ring knowledge; and as it is otherwife unaccountable whence he received his notions of a Trinity? Was it from other Philofophers? From whom did they derive their knowledge of it? Either from imagination, or from tradition. The first is improbable, according to the opinion both of the orthodox, and of Dr P. They grant that this doctrine is above the line of human reafon. He fuppofes it to be directly contradictory. If so, is it rational to suppose, that fuch men as Plato, who, it will be granted, in other inftances fpoke in a very fublime manner of the divine nature, would of themselves devife a doctrine so abfurd as this is faid to be? While all the nations around held fuch a multiplicity of gods, that the Greeks themselves, so early as Hefiod's age, are said to have had no less than thirty thoufand, how can it be accounted for, that Plato, while he in some sense held the divine Unity, should stumble upon the number three?

Is it faid, that he moft probably had this doctrine from tradition? Where then had he this tradition? In the Eaft, furely, whither Plato, and other Philofophers before him, travelled. And whence did it originate? Certainly, from the remains of primitive Revelation, or from intercourse with the Hebrews, whofe facred writings are undoubtedly more ancient than thofe of any other people. Can it be fuppofed that Plato travelled into the Eaft for the exprefs purpose of acquiring knowledge, and never once heard of those most ancient of all writings; efpecially when the Jews were at this time difperfed through fo many countries? Is it fuppofable, that if he heard of them, he would not wish to learn fomething of their contents? Can we entertain such an opinion of one who was at fo much pains to be initiated into the Egyptian myfteries? Besides, is it not certain that other Philofophers before him brought the fame opinions from the Eaft?

But why fhould we multiply proofs? We have the confeffion of Plato himself, that this Philofophy was not the

1

fruit

και

fruit of his own reflection, but partly derived from ancient tradition. Nay, he materially acknowledges, that he derived it from the Jews. He fays, "This ftory of one and "many (i, xaι Toλ) is a tradition which the ancients who "were better, and lived nearer the Gods than we, tranf"mitted to us *." He afferts, that the safest and most certain way of proving the immortality of the foul, is da Xoyas BITOS" by fome divine word or tradition t." He acknowledges, that "the first institution of letters was from the Gods, by certain Barbarians;" that " he and the rest of "the Greeks received their choiceft traditions and learning "from certain Barbarians more ancient than themselves ;" and that they gave a better form to what they thus re"ceived t." He speaks of a Phenician fable, respecting the fraternity "of all men not out of the earth ||;" which undoubtedly refers to the formation of Adam. He alfo mentions" Syrian fables."

66

It is well known that the Greeks called all other nations Barbarians. Bochart feems juftly to conclude, that Herodotus speaks of the Jews under the name of Phenicians. For he says, that "certain Phenicians came from the coast "of the Red fea." On this Jofephus makes the following obfervations; "This writer appears to be certain that the Sy"rians of Palestine are circumcifed. Now, the fact is, that "in Palestine, the Jews only are circumcised; and as "he is pofitive in his affertion, what he fays refpecting this "circumstance can refer to no other people §." Xenophon alfo teftifies that the Jews were called Syrians **.

Is it inquired, why Plato did not actually name the Jews? Many reafons might be given; among which that already mentioned

B 4

• Philebus, p. 17. ap. Gales Court of the Gentiles, p. 2. b. 3. c. 2.

Phaedo, p. 85. ib.

De Republ. lib. 3. ib.

Cratylus. 426. ib.

Vid. Jofeph. cont. Apion, 1. i. Bocharti Phaleg. 1. 4. c. 34.

** Ap. Gale. párt 1, b. 1. c. 4.

mentioned is one. Being neighbours of the Phenicians, who were fo univerfally known by their extenfive commerce, and also of the Syrians; they were spoken of under' these names which were more familiar to ftrangers. Origen* gives another reafon; that, because of the peculiarity of their religion, and feparation from the rest of mankind, the Jews were fo hated by other nations, that Plato might think it impolitic exprefsly to mention their name, left it might expofe the doctrines which he had derived from them to contempt.

But Plato was not the only Philofopher who borrowed from the Jews. Pythagoras undoubtedly did the fame. Hermippus, who writes his life, affirms that he "tranfla"ted many of the Jewish Laws into his own Philofophy." Diogenes Laertius fays, that "he went to the Hebrews.” The fame is attefted by Strabo and Porphyry, and by Ariftobulus the Jew t. Jofephus also afferts, that "many "of the cuftoms of the Jews are incorporated into the "Philofophy of Pythagoras t." Clearchus, a difciple of Ariftotle, declares that he faw a Jew, with whom his mafter had often converfed, according to the words which he afcribes to Ariftotle; "equally to the gratification and "improvement of those who could relish the happiness of "fuch a conversation ||." It is also afferted by various writers, that Pherecydes, who is supposed to have been the preceptor of Pythagoras, was much indebted to the Jews.

