preters, they were enabled to make any discoveries they pleased: hence it is, that while plain and intelligible accounts were rejected, as intended for the vulgar only, the most obscure and indistinct conceptions were spiritualized into sublime truths; and the sacred mystery of the Trinity, and other doctrines of Christianity, were unfolded to the prophetic eye of Porphyry and Plotinus in the discussions of the Academy; till by these and similar methods the dark oracles of paganism were exalted into a perfect rule of truth and wisdom, to the disparagement of the clear revelations of Christianity. If we give the author of the Divine Legation the full benefit of a Numenius's testimony, (of whose writings only a few fragments remain preserved in Origen and Eusebius, which do not sanction his opinions,) on the supposition, gratuitouly assumed, that the lost works of this Pythagorean and Platonist would have supported his view of

a Numenius is mentioned by Origen contra Celsum, lib. v. pp. 258. 269. edit. Spencer. 1677; also Opiniones de Anima, p. 629. edit. Paris. 1618. Eusebius, Præp. Evang. lib. xi. contains Numenius's sentiments; Tepì toũ devtépov aitíov (cap. 18.); Teρì Tảуalov (cap. 22.). This philosopher, as well as Plotinus, is fond of using the expressions "the Father" and "the Son," (by the Son meaning the Anuoupyès,) to designate the first and second Deities of their own, not Plato's theological system. This was done with the view of making philosophy speak as much as possible the language of revealed truth.

the question; it is impossible, in discussing a subject of so much interest, to pass over without notice the observations which he makes on a passage quoted from Plato's Epinomis. The whole comment exhibits a singular instance of the blind partiality of a writer when advocating a favourite hypothesis. The elegant ambiguity of which Warburton speaks has no foundation, except in his own fancy the words admit but of one meaning consistent with the general tenor of Plato's writings and the rules of just interpretation. In proposing to render ex Toλλ eva", referring to the word alonewv, which occurs in the previous clause, that of many sensations he has only one left, the bishop has fully proved how much his acuteness and ingenuity surpassed his acquaintance with the

b Divine Legation, book iii. sect. 3. vol. ii. p. 65.

The passage alluded to is as follows; “O kai duoxupilomai παίζων καὶ σπουδάζων ἅμα, ὅτε θανάτῳ τις τῶν τοιούτων τὴν αὑτοῦ μοῖ ραν ἀναπλήσει, σχεδὸν ἐάν περ ἔτ ̓ ἀποθανὼν ᾖ, μήτε μεθέξειν ἔτι πολλῶν 1, ěti τότε καθά περ νῦν αἰσθήσεων, μιᾶς τε μοίρας μετειληφότα μόνον καὶ ΕΚ ΠΟΛΛΩΝ ΕΝΑ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΑ εὐδαίμονά τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ σοφώτατον åμa kai μakáρion-here Warburton concludes: the sentence continues thus ; εἴ τέ ΤΙΣ ΕΝ ΗΠΕΙΡΟΙΣ ΕΙΤ' ΕΝ ΝΗΣΟΙΣ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΣ ΩΝ ΖΗΙ, κἀκεῖνον μεθέξειν τῆς τοιαύτης ἀεὶ τύχης. Εpinomis, Bekker, pars iii. vol. iii. P. 374.

It is evident that the phrase ἐκ πολλῶν ἕνα γεγονότα alludes to the doctrine of Plato, that the soul was uniform and uncompounded, μovoid, as distinguished from the body which was compounded. Vid. Phædo, Bekker, pars ii. vol. iii. p. 50.

elementary principles of grammar, a far more humble, yet more necessary instrument in the investigation of ancient learning. And if he had pursued his inquiry to the end of the sentence, he would have observed that the words immediately following the part quoted could hardly fail to convey the notion of that personal consciousness for the denial of which he appeals to the passage as a testimony. It is perhaps unnecessary to dwell longer on this sentence; for there is some reason to doubt whether the Epinomis was written by Plato. The Epistles appealed to in favour of a double sense are generally the 2d, the 7th, and the 13th. The meaning of the seventh has been before alluded to. The second contains a kind of cipher, expressive of the Deity, written with the view, as Plato himself declares, that if the letter miscarried either by land or sea, the reader into whose hands it should chance to fall might not understand the import, a precaution not altogether unnecessary if we recollect the polytheism of the times, and the fate of Socrates his master: the words are these: Φραστέον δή σοι δι' αἰνιγμῶν, ἵν ̓ ἄν τι ἡ δέλτος ἢ πόντου ἢ γῆς ἐν πτυχαῖς πάθῃ, ὁ ἀναγνοὺς μὴ γνῷ. Ωδε åvayvoùs γὰρ ἔχει. Περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα πάντ ̓ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκείνου ἕνεκα πάντα, καὶ ἐκεῖνο αἴτιον ἁπάντων τῶν καλῶν. δεύτερον

Bekker, pars iii. vol. iii. p. 403.

δὲ περὶ τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα. This passage is distinguished by a peculiarity of style which awakens strong suspicions against its being genuine. The founder of the Academy is mystical, but he seldom gives utterance to his mysticism in this kind of language. It will be observed also, that there is a difference of construction between the former part of the sentence περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιXéa, and the two concluding clauses. In the first instance the Tepì is made to refer to the person, in the latter to the thing. But to enter into any. investigation as to the genuineness of the passage would involve a critical discussion on the general character of Plato's Epistles. And though the decision of the question might have some weight in determining the meaning we attach to the words before us, the theory of a double sense would not be in the least affected by such a consideration. For whether genuine or not, they were intended to convey obscurely one sense only; and to those who did not understand them they would have no signification at all. If we suppose the sentence spurious, it was probably interpolated by those who wished to represent Plato as teaching doctrines equivalent to the Christian revelation of the Trinity'; if really written by the philosopher, an interpretation must be sought accordant with the acknowledged principles conveyed in his works,

in which the Trinity is certainly not to be found. The account of creation, given in the Timæus, will furnish a probable explanation. The clause wepì τὸν πάντων βασιλέα may be considered as alluding to the chief Deity, Creator and Sovereign of all things the second, who has secondary objects committed to his charge, may be referred to the universe: the third Intelligence, who has a third department allotted, was perhaps intended to designate man himself, whose formation and final destiny, as of a being distinguished for piety and wisdom, Plato describes with great pomp and diffuseness, and who, in the language of ancient phi losophers, was often represented as a type of the world. It is true that Eusebius refers the whole passage to the blessed Trinity, and censures the interpretation of the Platonists, who explain it by that favourite system which they invented for themselves of the first God, the Father of all things; the second Deity, the Ansoupyès; and the

d An account of the supposed Platonic Trinity will be found in Cudworth, lib. i. c. 4. p. 406.

• μικροκόσμος.

§ Ταῦτα οἱ τὸν Πλάτωνα διασαφεῖν πειρώμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν πρῶτον Θεὸν ἀνάγουσιν, ἐπί τε τὸ δεύτερον αἴτιον, καὶ τρίτον τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν, Θεὸν τρίτον καὶ αὐτὴν ὁριζόμενοι εἶναι. οἱ δέ γε θεῖοι λόγοι τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ pakapíav tpiáda. K. T. X. Eusebius, Præparat. Evangel. lib. xi. cap. 20. Vide also lib. xi. cap. 17. where the passage is again cited in an extract from Plotinus.