nity of divine hypoftafes all together."_ From this, one would expect at least fomething like the Athanafian doctrine of three perfons in one God. But all that I can learn from Plato in this epifle is as follows: Sending his letter to a great distance, and apprehensive of the poffibility of its not reaching the perfon to whom it was addreffed, he fays, that he had written fo obfcurely, that only Dionyfius himself could understand it. "All things are about the

king of all, and all things are, for the fake "of him, and he is the author of every

thing that is fair and good; but the se"cond about the fecond, and the third “about the third. The mind of man may "ftretch itself to learn what these things

are, looking at thofe which resemble "them. of which none do it fufficiently; "but with respect to the king, and the

things of which I fpeak, there is nothing "like them *."

* Περι τον παγίων βασιλεα πανί εσι, και εκείνο ενέκα παρία, καὶ έκεινο αίτιο απαγίων τω καλών, δεύτερον δε περι τα δεύτερα, και τρίτον περι τα τρία, η εν ανθρώπινα ψυχή, περι αυλα ορεγεται, μαθει ποι αλλα ετι βλέπεσα εις τα αύλης συγγενής, ων υδεν ικανως εχει . τα δε βασι NEWS WEP, WY ENTTON, DEV ESI TOITO. Epift. ad Dionyfium 2. p. 670.

This

This is Dr. Cudworth's trinity of divine hypoftafes, and it is certainly as obfcure as any doctrine of the trinity needs to be. Plato himself, or Dionyfius, can alone explain it to us. I imagine, however, that, in this dark manner, he might refer to one or other of the ternaries above mentioned, viz. the fupreme Being, his ideas, and the visible world, or the fupreme Being, the vifible world, and primeval matter.

Again, the Doctor fays, p. 406. " in "other places of his" (Plato's) "writings, "he frequently afferts above the self-moving "pfyche, an immoveable and standing ves, or

66

intellect, which was properly the Demiur

gus, or architectonic framer of the whole "world." But it has appeared, that according to Plato, the fupreme Being hinfelf, whom he ftiles the good, was the Demiurgus with refpect to every thing that is immortal and perfect, and that not his vas, but those other created immortal beings, were the makers of man, and all other mortal and imperfect creatures. As to the many paffages in the writings of Plato, which he fays, teach the contrary doctrine, I can only

fay,

66

offspring." The former, viz. idea, he defines to be " fomething unbegotten, im"moveable, and abiding, intelligible, and "the pattern of things that are produced "and changeable *."

Afterwards, having faid that matter is eternal, he fays "there are two oppofite

66

principles, idea, which may be compared "to the male, or the father, and matter to "a female, or the mother, and the third." he adds, "is the offspring of thefet," meaning nature. This is in reality the whole of Plato's fyftem, and delivered with greater clearness than he has done it himfelf; and we fee that, in effect, it is the doctrine of one God, who made all things out of uncreated matter, from patterns of things exifting in his own mind.

* Τα δε ξυμπανία, ιδεαν, ύλαν, αισθήλον τε, οιον έκγονον τελεων . το μεν, είμεν αγενατον τε καὶ ακιναῖον, καὶ μενον τε, καὶ τας, ταύίω φυσιος νοαῖον τε καὶ παράδειγμα των γεννωμένων, έκασα εν μέλα ξύλα Evit. De Anima Mundi, in Gale's Opufcula Mythologica, P. 514.

Δυο ων αιδε αρχαι

+ Ταυλαν δε ταν ύλαν αιδίον μεν εφα. εναιιαι εντι αν το μεν είδος λόγον έχει αξξενος τε καὶ παῖρος· α δ' υλα, θήλεος τε και μαλερος ο τρίτα δε ειμεν τα εκ τείων εκγονα.

Ibid.

P. 5:5

That

That Plato borrowed from Timæus we fee in his copying his very phrafeology. For he fays that, "the origin of the world " is mixed, being produced from the conjunction of neceffity and mind, nous*." He alfo fays "we muft diftinguish two "causes of things, the one neceffary, the "other divine." Nothing could be more exactly copied.

* Μεμιγμένη γαρ εν η τάδε κοσμο γενεσις, εξ ανάγκης τε καὶ νε usaσews Eyemen. Timæus, Opera, p. 533. Ed. Gen:

Η Διο δή χρη δυο αιλιας ειδη διορίζεσθαι το μεν, αναγκαιον: το JE, GELOV. Ibid. p. 542.

CHAPTER VII.

A View of the Principles of the later Platonifis.

THOSE who are ufually called the later Platonifts, were thofe philofophers, chiefly of Alexandria, who, a little before, and after the commencement of the chriftian æra, adopted the general principles of Plato, but not without incorporating with them those of other philofophers, so that theirs was not an abfolutely pure and unmixed platonism. However, in their notions concerning God, and the general fyftem of things, they aimed at this, pretending only to interpret the meaning of Plato, and to reafon from his principles, though their refinements have only ferved to make the fyftem more mysterious and abfurd.

SEC