The Trinities Of The Ancients

UC-NRLF

B

3

117 1D7

:

'^-^hf^^^-VK.

THE

TRIM TIES OF THE ANCIENTS; OR,

THE

MYTHOLOGY OF THE

FIRST AGES,

AKD

THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE PYTHAGOREAN AND OTHER SCHOOLS, EXAMINED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE

KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRINITY ASCRIBED TO PLATO, AND OTHER: ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS. BY

i

ROBERT MUSHET. " As man

is

fonned by nature with an incredible appetite

for truth

pleasure in the cnjoj-ment, arises from the actual communication of

it

;

so his strongest

to others."

Wabbubton's Divine

JOHN

W.

LONDON PARKER, WEST STRAND. M.DCCC.XXXVll.

Legation.

^ /^J

//^

2x^7/

/

'

'

TO

WILLIAM MUSHET,

ESQ.,

OF GRAY'S INN.

/ There

is

no one

to

whom

I

can more appropriately dedicate

the following pages than to yourself; not only on account of a

community

and opinions, but

as

and because the subject

to

of tastes, sentiments,

a token of ancient friendship

;

which they are devoted has been one of mutual

together, in those hours

which we have frequently discussed of rational relaxation for wdiich I

interest,

am

so greatly indebted

to you.

You were

—attributing

then inclined, as to Plato a

I

was, to regard the opinion

knowledge of the Trinity

considerable distrust and suspicion

you turned your attention the indulgence of

my

into the evidence on

;

—with

and when afterwards

to other objects, I proceeded, in

inclination, to prosecute

which that opinion

is

an inquiry supposed to

rest.

This volume contains the result of the inquiry, so I

thought necessary to pursue

it.

You

far as

will perceive there

a

2

I

PREFACE.

VI

of that devotion whicli

to self-evident truth

have attempted to prove their

support,

opinion with such arguments as

supply their

and, in fulfilling this task,

;

learning,

if

:

an object to gain, or an hypo-

others, again, having thesis to

we pay

we

the

subject can

we must admire

are not convinced by their

reasoning.

As

was conscious, from the beginning, of some

I

misgivings in

my own

mind,

—

as to the truth

first,

of the assertion, and, secondly, as to the cogency of the conclusions arrived at by these WTiters,

made

evidence

to

collect

what

conveniently, to

oppose

their

source of

a

it

I

could,

—

amusement

arguments, and to satisfy myself of their truth or falsehood.

When

the inquiry was brought to a conclusion,

so as to confirm

my

preconceived idea,

(with what justice or truth I

of

fruits

others,

it

might be

useful

not,)

judged

that the

and instructive to

whose pursuits would bring them constantly

in contact with the opinion

be refuted.

them

know

I

Such

which

is

attempted to

as they are, I willingly bequeath

to the reader.

But

as this Essay

was not originally designed to

— PREFACE.

meet the public eye

;

Vll

and as the inquiry was pur-

sued at long intervals in a desultory manner, just inclination

as

avocations of I

prompted me, or as the manifold life

allowed

me

quietude and leisure,

had some apprehensions that the arguments were

not developed so clearly, nor the evidence collated

and arranged

so carefully, as if

it

had been under-

taken with the object of publication immediately in

However,

view.

some first

I

have striven to compensate, in

degree, for the defects and irregularities of

mode

my

of proceeding, by reducing the " indigesta

moles" of the primary materials to their present form; having tried to breathe into them some of the

spirit

the sage

of order and harmony.

maxim

And

hoped

it is

of the Latin poet has not been

violated with respect to brevity

and propriety

:

Id arbiter,

Adprime

If T

am

in vita esse utile,

nequid nimis.

too sanguine in thinking, that I have

conclusively disproved the opinion of Plato and the

ancients ha^^ng a knowledge of the Trinity, I certain that the weakness of the

argument

with the author, and not with the subject.

am

rests

There

vm is

TREFACE.

enough given

to excite

and he ^ho

events;

is

doubt and inquiry disposed

extend his

to

researches further, will, I have no doubt, be

and more convinced of the referred to

is

at all

more

truth, that the opinion

without foundation, and the super-

upon

structure raised

it is,

without

consequently,

stability.

might appear almost superfluous to make any

It

observations here on the prevalence of this opinion.

however, limit myself to the early Fathers

I will,

and to the ancient philosophers.

With

to

respect

knowledge of the

Plato

Trinity,

himself

having

some

seems to have met

it

the early times of

with universal concurrence in

our religion, by the Christians as well as by the pagans.

There

more

is

no feature of that interesting period

curious, if not extraordinary, than this general

acquiescence in that which lias

no foundation

things

of

the

new and

new

for their

religion

strange;

am now

convinced

The pagan

in truth.

had probably some reason rivalry

I

but

conduct

brought I

Platonists

into

:

the

being

can find no more

tanoible explanation for the conduct of the Cliris-

PREFACE.

tiaii

IX

the conjecture, that they were

writers than

deluded or deceived by the specious Eclectic system of philosophy, whose singular interpretations of the

and of the writings of the

expiring mythology,

ancient philosophers, obliterated

all

the landmarks

The pagans

of certainty and of truth.

fancied they

saw a resemblance between the Christian Trinity and the doctrines of Plato and others

met them more than M'illingly confessed,

religion

half-way,

and

:

the Fathers in

the

end

that this essential truth of our

was known before Christ revealed

it

a

second time to mankind*. It has

been supposed, that the Christian Fathers

complied with, and acquiesced the pagan Platonists, by

hominem, (being, as

it

As

the notions of

way of an argumentum ad

were,

all

for the sake of proselytism,)

* "

in,

things to

all

men,

that they might the

the Platonic pagans, after Christianity, did approve

of the Christian doctrine, concerning the Logos, as that which

was exactly agreeable

with, their

own;

so did the generality

of the Christian Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, represent the genuine and Platonic Trinity as really the same

thing with the Christian

;

or as approaching so near to

it,

that

they differed chiefly in circiunstances, or in the manner of expression."

—

Intell.

System,

vol.

iii.

p. 185.

— X

PRKFACE.

easier reconcile the heathen to the doctrine of the

by showing that

Trinity,

mystery,

at

or,

obstacle, as to

have

But

of Plato.

least,

I

was not so great a

it

not so insurmountable an

l^affled

the acute understanding

apprehend

this

is

more

fanciful

than true.

As

to the pagan Platonists themselves, they do

not a])pear to have had any fixed or pennanent ideas

on the

subject.

The doctrine professed by

some of the most eminent of them, was unquestionably repugnant to the essential nature or characteristic

of a Trinity.

AVe may be

certain of this, that if there

been no Christian doctrine,

all

tions of the early period of the

have had a being: will

be no

had

the wild specula-

Church would never

destroy the cause, and there

effect.

There are many and great reasons why Plato, **

the

Swan

of Socrates," was held in such esteem

and admiration by both Christians and that time.

by

His System of IMorals, taught to him

his great master,

and infused into

the beauty and fascination of his elevated

pag-ans at

character

of

his

his writings, style,

philosophy,

and the all

con-

;

PREFACE.

ciirred in exalting

him

Xi

to that pitch of glory and

distinction.

He

enforces upon us the beauty of virtue, and

the excellence of truth «leprecates all pleasures

our preference

for

;

he inculcates

merely sensual

intellectual

;

rather

self-denial

and excites than

corporeal delights.

R. London, AprilU,

1837.

M.

for

CONTENTS.

PART

I.

ON THE IDOLATRY OF THE FIRST AGES. Page Introductory Chapter

.

.

Chapter The Prevalence Nations

of

Compound

.

.

.

19

.

I.

....... Deities

Chapter

in

Ancient

37

II.

These Compound Deities, in a three-fold Nature, or

49

Triad

Chapter The Triad

;

the

three

III.

Kings or

deduced from Ancient History

Royal Personages,

....

67

Chapter IV. The Subject continued .

;

with some Observations on the

Origin of the word Nov
ylo709

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

82

CONTENTS.

XIV

PART

II.

ON THE THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO,

Chapter

I.

Page

The Opinions

of the Ancient Philosophers express the

Unity of God; but they are of a Trinity in this Unity

.....

Chapter

.

.

.

Chapter

On

99

II.

The Opinions of some Modems on the examined

on the Subject

silent

Trinity of Plato

.

•

•

.

.

.114

III.

the Theology of the Timaeus of Plato

.127

Chapter IV. Some Observations on

the Parmenides of Plato

.

.

136

.

.

153

Chapter V. Of

Plato's

System of Ideas

relative to

a Trinity

Chapter VI.

On

the Religion of Plato Epistle to Dionysius

;

and some Conjectures on .

.

.

•

his

.171

XV

CONTENTS.

PART

III.

ON PLATONISM, WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF MOST EMINENT PROFESSORS.

Chapter

ITS

I.

Page

Some

.......

Observations

Platonism

on the Origin and

Chapter The Subject continued

.

.

Chapter

No

of

181

II.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

195

III.

true Trinity in the Platonic Doctrine

Notes

Progress

210

223

PART

thf: first.

ON THE

IDOLATRY OF THE FIRST AGES.

B

V INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

There

is

writers,

to

an opinion entertained by some learned I

purpose

Tlie

opinion

both ancient and modern, Mhicli

examine in

alluded to

is,

ensuing Essay.

tlie

knowledge of a

that Plato had the

Trinity of three persons in the Divine Nature, which,

these writers assert,

genuine writings.

may be proved

out of his

own

This hypothesis has been main-

tained Avith great learning and ingenuity

especially

;

by the celebrated author of " The Intellectual System of the Universe," who would persuade us, that the Grecian philosopher was as orthodox a Trinitarian as himself

According to Dr. Cudworth,

this doctrine

peculiar to the theology of Plato

;

it

was not

was generally

entertained and beUeved by many of the ancient theistical philosoi)liers having had its origin in more ;

remote antiquity.

In reference to

does not hesitate to

call

it,

its derivation,

he

a " Hebrew, Chaldaic,

Orphic, as well as a Pythagorean dogma, or cabala."

In '

this conclusion

Througliout

tliis

he only follows the

Avork,

I

always to denote the Tlatonists a^res of Christianitv.

The

sliall

who

make use

later' Plaof this term

flourished during the

others before

them

first

I call disciples

ox followers of Plato.

B

-2

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

20

Avhom he was probably indebted

to

tonists,

for this

Plotinus acquaints us that the Trinity was

opinion.

known and

long before

recognised

Plato's

time,

which had come down from the Pythagoreans, who

borrowed or received Proclus

which

assigns

it

triads, as

origin

its

to Chaldea.

manifest, that these

is

men

and Pythagorean,

Orphic,

Chaldaic,

from the Egyptians.

it

And

From

all

regarded the Platonic

or

one and the same doctrine, relating to the

same object of

belief,

and springing from the same

fountain. It is

mv aim to

iioint

out this fallacy, and to show

from the writings of the

later Platonists themselves,

that the Trinity which they profess to have deduced

from the theology of Plato, has nothing in common with the ancient triads of the Chaldeans and Egyptians

;

nor could

it

possibly have been derived from

them. This mysterious doctrine of three persons in the

Divine Nature, w^as strenuously maintained by these philosojihers of the first ages of Christianity,

ever

much

they corrupted

illustrations.

And

it

so certain

by their own

how-

fanciful

were they, that

it

was

known and believed by Plato and the ancients, that they did not scruple to charge the Christians with

having purloined it from their works. I purpose, therefore, to trace this error, so as to

make it appear evident,

that they WTre, in a great measure, indebted to the Christian religion for any exact knowledge which

they had of this subject

;

that their

mode

of descrip-

INTRODLXTORY CHAPTER. was imitated from

tion

it

21

and that the mistake of

;

supposing their doctrine to be of very ancient origin,

from confounding the

arose

j^rincipallj

compound

divinities of antiquity,

triads,

or

the Pytha-

Avitli

gorean or Tinia?an principles of all things.

The

men

later Platonists

were not the only learned

addicted to this delusion, of believing Plato to

and funda-

have had an acquaintance with

this great

mental truth of our religion

some of those

the " fathers of the church" as

we may

see from

many

fell

into the

same

passages of their

The onlv

ledo-ed writino:s^

;

difference

called error,

acknow-

between the

this respect was, that the

pagan and the Christian in

former pretended to discover the birth of the Trinity in the superstitious land of Egypt, while the latter

assigned

its

source to the Hebrews.

Theodoret thus expresses himself on '

" Plotinus

declare

him

and Numenius, to

this point.

explaining Plato's sense,

have asserted three eternal principles,

Good, Mind, and the Soul of the World

;

which were

by Plato purloined from the philosophy and theology Eusebius' of Cacsarea, and other of the Jews." learned fathers coincide in this conclusion.

AYhethcr the Hebrew philosophers had so precise

and remarkable a knowledge of

men would

persuade

us,

was

this subject, as these

really entertained

by

Plato and Pythagoras, might be liable to some dis-

pute *

;

but there seems no tangible evidence what^

Vide note A. *

Pr. Ev.

De

lib. ii.

Principio, vol. cap.

20

ii.

p.

496.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

22

ever to suppose, that the latter liorrowed any of their opinions from the former; nor

is

probable they

it

ever •were in Judea*, where alone they could have

had access

this

had happened,

proof)

it

have had an oppor-

to their writings", or

tnnity of conversing with

is

(of

their

which there

is

if

not the least

not likely that they would have bor-

rowed from a people so very obscure were

Even

priests.

at that period, (so

at least, as the

far,

Jews

as the

Greeks

are concerned,) for they enjoyed scarcely any reputation for learning or j^hilosophy.

Another argument, this assumption,

is,

still

more convincing,

against

the gross ignorance of the Greeks

in their writings relating to the Jews, Mdiether they

of their polity or of their

treat

travellers enjoyed that

supposed.

;

Avhich

have happened, had their learned

could

scarcely

religion

Even

ages after Plato,

knowledge which has been Avho

Plutarch,

flourished

when we might expect

diffusion of information respecting the

many

a greater

manners and

peculiarities of different nations, Avas so ignorant of

the Jewish religion, that he makes the HebreAvs to

be Avorshippers of Bacchus "

!

And

Ancient JMythology," presents us

*

Dacier's Life of Pythagoras.

Bryant, in his AA'ith

The author

is

a singular

of opinion that

Pythagoras never Avas in Judea. "

According to

Eoman Greek

tlie historian of the Decline and Fall of the Empire, their sacred writings " were not accessible to

curiosity

of Plato."

till

more than one hundred years

— Gibbon,

cap. xxi, note.

after the

death

23

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. instance of

tliis

kind,

out of the Grecian

arising-

custom of ascribing to foreign words the meaning which they had in their own language, where they discovered a resembhmco in sound, however remote.

The Greeks in Egypt, hearing that the chief temple of the JeMS was called Oviov, Onium, and, as I "

have often observed, catching at every similitude of

name was

sound, they imagined that this

derived

from the Greek word Ovo^, which, in their language, is

well

known

to signify a particular animal.

therefore, concluded that they

had found out the

secret object of the Jewish worship,

was paid

their devotion

soon propagated; and

to an ass. it

was

They,

and that

all

This notion was

asserted, that in the

vestibule of every Jewish temple there

was an

ass's

head!"

From adduced,

this,

and other evidence which might be

if it

seemed necessary

for our purpose, it

appears idle to imagine that any of the doctrines of the Grecian

philosophy were borrowed from the

Jews. It

was probably the

zeal of the Christian fathers

which urged them to adopt biassed spirit

who would

is

this error.

The same

manifest in the ^mtings of Josephus,

attribute everything

good to

his

own

countrymen.

There

is,

I

apprehend, more truth in the com-

monlv-received notion, that Egypt was the parent of the Grecian mythology, whence it was brought by a colony of emigrants

who

settled there.

24

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. According to Bryant, the Egyptians again were

indebted for their religion to another fountain of greater antiquity, Avhich he imagines to be the

monian worship

Ham.

of

or the idolatry of the descendants

;

That,

by Avhom

it

the

truth,

in

however changed and tribes

Am-

Pagan mythology, by the

diversified

was received,

different

or modified

by

time and circumstances, was originally derived from

one

common

remote

in

source,

antiquity.

The

resemblance of the several idolatries of different nations has been remarked by

among

even

the

all

learned men,

Macrobius

ancients.

scruple to assert that

many

did

the Grecian gods, however

metamorphosed by that ingenious and elegant ple, Avere all so

many

different

ceived Jupiter, Apollo, and to be the several

all

the superior divinities,

names of one god

the Greeks, were only various

is

powers or appellations

;

that the female

Rhea, Ceres, &c., however diversified by

divinities, as

It

titles

of the chief god,

by whatever name he may be

my

intention, with the aid

and sagacious Bryant, to

offer

styled.

of the learned

some preliminary

remarks on the mythological systems of the ages after the

pound

Deluge

;

is

to

and by what reason

so widely spread,

human mind.

My

show Avho or what these compound

divinities really were,

became

first

and especially on the com-

deities prevalent in all ancient nations.

object

jjeo-

Other unprejudiced mythologists con-

of the sun.

Jupiter, or

not

this idolatry

and so deeply rooted in the

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

Another

object, Avliicli

the subject of this Essay,

25

more immediately bears on is,

trace the origin of

to

the triads found in most ancient mythologies;

show who they represented

;

to

and how, in the end,

these supposed principles, or causes of

became incorporated with the

things,

all

Platonism

of

the

Christian era.

As we

proceed

it

will

be observed, that the chief

gods of every country (described in a three-fold nature),

by whatever

varieties they are distinguished,

whether

names

in the peculiarity of their worship, or in the

and characters ascribed

to them,

may be traced

original source, in the worship of deified histories given of these

to have

compound

been mere mortals

;

gods,

to one

The prove them men.

for the scenes of their

conquests and triumphs are laid not in heaven, but

They

on earth.

species, like other

are

born,

That such a custom, practised,

live,

men, and then

we have the

as

ancestor-worshii),

living testimony of the

and Romans, who probably carried

this to

And

if

such religious

rites

was

Greeks a more

idolatrous extent than either the Chaldeans or tians.

their

i)ropagate

die.

Egyp-

were instituted

by these accomplished nations to some of

their prin-

who were known to have lived and mortals, we cannot be surj^rised that people

cipal heroes,

died as of a

more

distant era, perhaps less refined than they

were, should be addicted to the same superstition.

We

shall find, that these ancient

have been the

first

gods are said to

kings of every country.

From

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

2G tlicm

(or

are dated the

deity,)

time

from the one supposed to bo the chief

to

itself is said

commence

the concurrence of their histories

we may

perceive

festly referred to

who they

"svith

;

From

them.

among

represented.

one family

compound gods

of the

even

historical events;

first

the ancients,

They mani-

for the histories related

of Egypt, are applicable, and

analogous to those of Babylonia, India, and Persia,

having been founded on the same occurrences, and derived from the same source.

Besides noticed,

this,

another branch of idolatry shall bo

which seems to have been diifused over the

greater portion of the globe then inhabited

;

this

the adoration of the sun and the heavenly host that

we may regard

ture of

this,

;

is,

so

the ancient mythology as a mix-

and the worship of the human creature.

I jiurpose, tlien, to

examine that notion before

alluded to (this being the scoj^e of our inquiry, and for the illustration

of which these preliminary ob-

servations are intended), of Plato, as well as other

ancient jihilosophers, having a knowledge of a Trinity in the

Godhead.

To demonstrate the Avill

fallacy of this hypothesis, it

be necessary to give some account of Plato's

theology,

and the

opinions held

which have come doMii to

us,

by

his discij^les,

\mtings, or recorded in the works of others. a strict analysis of this kind,

it

own From

either in their

shall apj^ear, that the

ancients possessed no knowledge of the doctrine attributed to

them

;

that they had not even a suspicion

INTRODUCTORY

27

CII AFTER.

of it; and that no such construction c^n properly

be placed on the language of Plato. allusions to the triads, or

If

compound

we

any

find

deities of the

wo

Egyptians, and other mythologies, in his writings,

niav safelv conclude that they referred to the deified objects already mentioned. It

is

hard to be conceived,

how men

of learning

and judgment could adopt an opinion of

this kind,

without the most incontestable eA'idence.

For surely

the Trinity

is

a doctrine the least obvious to the

whom revelation Avas a " dead letter." Even to us, to whom it has been revealed, how full is it of wonder and mysterv No

understanding of one to

!

man

can presume to assert that his faculties can

comprehend or fathom reason

is

inadequate to the task

employed, our only recompense ness of

human and when thus

mystery

this divine ;

:

the utter hopeless-

is

our efforts to explain that which

is

wisely

hidden from our feeble and limited minds.

And

all

yet a Pagan philosopher, his

guidance,

nature of the light

whom

who had no

even the existence and

a

doctrine which

beyond the limits of luiman reason lation, still

a

revelation for

God was a dark enigma, is supposed, by of his own reason, to have adopted and

believed

freely

to

is !

so

infinitely

AA^ithout reve-

he embraced that which revelation has

wonder and

were explained to prehensible

us,

a mystery

!

and which,

left if

it

would perhaps be more incom-

than ever.

But how can the mind

receive and freely acknowledge that which

is

not

;

28

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

revealed, and ^vbich,

be so much

as

-witlioiit

thought

revelation, could never

or conceived

of,

However

?

excellent and successful were the efforts of Plato

and Socrates,

in estimating the nature

and attributes

of God, they were the legitimate offspring of reason well this,

a]>i)lied

and directed

but to have soared beyond

;

and to have penetrated the veiled and unre-

vealed mystery of the nature of His existence, w^hich reason can never grasp or conceive, appears a violent contradiction.

Yet Dr. Cudworth, and those who agree with him, must necessarily admit all this. They admit even more than this for Plato is represented not as ;

a Pagan, Avho, receiving

tliis

by

source, corrupted

it,

distinct, or three

kings

doctrine from another

calling ;

it

three principles

but he actually

is

said to

hold the co-essentiality and consubstantiality of the three archical hypostases

:

but an orthodox Trinitarian

that he was no Arian, !

Another objection suggested by the prima facie view of the case, is the converse of that propounded The

System of the Universe, where the learned author imagined such a correspondence as in

this,

Irdellectual

between Platonism and the Christian

to be a great benefit to the latter.

"

We

'

religion,

conceive,

that this parallelism, betwixt the ancient and the

Christian Trinity, might be of

some use

to satisfy

those amongst us,

who boggle

and look upon

as the choak-pear of Christianity

it ^

Vol.

i.

so

much

p. 61, Preface.

at the Trinity,

;

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

when they

29

among the who had nothing

shall find, that the freest wits

Pagans, and the best philosophers, of superstition to determine

them

that way, were so

from being shy of such an hypothesis, as that

far

they were even fond thereof." This author having proceeded so

far,

might have

given us a view of the other side of the picture, and candidly stated to what extent such an admission as this

might

have been injurious to Christianity,

also

by robbing

it

of

its

characteristic originality

and in

;

giving to scepticism an intrument of considerable

by which to contest

force,

this,

was

modern

really

divine origin.

We

times,

employed by a celebrated writer of

who shows how much our

beholden to the

But the truth seems

—and how much

object

truth,

is

it

to

The

!

will a

man

sacrifice to

of the simple and naked

force

often paralyzed for the sake of a theory or

hypothesis.

which

is

Cudworth had a preconceived hypothesis

be, that Dr.

to support,

religion

dreams of Plato, and the soberer

speculations of Aristotle.

this

its

observe presently, that such an argument as

shall

And,

as if sensible of the difiiculties

by

was surrounded, and not unconscious to the

prjudice which a Christian

may

reasonably entertain,

of the originality of the Trinity in his

he uses the above

prepare the reader for the counters he

is

own

religion,

apologetic strain of ex])ression, to

likelv to

many

meet with

surprises in his

and en-

argument.

lay aside any partiality he

The

Christian must

may

indulge in favour of the origin of his Trinity

first

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

30

and then be prepared to receive the

startling result

of Dr. Cudworth's reasoning-, That this doctrine was

a Mell-known " dogma," or "

made

later revelation

mankind

to

long before the

cal)ala,"

that the three

:

persons were not conceived by Plato, as three kings,

having a sejiarate and independent existence, but exactly in the same light in which

we

believe the

nature of this mystery. It

is

my

ments of degree, his

purpose, therefore, to examine the argu-

this learned author,

and to point out the

and the nature, of the evidence on which

hypothesis

is

founded.

I

am

sensible

of the

boldness of the undertaking, in encountering a writer of such gigantic learning and profound acquirements

But

as Dr. Cudworth.

ment by which truth

itself,

emulation.

truth

as learning

so far only

AVherever

be sought

to

is

is it it

only an instru-

is

is

for,

and not

worthy of esteem, or of otherwise employed,

it

am

I,

can neither be admired nor respected.

Far

however, from insinuating that Dr. Cudworth was not reasonably convinced of the truth of his argu-

ment, though his evidence does not seem to Avarrant his

conclusions.

The character and

distinguished Christian exalts

such charge as is

this.

terity.

all his

far

above any

So long as profound erudition

admired by mankind, so long

reward of

him

piety of that

shall

he receive the

exertions in the gratitude of pos-

Before I conclude,

it

may be

necessary to

say a few words more, relative to this great author,

and to those to

whom

I

have been otherwise

debted for the evidence which I adduce.

in-

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

A

81

considerable share of The IiitellecUml System of

the Universe, is

devoted to the discussion of the Trinity

The

of Plato.

author,

Avitli

the hand of profusion,

and a mind overflowing with learning, in that branch of his

work

knowledge which

lays before us all the

he supposed to bear on the doctrine, that could be gathered from the eminent, as Mell as obsolete and obscure, writers of antiquity.

There

is

scarcely a

passage or an allusion that escaped his penetration.

He

absolutely overwhelms

illustration, or

there

us with

one single fault or omission,

is

quotations in

But

defence, of his hypothesis.

in

A^liich

well nigh

subverts his ingenious structure, and which

He

great service to our cause. later Platonists for

ment.

is

of

chiefly resorts to the

evidence in support of his argu-

Plato and his writings are rarely ever men-

tioned or referred divine h}'postases.

doctrine as

this,

to, in

He

was ever

any of the genuine

respect of that Trinity of

does not show that such a so

much

as alluded to

disciples of Plato,

by

which could

not have happened, had they been so intimately

acquainted with inference,

it

as

he imagines.

It

is

only by

and that of great uncertainty, that he works

—supported

deduces a trinity from

Plato's

only by a few obscure

expressions, which are of

doubtful signification, and might possibly refer to

something of a very diflerent nature.

Those

Platonists, to

whom he

is

so greatly beholden

for his testimonies, as Plotinus, Proclus,

were not so much followers of Plato,

and

others,

as professors of

32

INTRODUCTORY CIIArTER.

the Eclectic system, whose very essence consisted in

the choice of as they

its

doctrines from every possible source,

were determined

thought

on, or

founders of this ]ihilosophy.

It

fit,

by the

was not Platonic,

nor TiniEcan, nor yet Pythagorean, nor Aristotelian, but a mixture of

all these,

with an abundant effusion

of obsolete fables, night-mare dreams, and a con-

Their theology, as

it

magic

of

sprinkling

siderable

falsely

is

and

named,

superstition. is

a ridiculous

version of the mythologic systems of different coun-

They adopted the Grecian

mingled together.

tries

theogony, and divesting

it

alone can

made

it

" the basis of their procedure,"

of that fabulous or poetical charm, which

make

tivated mind.

it

endurable to a refined and cul-

Every

fable of the gods, immortalized

by the Grecian poets in adojjted

by

its attraction,

The

their exquisite writings,

these " divine

by a new or

was

men," and robbed of

all

allegorical interpretation.

by Homer and Hesiod

licentious stories related

of their divinities, for which they were reprobated by Plato,

and consigned to the tortures of Hades by

Pythagoras, were freely and willingly received into the category of their truths.

But the amours of

Jupiter or of Venus, were no longer considered such as the license of poetic fiction

them came

:

in the

and fancy described

hands of these interpreters, they be-

" divine energies,"

and

" deific unions," such as

are worthy of immortal beings.

Of

these spurious

followers of Plato,

or

later

Platonists, I shall have, therefore, a great deal to

say hereafter.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

To Mr. I

am

33

Taylor, and his notes and explanations,

my He

greatly indebted for

philosophy and theology.

knowledge of

their

a disciple of the

is

school of Proclus, and a bigoted follower of the later Platonists

and, as such, his interjiretation of their

;

may be

system

He

relied on.

would persuade

us,

that he strictly adhered to Plato's genuine writings

and doctrines

this,

;

however,

on

is

his jmrt a great

error or delusion.

cannot mention the name of Jacob Bryant,

I

reverence and admiration.

without truth

;

his

His love of

profound and extensive learning

;

and

his

admirable judgment, constitute him a great authority

To

in everything relative to antiquity.

I

am under

some

great obligation, for

his writings ojDinions

and

illustrations in the following Essay.

I

am happy

conclusions,

to say, that I coincide in

most of

his

wrought out by unparalleled industry,

and surprising erudition.

His great work on The

Ancient Mytliology, must continue to be the wonder of posterity

w'hich

it

:

it is

honorable, as

was produced,

much

to the country in

as to the great

and inestimable

author himself. It

will

how much

be readily perceived,

am

I

indebted to Bryant; especially in the preliminary observations on ancient idolatry. ao-ree

I

am

inclined to

with him in his strictures on some of the

Grecian writers, on

when they

whom we

cannot safely

treat of the events of

Their accounts

of ancient

remote

history are not

c

rely,

anti(]uity.

to

be

;

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

34

They were

trusted.

tions, chiefly arising

own country barbarians

guilty of great misinterpreta-

from an undue opinion of their

whom

a contempt for those

;

they styled

a false idea of the antiquity of Greece

;

and from a strange custom of proceeding lann'uaffes of other countries,

derived from

their

own.

more

as if the

;

ancient, were really

They likewise invented

innumerable ingenious fables to support any preconceived

which perhaps had

notion,

no

better

foundation than the accidental similitude, in sound, of a foreign word, to one in the Grecian language. I cannot do better than refer the reader to Bryant's " Dissertation

AVriters,"

upon the Helladian and other Grecian

for

a proof of what

have advanced

I

above. "

The whole tive

Ancient Mythology"

examples of

of instruc-

is full

this fact.

"Cory's Collection of Ancient Fragments," has

me

been of great service to Essay.

When

I rejoiced to

this useful

in

work

how much

see

one branch of fell

my

into

support

I

this

hands,

derived,

by way of proof and illustration, from these very ancient and very curious records of antiquity.

The seemed 1.

I

division I have adopted in the following work, to

be the most simple and natural.

make some remarks on

the

compound

deities

of ancient nations; on the triple forms sometimes

assumed by them host,

and

creatures

its ;

;

on the worship of the

prevalence

;

celestial

on the deification of mortal

and point out who these

deified persons

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. were

really

35

and then, by inference, attempt to trace

;

practice, the origin of the Chaldaic, Orphic,

to this

and, subsequently, the Platonic triads, or trinities. 2.

examine the philosophy and theology

I then

of Plato, as they have descended to us, in his copious writings tiquity

First

;

;

and of other celebrated characters of an-

showing their

Cause

;

in

which

Great

oi^inions respecting the it

shall

be made manifest that

they had no suspicion of such a doctrine as a Trinity in the

Godhead.

I

must likewise

notice,

and that

at considerable length, Plato's system of Ideas,

which originated the Second Person, or

\ojo<;,

from of the

later Platonists. 3.

I proceed, after this, to give

some account of

the histories and characters of these Platonists

which

is

the genuine philosophy of Plato

account of the later Platonism errors

;

in

developed the extent of their corruption of ;

and some

itself;

which the

in

and misrepresentation of these writers

pointed out

;

critical

shall

be

and to what extent they were indebted

to the Christian religion for their trinity of archical hypostases.

C

2

PART THE

CHAPTER

FIRST.

I.

The Prevalence of Compound

Deities in

Ancient Nations.

From various

causes, the religious systems, or

now be

logies of the ancients, as they can

by

us,

appear to be It

tion.

full

compound

deities

estimated

of confusion and contradic-

would seem, however, that

public or popular religion in

mytho-

is

so far as the

concerned, the belief

was general,

if

not universal.

These were looked upon as principles and causes, in the universe rity

;

supposed to be devoid of that inferio-

and subordination, applicable to a lower

class of

deified natures.

Beyond and above these and the wise seemed

to

causes, again, the learned

have a glimpse, however

dark and confused, of another Being without multiplicity or

complexity of existence,

who was

dis-

tinguished as the Highest God, and Eternal Cause

of

all

things.

and the

inferior causes,

and mixed, as tion,

But even among if it

these, this Being,

were frequently confounded

were only in moments of abstrac-

that they could conceive the existence of the

Supreme God

;

riiEVALEXCE OF COMPOUND DEITIES

38

been

It has

tlioup^lit

by some, that these popular

gods of antiquity were only so

many

personifications

and that even the Zeus of Greece, and the Jupiter of the Romans, had no

of the elements of nature

But

hio-her oriirin.

for

though

I

;

cannot

ap^ree in this opinion

manifest, tliat secondary causes were

it is

worshipped; there

is

no evidence to determine us

them such a

in assigning to

This

material origin'.

notion seems to have been deduced from the Grecian

mythology

(for

or

cannot properly,

it

reason, be applicable to that of other nations),

may be

interpreted in

many

different

any

with

ways

which

;

for it

was no more than a structure raised by the fertile ingenuity of the Greeks on a more ancient foundation.

They were

religion as

we

much

as

own

perplexed with their

are at this day ; which

is

apparent from

the gloomy and desponding speculations of some of their

They were,

most learned men.

as

we have it;

but

throufrh time and the singular fancies of that

won-

said,

indebted

derful people,

a

to

it

foreign

became

so

source

for

changed and transformed,

that the likeness of the parent was lost, or destroyed, in this, its offspring.

A

great part of that confusion and contradiction,

incidental to the

Grecian mythology,

may be

ex-

plained by supposing the Greeks to have mistaken

the mere

titles

countries, for

of the divinity worshipped in other

so

many '

distinct

Vide Note B.

and independent

39

IN ANCIENT NATIONS.

Bryant alludes to the custom in

this

passage: "This' blindness in regard to their

own

existences.

theology, and to that of the countries Avhence they

borrowed, led them to misapply the terms which

they had received, and to

He

title."

cients,

a god out of every

agrees with Macrobius, and other an-

who thought

lations of

make

one deity

many appelmay be observed, mythologists among

these gods were so

—the

It'

sun.

that some of the freest and best

the ancients were of opinion, that Jupiter, Pluto, Apollo, and Proserpine and Ceres, were names only of one

rrod*.

The

Stoics regarded the

mundane

animal, endued

with an intellectual soul, as the chief cause they supposed this

spirit to

pervade

worship offered to other gods, fact,

all

;

and as

nature, the

was adoration

paid, in

only to parts of this great deity. to the

The nearest approach

opinion a"bove

is

be found in the expressions employed in more ancient systems of mythology, where we have ma-

to

terial objects stated to

be the causes of

Chaos, ether, water, and nature, are such as

air,

we have

all

things.

and others of a like

alluded to

;

but though

they are called causes and principles, they do not seem ever to have been worshipped as gods and, ;

therefore, they must be imagined to represent mere material agency under the guidance of an intelligent

Being. *

In truth, there

An. My.

vol.

i.

p. *

may be

383.

Vide Note C.

discovered above '

Id. p. 387-

PREVALENCE OF COMPOUND DEITIES

40

these material causes, another efficient and primary cause, namely, God,

who

is

distinguished from these

Thus',

subordinate agents.

when

it is

said that

from

water was jiroduced the earth, or the world, we have clearly only a material raise our thoughts

agency

above

this,

;

we must,

therefore,

and acknowledge one

who brought the earth forth from and who became the plastic power the

Intellectual Being,

the water,

;

orderer and disposer of hereafter, that

it

is

shall see,

probable some of these terms,

mentioned above, might rical events,

We

things.

all

really

be applicable to histo-

regarding the dispensations of Almighty

Providence to earth and

its

inhabitants.

These mvtholoo-ists, who manifestly looked to One above material things, are therefore to be honorably distinguished from the atheistical speculators of some of the Grecian schools, who, having reason

and

intellect themselves, did

deny them to have any

influence or place in the creation and government

They recognised no power, no

of the world.

no agency beyond

Such

inert matter,

cause,

and grim necessity.

are the systems of Democritus and Epicurus,

who, in the words of Lucretius, their great exj^ounder,

made

things out of atoms, or seeds; in whose

all

order and disposition no reason

or

counsel were

allowed. *

Tlialcs

tilings

;

but

the water.

autem

earn

Nat. Deor.

called it

"

was

-vvater tlie j\lincl

Aquam

or

first

God

principle of all (material)

that

formed

mentem, quae ex aqua cuncta lib.

i.

all

dixit Thales esse initium

cap. 10.

things out of

rerum Deura

fingeret."

Cic.

De

— 41

IN ANCIENT NATIONS. "

Nam

certe

neque

coiisilio,

primordia rcruiu

Ordine se quaeque, utque sagaci mcntc locarunt;

Nee quos quajque darent motus

pcpigcre profecto"."

For the purpose of reconciling those contradictions

and discrepancies, found

in

systems of

the

nivthology; Avhich clearly arose from no accidental circumstance, as they are universal throughout every

known

(except

of antiquity

religion

the

Jewish

of course), and interwoven with the very fabric;

from the nature of things,

arising, as it were,

divide the history of the this 1.

manner V^^e

first

ages into epochs, after

:

may

suppose

time after the

flood,

with reason, that for some the progenitors of mankind

and

lived in a state of great innocence

That they worshii)])ed the nant of the

I Avould

human

benevolent Being

;

God

simplicity.

Avho saved this rem-

race, as a perfectly spiritual

and

being led and guided by the pure

and simple precepts of Noah,

in their

mode

of

adoration. 2.

Then

S}Tnbols being introduced to typify the

Deity; the sun might reasonably be regarded as his great representative; and other symbolical objects

might be used in His worship. 8.

There

an inherent propensity

is

confound the symbol and

To imagine

that

distinguish the one

"

in

mankind should always from the other

Lucret.

lib.

man

the thing signified

i.

ver.

by

to it.

clearly

in religion, is to

1020,

TREVALENCE OF COMPOUND DEITIES

42

presuppose a ]iermanency, to some extent, in their original purity

stability in religions rites

;

mutability in the

old,

with

inclined to retrograde,

i)urity of religion.

than advance, in

Hebrews of

and im-

human mind.

JSIankind, however, have

rather

;

all

their

The

knowledge of God,

could scarcely keep themselves above idolatry.

So the

posterity of

Noah,

in course of time, re-

lapsed into the worship of the spnbol of the true

The

God. glory,

sun, the sensible representative of his

had those

rites transferred to

it,

and prayers

offered up, which are the prerogatives only of the

The heresy introduced by the family or descendants of Ham, was undoubtedly of this nature. Nimrod and his fol-

intellectual

and

invisible Being.

lowers adored the sun and celestial host

;

M'hich in a

simpler age "were regarded only as types, or material symbols, of the 4.

But even

Supreme this

Deity.

Sabaism, or sun worship, seemed

of too pure and unsubstantial a nature to be per-

manently practised, without some

alloy.

