. Hence the second
person is called by Athanasius substantial Logos
and substantial Wisdom. Hence arose the conceit,
that he flowed necessarily from the divine intellect
exerted on itself. Hence Origen styles him, The
living and, as it were, animated substance of vari-
ous theorems, containing the reasons of all things.

It unfortunately happened, that many signal
heresies were produced by men’s accepting a false
hypothesis and an erroneous explanation, and turn-
ing them against the doctrine, for the illustration
of which they were devised.—The Gnostics, pre-
suming that every production of the divine intel-
lect was necessarily a substance, imagined an
almost infinite number of such productions, and
attempted to explain by them the origin of those
several orders of ASons, which constituted so strik-
ing a part of the eastern philosophy.

Praxeas and Sabellius admitted that Christ was
the intellect and wisdom of God the Father, and
thence concluded, that he was one with him, as
well in personality as in essence; thus attempting
to subvert a doctrine by means of an hypothesis,
which was founded, if it had any foundation at all,
upon the supposed truth of that doctrine, and which
was advanced, not to prove, but to explain it.

Arius seems to have felt the force of the rea-
soning of Praxeas and Sabellius; but he was too
well versed in the Scriptures not to see, that a dis-
tinct personality is in them attributed to Christ.
He therefore perceived the necessity of projecting
a new mode of defence; but, like many others,

H 3

τύο Conclusion.

who had gone before him, he embraced hypo-
thetical explanations, to the injury of the truth,

which was to be explained. He acknowledged

with Praxeas and Sabellius, that the real intellect
or wisdom of God was no other than God him-
self. He admitted with Tertullian, that the imme-
diate production of the divine intellect was neces-
sarily a living substance. Hence he maintained,
that Christ was, what Philo called the intelligible
world; or, as Origen styled him, the living and
animated substance of various theorems, contain-
ing the reasons of all things; denominated Logos,
and Son, and Wisdom, though not the real wis-
dom of God, yet formed in it; not existing from

all eternity, but created on our account, that God174

by means of him might create us’.

Thus it appears that, though Christians did
not, as has been maintained by some, derive the
great and characteristic doctrines of their holy
profession from the impure source of Pagan philo-
sophy; they did, at a very early period indeed,
adopt principles and modes of interpretation, which
but ill accorded with the simplicity of the Gospel.
They presumed to intrude with unhallowed step
into the sanctuary of the most High, and to attempt
with sacrilegious hands to tear off the veil from

2 So strongly was this hypothesis rooted in the minds of
men, that it was not even yet abandoned; and Arius has been
combated on his own ground. It has been admitted, that Christ
was the intelligible world, containing the ideas of all things.
Yet still his proper eternity has been maintained upon meta-
physical principles. ὙΠῸ divine intellect is from its own nature
ever active. Before all external creation it was employed from

ἜΣ

Conclusion. 161

those august mysteries, which God himself had
concealed from human sight. The event was such
as might naturally have been expected. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools; and
God gave many of them up unto a reprobate mind.

175 All the extravagancies and impurities of the several

orders of Gnostics, all the impiety of Praxeas and
Sabellius, the heresy of Arius, and the bloody
contentions, which rent in sunder the Eastern
Church, and paved the way for the reception of
the impostures of Mahomet, are to be referred to
this source. Hence also have arisen many of those
disputes and bitter reproaches, which in latter
days have disgraced the Christian name, and in-
jured the cause of genuine piety. Hence was
derived the most opprobrious of all imputations,
that the sublime doctrine of the Trinity, the dis-
tinguishing feature of Christianity in every age,
was drawn from the dregs of Pagan philosophy.
This should serve as a warning to men, if any
thing can, to confine themselves in their researches
within the bounds that have been prescribed to
them by divine wisdom, and to satisfy themselves
with such communications, as God has thought
proper to make, of his nature and dispensations.
If they would act wisely, they should exert

eternity in an internal contemplation of the ideal pattern of
the things, which were in due time to be created. The reader
may see this argument very ingeniously drawn out and enforced
by Norris, in his Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World ;
who, in the true spirit of his system, maintains, that all things
were made not by Christ, but according to Christ, that is, ac-
cording to those ideas or patterns, which compose his essence.

162 Conclusion.

their faculties, first, in proving the authenticity of
revelation ; secondly, in ascertaining the genuine
sense of it. -For they may be well assured that,
if God has made to men any revelation of his
nature and dispensations, he has revealed as much
as is proper for them to know, in their present cir-
cumstances. Nay, if they attempt to proceed a
step farther than their heavenly guide has conde-
scended to conduct them, they will not only be176
disappointed in the expectation of making any real
progress, but will even be led out of the way, and
removed much farther from the object of their vain
pursuit, than if they had stopped at the point
where divine Providence had set them their bounds,
that they should not pass.

Of this every one is sensible, with respect to
preceding dispensations. We are all ready to ac-
knowledge, that the intimation with which God
favoured Adam, respecting the seed of the woman,
was adapted with wonderful wisdom and mercy to
his particular situation: that it conveyed the pre-
cise degree of information, which the otherwise
desperate state of the affairs of our first parent
required; but that it was not sufficient to enable
him to trace out that amazing scheme of Provi-
dence, which the divine Being afterwards vouch-
safed in the fulness of time gradually to disclose
to the sons of men.—The same observation will
apply to every period of the Patriarchal and Jewish
dispensations; till God sent his Son into the world
in the likeness of sinful flesh, when perhaps as much
of the mystery of godliness was revealed, as is

ig

Conclusion. 163

requisite to be known by man in this our state
of pilgrimage.

As so extraordinary an atonement was made
for the transgression of our first parents, and the
depravity of their posterity, the display of that
stupendous proceeding seems well calculated to

177 produce in men a strong sense of the heinous na-
ture of sin, and a dread and abhorrence of its
pollutions. It is the language of religion, that we
are to consider this world as a state of discipline,
preparatory to a future life of superior excellence

and enjoyment; and we have every reason to be-
lieve, from the representations of the Holy Scrip-
tures, that Christ will reign at the head of his
saints in his kingdom of glory. In this view it
is easy to perceive how expedient it was, that we,
who are hereafter to be his subjects, should, in
this our state of discipline, have some intimation
of the dignity of our Lord and Master. But it
does not thence follow, that it is either expedient
or consistent with the limited nature of our facul-
ties, that the mysteries of the divine nature should
be completely unfolded to us; or that we, who
cannot fully comprehend the internal constitution
of the most common object, which is exposed to
our senses, should be encouraged to pry into the
deep recesses of that Being, whose goings forth
have been of old from everlasting. Error, and
many times impiety, must be the consequence of so
rash and overweening a conceit of our own abili-
ties. It becomes us rather, and will be found in
the end to be most consistent with our true in-

164 Conclusion.

terest, to be satisfied with that portion of light
which God himself has imparted to us in his holy
word; and not to flatter ourselves that we shall be

able to encrease it by a pretended philosophy and 178
vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

flee fere dicere habui de Natura Deorum, non ut
eam tollerem, sed ut intelligeretis, quam esset obscura,
et quam difficiles explicatus haberet.. Cic. de Nat. |
Deor, 111. 39. .