Socinians ftill feem to speak of Plato, as if he had been the first Philofopher who broached the doctrine of a Trinity. But there is undoubted evidence that it was known to the heathen, many ages before him. His own difciple Plotinus thus expreffes himself on this fubject: "That these "doctrines are not new, nor of yesterday, but have been

very anciently delivered, though obfcurely (the difcourfes "now extant being but explanations of them) appears from "Plato's own writings; Parmenides before him having in“fisted on them *." Again; "Parmenides also agreed in "this acknowledgment of a Trinity of divine or archical hypoftafes +." As many learned men are of opinion that the Tetractys, by which it is faid, Pythagoras used to fwear, was nothing but the Tetragrammaton or name of four letters, of which he had received fome account from the Jews; it is alfo afferted that he held a Trinity of divine hypoftafes, and therefore fpoke of God fometimes as a monad, sometimes as a mind, and fometimes as the foul of the world 1. Thence Jamblichus fays in Proclus, that there "were three Gods alfo praised by the Pythagoreans ||."

It is clear that Orpheus afferted a Trinity, under the names of Phanes, Uranus and Chronus, one of these he called weaToyoros Ctos, the firft begotten God. Wolfius afferts from Damafcius, that Orpheus introduced a triform deity §. "Timotheus the chronographer affirms that Orpheus had "long ago declared, that all things were made by a co-ef"fential or consubstantial Trinity **." He ufes the three names, Light, Counfel and Life; and afferts that by these three all things were made. He alfo fpeaks of the Divine. Word, and recommends a fixed adherence to it +t.

There were likewife feveral hints of a Trinity in the Egyptian doctrines. Jamblichus informs us, that according to the Hermaic Theology, there was "firft an indivifible “unity called Eicton; secondly a perfect Mind, understand"ing himself, and converting his cogitations into him"felf, called Emeph, or Cneph; and thirdly, the im"mediate

Plotin. En. 5. b. 1. ap. Cudworth's Intellectual System, p. 546

Cudworth, p. 373.

Ibid. 386. 5 Wolf. Excerpt. ex Damafc. Anec. Graec. tom. iii. p. 252.

** Cedrenus ap. Cud. 304.

[] Ibid. 547.

Kidder's Demonftration, P. 3. p. 124

"mediate principle of generation, called by feveral names "according to its feveral powers, as Phtha, Ammon, "Ofiris." As Cneph was fometimes reprefented with an egg coming out of his mouth, Eufebius, on the teftimony of Porphyry, fays, that the egg denoted the world, "crea"ted by the eternal Logos +."

The Perfian Mithras, faid by his worshippers to be the father and maker of all things, was commonly called τριπλασιος threefold. Plutarch obferves that Oromafdes "thrice augmented or triplicated himself t." In the Oracles afcribed to Zoroafter, it is faid that the Father perfected all things and delivered them to the second Mind, whom the nations of men commonly take for the firft. In a Chaldaic oracle cited by Proclus, there is mention of a third hy. poftafis under the name of Pfyche. This, Pletho fays, they alfo called Arimanius. In one of these Oracles, the paternal Monad novas is faid to be enlarged, and to generate two. Mention is alfo made of the Duad and Triad: and it is afferted that "all things ferve these three principles ." Inanother it is faid §; "In all the world there ||." "fhines a Trinity, of which an Unity is the head **.”

Plutarch teftifies that Zoroafter made a threefold diftribution of things; that he affigned the firft and highest rank of them to Oromafdes, who, in the oracles, is called the Father; the loweft to Arimanes, and the middle to Mithras, who in the fame oracles is likewife called the fecond Mind ++. That Sanchoniathon, the Phenician, borrows from the books of Mofes, feems undeniable. In his account of creation, he speaks of the operation of a wind or fpirit on the Chaos. He attributes the production of our first parents

Jamblichus de Myfter. Aegypt. fec. 8. c. 3. ap. Cud. 354.

† Praep. Evan. L. 3. c. 11. Cud. 352. Plutarch de Ifid. et Ofir. Cud. 287. Kidder, p. 3. 128.

§ Π ντι γας εν κόσμω λάμπει τρίας, ἧς **Leflic's Socin. Contr. Dial. 1. p. 43.

Μόνας ἀρχει.

†† Plutarch, ubi fup.