The political fentiments of this lady have been developed before, and indeed fo peculiar is her method of obfervation, that the pronounces the fubjects of a defpotic government, "the most free community fhe has ever obferved." P. 76. while the Irish are pitied as experiencing, the miferies of the moft unrelenting defpotifm. Though the Norwegians are not in the abject ftate of the Irish." P. 159. "The reftriction which most refembles the painful fubordination of IreJand." P. 78.

V

"Ariftocracy," we are told, p. 114, "and fanaticifin feem equally to be gaining ground in England, particularly in Yorkfhire,"

We have however remarked fome obfervations which do not appear quite confiftent with the general caft of her political fentiments.

"In thefe regulations the arbitrary government, the king of Denmark being the moft abfolute monarch in Europe, appears, which in other refpects feeks to hide i felf in a lenity which renders the laws nullities. If any alteration of the old cuftoms is thought of, the opinion of the whole country is required and maturely confidered. I have feveral times had occafion to obferve, that fearing to appear týrannical, laws are allowed to become obfolete, which ought to be put in force, or better fubftituted in their fead; for this mistaken moderation, which borders on timidity, favours the leaft refpectable part of the people." P. 148. The aristocracy in Norway, if we keep clear of Chriftiania, is far from being formidable." P. 169. The prince royal, deterinining to be economical, almoft defcends to parfimony; and perhaps depreffes his fubjects by labouring not to opprefs them; for his intentions always feem to be good-yet nothing can give a more forcible idea of the dullness which eats away all activity of mind, than the infipid routine of a court, without magnificence or elegance." P. 225.

We must also remark that Mrs. Wollstonecraft's morality feems to be tinctured with the peculiar caft of her fentiments on other fubjects. Hofpitality is more than obliquely cenfured as proceeding "from the indolence or vacancy of an head." P. 21. She has " always been an enemy to charity, because timid bigots, endeavouring thus to cover their fins, do violence to juftice, till, acting the demi-god, they forget that they are men." P. 244.

As

* As Mrs. Wollstonecraft plainly alludes to a phrafe of Scripture, we shall beg leave to inform her that he has been deceived by the ambiguity of the tranflation; and, like many other unbelievers, has raifed an objection, which a critical knowledge of the original would

As in a former work alfo*, the virtue of Necker fubjected him to the cenfure of this author, on the fame account we find an infinuation glanced against Count Bernstorff in the prefent. "He is a worthy man, a little vain of his virtue à la Necker." P. 228. And another cenfure, which we should interpret an encomium, on the fame eminent character, is couched in the following terms.

"Determined not to risk his popularity, for he is tenderly careful of his reputation, he will never gloriously fail like Struenfee, or difturb, with the energy of genius, the ftagnant ftate of the public mind." P. 228.

We have been rather full in our account of a work not very extenfive, because it appears to us to contain great merits and great defects; and we are defirous of difcriminating between the one and the other with accuracy and candour, that we may not be fuppofed incapable of relishing beauties with which blemithes are intermixed, and that our readers may not incur the greater hazard of being dazzled by erroneous opinions, amidst the fplendor of animated defcriptions and juft fentiments, with which they are furrounded.

have obviated. The text, 1 Pet. 4. 7. does not import that a man's charity will cover his own fins. "For however charitable any man may be, God will not cover, or forgive any of his fins, except those which he has repented of or forfaken. But it implies that love or charity towards our neighbours, will lead us to hide his faults." If we regard the connection here, or the place in the Old Teftament from whence the words were taken, we cannot interpret them in any other manner. They run thus: Prov. x. 12. Hatred ftirreth up ftrife, but love covereth all fins. Vid. Benfon ad loc.

The more accurately Mrs. Wollstonecraft understands Chriftianity, the more fhe will find it to be by far the most benevolent, the most useful, and the most comfortable fyftem of religion ever proposed to man. The vices or frauds of its profeffors have nothing to do with it. The Gofpel is the proper place to fhow what Chriftianity is.

View of the French Revolution, p. 60.

ART.

ART. VI. An Investigation of the Trinity of Plato and of Philo Judæus, and of the Effects which an Attachment to their Writings had upon the Principles and Reafonings of the Fathers of the Chriftian Church. By Cafar Morgan, D. D. Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. 8vo. 180 pp. 35. 6d. Rivingtons. 1795.

THE

HE author of this inveftigation is one to whom "the honorary prize was adjudged by Teyler's Theological Society at Haerlem, in April, 1785*." The investigation itself is a work, fingular equally in its defign and in its execution. It undertakes to refute all the commonly received opinions of their being any intimations in Plato, and even in Philo, of the fecond perfon in the Trinity, the Son or the Logos of God. It, however, is more hardy in its defign than vigorous in its execution, more enterprising than effective in its operations and we behold the writer, amid all the duft which he raises about him with his Greek, feemingly confcious of his own weak nefs, folicitous for his own fafety, and manacled in his exertions by the fears which he cannot fubdue, as well as by his caufe, which cannot be defended.

That Plato throws out fome intimations concerning the Logos, has been believed by the whole world of learned Chriftians, from the firft ages of Chriftianity to the prefent moments. Nor has this belief been founded upon frivolous reafons. Plato actually fpeaks of this very perfonage as man, in a loose kind of prophecy concerning him. "We must

wait then," cries Socrates to Alcibiades, in one of Plato's dialogues," till fome one teaches us how we ought to conduct ourselves towards Gods and towards men. Al. When will that time come, O! Socrates, and who will be this teacher? For I think I fhould furvey fuch a man, and mark who he is, with peculiar pleafure. Soc. He it is who cares for you: but I think, as Homer fays, Minerva took away the mist from the eyes of Diomed.

"That he might well difcern a God from man,"

fo likewise ought he firft to take away that mift from your mind, which is now before it. Al. Let him, if he pleafes, take away the mist, or any thing elfe, from me, as I am thoroughly prepared to evade none of the commands laid upon me by him, whoever he be, of the human race, if I may become better

• P. 178.

by

by fo doing. Sic. He is the very being, who has fuch a wonderful affection for you." In tranflating this paffage, we are equally furprifed and delighted, at the glimpfe here caught from the mirror of tradition, of the grand teacher of mankind; of the neceffity alledged for his coming as a teacher; of his dignity expected to be shown, by his removal of mitts from the mind: and of his providence actually exerted at the moment, in his affectionate care for the race of man. But Plato, in another place, fpeaks more particularly of him, as a mere man, as a fuffering man. Imagining a righteous man, he reprefents him juft as the apocryphal author of the Wifdom of Solomon docs, in a striking fimilitude to the character of our Saviour †. "Let us," fays Glauco, * produce a righteous man, one with fimplicity of manners and with exaltation of mind, willing not to feem but to be good, yet Arit of all, except his righteoufners. For, though he does no wrong, let him bear the irongeft imputation of doing it; that he may be fifted in his righteousness, fo indeed as not to be borne down by evil report and its confequences, but to ftand immoveable till death; fo circumstanced, the righteous man will be fcourged, will be tortured, will be bound, and in death, after he has fuffered every injury, will be crucified. After two fuch declarations as thefe, from the

pen

* Alcibiades II. p. iso. Edit. Serrani. ̓Αναγκαῖον ἐν ἐσι περιμένεις, ἕως ἄν τις μάθη ὡς δεῖ πρὸς θεὸς καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπες διακείσθαι. Αλ. Πο ἂν παρέσαι ὁ χρόνος όλος, ὦ Σώκρατες; καὶ τίς ὁ παιδεύσων; ἥδιςα γὰρ ἂν μοι δοκῶ ἰδεῖν τοῖον τὸν ἄνθρωπον τίς ἐςιν. Σωκ. Οὗτος ἐσιν ᾧ μέλει περὶ στ. ἀλλὰ δοκεῖ μοι, ὥσπερ τῷ Διομήδει φησὶ τὴν ̓Αθηνῶν Όμηρος ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀφελεῖν τὴν ἀχλὺν,

