Page images
PDF
EPUB

father, that these claims of Paganism are as fallacious as they are arrogant, and that Christian "godliness" alone" hath the promise of the life which is to come.' 39

St. Augustin begins his reply to the higher pretensions of heathen philosophy, by an exposure of the common opinion concerning the various employ ments of the gods. The divisions of their power were supposed to be as numerous as the appearances of nature, or the events of human life. From his earliest moments, man was destined to pass through the successive protection of a multitude of deities, each of them exercising an exclusive and jealous authority, in his limited department. Nor was it the misfortune of the smaller deities alone to be thus circumscribed in office and authority. The great and select Gads, the "Dii majorum gentium," were themselves subjected to similar disgrace. The heaven, the earth, and the sea, were parcelled out into separate governments, and sometimes all the parts even of the same element were not subject to the same deity.

"Hence," observes our author, arose the first question urged by the Christian advocates against the lofty pretensions of their antagonists. From gods like these, what transcendant blessings can be reasonably expected by their votaries? How shall beings, whose utmost effort it is to direct some unimportant business upon earth, be themselves possessed of immortality? How shall they, whose widest government is but a limited department of the world, be able to bestow the immeaurable rewards, the infinite happiness, of the life to come?'"

After noticing the subterfuge of the graver and more philosophical pagans, that the different employments assigned to the deities had always been understood by the wise in another and an higher sense; and that the numerous deities, fancied by the people, were but portions of the original, capacious, and universal

[blocks in formation]

But though maintained with much, apparent authority, this philosophy was attended with still greater ab surdity than the superstition or the levity which it affected to correct. For if the minor deities were independent of each other, and often at variance (a case commonly sup posed), and if they were no more than parts of the same Jupiter; Jupiter, in his nature and properties, must be at variance with himself. Nor was this system less impious than it was absurd. For if Jupiter is the soul of the world, the world itself is pronounced by the same authority to be his visible body. And though, to avoid the mortifying consequence of Jupiter being thus subject to the controul of man, beasts and the inanimate parts of nature were excluded from any participation in this mundane divinity; still, if Jupiter be mankind, he is exposed to many sorts of injury and indignity. He suffers whatever man suffers; he is affected by pain, disgrace, and labour; he dies in men; and, as Augustin condescends to remark, and Dr. Ireland, with a sly view probably to the experience of his juvenile auditors, seems pleased to quote, “is whipped in boys!"

“Such, then," says our acute and learned author, "is the dilemma with which the patrons of idolatry were harassed by the Christian writers. If the gods are supposed to exist, the meanness of their nature, the insignificance of their employments, and the thus various and divided, sufficiently shew mutual checks resulting from an authority how incapable they are of bestowing the great rewards of the life to come. On the other hand, if all the gods are resolved into Jupiter, and if Jupiter himself is resolved into the soul of the world," (as Varro, the

most learned of the Romans, and the professed advocate of the supreme divinity of Jupiter, openly declared was his opinion), "the Deity becomes a mere physical principle. There is no longer a Providence; and consequently the expectation of a fu ture retribution is at an end." p. 182.

Having mentioned Varro, Dr. Ireland goes on to present a more particular view of the system of that celebrated man, in order to ascertain the real nature of the Roman theology.

"Besides" (addressing himself to his young audience) "the classical amusement which it may produce, and its illustration of the principles of those books with which you are daily conversant, it will convince us all, that the efforts of natural wisdom were to

tally incompetent to the discovery of religious truth; that the pagan worship was a mixture of ignorance, superstition, and du plicity; that it was unworthy of the Deity, and therefore falsely aspired to the privilege which was claimed for it, of bestowing eternal happiness."