Hence, in

the course of time, the very founders of this idolatry

were themselves confounded with their gods, and worshipped accordingly; so that the object recognised once as the symbol of the Deity, was transferred to these creatures of frailty and mortality. at

first,

who

Probably

some of the immediate descendants of Ham,

rebelled against the precepts of Noah, and set

up gods

for themselves, arrogated to

them the

titles

used by the Persians and other sun-worshippers:

;

IN ANCIENT NATIONS. sncli as cliildron of the

until

43

sun, ofTspring of the gods

they were really looked up to as the

at hist

progeny of heaven, and adored as such.

real

conformity with

this,

Bryant acquaints

us,

In

that Bel

was an ancient name of the sun, when worshipped as the chief deity

;

but when the followers of Nim-

rod awarded to him

he was by

this appellation,

his

descendants confounded with the sun, and worshipped

Wo

also.

shall see, likewise,

that Osiris, Jupiter,

Orus, Dionusus, and other names, denoted the sun,

while at the same time they were applied to deified

men. This

is

clearly proved

from the spnbolical super-

stition of the Egyptians, in which

we

discover the

symbols of Osiris and the sun to be substantially the

There

same.

day

;

and

were

in

Osiris, the

sun became Isis

is,

truth,

the luminary of

Osiris,

deified ancestor, of

a significant t\^e.

also applicable to the

whom

the

So the symbols of moon.

can be no doubt that the histories of Osiris relate to beings of this earth

;

But there

Amnion and

and cannot be

reconciled to the sun, or any heavenly gods.

From

this constant collision of

terms

arises

of the perplexity and confusion to which alluded

;

and

if

I have pointed

reconciling

all

most

we have

we bear in our minds the distinction we shall have little difl^iculty in

out,

the

discrepancies

of

the

ancient

mythology. 5.

That Avhich was exemplified in the worshijipers

of the sun, in confounding the spnbol with that

rREVALEXCE OF COMPOUND DEITIES

44 wliich

it

materially represented,

consjiicuous in

tlie

is

made

still

more

animal-worship of the Egyptians.

indeed, disputed, whether the priests,

It mio-lit be,

and other educated natives of that country, really regarded the animals in any other light than mere sacred symbols of their gods

;

but certainly the

draw

vidgus were not likely to

famim

of distinction

;

nor was

it

;9ro-

so nice a line

the interest of the priest-

hood to enlighten them on this point. There seems to have been something of gratitude elicited in this creature-worship

;

for those animals

were most reverenced, Avhich, in some degree, conferred oldigations on man, by promoting his comfort, and in-

However, there are examples

creasing his security. to the contrary; for in

crocodile

on

this

Upper Egypt,

it is said,

the^

was worshipped, which could not have been

account; and Avhat

is

rather singular, the

very creature which was believed to injure or destroy this formidable deity, was held in the greatest sanctity".

genius, or

The crocodile was a symbol of the evil Typhon; the ichneumon, that of Osiris,

the good and benevolent deity.

The Greeks and Romans were They unjiardonable superstition. adorn

art to

that

it

rence

with so

had, however, the

much beauty and

fascination,

excites in us little of the disgust and abhor-

we

of Egypt.

7

it

equally guilty of

feel for the

wretched and debased religion

The gods

Dio. Sic, cap. 3.

of woods, fountains, and of

^

Ilerodot., lib.

ii.

cap. 67.

45

IN ANCIENT NATIONS.

groves, are also

more

poetical

and attractive images,

than deities presented to us in the form of croco-

man

diles, goats, bulls,

and monsters made

and the brute.

This strong contrast stamps the

uji

of the

and genius of the respective people.

taste

In the worshi]) of heroes and

deified

men, the

^Greeks and Romans only followed a very ancient practice, to

be perceived in the religious

rites of

the

Chaldicans, Egyptians, Indians, and other nations,

we have any

with whose mythologies

Some

acquaintance.

of these nations, as the Chaldieans and Indi,

retained the sun-worship purer than others, as the

Egyptians and Greeks

;

whom

the former of

rapidly

sunk down lower in superstition every generation.

And

if

modern

we were

to credit the accounts of some^"

travellers,

they are as conspicuous

now

as

ever, for their credulity.

There cannot be a doubt that some of the ancient philosophers recoo^nised

eternal

above

rose

and

First

the

popular creed, and

acknowledged

Cause.

All

one

the

infinite

and

gods

they

other

who

believed to be beings created in time,

served as

agents or ministerial powers, or secondary causes of

the Chief Being.

These subordinate

the stars and demons, or deified

the mythologic systems seem to have "

^°

deities

were

However,

men.

made no such

Vide Note D. Savary's Letters.

ligion

authorized, are

"

The

frantic ccrenaonies the

now renewed around

Santons, before the churches of the Copts, and

mentioned."

pagan

re-

the sepulchres of in

the fairs I

;

!

4G

rHEVALENCE OF COMrOUND DEITIES

distinction as

selves

of this great

their artful i)olicy to

keep

great body of the peo})le,

it

truth,

it

was jmrt of

from the minds of the

who looked not beyond

their popular Jupiters and Junos.

the wisest and

were them-

If the priesthood

tills.

sensible

most learned

Plutarch, one of

priests

of antiquity,

attained some knowledge of such an Eternal Cause

how dark and doubtful was this abstract idea, when it failed to influence his practice as a priest, but

or to free his thoughts from that childish superstition, so

apparent in

all his

writings

There was a practice very prevalent, which necessarily

debarred the ignorant and uneducated from

having any idea of this Great First Cause. maintained by the priest, that

i)liilosoiiher,

as well

It

was

by the

as

the vulgar had nothing to do with sacred

things; and that, consequently, they

must

silently

acquiesce in the religion as established, and in every

fraud and delusion of the jmesthood.

among

Then

the Greeks especially, the office of

and the profession of philosopher, were distinct sort of

again, jDriest,

j^erfectly

from each other. It was laid down as a maxim, that the one should not encroach

upon the province of the other should scrupulously eschew

;

that the philosopher

everything relating to

the public religion.

This was an

artificial

to the propagation

distinction of great injury

of truth

;

for

religion

had no

chance of benefiting by the siDeculations of the philosophers,

who had matured

their

opinions of the

47

IN ANCIENT NATIONS.

Deity by long study and contemplation.

Hence,

the false religion of the country was connived at by the very refined

men who

We

it.

lamentable

fact,

must acknowledge, however, the that few of

promote

desire to

alone could have purified and

them had any anxious

Their great aim was to

truth.

maintain an hypothesis, or found a school; greatest

ambition

opposition to old ones part, indifferent to

new

establish

to

and they were,

;

their

doctrines for the

in

most

anything but their success.

Then, again, had the philosophers proffered their sers'ices to

their

the priesthood, to redeem the people from

savage

ignorance respecting

religion;

they

would have received no encouragement from that To have enlightened the people, was to quarter. undermine the very foundations of their power its whole stability depended on the fraud and delusion ;

kept np by them.

The

antiquity of their practice,

and the legends upon which and authority than

force

reason,

how

however noble,

it

all

rested, carried

the

excellent,

speculations

and

refined.

powerful was such an argument as

nation

who

more

this,

of

And to a

affected so great a veneration for anti-

quity as the Grecians

!

The death

of Socrates bears

undying testimony to the fraud and h}iiocrisy of and teaches their debased and licentious priesthood ;

us

how dangerous

it

was for one of the profession

upon the proThis happened in an age which vince of the priests. shed glory over the laud of Greece when wisdom of philosopher, to

seem

to encroach

;

VREVALENCE OF COMPOUND

48

DEITIES.

and learning reached the highest perfection and

;

}-et,

and more

during this

and legends

to their fables

in their chains

;

when

for its exquisite refine-

the taste was distinguislied

ment

;

the priesthood clung

era,

riveted the people

;

more

and exercised their power

for the persecution of truth,

and the propagation of

error.

Plato and Socrates, no doubt, acknowledged one eternal,

tual

unmade Cause,

Being

but

;

a

this did

spiritual

and

intellec-

not hinder them from

reverencing a multiplicity of inferior, but generated divinities.

They regarded these

as causes, or agents,

under the guidance and government of the First

was the pure deduction

Great Cause.

This

human

The mythology,

reason.

of

or popular religion,

on the contrary, rested on ancient prescription

;

no

gods were lawful but those whose existence was

founded on tradition ^\ ' ^

Tliere are exceptions to this rule.

New

gods were, from

time to time, introduced into both Greece and Rome, as circumstances

seemed

to require.

Tlie

general system, however, was

prevented from falling to pieces by an unbounded reverence for tradition

and antiquity, which

Avas of itself sufficient,

when

the

system was neither affected by public opinion, nor injured by the refined speculations of philosophy.

;

49

CHAPTER

II.

These Compound Deities, in a three-fold Nature, or Triad.

There

is

a feature of ancient mythology of great

consequence to

most nations nature

us, in

is

our inquiry

a Mife, and a

as a father,

This compound god, or

son.

that the deity of

described in a three-fokl state, or

most frequently

;

;

tln-ee divinities, is pre-

valent in every system of antiquity

;

and there

is

such a remarkable correspondence in their histories

and

characters, that they

must

refer to

the same

persons.

The

chief of these three, namely, the father,

sometimes looked upon as the cause of

and described to us being, jDOSsessed ness,

in

was

things

an active and intelligent

of great virtues, as justice, good-

But there

and wisdom.

his

as

all

is

a strange anomaly

divine nature, or divine origin, for

all

actions attributed to him, happen here below

;

the

and

not in heaven.

Homer,

poem on

in his great

the mythological

legends of Greece, very properly represents his gods as dwelling in heaven

scended on in

mundane

earth, affairs.

;

and from thence they de-

when they concerned themselves These other

deities alluded to,

are not described after this manner. to live

and

die,

They

are said

and be buried like mere mortals.

D

;;

COMPOUND

50

DEITIES,

They perform pilgrimages over the whole

earth,

and

return as great conquerors.

The

father, or chief god, is called the first planter

of the vine

the

;

erected altars to

husbandman and the first who the gods. He taught mankind knowfirst

ledge and science

;

and he

;

is

reputed to have been

a person of great benevolence, justice, and goodness which, along with his sufferings and death, can

all

only relate to a

Who

human

personage

this

and not to a god.

being,

was,

will

be

afterwards

exj^lained. It

is

said of' the Babylonians, that they

ledged a threefold

Apasoon,

and

to be his wife,)

Moymis.

Avho gave being to

people, like the

this

who

Damascius,

represented

(allegorically

Tautlie,

acknow-

Avhom they denominated

god,

rest

a son called

gives us the relation, says,

of the barbarians, passed

over in silence the one principle of the universe,

namely, the Eternal Cause; so that Apasoon was only an inferior, or subordinate styled the

mother of the gods

truth with Rhea,

Isis,

Tauthe

being the same in

these three descended a

progeny, and from this family another, until Belus,

who

is

is

Ceres, and the rest of the

From

sujierior goddesses.

;

deity.

we reach

distinguished as the fabricator of the

world. It

might be inferred from

this,

that the Baby-

lonian triad really existed prior to the demiurgus

but

this confusion of '

language arises from the mis-

An. Frag.

p.

318.

;

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

61 f/ IT ^T T

V

application of terms, and the different titles of

one to many

misappropriation

rx'U

divinities.

The

This Apasoon was no doubt a deified person.

sun was his emblem as such

ped

of Bel, or Beliis

and

He

as the sun.

also worship-

represented as the ancestor

is

but this

is

also a title of the sun

to treat of this subject in detail,

it

proved, that as the sun they were the same deified

other

and

;

after

may be but as

some generations.

as the deified mortal,

creator of the world

but this

;

here called the

is

is

a great mistake

he himself was an inhabitant of the

must

;

men, the one was truly descended from the

Belus,

for

When

he was the same with Apasoon.

as such

we come

;

and he was

:

of

be, therefore, Bel, as the sun,

who

earth.

is

It

so styled.

All this confusion arises from an universal custom of giving the same names to objects of a distinct nature. I

am

Proclus,

inclined to

who

is

think, that the demiurgus of

situated

somewhere about the same

place, in his procession of gods, as Belus occupies in

the

Babylonian system,

source

;

was borrowed

and that the intermediate

between the

first

god and the

froni

this

triads, or unities,

creator, are the

same

with those progenies of the Babylonian family.

have some suspicion of

this

I

from Damascius himself,

who, in this description, conceives the son Moymis to be

no other than the

inquiring into niythologists.

the

sense

intellifjihle

signified

ivorld,

without

by the ancient

We have already observed, that Proclus D

2

COMPOUND

52

called the trifid a

DEITIES,

Chaldean doctrine

;

and he pre-

tends to have been indebted greatly to that nation, for

much

of his spurious ])hilosopliy.

The Phanicians

are said to have recognised the

elementary natures, ether and ])rinci})les, of,)

Ulomus, the

first

god,

who

the other inferior divinities.

and

air,

air,

as the

two

first

from which was begotten (or si)rung out again gave being to

These two words, ether

had probably some secret

signification,

alluded rather to events than to things.

And

and

being

mere material agents of a higher power, they could only be recognised as secondary, and not as primary

The Phoenicians seem

causes.

also to

have passed

over in silence the one principle of the universe,

God

himself All the refinement of Damascius, or him from

whom he derived this knowledge, is superfluous. He calls Ulomus, the summit of the intelligible order of gods,

who

jiroduced from himself Chusorus, the

expanding

first

principle,

and then the egg

:

which,

following the Platonic version, he styles the intelligible

mind

tories

;

while Chusorus signifies the intelligible

All this arises from ignorance of the his-

power.

and families of the persons deified by the

Phoenicians.

In the above description, however, truth entirely

lost

sight of; for

is

not

Chusorus was really a

descendant of Ulomus.

According to the etymology adopted by Bryant, this

word Chusorus

is

compounded

of Chus, or Cush,

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

and

Oriis,

a

Hence

of the sun.

title

Cush, the son of the sun

;

63 signifies

it

and as such he was wor-

shipped. " Chus,

by the Egyptians and

styled Or-Chus,

and Chus-Or

;

Canaanitcs, was

the latter of which ;

and

learn in Eusebius, from Pliilo, that Chiiisor

was

was expressed by the Greeks, Xpva-cop, Chrusor

we

one of the principal

deities of the Phoenicians, a great

benefactor to mankind

and by some supposed

;

been the same as

have

to

Both the

Hephaistus.

Tyrians and Sidonians were undoubtedly a mixed

and preserved the memory of

race,

equally

that of

xvitli

Ham

and Chus,

Canaan ^"

This learned author presents us with a singular quotation from Sanchoniathon, respecting this person, Chrusor,

which manifestly proves him to have Sj^eaking of the great benefits

been a deified mortal. conferred by

A 10

Kat

CO?

him on mankind, he concludes by

saying,

Oeov avrov fiera davarov ecre^acrOrjaav' Jov

ivhich reason, after his death, they ivorshipped

him as a

god^.

to

Chus was the son of Ham, who was represented be the sun, or Helius so that he was only one of ;

the children of the sun'.

" If

then Chrusor be, as I

have supposed, Chus; the person so denominated

must have been, according to the more ancient We find, mythology, the son of Helius and Dios. accordingly, that

*

An. My.

vol.

ii.

it

was

p. 50.

so."

^

We

Id. p. 51.

can, then, pene-

"

Id. p. 61.

COMPOUND

54

DEITIES,

trato the obscurity of tlie Phoenician genealogy of

the gods, and see to what family If these

it

referred.

two words of Damascius,

and

AiOrjp

Aijp,

Ether and Air, be not a corruption' of two ancient jirojier names, mistaken for Grecian words, we might imagine the former to allude to heaven or the firmament, and the latter to bo synonymous with the violent mind, of other ancient mythologies.

It

remarkable that Typhon, among the Egyp-

is

tians,

was

really a personification of a tempest, as

well as of an evil genius. Plutarch, in his Treatise on the

Egypt, unruly

says', ;

Typhon

how

greatly perplexed

that portion of his history,

Truth, however,

no suspicion.

he

Avas

which manifestly

and of which he probably had

relates to the deluge,

this

something violent and

but the confused account which he gives of

this deity, proves

with

signified

Mythology of

incongruous collection of

may be

from

elicited

fables.

In another part of his entertaining treatise, Plutarch informs us, that by Osiris, the Egyptians

(sometimes) Nilus

Tyi^hon '

is

An. My.

the vol.

i.

Isis,

the earth

;

sea, into Avhicli Osiris fell

p. 21.

Radical Ait.

of the sun.

or the sun

;

" Ethiopia was

from Aur and Alhyr." Ur, and Our, signified

Orus of the Egyptians." *

and by

Bryant

and that and

lost

says, tliat

Ait

and was compounded tlius Ath-ur; and places were so called from the worship

•was a title of Ilam,

Athyr, or

;

mean

Isis et Osiris.

:

named both Aitheria and Aeria, Aur sometimes expressed Orj both light and fire. Hence came the Again, "

p. 15.

;;

IN

A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

himself, being tossed to

deep.

This

but

is

it

is

and

fro in the

so far consonant with true liistory

name

;

for the descrip-

which may be

refers to a person,

evidently

proved out of

may

tempestuous

not to be supposed that this term Nilus

alhided to the river of that tion

55

many

We

other parts of the work.

observe, therefore, that Osiris, in this character,

alluded to the great jirogenitor of mankind,

Noah

and that Typhon was a

of the

sort of incarnation

Hence, Bryant acquaints

deluge.

us, that "

T}qihon'

The overflowing of the Nile by the Eg^qitians, Typhon." But that it

signified a deluge.

was called signified a

violent

Tv(f)-wv°, avefio'i

wind or tempest,

By

/j.eya<;.

Typhon

is

is

clear.

meant a

violent

also,

wind.

The Egyptian

compound

triad, or

deity,

bears a

strong resemblance to the Chaldean or Babylonian. Osiris

is

the husband of

Isis,

only-begotten son Orus.

many titles

Isis is

given to her, and

She

variety of characters.

sometimes the earth

;

who

is

is

gives birth to an

a goddess,

represented in a great

sometimes the moon,

at other times

nature, and a

personification of her generative princijile.

fied person,

and the chief

conceives Orus and Osiris ^

An.

]\Iy. vol. iii. p.

Osiris

character of a

represented in the double

is

who has

deity,

as

the sun.

dei-

Bryant

daemons, or deified

162.

® Bryant says, " Typhon Avas a derivative from Tuph, -n-hich seems to be the same with the Suph of the Hebrews. By this

they denoted a whiriwind."

—

vol.

iii.

p.

164.

;

:

COMrOUND

56

be the same jicrson

to

mortals,

DEITIES,

under

different

There seems some Let us suppose Osiris to be Noah, and we

truth in this conckision.

names.

shall

understand this passage from the learned writer'. " The renewal of life was, by the Egyptians, esteemed

They

a second state of childhood.

accordingly, in

their hieroglyphics, described Osiris as a boy,

Mliom

they placed upon the lotus, or water-lily, and called This plant was a sacred

Orus."

grew above the waters of the Nile, flood

;

and

it

emblem, which rising with the

was considered a very appropriate type

of the ark overtopping the waters of the deluge. then,

Orus,

regarded also

was as

in

Osiris

second

a

his

birth.

second

state

According to

Plutarch, he returned from Hades, after having been

enclosed in an ark in a state of death

being a sort of second existence. mythologists,

mankind

;

he

is

'"

O

mighty

first-born of

of Protogonus, he

title

thus described in the Orphic

his return

Hence, by the

denominated the

and under the

;

hymns

fivst-begotten, hear

my prayer,

Two-fold, egg-born, and wand'ring through the

He

is

called egg-l)orn, because

to be a very proper ark.

Such

is

;

An

An. My.

an egg was conceived

or representative of the

egg contains the embryo of

and the ark contained the germ of the

future race of mankind.

'

air.

Bryant's oi)inion, maintained with sin-

gular ingenuity.

the bird

emblem

is

vol.

iii.

p. iCiD.

Hence we have an '»

Hymn 6

expla-

(Taylor).

57

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

nation of tins object being reo'arded as a principle, in

some ancient

upon

religious

womb

as the

systems.

gods sprung forth into existence things.

It

supposed that

is

:

the mother of

;

hypothesis,

we

can,

of Tyi)hon and the "

there

If

is

by means of

mundane

been a favourite symbol, adopted among

in his

it,

this

explain the fable

egg.

The" Orphic egg mentioned by

it

a personifica-

any truth in

undoubtedly of the same purport.

find

is

from which Orus came forth

second childhood.

all

in her maternal

Isis

character, and as the wife of Osiris, tion of the ark

was looked

It

of nature, from which the very

Proclus, was

seems to have

It

and very ancient

many

nations.

It

;

and we

was

said,

by the Persians, of Oromasdes, that he formed mankind, and enclosed them in an egg" Protogonus,

called

sometimes Phanes,

de-

is

scribed as bursting this egg, and leaping forth into light, in

From

the Orphic theology.

him,

age

is

the same with Dionusus,

TTOvrov, irarep

it is

said,

This person-

sprang the race of gods and mortals '^

who was

called Trarep

act]';.

Typhon, the incarnation of

evil,

(originally con-

sidered as the genius of the deluge,) was a person

He

represented in various ways. Egyptians,

the

brother of

struggled for supremacy.

Osiris,

But

is

called,

with

this is a

sometimes to the Most High himself, or " An. My.

vol. iii.p. ](i5.

''

by the

whom

he

name given tlie God of lb. p. 166.

COMPOUND

58 the Deluge,

who

is called,

When mankind

Deity.

DEITIES,

therefore, the T^q^honian'^ relajjsed into the idolatry

of sun-Avorship, Tyjihon was then called Ilclius, and

was adored

tarch •^

This singular estima-

as the chief god.

genius seems to have perplexed Plu-

tion of the evil

who was

ignorant

application of the term.

of the

He

reason

only regarded

his popular, or subordinate character, as

hands of God.

agent in the

Bryant

of this

him

a material

affords us this

explanation of the apparent inconsistency ^^

comprehended

have

Grecians

in

several

The

"

characters

under one term, which the Egyptians undoubtedly

The term was used

distinguished. as a

name

for a title as well

and several of those personages A\ho

;

had a relation to the deluge were styled typhonian or diluvian."

Plutarch gives

and the

tiful

up

a very curious history of Osiris

He'' relates that Typhon (namely, the

ark.

Typhonian

lis

deity,)

formed an ark or

and exquisite workmanship,

Osiris.

"

Every man admired

in

coffer of beau-

which he shut

this fine piece of

workmanship, and Ty^ihon, in a merry mood, pro-

mised to bestow it."

Having

it

upon him whose body would measure and

secretly taken the

fit

jiro-

portions of the j^erson of Osiris before the coffer

was exhibited, he invited the god to enter ^^

An. My.

'*

Isis et Osiris.

vol.

iii.

p.

He

it,

166.

acknowledges that the Egj^tians some-

times rogarded Typhon as the chief god, Helius, or the sun. '*

An. My.

vol.

iii.

p.

and

167-

'*

Isis et Osiris.

A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

IN

then he and his accomplices him, lead

Avliich ;

the

upon

lid

they fastened with nails and melted

after Mliich they

He

into the sea.

it

down

let

59

conveyed

it

away, and threw

was afterwards cast

says, it

ashore on the coast of Byblus by the waves or

Elsewhere he

illustrates the

by the

coffer

when

shape of the chest or

metaphor of the moon's

significant

crescent, which,

tide.

decreasing, assumes a horned

shape, resembling a ship or boat.

Under

we can

this fable,

ancient history to which

was Noah;

Osiris

and Typhon the God of the Deluge. lating to the proportions of the

the

perceive

clearly

it refers.

That part

body of

Osiris,

re-

may

possibly allude to the instructions given in the for-

mation ami construction of the

ark.

Plutarch, agreeably to the mythology of some other people, says, that the Egyptians sometimes repre-

sented

Whether deluge

is

ascribed

Oceanus

this

;

and men, Ocean

was on account of

problematical. to

him,

and to as

I call,

the

whose nature ever flows, and men

at first both gods

evil principle ;

relation to the

calling

sea,

it

he imputes the origin of gods

it

may have been

nations

cause.

Orpheus, in the hymns

personifies

;

arose.

observed, that in the

deity of Egypt, there

an

its

original

he did al^o to Protogonus.

From Avhom It

or

principal

a

as

tvater

was

compound

really a personification of

a peculiarity

common

to other

and which may probably have originated

in

a corruption, or misconception of the character of

COMPOUND

CO

The

the diliivian deity. to this

;

which may

DEITIES,

history of cre]»t

liave

in,

Typhon alhided when mankind

lost the knowledge of the true God, and

into

fell

idolatry.

The Orphic theology

said

is

fountain of the Grecian.

It is

to have

been the

of the same nature

with those systems I have mentioned

;

and seems to

have been derived from the same source, however much it Avas changed and diversified in the hands of the Greeks.

The Orphic

triad, or

consists of Uranus, Phanes,

compound

and Cronus.

called ^Ictis, Phanes, or Eros,

and

some interpret Counsel, Love, and If

we look

we

It is also

Ericapseus,

which

Lifegiver.

any satisfactory

to the Grecians for

explanation of this subject,

nature,

be greatly

shall

dis-

Their theologists confounded the sysappointed. tems as they came to their hands, and, from ignorance, or vanity, misinterpreted everything connected

with them, so that the resemblance of the father is They adopted the terms of a defaced in the child. foreign language, and translated them, as if they

were of Grecian

origin,

signification they bore in the

they were borrowed.

considering

without

And

so

the

language from which

much

did their reli-

gion perplex them, on account of this ignorance, that scarcely

two theologists are found

to agree, in

the nature and character of their gods.

The numerous

appellations given to the sun, in

other countries, were received by distinct divinities,

them

and they formed

for

as so

many

them some

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

61

history or story to support the dchision to

thoni

assigning"

;

departments in their mon-

their several

strous theogonv.

Phitarch acknowledges the Greeks were beholden to the Egyptians for the

they tortured, for

then applied to

names of

their gods

these

:

sake of pleasing the ear, and

tlie

thoni the signification those words

bore in their language, which seemed to have the Q-reatest

We

resemblance in sound.

must

look, then, to another quarter for the

nature of the Orphic

triad,

which the

later Plato-

Proclus

nists assert is the origin of their trinity.

in ascribing its

rifilit

is

derivation to Chaldea; for the

persons of this and the other triads were

all

from

the same fountain, however transformed and obscured

through time. I

have already observed who Phanes or Proto-

gnus alluded

a person

of Eros given to

God had

it

was

him had no

but referred to the

dually,

:

also a title of

Bryant ingeniously conjectures, that the

the sun.

name

to, as

Iris,

relation indivi-

or rainljow, Avhich

placed in the sky, as the symbol of his

covenant with

Noah and

his

The Greeks

family.

modifying the word which expressed this symbol, called fi-od.

it

Eros or Love, and constituted

Hence

ancient of

all

a distinct

the gods; and the distinction which

was made between Venus.

it

the saving that Love was the most

this

The one was

being and

their

love without passion,

goddess

—

a pure

and intellectual existence; the other needs no description.

COMPOUND

62

DEITIES,

Cronus was a name given to Noah, fully hereafter; tliough it

show more

as

I shall

was, like Osiris,

applied also to the

Supreme

of the same

beings or persons, constitutes the

main

title to

aifficulty

Upon

Deity.

of solving the

This application

ancient mythology.

basis has Bryant proceeded in his great

tliis

work, and whether he has succeeded,

I leave to

the

judgment of those who understand and value his The names of Noah were inestimable labours. sometimes awarded to his sons and descendants,

and therefore, in such

they do not so

cases,

much

distinguish the persons, as the families or tribes to

which they belonged. There

which that

a passage in the Panchean Fragments,

is

may throw some

I will give, that

other person of the Orphic

leaving a chapter. nus, a

more "

particular

The

first

man renowned

who

on

—Uranus

for

;

another

king of that people was Ourafor justice

and well conversant with the first

triad,

discussion

light

and benevolence,

stars.

He

honoured the heavenly gods with

was the sacrifices,

upon which account he was called Ouranus. He had two sons by his wife Hestia, who were called Pan and Cronus and daughters, Rhea and Demetra. ;

And Cronus

reigned after Ouranus,

and married

Rhea, and had by her Zeus, and Hera, and Poseidon, &:c."

Then come other

whole confLision here for persons.

are one

from them.

The

from mistaking

titles

families

arises

For Ouranus, and Cronus, and Zeus,

and the same person.

And

so

are

the

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

female divinities

The

:

the same with the Isis of Egypt.

and benevolence are con-

attributes of justice

stantly given to

C3

And

Noah.

there can be no doubt

that the persons above, whether one or many, were deified mortals. It

may be

observed that the Greeks, in adopting

the gods of other and more ancient countries, so far

misconceived the nature of some, that they made a sort of caricature of

them

'".

may be supposed

It

they translated the foreign terms or

own

titles into their

language, and from this invented some ridiculous

history, corresponding to the misinterpreted appella-

Of

tion.

Pan, the same witii the sun in other

countries, they

made

Pluto they

a filthy satyr.

made

god of hell. Bryant conceives

supposed author of the

the

Orphic Mythology, to have been himself a that his character shoAvs

Orus of the Egyptians him, he

is

be the same with

The

history related of

of opinion, refers not to an individual,

but to a people called Orpheans, the sun.

and

to

him

".

deity,

Orpheus was

said to

a state of death'"; "which

is

—worshippers

of

have been twice in

represented as a twoIt happens, also,

fold descent to the shades below."

that there was something mysterious in his death";

''

'"

Vide NoteE. "

people,

Under tlie character of Orpheus wc are to understand a named Orpheans who, as Vossius riglitly intimates, Avere ;

the same as the Cadmeuns." '«

lb. p. 411.

—

vol.

ii.

p.

417*»

lb. p.

423.

COMPOUND

G4 " for

it

frantic

liavc l)een celebrated with the

seems to acts of

He

Dionnsus

There

Thamnz and

and

Osiris,

was the same person

at the rites

and

as Osiris

represented also as Apollo, or the sun.

;

another

is

compound

or

triad,

deity,

on

few observations, before con-

I will offer a

which

same

practised in their

peo]ile

as

p^rief,

lamentations for of Baal."

DEITIES,

cluding this chapter.

we were

If

to

credit the

opinion of a modern author of great pretensions (Lord INIonboddo), we w^ould discover among the

Brahmins of

India, a triad infinitely excelling all the

others I have mentioned.

By them

it

Avas regarded,

God.

as a trinity of three divine hypostases in one

This

deity

is

expressed in their language, by the

names of Rama, Yisnou

or Vishnu,

and Chrisna;

which, according to him, answer to the Father, Son,

and Holy Ghost of the Christians. Here are his " The Hindoos derived their whole own words" :

—

theology and science from Egypt

;

and even

at this

day the doctrine of three persons of the Deity, in one substance,

is

an essential part of the creed of

the Brahmins, and they call those by the same names Ave

as

NoAv

let

do,

—the

Father,

and Holy Ghost."

Son,

us examine his authority for this extraor" This fact

dinary assertion.

book wTitten by one La Croze, du Christianisme des

And

he relates

it

told in a French

is

entitled,

Indes,' vol.

on the

credit

ii.

Avas in

and Prog, of Language,

vol. iv. p.

Orig.

Histoire

lib. iv.

of one

Godhino, a Portuguese, Avho "'

'

p. 48.

jNIanuel

India in the 339

(note).

IN A THREE-FOLD NATURE.

year 1G63.

And

had the

I

acquaintance of mine,

Such

India."

may

Greeks; est

is

justly say of for he

fact

65 by an

attested

who had been many

years in

the credulity of scepticism

Monboddo, what PHny

was

said of the

Mirum nuHam tarn "

in his taste a Grecian.

quo procedat Gnieca credulitas

impudens mendacium This writer would

est,

!

We

!

ut teste careat."

make

us believe the opinion

of Plotinus and the later Platonists, that the Trinity

was an acknowledged doctrine, not only before the Christian religion, but before the times of Pytha-

goras and Plato.

This

is all

assumption, however, for

he makes no attempt to prove

it.

As he

assures us

the Indians were indebted to the Egyptians for their theology, he might also have pointed out a trinity in their religion, characterized in the

same manner

as the trinity of the Brahmins.

But

if

these triads are transcripts of the Chris-

how does he disj^ose of the evil prindemon ^^ acknowledged by the Indians as

tian doctrine, ciple or

well as by the Egyptians

?

He

cannot surely have

been acquainted with the nature of these compound deities.

The Indian mythology was a branch of to, called

by

or the adoration

of

the ancient idolatry so often alluded

Bryant the Amonian

worshijj,

the sun. "*

Plutarch, in his Isis and Osiris, says, that Pythagoras and

Plato considered the gods of Egypt to be demons, that mortals.

Typhon was a

principal god

;

is,

deitied

and, therefore, an evil

demon.

E

;

COMPOUND

66 There

is

DEITIES, ETC.

a g^rcat resemblance between the Baby-

lonian and the Indian mythology; from which

can trace the derivation of the one from

Lord Monboddo

is

we

the other.

not quite correct in assigning

the origin of the latter to Egypt

;

though the

reli-

gion of that country was another great branch of the general idolatry, afterwards changed by the genius

The

and the singular superstition of the people. Chaldeans, the Persians, Indians,

and some other

eastern nations, seem to have retained the original idolatry purer than the Egyptians.

Rama, according chief deity, "

Apollo.

—the

He

sun;

was a name of the

the same with

Amon

and

Ramis and Ramas denoted something

high and great; deity.

to Bryant,

and was a

common

title

of the

was called Rami, Rama, Ramas, amongst in the East

most nations

Rama-Athan,

—

*'."

He

was called

the great fountain of light,

Vishnu was represented

in the

—

also

the sun.

form of a

fish

and referred to Noah and the deluge.

The same emblematic representation was prevalent among the Babylonians and we shall see, hereafter, to whose ;

history

it

alluded, as given to us in

from Berossus.

" An. My.

ill.

140.

some fi-agments

67

CHAPTER

III.

The Triad; the Three Kings or Royal Personages, DEDUCED FROM AnCIENT HiSTORY.

Such an event stitute

as the deluge

must

at all times con-

To those

an era in the history of our world.

immediately connected with so great and awful an occurrence,

it

be effaced

must have

to their children, so that

We

their children,

to

it

generation to another,

nent features.

an impression not to

Parents, no doubt, in lively

for ages.

language described

left

it

would go down from one

little

impaired in

can well imagine

those persons connected with the deluge, his family, were,

its

promi-

also,

that

Noah and

by their descendants, regarded with

peculiar veneration. chief personage

and these

The character given

to

the

by Moses, shows how much he

merited the esteem and admiration of It is probable, likewise, that the

jiosterity.

commemoration

of the event was kept up with great strictness and

exactitude

;

and that

religious rites M'ere introduced

for this exclusive purpose

that

Noah

gratitude

;

for

it

cannot be supposed

passed over his deliverance in unex])ressed

and

failed to establish

God human race.

to return thanks to

remnant

;

of the

some peculiar

rite,

for the salvation of this

AVe

shall,

therefore,

E

2

THE TRIAD.

68 find

that such

given of him

;

implied in the various accounts

is

for

it

constantly said, he was the

is

who erected altars to God. The sacred historian is not

first

the only one

AVe have

gives an account of this great calamity.

frequent allusions to

some

who

in the preserved writings of

it

very ancient authors,

more

or less precise.

In the extant fragments of Berossus', a priest of Belus, or the sun, of the age of Alexander the Great,

we have an account

of the deluge, which

wonderfully resembles that of the Sacred Writings,

and corroborates

its

perfect truth.

may be

It

per-

ceived, however, that the Mosaic account enjoys

great advantages over the profane, in precision of

In truth, the

language, and accurate description.

account of Berossus was, no doubt, compiled from the memorials of Chaldea, whether handed oral tradition, or,

what

is

more probable,

down

in

in records

preserved by the priests of the sun.

been observed, that the Vishnu of the Brahmins was represented in the form of a fish so the Babylonian deity assumed the shape of half a It has

:

fish

and half a

man

;

thus alluding

to,

or typifying,

He inthe history presented to us by Berossus. forms us, that a monster named Cannes, appeared from the sea bordering on Babylonia, in ancient but his times, whose whole body was that of a fish head was the head of a man. Though an animal of ;

'

Frag, of Chaldean History.

;

THE TRIAD. he

this nature,

said to

is

69

have possessed an articulate

voice,

and to have spoken in the language of men.

But,

Avith

singular

quaints

us

reason

yet he

;

that

also,

is said,

them

and, in

ftict,

to

human

Though

same time, to have mankind to have in-

at the

;

in the building of cities

and temples

have taught them every useful art

Avhich tends to civilize

of the

was devoid of

animal

this

taught letters and science to structed

Berossus ac-

inconsistency,

and promote the happiness

race. this could not

all

to the individual patriarch

be jiroperly attributed

Noah, yet

it

might very

well be said of his immediate descendants.

It is

the character given them, wherever memorials can

be discovered of to distinguish,

who

this ancient family

more

;

and

it

appears

especially, the posterity of

are constantly celebrated by

Ham,

reason of their

wisdom and knowledge.

But

it

history of It

is

not necessarv to think that the obscure

Oannes alluded

would more correctly

the

human

deluge.

race,

to one person in particular.

refer to the

who were

For there

is

whole remnant of

miraculously saved at the

nothing more natural than to

symbolize this great event, under the form of halffish

and half-man

;

the one alluding to the ark, the

other to those enclosed in

it.

The Grecians composed the

fable of the Centaurs,

from the ridiculous mistake of believing the

man

and the horse or bull which he rode to make one entire animal

;

the Babvlonians, under the emblema-

THE TRIAD.

70 tical

form of a monster, represented the insensible

ark,

and the reasoning and intelligent beings Avho

were

time enclosed M'ithin

for a

it.

somewhere ingeniously

Bryant

the

that

says,

Egyptian crocodile was sacred, on account of

its

being regarded as a very a])propriate symbol

of

the ark. Berossus, in another part of this fragment, gives

a

more exact account of Noah and the deluge, under name of Xisuthrus, whom he supposed to be the

the

tenth king of Chaldea.

It is said, that the deluge

his time;

and that the deity Cronus'

happened in

appeared to him, and warned him of the coming event, which

was to destroy the human

which follows

perfectly consonant with the

is

" I^e enjoined

history.

take with him into

it

him

all

Mosaic

to build a vessel,

his friends

and

relatives

convey on board everything to sustain with

This

race.

the different animals, both

life,

lairds

;

and and

together

and quadru-

peds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep^"

The memorial or

less,

of the deluge

is

to

be found, more

incorporated with the theologies and his-

tories of Chaldea,

Egypt, and Greece;

and other

nations of antiquity.

'

Cronus here

signifies the

however, that the same

title

Supreme Being. We shall find, was given to Noah, when demon-

worship was introduced. ^

the

Cory's An. Frag. p. 27, to which I refer the reader for rest

of

Mythology.

this

exact

history

;

also

to

Bryant's

Ancient

THE TRIAD. Time*

itself is said to

71

commence from

this event.

All science and knoM'ledge are said to have been discovered, and

by the progenitors of

taught

first

mankind, concerned or connected with that occurBryant imagines, that the mysteries of the

rence.

ancient mythology related to the deluge, and to the preservation of

mankind

;

and that the grief and

lamentations, the rapturous joy, the frantic gestures,

and other demonstrations of woe and instituted in

commemoration of the

subsequently of the salvation of

were

rejoicing, lost world,

Noah and

and

his family.

