THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For DECEMBER 1791.

ART. I. The Philofophy of Ancient Greece investigated; in its Origin and Progrefs, to the Eras of its greatest celebrity, in the Ionian, Italic, and Athenian Schools: with Remarks on the delineated Systems of their Founders; and fome Account of their Lives and Characters, and thofe of their most eminent Difciples. By Walter Anderfon, D.D. 4to. PP. 585. 11. 55. Boards. Nicol, &c. 1791.

IN

N adventuring on the difcuffion of a fubject, which has employed fome of the ableft pens in all learned countries, Dr. Anderson thinks it incumbent on him to make the following apology, in his fhort preface:

The fubject of the following fheets has been treated, either in whole or in part, by the learned in almost every country of Europe. As curious in itself, and admitted to be a requifite branch of literary education, it has employed the pens of feveral English authors of the last and prefent century; while none of them, excepting Mr. Stanley, have wrote profeffedly upon the subject, and fo much at large, as fome foreign authors have done. We have, indeed, feveral valuable tracts upon it, fuch as the learned Cudworth has given, and other detached pieces, or compends, of the Philofophy of the Ancient Grecian Schools. But, as thefe productions, whatever their merit be, are scattered in fundry books, fome of them more, and fome lefs known to the public, there appeared ftill to be wanting a work, containing an entire and connected view of the copious fubject; without excluding from it, as Mr. Stanley has done, the birth of the Grecian Philofophy, in the ages of the earliest poets. From the neglect or fuppreffion of this part of the fubject, the entrance to it, befide being abrupt, is deficient in a curious and inAtructive point of information, refpecting the first and early traces of Literature and Philofophy, among a people fo diftinguished as the Greeks became, by their gradual progreis, and fignal advancement in both.

By this remark, the author of the fubfequent publication would not be understood to derogate from the just reputation which Mr. Stanley's work has obtained, at home and abroad. Criticifm REV. DEC. 1791.

Сс

of

of it, by an English writer upon the fame fubject, muft appear partial, or invidious. To his extenfive researches into ancient authors, and his proper felection of them, as vouchers, every fuch writer muft, in fome measure, be obliged; and the author of the prefent performance readily acknowledges inftruction, in feveral points of difficulty, received from them: yet, here, he must be allowed to observe in what refpect his work varies much from that of Mr. Stanley. In the scheme of it, place is given to remarks upon the reasoning employed by the most eminent of the Grecian philofophers, in fupport of their phyfical, theological, and moral fyftems. A fuller, and more connected difplay of their theories and arguments, is alfo ftudied. The frigidity of their bare details is, often, relieved by the interfperfed obfervations. Where the principles or tenets are of impious, or immoral tendency, they undergo more particular difcuffions. The propriety of fubjoining fuch confutations of their fpecious, but futile arguments, has been attended to by most of the foreign compilers of the Grecian Philofophy; but in Mr. Stanley's performance, no caution of this kind is ufed. The omiffion of it, when confidered, appears an unfuitable, and faulty one; and what, in refpect of the impreffions which fallacious arguments may make on the minds of novices in philosophical reasoning, was not to be repeated, but corrected, in the prefent publication.

But with what ability, extent of knowledge, and tafte in literary study, the following work is executed, the competent judges of that erudition, of which it prefents a copy at large, may, on a candid perufal, decide. Yet, whatever that judgment be, the author confiders the acknowledgment of his aim, and endeavours, in the performance, to fupport and illuftrate the just principles of theology and morals, in oppofition to their contraries, to be of fuch peculiar importance, that any feparate approbation it may be allowed to have, cannot be deemed of equal value, in itfelf, or be alike respected by the public.'

The objection, which Dr. Anderfon makes to Mr. Stanley's work, is certainly of fufficient weight to juftify his own undertaking. It may be faid, indeed, that this objection does not apply to Brucker; who, in delineating the fyflems of ancient philofophers, frequently interpofes his own opinions: but the defign of the learned German is far more extenfive than that of Dr. A.; and his copious, and often prolix, work, which has been recently fo well tranflated, and fo ably methodized, by Dr. Enfield, was ftill confined to the use of the Latin reader.

The prefent work is divided into nine parts, treating, 1. Of the Seven Sages of Greece. 2. Of Pythagoras. 3. Of the Atomical Philofophy and the Sophifts. 4. Of Socrates,

* In a work recently published; of which we shall speedily give fome account.

