Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

"his archetypal patterns, produces forms *." Dr P.'s tranflation, in confequence of the word apxeTuwa being overlooked, would naturally lead the reader to suppose that the patterns meant by Philo were fenfible, that they were fome external works of the Father. Our author could not be a stranger to the fenfe in which the Jew ufes the term archetypal. For he has quoted different paffages in which it occurs, as exprefsly fignifying what is merely intellectual, in contradiftinction to objects of fenfe. Thus he introduces Philo as faying, that "the intelligible and incor"poreal world is the archetype of that which is visible, consisting of invisible ideas, as this does of visible bodies †.” The ancient writer fuppofes thefe archetypal patterns to be in the Logos himself, as he is the image of the Father ‡. En evidently fignifies fenfible forms or vifible objects, as opposed to patterns merely ideal. Thus, the whole work of creation is afcribed immediately to the Logos.

Dr P's tranflation makes the language felf-contradictory. For if Philo had meant that the Word merely reduced the works of his Father into form, it would never have been faid that he "imitated his ways." Had this been the cafe, these works must still have been in an undigefted state. How could he "observe the patterns" of the Father, when all things are fuppofed to have been without form and void?

Did it seem neceffary, I might mention a great variety of paffages, which clearly prove that Philo afcribes the whole of creation to the Logos. But it may fuffice to refer to a former quotation, in which this matter is set in the cleareft light. There he afferts that "the creative "power is God, by which he, who is, founded and adorned "the universe."

VOL. I.

B

CHAP.

* Ο γεννηθείς μεντοι μιμημένος τας τε πατρος οδες, προς παράδειγ ματα αρχέτυπα εκείνα βλέπων, εμορφα ειδη. De Confus. Ling. p. 258.

† Ear. Opin. vol. ii. p. 6.

De Mundi Opificio, p. 3.

[blocks in formation]

That Philo did not borrow from Plato, in perfonifying the Logos; and that Plato was not the Inventor of this Doctrine.

66

UT what avails," may it be faid, "the teftimony of Philo, as it is known that he was tinctured with Pla"tonic philofophy?" Indeed, this is the fum of Dr P's objection. "It has been obferved that after the transla. "tion of the Old Teftament into Greek,-in confequence "of which the Jewish religion became better known to "the Greeks, and especially to the philofophers of Alexan"dria, the more learned of the Jews had recourse to an "allegorical method of interpreting what they found to be "most objected to in their facred writings, and by this 66 means pretended to find in the books of Mofes, and the Prophets, all the great principles of the Greek philofophy, and especially that of Plato which at that time was "most in vogue. In this method of interpreting Scripture, "Philo, a learned Jew of Alexandria, far excelled all who "had gone before him *."

66

This objection hath been formerly made, and hath been fully answered by different writers, particularly by the learned Bp. Kidder +. But it is common with the disciples of Socinus to reply to the answers given to their objections, merely by bringing them forth anew, with as much form and importance, as if they had never made their appearance before. But till they fhew the infufficiency of answers already given, little more is requifite than, after their own example, although with far more propriety, to give the fubftance of what hath been advanced by former writers. According to an ordinary rule, Affirmanti incum

Hift. Cor. vol. i. p. 23.
Demonstration, Part iii. p. III. 112.

bit

bit probatio. But there is not a fhadow of evidence offered in fupport of this mighty objection. Can one proof be brought from Philo, that he really borrowed the doctrine of a Trinity, or of the Logos, from Plato? On the contrary, does he not all along fupport thefe doctrines by teftimonies from the Law and the Prophets? He produces no expreffions from Plato, in support of this article of his creed. He would very naturally have adopted this plan in order to fhew the conformity of the one to the other, had he fo earneftly wished to affimilate the fcriptural to the Platonic doctrine. To fuppofe that one author hath borrowed from another, merely because of some general conformity of doctrine, or fimilarity of particular modes of expreffion, efpecially when he exprefsly calls in a third, and owns this as his authority, is unfair; and to affert it, is to beg what ought to be proved.