In a former 5 treatise I undertook to demon-
strate, that true philosophy has no tendency to un-
dermine divine revelation, and that a well-grounded
philosopher may be a true Christian: that the legi-
timate object of philosophy, as well as of revela-
tion, is truth: that the pursuit of this object, by a
careful attention to and investigation of the ap-
pearances and operations of nature, has a direct
tendency to enliven and invigorate the intellectual
powers ; and that the possession of it enlarges the
capacity of the mind, and prepares it for the
reception and right apprehension of the doctrines
of Christianity—In this I have endeavoured to
point out some strikingly-pernicious effects, which
have arisen from the rash attempt of men to ex-
plain the most profound mysteries of the nature
and essence of God, by the vain and groundless
conceits of speculative sophists; instead of con-
fining themselves to an investigation of the moral
character of the Deity by the united aid of reason 179

’ The dissertation, to which the honorary prize was ad-
judged, by Teyler’s Theological Society, at Haarlem, in April

Conclusion. 165

and revelation, and of the duties which result from
the several relations that he bears to them, of Cre-
ator, Preserver, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and Judge.

I find that in thus asserting and illustrating
the use and abuse of reason, when applied to reli-
gion, I have conformed, without being aware of it
at the time, to the opinion of a man, whose com-
prehensive and penetrating mind has contributed
not a little towards advancing true philosophy to
that exalted state of dignity, which it at present so
justly possesses. I will produce this testimony as
the conclusion of the whole.

“By the contemplation of nature to induce
and enforce the acknowledgment of God, and to
demonstrate his power, providence, and goodness,
is an excellent argument, and hath been excel-
lently handled by divers. But on the other side,
out of the contemplation of nature, or ground of
human knowledges, to induce any verity or per-
suasion concerning the points of faith, is in my
judgment not safe: Da fidei, que fidet sunt. For
the heathen themselves conclude as much in that
excellent and divine fable of the golden chain:
That Gods and men were not able to draw Jupiter
down to the earth; but, contrariwise, Jupiter was
able to draw them up to heaven.

« So as we ought not to attempt to draw down
180o0r submit the mysteries of God to our reason; but,
contrariwise, to raise and advance our reason to
the divine truth. So as in this part of knowledge,

1785. [The prize-medal, which was presented on the occasion,
is now in the University Library.]

166 Conclusion.

touching divine philosophy, I am so far from
noting any deficience, as I rather note an excess:
whereunto I have digressed, because of the ex-
treme prejudice, which both religion and_philo-
sophy have received, and may receive, by being
commixed together; as that which undoubtedly
will make an heretical religion, and an imaginary
and fabulous philosophy.” Bacon of the Advance-
ment of Learning.

THE END,

UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE.
January, 1888.

PUBLICATIONS OF
The Cambridge Anibersitp Press,

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, &c.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English
Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its Early and
other Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform,
the Marginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction
prefixed, by the Rev. F.H. A. ScRIVENER,M.A., LL.D., one of the
Revisers of the Authorised Version. Crown Quarto, cloth gilt, 215.

THE STUDENT’s EDITION of the above, on good writing paper, with
one column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes.
Two Vols. Crown Quarto, cloth, gilt, 315. δ“. '

The Lectionary Bible, with Apocrypha, divided into Sec-
tions adapted to the Calendar and Tables of Lessons of 1871.
Crown Octavo, cloth, 3s. 6d.

The Book of Ecclesiastes. Large Paper Edition. By the
Very Rev. E. H. PLumMpTRE, Dean of Wells. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Breviarium ad usum insignis Ecclesiae Sarum. Juxta Editionem
maximam pro CLAUDIO CHEVALLON et FRANCISCO REGNAULT
A.D. MDXXXI. in Alma Parisiorum Academia impressam: labore
ac studio FRANCISCI PROCTER, A.M., et CHRISTOPHORI WORDS-
WORTH, A.M.

Fascicutus I. In quo continentur KALENDARIUM, et ORDO TEM-
PORALIS sive PROPRIUM DE TEMPORE TOTIUS ANNI, una cum
ordinali suo quod usitato vocabulo dicitur PICA 51ΝῈ DIRECTORIUM
SACERDOTUM. Demy 8vo. cloth, 18s.

FascicuLus II. In quo continentur PSALTERIUM, cum ordinario
Officii totius hebdomadae juxta Horas Canonicas, et proprio
Completorii, Liranta, COMMUNE SANCTORUM, ORDINARIUM
MISSAE CUM CANONE ET XIII MissIs, ἄς. &c. Demy 8vo. cloth. ras.

FascicuLus III. In quo continetur PROPRIUM SANCTORUM quod
et Sanctorale dicitur, una cum Accentuario. Demy 8vo. 155.

FascicuLl I. 11. III. complete £2. 25.

The Pointed Prayer Book, being the Book of Common
Prayer with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are
to be sung or said in Churches. Embossed cloth, Royal 24mo, 2s.

The same in square 32mo. cloth, δα.

The Cambridge Psalter, for the use of Choirs and Organists.
Specially adapted for Congregations in which the ‘*‘Cambridge
Pointed Prayer Book” is used. Demy 8vo. cloth, 3s. 6d. Cloth
limp cut flush, 2s. 6d.

The Paragraph Psalter, arranged for the use of Choirs by
B. F. Westcott, D.D., Canon of Westminster. Fep. 4to. 5s.

The same in royal 32mo, Cloth, rs. Leather, 1s. 6d.

The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), its
Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By F. H. A.
SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to
the Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the
Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A.
ScRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

2000
2/1/88

2 PUBLICATIONS OF

The Parallel New Testament Greek and English. The
New Testament, being the Authorised Version set forth in 1614
Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version of 1881,
and with the original Greek, as edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A.,
D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. cloth. 125. 6d. (Zhe Revised Version
is the joint Property of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.)

Greek and English Testament, in parallel columns on the
same page. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. late Regius Pro-
fessor of Greek in the University. Mew Edition, with the marginal
references as arranged and revised by DR SCRIVENER. 75. 6d.

Greek and English Testament. THE SrupEeNnT’s EDITION
of the above on Jarge writing paper. 4to.cloth. 12s.

Greek Testament, ex editione Stephani tertia, 1550. Small
Octavo. 35. 6d. \

The Gospel according to St Matthew in Anglo-Saxon and
Northumbrian Versions. By Rev. Prof. SKEAT, Litt.D. New
Edition. Demy Quarto. Ios. ᾿ ;

The Gospel according to St Mark, uniform with the pre-
ceding. Edited by the Rev. Prof. SkEAT. Demy Quarto τος.

The Gospel according to St Luke, uniform with the pre-
ceding, edited by the Rev. Professor SKEAT. Demy Quarto. tos.