The Antiquities" of Varro are unfortunately lost: but from the minute statement of its plan by St. Augustin alone, we are enabled to collect both its object and its character; and of this statement Dr. Ireland has given a most perspicuous and interesting analysis. The theology thus taught by Varro is di vided into three branches: first, the mythic, or fabulous, which he confines to the poets, and allows that, for its licentiousness, it is in many parts deserving of the severest reprehension; secondly, the civil, to which he gives his ostensible support, but of which it was the opprobrium, that, whatever distinctions were attempted in its favour, it constantly relapsed into the fabulous; and thirdly, the natural, which Varro believed to be the only true and dignified part of religion, the object of which was to inquire concerning the gods, who they were, where they resided, their descent and quality, when they began to exist, whether they were created or eternal, and other such questions.

Having fully investigated the opinion already ascribed to Varro, that God was the soul of the world, and that the world itself was a god, compounded of a soul and a body, Dr.Ireland shews, that at length, for the sake of a favourite principle, the soul of man is identified with Jupiter himself, the soul of the world; that both are, therefore, to be wor shipped, or neither; that man is God, or Jupiter is man. The infe rences which are drawn at the close of this chapter, from the review of the absurdity and impiety of the Roman theology, are so just and instructive, that we shall entire to our readers.

present them

looked to no object beyond political conve"1. In its religious institutions, paganism nience. On this ground alone, Varro supported the civil theology of his country; and, in the division of his work, professedly treated of Rome before its gods, the latter having derived all their worship from the will of the former. Revelation is independent of the establishments of men. Through the divine blessing indeed, it is eminently applicable to the civil condition of the world;

and those nations are the happiest, which admit most of its influence into the direction of their policy. Our own country exhibits a glorious example of true religion allied with the state, and of the benefits resulting to both; the state hallowed by religion, religion defended by the state. But, whatever be the views of human governments, whether they admit or refuse a civil connection with it, the Gospel maintains its own character. The everlasting word of God is not altered by any anthority of man; and Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.

"2. The only theology to which Varro gave a genuine approbation, he confined to the philosophical part of his countrymen. Hence it is evident, that he had discovered in it nothing which tended to the common benefit of the world, nothing which ultimately affected the soul of man, It might amuse cu

[ocr errors]

riosity, but did not lead to happiness. How different the religion of Christ! Go ye intó all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.' The common interest is proved by the necessity of a common knowledge. Every soul is the object of God's gracious call; and it is the characteristic of Christianity, not that it addresses only the

[blocks in formation]

"3. From the manner in which Varro treats his subject, it is evident that he regarded the gods with no vulgar eye. He did not worship them as others did, for the sake of the temporal benefits which they were popularly supposed to confer. Yet it is observable, that neither does he look forward to future blessings from their hands. In his whole discussion, mention is no where made of eternal life. What may we infer from this? that those Romans who professed the hope of future happiness from their gods, spoke from no settled conviction, but from the obvious disappointment of present expectations. Varro, the great master of Roman theology, had held out no promise to the soul, had made no discovery of eternity; nor can he be supposed to have entertained a hope of which he gives no sign.' Here then is the great triumph of the Gospel, Its characteristic is the promise of the life which is to come,' of eternal happiness through faith in Christ, and obedience to his commander. I go to prepare a place for you; that where I am, ye may be also.” And He who gave this promise to the world, shall appear once again for the consummation of it. The Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him. He shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate the one from the other. The wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.'" pp. 206-209.

[ocr errors]

The sixth chapter of this very learned and interesting work, contains an elaborate view of the doctrine of Plato concerning the Deity; which, though one of the most able, was probably not the most intelligible or useful to the young persons for whose benefit it was originally designed. In the age of St.Angustin, it was found necessary to make considerable efforts against the extraordinary influence which the opinions of the Grecian sage had obtained throughout the Christian world. Plato was supposed to have arrived at the knowledge of the supreme Being, and to have made the great discoveries of creation and the unity; and on account of the credit which he had acquired on these im

portant questions, some flattered themselves, that no other instruction than that of Plato was essential to their duty and welfare. Others, for the sake of winning the pagans, were tempted to accommodate the Scriptures to the doctrines of this heathen philosopher. While a third class, taking advantage of these concessions, exalted the religion of nature at the expense of revelation. It was of particular importance, therefore, for the zealous bishop of Hippo to prove, that, though supe rior to the system of Varro, that of Plato was yet far removed from the sublimity of the Gospel; that in no mode of classical theology, however celebrated, was contained the true happiness of man; and that revelation alone could teach the proper knowledge of God, and effectually promise the rewards of "the life to come."