Something of the same nature was obscurely

signified

in the Egyptian worship, in the wailings for the loss

of Osiris, and the shouts of joy which were raised,

when he was supposed to be found again \ Moses relates, that Noah was a good and a person

and

for his sake, that the

world

inhabitants were not utterly destroyed.

AVe

and that

;

its

just

it

was

mav, therefore, suppose, that from the great sanctity of his character, he was regarded by his family and Accordingly,

descendants with peculiar veneration.

we

find

able

him distinguished by every great and honor-

title,

esteemed by the ancients, and considered

and of greatness

to be the exponent of goodness

the *

first

husbandman, the

Cronus

is

translated

first

Time by

who

tlie

;

as

erected altars to

Greeks

;

but

is

this not

applying an error, arising from the cause so often mentioned, of Greek, the in bore word the ancient titles, the meaning which

to

that had some resemblance in sound

a person of the Orphic * Vide Note F.

triad.

I

Cronus, or Time, was

;

THE TRIAD.

72

God;

men from

he who brought

as

ignorance to

wisdom, and from a savage and brutal, to a

civilized

and humane existence.

He

called

is

in reference

also,

after the deluge, the first-born of

to

his situation

mankind

the

;

first

king of every nation (though improperly applied)

and

his family

were looked upon also as kings, and

mighty conquerors. This reverence for

Noah and

his family, in course

when

of time, degenerated into idolatry,

religious

their honor.

The

Most High, who brought them through the

deep,

rites

came

to be instituted

was forgotten, or disregarded

to

;

and these, the crea-

tures of His will, were, in time, considered to be the

true saviours^ of the world. " In^ progress of time, off

from the

when

there was a falling-

we might expect

truth,

of so high a character as

that a jjerson

Noah, so particularly

tinguished by the Deity, could not

reverenced by his j^osterity vailed, that

whom

dis-

of being

and when idolatry pre-

he would be one of the

sons of men, to

We

;

fail

first

among

the

divine honors would be paid.

might conclude that these memorials

(of the

deluge) would be interwoven in the mythology of

the Gentile world tinually allusions

;

and that there would be con-

to these ancient

occurrences, in

the rites and mysteries, as they were practised by the nations of the earth." *

^

They are An. My.

also vol.

denominated mediators. iii.

p. 6.

THE TRIAD.

Noah being

73

the head of his family, to

allotted the settlement of his children,

tion of the earth

among

him was

and the

his three sons.

and Japheth.

He, no doubt, instructed them

regulation and

management

of their

as in the duties which tliey

owed

proper worship due to Him.

For

therefore,

the

first

to

it

he

is,

and sometimes,

mankind,

seems that a branch of

as well

God, and the

the original founder of altars and religious

But

in the

this reason

called the first lawgiver;

who taught geometry

affairs,

to

parti-

Ham, Shem,

as well as rites.

this ancient family

had within them the seeds of rebellion and of

ido-

developed afterwards in their discontentment at the partition of the earth, as adjusted by Noah.

latry,

They appear

to have despised their

and coveted the possessions of the

And

their

dissatisfaction at their

owu

territory,

tribe of

own

and defiance of the precepts of their great

Shem.

settlement proo-enitor,

in the ordination of eartlily as well as of heavenly things,

led

them

also

to

deny the true God, and

owu creating. That ambition and lawless desire which inspired hatred and revenge to men, likewise undermiued to establish a religion of their fierce

their loyalty

and of

and obedience to the King of heaven

earth.

Nimrod, the son of Chus, of the family of Ham, seems to have been the first who jiublicly revolted against

God and man.

The

seeds sown, i)erhaps,

years before, were developed and brought to maturity in the mind of this person, Avho may be said to have

;

THE TRIAD.

74

possessed the will and the abilities to carry his plans

For he was a man of aspiring ambi-

into execution. tion

;

and

the

evinces

the numbers of his followers, he

i'rom

qualifications

to

command

his

:

pre-

sumption was equal to his subsequent bold and daring actions. Ninn'od, by some, was regarded as the of the earth,

He By

which

is

seems to have aimed Berossus" he

Babylon, a])pointed

He was He was

"

is

called Alorus", the first king of

first

God had

to be the shepherd of the people." title

of the sun.

Titan or giant, a general

name given

styled, also,

the

king

sovereignty.

at universal

and gave out a report, that

him

first

probably consonant to truth.

Belus or Bel, a

to his followers.

In the rebellion of Nimrod,

more

it

is

my

purpose

particularly to observe the idolatry introduced

by him.

The sible

sacred historian informs us, that the osten-

object of erecting the tower of Babel,

the jdains of Babylonia, was, " lest

we

abroad upon the face of the earth." tion of the rebels »

upon

be scattered

That the inten-

was to form a beacon or centre-

An. Frag. p. 32. Alorus was originally a

god and hero. As a and fire ; Avhen it betokens a man, it seems to refer both to Chus and Nimrod but more particularly to the latter, -who was the first monarch on earth, and the first deified hero. An. My. vol. vi. p. 119. Bryant says, also, that the meaning of Alorus is the god of '

Baljjlonisli

represents the sun, the god of light

god

it

fire,

or the sun.

THE TRIAD. point,

around

concentrate

wliicli

the whole workl.

It

might congregato and

they

force

tlieir

;

75

and then give defiance

to

ought to bo remarked, that

the country hero did not bek)ng to thorn

;

but to

the family of Sliem, which rendered this caution the

more necessary those,

so that

;

any sudden irruption by

spoiled of their possessions,

might, by this

concentration of force, be successfully rei)elled.

But

I

cannot help believing, that besides this

ostensible object in erecting the tower, there

was

another concealed purpose, not alluded to by Moses, for wise reasons

an idolatrous sun and the

;

that

it

was intended

temple, reared celestial host,

to the

—the

for a temple,

honor of the

religion instituted

by Nimrod. Berossus gives the historical accuracy.

"They

say'", that

the earth, glorying in their

event with great

the

first

own

strength and

and despising the gods, undertook to

whose top should roach the AAhicli

Babylon now stands

;

sky, in

l)ut

inhabitants of

an

size,

raise a tower,

the place in

lien it

approached

the heavens, the winds assisted the gods, and over-

threw the work upon are said to be

still

at

contrivers; and

its

ruins

Babylon; and the gods

intro-

its

duced a diversity of tongues among men, who at that time had

all

spoken the same language

;

and a

war arose between Cronus and Titan." In another fragment, taken from Hesticeus, 10

All. Frag. p. 34.

it is

:

;

THE TRIAD.

76

mentioned who the god was, to "

temple was erected.

The

whom

priests

tower or

this

who escaped

took with them the implements of the worship of the Enyalian Jove

;

and came to Senaar,

in

This Jove was the same with Bel, or Belus,

lonia."

Belus, by

whom

he was

testifies "

title

We

Greeks and Romans.

may collect

Immortal Joye, flute-playing, bearing

from the

this

hymns

liglit,

Source of existence, pure, and fiery bright, &c.

;

and

^*

or Babylon,

city of Babel,

and, assuming the title of the sun, he called Bel or Belus

Jupiter

and multiplied by the

description given of the sun in the Orphic

Nimrod founded the

This

how much-

of the sun'\

diversified

"

:

And

they signify .Tupiter."

was undoubtedly a soever

Berossus

Chaldeans, as

of the

fied

Baby-

is

after his death,

sometimes he was

and worshipped as a hero, or demi-god

;

dei-

for his

ancestors were properly considered to be gods. "

The

'

city of Babel,

where was the scene of those

great occurrences which

we have been mentioning,

was begun by Nimrod, and enlarged by It

his posterity.

seems to have been a great seminary of idolatry " An. Frag. '*

A^'arro

mistaking '^

p. 25.

enumerates three hundred Jupiters, arising from

titles for so

many

distinct divinities.

Ilj-mn to the Sun.

And as the city was devoted to the worship of the sun, it was also called the city of Bel-on, sive civitas Dei solis, Avhich was afterwards changed to Babylon." Bryant on the Dispersion '*

"

of Nations.

THE TRIAD.

77

and the tower, a stupendous building, was erected honor of

Many

mythological fables were constructed on the

event of the overthrow of the tower

who

struction of those S2)ised

arraigned

and the

;

Heaven and

de" de-

the gods."

There

is

a remarkable description in the Sibylline

oracles, given in

I

in

and named the tower of Bel."

the sun,

the Ancient Fragments", to Avhich

have been so greatly indebted

Subsequently

''.

" the oracle mentions Cronus, Titan

and Japetus, as

the three sons of the patriarch, governing the world in the tenth generation."

Kac T0T6

E^

St]

SeKarr} yeverj [xepoiruiv avdpooTrcov,

ovirep KaraKKv(Tfio<=; evrt irporepov^ yever avSpa
Kat ^aaiXevcre Kpovo^, kuc Ttrav, It

may be

'luTrero^ re.

observed, that these three persons are

Shem Though Shem

here styled kings. Cronus represents

Ham

;

the other

called Cronus, his father

is

it is,

Noah

;

obvious.

more

properly, a

;

is

here

name given

and although there

given for this misappropriation,

Titan,

is

we may

to

no reason

well imagine

that he was so called from his being the favourite son,

and the

most obedient

descendant

It

distinctive

names are often given

tribes or families,

the

be seen afterwards, that these

patriarch.

will

of

and not the

to denote

the

individuals.

Bryant'' conceives the fable of Vulcan (the god of

fire,)

who was cast down from '*

'"

p. .01.

" An.

heaven, and thrown Vide XoteCJ.

3ry. vol. iv. p. GO.

:

THE TRIAD.

78

into the sea, to be founded on

this

ancient story.

There does seem something analogous in

this verse

Homer

from

He

seized

From This

foot,

and headlong threw '*.

Vulcan being throAvn down from

of

said

is

him by the

the high tower of Belus

heaven by Jupiter.

The INIost

sun,

day,

first

defection, then, from the worship of the

High, seems to have been the adoration of the

and the

natural

of light

source

the

The

celestial host.

great luminary of

and of

the most

heat,

and appropriate emblem of the Divinity,

was regarded by

his worshijipers as the chief of all

the gods, and the cause of

all things.

variety of characters, or diversity of

was distinguished

titles, this

in different countries,

The

traced to this idolatry.

mentioned by

By whatever

"N^arro

deity

he may be

three hundred Jupiters

are only

names of one great

JMacrobius bears witness to this interest-

divinity.

ing fact'^

The sun was

at

first

adored with symbols of the

purest and simplest nature. origin all V to

No

have been offered to

sacrifices

this deitv.

seem

The

objects which were supposed by his votaries to par-

take in any manner of his sensible attributes, were

esteemed sacred, and looked upon as emblems of his glory or brilliancy.

The element of

fire,

commonly

used in his adoration, was such an emblem; par'«

Iliad, V. 591.

'*

Vide Note

II.

THE TRIAD. ticipating, as it were,

79

of his nature, and bearing a

striking resemblance to those attributes.

The idolaters who instituted this worship, do not seem to have abided long by it in its simplest and purest form

the most natural and most refined of

;

every species of idol or creature-worship. of time,

tlie

some of

their i)rincipal ancestors,

especially to

titles

Noah and came

their children

deity were

of this

to

awarded to

by mankind, more

his three sons

bo

In course

;

and they and sons

called, accordingly,

of god, princes of light, and other titles of a like purport.

In

this

custom we may trace the natural progress

of idolatry.

emblem

In the

first

the sun was an

instance,

of the jNIost High,

regarded

as

the

ex-

pressed and sensible image of his glory and benefi-

cence; but as

men

fell

into ignorance

the s}Tnbol came to be confounded with representative

it

the symbol in

its

was.

and

error,

God whose

Then, again, the adoration of

originally ])ure

and simple nature,

was obscured and degraded hy the admixture and participation of deified

men

in its worship.

custom of bestowing the various

upon some men venerated

human

race,

By

the

of the sun,

benefactors of the

mankind, in time, were conducted to a

yet lower species of idolatry

upon the

as

titles

;

for they

came

" children of the sun" as the real

of that god, and worshipped

them

heads of the family were gods

;

to look

progeny

accordingly.

Tlie

the others had

reli-

gious rites instituted to them, as

demi-gods and

;

THE TRIAD.

80

From

heroes.

which

this

mixture of the symbol and that

represented

it

of the sun-worship with the

;

worship of deified mortals antitype

arises

;

all

;

the complexity and confusion

sometimes described in

is

The

mythology.

perce]itible in the ancient

deity

of the type with the

his

chief

celestial

cha-

racter as the glorious orb of day, in all his benignant

and again, we

attributes;

find

him reduced

mere mortal nature such as ourselves, a

who

rules over

propagates his species, and then dies and

tribe,

buried like other men^''.

thologists

the

;

the super-mundane gods of later

my-

the former the sun and celestial host

;

the other the deified ancestors of the

The

is

Hence*' probably arose the

heavenly Jui)iter and the terrestrial Jupiter

mundane and

a

to

human

race.

idolatry alluded to seems to have spread as

In truth, the

widely as the adoration of the sun.

one was the associate of the other, arising out of similar circumstances,

we

find,

and being propagated by the

AVhere we discover the one

same people.

more

religion,

or less, memorials of the deluge,

the consequences to which

it

led

;

in the

and

undue

veneration of mankind for those connected with that great event.

Of

the three sons of Noah,

" Vide Note *'

Great

Platonists.

Ham

was held

in the

I.

stress

is

In truth,

laid it is

upon

tins

distinction

by the

later

the very essence of their polytheism

their to

hands

it

;

room for refinement and manifold subtleties. In was found a most convenient instrument by which

affording grout

overcome obstacles, and reconcile apparent contradictions.

THE TRIAD. greatest estimation by the

He

posterity.

first

was looked up

81 idolaters,

and

tlieir

to as the sun, as the

chief deity, and as the creator of the world.

His

among many nations of antiquity. The Jupiter Amnion of the Egyptians Avas this personage, who was regarded by them as the same with worship prevailed

the sun. This extract from a Chaldean fragment bears re-

markable testimony to the introduction and practice of ancestorial Morship.

"

But"

after this, their suc-

cessors, overstepping the intentions of their ancestors, that tors,

they should honor them as their progeni-

and the inventors of good things, with monu-

ments alone; honored them sacrificed to

them

as

as such."

''

An. Frag.

p. .50.

heavenly gods,

and

82

CHAPTER The Subject continued

;

IV.

with some Observations

ON the Origin of the word Nov;, afterwards CALLED ALSO

^10709.

The Amoiiian

idolatry, in

and

countries,

being

passing

among

introduced

in its progress, either througli

whom

various

influence of time,

tlie

according to the cliaracter and

those by

different

must have undergone some cliange

tribes of people,

or

into

it

was adopted.

of

disposition

Notwithstanding,

it

never so mucli altered or obscured, as to have

is

obliterated Mholly the traces of

primarily pire far

rebels

Having

its origin.

come from Babylonia,

it

extended

its

em-

and wide, being conveyed by the defeated

who

Babel.

It

fled

from the overthrow of the tower of

was either eagerly adopted by the

ferent tribes to

whom

it

upon them by

their

successful conquerors;

we were

was introduced

to take Egypt' as an exami)le,

said that the

new was a

;

it

dif-

or forced

and

if

might be

great improvement on the

former religion. o '

The

Eg>-ptians Avcre indebted for

their shepherd-kings,

who

some hundred

It

years.

tlie

Amonian

would appear, that before

they were guilty of some debased superstition that these sun-worshippers were

rites.

;

for

this epoch, it

is

said,

so disgusted with their reli-

gion, that they overthrew their temples

gious

idolatry to

held that country in subjection for

and forbade

their reli-

;

V

THE TRIAD.

The

peojDle

who

OF THE

((UNS^"^"

carried this worship into so

countries were highly celebrated

for

their

many know-

ledge, wisdom,

and science. They seem to have improved every country which they conquered, or in which they made a settlement and hence we have ;

constantly memorials of this kind in the history of

The

almost every nation.

ancients supposed that

they M-ere indebted to certain individuals for the first

introduction of letters

;

but Bryant, and I think

properly, says, they mistook a

of people,

awarded

this

tribe, or

an individual.

for

Thus

among

;

for

;

a title it

Avas

these idolaters to arrog-ate to them-

selves the peculiar

chief deity.

they indi-

Cadmeans

probably characteristic of their worship a custom

Greeks

the

whom

honor to one Cadmus,

vidualized from a peojile called

a migration

They

name

of their worship, or of their

called themselves, sometimes, also,

after one of their venerated ancestors, which Bryant

believes this

Cadmus

to have been,

if,

indeed, there

ever was such a person.

Orpheus had probably for there is

custom

his origin in this

no history of

this

person on which

The Orphic theology

can place any reliance.

is

we un-

Amonian worship, which was subsequently introduced among the Greeks ^ doubtedly a branch of the

*

The Grecians admit

source

for

their

letters.

that they were indebted to a foreign

A

colony of

the

settled in that country at a very early period.

sun-worshippers

The

inhaljitants

before this era were, like the Egj'ptians, at a very low ebb of civilization.

F

2

"

'

'

"

THE TRIAD.

84 and

We

upon by them.

refilled

must, tlierefore, re-

gard the Orpliic triad as of precisely the same origin,

and relating to the same persons, as the triplex deities of

Chaldea and Egypt.

have begot many

Some

i)hilosophers

subtleties on these triads of the

ancients, deducing from them,

among

other myste-

ries,

the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead.

But

as

we withdraw

the veil of sophistry, and dis-

we

close truth in her native simplicity,

shall perceive,

that the objects of their speculation originated in

the worship of the patriarch and his three sons

the

;

one being denominated the founder of the triad, the

by

father of the three kings, or royal personages, or

whatever name they

We

may be

styled.

have already seen that Noah

guished in history by various

distin-

titles,

among

others

In the fragments of Berossus, he

of Cronus. fiaiired

be

to

is

man

under the emblematical form of half a

which mav either be conceived of

and

half a fish

him

in particular, or of all contained in

general.

I

;

have observed,

also, that

frcquent to call a family or tribe

founder

;

is

so that

when we

it

the ark in is

not un-

by the name of

find

it

said that a

its

war

sprang up, after the deluge, between two persons,

we must suppose ants.

Hence

in a

this

of their families or descend-

Chaldean fragment, preserved by

Alexander Polyhistor,

it is

said, "

After the deluge

lived Titan and Prometheus, Avhen Titan undertook

a war against Cronus."

Berossus

says

the

same

thing hapi)ened after the destruction of the tower of

— THE TRIAD. Babel

wliicli refers to

;

8heni, and that of

a war between the family of or Cush,

I Tain,

called Titans and giants.

no donbt, fighting

for

85

The

who

are invariably

tribe of

the possessions

Shem

were,

allotted

to

them, but Mhich had been surreptitiously obtained

by the other

We have

family.

seen, likewise, that

the Sibylline oracles particularize the three families

under

tlu^

names of Cronus,

and

Titan,

These persons were called the

first

liipetus.

kings of the

country into which the idolatry was introduced

and

;

accordingly they are placed in the catalogue of their

kings

thus engrafting the general history of the

;

human

race after the deluge on their

annals.

monarchs of the whole

we

own

particular

But these three persons are not only earth,

but gods also

;

styled

so that

find the reign of the gods to precede that of the

demi-gods, heroes, and mortals. tian chronicle, the first dynasty

order

is

put down in this

:

"

"

In^ the old Egyp-

Reign of the gods.

To Hephaestus

ajjparent

is

assigned

both by day and night.

reigned three myriads of years. titles of

no time, as he Ilelius

(These

his son

are

t^vo

the sun.)

"

Then Cronus and reigned 3984 years."

the

other twelve divinities

Tliese last gods refer to the deluvian families it

is

;

but

ought to be remarked that the above twelve ought =*

An. Frag.

p. 89.

THE TRIAD.

86 to be eight\ for sucli

was the number

in the ancient

mythology. Tlie number eight was esteemed sacred by the ancient Egyptians called by them the sacred ;

or holy ogdoas, which consisted of eight i)ersons in

a boat,

who were regarded " This

of the country.

most ancient gods

as the

number was held

and esteemed mysterious by other

sacred,

nations'."

It

alluded to the ark, and the eight persons enclosed in I

it.

need only allude to the well-known represen-

tation of Osiris and the sacred ark, or boat.

In the enumeration above, the

title

to the patriarch, though he never

own

reignty in his able,

though not

Such a

person. strictly

Cronus

refers

assumed sove-

latitude

is

allow-

consonant with truth.

It

was a practice of the ancients to describe him as a monarch with all the emblems of royalty probably ;

on account of his being the head and fountain of the whole human

race.

As

I

have often repeated, he

was more particularly distinguished

man and

as

a husband-

planter of the vine.

In a passage quoted from Eusebius, on the Egyptian dynasties, the sun

above placed *

" There

Is

first;

is

in the

then

a Tcry ancient god

same manner

follow'

among

as the

Agathod^emon,

the Egyptians

who

is

and they assert that from his reign to that of Amasis, 17,000 years have elapsed; they reckoned him among the gods Avhen the numher was augmented from eight to twelve." called Heracles

— Hcrodot. '

;

lib. ii.

An. Myth.

cap. 23.

vol. iv. p. 11.

Bryant supposes this benign deity to be Noah, who was He crowned with the lotus, and called Noe Agathodeemon. ^

—

87

THE TRIAD.

Cronus, Osiris, Tvplion, and Oriis, -who are styled the

first

kings of Egyiit.

kings are

called

all

It

manifest these so-

is

of one person,

titles

we

indeed, Typhon, whose history

Bryant acquaints us that

plained.

ration of the sun

except,

have already ex"

when the ado-

was introduced by the posterity of

of Helius was, among others, conferred other names by which he was The on Noah." called related more especially to his history and

Ham,

the

title

character, as Prometheus, Deucalion,

and

Atlas, Osiris,

Zutli".

I conceive, then,

who were

that those

:

called the

same persons

nation, Avere the

worshipped

there cannot remain a doubt, first

as the

that the deities of

kings of every

whom

the

the sun.

In

Greece were really deified mortals, to idolaters

awarded the various

a fragment from Epiphanius,

corroboration of

this,

that

titles of

we have

it

who were

gods

Egypt and even of

it

was not

time after idolatry was introduced

stated in

until

some the

(namely,

Sabian worship) that Cronus and Rhea, Zeus and Apollo, and the

The

rest,

were esteemed as gods.

Cabiritic" worship

seems

to

have particu-

adds this curious note, " the name of Noe, the Greeks trans-

posed and expressed Neo Ayadodaiixav-"

—

vol. iv. p.

202-

'

Vide Note K.

^

" Tilio these Cabirim might he, has been a matter of un-

successful

inquiry to

known with

certainty

many is,

learned men.

The most

that is

that they were originally three,

were called by way of eminence, the great or mighty ones, Bishop Horsley. that is the import of the Hebrew name."

and for

THE TRIAD.

88

Noah, Avho were called the

larized the tlireu sons of three, aiul

"

The

same

Bryant

the great and mighty ones. Cabiritie divinity Avas

original

as Dionusns,

He

tinguished."

though by some writers acquaints us, also, that

opinion of Pausanias

Prometheus,

Zeuth

that

the father

says',

the

;

idly dis-

it

was the

he was the same with

The sons of

of mankind.

god were called the sons of Sadyc, the

this chief

just

man, and "they'" are represented as demons,

and

in

number

three

;

and they are sometimes men-

tioned as the sons of the great artist Ilephaistus,

the chief deity of Egypt "."

The Prometheus mentioned by Pausanias

is

a

of Noah, and the same as Deucalion, as Piiilo

title

"

affirms.

The former name

Deucalion was Noah.

was prevalent among the Greeks

but the Chal-

;

deans called him Noe, in whose time happened the Deluge."

After these prefatory remarks, I will

ceed to triad

;

throw some

light

now

pro-

on the origin of the Orphic

and attempt to deduce

from the Cabiritic

it

whom

mystery, or doctrine of three persons, over there was supposed to rule a chief or superior. Proclus'^

assures

Uranus, Phanes,

same

Avitli

us

that

and Cronus,

the

Orjdiic

substantially

is

the three iiings of Plato.

And

of

triad

the

according

to him, also, the other Platonists held a like opinion.

Amelius, refining on the others, imagined a three»

An. Myth.

vol.

" Vide Note L.

iii.

p.

"^

342. ''

Id.

Procl. in Tim.

ii.

93.

:

THE TRIAD. fold cleniiurgus

;

89

and the three

intellects to

be the

three kings, which, he says, are the

same

mentioned by Orpheus and Plato.

These persons

as those

much obscured by Noah and his family

of the triad, however sophistry, relate to

demons

really the says, the

Baalim

Opera

Dies,

et

of Cronus

time

we have

Even Hesiod,

in Scrif)ture.

lived. ;"

"

in his

allusion to these persons,

The demons

and that

tliev

lived in the

were

deified

men

the same testimonv

AvTup

€7766

E(t6\oi, "

and are

;

of the ancients, called, as Bryant

makes some

and when they

and

fable

When

K€v TovTO y€vo<; Kara yaia KoKv^ev,

ein')(^6 ov lov , (f)v\aK€<;

dvrjrcov

avdpwirwv.

they died, they became demons, a sort of

benevolent beings,

who

resided within the verge of

the earth, and were called giiardians of mankind."

Now

Cronus, as

we have

seen,

is

Noah and

can be no doubt that the meaning of

hymn

alludes to

Noah

and Protogonus'\

" I

also,

who

is

Orphic

this

called Phanes"*

invoke Protogonus,

tJie

of men, who was of a twofold state or nature

wandered

at large

floyevr]
—

ovi

;

first

who

under the Mide heavens enclosed

an ovicular machine,

in

there

;

genitus,)

(whence

who was

he

was

called

also depicted with

golden wings."

—

Bryant thinks Phanes is Eros, or Iris, the rainbow; which may be true ; but certainly it is also a title of Xoah, from the description given of him. '* An. My. vol. iii. p. 203. ''

— THE TRIAD.

90

Bryant, out of Procliis confirmation of

himself, affords singular

The

that has been advanced.

all

latter nearly a]iproximated to the true history,

which

he had, no doubt, from some ancient source but, from ignorance of its i)urport, he turns it to ridicule. ;

"

other than Zeus

As Cronus was no

we may

",

find the account of the triad further explained in the

history of the latter

;

and

]:>y

the same author (Pro-

Zeu?

6 irpo

(or perhaps, 6 TraTrjp) rcov rpt(ov

vlSwv, ovro<;

eanv

6

Clus)

:

Noah

(or Cronus)

;

hence they came at

their blind reverence, to think

Tmie and through

last,

him the

Q-eal creator.,

and that he contrived everything in

Ai]/xiovpyo<;;

his chaotic cavern;

ravra

rjepoeiSe^" This is curious

gular does

"

Stj/jiiovp'yoi},

the ancients were deduced from

among

things

all

twv oXwv

Kpo-

it

appear,

;

Kara

irarrjp TTOtrjare

but

when we

ctttco?

how much more

sin-

find Proclus, the Cory-

phteus of Platonism, and the great expounder of the trinity, aiding

Cronus ims

us so far as to declare, that this very

the

Kpovo'^ v7ro(TTarrj<;

Cronus

is

founder of

ean

—

tt;
the

Triad''

afJuetXiicrov

!

^aaiXev^

TpiaSo^, " -IVUlg

the founder of the fierce Triad

''."

Now

Cronus being Noah, the three Cronii mentioned by Proclus as rpLwv KpoviScov, are the three sons of the patriarch

;

so that the Platonic triad

is

founded on

the ancient demoniacal worship of these three per'* '^

p.

An. My. vol. iii. p. 107Proc. Tim. lib. v. cap.

JOS. '^

Vide Note M.

x. p.

265

;

also

An. My.

vol.

iii.

THE TRIAD.

The

sons.

ancients are

entertaining- the

Deniiurgus

91

ridiculed

by

Procliis

notion that Cronus was

for

the real

but the Greeks were manifestly guilty

;

of the same error, for their Zeus or Jupiter had no

higher origin, though the Platonists called him the true creator of the world.

informs us

JNloses

among

that

the

this settlement in his great

Three brother

And

deities

was divided

earth

Homer

the three sons of Noah.

poem

alludes to

:

from Saturn came,

ancient Rhea, earth's immortal dame.

Assigned by

These were

lot,

our triple rule

Jujiiter, NejDtune,

we know'*.

We

and Pluto.

may

conclude, then, that the ancient, as well as the Platonic triad, which

is

said to

be the same with the

Orphic, Chaldean, and Egyptian, Avas derived origi-

men

nally from this demoniacal worship, though

true history, and attributed

its

awarding- to

"As" lies

all

it

also a different

to another source

mankind proceeded from the three fami-

circumstance

continually alluded

ancient mythologists. first

constituted

both

as deities

The

;

nature and character.

of which the patriarch was the head,

this

And

to

we

by the

the three persons

these families were

find

who

looked upon

and kings."

ancient mythology agrees in acknowledging

two primary

princii)les of all things; the

and the other female*". '«

it

lost

Iliad, b. XV. '^

" '«

From An. My.

one male

the two, or more vol.

iii.

Cory's Intro. Dissertation, p. 34.

p. 108.

THE TRIAD.

02

frequently from the male, jiroceeded three sons or

when examined

which,

Hypostases,

severally, are

each one and the same with the princij)le from which they sprung

;

but

aa

hen viewed conjointly, they con-

emanating from a fourth yet older

stitute a triad, divinity,

who by

becomes

three, A\hile

member

of the triad being ultimately resolvable into

the monad/'

a mysterious act of

sclf-trii)lication,

he yet remains but one, each

Whether

the inost ancient mytholo-

eists reasoned or subtilized after this manner Avould o be difficult to prove ; nevertheless the whole mys-

tery

is

deified

resolvable into

its

elements in the worship of

men.

Though the

MTiter above does not

with us in the conclusions arrived

much

to strengthen our position

that the polytheism of the into the original

human

;

seem

at,

asserting

for, after

ancients "

to agree

yet he admits

is

resolvable

god or goddess," he notices the and the

or terrestrial,

iDliysical

or

celestial

appear to

aspect in which the primary principles

These we have marked or distinguished by calling the one the idolatry of sun-worship, and

us.

the other the idolatry of worshipping mere deified mortals.

This writer continues after this manner terrestrial

character,

whatever name,

is

the

chief

" In his

:

hero-god,

under

claimed by every nation as

progenitor and founder.

And

not only

is

he

its

cele-

brated as the king of that country in particular, but of the whole world."

He

acknowledges

also, that this

THE TRIAD.

93

deity, in his liiiman cliaracter,

was looked upon as

the father of

mankind and

he was held

to be the sun

;

:

what we have advanced.

in his celestial cliaracter, all

This

which coincides with the

is

or male

first

principle, allnded to al)ove, represented in this

mixed

or twofold character.

The same

great goddess

is

"

Bnt the character of the of a more complex descrij)tion. As

^vi-iter says^',

the companion of man, she

is

the ark,

which was

regarded not only as his consort, but his daughter, as the

work of

whose

womb

second light

and

;

own hands

his

and

an

as

infajit,

from to

the companion of the sun, she

a

is

moon not that the distinctions human and the celestial characters are

either the earth or

between the

his mother,

his preserver during the catastrophe

As

of the deluge.

accurately

;

he again emerged,

:

maintained

;

for

they are

strangely

so

blended together, that the adventures applicable to

one are frequently, and sometimes purjiosely, misapplied to the other." It

may be

true, as

he

demonolatry was

says, that

introduced subsequently to the worship of nature

and the elements feres

;

but I do not see

how

this inter-

with our conclusions, that the triad was

nally derived

from the former.

I

have,

origi-

indeed,

admitted as much. Before I bring this branch of our incpury to conclusion, I

*'

will

lay

before

the

Cory's Intro. Dissertation, p.

reader

3G and 37.

a

a

very

;

94

THE TRIAD.

curious hypothesis of Bryant's, which,

woukl

truth,

founded on

if

word

exjjlain the origin of the

Nov
frequently used in the disquisitions of the later PlaIt

tonists.

would prove,

we have

along- with all that

already laid down, that the whole Platonic theology, as developed

by the philosophers of the Christian

was based on a misconcejjtion of the true cha-

era,

and

racters

histories of the persons

mentioned

and that the second person of their

word by which they exjiressed him the custom of the Greeks, in

of

Pagans,

Noah was is

the genuine

That the word or

altooether lost amono- the ancient

disproved by the fact of

some very ancient

thus following-

;

jjer verting

names.

signification of foreign

name

it

from a misunderstandino- of the

orio-inated

ticular,

in

in par-

trinity,

"WTitings.

its

Among

occurring- in

the people of

the East, more esjDecially in Chaldea, he was called

Noas, Naus, sometimes contracted to Nous. Bryant, light

in

singular passage,

this

on the subject:

had been

in Egypt,

throws great

" Anaxagoras*'^ of

Clazomenae

and there obtained some

He

ledge of this personage.

name

of Noas, and

ciples

were sensible that

Nous

;

it

knoAA'-

spoke of him by the

and both he and

his dis-

was a foreign appellation

;

yet he has well nigh ruined a very curious history,

by taking the terms

in a Avrong accej^tation,

making inferences

in

*

The"

disciples of

" An. My.

consequence of

Anaxagoras "

say, that

and then abuse.

this

Nous

Euseb. His. Synagoge,

p.

is

374.

by

;

THE TRIAD.

95

interpretation the deity Dis, or Dios; and they called'^

Athena, Art or Science

same

the

;

they likewise esteem

Nous

Upon which Bryant He then informs us why they

as Prometheus.' "

proceeds to

say, "

looked upon Nous to be Prometheus, because he

was

renewer of mankind, and was said

the

to

have

fashioned them again, after they had in a manner been

All this

eddinct.

But the

above.

to be interred from the words

is

author, while he

giving us this

is

curious account, starts aside, and, forgetting that he is

confessedly treating of a foreign term, recurs to

own

his

language, and from thence frames a solu-

He

tion of the story.

had been speaking of a Grecian

all,

;

vov^,

tells

us that Nous, which he

name

was, after

that the

mind was

as a proper

the mind

;

Prometheia, and Prometheus was said to renew man-

kind by new-forming their minds, and leading them

by cultivation from ignorance to knowledge." That conjecture of Anaxagoras, that Nous was the deity Dis or Dios, leads us to the solution of

another appellation of the patriarch, compounded of these two words, called by the Grecians Dionusus

and which they translated Divine

JNIind or Intellect

but which really signified Divine Noah. ^*

Plato in his Cratylus, says,

'A6y]va

tliat

according to some ancients,

Avas nothing but Nov?, or Biavoia,

personified and deified,

mind

name

signified

Geou

vorja-iv,

the Understanding of God, as

at

first

System,

Qf ovor], vol.

ii.

it

Divine AVisdom, calling

afterwards p. 103.

or understanding,

lie thouglit, also, that those Avho gave

that

by

JNIacrobius

changed to

if

it

Adrjva,

as

the Avord had been

Adrjva.

— Cud.

Intcll.

THE TRIAD.

96

clearly fell into this mistake

Alovvctov, Aio
'T/wi/

my

Phvsici

that the

sun

For Dionusus was the same

mind of God.

the

is

said, "

when he

with the sun in his celestial character.

Bryant

the word Deus,

more

God

the ancient term for

which renders the above

;

This curious error

satisfactory.

thesis

J to? was

says, that

(if

the hypo-

be founded on truth) was encouraged greatly

by the

who, not comprehending the

later Platonists,

true signification of the term Nous, regarded

mysterious

" Proclus*'

light.

the changes upon the terms

and explains, what signified sense

he

and

intellect.

and

about Saturn and Zeus the most idle

Divine

voo<;,

;

and

voepo<;,

vot^to^

;

name, as

if it

In consequence of

this,

refine all the base jargoji

and would persuade

us, that

and obscene legends related to the

INIind."

From

these terms

triads of intelligible

demons. rj

is

in a

it

continually ringing

really a proper

is

tries to subtilize,

wise

still

"

the Platonists

and intellectual gods, or rather

They^° are

vorjTri tcai

called like-

a/j,€(XiKro
voepa rpia^

decov, fierce triad,

formed their

— rcov

intellectual

and

— kul

votjtcov

intelligible

voepcov triad,

the intellectual and intelligible gods."

" An. My.

vol.

iii.

p. 104.

''

Id. p. 111.

PART THE SECOND.

ON THE

THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO, .^r.

a

99

PART THE SECOND.

CHAPTER

I.

The Opinions of the Ancient Philosophers express THE Unity of God but they are silent ;

on the Subject of a Trinity in this Unity. In these preliminary observations to trace

it

my

was

object

the origin of the triads to the deification

may seem

of mortal natures, (though I

have been

to

seduced by the extent, interest, and diversity of the subject, to treat of

it

more and

sary for that purpose,)

the Platonists were causes

or

at large than

show

to

was neces-

what source

to

indebted for their trinity of

principles,

so

far

as

it

related to the

Orphical, and other ancient systems of mythology.

On

we may

the same grounds,

conclude, that

if

Plato really entertained such a doctrine as this (bor-

rowing

it,

as Proclus says, "

from Orpheus), Mhich he it

had no higher origin

than in the worship of demons.

However, he does

expressed by

Three Kings,"

not, in his writings,

as

judge

even to allude to

it

it

to be of such importance,

in his

ideas of the primary causes of

known and expressed all

For there

things.

cannot be a greater absurdity than the practice of

Q

2

100

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS.

some of his professed followers

(the later Platonists),

Avho egreg'iously confoiuided the ancient triads, with

the Pythagorean and Platonic doctrines, of the causes or

])rinci])les

God, Idea,

JNIatter,

of

all

tilings,

first

which are styled

That

and the Soul of the World.

these philosophers Avere guilty of this extraordinary error,

is

certain

we

:

shall

be convinced of

it

we

as

proceed to treat of their philosophy or theology.

We also,

have seen that Proclus himself, and Amelius

both great advocates for a

Orphic to the

triad,

and

assert the

trinity,

the three kings of Plato, to relate

same persons, and

to be derived from the

same

Yet these men strenuously preach to us, that the trinity of Plato is composed of the Good, fountain.

Intellect,

being,

and the Soul

life

intellect,

and

others have

or, as

;

intellect:

it,

of

or God, the intelligible

and the intellectual or supermundane soul

of the universe.

As we

are about to institute

some

the real opinions of Plato, as laid pressed in his

own genuine

inquiries into

down and

writings, I

will

exfirst

offer

a few remarks on the notion or conception of

God

entertained by some other philosoi)hers of

and of the Pythagorean seeing whether any

his,

school, for the j^in-pose of

allusion

made, in their de-

is

scriptions of the Divine Being, to that doctrine of

archical hypostases, said to be a Pythagorean, Par-

menidean, as well as a Platonic

"

dogma

or cabala."

It will not be denied, that in the manifold exin-es-

sions

on

this subject, discovered in their recorded

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS.

101

Opinions, they had abundant op[)ortunities to

some

allusion,

however

foint

doctrine so freely ascribed to

is

and obscure, to the But they seem

thciii.

shunned these opportunities,

to have studiously

there

make

for

not one passage, not one expression, which

can by anv iuo-enuitv bear such a construction.