The Gospel according to St John, uniform with the pre-
ceding, edited by the Rev. Professor SkEAT. Demy Quarto. τος.

The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth
Book of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes,
and facsimile of the MS., by Prof. Bensty. M.A. Demy 4to. τος.

Codex 8. Ceaddae Latinus. Evangelia SSS. Matthaei, Marci,
Lucae ad cap. III. 9 complectens, circa septimum vel octavum
saeculum scriptvs, in Ecclesia Cathedrali Lichfieldiensi servatus.
Cum codice versionis Vulgatae Amiatino contulit, prolegomena
conscripsit, F. H. A. SCRIVENER, A.M., LL.D. Imp. 4to. With
2. plates wee aia eis

The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament.
By J. R. Harris, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 4to. tos. 6d.

THEOLOGY—(ANCIENT).

Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Minor Epistles
of S. Paul. The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments,
edited from the MSS. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B.
SWETE, D.D. Vol. I., containing the Introduction, and the Com-
mentary upon Galatians—Colossians. Demy Octavo. 125.

Volume II, containing the Commentary on 1 Thessalonians—
Philemon, Appendices and Indices. 12s.

The Greek Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By
C, A. Swanson, D.D., late Master of Christ’s Coll. Cr. 4to. 155.

Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirqe Aboth
and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes.
By C. Taytor, D.D., Master of St John’s College, τος.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

PRE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: 3

Sancti Irenzi Episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus
Heereses, edidit W. WIGAN Harvey, S.T.B. Collegii Regalis
olim Socius. 2Vols. Demy Octavo. 18s.

The Palestinian Mishna. By W. H. Lows, M.A., Lecturer
in Hebrew at Christ’s College, Cambridge. Royal Octavo. 215.

M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. The text newly revised from
the original MS. with an English Commentary, Analysis, Intro-
duction, and Copious Indices. Edited by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D.
Crown Octavo. 7s. 6d.

Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Autolycum.
Edidit, Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus instruxit Gu-
LIELMUS GILSON HuMPHRY, S.T.B. Post Octavo. 5s.

Theophvlacti in Evangelium 5. Matthei Commentarius,
Edited by W. G. Humpury, B.D. Demy Octavo. 7s. 6d.

Tertullianus de Corona Militis, de Spectaculis, de Idololatria
with Analysis and English Notes, by GEorGE CurRrEy, D.D.
Master of the Charter House. Crown Octavo. 5s.

Fragments of Philo and Josephus. Newly edited by J.
RENDEL Harris, M.A. With two Facsimiles. Demy 4to. 125. 6d.

The Teaching of the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile
Text and Commentary, by J. R. Harris, M.A. Demy gto. 215.

THEOLOGY—(ENGLISH).

Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with the original MSS,
A new Edition, by A. NAPIER, M.A. of Trinity College, Vicar of
Holkham, Norfolk. Nine Vols. Demy Octavo. £3. 35.

Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy, and a Discourse con-
cerning the Unity of the Church, by I. BARROW. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.

Pearson’s &xposition ΟἹ the Creed, edited by TEMPLE
CHEVALLIER, B.D. Third Edition revised by R. SINKER, M.A.,
Librarian of Trinity College. Demy Octavo. 12s.

An Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written by the
Right Rev. Father in God, JOHN PEARSON, D.D. Compiled
by W. H. MILL, D.D. Demy Octavo, cloth. 55.

Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by G. E. Corrir,
D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy Octavo. 7s. 6d.

The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations
from the Fathers given at lengthin the Original Languages. Edit. by
G. E. Corri£, D.D.late Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Two Forms of Prayer of the time of Queen Elizabeth. Now
First Reprinted. Demy Octavo. 6d.

Select Discourses, by JoHN SmiTH, late Fellow of Queens’
College, Cambridge. Edited by H. G. WituiamMs, B.D. late
Professor of Arabic. Royal Octavo. 7s. 6d.

De Obligatione Conscientie Prelectiones decem Oxonii in
Schola Theologica habite a ROBERTO SANDERSON, SS. Theo-
logie ibidem Professore Regio. With English Notes, including
an abridged Translation, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 75. 6a.

Cesar Morgan’s Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, and of
Philo Judzeus. 2nd Ed., revised by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr.8vo. 45,

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

4 PUBLICATIONS (OF.

Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, with other Tracts
on Popery. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.

Wilson’s Illustration of the Method of explaining the New
Testament, by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concern-
ing Christ. Edited by T. Turton, D.D. Demy 8vo. 55.

Lectures on Divinity delivered in the University of Cam-
bridge. By JoHN Hey, D.D. Third Edition, by T. TuRTON,
D.D. late Lord Bishop of Ely. 2 vols. Demy Octavo. 15s.

Ως, Austin and his place in the History of Christian Thought.
Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By W. CUNNINGHAM, B.D.
Demy 8vo. Buckram, 12s. 6d.

GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, &c.
(See aiso pp. 13, 14.)

Sophocles: the Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, »
Commentary, and Translation in English Prose, by R. C. JEBB,
Litt. D., LL.D., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow.
Part I. The Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy 8vo. Mew Adit. 125. 6d.
Part II. The Oedipus Coloneus. Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

Part III. The Antigone. [early ready.

Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions
and English Notes, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., &J.E.SANDys, Litt.D.
Part I. containing Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum,
Boeotum de Nomine, Boeotum de Dote, Dionysodorum. Crown
8vo. New Edition. 6s.

Part II. containing Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum 1. II.;
Nicostratum, Cononem, Calliclem. Crown 8vo. New Edit. 75. 6d.

The Bacchae of Euripides, with Introduction, Critical Notes,
and Archeological Illustrations, by J. E. SANpys, Litt-D. New
Edition, with additional Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 125. 6d.

An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic
Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet. By E. 5. RoBEeRtTs, M.A.,
Fellow and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. Demy 8vo. 18s.

Aeschyli Fabulae._IKETIAES XOH#OPOI in libro Mediceo
mendose scriptae ex vv. dd. coniecturis emendatius editae cum
Scholiis Graecis et brevi adnotatione critica, curante F. A. PALEY,
M.A., LL.D. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The Agamemnon of Aeschylus. With a translation in English
Rhythm, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. New Edition,
Revised. By B. H. KenNepy, D.D. Crown 8vo. 65s.

The Theztetus of Plato, with a Translation and Notes by
the same Editor, Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.

P. Vergili Maronis Opera, cum Prolegomenis et Commen-
tario Critico pro Syndicis Preli Academici edidit BENJAMIN
ΑΙ, KENNEDY, S.T.P. Extra fep. 8vo. 55.

Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates,
with Introductions and English Commentary by WILLIAM
WavtTE, M.A. Crown 8vo. cloth. 7s. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5

Essays on the Art of Pheidias. By C. Wa.psTeEr, Litt.D.,
Phil. D., Reader in Classical Archeology in the University of
Cambridge. Royal 8vo. With Illustrations. Buckram, 30s.