Before he proceeds to an examination of the Platonic doctrines, Dr. Ireland gives a sketch of some of the previous systems of philosophy; particularly those of Thales and Pythagoras, the founders of the Ionic and the Italian schools; pointing out, as he reviews them, the absurdity, inconsistency, or insufficiency by which they were severally marked; and closing these preliminaries with a view of the doubt and perplexity in which Socrates was involved by the contending and unsatisfactory opinions of former philosophers, and his own consequent determination to confine the profession of human wisdom as much as possible to the purposes of prudence and morality.

The genius of Plato was of a most comprehensive and excursive nature. Though the scholar of Socrates, he was not contented with the doctrines of one school, but sought wisdom wherever it might be found. Megaro, therefore, Cyrene, Italy, and Egypt, were made to contribute their stores of dialectic, mathematical, intellectual, and mystical learning; and formed this eminent philosopher to the copious

ness, variety, loftiness, yet obscurity, and not unfrequent self-contradiction, which are to be observed in his writings.

It would far exceed even the most extended limits of a review, were we to accompany Dr. Ireland in his Analysis of the Platonic philosophy, however pleasant such a progress would be to ourselves, or entertaining and instructive to many of our readers. We must refer them to the work itself, except for a succinct account of the various topics which are discussed in this part of it: suffice it, therefore, to say, that the learned author, in the first place, from a short history of the celebrated school of Alexandria, of the formation of the eclectic sect by Ammonius, and of the catechetical school by the Christians in the same city, points out the source of that undue admiration of the Platonic philosophy, and of the interpretation of it, with reference to the higher doctrines of the Gospel, which may be observed in the writings of the earlier fathers. And here he introduces some just and pointed animadversions on the evil and danger of thus uniting philosophy and Christianity; a disposition which was most disgracefully and injuriously displayed at the revival of literature, and even in later times, by Dacier, in France, and by Taylor, in our own country. From this view of the false credit assumed for him by the Alexandrian school, Dr. Ireland turns to Plato himself, and briefly inquires, what is the probable amount of the knowledge which he possessed of the Deity. He shews that the celebrated doctrine of this philosopher, concerning "one," while it appears to do honour to the primary principle of all things, is, in fact, effectually injurious to it; and that his deity, which, in the reverential but mistaken interpretation of St. Augustin, was placed beyond all the ob jects of sense, is ultimately reduced to a participation in the grossness of matter. Either the incorporeal being is linked in a degrading union with his own eternal world; and on this ac

count, the same qualities may be nearly predicated of both, notwithstanding the existence allowed to the one, and denied to the other; or, this visible world is nothing but an efflux from the Deity; and, in this sense, all things being one, the whole is material together. It is remarkable that some of these notions are to be found at this day in the Brahminical system*. A view of the Platonic doctrine concerning the creation, by the Deiniurge, the nature and office of the secondary gods and of the demons, closes this chapter; from which the learned author justly in fers, that the deity of Plato, when found, was not more effective than Varro's soul of the world; and that neither from him, nor from any of the fabled beings, whom he is absurdly supposed to have produced, for the purpose of directing human affairs, could the gift of immortal life and happiness be reasonably expected.