Ariftippus,

Ariftippus, the Cyrenaics, and Cynics. 5. Of Plato. 6. Of Ariftotle. 7. Of Arcefilas, and the Middle Academy. 8. Of Epicurus. 9. Of Zeno, and the Stoics. From this plentiful banquet, we fball felect, as fpecimens, Dr. Anderson's account of two of the moft difputed points in the philofophy of Plato and Ariftotle, the two greatest philofophers of antiquity.

The first paffage relates to a queftion, which the dogmatifts and heretics of our own times have fiercely and rancorously agitated; and which Dr. A. treats with laudable moderation:

The point to be confidered is, Whether the Grecian philofopher may be understood, from the import of fome paffages in his dialogues and epiftles, to have entertained fome notion of a Trinity of perfons in the divine nature, confonant to what is revealed in the facred feripture, and embraced as an article of the Chriftian faith? In ftating this question, it is, in the first place, to be observed, that feveral of the early fathers of the Chriftian church, fuch as Juftin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eufebius, afcribe to Plato a theological doctrine, either much the fame with, or moft fimilar to that of the Chriftian Trinity. As a foundation for this opinion, the great fpeculative principles upon which the philofopher builds his theological and physical fyftem, and that have been called the Ternary of Plato, were referred to by them. What has been shown, both in the dialectic and phyfical part of his philofophy, may prove, indeed, how all things that exift, are reduced by him, and comprehended, under three principles. In the abftrufe reafoning in the Parminedes, there is faid to be, One, without any thing; One, which is feveral things; and, One, and feveral things. Equivalent to thefe, in the Timaeus, are ftated, Deity, Idea, Matter; to which corresponds the triple fyftem of the universe, the intellectual world, the intelligent, or rational, and the visible. Nor is this all the ground upon which Plato is reprefented as a Trinitarian, In more distinct proof of the allegation, fome paffages, in which he ufes metaphyfical expreffions, are adduced. When he calls the Deity, the Eternal King, and Father of all things, and the world produced by him, bis fon, his λoyos, or word of wisdom made manifeft, the fenfible image of his understanding and power, and the mirror reflecting the rays of his otherwife incomprehenfible divinity, his meaning, in thefe expreffions, taken in connection with what is clearly delivered by him in his epiftle to Hermias, is referable, fay they, to a first incorporeal and animating principle, declared to be the adorned foul of the world, and having personality: For there Plato recommends a folemn adjuration, by the God, the conductor of all things, prefent and future, and by the Father God of that conductor, and their caufe.

It may be here afked by fome, Why fo refpectable a number of the Christian theologifts chofe, from fuch paffages in Plato, to maintain, that the facred mystery of the Trinity, acknowledged to be only revealed in the fcriptures, might yet be fo well known to the learned of the heathen world, as to be interwoven with their theories of the univerfe; and how the caufe of Chriftianity could be

advanced by holding this opinion? From what is intimated in their writings, it appears, that they had a special inducement for adopting this controvertible, and otherwife, perhaps, unneceffary affertion. The doctrine of the Trinity being impugned by fome of the philofophers as implying a plurality of Gods, or inconfiftent with the unity of the Deity, it feemed a ready, and no improper way of removing this objection, to fhow, that fome of the wifeft of the philofophers, fuch as Pythagoras, Zeno, Cleanthes, and especially Plato, who afferted the principle of a one eternal and undivided deity, did yet, in the contemplations of his nature, exprefs themfelves in terms analogous to thofe ufed by the Chriftians, and underflood in the fenfe of there being three perfons in the divine nature. In confequence of this argument, they endeavoured not only to find in the Ternary of Plato a reprefentation of the Trinity, but to prove that he, and other philofophers, could not have approached fo near to the difcovery of this facred truth as they do in their works, without fome knowledge of the Mofaic fcriptures, or other infpired prophetical writings, under the Jewith difpenfation. In fupport of the laft point, it is well known, that Jofephus's authority is chiefly appealed to; and that the vouchers quoted by him, Clearchus, Ariftaeus, and Hermippus, as authors of credit, are much called in queftion. Among the moderns, however, the argument has been taken up, and profecuted with great difplay of ancient erudition, by Auguftinus Steuchus, Marfilius Ficinus, and Joannes Picus de Mirandola, and, more lately, by Voffius and Bochart.

When we con

Upon this learned controverfy, the note here introduced cannot expatiate, and much lefs can it pretend to decide. fider, that in molt of the fpeculations formed by philofophers, concerning this valt univerfe, as having a beginning, and being produced by a firft caufe; the obvious, and marked perfections of that Deity would be, and have, in reality, been, his goodness, his wisdom, his power; and that, in his motive to create, the firit would be apparent; in his orderly, and fuitable arrangement of all things, the fecond; and, in his conftant prefervation and maintenance of them, the third; it may be contended, that the coincidence (fo far as it may be reckoned fuch) of the Platonic Ternary with the revealed doctrine of the Trinity, is rather to be accounted accidental, than derived from traditional authority, and that, too, referable to the Mofaic, or fcriptural antiquities. When it cannot be truly affirmed, that Plato deviated from what appears to have been the received courfe of philofophifing, which generally proceeded upon the affumption of two original principles; whence refulted a third; the opinion, that he took his statement of three principles, not from this common theory, but from tradition, may be deemed a precipitate and arbitrary one.

Upon the other fide of the argument, if it be infifted upon, as a f. Et, that he advanced this theory, as he found it in the Pythagorean fyftem, it must be confeffed that a difficulty arifes, fufficient to restrain decifion in the question: For, notwithstanding all that may be faid about the improbability, that either Pythagoras or Plato, would feek for, or meet with any philofophic or theological information

information amongst a people, in fuch humble circumftances as the Jews, there is ftill reafon to adhere to what has been before remarked upon this topic, that, with regard to the early philofophers, who travelled into foreign countries, for instruction and knowledge of every kind, this confideration did not operate; and that, as to the difficulty of conceiving how any fpeculative and abftrufe doctrine could be tranfmitted, from one nation to another, without the groffeft mistakes, it is to be remembered, that, as amongst the Egyptians, fo, amongst other nations, this was done by means of fymbols, more than by writing; and hence the curious investigation of the former in all refearches into ancient knowledge. If it be faid, that the Jews, whofe divine law laid them under a folemn prohibition of fenfible reprefentations of the Deity, could have no facred fymbols; and that, accordingly, nothing of this kind was known amongst them, but the ineffable name; it may be afked, Did the veneration of their law hinder them from the breaches of it, and falling into acts of idolatry; or, are we to believe that their learned Rabbis never did, in imitation of other nations, prefume to fymbolife? The contrary will be acknowledged; and that they early attempted it in their manner of writing the most holy name. Their conftant concealment of this from inquifitive ftrangers is not credible; efpecially, when liable, in their captivities, to be fcorned as a people deftitute of fpeculative knowledge. The Affyrians and Egyptians muft, therefore, have had special information of their theology and antiquities; and whether Plato, who, as well as Pythagoras, was a diligent collector of foreign theology and fcience, had not met with fome traditions, or writings, of a Cofmogony, nearly refembling, if not the fame with the fcriptural one of Mofes, may be remitted to the judgment of every unbiaffed perufer of the Timaeus; when he reads, That the one and good formed the caleflial and fublunary Spheres, making a divifion between them; that be faw that his work was good, and had pleafure in it; and, after attending to the compofition of man, that he refled in himself; and these are not the only fimilitudes.

To conclude the argument, although not to determine in it; May we not fay with reafon, that feveral of the heathen philofophers were led, not cafually, but partly from moral reasons, and partly upon traditional grounds, to the acknowledgement of three principles, or original caufes of all things, which were erroneously and abfurdly conceived by them, and in no explication reconcileable with the revealed doctrine of the Trinity; yet, that their fumbling upon the verge of a facred truth might, providentially, be made fubfervient to its proper difcovery in due time, and to have the effect of preparing men's minds for its reception? Convinced from the revelation of it, the moft intelligent of them might be, that, as the works of God, in the natural world, could not, in their production, contrivance, and extent, be fully understood by them, and, as the human frame itself was, in feveral refpects, unintelligible, and a mystery, much more muft the divine nature and effence be myfterious, and have a veil, through which fuch limited conceptions as the human cannot clearly penetrate.' (P. 290-294.)

Cc 3

The