M. Tulli Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator. A Revised Text.
Edited with Introductory Essays and Critical and Explanatory
Notes, by J. E. SANpys, Litt.D. Demy 8vo. 16s.

M. Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio
ad Quirites. With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. By W.
E. HEITLAND, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. ᾿

M. T. Ciceronis de Natura Deorum Libri Tres, with Intro-
duction and Commentary by JosEPH B. Mayor, M.A. Demy 8vo.
Vol. I. ros. 6d. Vol. II. 125. 6d. Vol. III. ros. ᾿

M. T. Civeronis de Officiis Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis,
an English Commentary, and Indices. New Edition, revised, by
H. A. HoLpENn, LL.D., Crown 8vo. 05. Ἢ

M. T. Ciceronis de Officiis Libri Tertius, with Introduction,
Analysis and Commentary by H. A. HoLpeN, LL.D. 7th edition.
Crown 8vo. 2s.

M. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinque. The
Text revised and explained by J. S. Rerp, Litt. D. [/x the Press.

Vol. TLE: containing the Translation. Demy 8vo. 8s.

Plato’s Phedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. Corr,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy Octavo. 535.
Aristotle. The Rhetoric. With a Commentary by the late
E. M. Coreg, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised and

edited by J. E. Sanpys, M.A. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 21s.

Aristotle—IIEPI ΨΎΧΗΣ. Aristotle’s Psychology, in Greek
and English, with Introduction and Notes, by EDw1IN WALLACE,
M.A.., late Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford. Demy 8vo. 18s.

ΠΕΡῚ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΣ. The Fifth Book of the Nico-
machean Ethics of Aristotle. Edited by HENRY Jackson, Litt. D.
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. cloth. 6s.

Pindar. Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Notes Explana-
tory and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited
by Ὁ, A. M. FENNELL, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. cloth. gs.

— The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor. gs.

The Types of Greek Coins. By Percy Garpner, Litt. D.,
F.S.A. With 16 plates. Impl. 4to. Cloth £1. 115. 6d, Roxburgh
(Morocco back) ἢ 25.

SANSKRIT, ARABIC AND SYRIAC.

The Divyavadana, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends,
now first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in Cambridge
and Paris. By E. B. COWELL, M.A. and R. A. NEIL, M.A.
Demy 8vo. 18s.

Nalopakhyanam, or, The Tale of Nala; containing the San-
skrit Text in Roman Characters, with Vocabulary. By the late
Rev. T. JARRETT, M.A. Demy 8vo. tos.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

6 PUBLICATIONS OF

Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students,
by J. PEILE, Litt. D., Fellow of Christ’s College. Demy 8vo. 125.
The Poems of Beha ed din Zoheir of Egypt. With a
Metrical Translation, Notes and Introduction, by the late E. H.
PALMER, M.A. 2 vols. Crown Quarto.
Vol. I. The Arasic TEXT. 105. 6d.; cloth extra, 155.
Vol. II. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. tos. 6d.; cloth extra, 15s.
The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in Syriac, with
an English translation and notes, by W. WRIGHT, LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Arabic. Demy Octavo. Ios. 6d. :
Kalilah and Dimnah, or, the Fables of Bidpai; with an
English Translation of the later Syriac version, with Notes, by
the late I. G. N. KEITH-FALCONER, M.A., Trinity Coll. Demy
8vo. 7s. 6d.

History of Alexander the Son of Philip the King of the
Macedonians. Syriac Text and English Translation by E. A.

Bunpee, B.A. [2 the Press. ἡ

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL SCIENCE, &c.

Mathematical and Physical Papers. By GEORGE GABRIEL
Stokes, M.A., LL.D. Reprinted from the Original Journals
and Transactions, with additional Notes by the Author. Vol. I.
Demy 8vo., cloth. 155. Vol. 11. 155. [ΜΝ]. III. Lx the Press.

Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir W. THomson,
LL.D., F.R.S. Collected from different Scientific Periodicals
from May, 1841, to the present time. Vol. I. Demy 8vo., cloth,
Sh | WV JOG Ge [Vol. III. Lx the Press.

A History of the Theory of Elasticity and of/the Strength
of Materials, from Galileito the present time. Vol. 1. GALILEI TO
SAINT-VENANT, 1639-1850. By the late 1. ToDHUNTER, D. Sc.,
edited and completed by Prof. Kart PEARSON, M.A. Demy vo. 25s.

A Treatise on the General Principles of Chemistry, by M. M.
PaTTISON Murr, M.A. Demy 8vo. 1855.

Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. Parrison Muir, M.A.,
and CHARLES SLATER, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.

Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M.
M. PaTTIsON Muir, M.A., and D. J. CARNEGIE, B.A. Cr. 8vo. 35.

A Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. 5. Hearn, M.A.
Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

Lectures on the Physiology of Plants, by 5. H. Vines, M.A.,
D.Sc., Fellow of Christ’s College. Demy 8vo. 215.

A Short History of Greek Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D.,
Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and Explanatory.

_ By H. J. H. Fenton, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4to. 6s.

Diophantos of Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greek

Algebra. By T. L. HEATH, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

\

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 7

A Treatise on Natural Philosophy. Part I. By Professors
Sir W. THomson, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., and P. G. Tait, M.A.,
Demy 8vo. cloth, 16s. Part II. Demy 8vo. 18s. f

Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W.
THOMSON and P.G. Tait. Second Edition. 8vo. cloth, gs.

An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions. By P. G. Tait,
M.A. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 145.

A Treatise on the Theory of Determinants and their Ap-
plications in Analysis and Geometry. By ROBERT FORSYTH
Scott, M.A., Fellow of St John’s College. Demy 8vo. 125.

Counterpoint. A practical course of study. By the late Prof.
Sir G. A. MACFARREN, Mus. Ὁ. 5th Edition, revised. Cr. 4to. 75. 6d.

The Analytical Theory of Heat. By JosepH Fourier. Trans-
lated, with Notes, by A. FREEMAN, M.A. Demy 8vo. 16s.

The Scientific Papers of the late Prof. J. Clerk Maxwell.
Edited by ΝΥ. Ὁ. NIVEN, M.A. Royal 4to.

The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Caven-
dish, F.R.S. Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited by
J. CLERK MAXWELL, F.R.S. Demy 8vo. cloth, 18s.

Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Heat. Edited
by W. N. SHaw, M.A. Demy 8vo. 35.

Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of
Fluid Motion, by Horace Lams, M.A. Demy 8vo. cloth, 125.

The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D Edited by
W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy Octavo. 7s. 6d.

Illustrations of Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate and In-
vertebrate. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. cloth, 25. 6d

A Catalogue of Australian Fossils. By R. ETHERIDGE, Jun.,
F.G.S. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

The Fossils and Paleontological Affinities of the Neocomian
Deposits of Upware and Brickhill. With Plates. By W. KEEPING,
M.A., F.G.S. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

A Catalogue of Books and Papers on Protozoa, Coelenterates,
Worms, etc. published during the years 1861-1883, by D’ARcY
W. TuHompson, M.A. Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

An attempt to test the Theories of Capillary Action, by
F, BASHFORTH, B.D., and J. C. ADAMS, M.A., 1. Is.

