"that the whole world being a living and rational "animal hath, like our fouls, its principal part. Though they held the whole animated world to be God, and confequently deified numerous parts of it, yet they fuppofed that the foul of the world acted principally in one eminent part of it, which sometimes they call God by way of eminency; but what this was they were not agreed. Zeno, as Velleius in Cicero informs us, faid that the æther was God *. Chryfippus, according to Laertius, varied, fometimes making it the æther, fometimes heaven: But Cleanthes, according to the fame author, held it to be the fun. This is also observed by Cicero 1.

Befides, it ought to be obferved, that the ftoics frequently expreffed themfelves, as if they understood their fouls to be real parts of the Deity. Thus Epictetus infifts that "our fouls are connected and inti"mately joined to God, being μópa xai dwooтaoμarádiov "members and diftinct portions of his effence ||:"So Mifs Carter reprefents the fenfe, with great accuracy.

Antoninus alfo calls every mans mind, or rational foul," the Divinity within him," and "the God "within him" §.

Now the paffage Mr. P. quotes from Penn, as the opinion of that famous Stoic Cleanthes, which reprefents mankind as being governed **, " by that "divine, infinite and eternal nature, which is of "God, univerfally diffufed, or fown through the "whole race of man, as the most fure and infallible "guide and rule," when understood according to the doctrine of the Stoics, feems to convey a different idea, from what the quakers mean by "their internal, ❝ immediate revelation," had we no reason to fufpect, whether Mr. Penn had done the paffage juftice in the

* De Nat. Deor. Lib. i. Cap. 14.

† Acad. Lib. ii. Cap. 41.

Lib. ii. Sect. 13; Lib. iii. Sect. 5, and 16. ** Lib. v. Sect. 10.

+ Laert. ubi fupra.

Diff. Lib. i. Cap. 14.

tranfla

tranflation, of which Mr. P. by neglecting to inform us where it is to be found, has not given us an opportunity of judging. This " divine, and eternal nature, "univerfally diffused through the whole race of man, may only mean, according to the doctrine of fome of the Stoics, our own rational fouls, which they affert,' as has been shown, are members or diftinct portions of God's effence: Or if taken in a different fenfe, then it must be only diffused through our minds, as it is through all the parts of matter, and not fo particu-> larly neither as it is, according to Cleanthes, in the Sun, which feems to be the greatest God that he worfhipped, or that to which he with eminency applied: this epithet.

However, we must not omit obferving, that Zeno, whom Cleanthes followed, was led by his "radical " and vital principle of religion," which Mr. Phipps fuppofes him and his fcholar to have poffeffed, to declare it reasonable and conformable to the divine nature, "for a man to put an end to his own life, if he "be under any fevere pain or torment, or is maimed "in his limbs, or labours under any incurable dif"eafe:" Accordingly, as the fame author informs us, he did, in confequence of a painful broken finger, ftrangle himself; or, as Lucian has it, voluntarily put an end to his life by abftaining from all food.

And was his fcholar Cleanthes in any refpect lefs virtuous than his mafter? No he did the very fame, on account of a painful diforder in his gums

As for "Plotin," of whom Porphyry was a faithful disciple and admirer, though we admit that his character was truly amiable in moft parts of civil lifewe must observe, that he taught " that the world is a "god, and that the fun and ftars are gods, as being "animated by a divine foul," and alfo pretended, "that the worshipping of many gods, was an hron+ Lucian in Macrob.

Laert, Lib. vii. Segm. 130. Oper. Tom. ii. p. 473.

"our done to the fupreme"*. He prefumed to fay alfo, that "he had enjoyed a vifion of God, without "the interpofition or help of ideas, and that he had "often been united to him". And his fcholar Porphyry tells us, that "he himself had been once "favoured with the vifion". And, to give but one inftance of the pride of his character, when Amelius defired him to fhare in the facrifices, which he used to offer upon folemn feftivals to the gods, "It is their "business,” replied Plotin, " to come to me, not "mine to go to them".

There is the greatest reafon to fuppofe, from the accounts which we have of mafter and scholar, that Porphyry was as eminent a Philofopher, as worthy a character in civil life, and as much acquainted with what Mr. P. calls "the radical, vital principle of re"ligion," as Plotin ever was: He is called, by way of eminence, the Philofopher; confidered as the leader of the later Platonifts; and faid to be confummate in all kinds of wisdom and knowledge.