Notwithstanding

this

great

Dr. Cud-

obstacle,

worth, in his learned work on The Intellectual

Sydcm

of the Universe, would persuade us that Plato was a He is not satisfied with very orthodox Trinitarian. the proof, that Plato held the abstract idea declares to us, that he believed as

we

;

but he

believe

;

un-

derstood, as the fathers understood, that, in a word,

he was no Arian, but a true Athanasian. " Plato

'

i)lainly

and expressly agrees or symbolizes,

not with the doctrine of Arius, but with that of the

Nicene Council, and Athanasius

;

that the second

hvi^ostasis of the Trinity, whether called jNlind, or

Word,

or Son,

6fioovcrio<;i

not erepovaco^, but

is

co-essential

with

or consubstantial

And

and therefore not a creature."

first,

yeyov(TTi]<;,

assures us that, " Plato ^

makes the

again,

or

the

he

third hypostasis

of his trinity likewise to be 6/Moovcnos, co-essential

with the second, as he elsewhere makes the second co-essential with the first."

ordinary language to reconcile the

!

This,

Intcll.

mind

System,

is

extra-

The proof must be convincing, to such a startling conclusion.

Dr. Cudworth, in some of the

'

indeed,

toI,

iii.

p. 98.

first

chapters of his

*

Ibid.

OriNIONS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS.

102

book, disjilavs his extensive learnino;, in ])roving to that all the ancient philoso})hers, with a

us,

really

exceptions,

existence of

maintained and

confessed

One Supreme, Uncreated, and

few the

Eternal

Cause, by whatever appellation he was distinguished or expressed

and that the other

;

deities,

acknow-

ledged and worshipped by them, were avowed to have been created, or generated, by this chief Deity;

being therefore mere creatures,

and

subordinate

These wise men, who emerged from the

agents.

God

chaos of the vulgar religion, and beheld

in the

unity and supremacy of his nature, would not admit (for

the reason that they could not understand) more

than

One

perfect and Eternal Cause.

Accordingly, Onatus^ the Pythagorean declares, "

That there

is

God

not only one

;

He

but

is

the

highest

and greatest God, the Governor of the

world.

But beside him there

who

differ

He

power;

them

excelling

These

in

inferior

in

i)ower,

are

many

other deities

ruling over them, and

and

greatness

gods were the animated

virtue."

stars,

and

other heavenly bodies.

That Pythagoras himself held such a pure conception of the Divine Nature, of

many

we have

witnesses and authorities.

expresses his opinion

" AA^e* see clearly that Pytha-

:

goras maintained, there was one

universe

God

the principal or cause of

;

^

Apud

*

Cou. Julian,

the testimony St. Cyril thus

Stobaeus. Eel. Pliys. lib.

i.

p. 30.

lib.

i.

of the whole

all

things; the

p. 4,

;

103

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIERS.

whole;

and the qnickcncr of

animator,

illuminator,

the origin of

from

motion;

all

the

whom

all

things were derived, and brought out of nonentity into being."

Anaxagoras, an ancient and very wise philosopher, treads on the very ground, where

some notice of a

of hypostases

distinction

from the

he simply

first

calls

nor

;

or third person

God an

we might expect

But he makes no such

Trinity,

distinguishes :

Infinite

vov<;

on the contrary, JNIind,

and governs the whole world; thus

who

rules

oi-)posing the

atheistical notion, then prevalent, that matter, or a

congeries of atoms, was the cause of that

mind

ment

all

things

;

and

had no place in the creation or govern-

of the world.

This sage

common

made

a greater reformation in the

still

notions of divinity

for

;

he would not admit

the sun to be anything else but an insensible body of

fire

;

and he denied that anv of

host, the

moon, or the

erroneously believed

:

in

stars,

all

the celestial

were gods, as some

consequence of which he

was fined by the Athenians. Socrates, in his Apology, given in the version of Plato,

seems to ridicule

that the celestial

this notion of

Anaxagoras,

bodies Avere devoid of divinity

and unworthily charges him with holding tenets

;

as if his other nobler declaration did not

entirely relieve ever,

atheistical

Plato,

in

him from such a calumny. Phoedo, qualifies and

harsh aspersion of Socrates

;

and

How-

dilutes

says, that

this

he did

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rHILOSOrilERS.

104 not so his

iiiiich

coiKlemii Anaxap^oras on the score of

denying the

be

stars to

but rather that

deities,

he did not acknowledge any secondary causes of a mental nature, leaving matter to its own guidance,

and to work out in only

own

its

operations

bringing

;

mind

where material causes could not explain the

phenomena.

From which

appears, that this phi-

it

losopher attained greater purity and simplicity in his Socrates or Plato;

theological notions than either

he does not seem to have admitted any but material causes, save his Supreme God, or Infinite

for

Socrates

Mind. less,

commends Anaxagoras neverthe-

because he declared mind (and not matter) to be

the ruler and governor of

things

all

in

;

which Plato,

no doubt, freely coincided. Aristotle

mind

also

because he makes

him,

praises

to be the first principle;

motion

;

and of well and

rov Ka\(o^

Km opOm vow

by, the cause of

all

the cause also of

^Ava^a^opa^ to ahiov

fit.

Xeyei,

which Plato expresses

good things.

Dr. Cudworth' finding Anaxagoras

call

good a

principle, as well as mind, fancies that he mentioned

two hypostases of a

trinity,

when

the philosopher signified no

it

is

more by

manifest that

this,

than that

mind ruled all things but the good was the motive which moved it to act, for the wisest and best of purposes: hence Aristotle says, that mind is the ;

cause of motion, and of well and *

Vol.

i.

p.

249.

fit

likewise.

; ;

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT THILOSOPHERS.

105

Stob?cus cites a passage from Archytas, a Pythagorean, and cotemporary of Plato, which holds, that

beside matter and form, there

eminent cause, who

more necessary

form

to the

"There

another

is

which, moving, brings the

cause,

powerful cause, which

God":

is

This

matter.

a greater and pre-

is

is

the chief and most

God so that there are three 'prhiciples of all things, God (or mind), matter and form God, the Artificer and Mover is

properly called

:

:

matter,

that which

is

moved; and form, the

art

introduced into the matter."

That the Supreme Being was called Mind, or a

Mental Cause

(in opposition to

one

the material

maintained by the Atheistical school), without any expressed or implied perception of His existence as the second hypostasis of a Trinity,

we have even

the

acknowledgment of Dr. CudMorth, who informs us

among

that Timicus of Locris,

others (from

whom

Pluto greatly borrowed,) of the Pythagorean school, called

He

God

j/ou?,

also styled

mind, as well as rayadov, the good.

him the Creator of

all

good things

but without any sensible distinction of ]iersons

:

he

seems to have regarded these only, as appropriate

and characteristic names to specify the intellectual

and moral "

®

attributes of the

Moreover,"

continues

Eel. Pbys. p. 32.

observed, and noted

and the ^

Divine Nature.

—This

;

us

it

System,

vol.

ii.

p.

Cud worth

^,

"

he

passage ought to be particularly is

the true Pythagorean doctrine,

origin of that of Plato

Intell.

Dr.

276.

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rHILOSOPHERS.

lOG

Itlainly declares (as

Plato did also) that this gene-

rated god of

world,

as to

his, the

have a beginning. iBea

T)crrr]v

^eXTLovo<;

—

in time, so

TIpcv ovpavov yeveaOac, Xoyco

vXa,

Kai

re

was produced

KUi 6

&€o<;

was made,

before the heaven

rov

Ba/jbcovpyo^;

cd'isted

the

From

idea, matter,

and God,

which

manifest that this jjliilosopher neither

it

is

the opifecV

of

the

best'"'

confounded the idea with God, nor recognised an hypostasis of a

it

as

the Platonists did after-

trinity, as

wards.

But there

is

we can

another passage which

still

produce from this Tima?us of Locris, that throws

some

on the nature of the Idea

light

distinguishes

causes

and clearly

Only two

by him, which he

recognised

are

" Intellect

it

;

from the Supreme Cause.

The

and Necessity"."

of the nature of good, and

God

called

is

first,

all

things that are most excellent

it,

" the Artificer of

;

;

he

styles says, is

the cause of

Plato has

or, as

the best, and the Cause of

all

good."

This which

follo'^'s

is

important, as evincing the "

genuine doctrine of Plato.

Those which are con-

sequent, and concauses rather than causes,

may be

referred to necessity, and they consist of Idea, or

Form and ble

Matter, to which

(world),

which

is

as

may be added

it

the Sensi-

were the offspring of

these two."

Now

here Tima^us

intellectual

and the ideal cause, «

most exactly the

separates

An. Frag.

p.

—the one

301.

being of

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT nilLOSOrHERS. the nature of good, of a moral as lectual nature

observed

mere

as an intel-

Avell

is

and ascribed to necessity.

these,

are

the other

\vliilst

;

107

the contrary of

ought to be

It

that this intellect and that goodness

also,

God, and not persons

attril^utes of

and

;

that the Idea, on which the whole hypothesis of a

second person in the Platonic trinity

cannot

i)ossibly,

tortured

ascribed to necessity, as

founded,

from these words of Timaeus, be

any such meaning.

into

is

For,

as

Then,

again,

it is

as

denominated a concause

is it

must

necessarily be subor-

dinate to the chief cause, and a will

Me

unless

;

himself is

as

it,

as

is

mere agent of to

much subject we are by the

his

have held the

ancients, that

a mere creature of necessity

power which this

Timams some of the

believe

monstrous fallacv of

itself,

properly classed.

it

rather than a cause,

is

can no more be looked upon

it

God, or an hypostasis of God, than matter

along with which

it

God

and that he

;

and as much restrained by

to

it,

air

we

breathe

;

or

by the unseen

limits our ambition or our desires to

sublunary

S])liere.

Plato closelv followed Tima^us and the Pvtha-

goreans in his estimate of the Divine Being; and those other causes to which I have alluded.

According to many great only

One

eternal and

authorities, Plato held

unmade

Divinity

;

the

Maker

that

Plato

and Governor of the whole world. " It

is

manifest \ '

Pr. Et.

(says lib. xi.

Eusebius,)

cap. 13, p. o30.

— 108

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIERS.

ackno-wlednod

really

compliance

one God, however,

only

in

the language of the Greeks, he

Avitli

often spake of gods, plurally."

This for

not quite in accordance with Plato's

belief,

he certainly maintained a plurality of gods,

whom

is

he distinguished, however, from the chief god, as being generated in time, and, therefore, mere suborDr.

dinate creatures. this

Cud worth'" acknowledges

mysterious

however,

not,

appellations,

mode

distinguishing

as

attributes.

For what

is

ness

all

moves him

an Intellectual Being;

is

Him

goodness and perfection in

being that

of His

attribute

(if ^ye

his various

there extraordinary in any

one asserting that God having

the

of his existence, but for the natural

and obvious purpose of characterizing

all

that

god of Plato's was ex2)ressed by a variety of

;

nature,

good-

which

dare use the expression) to create

things after the best manner, and for the happi-

ness of his creatures

We

?

might

say,

implication of alluding to persons in the that

this

abstraction

boniim

;

Being of

that he

is

signified

'»

lutell.

him

System,

essence or

summum

Mind, having

this is

all

all

possible

no more than

by the names he employed to

express his Eternal Cause. likewise styles

Godhead

very

he possesses

as

Now,

goodness in His nature.

what Plato

the

also an Infinite

wisdom and knowledge,

the

itself;

goodness;

all is

good

without the

6

©eo?,

vol.

ii.

p.

Besides the good", he

by way of eminency; 295.

"

Ibid.

;;

OPIXIOXS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS.

sometimes father of

6 B)]/iioupyo<;,

things

all

maker

the

sometimes,

;

^acnXev^, Intellect, the king of

things

the

;

first

God

iravTcov

the sove-

:

God

the greatest

;

Nov?

things

passes throngh

orders and

reign IVIind which

or creator, and

also,

all

109

;

all

and the

greatest of the gods.

no more by

It is certain that Plato signified

his

Good and Intellect than Aristotle and Anaxagoras did, who were more explicit than the former, exthat Good plaining them as I have done above ;

is

that which

moves

everything in accordance with

God

and execnte

Intellect to will it

for Intellect in

;

does not seem necessarily to imply the goodness

of His nature.

Dr. Cudworth assures us that the Trinity was also

a Pythagorean as well as a dogma of

Plato's, the

proof of which he imagines to be comprised in a passage from the writer

De

but, I apprehend, the contrary

"His

it'^

which

is

first

principle

is

may be deduced from God and (or) Good,

of the nature of unity, and a perfect JMind

but his other principle of duality

'*

Lib.

i.

'^

Lib.

i.

cap. 7, p. B81-. cap.

.3,

p.

870.

trusted in these matters.

demon

—Plutarch

lie

is

somewhere

a

demon

or evil

" Pythagoras's

not to be implicitly

ascribes the

same

belief

to Plato.

Pythagoras called followed by those according to some.

he culled God

is

Plutarch says",

Again,

principle."

of an evil

Philosophorum

Placitis

God

" the One," in which he was generally

of his school.

flatter

he called "two,"

Dacier, in his Life of this philosopher, says

also a Quaternion.

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOniERS.

110

principles

were a monad and an

the former of them an active principle,

God;

the

latter,

passive and

duality;

infinite

Mind

or

AVithout

matter."

condescending further to prove a point of such consequence. Dr. Cudworth stratio)i

is satisfied

with this demon-

from Plutarch, and proceeds, accordingly, to

a structure on this feeble foundation.

raise

passes over the argument in this manner

goras '*

is

:

—

"

He

Pytha-

generally reported to have held a trinity

of Divine hypostases."

The three others, are,

principles

ascribed to Pythagoras by

no doubt, those we have before mentioned,

God, Idea, and

upon the authority

JNIatter; Avhich,

of Aristotle'*, were called also the Beginning, the

Middle, and the

End

;

for all the philosophers of his

And

school seem to concur in this general doctrine.

we may

conclude that the names, as Monad, Good,

Mind, and

no more than

expressed

others,

language used by Timreus and

Plato

the

having no

;

reference to the persons of the Godhead.

We have

Parmenides, likewise, charged with a knowledge of the

same mysterious truth

])ut

;

upon no better

foundation than prejudiced assumption, and a passage

from Plotinus, written under a misaj^prehension of the subject which he treated.

"

Parmenides

in Plato,

speaking more exactly, distinguishes three divine unities subordinate fectly

'*

;

the

first,

of that which

is

per-

and most properly one; the second, of that Intell.

System,

vol.

ii.

p.

231.

'^

De

Coelo.

Ill

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIEBS. Avliicli

was called

that which

is

Parmenides did

him one-many

l^y

expressed

and many

o)ie

also agree in this

third,

tlio

;

that

so

:

acknowledgment

The

of a trinity of Divine or archical hypostases."

reason assigned for this interpretation ancient philosopher " TO eV

and

the beginning of

monad

a unity and

ixova<;,

conceived that the

first

all

that this

is,

Supreme

the

called

of

;

Being'*,

because he

and most perfect being, and

things, nuist needs

be the most

simple."

Let

us, for a

we

shall see

moment, assume dialogue

to

some reason

for

preting Plato's

manifest that Plotinus in

is

mode

this

doubt by and

by), it is

guilty of great discrepancy

For

speaking of these divine unities.

allude to a trinity, the one-many

second person, or the Infinite

must

Mind

they

if

refer to the

yet " Plotinus

:

seems to think that Parmenides, by his

mean

of inter-

be correct (of which

one, did really

a perfect JVIind, for he cannot conceive any

true entity below that which understands

same may be

and

said of that isolated

;"

and the

solitary INIonad

situated above Intellect.

As he

is

expressly treating of divine persons, he

clearly confounds

the

first

with

second

the

;

and

inadvertently opens the secret of the Parmenidean doctrine, TO

ev,

that the

Infinite

are one and the

implicitly relying

16

on

lutell.

or Perfect Mind,

same person.

this

mode

System,

vol.

ii.

and

Dr. Cudworth,

of solution, informs

p.

255.

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIERS.

112

US that the second liyjiostasis called,

by Parmenides,

and

things, in

all

is

the perfect Intellect,

eV iravra,

which he

one-many, or one that admission

o])]ioses

of Plotinus, that Parmenides regarded the stasis to

be also a perfect

first

hypo-

INlind.

The second of them, which is a perfect Intellect, was, it seems, by him called, in way of distinction, "

ev TToXKa or Traj/ra,

which

one-many or one-all-things; by

things are

all

meant the

intelligible ideas of

things, that are all contained together in

From which we may draw

mind."

that the perfect

the one, but

it

mind was

was called

according to Plotinus, "

because

comprehends

it

God was

to this, then,

really the

all Avithin itself."

called

Dr. Cudworth

was the called, all

:

first

by

that

says,

as

because, even

he was likened to a

sjihere,

According

by Parmenides the one, one-all-things,

comprehended by

is

same person

eV -rravra,

and the one-many or the everything

one perfect

this inference,

because

his infinite essence.

on the same

subject, that "it

of those hypostases that

was properly

Parmenides, eV ro irdv, one, the universe of

is,

one most simple Being, the fountain and

original of all."

By which he

vious hypothesis, that the

contradicts the pre-

first

was one; and the

conclusions of the later Platonists,

who looked upon

these other expressions of Parmenides to imply not

a simplicity but a multiplicity.

However,

as I intend hereafter to write

large on this subject,

it

Mould be better to

saying more now, except to

make

more

desist

at

from

the observation that

OPINIONS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS.

113

these philosophers do not seem to have been aware that Parmenides called the material universe also the one,

which

of that

is

name

expressly mentioned in Plato's dialogue ;

and

it

was

this,

and not God, which he

likened to a sphere, as containing itself.

By him God was

before

him.

all

things within

called one, as Pythagoras did

The universe Mas one

also,

things.

H

and

all

114

CHAPTER The Opinions of some

II.

INIoderns on the Trinity

OF Plato examined. I

thought

it

necessary to collect these few scattered

rays of light from the theology of the wisest of the ancients, for the purpose of

dence there

exists, in their

Supreme Being,

showing how

little evi-

recorded opinions of the

to warrant the conclusion that they

entertained the doctrine of a trinity in the Godhead. It

appears that

and the Divine

God,)

(highest

appellations,

by which

God,

regarded

they

He

ISlind,

Jupiter,

and other

was expressed,

words

as

of the same purport, signifying His peculiar attri-

His unity, and superiority over generated

butes; natures.

Good

The

Infinite

Aristotle and Parmenides goras, are all so

of Anaxagoras

JNIind

of Timseus and Plato ;

;

the Immoveable

;

the

One

of

and the Monad of Pytha-

many titles of 07ie Person, suited to who applied them or created out

the taste of those

;

of a laudable desire to convey their notions of a

Mental in opposition to the Material Cause of the Atheists.

There are three

princij^les

these philosophers, probably

concurred in by most of first

goras

—which

And

as this ancient doctrine

are

called

taught by Pytha-

God, Idea,

and Matter.

formed a chief

insfre-

N^

THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINBDrj

the Platonic hypothesis, I purpose^ in due

client in

time, to

iir

examine

it

more

THE

TJ yl-f 5^

^

'r

^ T

T "?

^'y

"^

particularly.

Before entering upon the theology of Plato, I with devote this chapter to a few remarks on the

one or two modern writers, on the

oj)inious of

tonic trinity

;

and more especially on the evidence of

own

the doctrine in Plato's

The author of The

writings.

Intellectual

verse thus expresses his ideas

" PlaCo', in his tenth oi)])osing Atlieists,

of a deity

on

System of

laws, in professedly

undertakes to prove the existence

he does not there

ascend higher than to the Psyche, or universal

dane

soul, as

mun-

a self-moving principle, and tbe immer

diate or proper cause of all that

the world,"

UnU

the

this subject.

book of

but, notwithstanding,

;

PJa-'

Again,

"

But

motion which

is

in

jn other places of his

writings, he frequently assert s_^above the self-moving

Psyche an immoveable and standing Nous, or lect,

which was properly the demiurgus, or archi-

tectonic framer of the world.

multiform hypostasis

iiitellect, ;

tiplicity it,

jiiind

And,

lastly,

above

this

he plainly asserts yet a higher

one most simple and absolutely perfect

Being, which he calls ro

in

intel-

eV,

in opposition to that mulr-

which speaks something of an imperfection

*****

and Tayadoy, goodness

and understanding.

accordingly, in

mention a

to

epistle

his

itself,

trinity of three

as being

Dionysius

'

Vol.

ii.

above

I

And,

does

he

Divine hypostases alto^

gether." p. 3U(I.

H

2

,

|

:

THE OPINIONS OF SOME MODERNS

116

In another place he

rejoices exceedingly at the

(imaginary) similitude, which he discovers between

the Christian and the Platonic

they

trinity, in that

agree in ascribing the creation of the world to the second, and not to the

first

person in the Godhead.

In another portion of his w^ork he explicit,

in

opinion of there

this

is

still

In his commentary

alluded to in Plato's writings.

on a passage of the Timseus, where the world nominated i7nage

"

By

more

being a trinity

is

de-

ayaXfia— a created

TOiV acStcov Qecov
—

of the eternal gods he thus expresses himself, which eternal gods he there meant doubtless

that TO irpcorov and to Bevrepov, and TO TpiTov

—that

first,

second, and third,' which, in his second epistle to

Dionysius, he that

is

makes to be the

principles of all things

his trinity of divine hypostases,

current efficiency,

by whose con-

and according to whose image

and likeness, the whole world was created*."

Lord Monboddo,

in

his Origin

and Progress of

Language, arrives at a similar conclusion as Dr. Cudworth; though he Plato to

make

differs

the

in

this;

that he denies

most remote allusion to the

trinity in his Dialogues ^

" I

am

persuaded Plato

got out of Egypt his peculiar doctrine of ideas, as well as the doctrine of the trinity, which he has not

published in any of his dialogues, but kept as a secret to be

communicated

to the initiated only, in the

mysteries of his philosophy:

•

Vol.

iii.

p. 85.

or,

perhaps, he found

»

Yol.

v. p.

338.

ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINED. this mystical

goreans of

philosophy in the books of the Pytha-

Italy,

he purchased

some of Mhieh

Laertiiis tells us

at a great price."

Though he

on

dissents

worth, he coincides with

He

of the doctrine.

himself says,) that

by chance,

him

in

the opinion that

sibly divine its

an exponent

is

allows, indeed,

the

mystery

but enigmatically

fell

from Dr. Cud-

this point

Plato's second epistle to Dionysius

briefly only,

117

;

no one could pos-

signification.

granted, (that the subject

it

But

if this

is

an enigma,) according

is

to the procedure of this philosopher,

worth, they do not esteem

expressed, not

so that if the letter,

into strange hands,

occult

is

(what Plato

and Dr. Cudbut adopt

in that light,

the most literal and obvious interpretation

;

that the

three natures mentioned by Plato, were the causes

of

all things.

As

Plato,

natures,

however, explicitly enumerates these

the mystery does not

relate to the

number

seem so much

three, as to their

to

peculiar cha-

racters,

and the mode of their existence.

epistle

had miscarried and

what

the most probable solution which the purport

is

would suggest to the reader? obvious and

literal

one

;

But can

this

the solution of which

the

literal

expression

?

literal

the

Certainly the most

and around which,

all

things

be denominated an enigma,

may be

Do

clearly gathered

mode

from

these philosophers above

act consistently with the premises agreed upon,

they adopt this

if

that Plato alluded to certain

principles, through which,

existed.

For

fallen into other hands,

of interpretation

?

when

;

SOME MODERNS

THfi OPINIONS OF

118

We

ttlfty

coiicliule, therefore,

used by Plato, that the enigma natures mentioned by

him

;

from the is

Ifing'unge

not in the

tlirec

but in sometliing else

\

which jirobably related to the peculiar mode of their existence.

There

is

ftppareiltly

another remarkable feature of this not noticed by Dr. Citdwortli

;

letter,

though he

pretends that Plato alluded to a trinity in some of " I

It is said\

dialogues.

his

have never at any

time written anything about these particulars is

nor

;

there any book professedly written by Plato, nor

Which

will there be." still

more

from the

of solution

difficult

one

literal

passage renders the enigma

giveli

I have observed that

same but

we

opitiion Avith

if Ave

;

by the

it

further

later Platonists.

Lord Monboddo holds the

Dr; Cudworth on this subject

examine the evidence produced by him,

shall see IioaV little reason

this conclusion

;

in his belief.

his pretensions to learning,

of the

he had

and hoAv impossible

him

coincide Avith

rance

and removes

for arriving at it is

for us to

In truth,

Avitli

all

he manifests great igno-

genuine philosophy of Plato.

This

notion appears to have been hastily adopted by him, Avithout

much

knoAvledge of the fundamental prin-

ciples of that philosophy.

As an example

of his credulity, he acquaints us,

that he Avas satisfied of this doctrine of the trinity

being restricted to Plato's theology, the Platotiic phi*

Epistle of Plato to Dionysius.

ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINED.

and the Alexandrine school, until Dr.

losophcrs,

Heberden, a friend of

his,

pointed out a jiassagc in

Seneca's Consolatio ad Hehiam, from which to have been also

This

Stoics. est,

poralis

Deus

ille

illo,

appears

it

and recognised by the

to,

quisquis

—

Id actum

"

formator universi

omnium,

est potens

ingentium operum

ratio

spiritus per

known

the passage alluded to:

is

mihi crede ab

fuit, sive

119

sive incor-

artifex, sive divinus

omnia maxima ac minima,

a^quali inten-

tione diffusus, sive fatum et immutabilis causarum inter se cohserentium series."

From

this single

and isolated passage we have

The

the evidence which he affords us.

all

casual enu-

meration of God, incorporeal reason, and the soul of the world, (which he probably signified by the divine spirit,)

is

sufficient to

acknowledged a

convince him, that Seneca

trinity of persons

!

But

if

he had

read that epistle of the Stoic's carefully and attentively,

by no

he might have seen, that the language could possibility bear such a construction.

the occasion on which he

said to

is

Besides,

propound

this

mysterious doctrine, seems the most unfit that could

be conceived

:

supicion of the

The

truth

is,

a proof itself that Seneca had no

meaning given

to his words.

that the Stoical philosopher was so

uncertain and ignorant of the nature of the

Supreme

Being, that he takes this opportunity of exjjressing his doubts

and

perplexities.

and among those of

In his public writings,

his school,

he could confidently

speak and argue on the great and interesting subject

THE OPINIONS OF SOME MODERNS

120

of the being, the attributes, and the government of

God but when, in moments of solitude and his own reflections were turned towards these

study,

;

things,

or when, from a full heart, he M'as required to offer

how

consolation to the afl^icted, he was sensible

and

futile

were

all

the speculations of the schools, on

unknown and un-

the nature and existence of the created Cause of

What

vain

all things.

consolation can

all

afford to present affliction

;

the logic of the schools

what

light

can

it

throw

when death has withdrawn us and mundane existence ? What is

over the dark futurity,

from it

this earthly

to the

broken

heart,

whether God, in the language

of men, be called almighty, or incorporeal reason, or

the soul which pervades

all

things

?

Hence, Seneca, overcome by the dark uncertainty of his speculations, despondingly confesses that he

knows not whether God be as some call him, simply an Almighty Power or as others. Incorporeal Reaor, as the Stoics argue', the son, or Infinite Mind ;

;

Soul of the universe fate,

or

" Sive *

;

or whether, indeed, he

the immutable

Stoical

which enters

theology

into,

only

chain of material causes.

fatum et immutabilis causarum,"

The

is

made God

and pervades

to

is

not the

be the unirersal Soul,

all things.

In

this, it differed

from that of the Pythagorean and Platonic schools, and other sects, Avhich called God, an Infinite Mind, a Reasoning Divinit}', Seneca may have alluded to this, in the and other names. " Whepassage above, and might have thus expressed himself, ther God be, as some say, Almighty God, King of Heaven and of Earth

;

or

an

Infinite

Mind

;

or

an Universal Soul," &c.

;

ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINED. language one M-ould employ in writing

121

or alluding

of,

a trinity in the Godhead.

to,

Tliis

we

however, not the only discovery for M'hich

is,

are indebted to

For

his opinions.

Lord Alonboddo, and others of

in another portion of his

work he

informs, us that Aristotle held the nature of

man

to

be twofold, the intellectual and the animal, in which

he opposed of

man

his

be one substance composed of different

to

then,

j^arts;

master Plato, Mho asserted the nature

as

if

which discovered a

inspired

among

conjured up a like opinion aside from the

with the same genius

trinity in Plato's writinsrs,

argument of which he

with amusing gravity", "

says,

and

the Stoics, he starts is

And

treating,

and

here I cannot

help observing that this system of morals, (Aristotle's

two natures of man,) enables us to conceive the great mystery of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Incarnation

;

do, that the

actually

is,

for if

we

believe, as I think

intellectual nature

may be

mav be united

two

and that

namely, the divine

in the person of Christ."

more

;

Again, "

it

divine in

and

it is

that

we

it,

as

human

to

to the other

was actually so

And we will be the we

agree with

intellect has

something

easily disposed to believe this, if

Aristotle, that the

and

what should hinder us

to the animal,

believe, that a third nature ?

we must

united,

he has told us in more than one place

only Ayith respect to this part of our nature, are said, in Scripture, to be

'

Orig.

and Prog, of Lang.

made

vol. v. p.

364.

after the

THE OPINIONS OF SOME MODERNS

122

And

image of God.

only the Trinitj/

is

may

here Ave

observe that not

to be found in the

ancient phiiosopliy, as

books of

before observed, but that

I

also the doctrine of the Incarnation

is

clearly to

be

deduced from the principles of that philosophy* This shows us

how much

the study of

it

must

tribute to explain the language of Scripture,

con*-

and the

doctrines of the Christian theology."

How find

in

pleasing and satisfactory to the Christian to

these

antique

marvellous an

systems, so

approximation to the revealed truth firmation of his faith, to have

it

What

!

a con-

thus expounded by

these great spirits of old, Plato, Aristotle, and the

How

Stoic!

have the testhnony of

delightful to

these venerated and pious sages to the mysteries of

our holy religion, and to the great doctrines revealed

by Heaven

to

mankind of

after-ages

reached the threshold of truth within

sacred

its

portals,

;

;

have

it

acknowledged that Plato was an orthodox Seneca not much worse

We

we have entered is known and

nay,

when

!

trinitarian

;

while the sagacious and

penetrating genius of Aristotle could expatiate on,

and i)ropound the mystery of the Incarnation If

it

were not

for the mystical

these philosoiihers employ,

!

language which

we might haply succeed

in working out the whole Christian theology from

their writings, as

when

Saviour.

these

it

and unfold

it

as

and pure,

issued from the divinity of our blessed

Then we might, most

men

perfect

-side

by

reasonably, place

side with the prophets of the

ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINED. Hebrew?, and consult them

a8

We would

123

the Sacred

Wrltinfjs.

How

can we,

Monboddo's he derived

after

this,

confession, that

be it

surprised

Lord

at

was from Aristotle

knowledge of the difference betwixt things divine and sublunary? or that he should all

his

admire Aristotle and revere the philosophy of the schools ^

" M'hich

explains to us

doctrine of Christianity, that the

from

all

eternity,

—

the fundamental

Son was begotten

a doctrine not to be conceived,

and, consequently, not to be believed, by a

has not raised

man

avIio

thoughts, by the assistance of

his

ancient jihilosophy, from generation and i)roduction of beings temporary here on earth, to the causes divine and eternal?" If the notion of this writer, that the Christian religion

is

only a sort of transcript of more ancient

theological systems, required any confirmation at our

hands,

I

made by

might here add an important discovery, myself, which

In

already mentioned.

is

on one passage, among Avhich

proves

astonished that

mony It

make

fad

this

another instance to those

my inquiries, others,

to

T

have stumbled

from divers sources,

demonstration.

Lord Monboddo overlooked a

I

am

testi-

so very valuable.

ought to be premised, that

it

is

necessary to

great allowance for the obscure and mystical

language used by ancient writers on religion; not ^

Vol.

V. p.

373.

!

THE OPINIONS OF SOME MODERNS

124

that they were ignorant of the truths on which they

on the contrary, they had a profound knowledge of them, though it was a branch of their policy to conceal them, in a cloud of darkness, from the wrote

;

'profanum vulgus Alciphron, in his thirty-ninth epistle, makes one

Euthydicus thus write to Epipanius

you not

:

—

"

What

have

The Haloa, the Apaturia, the Dio-

lost?

and the present most sacred Thesmophorian The first day was the Ascensio7i this day festival.

nysia,

:

is

appropriated for the celebration of the fast

which follows

by the

distinguished

that

sacrifice

of

to ancient religious fes-

This refers

Calligareia." tivals, in

is

;

which we have one to commemorate the and in another a fast

Ascension;

particularly

is

mentioned. I

conceive,

also,

opinion respecting

that

the

Lord Monboddo, Incarnation,

in

his

gave himself

unnecessary trouble, in bringing to light the profound speculations of Aristotle on this mystery, since he

might,

with

Homer and and their

greater

advantage,

have

consulted

Ovid, who, in their gods and goddesses,

offspring,

bear immortal testimony to the

union of divinity with the mortal nature

Returning from

!

this digression, I will

now

offer

a few observations on the opinions of Taylor, who,

notwithstanding

he widely

writers already mentioned, later

Platonists,

doctrines.

He

and a

is

differs

from the two

a true disciple of the

faithful

expounder of

their

asserts, dogmaticallv, that the Chris-

ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO EXAMINED. tians originally purloined their Trinity

125

from Plato,

but he repudiates the idea, that now there remains

any resemblance between the father and spring.

This

may be proved from many

writings, but chiefly

from

the Dialogues of Plato. has

been

obvious

said,

parts of his

his general introduction to

He

says,

"

From

all

that

must, I think, be immediately

it

one whose mental eye

every

to

his off-

is

not

no such thing

entirely blinded, that there can be

as

a trinity in the theology of Plato, in any respect

analogous to the Christian Trinity."

In his introduction to the Parmenides, he gives us a long

quotation from

Damascius, the Platonist,

which gives some account of the Orphic theology,

and the ancient

triads of principles,

whose nature

and origin I have before examined and explained.

He

is

of opinion, also, that the Platonic trinity was

of Orphical origin, thus agreeing so far with Dr.

Cud worth,

Proclus, and others.

But he

"

From

of

is

it

modern

the first

trinity.

that has been said respecting the intelli-

all

gible triad,

the

with

differs

the former as to the nature of this Platonic

easy to see what a dire perversion

trinity

venerating the

is,

of the highest procession

For, in the

causes. first

first

from

place, instead of

god, like the pious ancient phi-

losophers, as a cause ineffable, essential, it barbarously

unknown, and super-

confounds him with his

first

progeny, and, by this means, destroys the prerogative of his nature." (the genuine

From which

Ave

may

gather

this,

doctrine of the later Platonists,) that the

THE oriNioxs or

126

the

and the progeny.

cause; but he

first

triad

moderns, &c.

comprehend, numerically or catego-

triad does not rically,

so^fe

is

Hence Taylor thus speaks

recognises only the triad of being,

from him.

knows no more

it,

looked upon as his offspring or

of Dr. Cudworth, Avho expunges

springing

placed above

is

"

A

of the opinions

this first god, life,

superficial

and

and

intellect,

reader,

A\ho

of Platonism than what he has

gleaned from Cudworth's Intellectual system, will

be induced to think, that the genuine Platonic trinity consists of the first cause, or the (food, intellect,

and

by Plato as these,

soul,

and that these three were considered

as, in it

is

To such men

a certain respect, one.

necessary to observe that a triad of

principles, distinct

from each other,

thing from a triad

is

a very different

which may be considered as a

whole, and of which each one of the three

But the good essential, as this

or the one is

is,

first

hypothesis of

dialogue, (Parmenides,) and fi-om the It is

intellect,

even posterior to being; and much is

subordinate to

first

book

impossible, therefore, that

the good can be consubsistent with

which

a part.

according to Plato, super-r

evident from the

of his Republic.

is

intellect.

less

And

which

with

is

soul,

hence the

good, intellect, and soul, do not form a consubsistent triad."

127

CHAPTER

On

III.

the Theology of the Tim^us of Plato,

Some have

observed, that as to morals Plato fol-

lowed Socrates, chiefly

theoloo-v

was derived

from the Pythagorean school.

lie was un-

M-liile

his

doubtedly a close imitator of Tima^us of Locris, in the dialogue so entitled that

it

:

would seem, indeed,

was expressly called by that name, from the

it

conformity of

its

doctrines,

and the resemblance of

systematic features, to the book of Timreus on

its

the Soul of the World.

lamblichus

savs

somewhere,

may be

dialogues, Timreus

and Parmenides

hend that for

of

any

it

clear,

is

the

that

theology of Plato

Avhole

gathered from the two

to the former that

systematic, and

;

we

but I appre^are to look,

intelligible exposition

it.

As

the doctrines of this dialogue,

their origin, are of great

tlicir

nature and

consequence to our argu-

ment, T will give an extract from the fragments of the book of Timanis alluded

remaining to,

which

explains clearly and succinctly the nature of the idea,

out of Avhicli the Platonists created their Intel-

lect,

or Logos.

Plato.

It

is

the

germ of the theology of

THE THEOLOGY OF

128

"The' causes of

all tilings

Of

and necessity.

lect

nature of

and

(food,

are two, namely, intel-

these, the

first

of the

is

called God, the principle of

is

Those (neces-

such things as are most excellent.

existing according to the powers of bodies),

sarily''

which are consequent, and concauses rather than

may be

causes, sist

referred to necessity,

of idea or form, and

matter, to

added the sensible world, which

and they conwhich may be as

is,

it

were, the

offspring of these two. "

The

of these

first

immoveable, and the

stable

is ;

an essence ungenerated,

of the nature of same

exemi^lar of things generated,

intelligible

are in a state of perpetual change, and this idea,

and

Matter

to be

is

is,

and

which called

(only)

by mind.

form or

idea, the

comprehended

again, the receptacle of

is

;

mother and female principle of the generation of the for by receiving the likenesses upon third essence ;

itself,

and being stamped with form,

it

perfects all

things partaking of the nature of generation."

Again, " Before the world was idea,

made

existed the

matter, and God, the demiurgus of the better

nature.

He

fabricated this world

out of

all

the

matter, and constituted the boundary of essential nature, comprising

all

things within

itself,

one, only-

begotten, perfect, with a soul, and intellect." •

"

An. Frag. The ideas

p.

301.

of Plato are so explained by Laertius

:

"

He

sup-

poses ideas to be certain principles and causes, that sucli and

such things are by nature what they are."

Vita Plalonis.

THE TIM^US OF PLATO.

129

Stobaeus informs us also, that Archytas, anotlier Pjthag-orean, " It

ciples.

principles;

held similar opinions is

and

which

that

(matter), form,

the

is

subject

and that Mliich

totle probably alludes to the

say,

All things are three, things are

all

And

God."

for,

the

number of the

;

for the

it is

to the matter;

and

If

we

shall perceive

says

said of the

trinity.

to

examine

Plato's dialogue,

a marked concurrence with these

more ancient opinions

;

so that there cannot

remain

a doubt, but that thev were both of the same

and related to the same theology. all

ex-

brings the for7n or idea

which could never be

we proceed now

they

triad."

God who

second hypostasis of the

end

and the beginning (God),

Another ancient Pythagorean writer pressly, that

Aris-

as the Pythagoreans

include the enumeration of everything, fulfil

things

same thing when he

bounded by three

(matter), the middle (form),

of

of itself motive

is

invisible in power, namely,

says, "

on these prin-

necessary to hold that there are three

orio-in,

Plato esteemed

things transitory and uncertain, and therefore

unfit for philosophical speculation, except the ideas

or essences of things.