A Synopsis of the Classification οἱ the British Paleozoic
Rocks, by the Rev. ADAM SEDGWICK, M.A., F.R.S. and FRrEp-
ERICK M‘Coy, F.G.S. One vol., Royal 4to, cloth, Plates, £1. 1s.

A Catalogue of the Collection of Cambrian and Silurian
Fossils contained in the Geological Museum of the University of
Cambridge, by J. W. SALTER, F.G.S. Royal Quarto. 7s. 6d.

Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Ana-
tomical Museum of the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 25. 6d,

Astronomical Observations made at the Observatory of Cam-
bridge from 1846 to 1860, by the late Rev. J. CHALLIS, M.A.

Astronomical Observations from 1861 to 1865. Vol. XXI,
Royal 4to., 155. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxu. [early Ready.

London. Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

ὃ PUBLICATIONS OF

LAW.

A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract.
By GERARD BROWN FincuH, M.A. Royal 8vo. 28s.

The Influence of the Roman Law on the Law of England.
Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year- 1884. By T. E.
ScruTTon, M.A. Demy 8vo. τοῦ. 6d.

Land in Fetters. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1885.
By T. E. ScrutTTon, M.A. Demy 8vo. _ 7s. 6d.

Commons and Common Fields, or the History and Policy of
the Laws of Commons and Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke
Prize Essay for 1886. By T. E. ScruTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

An Introduction to the Study of Justinian’s Digest. By
HENRY JOHN Rosy. Demy 8vo. 905.

Justinian’s Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu with a
Legal and Philological Commentary by H.J. Rosy. Demy 8vo. gs.
The Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. 18s.

Practical Jurisprudence. A comment on AustTiIN. By E. C.
CiarK, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown 8vo. 95.

An Analysis of Criminal Liability. By the same Editor.
Crown 8vo. cloth. 7s. 6d.

A Selection of the State Trials. By J. ΝΥ. WiL.Is-Bunp, M.A.,
LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo., cloth. Vols. I. and II.
In 3 parts. 30s. [Vol. III. Lx the Press.

The Fragments of the Perpetual Edict of Salvius Julianus,
Collected, Arranged, and Annotated by the late BRYAN WALKER,
M.A., LL.D. Crown 8vo., cloth. 6s,

The Commentaries of Gaius and Rules of Ulpian. Trans-
lated and Annotated, by J. T. ABpy, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER,
M.A., LL.D. New Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. 16s.

The Institutes of Justinian, translated with Notes by J. T.
ΑΒΡΥ, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Crn. 8vo. 16s.

Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, with the Notes of Barbeyrac
and others; an abridged Translation of the Text, by W.
WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 12s. The translation separate, 6s.

Selected Titles from the Digest, annotated by Bryan
WaLker, M.A., LL.D, Part I. Mandati vel Contra. Digest
XVII I. Crown 8vo. 5s.

Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio, and De Adquirenda
vel amittenda Possessione, Digest XLI. 1 and 2. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest x11. 1 and 4—7 and
Digest x11. r—3. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Bracton’s Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the
King’s Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, annotated by
a Lawyer of that time, seemingly by Henry of Bratton. Edited by
F. ΝΥ. MAITLAND. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. £3. 35. (nett.)

HISTORICAL WORKS.

Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the
Napoleonic Age, by J. R. SEELEY, M.A. With Portraits and

Maps. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 30s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 9

The Architectural History of the University of Cambridge
and of the Colleges of Cambridge and Eton, by the late Professor
WILLIs, M.A., F.R.S. Edited with large Additions and a Con-
tinuation to the present time by JOHN WILLIS CLARK, M.A.,
formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Four Vols. Super
Royal 8vo. £6. 6s.

Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 120 numbered
Copies only, large paper Quarto; the woodcuts and steel engravings
mounted on India paper; of which roo copies are now offered for
sale, at Twenty-five Guineas net each set.

The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the

Royal Injunctions of 1535. By J. B. MULLINGER, M.A. Demy 8vo.125.

Part II. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of

Charles the First. Demy 8vo. 18s.

History of the College of St John the Evangelist, by THomas
BAKER, B.D., Ejected Fellow. Edited by JoHn E. B. Mayor,
M.A., Fellow of St John’s. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. 245.

Scholae Academicae: some Account of the Studies at the
English Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By CHRISTOPHER
WorpsworTH, M.A. Demy Octavo, 10s, 6d.

Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Germany
in the Sixteenth Century. By C. H. HERForp, M.A. Crown 8vo. gs.

The Growth of English Industry and Commerce, By W.
CUNNINGHAM, B.D. With Maps and Charts. Crown 8vo. 125.
Chronological Tables of Greek History. By Cart PETER.
Translated from the German by G. CHAWNER, M.A. Demy 4to. Ios.
Travels in Northern Arabia in 1876 and 1877. By CHARLES
M. Doueuty. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 2 vols. £3. 35.
History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the
Country and People by Dr D. WriGHT. Super-royal 8vo. 10s. 6d.

A Journey of Literary and Archeological Research in Nepal
and Northern India, during the Winter of 1884—5. By CECIL
BENDALL, M.A. Demy 8vo. τος.

MISCELLANEOUS,

Kinship and Marriage in early Arabia, by W. Ropertson
SMITH, M.A., LL.D., Fellow of Christ’s College, and University
Librarian. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Chapters on English Metre. By Rev. JosepH B. Mayor,
M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

A Catalogue of Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, by Prof.
ADOLF MICHAELIS. Translated by C. A. M. FENNELL, Litt. Ὁ.
Royal 8vo. Roxburgh (Morocco back). £2. 25.

From Shakespeare to Pope. An Inquiry into the causes
and phenomena of the Rise of Classical Poetry in England. By
E. GossE, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

The Literature of the French Renaissance. An Introductory
Essay. By A. A. TILLEY, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of King’s
College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s. 7

A Latin-English Dictionary. Printed from the (Incomplete)
MS. of the late T. H. Key, M.A., F.R.S. Demy gto. [/mmediately.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