Οφρ' εὖ γιγνώσκοι ἡμὲν θεὸν ἠδὲ καὶ ἄνδρα,

ἔλω καὶ σὲ δεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πρῶτον ἀφελόλα τὴν ἀχλιν, ἡ νῦν παρᾶσα τυγχάνει, κ. Π. λ. Αλ. Αφαιρείτω, εἴτε βάλεται, τὴν ἀχλιν, εἴτε ἀλλά τι, ὡς ἐγὼ παρεσκεύασμαι μηδὲν ἂν φεύγειν τῶν ὑπ' ἐκείνη προστατλομένων, ἔστις πολι ἐςὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, εἶχε μέλλοιμι βελτίων γενέσθαι. Σωκ. Αλλά μὴν κακεῖνος θαυμαστὴν ὅσων περί σε προθυμίαν ἔχει.

+ Wifdom ii. 77. "Let us examine him with defpitefulness and

torture, that we may know his meekners and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a fhameful death."

† De Rep. ii. p. 361. c. τὸν δίκαιον--ἱςῶμεν, άνδρα ἁπλῆν και γενναῖον, -- δοκεῖν ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ἐθέλονία, τοῦτος είη, εγυμνωδέος δὴ πάντων πλὴν δικαιοσύνης,τῷ μή τέγγεσθαι ὑπὸ κακοδοξίας και τῶν ὑπ' αὐτῆς - γιγνομένων. ἀλλ ̓ εδω ἀμελάς αλος μέχρι θανάτε.-έξω διακείμενος ὁ δίκαιος μαςιγώσεται, σρεβλώσεται, δεδήσεται. - τελευῶν, πάντα κακὰ παθὼν, ανασχινα διλευθήσεται. The laft word is fometimes interpreted, as meaning /a

crificed;

pen of Plato, he must be bold indeed, that precludes all intimation from him concerning the Logos. Still bolder mult fuch a man appear, when we recollect that an author fo old as to be cited for Orpheus, and cited a hundred and fifty years prior to our æra; that Epicharmus, who wrote in Sicily about four hundred and fifty prior; that Nebuchadnezzar*, who lived about fix hundred ; and Virgil, (according to fome interpreters) who wrote about forty only; all speak of the Logos or the Son of God, and fome of them expressly as Godt."

that he prefents to us.

Having made this obfervation, we enter upon Dr. Morgan's reafonings, and try with what weapons he encounters such an hoft opposed to him. We therefore take the first argument, "The following paffage in the Epinomis," he fays, "is fuppofed by fome," Le Clerc and Brucker, "to eftablifh Plato's belief of the creation of the world by the Logos." But this fuppofition the doctor rejects, for three reafons. One is, though only infinuated here, the main topic in all his argumentation, that óyos is used in the context for the principle of reafon; a topic, however, that proves nothing. In Heb. iv. 12-13, we equally find, that

the word of God," Ayos r Os," is a difcerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," and "all things are naked and opened unto him with whom we have to do," pès o

yos. In Dr. Morgan's mode of arguing, therefore, we must conclude the first part of the paffage to have no relation to the divine Logos, because the word dys occurs at the clofe in its ordinary acceptation; even though the perfonality and the divinity of the Logos are fo pointedly indicated, by his being what God alone is "a difcerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." This reafon, therefore, is totally frivolous and unfound. A fecond is alfo affigned, that the former Logos appears from the context to mean only reafon. Against this, we may fafely appeal to all our readers at once. "Know ye,'

fays one of the fpeakers in this dialogue," that there are eight powers, three of these are, one of the fun, one of the moon, and one of all the ftars-mentioned before, with five others;→ but no one ever thinks of thefe, that fome are Gods, and fome

crificed; feeming, from its formation, we fuppofe, not to be capable. of fuch a fenfe as crucifixion. But it is in its formation fimilar to avanoλomobila, which is ufed undoubtedly for crucified, by Lucian; and fignifies being stretched upon eleven flakes, as the other does being ftretched upon a flake or flakes.

* See Daniel iii. 25.

+ Whitaker's real origin of Arianifm, p. 250, 253, 128, 129, 123, 130.

U u

BRIT, CRIT. VOL. VII. JUNE, 1796.

not,