Hence he

calls

the latter,

very properly, real-being, as distinguishing their per-

manent nature from other

objects

which have only

a generated or temj^orary existence. sary to define that which

which is

is

is

without generation

;

" It

is

neces-

always real-being, but

and what that

generated." I

is

which

THE THEOLOGY OF

130

He

then

the one

says,

is

apprehended by

intel-

ligence, in conjunction with reason: the other,

the contrary,

is

We have seen

with the rational sense.

made

on

perceived by opinion, in conjunction

a similar observation,

when he

that Tinia^us said that the

idea was comprehended by mind. It

is

manifest, that every generated natm-e

have had a cause of

its

existence.

denominates Father and

Artificer,

sensible world according to the

must

This cause Plato

who formed

image or likeness of

The

another exemplar, or paradigmatical world. reason for which

world

is

beautiful,

is

the

thus given by Plato

:

" If the

and the Artificer thereof good,

it

is evident that he must have looked towards an Had he, on eternal exemplar in its fabrication."

the contrary, adopted the pattern of a generated nature, the world

would have been neither perfect

Therefore the Idea was the exemplar

nor beautiful.

of the sensible world, and, accordingly,

God

is

said

afterwards, in pursuing his plan, to have " placed intellect in soul,

universe."

and soul in body, and fabricated the

For Tima^us

Soul of the World, is

superior

And this

to

"

says,

in his

That an animal

book on the so constituted,

one devoid of soul and

intellect."

Plato argues that, " in this manner, and for reason,

endued with

we must intellect,

call

the

world an animal

and generated through the

providence of Divinity."

Again, " For the Divinity being willing to assimilate this universe, in the

most exquisite degree, to

— THE TIMJEUS OF PLATO. that

vvliicli

the most

is

181

and every-way

beautiful,

perfect of intelligible objects (namely, the exemplar),

he composed

He

it

one

animal containing within

visible

such animals as are allied to

itself all

it."

then proceeds to argue, that as this animal

world

a whole, and eA'ery-way perfect being,

is

God

could not have fabricated anv other Morld save this

And, according

alone.

Locris, "

As

it

to the

words of Timasus of

was God's pleasure to render

duction most perfect, he constituted

his pro-

a god, gene-

it

rated indeed, but indestructible by any other cause

than by

Him who made

Then, says Plato, "

it."

AVhen the generating

father

understood, that this generated resemblance of the eternal gods his

moved and

own work,

he might make

he was delighted

Avith

and, in consequence, considered

how

it still

lived,

more

similar to its exemplar.

Hence, as that (the exemplar, or idea)

is

an eternal

animal, he endeavoured to render this universe such, to the utmost of his ability,"

—namely,

as

permanent

as possible.

The

sun,

moon, and

stars,

created or fabricated by

the same demiurgus, were regarded also as go gods, or divine animals. "

He

many

So the earth likewise

also fabricated the earth, the

common

:

nourisher

of our existence, which, being conglobed about the pole,

extended through the universe,

and

artificer of nioiit

most

—

and dav, and

ancient of the gods

is

is

the guardian the

first

and

which are generated within

the heavens." I 2

— THE THEOLOGY OF

132

After Jupiter had created the universe, and generated the souls of the celestial planets (which were so

many

dressed these "

Gods of

such being thinsr

gods, of

is

whom

I

am

generated by

is

my will

which

gods after this manner:

inferior

whatever

father,

Plato imagined him to have ad-

deities),

the demiurgus and

me

Indeed, every-

in its fabrication.

bound

is

dissolvable

ing to dissolve that which

and well composed,

is

indissolvable,

is

;

but to be

will-

beautifully harmonized,

the property of an evil nature.

is

you are generated you are not immortal, nor in every respect indissolvable yet you shall never be dissolved, nor become subject to the

Hence

so far as

;

fatality of death," &c.

Then he proceeds

to

give

them some general

instructions; and concludes with these remarkable

words, put into his

nature

may

truly all

mouth by Plato

subsist,

:

—

"

That mortal

and that the universe may be

(conformable to the great idea), convert

yourselves, according to your nature, to the fabrica-

tion of animals, imitating the

power which

I

employed

in your generation."

He

gave these junior gods control and dominion

over mortal souls', as well as allotted to them the fabrication of mortal bodies.

'

Plato held some curious notions relative to

The most singular was their pre-existent state them to have heen created, and to have had a

;

human

for

souls.

he imagined

subsistence, pre-

viously to the bodies which they afterwards inhabited, or to which they were conjoined. This fancy arose from an excessive

THE TIMJEUS OF PLATO. Then, continues Plato, "

who

orderly disposed

all

At

the same time he

these things, remained in

accustomed abiding

his OM-n

133

quence thereof, so soon as

But, in conse-

habit.

his children

understood

the orders of their father, they immediately became

obedient to them."

We Plato's

may is

conclude, then, that this dialogue of

a true and genuine exposition of the

Timaean, or Pythagorean system of theology. 1.

We

have

God

the Creator, or demiurgus, a

supreme and eternal Being in the solitude of his it

pleased

him

;

own

who, as a

Spirit, existed

unity, until such time as

to manifest his

power in fabricating

the material world, and the inferior divinities. 2.

We have

Him

existing with

from

all eternity,

either in the Divine ^Mind, or external to Idea, or Exemplar, in

it,

the

whose likeness and image the

material world was created. 3.

We

have Matter, out of which

this

world or

universe of Plato's was fabricated, which was also eternal.

Hence

we

revert

to

the

doctrine

estimate of the soul, Mhicli he considered so superior to

material encasement, that

it

souls, before

its

M'ould be equivalent to a degrada-

tion to suppose that the latter

These

of

was created prior

to the former.

they entered the body, were believed to dwell

in the stars, the dwelling-places of the inferior divinities, where

probably they were supposed to be made, according to the instructions of the

Supreme Being.

And

after the dissolution of

the body at death, the soul returned again to the habitation of its life

kindred

star, to

here below.

enjoy a blessed

life,

if it

had spent a good

THE THEOLOGY OF

134 Timtrus, JVIatter,

tliat

before the world was, existed the Idea,

and God, the demiiirgus of the better nature,

or the cause of

The ancient pre-existence,

all

good things.

pliilosophers universally agreed in the if

not in the eternity of matter.

They

could not conceive a creation out of nothing. Aristotle, in his Physics, says, Ilepi raur^? ofioyvwfiovovai,

ryiyvecreac

ovrcov

fjuT^

ore ro
rrj^ Bo^T]
"

aSvvaTOV.

generally agree in this (laying foundation), that

it is

it

imppssible that anything should

be made from nothing'." Plato was of the same opinion,

He

Pythagoreans generally. trine,

e/c

The physiologists down for a grand

in this passage,

as well as the

alludes

to

from the Tima^us,

Divinity was willing that

all

the doc-

"As

the

things should be good,

and that nothing should be evil

;

and receiving every-

thing visible, which Mas not in a state of

but,

rest,

on the contrary, which continued moving in confusion and disorder, he reduced it from the chaotic state, into

order and harmony, considering that so to

do was by

far the best."

All that the demiurgus had to do, therefore, was to reduce matter to order *

Plutarcli says also, " It

(than Ileraclitus),

by

trod.

For as the world

the best of

all

is,

and declare

causes.

is

and regularity; and,

as

therefore, better to folloAv Plato loudl}', that

the world was

the best of

all

works, so

made God

is

Nevertheless, the substance or matter

out of which the Avorld was made, was not itself made ; but always ready at hand, and subject to the artificer, to be ordered

and disposed by him."

:

THE TIMiEUS OF PLATO. it

is

135

expressed, to bring the forms (of the ultimate

existence of things,) to the matter, and stamp tlicm

thereon

assimilating the

;

Avorhl,

and

contains, to the perfection, the beauty,

all

Avliicli

it

and the unity

of the divine and eternal paradigm, or idea.

seem that some regarded matter

It M'ould

as

a divinity, a very ancient and

(which

is

scarcely

more absurd than

of the divinity of the earth)

;

itself

venerable god, Plato's fancy

but such an idea was

scouted by the school of Plato, though they could

not conquer, but cheerfully acquiesced

dogma,

curean

so

well

described

in,

the Epi-

by the

poet

Lucretius

^

Nullam rem

a niliilo gigni divinitus

unquam*.

\n

(

v/<3^f

fCc^fn

(

Ate.

^'-^,r

XiX K)}

136

CHAPTER

IV.

Some Observations on the Parmenides of Plato.

The

07ie,

or ro

exj^ression of the

was a favourite

eV,

Pythagorean school, to express the singleness and It, no doubt, simplicity of the Supreme Being. bore some relation to the science of numbers, which

formed a chief and mystical part of

were analogous to

These numbers /

essences, of the

school of Plato,

reans of his time

;

its

philosophy.

the

the above expression

among

was himself indebted

for it

God by

seems to have been a ancient

nations,

It

would

Avho introduced

appear, however, that Pythagoras,

it,

or

and considered, in some respect,

to be principles or causes in the universe.

phers,

ideas,

and the Pythago-

the Grecian philosoto

another source for

title

given to the chief

the

as

Chaldeans and

Egyptians.

Bryant acquaints us all

the eastern nations

was

may

\Aith the fact that

"Among'

Ad

title,

originally conferred

credit Macrobius,

was a peculiar

upon the sun signified

it

interpreted by the Assyrians.

maximum-que

y

^,

/

venerantur,

'

Vol.

i.

'

ojie,

;

if

we

and was so

Deo, quem

Adad nomen

p. 28.

and

and

summum dederunt.

PARMENIDES OF PLATO. Ejus nominis interpretatio

137

Deum.

— Simulacrum

ut

Adad

insigne cernitur radiis inclinatis.' "

And

iiotissimum

Ilimc

significat iimis.

ergo

adorant

according to the Hermetic Fragments % the

Eg)'ptians maintained that

all things proceeded from Hence, from the highest to the last, the doc-

"

one.

trine of the Egyptians, concerning the principles,

inculcates the origin of

who

all

things from the one''

some things differed from Plato and Pythagoras, follows them in this mode of cha" The unity of the racterizing the Supreme Being \ Aristotle,

in

First Cause, the eternal spring of motion,

immoveable.

is

himself

This principle, on which heaven and

earth depends,

is

one

in

number,

as

well

as

in

essence."

Plotinus informs us that the Pythagoreans deno-

minated the

more

first

secret

signification,

And

mani/.

Kad'avra

7rai8e^,

&)?

tJie

one,

according to a

implying a negation

Sextus Empiricus bears the same

mony relative fjL€V

god Apollo,

to the unity, or chief monad.

voovfj,evcov y€vo
eTrava/Se^rjKo^; to eV.

placed the one as tra7iscending

" the

Kai

of

testiSr]

rwv

UvOayopiKwv

The Pythagoreans genus of

all things,

such are essentially understood^ That the First Cause surpasses and

is

situated above all the intelligible

ideas of Plato, which are the essences, or essential

nature of

all things.

*

An. Frag.

'

Meta.

p. 28.5.

lib. 4,

cap. 8.

/'

From

lamblichus.

/

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

138 Again,

of

Syrianus,

the

Platonic

later

observes after his Platonizing manner, Pythag-oreans

God

calle(l

as

the one,

scliool,

that

" the

the cause of

union to the universe, and on account of his supeto

riority

every being,

all

and

life,

all-perfect

intellect."

From

manifest, that the to eV Avas no

all this it is

mode

creation, or discovery, or peculiar

troduced into Greece by him,

brought out of Egypt. tial

as also

God from from the

which have multiplicity in them

was

many

called the

material things,

He

ternion

but

;

him three, ciples

of

it

for

the essenthe second

third, 7)2atter,

hence the idea

:

being the essence of

all

diffused through all nature.

it is

Pythagoras called perfect unity.

;

title, in-

he probably

Avhicli

It distinguished

unity and simplicity of

principle, the idea,

of expres-

Pythagorean

sion, of Plato's; but a truly

God

the one,

also called

on account of

him

his

four, or the qua-

does not seem that he ever styled

though he acknowledged those three prinall

things,

God,

idea,

and matter.

Pro-

bably he was considered to assimilate to the number

four in relation to the first, second, and third as being the measure and boundary of everything, ;

which cannot be unity,

said so well, or so

of a perfect

which we might conceive to subsist isolated

from those other recognised above.

fitly,

i)rinciples

God, therefore, as a perfect

cause of

all

or causes

spirit,

and the

motion, himself immoveable, a Being

existing from eternity in the

solitude of his

own

;

PARMENIDES OP PLATO. nature, mioht be

fitly

139

considered to he represented

by the number one, as that of which every conceivnumber is composed, and the very origin and

able

beginning of tive

But when

multiplicity.

all

power came

to

be

his

crea-

once exerted, and those

subordinate principles called into operation, idea and matter, then he might properly be represented by four,

comprehending

as

all

and

things

essences

within himself.

In course of time,

and Plato came

and used the term tions.

however,

the

Pythagoreans

upon the ancient

to refine

and

to eV in other

Parmenides employed

it

to

doctrine,

different rela-

express

the

and harmony of the universe, Avhich he called one and all things as one being, and yet consingleness

;

taining- all

within

It

it.

was used

also relatively to

the ideal causes, which were styled one, many, and an infinite multitude,

implying a certain unity as well as their diffusion through all nature; for we shall see hereafter,

as

that each distinct idea was re-

garded as a unity on account of

its

indivisibility

and therefore the archetypal universe, the exemjilar of the material, may be properly called one idea and all

essences

;

this ideal one,

hence Plato, in Parmenides, says that iirt

iravra

TToWa ovra

v€V€/xrj/j,evov,

tributed into all things that are mani/,"

" is dis-

which he could

not have consistently said of the other perfect to

monad, and perfect

From

unity,

not perceiving, or

ev,

God. if

perceiving, not

acknow-

ledging this essential distinction, the later Platonists

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

140

have given us an erroneous interpretation of the

They conceived that be-

dialogue of Parmenides.

may have

cause Pythagoras

appellation above to God,

did so likewise

;

strictly

all

the

confined

others of his school

and, by this assumption, they have

fallen into manifold, if not ridiculous,

Be-

errors.

lieving that, in this dialogue, Plato unfolded " the

celebrated generation of the gods, and every kind of existence,

from the

ineffable

and unknown cause of

the universe," they looked upon every idea according to

its

unity as a distinct god

;

and thus gave an

opening for an extensive, interminable, and absurd

From

polytheism.

the

fancy arose

this singular

system of noes and henades of the later Platonists, which even Dr. Cudworth acknowledges to have

been crotchets of Proclus and

his

followers.

Proclus gave to every idea, as a unit, or monad,

an existence

'per se

son, or god.

;

and constituted

it

a divine per-

Others, however, as Porphyry, repu-

diated this spurious Platonism, and denied they had

any such existence out

of,

or independent

the

of,

divine mind.

That Parmenides regarded every idea in some respects as one, or a perfect unit, we have the authority of this very Proclus,

who, nevertheless,

the absurd error of fancying that Plato

every idea a distinct divinity. the

manner of

his

"

into

made

of

Parmenides, after

own Pythagoreans,

separate substance, (namely, every idea,) its simplicity,

fell

calls

every

on account of

by the common appellation of one"

I

141

PARMENIDES OF PLATO. shall

now attempt

show how the Platonists

to

fell

into the strange error alluded to above.

The Parmenides

of Plato

is

The

intelligible of all his writings.

he

treats so obscurely

a dialogue the least subject of which

and mystically

is

the system

of ideas, a main branch of his as well as of the

These ideas were called

Pythagorean philosophy.

by them sometimes all

things

ligible

;

also the forms

and they were looked upon as the

causes of

and

to have an existence

other things,

{i, e.,

it

were, by their nature, and

sensible objects,) are assimilated

The

to these, and are their resemblances.

pation of

forms,

by them-

" they are the esta-

as Socrates argues,

blished paradigms, as

intel-

phenomena.

visible

or

sensible

They w^re supposed selves,

and essences of

by

therefore,

partici-

things,

other

is

nothing more than an assimilation to these forms or intelligible ideas."

Thus,

all

such sensible objects

as are great, as are beautiful or good,

become

so

by

reason of participating of these qualities from the intelligible

ideas.

The

resemblances of the being, and eternal

former

latter,

are

hence

which were called This

substances.

is

mere real-

the grand

foundation of this pecuhar branch of the

ancient

philosophy.

The reason

for this doctrine

others of his school,

is,

that Plato, and

would not admit sensible and

generated natures to be proper objects of science, or of philosophical speculation,

incessant

mutability.

on account of their

They are only the resem-

^^ ^

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

142

blances of other things which are certain and

These shadowy and

mutable.

God

essences are eternal with that

likeness

savs Plato in his Parmenides,

Hence

bv

And Parmenides

itself."

in the dialogue, "

Does

it

"

in their

formed.

There

and an essence

certain genus of everything,

subsisting

was

were

things

material

all

it

or

objects

ideal

and

;

im-

is

itself

asks Socrates

you that there

ajipear to

a

is

a certain species or form of justice, itself subsisting

by

itself; also

of beauty, and the good, and every-

thing of this kind

Now

?"

Parmenides, as Proclus bears witness, called

each distinct idea one

though

;

wise applied by him, and express

the

Hence when

unity

term was

of the

it

does not follow that this

later Platonists maintain this,

Being, though the

and deduce from

one their triad of three persons, being,

But

let

and

intel-

mentioned in the dialogue (which

1 do not admit,) of God,

that they

life,

this

be granted that the ideas do par-

it

ticipate in all cases

this,

universe.

that the essences participate

should allude to the Supreme

lect.

like-

other Pythagoreans, to

God and

of

it is said,

of the one, or unity,

this

should

it is

not a consequence of

thereby become so

many

distinct persons. It

is

allowed by the best interpreters of Plato's

philosophy, that the essences were supposed to participate of the

Supreme Being,

would be

many

all

so

Platonists maintain.

for

otherwise they

distinct, eternal natures, as

But

I

cannot see

how

the

these

143

PARMENIDES OF PLATO.

become

essences can by this participation of unity gods, or persons of a divine trinity. "

The

ideas are the causes (according to

and Plato) of all

to

Aristotle says*,

other things

all

Parmenides

and the essence of

;

other things below (sensible natures)

them from the

ideas, as these

is

imparted

themselves derived

These ideas are

their essence from the first unitv.

in the divine understanding, being looked upon by

these philosophers as the paradigms of

all

created

things."

But

examine the dialogue more

let us

minutely, and

put upon

it

we

and

closely

shall see hoAv far the construction

by these Platonists can be borne out by

Parmenides and Zeno seem to

a strict analysis.

have held the same doctrine respecting the ligible ideas,

though they

expression.

Hence Socrates

differed in their says, "

intel-

modes of

Zeno has written

the same as yourself, Parmenides, though by changing certain ])articulars, he endeavours to deceive us into

an opinion that

his

For you,

yours.

verse is one,

and

in

assertions

your poems,

are different say,

that the uni-

mam/ has no such a manner as

he, that the

and each speaks in

totally according to appearance

from

subsistence, to disagree

from one another,

though you both nearly assert the same thing this

account

it

is

that your discourses

seem

;

on

to be

above our comprehension."

Zeno *

Yol.

Meta. ii.

replies to this, lib.

p. 2(31.

I.

cap. vi.

p.

and explains the apparent 273.

Vide Cud.

Intell.

System,

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

144 "

paradox.

These writings of mine were composed

for the purpose of affording a certain assistance to

the

Parmenides

of

doctrine

endeavour to defame if

the

07ie

is

many,

those

against

who

by attempting to show that

it,

consequences must

ridiculous

attend such an opinion, and that things contrary to the assertion must ensue.

This writing, therefore,

who say that and many other

the mani/

contradicts those

opposes this

opinions

;

and

is,

as

it

is

desirable to evince that the hypothesis which defends

the subsistence of the many,

attended with more

is

ridiculous consequences than that which vindicates

the subsistence of the one,

if

both are

sufficiently

examined." It

ought to be here observed that these philoso-

phers did not absolutely deny the subsistence of the

They were only opposed

many.

to the

existence assigned by their opponents. latter

gave a real

allowed

The

by

it

subsistence,

participation,

ridiculous consequence

im})lied in the contrary

as

the I

mode

of

While the former only

shall

explain.

mentioned above, and

argument, was overcome by

mode of exj^lanation. For they argue that the many has no existence, each independently; but this

that the one itself becomes many, and the many, one,

by

participation.

Socrates, into

the

who was not

yet

thoroughly initiated

mysteries of this system,

doctrine by these words. that similars

become

" If

illustrates

the

any one should show

dissimilar,

or the contrary, I

PARMENIDES OF PLATO. sliould think

it

Avoukl be a jirodioy

that such things

as

participate

likewise both these,

it

;

145

but

both

if

he evinces

these, suffer

does not appear to me,

O

Zeno, that there would be anythinof absurd in the case

nor, again, if

;

any one should evince

that all

are one through their participation of the one,

tJiincjs

same time, mani/ through their participaBut I should very much wonder,

and, at the

tion of multitude. if

any one should show that that which

mani/, and that the 7nanij

is

is

ojie,

is

Again, he thus

one.''

proceeds, " If any one, therefore, should endeavour to show, that stones, wood,

are both one and many,

and

we

to our view such things as

he does not one

;

such particulars,

are

many and one

but

;

one to be many, nor the many

nor speak of anything wonderful, but asserts

that which

From

confessed by

is

this

difficulty in

The

assert the

all

should say he exhibits

it

this

difficulty

is

all

men."

was a great

manifest there

doctrine of the one being many.

seems to be

Those who main-

this.

tained the subsistence of the many, must have also

admitted, as a consequence of the hypothesis, that ideas or forms in

multitude.

beauty rial

is

were either

divisible,

For example,

supposed to have

its

if

many

or were

the

idea

called

resemblance in mate-

or sensible things, the beauty of each thing

must

either be only a portion of the great, universal, or

exemplar

idea,

or there

must be an

infinitude

such ideas, corresponding in number to objects which possess beauty.

all

material

This will ajtpear

K

of

still

;

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

14G

were divided among

magnitude

If

clearer in the idea of magnitiule.

the participants, each part of

such magnitude woukl, by com})arison, become parthe idea be If, again, vitude, wliich is absurd. regarded as a perfect unity, not participated accord-

necessarily a

must be

of Parmenides, there

ing to the notions

number

ideas of magnitude,

of such

equivalent to those material objects which are great

an absurdity no " a part of

than the former, as

less

it

said

is

magnitude cannot be equal to magnitude

itself."

Now

the Pythagoreans overcame this obstacle by

maintaining that every idea unity

;

one, or a perfect

is

and that of any certain

beauty or

as

idea,

magnitude, there can only be one of which

archetypes of

beauty and

all

other

all

These ideas were regarded as the

things participate.

all

So that

greatness.

ten thousand objects that are great, really partici-

pate

all

of one single idea, and not of a multitude

of such.

But there demonstration to our minds.

another difficulty to

is

of this doctrine,

How

can

the

perfect

which presents

many

itself

possessing

things

magnitude participate of one simple, universal idea

Must

the idea be

not divisible

must be many such light

on

ideas.

this part of

?

Or

if not,

?

there

Parmenides throws some

the argument.

"

Does not

everything which participates, either participate the ivhole

Jbrm, or only a

any other mode

j^drt

thereof?

of participation

Can

there be

besides

these?

PARMENIDES OF PLATO. There cannot. whole form

Does

it

147

appear to you, then, that the

many

one in each individual of

is

which would be exactly the same other hypothesis, that

all

things?"

as to agree to the

sensible objects

partici-

pating of one universal idea, really participated of a

and the same

in things

whole

other, the

will

As

"

multiplicity of such ideas.

therefore,

it is,

many and

separate from each

be at the same time one, and

A conclusion

so itself Mill

be separate from

opposed

the Parmenidean doctrine, that

t(j

idea or form

is

itself."

every

a perfect unity.

The philosopher can be

one

that no form

also demonstrates

divisible, (by

reason of

nor can any

its unity,)

object participate only a part of

it,

for then there

could not be one whole in each individual thing, but only a portion thereof.

"Are

you, then, Socrates,

Milling to assert, that that one form divided,

and that nevertlieless

it

is

in reality

is

one

still

For

?

see, M'hether

upon dividing magnitude

the idea),

M-ould not be absurd that each of the

many

it

itself

(namely

things Miiich are great should be great by a

part of magnitude less than magnitude itself."

He

then proceeds to state the

difficulty

argument alluded to above, and

to exjdain

may be

this,

obviated

M'ould lose M'hat

all

;

its

manner can

for

Mithout

in

his

hoM-

it

the doctrine

proof and consistency.

" After

individuals participate of forms,

if

they are neither able to participate according to parts, not yet according to

They cannot

m holes?"

participate according to parts, for no

part,

K

2

hoMever

;

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

148

can represent the one idea in

large,

all things

;

nor

according to wholes, for there cannot be more than

one universal idea participated by each individual thing, otherwise there

of the same idea

would be an

infinite

number

so that instead of there being an

;

universal

idea of beauty,

&c., there

would be many

of justice, of greatness,

which

such,

is

impossible

and absurd.

But how,

then, do they particii)ate

to in this passage.

one on

this

It

?

is

alluded

you consider every form as

" If

account, because since a certain multi-

tude of particulars appears to you to be great, there

may

perhaps appear to him,

be one

idea,

surveys

them

all,

to

from whence you think them to be one

great thing. itself

who

But what

if

you consider the great

(namely, the universal idea), and other things

which are great (sensible

objects,

for example,) in

the same manner with the eye of the soul, will not again a certain something which

you (something which ticipant),

seem

to be great

?

great appear to

neither the form nor par-

is

through which

is

all

these things necessarily

Hence another form

of magni-

tude will become ajiparent besides magnitude (the one idea)

and

its

participants, that

magnitude through which

all

these

so that each of your forms will thing,

but an

infinite

is,

itself

another

become great

no longer be one

multitude."

This

is

the

essence.

The

doctrine of another form of magnitude, be-

sides the

one

idea,

makes Socrates thus express him-

TARMENIDES OF PLATO. self relatively to the

tude

for

;

"

first.

149

middle thing, or second magni-

he does not dispute the subsistence of the

Perhaps each of these forms

nothing

is

more than a conception, which ought not to subsist anywhere but

in the

mind

;

and

if this

be the

each will be one, and the consequences just

mentioned

That Socrates

will not ensue."

speaking of the secondary forms

from his genuine thesis. it

"

may be

now here

collected

exposition of the Timaean hypo-

These forms are established paradigms, as

were, by their nature

;

other things are assimi-

lated to these, and are their resemblances

of forms by other

particii)ation

more

is

case,

things

;

is

than an assimilation to these forms."

fore, as individuals

and the nothing

There-

cannot participate of forms, either

through parts or through wholes, these philosophers conceived to solve the difficulty by supposing, that

each universal idea participated of a certain essence, which, though not divisible, had a power of multiplication

corresponding to

partaking of

its

the sensible

particular nature.

anvthing participates of greatness,

it

objects

Hence when does not par-

ticipate of the one universal idea, except through this essence

;

for otherwise, as

we have

seen, there

would be many universal ideas of one quality or This is mentioned in a subsequent part attribute. of the dialogue, when the dialecticians enter upon their argument.

that

it

" If the

one

is,

can

it

be possible

should be, and yet not participate of essence

It cannot.

Will not essence, therefore,

be

?

the

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE

150

essence of the one, but not the same for if

it -svere

the same,

it

Avitli

the one?

wonkl not he the essence

of the one, nor wonkl the one imrticij)ate of essence."

The one

participating of essence

which so

becomes one

being,

from the abstract one, that

far differs

it

possesses multiplicity, (the universal attribute given to bein^ by Plato,) and

each idea

still

is

retaining

diffused through all nature, its

or unity

jiarticipating of one,

peculiarity of

original

Can

"

and essence.

one being-

each of these parts (each essence) of

desert each other, so that the one shall not be a part

of being, nor being a part of the one?

It

cannot

Therefore each of the parts will contain both

be.

Again, " Will not this one being

one and being."

(composed of essence and unity) become an multitude there

?"

It will

become

must be an essence

Parmenides proceeds

so

ftir

infinite

infinite, that

for every sensible object.

to

vhether these

argue,

essences or secondary forms also subsist by themselves, as the

think that both you and any other the essence

" I

primary ones were believed to do.

who

of each form as subsisting by

establishes

must

itself,

allow, in the first place, that no one of these subsist in us."

This seems to have been a matter of

uncertainty.

"

Do you

see,

O

Socrates,

how

Q-reat

great

a doubt arises if any one defines forms as having an essential subsistence I

have judged

it

by themselves ?"

necessary to treat, so

dialogue, as I have done, to prove

how

far,

of this

idle, if

absurd, are the deductions of the later Platonists,

not

who

151

PARMENIDES OF PLATO.

would persuade

us, that this

expositiou of the nature

of the ideas was really a profound theological argu-

ment, in which Plato occultly or mystically treated of the existence of the

Supreme Being, and

of divine hypostases.

of the trinity

These philosophers seriously

believed every idea to be a god

;

and, consequently,

Proclus denominates this a Dialogue on

tlie

menides here related to the chief cause deduced,

also,

from the dialogue (how,

ceive), a triad of principles, life,

and

Gods.

that the one so often used by Par-

They imagined

intellect

;

the one

I

and they

;

cannot con-

which they

call being,

being the head and foun-

tain thereof. It

must be acknowledged, indeed,

tliat

Plato

employs very extraordinary language in mentioning the ideas, which led astray these })rofessed of his

;

discijjles

but I imagine that by gods, in reference to

the ideas, he signified no more than their intelligible nature, in contradistinction to sensible natures;

and perhaps,

them

in

also,

he assigned a

consequence of

this

sort

of divinity to

superiority,

and called

them divine, as causes or concauses of natural phenomena but I cannot collect (which would be ;

too ridiculous to believe), that

endowing each

he ever dreamt of

idea, as these philosophers did, witli

a distinct personality, Avhich

is

essential to

their

being ever considered as gods. Plato does not distinctly assign the locality of these ideas, nor describe the

mode

of their exist-

ON THE TARMENIDES OF PLATO.

152

He

encc. selves.

their

only

But the

own

says that

they subsist by them-

Platonists, theorizing according to

premises, fancied

them

to exist in an all-

perfect intellect, inferior to the First Cause,

by Dr. Cudworth

is

uhich

held to be, as in the Christian

Trinity, the second person, or

Logos of the Godhead.

153

f^r'^"^'^^

CHAPTER Of

V.

Plato's System of Ideas relative to a Trinity.

HAVE before observed, was more ancient than

System of Ideas

that the

I

Plato.

was a Pytha-

It

gorean, a Tima^an, and Parmenidean doctrine, pro-

The substance

brong-ht out of Eg-ypt'.

bably

first

of

relative to the causes of all things,

it,

pressed in this laconic sentence from

the

World

:"

vXa,

re Kuc

IIpcv oov copavov yeveadat,

Kai

the heaven

Before

Idea, Matter,

0eo
6

8afMtoupyo
was made,

and God,

the

" the

Xoyw rco

is

com-

Soul of

ria-rrjv

ISea

/SeXrtovo'i

—

there ea^idcd in reality

demiurgus of

the better

nature^. '

Plutarch says, that the Egyptians regarded the

visible *

image of an

invisible

Plato called his chief

and

God and

(as

which

is

properly the

and he commended (as we have seen) Socrates did likewise), who opposed the atheis-

cause of well and right

Anaxagoras

a

eternal Cause, the Good.

Aristotle called God, that Novy, or J\Iind,

tical or

suii as

intellectual nature.

;

material philosophers in saying, Nov;/ nvai

Kai rov Koa-fiov

KdL TTjS Ta^fO)S TTaCTTjS (IITIOV.

Plato also, in his Phaedo, declares that an Intelligent Being

and everything was by Him made as good, and beautiful as possible in which he coincides here, and in other parts of his writings, with Aristotle and Anaxagoras. The Platonists, however, will have this Creator to be the second person of a trinity and not such as he is described by

created the world

;

well,

;

;

these ancient philosophers.

\isyUj

Plato's system of ideas

154

AVith respect to the ideas of Plato, and their

mode

of existence, there has been great diversity of

opinion.

Some have

Phxto signified

thouglit tliat

no more by them, than that they were ideas conothers, again, have tained in the Divine JNIind ;

contended, that he believed them to exist external to

it.

to the

Existing externally

Divine Mind, they

might be regarded as " necessary truths are said to subsist de natura

;"

for they

and as Laertius says,

;

they are the causes of things being such as they are.

We

might say of them

mathematical in a place;

(and not

what Aristotle says of

things, " It' is absurd to say they are

for place appertains

to universals,

as

only to singulars

ideas

are),

separable from each other by place tical

:

which are

but mathema-

things are nowhere"

Aristotle did not repudiate these ideas altogether,

though he ridiculed Plato causes.

r

to

He

believed

them

be the ideas of His

seem, he

for calling

them

to subsist in

JNIind.

From

principal

God, and

this it

would

interpreted the Platonic ideas, as if they

had an independent existence by themselves; for otherwise, he would have agreed with Plato and the Pythagoreans.

He

wisely discarded the notion, that

they were endowed with any casualty

had any influence

or,

that they

at all in nature, being the

shadowy dreams of ^

;

Plato's imagination.

Meta.

lib. xii.

cap. 5.

mere

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY,

Though the locum tinctly

from

tencns of the ideas

mentioned by Phito

yet

;

155 very indis-

is

we may deduce

this

from some passages

his writings, especially

in

the TiniiDus, that above the created and visible universe, there

was

also a kind of

supermundane, eternal, and uncreated world, the archetype of the former, which contains in itself all the intelligible forms or "

ideas.

The material world

of generated natures causes.

is

its

the most beautiful artificer

But being thus generated,

according to that which

and

and

;

intelligence,

is

the best of

it is

fabricated

comprehensible by reason

and Avhich subsists in an abiding

sameness of being."

(Tr-

^

l

lie calls this ideal world an animal, as he also calls

"

every distinct idea.

most

He

established

it

as the

similar of all things to that animal, of

which

other animals (ideas) both considered separately, and,

according to their genera, are nothing more than parts.

For

this contains within itself all intelligible

animals, just as this world contains us,

and other

animals which are the objects of sight."

It is like-

wise called an all-perfect animal, and an eternal animal. "V'^liatever

Plato

ideal world of his

in

;

may have whether

it

really

thought of this

existed per

se,

or only

God, there cannot remain a doubt that a super-

mundane world is a legitimate inference from his language. But whether he regarded it as a god is another matter, and liable to disputation

he may have called

it

so,

;

for

though

he never describes

it

as

TLATO'S SYSTEM OF IDEAS

156 such

and

;

is

it

called idea.

If that

then

ality,

the later

would have

lie

word implies or expresses a person-

we must come to the same conclusion as who regarded every idea ac-

Platonists,

cording to calls

not probable that

an animal, had he entertained any such

it

god

unity, as a

its

;

for Plato distinctly

common name

each idea by the

of " animal."

If Plato believed this archetypal world to be an

eternal god, he

must have held an opinion repu-

diated by the wisest of the ancients that

there were more than one

;

and maintained

Eternal, Chief, and

Independent Cause in the universe

;

for

it is

nor the Pythagoreans

that neither he

already shown) looked

ui)on the "

Godhead

of a trinity in the

;

(as

certain, I

have

Idea" as a person

but as something

dis-

from the Deity, and ascribed by Tim^eus to

tinct

necessity.

It was, in truth,

a sort of immaterial

cause, under the control and guidance of self, for

such

is it

who speak more

God him-

represented by some Pythagoreans, distinctly of

it

than Plato.

Some

of the ancients, and even the Platonists themselves, occasionally

represent the

as

subsisting

in

Proclus says, "The^ Cause, therefore, knows

God.

the universe, and

posed

all

things out of which

it is

he being the cause also of these things.

;

if this

and

ideas,

be true,

bij

it is

knowing

evident that

itself,

it

com-

But

looking into

itself,

knows what comes

after

hi/

itself."

Philo Judseus, *

who seems

to have

Proclus on Parmen.

lib. iii.

been greatly

157

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY. perplexed with

tlio

mundane world "

remedy.

paradox of an eternal and superwith God, discovers this

existing

God, intending- to make a

visible world,

formed an intelligible one that so having an incorporeal and most godlike pattern before him, he

Jirst

;

might make the corporeal world agreeably to Tliere

is

an error or fallacv to be observed, of con-

siderable consecpience

that by

;

have been always represented

They

conceptions.

no more

sia'nified

many

these ideas

as intellectual ideas, or

more properly expressed by

are

or specific essences

species,

it*."

;

for the

Pythagoreans

which the

their real-forms, of

Ijv

forms of material things, as they are perceived by

mere

are

us,

and changeable images.

fleeting

modern author of great

celebrity,

draws

A

this very

necessary distinction betwixt forms and intellectual

conceptions

;

and advances some important remarks

on the ancient signification of the word

*

"

St. Cyril gives

by his

-Julian,

this

" idea."

remarkable passage on the subject

and

intelligible

invisible gods,

:

seems to mean

those ideas which Plato sometimes fancies to be real substances,

having an independent existence.

At other

times, he repre-

sents tliem to be only ideas or conceptions in the Divine Mind."

Con.

.Jul. vol. ii.

And

cap. 4.

Harris, in his Hermes, informs us, that " Nicomachus,

in his Arithmetic, calls the rex^trov 6fov 8iavoia, in

in his

MS. Com.

Dei

observes

ivavTUiv ras Trpariis airias

God an

Supreme Being an Artist:

artificis

as

kiu tovs

mente.

follows, rexpiTrjv

Xoyovs

(prja-i

rov Qfov

avTciiv (^^ovTa-

Artist, as possessing within himself the

all things,

and their reasons or proportions."

(vttjtov

AVhere Philoponus

1'.

first

m

lie callS

causes of

437, «o/e.

Plato's system of ideas

158

word which

" Plato" calls tliem, indeed, ideas, a

and

in him, in Aristotle,

the other writers of

all

early antiqnity, signifies a species

and

;

synonymous with the other word quently

made use

perfectly

is

eiSo?,

more

>-«

Tt','f

of by Aristotle."

Greek

Again, " Is^ there any one passage in any

and Plato,

author, near the time of Aristotle

which the word idea

is

used in

its

words which

languages

all

in

present meaning,

to signify a thought or conception in

fre-

Are not the

?

express

reality

or

existence (which Plato's idea did, being called per-

manent and

real-being)

directly

opposed to

which express thought or conception only Notwithstanding are

some

by Plato, both

particularized

and Parmenides, which can nowhere in a mind.

We

an

this definition of

may

"those

?"

idea, there

in the Timaius subsist,

except

imagine him to have dreamt

of forms existing per se

;

but

it is

impossible to con-

ceive ideas of beauty, of justice, of goodness, and

such like things, existence

to

external

have any such to

the

mind.

independent

The

specific

essences are of a nature very different from mental conceptions, as these are which I have enumerated.

As we have

already seen, the later Platonists con-

ceived that Plato considered every distinct universal idea to be a deity; but in maintaining this gross absurdity, they fix a very low estimate of the

"

Smith's Hist, of An. Logic and Metaphysics.