From this discussion concerning the Platonic deities, Dr. Ireland proceeds, in his 7th chapter, to inquire, whether, notwithstanding the incapacity of bestowing immortality thus proved against the gods, the soul of man weresecure of happiness through any qualities, either derived from without, or resulting from its own nature. After enumerating some of the leading opinions of the more ancient philosophers, concerning the soul, Dr. Ireland observes, that Plato was the first who taught the world the reasons, such as the philosophy of nature could teach, from which the soul of man was concluded to be inimortal. He then divides Plato's view of this important point into two parts. 1. The principle on which the doctrine of immortality is founded. 2. The history of the soul in its three stages of existence, before its entrance into the body, during the possession of it, and after the separation from it. The celebrated argu

See a masterly and beautiful display of them in Mr. Grant's Poem on the Restoration of Learning in the East.

ment of Plato for the immortality of the soul, as it is formally stated by Cicero, in the first book of his Tusculan Questions, is this: that since the soul has the power of perpetual and spontaneous motion, it is necessarily both underived and imperishable. Cicero himself seems to place the principal strength of this far famed argument in the consciousness of the soul that it possesses these qualities. The Platonic history of the soul in its several conditions, is so full of extreme folly and absurdity, that, except for the purpose of curiosity, or rather of impressing more deeply the conviction of the utter inabiliy of man, unassisted by the light of divine revelation, to form any completely just conceptions on the subject, it is wholly unworthy of attention. The bare statement of the Platonic fancies, intricate and even unintelligible as in some parts it must almost have proved, could scarcely, however, fail of thoroughly preparing the minds of his youthful auditors for the important inferences which the learned lecturer draws from his minute review of this celebrated system. He points out to them, in the first place, that the notion of a creation attributed to the

Platonic defty, was altogether a false one, and that this is an imperfection chargeable to paganism in general. In proof of this, Dr. Ireland gives a short notice of the profound Treatise of Mosheim on the "Creation of the World from Nothing;" in which he discusses the question, whether this doctrine be really taught in any of the books which have descended to us from the pagan ages. This important inquiry is determined by that learned writer in the negative. From the Scriptures, then, alone is the doctrine of a proper creation to be learned-the cardinal point, as Dr. Ireland justly observes, of all religion; for, from a strict and absolute creation by an Almighty Being, properly flow the divine dominion over the world, the present dispensations of Providence, and the future judgment of man. And from the

necessary reference of all these powers to the same Being, our Creator, Preserver, and Judge, results the necessity of the sole worship of the Godhead. Subjoined to this weighty observation, is a pointed reproof of the attempt, by Wollaston, to prove the claims of natural religion to the discovery of these great truths of revelation. From this view of the subject of creation, Dr. Ireland derives another important conclusion, viz. that man is not abandoned by the Deity, but that his redemption is the work of the same God, through the grace which he has vouchsafed to us by Jesus Christ. And this leads the author to a reflection on the second part of the Platonic doctrine, viz. that the immortality he attributed to the soul (for the body was not deemed worthy of any consideration), was, after all, no more than a physical round of eternity; and that, if the soul is immortal, it is so on the same principle with the elements, or the material substances of nature, which are gradually decomposed, and formed again.

"How different," exclaims Dr. Ireland, "the language of revelation! The body and the soul of man are equally the creation of God. They are together governed by his ture judgment. The soul is immortal, not providence, and together subject to his futhrough any independent or self-subsisting properties, but through the nature conferred upon it by its Maker, and confirmed by his preserving power. It is placed in the body, which it guides in righteousness, according to the suggestions of the Holy Spirit. When the body dies, the soul does not sleep with it in the dust of the earth, but returns to God who gave it. At the last day it shall be fi mortal, but is now glorified for eternity by mally joined again with its body. This was

that Power, which is able to subdue all

things to itself;' and both together, shall receive the reward of immortal happiness, promised to the faith and obedience of man, through Jesus Christ.” pp. 323, 324.

To render his refutation of the pretensions of paganism to the rewards of the "life to come,” more complete and satisfactory, Dr. Ire

« PreviousContinue »