10 PUBLICATIONS OF

six plates. τοῦδ. 6d. Η
Rhodes in Modern Times. By the same Author. With
three plates. Demy 8vo. 8s.
The Woodcutters of the Netherlands during the last quarter
of the Fifteenth Century. By W. M. Conway. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.
Lectures on Teaching, delivered in the University of Cam-
bridge in the Lent Term, 1880. By J. G. Fircu, M.A., LL.D.
Cr. 8vo. Newed. 5s.
A Grammar of the Irish Language. By Prof. WINDISCH.
Translated by Dr NoRMAN Moore. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
A Catalogue of the Collection of Birds formed by the late
HuGh EDWIN STRICKLAND, now in the possession of the Univer-
sity of Cambridge. By O. SALvIN, M.A., F.R.S. £1. Is. ν
Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts preserved in the Uni-
versity Library, Cambridge. By Dr SCHILLER-SZINESSY. 95.
Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Uni-
versity Library, Cambridge. Edited by C. Bendall, M.A. 12s.
A Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library
of the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 5 Vols. ros. each.
Index to the Catalogue. Demy 8vo. τος.
A Catalogue of Adversaria and printed books containing
MS. notes, in the Library of the University of Cambridge. 35. 6a.
The Illuminated Manuscripts in the Library of the Fitz-
william Museum, Cambridge, Catalogued with Descriptions, and an
Introduction, by WILLIAM GEORGE SEARLE, M.A. 7s. 6d.
A Chronological List of the Graces, etc. in the University
Registry which concern the University Library. 25. 6d.
Catalogus Bibliothece Burckhardtiane, Demy Quarto. 5s.
Graduati Cantabrigienses: sive catalogus exhibens nomina
eorum quos ab Anno Academico Admissionum MDCCC usque
ad octavum diem Octobris MDCCCLXXXIV gradu quocunque
ornavit Academia Cantabrigiensis, e libris subscriptionum de-
sumptus. Cura H. R. Luarp,S.T.P. Demy 8vo. 125. 64.
Statutes for the University of Cambridge and for the Colleges
therein, made, published and approved (1878—1882) under the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877. Demy 8vo. 16s.
Statutes of the University of Cambridge. 35. 6a.
Ordinances of the University of Cambridge. 7s. 6d.

Trusts, Statutes and Directions affecting (1) The Professor-
ships of the University. (2) The Scholarships and Prizes. (3) Othe)
Gifts and Endowments. Demy 8vo. 55.

A Compendium of University Regulations. Demy 8vo. 6d.

Admissions to Gonville and Caius College in the University
of Cambridge March 1558—g to Jan. 1678—9. Edited by J.
VENN, Sc.D., and 5. C. VENN. Demy 8vo. 10s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. II

The Cambridge Wible for Schools and Colleaes.
GENERAL EDITOR: J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., DEAN OF

PETERBOROUGH.
**It is difficult to commend too highly this excellent series, the
volumes of which are now becoming numerous.’”’— Guardian.

**The modesty of the general title of this series has, we believe,
led many to misunderstand its character and underrate its value. The
books are well suited for study in the upper forms of our best schools,
but not the less are they adapted to the wants of all Bible students
who are not specialists. We doubt, indeed, whether any of the
numerous popular commentaries recently issued in this country will be
found more serviceable for general use.””—Academy.

“ΟΥ̓ great value. The whole series of comments for schools is
highly esteemed by students capable of forming a judgment. The
books are scholarly without being pretentious: information is so given
as to be easily understood.” —Sword and Trowel.

Now Ready. Cloth, Extra Feap. 8vo.

Book of Joshua. By Rev. G. F. Macitear, D.D. With
Maps. 25. 6d.

Book of Judges. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 25. 64.

First Book of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, M.A.
With Map. 3s. 6d.

Second Book of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. KirKPATRICK, M.A.
With 2 Maps. 35. 6d.

First Book of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumpy, D.D. 45. 6d.

Second Book of Kings. By Prof. Lumpy, D.D. 3s. 6d.

Book of Job. By Rey. A. B. Davipson, D.D. 55.

Book of Ecclesiastes. By Very Rev. E. H. PLumprre, D.D.,
Dean of Wells. 55.

Book of Jeremiah. By Rev. A. W. Streane, M.A. 45. 6d.

Book of Hosea. By Rev. T. K. CHtyne, M.A., D.D. 35.

Books of Obadiah and Jonah. By Arch. PEROWNE. 2s. 6d.

Book of Micah. Rev. T. K. CHryng, M.A., D.D. 1s. 6d.

Books of Haggai and Zechariah. By Arch. PEROWNE. 435.

Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
With 2 Maps. 2s. 6d.

Gospel according to St Mark. By Rev. G. F. Macrear,
D.D. With 4 Maps. 2s. 6d.

Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon FarRRar.
With 4 Maps. 45. δα.

Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A.,
D.D. With 4 Maps. 45. 6d.

Acts of the Apostles, By Prof. Lumpy, D.D. 4 Maps. 45. 6d.

Epistle to the Romans, Rev. H.C. G. Moute, M.A. 3s. 6d.

First Corinthians. By Rey. J. J. Lras, M.A. With Map. 2s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

12 PUBLICATIONS OF

Second Corinthians. by Rev. J. J. Lirias, M.A. With Map. 2s.
Epistle to the Ephesians. Rev. H.C.G. Moutz, M.A. 2s. 6d.
Epistle to the Hebrews. By Arch. Farrar, D.D. 35. 6d.

General Epistle of St James. By Very Rev. E. H. PLumptTrRE,
10}. 8)» Τὸ eh

Epistles of St Peter and St Jude. By Very Rev. E. H.
PLUMPTRE, D.D. 25. 6d.

Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 35. 6d.

Preparing.

Book of Genesis. By Very Rev. the Dean of Peterborough.

Books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. By Rev.
C. D. GinsBure, LL.D.

Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. By Rev. Prof. Rvtr, M.A.

Book of Psalms. By Rev. Prof. KiRKPATRICK, M.A.

Book of Isaiah. By W. ROBERTSON 5ΜΙΤΗ, M.A.

Book of Ezekiel. By Rev. A. B. Davipson, D.D.

Epistle to the Galatians. By Rev. E. H. PERowne, D.D.

Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians and Philemon.
By Rev. H. Ὁ. G. Mou.z, M.A.

Epistles to the Thessalonians. By Rev. W. F. Moutton, D.D.

Book of Revelation. By Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A.

THE CAMBRIDGE GREEK TES#AVENE
FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
with a Revised Text, based on the most recent critical authorities, and
English Notes, prepared under the direction of the General Editor,
J. J. 5. PEROWNE, D.D., DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH.
Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
With 4 Maps. 45. 6d.
Gospel according toSt Mark. By Rev. G. F. ΜΆΘΟΙ ΑΕ, D.D.
With 3 Maps. 4s. 6d.
Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar.
With 4 Maps. 6s.
Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. PLuMMkrrR, M.A.
With 4 Maps. 6s.
Acts of the Apostles. By Prof. Lumpy, D.D. 4 Maps. 6s.
First Epistle to the Corinthians, By Rev.J.J. Lias, M.A. 35.
Second Epistle to the Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lras, M.A.
[Preparing.
Epistle to the Hebrews. By Archdeacon Farrar, D.D.
[Zi the Press.
Epistle of St James. By Very Rev. E. H. PLumprre, D.D.
[ Preparing.

Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. PLumMMeER, M.A., D.D. 4s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 13
fer Eee le PRE Ss) SE RES:

I. GREEK,
Platonis Apologia Socratis. With Introduction, Notes and
Appendices by J. ADAM, B.A. Price 35. 6d.
—— Crito. With Introduction, Notes and Appendix. By
the same Editor. Price 2s. 6d.
Herodotus, Book VIII., Chaps. 1-90. Edited with Notes
and Introduction by E. 5. SHUCKBURGH, M.A. Price 35. 6d.
Herodotus, Book IX.. Chaps. 1—89. By the same Editor. 35. 6d.
Homer. Oydssey, Book IX. With Introduction, Notes and
Appendices by G. M. Epwarps, M.A. Pryice 2s. 6d.
Sophocles.—Oedipus Tyrannus. School Edition, with Intro.
duction and Commentary by R. C. Jess, Litt.D., LL.D. 45. 6d.
Xenophon—Anabasis. With Introduction, Map and English
Notes, by A. PRETOR, M.A. Two vols. Price 7s. 6d.
Books I. III. IV. and V. By the same Editor.
Price 2s. each. Books II. VI. and VII. Price 2s. 6d. each.
Xenophon—Cyropaedeia. Books I. II. With Introduction
and Notes by Rev. H. A. HOLDEN, M.A., LL.D. 2 vols. Price 6s.
Books III. IV. and V. By the same Editor. 55.
Xenophon—Agesilaus. By H. Hairston, M.A. 2s. 6d.
Luciani Somnium Charon Piscator et De Luctu. By W. E.
HEITLAND, M.A., Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. 35.6d.
Aristophanes. Aves—Plutus—Ranae. By W.C.GREEN, M.A.,
late Assistant Master at Rugby School. Price 35. 6d. each.
Euripides. Hercules Furens. With Introduction, Notes
and Analysis. By A. GRAY, M.A., and J.T. HUTCHINSON,M.A. 2s.
Euripides. Heracleide. With Introduction and Critical Notes
by E. A. Beck, M.A., Fellow of Trinity Hall. Price 3s. 6d.
Plutarch’s Lives of the Gracchi—Sulla. With Introduction,
Notes and Lexicon by H. A. HOLDEN, M.A., LL.D. 6s. each.
Plutarch’s Life of Nicias. With Introduction and Notes by
the same Editor. Price 5s.
II, LATIN,
Horace. Epistles, Book I. With Notes and Introduction by
E.S. SHUCKBURGH, M.A.., late Fellow of Emmanuel College. 25.64.
Livy. Book XXI. With Notes, Introduction and Maps. By
M. S. DimspDALE, M.A., Fellow of King’s College. Price 35. 6d.

P, Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Libri 1.—XII. Edited with Notes
by A. StipGwick, M.A. Price 1s. 6d. each.

P, Vergili Maronis Georgicon Libri I. II. By the same
Editor. Price 2s. Libri III. IV. By the same Editor. Price 25.

P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica. With Introduction and Notes
by the same Editor. Price 15. 6d.

Caesar. De Bello Gallico Comment. I. With Maps and
Notes by A. G. PESKETT, M.A. Price 15. 6d.

Comment, I. II. III. Price 3s. Com. IV. V., and Com. VII,

Price as. each. Com. VI. and Com. VIII. Price 1s. 6d. each.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

14 PUBLICATIONS OF
. Tulli Ciceronis Oratio Philippica Secunda. With Intro-
duction and Notes by A. G. PesketT, M.A. Price 3s. 6d.
. T. Ciceronis de Amicitia. Edited by J. 5. Rem, Litt. D.,
Fellow of Gonville and Caius College. Revised edition. 35. 6d.
. T. Ciceronis de Senectute. By the same Editor. 45. 6d.
. T, Ciceronis Oratio pro Archia Poeta. By the same
Editor. Revised edition. Frice 2s.
. T. Ciceronis pro L. Cornelio Balbo Oratio. By the same
Editor. Price ts. 6d.
T. Ciceronis pro P. Cornelio Sulla Oratio. By the
same Editor. vice 35. 6d.
. T. Ciceronis in Q. Caecilium Divinatio et in C. Verrem
Actio. By W. E. HEITLAND, M.A., and H. Cowrg, M.A. 35.
. T. Ciceronis in Gaium Verrem Actio Prima. With Notes
by H. Cowlg, M.A., Feliow of St John’s Coll. Price τς. 6d.
M. T. Ciceronis Oratio pro L. Murena, with English Intro-
duction and Notes. By ὟΝ. E. HEITLAND, M.A. Price 35.

M. T. Ciceronis Oratio pro Tito Annio Milone, with English
Notes, &c., by JOHN SMYTH PuRTON, B.D. Price 25. 6d.

ΝΜ. T. Ciceronis pro Cn. Plancio Oratio, by H. A. HoLpeEn,
LL.D. Second Edition. Price 45. 6d.

M. T. Ciceronis Somnium Scipionis. With Introduction and
Notes. Edited by ὟΝ. D. PEARMAN, M.A. Price as.

Quintus Curtius. A Portion of the History (Alexander in
India). By W. E. HEITLAND, M.A. and T. E. RAVEN, B.A. 35. 6d.

M. Annaei Lucani Pharsaliae Liber Primus. Edited by
W. E. HEITLAND, M.A., and C. E. HAskins, M.A., ts. δά

P, Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum Liber VI. With Notes by A.
Sipewick, M.A., Tutor of Corpus Christi Coll., Oxford. 15. δα.

Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, Books ΠῚ, IV. Edited by
J. E. B. Mayor, M.A.,andJ. R. LumBy, D.D. Revised Edit. 75.67.

III. FRENCH.

Le Philosophe sans le savoir. Sedaine. Edited with Notes
by Rev. H. A. BuLL, M.A., late Master at Wellington College. 2s.

Recits des Temps Merovingiens I—III. Thierry. Edited by
G. Masson, B.A. and A. R. Ropes, M.A. Map. Price 3s. ὁ

La Canne de Jonc. By A. DE Vicny. Edited with Notes by
Rev. H. A. BULL, M.A.., late Master at Wellington College. Price 2s.

Bataille de Dames. By Scripe and Lecouvé. Edited by
Rev. H. A. Butt, M.A. Price 2s.

Jeanne D’Arc. By A. DE LaMARTINE. Edited by Rev. A.
C. CuaPin, M.A., St John’s College, Cambridge. Price 25.

Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Comédie-Ballet en Cinq Actes.

y Par J.-B. Poquelin de Moliere (1670). By the same Editor. 15. 6d.

L’Ecole des Femmes. Mo.itkre. With Introduction and
Notes by GEORGE SAINTSBURY, M.A. Price 25. 6d.

La Picciola. By X. B. ΘΑΙΝΤΙΝΕ. The Text, with Intro-
duction, Notes and Map. By Rev. A. C. CLAPIN, M.A. Price 25.

S|

eS feed Ξ ΞΞ ES

London; Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 15

La Guerre. By MM. ERCKMANN-CHATRIAN. With Map,
Introduction and Commentary by the same Editor. Price 35.

Le Directoire. (Considérations sur la Révolution Frangaise.
Troisieéme et quatriéme parties.) Revised and enlarged. With
Notes by G. Masson, B.A. and G. W. PRoTHERO, M.A. Price 25.