'

Idem.

mind

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY. of that great philosoplier, for

wc

if

159 follow out his

arguments to their legitimate conclusions, (based upon this assumption of the divinity and personality of every such idea,) to the labyrinth

into

which

we

soon become sensible

would necessarily lead

this process

Justice, beauty,

would be gods

shall

of absurdities and contradictions, us.

and goodness, as universal

ideas,

and, as there

is a form of a triangle, and other such things, subsisting by themselves, which are the archetypes of those forms amongst us, ;

thev must also be

o^ods.

Plato describes the creation of

Time by

Jupiter,

the Highest Cause, in a very majestic manner, as an

image of Eternity flowing from itself; and as the one is the exemplar of the other. Eternity will be a

on the same grounds.

divinity likewise, I

have observed, that from

dialogue these

this

spurious followers of Plato, deduced a triad or trinity

of archical hypostases, which Plotinus confirms in these words

:

—

"

Parmenides in Plato, speaking more

exactly, distinguishes

nate

the

;

first

properly one

;

this

is

perfectly

and most

the second of that, which was called

by him one-many ; the and

three divine unities subordi-

of that, which

third,

which

is

expressed

o?ie

So that Parmenides did also agree in acknowledgement of a trinity of divine or

mraii/.

archical hypostases."

For

this I

am

indebted to Dr. Cudworth,

who we

conceives this explanation to be a key by which

can open the treasures of that obscure book, the

— 160

Plato's system of ideas

Pannenifles.

the dialogue

But how can

be reconciled with

this

and other parts of the writings

itself,

of Plato, in mIucIi the peculiar doctrine of ideas so frequently treated of, or alluded to

?

end to

Socrates, in the Philebus, puts an

delusion of divine hypostases,

is

this vain

by the very terms

which he employs relative to the

ideas.

" It

is

now

agreed never to introduce into conversation, as an instance of one and mnni/,

when

divisible, because,

mitted and avowed

one thing, which

he

is

the

members

or parts

any single thing may be considered as

into which

—

a respondent has once ad-

that

all

these (ideas) are that

many

thus at the same time

is

refuted and laughed at by his questioner, for

having been driven to assert such monstrous absurdities as these (appear to be), that a single infinite multitude,

which the

and an

lyuhlicitij

infinite

multitude

of the argument

is

one.''''

is

an In

acknowledged,

could not certainly

or at least implied; so that

it

relate to the other doctrine

propounded

letter to

one

in Plato's

Dionysius, which he expressly states was

never publicly written of by him

;

and in which

Dr. Cudworth and others j)erceive a trinity of three persons in the Godhead. Plato, in that singular description in the Timneus,

of the generation of the visible world, says, that the

Fabricator created eternal gods

mode

;

it

Avhich

of expression

is, ;

after

the

similitude

of the

indeed, a very exceptionable

but there can be no doubt, that

these eternal gods were the same with the divine

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY. ideas, or exemplars, which, altogetlier, lie

an eternal

and

animal,

indeed, contains

denominates

animal-itself.

all intelligible

gods) comprehended in

161

"

For

this,

animals (these eternal

itself."

Shortly afterwards he thus writes of the Creator

and Chief Cause, confirming the noble expression of Socrates in the Philebus, that Intellect

heaven and of

who

"

When,

is

King

of

God,

therefore, that

a i^erpetually reasoning dimnity (he

is

called

earth.

not

is

an animal, as he called the Idea), cogitated

about the god (the visible world) who was destined to subsist at

duced

He

his

some

certain j)eriod of time, he pro-

body smooth and equable," &c.

likewise calls the universe " a blessed sfod,"

and the earth the most ancient of the gods under the heavens.

From

this

it

is

manifest, that the

language of Plato, in using the word "god" in so

many

varieties of

meaning, was liable to misappre-

who snatched

at the

literal signification, Avithout inquiring into its

bearing

hension, especially by those

Thus Plotinus informs

on the general argument. us, that

mind, or

intellect,

god, which generated self-

—the

intellicjible

pulchritude cjods,

was begotten of the

first

together

him-

all entities

of the

ideas

ivitli

which are

all

which gods he believed to have an

existence individually, while Plato could not

mean

any more than that they were the eternal essences of things existing by nature. Taylor, indeed, says, that the

various significations

among

the

word god was of ancient

L

philoso-

— 1G2

TLATO'S SYSTEM OF IDEAS

l)liers

and

;

it

attributed by Plato, as well as

is

the ancient theologists, to beings which of the gods

This

these beings are the divine ideas.

;

conformable to the genuine speculations of

is

Plato,

by

participate

who maintained

that the ideas participated

of God, as material and sensible things in this world l^articipate of

between

But there

them.

a great difference

is

and the absurd notion that

this,

these

all

intelligible ideas are gods.

I

am

particular

and minute on

this point,

because

Dr. Cudworth, in referring to these eternal gods

abovementioned, there meant, Sevrepov,

and

says", "

doubtless, ro rpirov

—

By which that

that

eternal gods, he

ro

irpfOTov,

and

to

second, and third,

first,

which, in his Second Epistle to Dionysius, he

makes

to be the principles of all things."

This conclusion

is

hasty and contradictory, for as

these eternal gods are synonymous with the intelligible ideas (and

later Platonists),

when

this is so far

how can

acknowledged by the

this writer

in other parts of his

hold the above,

work he

is

abundantly

severe on Proclus, for supposing the ideas to be

causes and gods

;

and would persuade

us, that

Plato

conceived them to be only ideas of the Divine Mind, neither having an existence by themselves, nor being

causes in the universe

;

which

is

certainly in oi)posi-

tion to the express language and belief of Plato.

There can be no doubt of the marked distinction ®

Intell.

System, vol.

iii.

p. 85.

— RELATIVE TO A TRINITY.

which Phito makes between

1G3

his divine

animal and

perpetually-reasoning divinity, the demiurgus of the

world

but

;

if,

according to Dr. Cudworth, the ideas

are all in God, then God, in that description given

by Plato, was not contemplating the archetypal idea " subsisting by itself," but only the thoughts or conceptions of his

There

is

that the

own mind.

some sense and coherence

in the notion,

was made in the likeness of a

sensible

supermundane or

intelligible

world;

but there

is

neither sense nor coherence in the assertion, that the

Creator of the world for

made

it

an image of himself;

what material object can ever be an image of a

Spiritual

and Intellectual Being?

As we might agree,

all

the hypostases in their trinity.

as to

The general ideal or

expect, the later Platonists do not

opinion, however, seems to be, that the

supermundane world

the second person,

is

which we have thus stated by Porphyry, an undoubted pagan, and perverter of Plato's writings. us that from the Good, or

He informs

Supreme Cause, was gene-

rated a JNIind or Intellect incomprehensible to mortals,

which subsisting by

itself,

contains the things

that really are, and the essences of

he

says, this IVIind

nity as its cause " self-begotten,"

The

;

sprung out of

its

own

;

all eter-

calls it

parent."

Christian doctrine was of

description

God from

notwithstanding this he

and "

Then,

beings.

all

some

service in this

but the author either misunderstood

or willingly perverted

it,

for his

own

purposes.

it,

164

PLATO'S SYSTEM OF IDEAS

As

the second hypostasis, therefore, was confessed

deduced from

to be the ideal or intellectual world Plato's theology, it,

which contained

make some

I shall

the ideas within

all

observations and inferences on

this important point.

When

1.

Plato, in the Tima^us, distinctly calls

the Creator a jierpetually-reasoning divinity, he must

have signified by

this that

he was a

and as the archetypal world to

is

j^erfect intellect;

held by the Platonists

be an Eternal Mind sprung from God, there must

necessarily be tAvo

And

supreme

who

Dr. Cudworth,

will

ideas to have a separate

them

intellects,

not acknowledge the

the

and merges

altogether,

Then, again,

if

it

but will have

existence,

Mind,

to be ideas of the Divine

that he annihilates

and not one.

it

is

manifest

second sui)reme intellect in the

the ideal

first.

world be really the

second hypostasis, as Porphyry maintains, the intellect or JVou? of the Platonists

urgus "

of

animal

the

Timseus,

itself" as

cannot be the demi-

since

he

represents

somethino- subsistino- distinctly

Hence we

from the perpetually-reasoning divinity.

must conclude, that the Jupiter

Artificer

preme Being, and that he alone styled "

lie

is

is

the Su-

emi)hatically

by Socrates, " king' of heaven and of earth."

Socrates, I have observed, called the Great First

Here Socrates

calls

commended Anaxagoras because

Cause a supreme mind or

him by the same name,

none

According

but

material,

and therefore

to this philosojihy, the

intellect.

intending, no doubt,

to oppose the Democritical or atheistical doctrine, Avhich

ledged

the

irrational

acknowcauses.

world was made bj chance or

:

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY.

165

If this archetypal workl be regarded as a god for

the reasons stated, upon the same grounds also

the sun, moon,

Plato,

Me ought

maintain that these generated

to

their archetypes,

mere images of

and

stars,

Mhich are gods,

of

deities

must

have

also

for they are the

By

intelligible ideas.

reason of this

necessary inference, that these are distinct intellectual divinities,

universe gods,

is

we

and that the archetype of the whole

a composition of a numerous variety of

find

Dr. Cudworth

thus

lecturing

the

Platonists " It'"

make

was a gross absurdity

in those Platonists, to

the second, in their trinity of gods, not to be

one god or hypostasis, but a multitude of such also

was that a monstrous extravagancy of

suppose the ideas, tinct substances

all

theirs, to

many

dis-

and animals."

may be

This censure

acknowledged,

be

of them, to be so

as

;

very just

;

same

the

at

but

it

time,

ought to that

the

" eternal animal," considered to be the second per-

son of the Platonic tion

;

trinitv,

had no better founda-

for its existence rested

on precisely the same

grounds, as the existence of every distinct and indiby

necessity,

nliich Socrates

" Whether shall

random."

expresses, "fortuitously

we

tional principle governs all things in the

tuitously

and

at

random

?

Or

and

at

say that the power of the irra-

shall

whole universe

for-

we, on the contrary, agree

with our ancestors and predecessors in affirming, that a certain

admirable

inlellect

and wisdom orders

governs throughout the whole '"

Vol.

iii.

p. 65.

?"

all

things together,

and

PLATO'S SYSTEM OF IDEAS

166 vidnal idea

being, in foot, a congeries, or rather a

;

repository of

such ideas.

all

same author says, " It cannot at all be doubted that Plato, and most of his followers, very

The

well understood

tliat

these ideas were,

of them,

all

nothing else but the noemata or conceptions of the one perfect intellect, which was their second hypo-

That

stasis"."

upon

looked

of the later Platonists,

is,

supermundane

the

who clearly

world,

" eternal animal itself," (whose existence

gated by

the

or

abne-

is

Dr. Cudworth,) as their second hypostasis.

From

this

appears that the learned writer

it

conceived

the demiurgus, or perpetually-reasoning

divinity, to

be the all-perfect

intellect,

who

possessed

in himself that very " eternal animal," which Plato

believed, or maintained, to subsist by

which the Creator looked

Whatever

"

by cogitation in "

Vol,

passage.

iii.

For

if it

were, as he affirms,

relative to the existence

maintained

this,

ideas."

mind

is

much

in this differ-

Their

differ-

this point.

per se of these ideas.

Aristotle says also, "

really the

By which he

but in the Divine is

too

there woukl he no

Plato

while the other says clearly, that they are the

ideas of the Divine ]\Iind. intellect or

his

many he

such and so

The author assumes

ence hetwixt Phato and Aristotle on

ence was

the paradigm of the

ideas intellect conceived

anhiial-itself,

67.

p.

and on

For Avhat can be clearer than

visible universe.

own words ?

as

itself,

means, that the

]\Iind.

That in God,

same thing with the

intelligible

intelligihles are

The reason given

is this,

nowhere

that as

God

the architect of the world, he could not look without himself

for the ideas, (as Plato fancied,) but rather that they

eternally contained in himself.

were

all

;

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY. conceived

it

1G7

necessary for the universe to contain."

In which, intellect manifestly refers to the Creator, who, according to

this,

did not contain within him-

self the intelligible ideas,

ideal world.

nor the intellectual

So that Dr. Cudworth

differs

or

not only

from the Platonists, who esteemed the fountain and repository of the ideas to be the second hypostasis

but even from Plato himself, who makes the Creator,

an

from the archetypal

intellect, or person, distinct

world. 2.

As

the intelligible world

is

one thing, and the

Intellect of the Tima^us another, (the genuine theo-

logy of Plato,) the former, judged to be the Intellect

then the

or Logos, by the later Platonists,

petually-reasoning divinity must be

the

per-

Supreme

Cause, the same with the INIind of Anaxagoras and Aristotle,

and the King of Heaven and of Earth of

So that

Socrates and Plato.

it

a mere delusion

is

of Dr. Cudworth's to suppose, the Intellect to be the

second person, and, as such, to be emphatically in the Christian doctrine,) the Creator of

And,

as

all

things.

he expunges the ideal world, by denying the

subsistence of ideas, as laid

down

in Plato's writings,

by inference, he reduces the causes to two namely, 3.

(as

God and

only,

the sensible world.

There cannot be a doubt of

this sensible uni-

verse being a created thing, except so far as the

matter out of which rated by

God was

be the third

it

was supposed

eternal.

to be gene-

It was represented

hj^iostasis of the Platonic trinity.

to

And

TLATO'S SYSTEM OF IDEAS

1G8 it

Avas expressly stated Ijy Plato to

uitli

be a god, endued

a soul and an intellectual nature.

So that we

have here temporals mingled with things which are eternal

The

;

the created with the uncreated.

doctrine

is

thus stated by Moderatus, as Sim-

He

"

plicius acquaints us.

to the Pythagoreans, the all

declares, that according

first

one or unity

is

above

essence (or the intelligible ideas), the second one,

which

is

that which truly

ing to them,

the ideas

is

is, ;

and

intelligible, accord-

and the

which

third,

is

psi/cJdcal or soul (of the created universe), partakes

of the

first

and second."

Dr. Cudworth does not deny that the sensible

world was represented to

l^e

the third

hypostasis,

though he attemj^ts to persuade us that adulterated doctrine stases

is

called

"

'^

it

is

an

third of these hyjjo-

by some of them, the immediate soul

of the corporeal world."

father, the

And

Proclus,

Numenius'" "

this opinion, says, that

god the

The

who

is

of

called the first

second the maker or fabricator,

and the third the thing made."

Eusebius, also, (no

contemptible authority,) bears testimony to this in these words'*.

" All

preters refer to the

and to the

these

first

things Plato's

inter-

god, and to the second cause,

third, the soul of the world."

In consequence of this egregious founding temporals

\\it\\

eternals.

error,

of con-

Dr. Cudworth

found himself in a dilemma from A\hich he could '»

Vol.

'*

Vx. Ev.

iii.

p. 42. lib. ii.

'^

cap. 20.

Com. Tim.

Platoii. lib.

ii.

p. 93.

:

RELATIVE TO A TRINITY.

Hence he

not easily escape. that

says", "

169

We concliule,

ancient cabala of the trinity was dei)raved

tliis

and adulterated by those Platonists and Pythagoreans, Avho eyKoa-fiiov,

made

either the world

or else Wvxv^

itself,

an informing soul of the world, to be the

third hypostasis thereof, they mingling created

and

nncreated beings together, in that which themselves, uot\vithstanding, call a trinity of causes and principles."

" It

is

The

overcome in this manner most reasonable to compound this business, difficulty is

by supposing

and

M'ith Plotinus

held a double psyche or soul, one dane, which

as

is,

corporeal world,

artificer

will

ej/coajLuov

or

Plato

mun-

were, the concrete form of this

it

&cc.

-separate, and which

others, that

another

;

not so

is

of the world."

supermundane

much

or

the form as the

The inconsistency of

be immediately perceived, after what

I

have

this j:>re-

viously recorded of this author having, by inference,

denied the separate world, which

from Plato

;

is

existence

the

of

intelligible

the only one that can be deduced

and which

is,

in truth, that

dane world mentioned by Plotinus.

It

supermunis

the

all-

perfect Intellect of the Platonists, and not, therefore,

the

Hence the

third hypostasis of their trinity.

soul of the world

is

a creature, and not an eternal

thing; and cannot be

a person

of

the Godhead.

Hence Dr. Cudworth's trinity of good, intellect, and soul, is, by his own arguments, reduced to one hypostasis, as he does not

15

Intell.

System,

acknowledge the vol.

iii.

p.

45.

ideal

170

PLATO'S SYSTE3I OF IDEAS, ETC.

mundane

world nor the

be

to

poul

other

the

two.

We revert down by

once more to the original principle laid

us (and which has been confirmed rather

than weakened by what followed), that the triad of Plato was substantially the same with the Pythagorean,

which was, that before the world was created,

existed God, the Creator, a

Supreme

Intellect

the archetype or exemplar of the visible world

matter

The two

be considered

latter cannot,

by any

as hypostases of a trinity

;

sojihistry, for,

have seen, they were ascribed to necessity

was only the

first

who was looked upon

;

for the ideas

;

as

and

we it

as having all

and only supreme

volition in him, as being the chief

cause

and

;

which was universally maintained to

itself,

be eternal.

idea,

;

and matter were subject

to his

over-ruling power. It will

have been observed, that

triad could not,

by any

possibility,

from the other ancient

triads,

already written at large.

They

fectly distinct in their origin,

in their nature.

this

Pythagorean

have been derived of which

I

have

relate to things per-

and essentially

different

—

;

171

CHAPTER

On

VI.

Religion of Plato; and some conjec-

tpie

tures ON HIS Epistle to Dionysius.

Notwithstanding the learned

autlioi*

of The Intel-

System of the Universe argues that Plato was substantially an orthodox trinitarian, and that the

lectual

doctrine of the trinity was a Mosaic, Chaldean, as well as Pythagorean dogma, or cabala, he

is

guilty of

this singular contradiction, which, in reality, subverts

the very foundation of his hypothesis, resting as

it

docs on ancient tradition. "

The three 1

Infinite

1st,

knowledge power.

;

principal attributes of the Deity are,

goodness; 2nd, 3rd,

From which

Infinite

active

Infinite

Misdom and

and

perceptive

attributes the Pytha-

divine

goreans and Platonists seem to have formed their trinity of archical hypostases."

may be

It

recollected tliat I advanced as

much

in

and attempted to show that

a previous chajiter;

Plato signified no more by his Supreme

JNIind,

and

the Good, than that they were mere attributes of

one

Spiritual, Intellectual,

Dr. Cudworth,

somewhat ward

as

and Benevolent Being.

other portions of his

in

work,

incautiously, I think, brings Plutarch for-

an authority '

for Plato's belief in a trinity

Vol.

i.

p.

426.

;;

!

THE RELIGION OF PLATO,

172

and Osiris

and

refers us to his Isis

But

in consulting that learned

what do was

Avc discover?

an

also

for a confirmation.

and amusing

treatise,

That besides the good, there

evil princi])le

acknowledged by Plato

which surely cannot constitute an hypostasis of one

God. Plutarch says, that Plato held the world to be

moved and

regulated, not only

by one cause, but

happily by many, or at least by no fewer than two of which the one

the Creator of

is

fjood tJiings

all

the other of an o[)posite nature, producing different

and contrary says,

seems

effects,

Plato, he

evil things.

to hold a third cause between the

also

good and the

—namely,

evil,

which

is

neither devoid of soul

nor reason, nor yet immovable

itself,

as

some

think,

but adjacent and inherent in the other two causes

though

it

always inclines to the good one.

proceeds to point out some resemblance indeed,)

He

then

(fanciful,

between the notions of Plato respecting these

principles,

and the Egyptian

deities, Osiris,

Typhon,

and Orus, because he found Typhon to be an incarnation of the evil i)rinciple. light

which Plutarch

persuade us

it

affords.

This

is

really all the

Dr. Cudworth would

had some relation to Plato's

trinity of

archical hypostases

As we have rious

doctrine

refuted the hypothesis of the mysteof a

by Plato, or any of

make some

trinity

being even susj^ected

his school, I will

now proceed

to

observations on the religion or theology

professed by him.

;

AND

HIS EPISTLE TO DIONYSIUS.

173

Plato was remotely a disciple of Pythagoras

but,

;

approximately, he acquiesced in the theology pro-

pounded by

book

his contemporary, TimiTeus, in his

He

on the Soul of the World.

believed in

One

Supreme, Eternal, and Spiritual Being, who was the cause of

thino-s,

all

and

whose sake

for

all

thino-s

Subordinate to him he also acknowledo-ed

subsisted.

other causes, or principles, of a necessary kind, ideas and matter

;

—the

the one beino^ the forms subsistins:

de natura, of which the forms assumed by sensil^le or material objects are

mere images or resemblances.

These forms, or archetypes, as well as matter, were conceived to have existed from the ideas

God

A^'ithout

he could not have generated anything

or,>at least,

good and

all eternity.

could not have generated anything,

since

perfect,

the very perfection

and

goodness of the visible universe depended on the eternal nature of the archetype after which

it

was

fashioned.

God was

not strictly a creator

of something out of nothing, sojihers could not

signification

power,

who

:

—

comprehend

;

namely, a maker

as the ancient philo-

a creation in

its

true

he was considered to be only a plastic ordered,

disposed,

and regulated the

matter existing, for his purposes, from

all

eternity

and who stamped ujion material things the forms which they assume in nature. Plato held, that

generated

God gave

deities, or

being to a number of

junior gods,

ministerial or adjunct powers in

who were tlie

a sort of

government of

174

THE RELIGION OF PLATO,

the M'orkP.

These were the animated

stars, or souls

by

of the celestial host, which were immortal, not their

own

nature, but

The

their creator.

by the

\n\\

and goodness of

chief god was called by divers

names, to characterize his multifarious attributes.

He

was represented

abstraction intellect,

of universal

and

goodness;

as the giver of all

of the whole world. inferior

Summum Bonunh

as the

gods,

He

is

life,

as

a

or the

supreme

and the governor

the generator of the

and the fountain and cause of

all

good. Plato likewise believed the whole world to be a god, generated, and endued with a soul and intellect,

by the chief cause. In some respects it was looked upon by him as a principle or cause, for which he is severely taxed by Aristotle,

who justly

ridiculed the

idea of any generated or temporal object being considered in that light.

In the argument of a trinity in Plato's theology,

As

*

the religion of Plato and Socrates was probably the

same, I shall here briefly protest against the idle assertion of some men, that the latter denied all gods but the Eternal Cause. TertuUian says, " Propterea damnatus est Socrates quia decs destruebat?

No

!

What

They were the

gods were these?

deities of the

The animated

Grecian mythology.

stars?

For as

he repudiates (in his Apology) the calumny of being called an atheist, he acknowledges some gods, but not those of the city, namely, of Athens." Socrates believed, like Plato, in one Chief Cause,

of generated and inferior dignities,

and the government of the world.

who

and a host

administered the

affairs

AND great stress

on a certain passage in an Epistle

is laid

of his to Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse.

substance of

king of

it

and

second

are

that which

beautiful things;

all

about

liarly cautious

should

it,

divine

its

but is

this information, Plato is pecu-

He desires

and mysterious.

to destroy the letter after he has read

purport of

which

that

third."

is

And

into other hands.

fall

the

as are third in gradation about

In communicating

should

is

things subsist for his sake,

situated

and such

;

all

the cause of

is

second things

This

" All things are situated about the

:

all things,

and he

175

HIS EPISTLE TO DIONYSIUS.

it is

he

Dionysius lest it

it,

says, that

the

expressed in such language, that even

by chance, miscarry, no one could possibly secret meaning.

Whether he apprehended

the fate of Socrates, or whether he was thus cautious

unknown

for other

reasons,

is

impossible to decide.

St. Cyril, in this passage, alludes to the first

" Plato

sition*.

was not ignorant of the

suppo-

He

truth.

had the knowledge of the only begotten Son of God,

and of the Holy

Spirit,

whom

he

styles Psj'che

he could have expressed himself more

;

correctly,

and had

he not dreaded the poison which Socrates drank,

and been in

this

afraid of

Ejiistle,

doctrine alluded philosophy,

hidden

I

Anitus and

says to, is

will

JVIelitus."

explicitly,

that the

As

Plato,

peculiar

conformable to the Socratic

hazard

this

conjecture on

signification. 'G'

Cou. Julian,

lib.

i.

p. 34.

its

THE RELIGION OF PLATO,

176

That king, around wlioni

1. is

all

things are situated,

probably the same with Him, Avhom Socrates styles

Intellect, the

king of heaven and of earth, and who,

as the good,

was looked upon

good and of

all

may be

It

beautiful things.

all

evervthinof whatsoever

He

is

not

say,

things that are first;"

but

observed that Plato

"around him are prehended in

is

his essence,

does

situated around

and subsisting

Supreme Cause,

the

as the cause of all

—the

Jupiter of the Timceus, the

Him, com-

for his sake

;

same with the of the best

artificer

tilings.

2.

By

the second thing (which

is

not called a

king, but, in general terms, a nature) Plato probably

meant the

intelligible ideas, or animal-itself,

which

were regarded as causes in the universe.

Even Dr. Cudworth seems to acquiesce in this " Though some might think mode of solution. to

Plato

an intimation of

have given

(intelligibles) in his Bevrepov

things about the second

be understood the ideas the third, 3.

The

all

;

;

-n-epi

ra Zevrepa,

yet by these as

the

noes

—second

may very well

by the third things about

created beings."

third nature

may be

considered to be the

Psvche or universal soul of the world, around which subsist all created, sensible, or material things.

Plato, indeed, affirms in this Epistle, that he

had

never written on this subject, nor did he intend to write;

but this might be supposed to refer to a

svstem, or tlieorv, in which these natures were ex-

AND plained,

177

HIS EPISTLE TO DIONYSIUS.

their participation of each other defined,

and the mode of their existence, in relation to each other, pointed out. in

this

conjecture

writings, in individually,

That there

is

some probability

may be deduced from

his other

which they are treated of separately and but

never systematically nor conse-

cutively.

M

PART THE THIRD.

^N

PLATONISM, WITH

SOME ACCOUNT OF

ITS

MOST EMINENT

PROFESSORS.

M

2

:

181

PART THE THIRD

CHAPTER

I.

Some Observations on the Oeigin and Progress OF Platonism. As, I think,

it lias

been demonstrated that no such

doctrine as a trinity of divine hypostases can be

deduced from the genuine philosophy of Plato from the speculations of his school

;

;

nor

or of any of

the various sects of ancient philosophers, a glory over that era of Greece

;

who shed

and that the

triads

of gods, originating in very remote antiquity, were in their nature

and origin absolutely

distinct

the Pythagorean three-fold principles of it

is

my

purpose

now

to give

all

from

things

some account of the

Platonic theology, and of some of

its

most celebrated

professors.

The

revolutions of empires which followed the

deaths of Aristotle, Plato, and the illustrious

men

of that era, changed the whole character and spirit of the Grecian people, corrupting,

if

not destroying,

the immortal republic of letters, which even

now

excites our reverence and admiration.

Under

the successors of Alexander the Great,

— ON THE ORIGIN AND

182 there

S]irunf>'

])liilosoi)hy,

many

u\)

innovators of the genuine

who assumed

the general

name

of Pytha-

Contrary to the maxim, that jjhilosophy

goreans.

shouki never be mingled with the vulgar religion, or

mythology, they combined them into one monstrous

and disjointed system, and tried truth with fiction

" to

embellish'

and ^vhether they aimed

;

at con-

firming or invalidating the creed of their ancestors, either jmrpose they invented fables

to effect

and

lying prodigies."

A

number

down

of these pseudo-Pythagoreans settled

the

in

of Alexandria,

city

in

Egypt,

and

founded that celebrated school of philosophy which flourished for

many

generations after.

This country

would seem to have been doomed to be the scene of every extravagance, and the nurse of every error

and

superstition, as if the climate, or the j^eople, or

Avhatever other cause, which brought into

life

the

wonderful mythology of Egypt, was inimical to the purity and sinijilicity of truth.

Herodotus eulogizes of the earth,

was

The land which

for its fertility in the jaroducts

as prolific in the propagation of

error and imposture.

'

ct..j

i.^'uf^^c

u

it-.'^^'

Besides this school founded in Alexandria, Dr. Gillies

says*,

travelled over

"

Other

the

self-entitled

philosophers

Greek conquests of Asia,

col-

j

'

Gillies,

Aris.

vol.

i.

p.

181.

This learned

-writer,

in a

j

Supplement

to that

work, gives an excellent sketch of the

of the Platonic philosophy. *

Vol.

i.

p.

181.

'

fj^.-f.

rise

;

.;

PROGRESS OF TLATONISM.

183

lecting every rite of superstition, and every talc of

wonder, which they afterwards amplified in their fabulous compositions, for the

amusement and

assembled

light of the idle multitudes

de-

in the great

and hastily peopled by the IMacedonian

cities, built

conquerors."

Gibbon' informs about

tliree

us, that

the philosophy of Plato,

hundred years before

Hebrews of

the hands of a few

Christ, fell into

devoted their lives to religious and

Judaism and Platonism, Avhich they passed

off for a

system

;

for

how

could they reconcile the

vague speculations of Plato on certainty of their

In

i)hilosopliical

They probably made up a composi-

contemplation. tion of

mind, who

liberal

own

religion,

sacred writings

this declension of learning,

with the

?

which followed the

conquest of Greece (an event which uprooted the patriotism of the people, as well as their learning),

Pythagoras was

much more

severely injured in his

character and reputation, than Plato or Aristotle.

He

is

represented to us as a magical impostor, and

as a person addicted to every puerile fable.

And, of

more admired

skill in

course, he

is

occult science, than for true

for his

reputed

wisdom and

virtue,

by

which he has earned the just applause of posterity.

The wonderful and ridiculous stories related of him, came down to the Platonists of after-times, embellished, rather than obscured, by fresh addi-

'

Dec. aucl Fall of the

Roman

Empire,

vol.

ili.

cap. 21. p. 8.

!

ON THE ORIGIN AND

184

were eagerly incorporated hy Porphyry and lanibliohus in their lives of him, written about

tions

Mliicli

;

the third century of the Christian era. They record, without a blush, his great skill in sorcery and the ;

many is

preposterous miracles ascribed to him.

not a fable, however shallow

There

and improbable,

which these biographers do not receive and digest

And so bewithout compunction or hesitation. superstiand sotted were their minds, so credulous tious, that

they were not conscious of having defamed

the character of this great

man

On

!

they seem to have believed, that

It

is

his glory

all

fame originated from, and rested on,

made and

the contrary,

and

his learning in

sorcerv

Samian philosopher, that

said of the

to prove

he was the true Hyperborean Apollo, he exhibited one of his thighs in a full assembly at the Olympic games, which, being formed of well-burnished gold, shone Avith a dazzling splendor, and convinced as well as

amazed the

spectators.

At

the same games

he brought down an eagle from the sky, and whispered some mysterious words to it after which

—

it

renewed

its flight

to the

empyrean above.

Alluding' to the sanctity in which he held beans, (for in

the Golden Verses he instructs his pupils to

abstain from touching that vegetable,) they relate,

that one day, as he espied an ox entering a field of beans, he ran

up *

to

it,

and

after

he had pronounced

Dacier's Life of Pythagoras.

;

PROGRESS OF TLATOXISM. a

word

its ear,

ill

185

turned away and took another

it

road.

Then, there

is

the javelin of Abaris

— of

surpass-

ing virtue, with wliich he could cross the widest and

most rapid

rivers

pass over the most inaccessible

;

mountains, calm the raging tempest, drive away the plague, and

all

other mortal diseases, and mitigate

or destroy every evil

possession of this

omniscient

weapon rendered him,

for it is said,

;

The

incident to mankind. in a

manner,

he was at the same time

seen in different towns at a great

distance from

each other.

Such

who new who

is

a specimen of the history given of him,

jjrought philosophy into Greece life

to morality,

and formed

;

who gave

into a system

it

laid the foundation of the best philosophy

existing;

and who was as

skilful

mathematical science, as he

then

and profound

in

by Porphyry

to

said

is

a

have been in the arts of magic and sorcery.

Though

it

appears the

the Christian era,

it

new Platonism

and had a more extended influence, fourth centuries. selection of

arose before

most conspicuouslv,

flourished

in the third

Its essential principle

what were considered the

able doctrines from

all

sources

Plato and Aristotle's writings.

;

was

and

in the

least objection-

but especially from

These were formed

into a heterogeneous system, and called the Eclectic

Philosophy.

Another great jmnciple

in this system

was, to

reconcile the ancient mythology to certain precon-

ON THE ORIGIN AND

186

ceived notions, and to reduce

it

their phik)so])liical s]iecnlations.

a hopeless temjited

to harmonize with

This woukl appear

But the ojms marjnum was

task.

at-

and, in the hands of the Platonists, every

;

idle fable of the poets,

concerning the existence and

new

the generation of the gods, underwent a

The

pretation.

story

which the

common

inter-

polytheist

believed, or which the sceptical reader ridiculed,

was

supposed to have a secret and profound meaning,

new

only to be perceived by one initiated into the system.

This allegorical hey was successfully applied to the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and the Pythagoreans. It

unlocked the treasures of Plato, after a long night

of darkness

which

his

himself,

Those doctrines of

and ignorance.

own immediate

disciples,

and even Plato

enjoyed but a faint glimpse,

were

dis-

and elucidated by The great philosopher was believed to have been closed,

skilful in this art of allegory,

them,

of after-ages!

this light

AA

ithout ai)plying

it

—

so that, according to

to his works, there

is

chance of arriving at the true and occult meaning

no !

There were many circumstances which tended to elevate Plato to the distinction which he attained,

among was

the professors of the eclectic philosophy.

not so

had no

much

It

the beauty of his style, (for they

taste for such a refinement,) nor his elevated

conceptions of the

Supreme Being, nor

his notions

of moral virtue and beauty, which captivated them, as a certain obscurity in his doctrines

;

a mysterious.

TROGRESS OF PLATONISM. undefined

mode

^i jmjiflerij in

liis

many

tion, in

which gave "

187

of expressing his ideas

The

logic.

and a

;

sort

vividness of his imagina-

cases injurious to

him

as a philosopher,

to airy nothings a local habitation

and

a name," was rather esteemed than condemned by these disciples.

The severe

style,

and close reason-

ing of Aristotle, had not half the charms of the creations of Plato's fancy.

These

" Eclectics," far

from looking upon Plato as

one of those superior minds,

"svho

esteemed the

mythology

as a

mere mass of

vulgar fables, tion,

or poetical

begotten in idle hours, and fostered by tradi-

would have him to confide and believe

childish

in every

and lascivious story of the gods, invented

by Homer and Hesiod.

They

so far

redeem the

calumny, however, as to argue, that he did not receive

them

literally

;

but such as they were after

they had passed the ordeal of their

own

allegorical

interpretation.

Suppose the fables to be taken and put

in the

alembic, and distilled in accordance with this im-

proved mode,

we

shall find the vices of the

be transformed into so many virtues

become exertions of

their

super-essential energy.

Sallust, in his Treatise

acquaints us that the signified

—

gods to

amours

Hence

on the Gods and the AVorld,

Rape

of Proserpine occultly

the descent of souls (an excellent inter-

pretation);

and that the amorous

propensities

of

Jupiter were only " creative energies," and " divine fury."

ON THE ORIGIN AND

188 Plato,

oppose the

to

rather

Platoiiists;

he

as

allegorically, of the

and not

literally,

and elsewhere, seems

Republic,

his

in

speaks

impious fables

and appears to coincide with

related of the gods;

the emphatic denunciation of Pythagoras, that the

Homer and Hesiod

souls of

the

damned by reason of

merited the tortures of

their imi>iety.

It is probable that the introduction of the Chris-

had some influence over the minds of

tian religion

the later Platonists

when

;

and that

influence extended,

its

in the course of time,

it

change in

effected a

the eclectic philosophy.

When

new

the

penetrated

afterwards

Alexandria, (although

it

its

and ;"

to divinity,

Rome

and

viewed with contempt,)

pure and sublime morality,

and

the

its jier-

reputed character of

its

They might have despised our

founder.

" schools

and

must have created a strong sensation

fect simplicity,

Divine

light,

sprung into

the gardens of

Avas ostensibly

it

on account of

Saviour

religion

his

disciples

as

men

not

the

of

they might have scorned his j^retensions

and the miracles attributed

to

him

;

but

they could not long shut their eyes to the intrinsic excellence of his religion, nor their ears to the daily

whispers of

its

advancement

in the world.

Curiosity thus becoming excited, inquiries would, in consequence, this

new

be made respecting the nature of

system, until in the end,

were tempted to peruse

it

some unbelievers

in the sacred writings.

They could not but acknowledge the jmrity and

TROGRESS OF TLATONISM. sublimity of

own

would

"

through

infancy, as a formidable ;

against

and

but

and through good

evil

Heaven

itself,

their

they sat

and

rage

down

philo-

and professed contempt

their

in

this hatred of Chris-

for its

Founder,

effected a wonderful influence over their minds, it is

it

and

manifest that, in the course of time, they even

borrowed from the Bryant confirms is

its

discomfited,

virulence

Yet notwithstanding

Mritings.

own

to their

rival

their eftbrts having failed in fighting

all

vented

tianity,

of

have willingly crushed Christianity in

rejDort,"

sophy

superiority to their

its

The learned unbelievers

vnlf>-ar religion.

tliat jieriod

and

doctrines,

its

189

my

images

of the

Holy

Scriptures. " It^

opinion in this passage.

to be observed, that Avhen Christianity had intro-

duced a more rational system, as well refined worship,

among mankind,

struck M'ith the sublimity of in their turn to refine.

the pagans were

and

tried

their misfortune

was,

its

But

more

as a

doctrines,

that they were obliged to abide

by the theology

which had been transmitted to them, and to make the history of the Gentile gods the basis of their procedure. culties

This brought them into immense

diflfi-

and equal absurdities, while they laboured to

solve what

Avas

inexi)licable,

and to remedy what

was past cure."

There tion

is

is

one, however, of

whom

honoraljlo

made, mIio must be relieved from *

All. :My. vol.

iii.

p.

lOi.

this

men-

charge

ON THE ORIGIN AND

190 relative to the

paoan

eminent Jew of the o-reat

Pliilo,

deities.

century, Avas a disciple and

first

admirer of Plato.

in his philosophy only,

a learned and

for,

But he could folloAv Plato being a Hebrew, he must

have acquiesced in the religion of his country.

A

controversy has been

exact period in which he lived

was before

;

to

the

some contending he

and others that he flourished

Christ,

The opponents

after.

relative

raised

of Christianity

attempt to

maintain the former, for the purpose of showing that the doctrines promulgated by Christ were previous to his a])pearance

known

among men but Bryant", :

I think, proves satisfactorily, that

he not only lived

during the whole period of Christ's existence on earth, but that

he must have had access to the

Scriptures, or conversed with the Christians

He

subject of their religion.

from

also

on the

imagines that

his expressive silence he must have thought

very favourably of

it.

I cannot doubt, from the language used by Philo Judseus, (A^hich he could not have from other sources, for

where did they

he borrowed

it

exist

?)

concerning the Logos, that

either from the

New

from some one well acquainted with liar

it.

The pecu-

words employed to define and express

person, are so singular, that

have invented them. Operator by *

Testament, or

whom

all

He

it is

this

impossible he could

calls

him the Divine

things were disposed.

