As to the style of Porphyry, when we consider that he was the disciple of
Longinus, whom Eunapius elegantly calls "a certain living library, and
walking museum," it is but reasonable to suppose that he imbibed some
portion of his master's excellence in writing. That he did so is
abundantly evident from the testimony of Eunapius, who particularly
commends his style for its clearness, purity, and grace. "Hence," he
says, "Porphyry being let down to men like a mercurial chain, through his
various erudition, unfolded every thing into perspicuity, and purity."
And in another place he speaks of him as abounding with all the graces of
diction, and as the only one that exhibited and proclaimed the praise of
his master. With respect to the style of Proclus, it is pure, clear and
elegant, like that of Dionysius Halicarnassus; but is much more copious
and magnificent; that of Hierocles is venerable and majestic, and nearly
equals the style of the greatest ancients; that of Sallust possesses an
accuracy and a pregnant brevity, which cannot easily be distinguished
from the composition of the Stagirite; and lastly, that of Damascius is
clear and accurate, and highly worthy a most investigating mind.

Others again have filled themselves with a vain confidence, from reading
of commentaries of these admirable interpreters, and have in a short time
considered themselves superior to their masters. This was the case with
Ficinus, Picus, Dr. Henry Moore, and other pseudo Platonists, their
contemporaries, who, in order to combine Christianity with the doctrines
of Plato, rejected some of his most important tenets, and perverted
others, and thus corrupted one of these systems, and afforded no real
benefit to the other.

But who are the men by whom these latter interpreters of Plato are
reviled? When and whence did this defamation originate? Was it when the
fierce champions for the trinity fled from Galilee to the groves of