Lettres sur Vhistoire de France (KIII—XXIV). Par Av-
GUSTIN THIERRY. By Gustave Masson, B.A. and G. W.

_ PROTHERO, M.A. Price 25. 6d.

Dix Années d’Exil. Livre I]. Chapitres1—8. Par MapAME
LA BARONNE DE STAEL-HOLSTEIN. By ἃ. Masson, B.A. and
G. W. PRoTHERO, M.A. New Edition, enlarged. Price 25.

Histoire du Siécle de Louis XIV. par Voltaire. Chaps. I.—
XIII. Edited by Gustave Masson, B.A. and G. W. PROTHERO,
M.A. Price 2s. 6d. Part II. Chaps. XIV.—XXIV. By the
same, With Three Maps. Price 25. 6d. Part III. Chap.
XXV.toend, By the same. 2s. 6d.

Lazare Hoche—Par EMILE DE BoNNECHOSE. With Three
Maps, Introduction and Commentary, by C. CoLBECK, M.A. 2s.

Le Verre D’Eau. A Comedy, by Scrize. Edited by C.
CoLBeck, M.A. Price 2s.

M. Daru, par M. Ὁ. A. SatnrE-BEUVE (Causeries du Lundi,
Vol. IX.). By 6. Masson, B.A. Univ. Gallic. Price 2s.

La Suite du Menteur. A Comedy by P. CorneEILLe.
With Notes Philological and Historical, by the same. Price 25.

La Jeune Sibérienne. Le Lépreux de la Cite D’Aoste. Tales
by CouNT XAVIER DE MAISTRE. By the same. Price 25.

Fredégonde et Brunehaut. A Tragedy in Five Acts, by
N. LEMERCIER. By Gustave Masson, B.A. Price 25.

Le Vieux Célibataire. A Comedy, by CoLLIN D’HARLEVILLE.
With Notes, by the same. Price 25.

La Métromanie. A Comedy, by Piron, by the same 2s.

Lascaris ou Les Grecs du XV™ Siecle, Nouvelle Historique
par A. F, VILLEMAIN. By thesame. Price 25.

IV. GERMAN.

Mendelssohn’s Letters. Selections from Edited by James
SIME, M.A. Price 35.

Benedix. Doctor Wespe. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen.
Edited with Notes by KARL HERMANN BREUL, M.A. rice 35.

Selected Fables. Lessing and Gellert. Edited with Notes
by KARL HERMANN BREUL, M.A. Price 35.

Zopf und Schwert. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen von Kar
Gutzkow. By H. J. WoLSTENHOLME, B.A (Lond.), Price 35. 6d.

Die Karavane, von WILHELM Haurr. Edited with Notes
by A. SCHLOTTMANN, PH.D. Price 35. 6d.

Hauff, Das Wirthshaus im Spessart. By A. SCHLOTTMANN,
Ph.D., late Assistant Master at Uppingham School. Price 3s. 6d.

Culturgeschichtliche Novellen, von W. H. RieHL. Edited
by H. J. WoLstENHOLME, B.A. (Lond.). Price 45. 6d.

Uhland. Ernst. Herzog von Schwaben. With Introduction
and Notes. By the same Editor. Price 3s. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

16 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Goethe’s Knabenjahre. (1749— 1759.) Goethe’s Boyhood.
Arranged and Annotated by W. WAGNER, Ph. D. Price 2s.

Goethe’s Hermann and Dorothea. By W. WacNneEr, Ph. D.
Revised edition by J. ΝΥ. CARTMELL. Price 35. 6d.

Der Oberhof. A Tale of Westphalian Life, by Karu Im-
MERMANN. By-WILHELM WAGNER, Ph.D. Price 35.

Der erste Kreuzzug (1095—1099) nach FRIEDRICH VON RAUMER.
THE First CRUSADE. By W. WAGNER, Ph.D. Price 25.

A Book of German Dactylic Poetry. Arranged and Anno-
tated by WILHELM WAGNER, Ph.D. Price 35.

A Book of Ballads on German History. Arranged and
Annotated by WILHELM WAGNER, Pu. D, Price 25.

Der Staat Friedrichs des Grossen. By G. Freyrac. With
Notes. By WILHELM WAGNER, PH.D. Price 2s.

Das Jahr 1813 (THE YEAR 1813), by F. KOHLRAUSCH.
With English Notes by the same Editor. Price 2s.

V. ENGLISH.
Theory and Practice of Teaching. By the Rev. E. TuRINe,
M.A., late Head Master of Uppingham School. Newed. 45. 6d.
The Teaching of Modern Languages in Theory and Practice.

By C. CoLseck, M.A. Price 2s.

John Amos Comenius, Bishop of the Moravians. His Life and
Educational Works, by 5. 5. LAurrgE, A.M., F.R.S.E. 35. 6d.

Outlines of the Philosophy cf Aristotle. Compiled by
EDWIN WALLACE, M.A., LL.D. Third Edition, Enlarged. 45. 6d.

The Two Noble Kinsmen, edited with Introduction and
Notes by the Rev. Professor SKEAT, Litt.D. Price 35. 6d. §

Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VII. With
Notes by the Rev. Professor LuMBy, D.D. Price 3s.

Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. With Notes by the Rev.
Professor LUMBY, D.D. Price 35. 6d. .

More’s History of King Richard III. Edited with Notes,
Glossary, Index of Names. By J. Rawson Lumpy, D.D. 35. 6a.

Cowley’s Essays. With Introduction and Notes, by Prof.
Lumpy, D.D. 45.

Locke on Education. With Introduction and Notes by the
Rey. R. H. Quick, M.A. vice 35. 6d.

A Sketch of Ancient Philosophy from Thales to Cicero, by
JosEPH B. Mayor, M.A. Price 3s. 6d.

Three Lectures on the Practice of Education. Delivered
under the direction of the Teachers’ Training Syndicate. Price 25.

General aims of the Teacher, and Form Management. Two
Lectures by F. W. FARRAR, D.D. and R. B. POOLE, B.D. 15. 6d.

Milton’s Tractate on Education. A facsimile reprint from
the Edition of 1673. Edited by O. Browninc, M.A. Price 2s.

London: C. J. CLAY anv SONS,

CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE,

Glasgow: 263, ARGYLE STREET.
Cambrivge: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. Weipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. Je CLAY M.A. ἃ SONS AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

' ae

ee

4 nm i
| ἜΝ

Ἢ ἔπ i
Oe i
TG

Oh

δὶ δὲ GING

10030

Caeser

Me Ἀν
Morgan,

R.Theol

University of Toronto
Library

ity of Plato,

Trinit
S
6
—]

"ὯΘ

* Philo Judaeus....

An investigation of

ce
"U
8
Ε
ar |

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CoO, LiMITED

=
nm

,

7

Vy
ly
Mee

ἢ ΤΡ

ἍΤ

Rae
Yu iy
He ip τ

MMM MLE,