A

Bryant's PliIlo, to -which I refer the reader for a more exact

account.

PROGRESS OF PLATONISM.

Being superior

the Logos, or eternal

;

and

advocate for

ruption."

all

mortals.

who

This Person

Fountain of

"

The same AVord

;

death, the reward of everlasting

man may, by

the Shepherd of his flock. Bryant,

"So much

Christians, that

we may

the apostles and

It fully

the

not meant a

Philo even styles

We may,

of

We mainhim

after this, say

was Philo beholden to the read in him the opinion of

doctrines of Christ himself,

this essential article of is

is

instead "

life.

by the High Priest

tain, also, that

the

is

according to him, the

and that

man, but the divine Word."

the

alwavs tending- to cor-

is

is also,

wisdom

all

God and man,

drinking at this sacred spring, obtain,

upon

created

word of the everlasting

the mediator between

;

Intercessor for man,

Avith

all

Also the image of God, and the same with

things.

God God

to tlie angelic natures

191

our

'

belief."

to be observed of Philo Juda^us, that in so

and explicitly acknowledging the existence of

the Divine Logos, as he appears to have done, he

must

necessarily have misinterpreted

the

Jewish

proj^hecies relating to the advent of our Saviour; for

he denies

totally

age could ever This

strict

and absolutely that

abnegation was, as Bryant remarks, the

gTeat stunibling-])lock tianity, for

to his conversion to Chris-

otherwise he was on the very threshold

of our faith. is

this person-

be manifested in human nature.

In his descriptions of the Logos, he

constantly spoken of in his divine or pre-existent

state

;

and

as Philo denies, because

he cannot com-

;

ON THE

192 jircliciul, is

in

He

that

ORICilN

AND

could ever appear in the

flesh,

the prophecies foretelling the Messiah,

clear that

not relate to this eternal

his estimation, could

Word of God.

whom

So that he

the

Hebrew

sorrows and acquainted with griefs,"

by Philo

at

all,

nation

man

expected as a king, instead of the lowly "

or believed

it

of

entertained

if

must have been,

in his

opinion, a person distinct from the divine Logos. It

may be

observed, also, that this philosopher,

being of the Jewish persuasion, enjoyed great advantages

pagan Platonists, who made

over the

the

ancient mythology " the basis of their procedure"

new-fangled polytheism

in raising their

ought not to surprise us

if

;

so that

it

he had some knowledge

of the Logos, before simplifying his conceptions by

contact with

the

Christian

might exist on

diversity of opinion

source of his

from

all

knowledge, —

we have

Whatever

theology.

it is

this ])oint,

—the

abundantly manifest

that he could not have de-

said,

duced the existence of the second Person (much

less

that singular and peculiar language with which he variously describes and alludes to him) from the writings of Plato. precise

ideas,

M'itli

notions of the

If

we would but compare

the

ridiculous

other Platonists,

sufiicient confirmation of this

therefore, that I

am

we

and

confused

shall

assertion.

his

receive

I regret,

obliged to disagree from Bryant,

Avho, in his observations

on some passages of Philo's

writings and opinions,

concludes that the ancient

philosophers

recognised a trinity in the Godhead

PROGRESS OP PLATONISM.

and

argues that

lie

Pliilo,

and render

But they

not

refined

part of the

trias,

was enabled

these,

totally ignorant

upon and

of this truth.

and introduced matter

it,

as eternal."

matter was a recognised principle

as a deity or a

all

as

The eternity of among all the

physiologists, as Aristotle acquaints us

not regarded by

obscure

more accurate by consulting lie says, " The Greek' phi-'*

it

the Christian religion. losophers were

an

receiving-

knowledge of the subject from to refine

193

;

but

person

it :

was

Plato

and the best

pliilosoi)hers

doctrine.

does not follow that because matter

It

was believed

upon

it

to

repudiated

be eternal, they should have looked

an hypostasis of a

as

absurd

this

triad.

Again, Bryant says, "From" the account given by

Diogenes Laertius of Plato, one would imagine that he allowed only two

first

principles

that the two principles of

which he

matter,

styles

"...." But

cause.'

:

'

Plato declared

things were

all

mind

God and

and the

eflicient

others give a better account

^

of Plato's opinion, of which Plutarch affords an exami)le

'

:

We

held three

and

idea.'

This

find tliat Socrates,

princii)les,

;

but

conformable to the Pythagorean

why imagine

these principles to relate

to a trinity of archical hypostases

Bryant was not consistent in '

as Plato,

"

is iDerfectly

doctrine

as well

which are styled God, matter,

Bryant's

PliIIo, p. 72.

«

?

It appears that

on

his opinions

»

Id.

N

Id.

this

194

ORIGIN AND TROGRESS OF TLATONISM.

point, for I find

him

to say in his Ancietit

logy^\ " I ^"1 sensible that

Mytho-

some very learned per-

sons have thought that they discovered an allusion to a mysterious truth of another nature, in the triad

of Plato and of his

what these "vmters have

we

But if we collate by way of explanation,

followers.

shall, I believe, find

said

that they had no idea of any

such mystery." Vol.

ili.

p. 109.

I

195

CHAPTER

II.

The Subject continued. There

is

a remarkable

feature

of the

Christian

on which sceptics might well

religion in its infancy, l^onder,

—

origin,

were so well attested as not to bo disputed

by the

Platonists, the bitterest enemies of the truth,

that the miracles which confirmed

though, as might be expected from

men

its

divine

steeped in

superstition and occult science, they attributed to the powers of magic, or theurgy.

them

Hence, instead

of aiming to overthrow their testimony by reason

and argument, they

men

up

Avere satisfied -with raising

to rival Christ, or to surpass him, in performing

wonders and miracles.

At

first,

they conceived

Pythagoras' would answer their purpose well, de-

grading him to a level with their

own minds,

until

they wisely thought, that the wonders related of him

some uncertainty, by reason of their great antiquity and want of proof; when they left him, and caught hold of a worthy champion of

might be

the

new

liable to

light,

in Apollonius Tyanccus, one of the

greatest impostors of that era. !Marccllinus, in

epistle to Saint Austin, says,

an

that this rivalry of Apollonius with Christ was one

of the

many

objections which the pagans

the Christian religion'. •

Vide Note N.

'

"

made

The pagans pretend

Inter Epistol. Augus. Ep. 136.

N

2

to

that

!

ON THE ORIGIN AND

196

om- Lord did no more than some other

men;

as

they can prodncc Apollonius, Apulcius, and other

performed greater

they contend,

magicians, who, miracles."

This " false Christ," Apollonius, called himself a

Pythagorean, that he might have some authority for his pretended miracles

;

so that he tried to persuade

his followers, that he did no

example of

more than follow the

his great master, being, like him, gifted

The very ghost

with supernatural powers.

Samian philosopher (deeming

it

proper to

he was

so

much

;

and

and

visit

him how

instruct this worthy favourite) taught

worship and reverence the gods

of the

it

is

to

said that

loved by these deities, that he

To such an

frequently enjoyed their conversation.

extent did he carry the ridiculous delusion

In the third century there came to great luminary, in the jDcrson of

He

did

more than any of

light another

Ammonius

Saccas.

his j)redecessors to revive

and propagate the eclectic philosojihy

;

whose very

existence seemed to depend on a rancorous dislike of the Christian religion.

Ammonius

reputed

is

Christian parents in that creed, the

;

and

of

essence

gleaning source,

been

born of

knoMledge of which enabled him its

grotesque

the

the

have

and, probably, he was educated

to incorporate some of disjointed

to

eclectic

own

doctrines with his

As

system.

philosophy

the

very

consisted

in

supposed truth from every possible

he may have been

justified in

borrowing from

PROGRESS OF TLATONISM. Cliristiaiiitv.

Hence

perhaps,

first

the

savs of liim\ " lie

Gillies

apostate

197

^^lio

is,

turned the pure

streams of the Gospel into the foul marshes of cor-

rupted Platonism."

Ammonius

legacy to his pupil, Plotinus,

left this

Tvhose dark, superstitious, and mystical mind,

well fitted to embellish and improve

With

it.

industry he ajiplied himself to comprehend struse speculations

and,

;

some

after

was great ab-

its

years' study,

he presented the system to the world

in his vo-

luminous writings, which were found to be almost unintelligible,

from the obscurity of

the wretched barbarism of his style. indeed, were rather admired than

numerous

disciples,

who were

and

his language

These

faults,

condemned by

delighted far

his

more by

that which was obscure and mystical, than by things plain and intelligible.

Plotinus appears to have secretly consulted the of the Christians, and imitated his master,

Avritinirs

in introducing into his

trines of Christianity,

verted

according to

system some peculiar doc-

which he changed and perhis

"

taste.

Some' peculiar

doctrines of the Gospel are clothed in such swelling

bombast by the new

Platonists, as has

shaken the

faith of able and ingenuous men, and led them to

doubt whether the momentous truths of our religion

were not sources,

originally derived

from Eg}^itian and Indian

and employed, with pious fraud, by the

propagators of Christianity." '

Gillies, Avis. vol.

i.

p. 194.

*

Id. vol.

i.

p.

195.

first

ON THE ORIGIN AND

198 It

is

undoubted that the doctrines of the Christian

religion, at this period,

became

tion and public discussion

and pagans.

Plato's writings

to

theology.

;

difficult

Christians

em-

really

and mystical parts of

while some, on the other hand, ap-

Plato to

clear

up some points of

their

Gibbon informs us what those subjects

were which agitated the schools

same

l,)oth

These were, by the former,

ployed to solve some

plied

subjects of specula-

among

subtle

at that period. "

The^

and profound questions, concerning the

nature, the generation, the distinction, and the equality

of three divine persons of the mysterious Triad

or Trinity, were agitated in the philosophical and in

the Christian schools of Alexandria."

From

these discussions probably arose

all

that

Platonism in which the writings of many of the Fathers are steeped. the

new

They seem

to have adopted

version of the j^hilosophy of Plato, as a

genuine exposition of his writings, and acquiesced in the newly-discovered ojDinion, that the Trinity was

acknowledged by Plato and the ancients.

Hence

they never dispute this y«c^, but reason upon

it

it

had been incontrovcrtibly ju-oved

;

as if

and rather

glory in the idea, that a pagan i)hilosoplier, of such

great parts as Plato, should be found to concur in

one of the essential

Some

trutlis of

the Christian

of the Platonists, on the other hand,

faith.

who bore

an unrelenting hatred to the very name of Christ, instead

of being disarmed or conciliated '

Dec. and Fall,

vol.

iii.

p. 12.

by

this

PROGRESS OF TLATONISM.

199

yielding of

some learned

them, and

maintained that they borrowed their

Trinity from Plato.

turned upon

Christians,

This was the natural conse-

quence of once admitting the doctrine to have been recognised before Plato's time.

who seems

Amclius,

to have consulted the

New

Testament, j^retends to be surprised at finding the

Logos mentioned "

Evangelist ^

the Gospel of St. John the

in

And

this

by whom, existing from

was the Logos, or Word,

eternity, according to Ilera-

things were made, and

clitus, all

whom that

John) also places in the rank and dignity of a

(St.

princijile, affirming

to be God,

—and

Him

that

all

to have

been with God, and

things were

and that whatever was made had ,

1

barbarian

Him."

From

this

we may

expression, and for

and being in

life

how much and how much

perceive

Sacred Writings were read, Platonists were indebted to

made by Him,

them

some of their

for their

the the

modes of

doctrines.

Let us now return to Plotinus.

This

man was

a

dark and superstitious Egyptian, who, finding by that a jirophet has

experience

own

country,

went

to

little

Rome, where he

and delivered public lectures on Plato.

He

comprised It

his

honor in

his

finally settled,

new

version of

founded a school of great celebrity, which

many

of the learned pagans in that city.

under

flourished

successors, until

*

it

him

and

his

followers,

or

was abolished, ultimately, by the

Eus. Pr. Ev.

lib.

ii.

cap. D.

;

ON THE ORIGIN AND

200

Emperor Justinian, in the middle of the

sixth century.

a true

If a man's \vritings are to be considered

index of his mind,

shall find that Plotinus was

we

the weakest and most credulous of men unfit either to

and quite

;

be called a philosojiher, or to be re-

garded as capable of expounding or comprehending Plato's works.

We

might expect,

in

one of his

pretensions, to have a person gifted with a penetrating sagacity, a simple

and contemplative mind,

a clearness of expression, and a proper sense of gravity and decorum.

is

is

the case

He

?

for truth, nor patience to search after

no regard he

What

addicted to

would even

all

has it

kinds of absurd fables, which

startle the credulity of a child

;

he

is

a

philosopher, quack, magician, all in one.

The system which he

upon us

pa^\Tis

philosophy of the " divine Plato,"

for the

a composition

is

of obsolete legends, whose beauty and freshness were

blighted

and withered

by time;

of

the

vulgar

mythology of Greece, which had fallen into contempt and an abundant sprinkling of theurgy, and ;

all

the wonders of the "black art."

respect to true philosophy, respect to religion.

With

visionary,

he conjoined the

impostor.

His writings, as

if

not utterly unintelligible.

what a

He

fanatic

is,

with

is

with

all

the imbecility of a

art

and cunning of an

I

have It

is

said, are obscure,

said of lamblichus

and Proclus, that their works Avere as obscure as might be but in comparison with those of Plotinus, ;

they were simple and comprehensive.

PROGRESS OF TLATONISM.

201

The occult sciences seem to have produced the same influence over the human mind, at that time, as the idle pursuits of

alchemy and astrology did in

the dark ages of modern Europe.

They destroyed the reason, and gave licence to the imagination an ;

imagination not refined by the charms of poetry, nor elevated by tlie sweet strains of music; but an imagination which revelled in the gloom of superstition, and brooded over the horrors of magic, and the

demoniacal world which

it

conjured into existence.

These speculations in the end uj^root the reason and judgment, and rapidly lead on their unhappy victim to insanity.

Plotinus,

became

emerging from

abstracted

imagined

himself

from to

demon

his

this

ciple of his, says this of

him

Porphyry, a dis-

as well as of himself:

often trying to exalt his

mind

highest god, that god sometimes appeared possesses neither form nor idea, and intellect

and

all

often

have communion with the

highest, or super-essential divinity.

" Plotinus,

associates,

and

world,

intelligible

to

who

things;

to

to the

Mm, who is

above

Mhom

I,

Porphyry, affirm myself to have been united in the sixty-eighth year of

Some

my

age."

of these visionary Platonists, as

if to

redeem

themselves from the impurities of magic and theuroy, affected a perfection not attainable

ture;

—another

species

them by the study

of madness

by human nabrought upon

They were, be ashamed of the

of their philosophy.

in consequence, so imbecile as to

ON THE ORIGIN AND

202 humanity

wliicli

God had given them.

Their

skill in

magical arts gained them the love and admiration of the whole host of demoniacal powers, with

they professed to hold a friendly course

and

;

as

it

among them,

Porphyry hoped

The things,

theirs, that souls,

by abstinence and learning, would attain a

jjurified

place

and

was a maxim of

whom

sociable inter-

it

is

for this

latter Platonist

had

j)i'obable that

consummation

Plotinus and in themselves.

was a man capable of great

mind not been enfeebled by these

his

Of

abominable pursuits.

a melancholy temper, and

great enthusiasm in religion, he was urged to take

away

his

own

life,

that he might have a constant,

instead of an occasional, intercourse Avith the highest

god; but, happily

for

himself,

his

extreme piety

cooled by reflection, and he allowed his spirit to

become disembodied by a natural death. Porphyry was a rancorous enemy to the Christian religion.

He

has the reputation of having written

books against it, which, as Gibbon expresses have been " committed to the flames by the j^ru-

thirtv it,

dence of orthodox emperors." If these writings were to be judged by

some now

extant, they could have produced no great impression

on others out of the pale of

on Abstinence from Animal Food

tise

with

he

his system.

silly

says,

attractive

His Treais

rej^lete

For example, conceits and defunct fables. "That the nature of a kindred body is of

soul,

these theologists.

experience

abundantly taught

Hence those who wish

to receive

TROGRESS OF RLATONISM. themselves the souls

into

of

203

prophetic

animals,

swallow the principal parts of them, as the hearts of crows, or of moles, or of hawks, &c."

In the same

he gives us a very novel

treatise,

prescription for the cure of the gout, which he possibly practised

on himself,

great an ascetic could " Plence

if it

fall

were possible that so

into

some who have been

such a calamity.

afflicted

with gout in

the hands and feet to such a degree as to be infested

with

it

for eight entire years,

abandoning

have expelled

it by and betaking themselves to the

Avealth,

contemplation of difiniti/ /"

lamblichus was another important link in the

His writings partake of the

chain of Platonicians.

same

character.

How

would Plotinus and Porphyry have rejoiced

at the apostasy of the

emperor Julian

!

He

chose

and preferred the loathsome and mutilated carcass of polytheism, to the fair impersonation of religion,

and

virtue,

and

Being of the

truth.

Christians,

to the material sun Julian,

He

like

all

abandoned the Spiritual

and addressed

his prayers

!

apostates,

bore an implacable

hatred to the religion which he had rejected. falsely

pretended that

superstition

it

was composed of Asiatic

and Jewish idolatry;

blinded perhaps

to the origin of the later Platonic theology,

in a great

measure had

Gibbon informs

us,

its

He

which

source in the East.

that Julian was initiated into

the theurgic science, and into the Eleu:
;

ON THE ORIGIN AND

204 teries, -which

were revived by the

along

Platoiiists,

with the ancient niytholo<4y of Greece.

The

gravity

with which he passed through these imposing ceremonies, endeared him more and more to his admirers,

own admiration much pomp and grandeur.

and increased

possessing so

his

of a religion

In his Oration to the Sun, and to Cybele, the

mother of the gods, he avows of his influence his predecessors

?

mind

his polytheism,

Did

the fanaticism of Plotinus. as

it

this

and

all

adopted religion

had done some of

Let us hear the historian

:

—

"

his

Not-

withstanding the modest silence of Julian himself,

we may

learn from Libanius, the orator, his faithful

friend, that

he lived

in a perpetual intercourse Avith

the gods and goddesses

:

that they descended

enjoy the conversation

upon

of their favorite

earth

to

hero

that they gently interrupted his slumbers, by

;

touching his hands or his hair; that they warned

him of every impending danger, and conducted him, by their infallible wisdom, in every action of life and that he had accpiired such an intimate knowledge of his heavenly guests, as readily to distinguish

the voice of Jupiter from that of INIinerva

;

and the

form of Apollo from the figure of Hercules."

The next

great link in the chain of these " divine

men," as they are called by their admirers,

is

the

celebrated Proclus, wdiose voluminous and elaborate

commentaries on the philosophy of Plato, are a proof of his indefatigable zeal and industry in the cause

which ho espoused.

He

was a

man

of considerable

/^; PROGRESS OF TLATONISM. mental ]iowers cessors,

he

fell

;

f'

"^^

TTT ''^QS^^ ^

but unfortunately, like his iiredca prey to the fascinations of a false

philosophy; adopted erroneous principles; was addicted

to

the

demons; and,

theurgic

and a belief

science,

in a word, fell into the

in

same mis-

chievous and unpardonable errors as Plotinus and

Porphyry.

He,

too,

and

gods;

pretended to hold converse with the to

and command.

have demons constantlv at his will " Proclus^ one of these teachers of

darkness, professed himself an ries

;

adopt in

all

mvste-

conversed familiarly with Pan and Esculapius

worshipped with their appropriate

rites

;

the gods

even of the Arabian nomades and undertook by Chaldean oracles, and Orphic hymns, of

all

nations,

;

to avert or cure the

numerous

infirmities of

mind

and body."

The learned is,

dissertation of Proclus on theuro-v

no longer extant;

I believe,

but from some

remaining passages, we have a lamentable example of the egregious stuff of which it was composed :

"

Sometimes an herb or a stone

divine operation.

sufficient for a Thus, a thistle can procure the is

sudden appearance of some superior power. laurel,

The

raccinum, the land and sea onion, the coral,

the diamond, and the jasper, operate as safeguards.

The heart

of a mole

is

subservient to divination;

sulphur and marine water to purification."

^

CJillics, Aiist. vol.

i.

p.

211.

^

G

ON THE ORIGIN AND

20

The system and

learning,

of Proclus

a mixture of Oriental

is

tlie pliiloso])liy

of Plato, with a copious

dose of the Grecian polytheism, diluted and refined

by the

allegorical

method.

He places great credence

in the

Chaldean

oracles,

and the Orphic hymns,

which he thought had some indefinable relation to the sjieculations of Plato.

Hence he

error of confounding the Orphic

falls

into the

and Chaldean

triads

of persons, with the three principles of the Pythagoreans, God, Idea, and Matter. this,

I

he

is

guilty of

many

In consequence of

strange absurdities.

have made these observations

Platonic philosoi^hers, for the

on the

23uri:>ose

later

of showing

the consistency of their minds and pursuits; that

we may

perceive clearly

how

little

they are to be

trusted in their versions and interpretations of Plato's MTitings.

As

they combined foreign matter with the ancient

philosophy, they are to be distrusted also on this

account suit

;

though

it is chiefly

their

unhallowed pur-

of occult science, which rendered their minds

incapable of grasping any comi3rehensive

system,

or of calmly and patiently searching after the truth.

To the

sober deductions of reason, they preferred

the unhealthy excitement of wonderful legends and childish fables.

they mystified

;

Whatever they found mysterious, whatever was doubtful, they involved

in greater obscurity

and

;

allegorical tests,

and by their double meanings,

we can

discover neither truth

nor certainty in any of their speculations.

;

TROGRESS OF TLATONISM. It

207

to be acknowledged, indeed, that both Plato

is

and the Pythagoreans,

in their

demoniacal world,

themselves open to a similar

charge

;

for they

laid

numbers,

ideas,

and

were guilty of obscurity and mys-

But the sphere

ticism in treating of these subjects.

which they acted or circumscribed themselves, in

in

relation to these objects,

was narrow, in comparison

with the license taken by the later Platonists. It

on

is

to be remarked, however, that

this score, there is

they erred

if

no reason to think that they

gave any countenance to the allegorical science,

which deduced a the literal

;

meaning from Plato than and created a new and strange system different

out of the ancient mythology.

The

origin of

it

was

among the Platonists themselves and, I think, it may be traced to the influence of the Christian reli;

gion.

It

was the

offspring of necessity, brought into

use for the jmi-pose of self-defence. Tlie purity and reasonableness of the

new religion,

the piety and moral conduct of its believers, and the

noble characters of

its

priesthood,

came

in

due time

to be contrasted with the expiring polytheism, the licentiousness of the pagan world, and the debased

and fraudulent

priests of the ancient gods.

it

was advancing with rapid

it

had ascended to the very court

strides

itself,

among the rich as well as poor. The sagacious pagans perceived sensible that, without a strong tion,

among

Besides,

all classes

and flourished

this,

and became

and continued opposi-

the old religion would succumb.

And

could

ON THE ORIGIN AND

208

they silently and meekly allow the religion of Plato,

and of the ancients, hallowed by firmed by

be

tradition, to

antiquity,

upstart system of a few brief years sensible,

however, that

if

They were

!

they revived the mythology,

naked form, their labour would be

in its

and con-

laid in the dust, before the

For how could the polluted and

all in vain.

carcass of a

livid

thousand years, exist in the same atmosphere with

How

the living and breathing form of Christianity?

were the fables of Homer, Hesiod, and Ovid, of their highest divinities, to be expunged from their theo-

logy?

For what

They were

is

written,

is

written.

certain that to attempt to maintain

these and other fables in their literal sense, would

be

fatal to their

cause

;

for at that period

they would

have been laughed at by the pagans themselves.

The

allegorical interpretation

and eagerly adopted,

for the salvation of the

By means

polytheism.

was happily suggested,

of

it,

all

dying

asperities

were

made smooth,

discordances harmonized, and every

contradiction,

however

apparently hopeless,

was

easily reconciled.

The obscene legends

of the pagan deities, by a

magic touch, were converted into wholesome and instructive virtue.

and

stories

of divine energy, and celestial

" Proclus," says Bryant, " tries to subtilize

refine all

the base jargon about Saturn and

Zeus, and would persuade us that the most idle and

obscene legends related to the Divine IMind, to the Eternal Wisdom, and supremacy of the Deity."

PROGRESS OF PLATONISM.

209

Pythagoras and Plato were subjected to the same from Mhich emerged the new version of the

test

;

later Platonists, bearing

no greater resemblance to

the original, than astrology to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry, or the delusions of occult science to

the pure and legitimate deductions of philosophy. Plato came to be compared with Christ, and his

morals and theology with those of Christianity.

By

the pagans, the latter was looked upon as a sort of

new

version of the Oriental or Pythagorean philo-

sophy, which had been translated into the Mritings

of Plato.

This delusion was carried to such an

extent, that Dr. Gillies observes, " Plato was the

only

heathen

philosopher,

that

many

Christian

fathers, after lopping off certain redundancies,

were

inclined to admit svithin the pale of the church."

They saw Plato only Augustine

is

in his degenerate offspring.

said to

have confessed there was a

wonderful resemblance between Christ and Plato.

And

Celsus (I believe not the Christian) maintained

that Christ is all

must have read the works of

Plato.

This

pure deception on their part, and the result of

the fraud and design of the pagan Platonists.

The

scripture

doctrine of the Trinity was con-

strued into an imitation of the doctrine of Plato.

A

certain likeness

was supposed to be discovered

between the three principles of Pythagoras and the three persons of the Divine Trinity,

all

been entirely exploded.

o

which has

210

CHAPTER

No

TRUE Trinity

The mantle of Taylor

III.

the Platonic Doctrine.

in

of Proclus descended on the shoulders

who, in the nineteenth century, attempted

;

to revive the school abolished

sixth

This modern

!

philosophy

is

all

a fervent polytheist.

his errors,

in the

champion of the Platonic

follower of Proclus and his

adopts

by Justinian

He

is

mystical

a bigoted

school

he

:

and eagerly gives credence

to

every improbable fable.

Taylor would also try to imitate the style of his school, as if

barisms another.

of

it

an example of the style so highly

is

him

in the

"

in Proclus.

ceptions reach the principle

concealed

and infuse them into

one language,

This

extolled by

were laudable to transfer the bar-

of

How

can our con-

these principles,

superluminous

who

is

darkness of occultly

initiating silence /"

This enthusiast

who

are,

rails

at the

present generation,

according to him, mere pigmies in true

knowledge;

and he would persuade

us,

that the

world was in a very unhappy plight, because sooth

it

version

for-

prefers the religion of Jesus Christ to his

of polytheism

!

The modern

acquiring knowledge by experience

is

practice of

held in

little

—

NO TRUE PLATONIC TRINITY.

211

estimation by him, in comparison with the mass of

wisdom and erudition contained

He

antiquity.

the works of

in

h)oks upon the sun being the centre

of our planetary system, as a mere delusion, worthy of these

degenerate

singular gravity,

when

there

"At' such a period

he

with

says,

as the present,

such a dire perversion of religion

is

men

(paganism), and

of every description are in-

volved in extreme impiety, spirit of

And

times.

we cannot wonder

if

the

profane innovation should cause a similar the system of the world."

confusion in

beautifully illustrated

This

is

by a religion so refined and

admirable as this would signify

"

!

Every planet

has a number of satellites surroundinoto the choir of the fixed stars

;

it,

analoo-ous

and every sphere

is

full of gods, angels, and demons, subsisting according to the spheres in which they reside."

Taylor

is

upon our

also painfully ironical

make

nomers, wdio

astro-

their telescopes the standard of

truth in the affairs of the celestial regions, and

who

presumptuously doubt of the existence of that which cannot be seen through them us, that the divine nature of

;

for

he sagely informs

the stars cannot be per-

ceived through such fallacious instruments.

But

may

after

all,

the charge against this learned

be founded on the grossest ignorance

understand his system, he enjoy that which

;

'

says,

we have no hope

it

of

;

man

for to

necessary to

is

a

deific wiion,

Intro, to the Timaeus of Plato.

O

2

;

NO TRUE TRINITY IN

212

" witli the super-essential

God

perception," even

and most arcane object of

himself.

we have seen Cud worth. He

In relation to a trinity in Plato, that Taylor widely differs from Dr. will

not allow

But the truth

Christian doctrine.

come

make an examination

to

shall find

when we

into this trinity,

it

—namely.

Three Persons

above the Platonic triad of being,

lect,

that

is,

in life,

One God and

the Platonists acknowledge a Monad, or a

of which the former are the progeny

we have

The

persons or

either four

placed above a

none of

we

to be devoid of the essential characteristic

of a trinity, for

have any resemblance to the

to

it

;

intel-

ro

eV,

so that here

things, or a unit it,

having

and Taylor among them,

in fact,

and

triad,

distinct

from

its co-essentiality.

Platonists,

bring us to the conclusion, that the Highest God, or

Chief Monad,

is

not a hypostasis of a

trinity, since

they deny and refute his consubsistence and coessentiality with the other supposed persons of the

Godhead. This

may be proved

writings.

out of

many

passages of their

Taylor says, in his general Introduction

Plato, as

The Highest God, according to we have largely shown from irresistible

evidence,

is

to Plato's

sistent

Works,

"

so far from being a part of a consub-

triad,

that he

with any thing

;

but

multitude, that he

is

is

is

not

to be

connumerated

so perfectly exemjit from all

even beyond being, and he so

ineffably transcends all relation

and habitude, that

THE PLATONIC DOCTRINE. language

in

is

subverted

reality

1^13

about

liiin,

and

knowledgfe refunded into ionorance."

And

Proclus, on the Tima^us, says also of the

INlonad above the triad, and of the descending triads

from the Highest God, " Plato everywhere ascends from multitude of the

to unitv,

many proceeds

from whence also the order

but before Plato, and accord-

;

ing to the natural order of things, one

is

before

multitude, and everv divine order begins from a

Wherefore the divine numbers proceed

monad. a

triniti)

monad.

yet,

;

in

must be a

before this trinitjj there

Let there be three demiurgical hypostases,

must there be one, because

nevertheless, before these

none of the divine orders begins from multitude.

We conclude, therefore, that the demiurgical number does not begin from a

standi }tfj alone hy itself from that

lamblichus,

refining

but from a monad,

triniti/,

on

triniti/."

this

seems

notion,

to

ascend above the monad, and acknowledge another yet superior to (ideas)

and

" Prior^ to truly existing beings

it.

total jn-inciples, there is one

god prior

to

the first god, and king immoveable, abiding in the solitude of his o^^n unity. liji'ible

is

connected with

is

alone,

and

unity

above unity

is

"

the intel-

nor anvthing else

self-begotten,

truly the good."

De Mys.

is

;

paradigm of the god who

establislied as the

father of himself,

it,

For neither

;

who

is

but he is

the

father

In which we have a

and the Tima^an doctrine of

sec. viii. cap. 2.

ab

inilio.

NO TRUE TRINITY

214

exemplars carried to an extreme

even a

para(li<>ni of

God

IN

;

for here there is

himself.

Platonists had manifold triads descending in

The

gradations from each other,

all

communicating by

each other, and of the

first

monad.

This procession of their gods from the

first

triad

particii)ation of

is

enumerated in six orders, the intelligible, the inteland

ligible

liberated and the

there

clus,

JNIinervas,

and

intellectual,

mundane.

mundane

are

as

;

Juno,

according to Pro-

Jupiters,

vivific

;

and

Junes,

Jupiter, Neptune,

triad of fabricative prin-

Vesta, ]Miner\ a, and Mars, defensive

and Diana,

JNIercury,

;

Ceres,

and

Venus,

And

and harmonic, and so on.

Ai)ollo, elevating all this

And

well as celestial.

and Vulcan, are said to be a ciples

supermundane, the

they would pass off as the genuine philo-

sophy of Plato.

Not only

did the Platonists (borrowing a doctrine

which they could not comprehend,) egregiously subvert the very notion of a trinity by introducing a

monad above do not

it

we among

but

;

agree

all

Proclus acquaints

us,

find that

even in

themselves.

this

they

Amelius, as

held a trinity in which each

hypostasis was a sort of trinity in itself; there were

three demiurgical creators, three intellects, and three kings.

Dr. Cudworth, as

it

were, restrains Plato's sup-

j)osed intellect, or second person, to be the creator of all

things

;

asserts that

but Plotinus, it is

in

whom

he

confides,

not intellect, but soul, which

is

the

THE PLATONIC DOCTRINE. creator.

Porph}Ty coincides with

in phice of

the

mundane

215

this, exce]it

soul, (wliich

that

he had sagacity

to perceive coukl not be the creator, being a gene-

rated thing

itself,)

" He"* calls the

he introduces a supermundane.

supermundane

creator of the world

which the

it is

soul the immediate

and the mind or

;

converted, not the creator himself, but

paradigm."

This

opposed to the

clearly

is

Timsean doctrine, already discussed in

who

St. Austin,

full.

addicted to Platonism, points

is

out a difference between "

intellect to

and Porphyry.

Plotinus

God* the Father, and the Son,

or Logos, were

acknowledged by the Platonists as well as by the Christians

but relative to the Holy Ghost, or third

;

person, there Por])hyrius,

is

a discrepancy between Plotinus and

inasmuch as the former placed Psyche,

or soul, after the paternal intellect, thus

the third, while the latter put

and the Son, making

it

of being,

it

making

it

between the Father

hence the second hypostasis."

Taylor, following Proclus,

holds that

it

relative to

the triad,

emanates from the monad, and consists

life,

and

intellect

;

in

which we have, as

already observed, a quaternity rather than a trinity.

He

also says,

" by* the

must understand

Jupiter,

mity of the intellectual itself,

which

is

demiurgus and

who

triad,

Pro. in Tim. p. 93, 94. '

we

subsists at the extre-

and

avrot^wov,

animal-

the exemplar of the world, and from

the contemplation of which '

father,

'

De

it

Avas

fabricated

by

Civit. Dei. lib. x. cap. 23.

Intro, to the Timaeus of Plato.

:

NO TRUE TRINITY IN

216 Jupiter,

is

the last of the intelligible triad, and

In which

the same with Phanes of Orpheus."

have a strange jumble of the Timaean and the philosophy

Platonic

and the

;

old

is

we

later

of com-

error

mingling the Pythagorean principles and the persons or

alluded

things

Here the

in

to

intellect, or

worth's trinity

is

hymns

the

of

Orpheus.

second person, of Dr. Cud-

placed at

intellectual triad, so that

he

extremity of the

the is

put out of the

first

triad altogether.

whom

This Phanes,

Taylor ignorantly confounds

with the exemplar world of Plato, was a person of the Orphic triad.

It

was a

title

chief deity of the east, and so

hymn

described in the

to Protogonus

Hence Phanes,

called the glory of the sky,

On waving pinions,

And

it is

of the sun^ the

through the world you

fly.

Syrianus says, " After chaos and ether subsist

the

first

and occult genera of the gods, among which

the

first

apparent god

universe,

is

the king and father of the

who because he

is

the

first visible

deity

is

called Phanes."

But we have also shown that the other history related of him alluded to the deluge and the ark, Hence Syrianus says likewise, or mundane e^^. though he

is

ignorant of the true purport of his

words, " the whole of this the gods, which the intelligible

is

called

triad, '

first

and occult genera of

by the Chaldean theologists

was represented by Orpheus

Vide Note O.

THE rLATONIC DOCTRINE.

217

under the spnbol of an egg, on the exclusion of which, by the goddess Night, the god Phanes

who

forth,

is

came

called Protogonus," or the first-born of

mankind, as declared bv Orpheus himself. I cannot help thinking (though I lay

the conjecture,) that the later

monad above

their

ancient history of

the

Platonists

have already

in the former part of this work.

Proclus,

and some of

his

stress

on

derived

from that piece of

triad

Avhicli I

no

It

is

fully treated

manifest that

predecessors, borrowed

greatly from Mhat are called above, " Chaldean theologists."

And,

as I

have frequently remarked, con-

founding things of a nature perfectly

distinct,

they

looked upon the Chaldean, Or|)hic, and Pythagorean triad

as all

one,

same persons, or

relating to the

principles of all things.

Now, whatever may have

been the Chaldean and Orphic doctrines, that they had no countenance from

other Grecian since

triad,

it

philosopher, is

of a

clearly stated

it is

certain

Plato or any

monad above a many collated

in

passages already quoted, that before the universe

came

into being,

there existed only three things

(sometimes styled principles, though one casualty in

it),

had

no

God, the Creator, the Idea, or para-

diirmatical world, containing within all the essences

of things subsequently made,

which were

fabricated

all

and

Matter, out of

material

things.

The

Platonists must have had, therefore, their doctrine

from another source. It is

natural to suppose, then, that as Proclus cer-

NO TRUE TRINITY IN

218

trinity to

tifies his

that

it

be of Chaldaic

was well known

origin,

and others

to the Egyptians,

and intro-

duced into Greece by Orpheus, that the Platonists really

had their

countries.

triads

And

from the mythology of these

perceiving in Timaus, that Pytha-

goras and Plato also maintained three principles, they

supposed them to be the same as the former. conjecture

is

greatly confirmed

This

by a passage pre-

viously quoted out of Proclus himself, that Cronus the founder of the triad ; and also by the persons mentioned as hypostases of the Orphic triad, which

was

are Phanes, Uranus, and Cronus'.

It

may be

sup-

posed, then, that the intelligible triad mentioned by

Syrianus above, as being a Chaldaic doctrine, refers to the three sons of the patriarch

monad above

the latter being

the former; and that their

styled the founder of

a triad

;

was a refinement upon

this

ancient piece of history. I

apprehend that many of the sjjeculations of

these

Platonists,

relative

explained by adoi)ting this

And

to the

mode

triads,

may be

of interpretation.

that most of the errors and inconsistencies of

which they are guilty arose from an attempt, founded

on ignorance, of reconciling the learning Mhicli they

had from the east with the philosophy of Plato.

This

singular notion of the trinity being the offspring of

the chief monad, or God, led necessarily to a great

number

of subtle distinctions, and to a vast deal of

absurdities.

Vide Note P.

THE PLATONIC DOCTRINE.

From

the language of

219

we might

Platonists,

tlie

conchule that this Monad, or to

ev,

of theirs was no

better than one of the shadowy gods of Epicurus,

For

own

said of him, that the better to conceal his

it is

atheism, he invented an order

entirely devoted to their

own

of

ease,

deities

so

so indifferent

about the world which they did not create, and so careless with respect to the interests of our race,

that liad

it

was

to

man much

the same thing as

if

he

candidly abnegated deity altogether.

The

Platonists are subject to the

liable to the

same

same charge, or

suspicion, in their descriptions of

their Supreme Being. It was, however, more the warmth of their enthusiasm, than their scepticism,

which

them

led

to

these

extremes.

Plotiiius

informs us, that this being, by reason of his unity

and

simplicity,

ing,

and does not even so much as understand him-

self.