Whether this be a true account of him, or not, we know that he embraced the fame principles of religion and morality as Plotin had profeffed, and pretended to the fame intimacy with the gods: It is highly probable therefore, that if the mafter had revised his fcholar's learned, though fevere tracts against Christianity, he would cordially have approved them.

But can any Chriftian, of common fenfe, ever imagine, that the religious influence the later Plato-> tonists were under, was the very fame with that which directed the Apostles and first Christians into all the truth? If it were, why did they not cease from deifying the stars? Particularly, why did not Plotin and his disciples embrace the caufe of Jefus Chrift, as recommended in the divine writings?

Ennead, Lib. v. Cap. z. p. 483.
+ Life of Plotin.

Lib. ix. Cap. ix.

+ Ennead, II. Ibid.

There

There were many Chriftians at Rome, in his time, and he, no doubt, had an opportunity of hearing' what they had to fay, and of examining thofe books which they avowed were written under the immediate influence of the Spirit of God: However, it is pretty clear, from all that we know of antiquity concerning. him, that his religion and morality were very different from thofe of genuine Christians.

Mr. Phipps then calls in "Seneca," to bear teftimony to "internal, immediate revelation," his "radi"cal, vital principle of all true religion."

It is readily acknowledged, that this Philofopher has delivered many excellent maxims of morality, which he may have received in part from Chriftians; though we muft obferve, that he has retained much of the pride of his fect, and many of its most dangerous errors. He tells He tells us, "A wife man lives upon "a parity, or equality, with the gods." "Sapiens "cum diis ex pari vivit"*; « That God does not

exceed the wife man in happiness, though he does "in age:" "Deus non vincit fapientiam in felicitate, ❝etiamfi vincit ætate". He alfo pleads for felfmurder, and argues largely for it ||: Nay, not only, in fome places, doubts about the immortality of the foul, but, in others, however he has expreffed himself elsewhere, feems plainly to deny, that it has any existence at all after death §.

Befides this, we must take the liberty of obferv. ing to Mr. Phipps, that we are very fufpicious, he has mifquoted his friend and brother, Seneca. He informs us, that the Philofopher fays, that "God" "hath indued every man with that, which, if he' "forfake not, he fhall arife like God **. But, on reading over the epiftle, his opponent can find no fuch fentiment: This, however, he does find "Tutum iter eft, jucundum eft, ad quod natura + Epift. 73. + Epift. 70. **Epift. 31.

* Epift. 59. § Epift. 55.

Epift. 58.

"te

"te inftruxit. Dedit tibi illa, quæ fi non deferueris,

par Deo furges." Every grammarian will readily fee, what is the nominative cafe to "dedit" and "in"ftruxit," that "every man" is not in the original, and that, the last clause favours much of ftoical pride and prefumption, as does the following fentence, in the fame epiftle: "Hoc eft fummum bonum, quod fi "occupas, incipias deorum effe focius, non fupplex:": "This is the chief Good, which, if thou poffeffeft, "thou mayeft become a companion, not a fuppli-"cant, of the Gods." As for "Philo," it is well known, what the ancients fay of him, which appears ftrictly true from his writings: "Aut Plato philoni"zat, aut Philo platonizat; "Either Plato philo"nizes, or Philo platonizes." We may therefore eafily guess, what he means by his "divine reafon," or "infallible law;" and why it did not induce him publickly to avow Christianity.

With refpect to "the Brachmans," we are not unacquainted with their vain-glorious fpirit. When Appollonius asked them, What they were? Jarchas, the chief of them, answered, that "they thought them"felves gods."

What now will the ferious and impartial reader : think, of "the fpirit," or "immediate revelation," of thefe Philofophers? All of them, "Philo" alone excepted, were idolaters; and several of them lived after: Chrift, and yet were fo far from adopting, that they defpifed, his religion. If Mr. Phipps and his friends allow them to have had the "light within," the "Spi"rit of Chrift," the "radical, vital principle of all true

religion," they must acknowledge it influenced them but very partially, and, I cannot help thinking, must have fome doubt, whether it had faved them, whilft they embraced thefe grofs errors in principle and practice.

Many profeffed Chriftian writers, like Mr. P. are apt to apply their own ideas of things, which, per

haps,