This exception to the testimony of Philo would be more plaufible, were he the only Jewish writer who had ufed fuch expreffions. But it will appear, not only that the Paraphrafts used the same language, but that they had the same fentiments with Philo. Dr P. indeed, overthrows this objection by his own conceffion. He acknowledges that Philo "made a much more fubftantial perfonification of "the divine Logos than any of the proper Platonifts had "done"." Now, as we know the firm perfuafion of the Jews concerning the unity of God, although we fhould fuppofe one of that nation tinctured with heathenish ideas; his motive for carrying them farther than heathens themselves is abfolutely inconceivable. Certainly, it is moft natural to think, that he would not have gone the fame lengths with them, unless he had been fully convinced that the avowed principles of his nation allowed him to carry these ideas as far as he hath actually done.

B 2

The

*Ear. Opin. vol. ii. p. 17.

The objection, indeed, seems to fall by its own weight. It has great appearance of self-contradiction. For it is afferted," that the Jews had recourfe to an allegorical method "of interpreting what they found to be most objected to in "their facred writings." But from the connection, it certainly must be inferred that "what was most objected to" was that which they, in the event, interpreted allegorically, and what, ccording to this method of interpretation, contained"all the great principles of the Greek philofo“phy, and especially that of Plato." But will our author pleafe to thew, how that could be moft objected to, which might be interpreted as having the greatest affinity to the Philofophy which was most in vogue? Did the Platonists misunderstand the Scriptures, fo far, as especially to object to those paffages which, when explained by a Jew, approached most nearly to their own fyftem? This favours very much of mystery. The learned Gentleman muft certainly find a more fatisfying reason for the recourse which the Jews are faid to have had "to an allegorical method of interpreting." But the fact is; he wishes that interpretation to be confidered as allegorical which is ftrictly literal; and is, therefore, under a neceflity of framing a reason for the pretended change. Any one who takes the most fuperficial view of the writings of Philo muft obferve, that he not only allegorizes, but that he often obfcures a subject, abundantly clear of itself, by the intemperate use of allegory. He frequently indulges this humour in the defcriptions which he gives of the Logos. But we are not thence to conclude that his very exhibition of him as a perfon was a mere allegory. On the fame ground might the perfonality of the Father be denied.

[ocr errors]

But fo far is it from being true that Jewish writers borrowed from Plato, that there is the greateft reafon to believe the very reverfe. The Doctor himself confeffes, that "as

"Plato

"Plato had travelled into the Eaft, it is probable that he there learned the doctrine of divine emanations, and his "ideas of the origin of this vifible fyftem *.

As it is granted that Plato "travelled into the East," it is also known that he went into Egypt. This is mentioned by Apuleius, a heathen writer and one of his difciples. Plato, he says, went thither, "that he might learn the rites of the prophets +." Numenius the Pythagorean calls Plato "Mofes Atticifing" or "fpeaking Greek t." Ariftobulus, a Jewish writer, fays; "It is plain, that Plato follow"ed our law, and that he diligently ftudied the several "parts of it ||." Jofephus alfo afferts that Plato especially imitated Mofes §. The fame is affirmed by Christian writers. Clemens Alexandrinus obferves, that "Plato was acquainted with prophecy ;" and that he "derived his philofophy from the Jews." He even calls him "the He"brew Philofopher;" afferting that the Greek fages were generally "thieves, taking the choiceft of their opinions "from Mofes and the Prophets, without thankful acknow"ledgment **." Juftin Martyr declares, that Plato "drew

66

66

many things from the Hebrew rivulets," and that "what"soever he said devoutly of God, or of his worship, he stole "from the Hebrew Philofophy tt." Theodoret, Joannes Philoponus, Eufebius, Ambrofe, Auguftin and Tatian affert the fame.

At any rate, is it not far more probable, that Plato borrowed from the Hebrews, than that they borrowed from him as it is certain that he was in Egypt, where many Jews were fettled; as we know his great diligence in acquiB 3 ring

Hift. Cor. vol. i. p. 28.

De Dogmat. Platon. ap. Kidder. Part. i. p. 1II.

Theodoret. Cur. Graec. Affect. 1. ii. ib.

Eufeb. Praep. lib. 13. c. 12. ib.

** Strom. b. i. 5.

§ Lib. 2. cont. Apion.

tt Apol. 2.

« PredošláPokračovať »