This

paradox

:

"

is

is

above knowledge and understand-

probably his reason for so strange a

InteHigence

itself

does not understand,

but only that which has intelligence

."

dragging in Pythagoras and Plato, as

And if

they really

agreed Mitli his visionary opinions, says, "

one first

itself,

which

t/iej/

the

very properly considered as

super-essential, ineffjxble,

This word unknown

pregnant

By

the Pythagoreans and Plato signified the

cause,

perfectly

Taylor,

Avith

is

and

unknown.''''

evidently in Taylor's

meaning, which we, having no "

union," have no hope of getting a glimpse

The unity above

trinity, or

mind deific

of.

according to lambli-

NO TRUE TRINITY IN

220

unity above

cliiis,

unity,

induced the Platonists witli

pompous

and

such

otlier

describe their

to

vag^aries, first

and swelling words, possessing

god

more

sound than sense, whicli they mistook for eloquence

Hence God

or sul)limity.

by

described

nificently

known darkness

imagined to be mag-

is

" the

thrice-repeated

un-

of the Egyptians," by calling him

" the principle of principles,

who

is

concealed in the

superluminous darkness of occultly initiating silence;"

and other such sentences, which were conceived to express ideas, as well as to be masterpieces of description.

Proclus,

in

commentary on

his

Plato's

Second

Epistle, confirms our aspersioji of his Chief Being,

and of trinity.

being considered an hypostasis of a

his not

" Plato neither

princi})le of things

to him, nor does

third powers it

;"

connumerates the inefikble

with the other princii)les posterior

he coarrange

it

on the contrary he

above and before the

triad, as

complexity or multiplicity in

it.

better than an Epicurean god,

many

with the second and

He

other passages.

is

and all-transcending nature, things about him,

fjut

a

is

said, to situate

monad having no

And

may be

that he

is

no

collected from

called ineffable, simple, "

who

establishes all

does not generate or produce

anythhuj, nor docs he presiibsist as the end of things posterioi' to

himself"

lutely denied for if all

(if I

In Mhich his casualty

rightly

is

abso-

understand the passage),

he be not the end (or beginning, rather), of

things,

which have a posterior existence, or the

THE PLATONIC DOCTRINE. first

of a cliain of inferior causes

disjoined from

them, they

;

'221

but substantially

o])erating'

without him,

then he can be no Supreme Cause at

all.

for this refinement of the Platonists,

who

also the Causeless cause

To

We

conclude.

So much style

him

of causes.

may be

certain that

it

is

quite

a delusion to attribute a knowledge of a trinity to Plato, or to any of the ancient i3hilosophers, before

the

times

of Christianity.

Upon

the

Christian

trinity

becoming known to

fancied

it

deities

of antiquity, and to the Pythagorean prin-

ci})les

refine

of

the

Platonists,

they

bore some resemblance to the compound

all

In consequence they began to

things.

upon the

doctrines, but

old

assuming the

Grecian polytheism "as the basis of their procedure," they dictions.

fell

into manifold absurdities

and contra-

All this has been pointed out, and I have

clearly shown, I apprehend, that both the Chaldean,

Orphic, and other triads, and the princi^jles of Plato,

had a

different origin,

and related to

distinct things,

which the Platonists confounded together, and with the Christian doctrine.

ADDTTTONAL NOTES.

Note A.

I

p. 21.

WILL here present the reader with one or two instances, from

the writings of the Fathers, of their concurrence in the opinion, that Plato had a knowledge of the Trinity.

book. Contra

nothing at

Jii/iafi., lib. viii.,

all

St, Cyi'il, in his

says, " That there would have been

wanting to the Platonic Trinity,

for

an absolute

agreement with the Christian; had they only accommodated the right notion of co-essentiality, or consubstantiality of their three hypostases

;

so that there

might have been but one

specific

nature or essence of the Godhead, not further distinguishable

by any natural hypostasis any

In

diversity, but numerically only

way

inferior to another."

—

;

and

so

no one

Intell. Syst. vol.

this passage it is called the Plalonic Trinity,

iii.

and not the

trinity of Plato, as if it referred to the doctrine of the later

Platonists

;

but the writer, no doubt, alluded to the speculations

of the more ancient philosopher, thus acquiescing in the generally received

notion, that

the trinity was

an acknowledged

" cabala," before the Advent of our Saviour. I

have remarked

party, that

what

conduct of the Arian

they denied in the Christian, they seemingly

maintained in the existence,

this incongruity in the

Platonic,

theology

;

namely, the eternal

and consequently the uncreated nature of the Second

Person of the Trinity. his party, agreeing to,

We

discover Eusebius, and others of

and upholding the version of the doc-

—

224

NOTES. as ascribed to Plato,

trine,

virtually denied

tliey

wliile

This version

co-equal existence of the Son with the Father.

admitted the external existence of I find Socrates,

the

the three hypostases.

all

the historian (Ec. Hist.

lib. vii.

cap. 6),

makes

this very singular observation on this inconsistency of the Arians.

"I

am

in the

how Georgius and Timotheus

surprised

should persist

Arian persuasion, the one having Plato always in his

hands, the other continually breathing Origen

not admit anywhere, that his

beginning to their existence

;

for Plato does

and second cause had a

first

and Origen constantly acknow-

;

ledges the Son to be co-eternal Avith the Father."

Euscbius (Pr. Ev.

lib.

makes use of

cap. 20),

ii.

this lan-

guage, which, though insinuating an inferiority and subordination in the persons,

is totally silent

on the point alluded to

:

" The oracle of the Hebrews places the Holy Ghost after the

Father and the Son, in the third rank, and acknowledges a holy

and blessed Trinity

after this

should also transcend

all

intellectual substances

created nature

Ms

to the conclusion of

Holy Trinity

the Son, by

;

being the

first

power

of those

:

how Plato enigmatically declares

see

Epistle to Dionysius."

Clemens Alexandrinus,

the

so that the third

which proceed from the Son, and the

third from the First Cause this dociri7ie in

manner ;

in mentioning this epistle, subscribes

Eusebius

:

—"

I

understand this

the third being the

;

whom

Holy Ghost

;

to refer to

the Second,

things were made, according to the will

all

of the Father."

Dr. Cudworth

(vol.

afi&rmeth the Son of

God

Plato, in his Epistle to

words

:

cites so

" Celsus,

many

ill.

who

p.

to

says,

187,)

that " Origen

also

have been plainly spoken of by

Hermias and Coriscus." pi'etends to

know

all

These are the

things,

and who

other passages out of Plato, does purposely (as I

suppose) dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of

The

God

in his Epistle to

ancient, as well as the

Hermias and Coriscus."

modern

Christian,

may

well seek

225

NOTES. refuge in these Epistles of Plato

because he can find no sup-

;

port from his more authoritative writings.

But

examine the point

far

in question,

and see how

let

us briefly

such an inter-

pretation as this can be borne out.

When we we

author,

meet with an obscure or ambiguous passage naturally have recourse to

the context.

in

an

Now

it

does not appear, from the tenour of the Epistle alluded

to,

that

Plato intended to couA^ey any peculiar, or mysterious, or esoteric

The occasion seems the most

doctrine.

And

pose.

if

he had no such intention,

unfit for is it

any such pur-

probable he woidd

have been guilty of such an egregious absurdity, as even allude to a subject of this kind

whom

those to

to

may be said, indeed, that may have previously shared

It

?

he addressed himself

with him the knowledge of this truth

but the whole tenour of

;

the Epistle belies any such thought.

What, *'

then, were those objects he referred to in the passage

Swearing by that

and future cause."

were,

1.

cause

;

;

It

God who

is

and by the father and lord of

seems

to

me

?

the leader of all things present this leader

and

highly probable that these two causes

The Eternal Cause.

A

2.

secondary and generated

for the ancient philosophers so regarded the beings sub-

servient to their Creator.

sun, or the

mundane

The

may have been

latter

cither the

According

soul of the universe.

to the

Timsean theology, the mundane soul was a generated god ; and so

was

fore,

it

held to be by Plato himself:

an hypostasis of the

it

could not be, there-

trinity.

Plutarch, in his Platonic Questions, informs us, that Plato, in his all

book

De

Republica, called the

the sensible world

Sun the king and

as he pronounced the

;

Sovereign of the intelligible world.

He

Good

says,

lord of

to be the

likewise, that

the sun was by Plato looked upon as the very issue and essence of God, or

the

Plutarch's, in

Good

;

which

is

certainly

a refinement of

which he implies rather a kind of metaphysical,

than a material creation of the sun.

P

226 The

NOTES. devotion of the early Fathers to the Platonic philosophy,

begot a very olnjectionable habit of Platonizmg, with which their theological writings are strongly tinctured.

Origcn, in his Ilept Ap-^^cov, so far subscribes to a particular tenet of the ancient philosophy, that he discovers an analogy

between the human and the mundane body he

one great animal, possessing or being bounded by a

calls

£0ul

—the

having

the latter of which

;

virtue

and the reason of God

many members,

is

just as our body,

;

Herein he

contained by one soul *.

recognises the doctrine of the " Soul of the World."

Others seem to have exceeded this language, and to have

'

conceived this muntlauc soul not to be the virtute Dei ac in a general sense hypostasis,

which

Plato's

mundane

soul of the world it

Ioav

was a

created,

was, probably, upon this ground

—

that Plotinus

human;

human

Stoics

went

Godhead

believe," says Seneca, " that there is

who

is

Godhead

part of the

contained

is otie,

and members."

and the one

— Ep.

to call

the relationship being fancifully

to the other extreme,

soul as part of the

— of

and others

expressed by styling the former the elder sister of the

The

There

and not an

an estimate of the soul of the world, as

a species of the

ratio7ie,

as the third

— an insurmountable obstacle —that

being a thing generated in time

founded so it

however,

And

eternal nature. its

itself,

the very doctrine ascribed to Plato.

is

this incongruity,

is

but the Holy Spirit

;

?

is

:

"

latter.

and looked upon the

Why

should you not

something divine in him

That whole

in

which we are

God, we being his companions

92.

" Sicut corpus nostrum unum ex multis membris aptatum est, et ab una anima coutinetur ita est universum mundum, velut animal quoddam immane, opiuandum puto quod quasi ab una anima, virtute Dei ;

;

ac ratione teneatvr.

/fyf}-

NOTES.

Note

Since this was

B.

I find

AVTitten,

tories,

this observation

:

"

38.

p.

myself to receive some support

from Bryant, who, when alluding

makes

227

When

primary principles,

to these

was said in the early

it

which Thalcs and other Grecians copied, that

his-

things

all

were derived from water, I do not believe that the ancient mythologists referred to that element as the v\r], or malerial principle; but to the deluge, as an epocha, nature,

when

time,

and

and mankind were renewed.

" Plutarch mentions

it

as

an Egvptian notion, that

were derived from water ; but

at the

same time

— An. My.

flxeavov, that Osiris was Oceanus."^

In consequence of

this,

the

all

vol.

iii.

things

Oaipiv

tells us,

p. 99.

ocean was by some ancient

mythologists personified, and called, metaphorically, the origin

and

And

father of all things.

similar reason that he

of Osiris.

the gods."

was

By Homer the And Orpheus,

says, that ft-om

Osiris

was

also called the

ocean

is

sim

called Occanus, for a :

both being symbols

styled " the generation of

in his mystic

hymn

him sprung both gods and

to this deity,

mortals, which can

only be explained by holding Osiris and Oceanus to be the

same

deified person.

Note

The

perplexity of the

C.

ancients,

p. 39.

originating

imputing a distinct personality to the various deity, the sun, is

Some seem

to

in the titles

en-or

of

of the chief

abundantly conspicuous in their OAvn writings.

have tried to analyze their

thcologj-,

the deities according to their respective ranks

;

and

to class

but the task

P

2

;

228

NOTES. so hopeless, that they ahandonecl

was

who

promised the matter, like Macrobius,

and com-

witli disgust,

it

believed

the gods

all

power and

to be either titles of the sun, or exponents of his

benignant influence. It is probable, if not certain, tliat these

unhappy mythologists

adopted the Orphic hymns as a chief guide in their researches

seem

for they

to

have been considered a great authority, on

But what

account of the antiquity imputed to them.

light

could they derive from these records, to cheer their dark and labyrinthian path

Only

?

this,

that in these

arc awarded to deities

attributes

Greek mythology,

supposed,

be perfectly and

to

hymns, the same

common

the

in

individually distinct,

which, with other circumstances, imply them to be only names

So that to

of one god.

out with the hope or expectation of

set

assigning to this deity his locality,

rank, or his

and

—

to that his province, his

government, would terminate in disappointment

defeat.

For one example,

us

let

choose

"father of gods and of men;"

the

find

it

the Hjinn

called,

is

a character not to be with

In the Orphic hymns

reason assigned to more than one deity.

we

god who

given to a variety of apparently distinct deities. to Night,

it is

In

said.

Night, parent goddess, source of sweet repose,

From whom

Heaven

is

at first both gods

called " father of all."

ten, is assigned the

and men

arose.

To Protogonus,

the

first

begot-

honor of the birth of gods and mortals; so

to Saturn, to Jupiter, to Oceanus, &c.

Diodorus Siculus informs Serapis

him

to

;

others,

Dionusus

;

us, that

some thought

other Pluto

be the same as Zeus, or Jupiter

for Pan.

To suppose

to be all the

;

;

whilst

and not a few took him

Jupiter, Pluto, Pan, Osiris,

same god,

is,

Osiris to be

some believed

and

indeed, contrary to the

Serapis,

commonly

;

229

NOTES. received notions

;

but such

is

much

the truth, and so

is

implied

in the words of Diodorus.

Porphyry, a rank pagan, seems to have disregarded so important a feature, in the Grecian theogony, as

the deities

Attis,

;

Ehea, Ceres, Themis, Priapus,

Vesta,

Nobody had examined

more deeply than Porphyry."

GREAT authority has

Bacchus,

one and the

all

the theology of the ancients

— An. My.

Note D.

A

genders of

Proserpina,

Adonis, Silenus, and the satyrs, were

same.

tlie

for according to Bryant, " he acknowledged that

vol.

i.

p.

395.

45.

p.

this passage

:

— " In

the barbarous ages

of Greece, their only gods were those natural divinities, the

heavenly luminaries.

But on

for the arts of policy, they

commerce with Egypt,

their first

found there a new species of

idolatrj-,

the worship of dead men, which civilized Egypt had invented

and which,

their first natural

uncivilized

improved in

as they

deities;

nations.

embraced, &c."

This

— Div. Leg.

policy,

had almost worked out

the same Avith those of

new vol.

species

the

all

other

Greeks eagerly

iv. sect. 5.

iii. lib.

I cannot see what reason Dr. T\"arbuton had for this conjec-

As

ture.

the Greeks acknowledged

E"-ypt for their religion,

why might

it

they brought the worship of deified idolatry

?

Is there

no grounds

for

tion took root long before Greece

The author of sage, to

that

it

they were indebted to

not be supposed also, that

men

along with their other

supposing that this supersti-

was the second time colonized

have followed an observation in the Cratylus of Plato

was the philosopher s opinion,

of Greece

?

the Divine Legation seems, in the above pas-

considered these only

to

that the l)e

gods,

first

;

inhabitants

which

were so

— ;

230

NOTES.

many

regarded by

—the

sun, the

moon, the

and the heavens.

earth, the stars, Tliis

of the barbarians

would be quite

branch of idolatry lent long before

had he only admitted the other

true,

—the worship of dead men, which was preva-

Greece was inhabited

and which the Greeks

;

brought, most probably, out of Egypt.

Note

p. 03.

E.

observes, with respect to the practice of the Greeks,

Bryant

who was

of demeaning their deities, " Vulcan the blacksmith,

the master of the Cyclops, and forged iron in IVIount Etna, was

But

a character familiar to the Greeks and Romans.

among

deity,

Egyptians and

the

They esteemed Vulcan

similar to this description.

of the gods

;

the same as the sun

this

Babylonians had nothing

;

and his name

as the chief is

a sacred

compounded of Baal-Cahen, Belus sanctus vel princeps

title,

equivalent to Orus or Osiris."

— Vol.

Again, " Polytheism, originally

i.

p.

169.

and unwarrantable, was

vile

rendered ten times more base by coming through the hands of the Greeks.

demon

herd,

His

what one

there of a form and character so

who was

is

filth

ridiculed

hideous figure

children,

and

to drive the

garden

an obscure, ill-formed

?

by the Egj^tians reverenced ;

Yet

—was held

and esteemed the same

Aur

all

votaries.

as a bugbear to frighten

birds from fruit-trees, with

he was generally besmeared.

than the Chaldaic

:

and dishonored by his very

was made use of only

this scarecrow in a

sacus,

the

in one particular

odious and contemptible as Priapus deity,

Among

To instance

this contemptible

in high repute at

as Dionusus.

He

as the principal

whose god

Lamp-

was, likeAvise,

god; no other

the same as Orus and Apis, whose rites

231

NOTES.

The author

were particularly solemn

Hymns

of the Orphic

Trpcoroyovov— yeveaiv fxaKapror,

styles him,

TavOpcoircov, the first-horn of the world

immortals and mortals were descended."

Note

F.

;

— Vol.

i.

6vi]T(ov

whom

from

the

all

p. 178.

p. 71-

In the mysteries of the ancients, there

no feature more curious

is

and interesting than those expressions of grief and lamentation which formed so important a part of the

Every country seems more or

and

religious ceremony.

have heen addicted

less to

;

the event, which

commemorated, had heen forgotten

least, in

it

it

to this

was, prohahly, practised long after

singular superstition

ignorance of that to which

it

had a particular

;

or at

reference.

Plutarch, in his Isis and Osiris, has remarked a religious

scribes

it

the Egyptians of this nature, where he de-

among

ohservance

as a

custom of the people,

at a particular season, to

proceed to the sea-shore, where they rent the air ^vith lamenta-

some one

tions for

person (namely,

lost

;

and then

Osiris,) to

forth into exclamations of gi-eat joy

M.

after a time, supposing the

be found, they as suddenly burst

and

OuvaroflP, in a note to Section

delight.

Third of his Essay on the

Elensinian Mysteries^ makes these observations on this ancient

"The most

custom.

ancient religious ceremonies have been

Adonis was the subject

expressive of grief and lamentation.

of mourning in Phoenicia, as Osiris was in Egypt. Osiris are proved to have

Diis S}T.)

parts;

;

the

^r)Tr]at<;,

Adonis and

been the same personage (Selden,

De

their festivals, exactly alike, were divided into three loss

—and

or

disappearance,

the finding,

discover in these myl/is

u(f)avcao)o
evpeaL<;:

we

—the

search,

shall, perhaps,

then

and usages, the traces of one of those

—

NOTES.

232

great religious (raditiotis, which have diffused themselves every-

where."

His conjecture

is

consonant with truth

origin of the religious tradition to different objects, than I

am

man

;

when

the truth

is

ceremony alluded

more probable that

it is

but he assigns the

inclined to believe

in the text he cursorily hints, that the

of

;

an anterior period of time, and to

was

it

;

to the

for fall

com-

instituted in

memoration of the destruction of mankind, and the salvation of

Noah and

nearer the truth,

That

from the deluge.

his family

may

this conjecture is

be collected from the abundant memorials

of this event in antiquity

;

and from the peculiar characteristics

of the ceremony itself; as well as from the histories of the

person concerned.

Bryant affords us

what

corroborates

I

this curious extract

from Stephanus, which

have said above,

" The tradition

was formerly a king named Annacus

there

extent of whose

people

who were

life

was above three hundred

how

long he was to

an answer given, that when Annacus

The Phrygians, upon

lamentations

:

for Annacus,

e.,

is,

that

Noah), the

years.

The

of his neighbourhood and acquaintance, had

inquired of an oracle

be destroyed.

(?'.

live.

And

there was

died, all viankind this account,

made

would great

from whence arose the proverb, the lamentation

made use

of for people or circumstances highly

calamitous.

"When stroyed,

when

the flood of Deucalion* came, all

according as the

oracle

had

mankind was de-

foretold.

Afterwards,

the surface of the earth began to be again dry, Zeus

ordered Prometheus and Minerva to

form of men

;

and when they were finished he

and made them breathe An. My.

vol.

make images

iii.

into each

of clay in the

called the Avinds,

and render them

vital."

p. 14.

Bryant says that Suidas also " has preserved, from some "

Much must

ledge.

be allowed for the corruption of traditionary know-

—

—

"

233

NOTES.

ancient author, a curious memorial of this wonderful personage

(Noah), Avhom he styles

Nannacus.

affects to distinguish '

from Deucalion, and

Nannacus was a person of great

He

prior to the time of Deucalion.

is

antiquity,

said to have been a king,

who, foreseeing the approaching deluge, collected everybody together,

and led them

to a temple,

where he offered up his

prayers for them, accompanied with manjj tears, &c.'

The same learned

writer gives another curious passage from

the Orphic Argonautica, which I will give, as subject in question.

the Mustse, earth

we commemorated the sad

was reduced

Cronus, (another

it

bears on the

"After the earth had been tendered necessity,

to its chaotic state.

of the

title

We

then celebrated

through

patriarch,)

to

by which the

whom

the

world, after a term of darkness, enjoyed again a pure serene

sky; through that vol.

whom was

two-fold, iii.

p.

produced also Eros, (or the rainbow),

and beautiful being."

conspicuous,

— An.

JMy,

175.

The prophet Ezekiel

gives

some very

interesting facts re-

specting the idolatry of the ancients, in which I discover the three distinct species pointed out in

what

I

have said on

subject; namely, the adoration of the sun, the deification of

and the worship of creeping Cap.

viii. V.

their bucks

ward

tilings,

practised in Egypt.

There were about Jive

16.

this

men,

a?id twenty

men with

toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces

the east;

to-

ASD THEY WORSHIPPED THE SUX TOIVARD THE

EAST.

V. 14.

— Then

he brought

me

to

the door

of the gate of the

Lord's house, which was toivard the north; and behold, there sat 7vomen

V'

I

7-

weeping for Tammuz. And he brought me to the

looked, behold a hole in the wall.

of man, dig now

in

wall, behold a door.

the wall;

And

and

door of the court, and when

Then said he unto me. Son jvhen

I had digged

he said unto me.

the wicked abominations that they do here.

Go

in,

in the

and behold

So I went

in

and

;

234 sail

;

NOTES. and hchold every form of creepisg things, and

ABOMINABLE BEASTS, and

all the

idols

of the house of Israel,

portrayed upon the wall round about.

The weeping

for

Tammuz, mentioned by

the Prophet,

is,

no

doubt, the same superstition as the lamentations for the loss of

Adonis and Bryant, "

under the

Osiris.

"

was the sun,

The

chief deity of the Canaanites," says

whom

they worshipped with the Baalim,

of Ourchol, Adonis,

titles

Note G.

Thammuz."

p. 77.

This interesting Sibylline Oracle affords us a very accurate account of the destruction of the Tower of Babel.

It is

a good

paraphrase of the Mosaic history of that event.

But when the judgments of the Almighty God

Were Rose

And

ripe for execution

to the skies

;

when

upon Assyria's

the tower plain,

mankind one language only loaew, A dread commission from on high was given To the fell wlmiwinds, which, with due alarms, Beat on the tower, and to its lowest base Shook it convulsed. And now all intercoui-se, By some occult and overruhug power, Ceased among men by utterance they strove, Perplexed and anxious, to disclose their niiud But their Up failed them and in lieu of words. Produced a painful babbling sound the place Was thence called Babel by the apostate crew Named from the event. Then severed far away, They sped uncertain into realms unknown Thus kingdoms rose ; and the glad world was filled. An. Frag. p. all

:

;

:

;

:

Eupolemus owes

its

says,

on the same subject, " The

foundation to those

who

city of

51.

Babylon

were saved from the cata-

strophe of the deluge: they were the giants (of the tribe of

——

235

NOTES.

Ham), and they

tower which

built the

noticed in history.

is

But the tower being overthrown by the Idem,

God,

interposition of

the Giants (or Titans) were scattered over

the

all

earth."

p. 57.

Note H.

p. 78.

" In short," says Macrobius, " that to the power of the sun

be referred the control and supremacy of

by the

theologists,

who make

following short invocation

:

it '

to

things, is indicated

all

evident in the mysteries by the

Oh, all-ruling sun,

world, power of the world, light of the world.' "

Note

is

—

of the

spirit

Sat. lib.

i.

c.

23.

p. 80.

I.

DiODORUS SicuLUS, One of the most veracious and

least preju-

diced of the Greek writers, gives us some insight into the double idolatry, in this explicit account of the

" The Eg}^itians," says he,

(lib.

i.

Eg}^tian

divinities:

cap. 1,) "held, that besides

their heavenly or immortal gods, (the celestial host,) there

who were

other inferior ones, begotten of these gods,

mortal men.

On

account of their Avisdom and benevolence, they

obtained immortality, and were deified.

reigned in Eg}^t.

Some

of

them

These were kings who

retain their

others were called after the heavenly gods.

Saturn, Rhea, Jupiter (surnamed &c., reigned

denominated this, is

in

were

originally

Egypt.

Sol

Ammon),

was the

after the planet of that

and represented Vulcan

to

but

j

Sol (or Helius),

Juno, Vulcan, Vesta, king,

first

name.

own names

Some

have been the

first

and was

so

differed

from

king."

This

superfluous, because Sol, Saturn, -Jupiter, and Vulcan, were

—

230 all

NOTES.

one; being

which

titles

of the chief deity,

—

gods explains

relates to the earthly

That part

the sun.

itself.

excellent writer informs us also, that the Ethiopians

The same

held the same opinions, and

made

the same distinction, as the

Egyptians, respecting their heavenly gods, and the deified mor-

The

tals.

first,

were the sun, moon, &c. ; the second, mortal

men, who, on account of

their virtues

kind, purchased immortal honor. cules,

Lib.

"

and Jupiter,

whom

and

These were

man-

Pan, Her-

Isis,

they regarded as great benefactors.

cap. 1.

iii.

The

Jupiter,

Mercury,

and the whole rabble of

licentious

taught

mystagogue

Bacchus, Venus,

JMars,

them

were only dead mortals,

deities,

passions

that

— subject

and

them

their vices."

in

life

to the

same on

infirmities with themselves; but having been,

other accounts, benefactors to mankind, deified

their benefits to

;

grateful posterity

had

and with their virtues had indiscreetly canonized

— Div. Leg.

vol.

i.

p.

208.

This canonization of their vices was, no doubt, a coiTuption

superinduced on the ancient religion: the contradiction in their character proves this.

The

epistle will be well

the Great

is

known

to the reader

which Alexander

said to have written to his mother;

wherein he

declares, he had extorted from one Leo, a chief priest of the

Egyptian mysteries, that not only the lower popular

divinities,

worshipped by them and adopted by the Greeks, had been originally mortal

men

;

but that the very Dii majorurn gentium,

Jupiter, Saturn, &c., were of the

same earthly

only true in their secondary character.

origin.

This

is

:

237

NOTES.

Note K.

I

HAVE observed

introduced,

new

men

deities:

As an

elsewhere, that

gave the

when

ancestorial worship

was

of their heavenly gods to these

titles

llelius or the

some of

also to

p. 87-

Sun was a name given

his descendants, especially to

instance of this custom,

we have

to

Noah, and

Ham.

the following incrip-

taken from the obelisk of ITeliopolis, the ancient Temple

tion,

of the Sun, in Egypt, preserved by Marcellinus

VERSE THE FIRST. "

The Sun

to

King Rhamestes.

to rule graciously over is

of God,

earth

tlie

is

subject,

by

his

the

He whom

valiant in

might and

battle; to

braver}-.

Sun

loves

Heron, born

truth, the son of

restorer of the Avorld.

King Rhamestes,

is

He whom

the world.

all

Horus the brave, the lover of

chosen

have bestowed upon you

I

the

Sun has

whom

all

the

Rhamestes the

king, the immortal oflfspring of the Sun."

DioDORUS informs

us, that

on one of the

Memphis, there was a sacred

terminated in this manner: " I

altars, in

a temple of

with an inscription which

pillar

am

the eldest son of Cronus,

sprung from the genuine and respectable race of Sous, and

I

am

related to the fountain of day."

Note

The

L.

p.

88.

Cabiritic mysteries were probably instituted for the

same

purpose as that which we have supposed of the other mysteries;

namely, the commemoration of the deliverance of mankind at the deluge.

238

NOTES.

The

Cabiri were looked upon as priests as well as deities.

They were

in nximher three,

—

liaving a king to rule over them.

So says Dr. "Warburton of the mysteries of Eleusis magistrate, entitled

BAHIAET^, This

Eleusinian mysteries

also.

"

A

or King, presided in the title,

given to the president

of the mysteries, was doubtless in ynemory of the Jirst founder."

—Div. Leg. Who this.

vol.

i.

265.

p.

these mysterious characters were

may

be gathered from

" Corybus (for the Cabiri and Corybantcs were the same),

the father and head of the band, was the in the Orphic hymns,

Dionusus."

is

same

as Ilelius; and,

further described with the attribute of

" The Corybantes," says Strabo, " were a kind of

Under the deno-

demons^ the offspring of Helius and Athena.

mination of Cabiri, and the

like,

were included not only a

set

of persons Avho administered to the gods, but the divinities

whom

they worshipped."

From

—An. My.

vol.

iii.

p.

352.

the worship of these three arose the ancient

triad, called

sometimes the Royal, the Fierce (as Bryant thinks from a

They

mistake), and the Sweet Triad.

Japheth;

Noah being regarded

as

Avere

Ham, Shem, and

the king,

the

ruler,

and

founder of the order.

Note M.

So Bryant conceives

p. 90.

the true signification to be.

afieiXtKTO^;, Jio'ce, to

ancient terms, Malech and Malechat, to which lation.

It

the

supposes

it

had no

re-

ought to be, then, that Cronus or Noah was the

founder of the Royal Avith

He

be a Grecian word, formed from the

three

Triad, which will exactly correspond

royal personages

of Orpheus, and the three

kings of other mythologists. Proclus says distinctly that

Nous

is

Cronus, the same also as

;

NOTES. Zeus

:

Nov<: /xev ecrriv 6 Kpovo<; iravTeXwi- Nov<; 8e 6

He

Ixe^iOTO'i Zevi.

Kopovovov<; ;

all;

By

this is

WAS not

title

of

originally

Ruler,

the

—An.

My.

to ]08.

p.

195.

aware, before I found the fact mentioned by Bishop

Warburton, that the god Esculapius was as a rival of Christ.

"

learned writer. the

was

signified the great

Note N.

I

assured,

the

express their

to

in other words, the Patriarch Noah."

100

p.

we may be

which,

Koi.pavo
iii.

trulj/ intelligible;

" Proclus says that Cronus had the

second hypostasis.

head of

this person

calls

employed by the Platonists

very language

vol.

239

We may

ancient heroes

set

up by the pagans

quote here the observations of this

I will

observe, that Esculapius

who were employed, by

the

was one of

defenders of

paganism, to oppose to Jesus; and the circumstances of Esculapius's story

made him

for that purpose.

to the

the

Ovid,

of any, in fabulous antiquity,

fittest

who

lived before these times of danger

pagan gods, and, indeed, before the coming of that

Deliverer

hath yet

who gave occasion to so many impious comparisons, made Ochirroe, in contemplation of his future actions,

prophesy of him in such translator the

strains, as

presented to his excellent

image of the true phi/sician of mankind; and

thereby enabled him to give a sublimity to his version, ^hich

not borrowed from his original. Ergo ubi vaticinos concepit mente

furores,

Incaluitque Deo, quern clausam pcctore habebat Aspicit infautem, totique salutifer orbi

Cresce puer, dixit

:

Coi-pora debebunt

:

tibi se

mortalia ssepe

animas

tibi roddere ademptas Idque semel, dis indignamibus, ausus. Posse dare hoc iterum flarama prohibebere avita : Eque dco Corpus fics exsangue dcusquo, Qui niodo corpus eras, et bis tua fata novabis. Ovin.

Fas

erit.

;

is

;

240

NOTES. Once as the sacred

The God was

And

infant she surveyed,

kindled in the raving maid,

thus she utter'd her prophetic tale

:

" Hail, groat physician of the world, all hail Hail, mi^dity infant, who, in years to come, Shalt heal the nations and defraud the tomb Swift be thy gi-owth, thy triumijhs unconfined; !Make Icingdoms thicker, to increase mankind. Thy daring art shall animate the dead. And draw the thunder on thy guilty head But from the dark abode Tlien shalt tlioii die. Aodison. Rise up victorious, and be twice a God." :

The

Platonists of the

stories of

first

ages of the church forged

many

Pythagoras and others, for the purpose of those im-

pious comparisons referred to by Dr. Warburton.

" lamblichus, in his

life

of Pythagoras, seemingly aware of

the birth of Christ, presumes to say, that

when

the mother of

the Samian philosopher was with child of him, her husband,

being ignorant of her pregnancy, brought her to the Oracle at Delphi, and there the prophetess told

him

the

first

news

of his

wife having conceived, and also, that the child she then went with, should prove the greatest blessing to mankind, &c."

Again said,, in

:

"

The

Platonists,

namely Porphyry and lamblichus,

comparing Christ with Pythagoras,

walked on the

sea,

—because

Christ

Pythagoras rode through the skies; because

Christ had been forty days fasting in the wilderness, Pythagoras

was

forty days without food in the temple of the Muses, at

Mctapontum; because Christ descended

into Hades,

again from the dead, and appeared upon

earth,

and rose

Pythagoras

descended to the shades below, remained there a complete year, saAv

Homer, Hesiod, and other departed

earth, full

wan and

returned upon

spirits;

emaciated, and reported what he had seen in

assembly of his disciples; whilst his mother, by his special

direction, before his descent, registered,

passed, rection:

and noted the times of to can-y

his

upon

tablets, all that

temporary death and resur-

on the competition, he was made

to allay winds.

241

NOTES.

mind

tempests, and earthquakes; to cure diseases, whether of

and

or body;

Avhom he found

to foretell to certain fishermen,

how many

work,

at

they should inclose in their n§i^.&e<"—

fish

Cumberland.

J^^\^^ ^^^ Ot TDK *"

*^

'

•n

XoteO.

JuLiAX

p.

216.

by Dr. Cudworth, and

in his Oration to the Sun, quoted

commented on by him,

says, " This god, whether he ought to

be called that which

above mind and understanding, or the

idea of

all things,

of aU things), or

else, as

uniform cause of

all

perfection, unity

and

intelligible

sun

is

is

or the 07ie (since unity seems to be the oldest

things, the original of all pulchritude

sun, every

but an image."

Plato called him, the goodj I say, this

poAver,

way

and

produced from himself a certain of which the sensible

like himself,

" For thus," says Cudworth, " Dionysius

Peta-vdus rightly declares the sense of Julian iu this Oration

:

Vanissimaj hujus et loquacissim£e disputationis mysterium est;

a principe ac primario Deo, votjtov, quondam

et

solem editum fuisse; qui eandem prorsus a^eaiv

quam

genera rcov vo7]tcov habeat, videmus, Solaris globus obtinet. princeps

ille

in aiaOtjroi^

." .

ra^iv in

illc,

qucm

Tria itaque discemenda sunt,

Deus, qui Tayadov a Platone

r]\io
archetvpum et

.

— Vol.

ii.

dicitur, 6 vo7)TO
cap. 4. p. 34.

Upon this Cudworth takes the opportunity to put forward his own views of the theology of Plato, and says, " We may take notice how near this Pagan philosopher and emperor Julian approached to Christianity;" namely as regards the doctrine of the Trinity. self? so that

This

is,

But was not Julian

at one time a Christian

him-

he could not be ignorant of the Christian doctrine.

however, en passant; and has no

on the above passage.

Let us

briefly

effect

examine

on it.

Q

my judgment

"

^/

242

NOTES.

The language of Julian would

1.

was

one whether

all

hut

good;

Ave

his

call

he meant

if

lead us to suppose, that

god the

idea, the one, or the

an exposition of Plato's

to he

this

it

we must,

opinions (which seems to he the case),

consistently

Avith truth, and in justice to the divine philosopher himself,

dissent from this confusion

and commingling of ideas perfectly

There can he no cpestion, that Plato, as well as

distinct.

God from the Idea. Nor am I that God produced an intelligible

Timajus, clearly distinguished

aware that Plato ever said idea from himself, as

Julian represents

The

it.

ideas Avere

supposed to he eternal. 2.

The

Idea, namely, the intelligible Avorld, being something

sui generis distinct from

God, according

viewed as one and the same,

it

is

to Plato; if they are

clear the idea could not then

be that archet}^3)al Avorld, maintained by the Platonists. 3.

The

creation, or rather the generation, of the sensible

after the image of the intelligible,

is

but hoAv could either CudAvorth or Petavius of believing the latter to be the divine be, AA

The

?

intelligible

fall

into the error

intellect, since it

by the premises, a part of the archetypal

hole

sun

the genuine philosophy;

Avorld,

can only

and not the

sun cannot contain more than

itself;

nor can the sensible contain more than the images of the forms or ideas in the intelligible. objects in the universe ? ing, to

What

They

become, then, of

by

are represented,

all

other

this reason-

be external to the divine intellect, deduced from Julian's

intelligible sun.

If this argument of CudAVorth's be admitted, that Ave

must come

it

is

manifest

to the conclusion of the later Platonists, so

strongly reprobated by him, for holding that the genuine philo-

sophy made every tAvo AATiters above,

intelligible idea to

be a god: according to the

each idea becomes a diAdne

Let us be just to Julian. Petavius and CudAvorth.

This error

is

intellect.

not

his,

but that of

243

NOTES.

Note

Dr. Cudworth, with the

P.

p.

218.

making everything subser-

desire of

vient to his hypothesis of an ancient trinity,

when he

unnecessary refinement, Cronus, Jupiter, &c., and conceives

to

Numen.

He

chief deity,

be so

tries to reconcile

many

co-equal

did not perceive

—the

sun.

is

takes those

Saturn,

titles,

and reduce what he to

deities,

them

surely guilty of

one universal

mere

to be

titles

of the

Probably he followed in the wake of

Plato, who. in his Cratylus,

was

so far culpable of the

Greek

custom, that while he acknowledges, in one sentence, the words

whose etymology he

is

attempting to discover, to be of foreign

extraction, in another he forgets this truth, and, in spite of his

o^vn confession, tries to deduce the original meaning of certain foreign words,

Who

ones.

cedure

same one it

by supposing them

Yet the whole of

?

fallacy.

Xumen

thus: that

to be

compounds of Grecian

can place any confidence in such a mode of pro-

" Plato,

from Cudworth,

this,

who propounds

rests

on the

this difiiculty (of

making

out of Jupiter, Saturn, &c.) in his Cratylus, solves

by Jupiter, here

to

is

be understood the soul of

the world, which, according to his theology, was derived from a perfect

and eternal mind, or

intellect

(which Cronus

is

inter-

preted to be) as Cronus also depended upon Uranus, or Coelus, the supreme heavenly God, or

first

original

So that

Deity.

Plato here finds his Trinity of Divine hj-postases, archical and universal,

T'ayadov, Novi, and

Wvj(ri,

and Zeus; or Coelus, Saturn, and Jupiter

THE END.

.

in Uranus, .

."

— Vol.

Cronus,

ii.

p.

461.

London:

John W. Parkbb,

St. Martin's

Lane.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

BERKELEY Return This book

is

to desk

DUE

from which borrowed. I

on the

last

I^AY 3

1963

948

H

24Apr'59DF

;.-28'49.GB

-5

date stamped below.

-^

I;

LD r.rcD —

,

.

•

>-*

APR l4

1959

REC'D LD

UBR^RVUSEf3

RECD UD

OCT i

9 ^9S9

REC'P LD

LD

21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476

P

0'64-5PM

24JuV65Ws

^^1

I

Vw

I

V.'

r

^

I

I

tr^N

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY