1.]

ATHEISM OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS.

11

66

Their

because they took that side of the argument, which led them to incorporeal substances1; but Democritus, Leucippus, and their followers, did just that of which the apostle accuses them, they became vain in their own imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." object was, not to establish the truth of the existence of a God, but to get rid of that truth, and they, therefore, had recourse to the atomical system, pretending that "the visible things of the world" were made up of atoms, of which they called the whole substance, God. But since this world seemed to be moved by some intelligence, it necessarily became difficult to account for it in the casual concourse of atoms; either therefore the substantial world itself must be intelligent, or else it must contain some incorporeal agency, which pervades or actuates the whole

mass.

Το

To assert the former, were to make lifeless matter intelligent; to maintain the latter, were well nigh acknowledging a God. escape from this dilemma, and in so escaping, not to admit an incorporeal being, they asserted a kind of mechanical operation, which belonged

1

It is plain to any one that hath had the least acquaintance with Plato's philosophy, that the whole scope and drift of it is to raise up men's minds from sense to a belief of incorporeal things, as the most excellent.-Cudworth's Intellectual System, &c. chap. i. p. 19.

12

OPINIONS OF SOCRATES.

[LECT.

to the inanimate creation; thus " professing themselves to be wise they became fools;" but they laid the foundation of the doctrine of incorporeal agency in spite of themselves. This was taken up by the academic philosophers, at the head of whom, stands Plato; but as he differed only a little from Aristotle on this subject, we may consider the theology of these two astonishing men as one system. Socrates had left them in possession of some sublime truths, which he might have inherited from the sages of more remote antiquity. He had taught at Athens that God is One-perfect in Himself—immutable, the author of the existence, and the welfare of every creature'; that God, not chance, made the world and all living creatures 2; but even in the mind of this man, who gave his life for his religious opinions, we have to deplore both ignorance and superstition. He said, he knew what God was not; but what he was, he was ignorant of! He did not even know that God was "a rewarder of them that diligently seek him :" he taught, agreeably to the Pythian oracle, that the gods were to be worshipped according to the law of the city wherein a man lives, and

Plato in Phædon. tom. i. p. 78, edit. Hen. Stephan. A. 1578, in folio.

2 Idem in Timæo, p. 28-32.

1.] SYSTEMS OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE.

13

he thought them superstitious and vain who did otherwise 1. I am aware that this accommodating system is very congenial to the present state of the civilized world, and to that boasted liberality, which, whilst knowing God, glorifies him not as God; but I need not here stay to show you this is not to be the principle of Christian worship. Of the "religious Socrates," who is sometimes profanely compared with the founder of our holy religion, I shall merely observe, that in his best words, he incurs the censure of the apostle, along with the rest 2, "that they changed the glory of the incorruptible God to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." But to return to the academical doctrine.

I remarked that Plato and his school (observing perhaps the perplexity in which the materialists were held) applied themselves more

1

Xenophon Memorab. lib. iv. p. 803, edit. Lutet. Paris. 1625, in folio, and Conf. id. p. 722.

See

2 Mr. Gibbon has insinuated, in his usual manner, that the philosopher allowed no such repining words to escape his lips as those of the dying Jesus, "my God, my God," &c. Decline and Fall. His comparison, somewhat profane, does not surprise us; but Dr. Butler's parallel between Christ and Socrates, if it be truly reported, adds indecency. See Christian Observer, vol. xi. p. 44. The philosopher's last words were really these-O Crito, I owe Esculapius a cock, pay it-do not neglect; it shall be done, says Crito.-Plato in Phædon. vers. finem.

14

PLATO BORROWED FROM MOSES. [LECT. especially to the study of incorporeal substances, and although some of their expressions are remarkable for their similarity to the Mosaic writings, the result of their intense study and superior intellect seems to have been this, that God was the soul of the universe. I do not say that a more favourable conclusion might not be drawn from many passages in the writings of Plato and Aristotle; but the poet Virgil, who evidently reproduces the sum of the Platonic and Peripatetic theology, exhibits the Deity as the Divine Spirit which is diffused through the whole of nature'. But if it were possible to assign to a god of this description the properties of power and ubiquity, it would be impossible to clothe him with any of those moral attributes, which have an influence on men as responsible agents; and yet, if any one were required to produce the most striking examples of unassisted reason attempting to search out "the things of God," he would doubtless bring forward Plato and Aristotle. We have, however, something to interpose here, with reference to the enlightened doctrines of the Platonic and Peripatetic schools. Plato, as we are certified by Josephus, obtained much of his theological knowledge from the

1

totamque infusa per artus

Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.

Eneid. vi. 724.

1.]

PLATO BORROWED FROM MOSES.

writings of Moses.

15

"What is Plato," observes

Numenius, "but Moses speaking Greek 1?" The following passages to that effect are remarkable:"The Eternal Being created the world; and when this image of the eternal gods had begun to exist, and have motion, God, pleased with the works of His hands, wished to make it still more like the original pattern, and to assign it something of the imperishable nature; but since creation could not altogether resemble the Eternal Mind, He made a moveable image of eternity, and keeping for Himself the indivisible duration, He gave us the divisible emblem which we call time days, nights, months, and years; those fleeting portions of mortal life." "We are wrong, observes this same philosopher, "in speaking of the Divine Essence, to say, it was-it shall be; these forms of time do not suit Eternity. It is; this is its attribute 2." If we compare these sentences with the writings of Moses, it can be no longer doubted from what source Plato

1 See this subject discussed in Brucker's Hist. Critica Philosoph. tom. i. p. 635, edit. Lipsiæ, 1742; and Stanley, Hist. of Philosophy, p. 159, edit. London, 1701.

2 Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μέρος χρόνου, καὶ τὸ, τ ̓ ἦν, τὸ, τ ̓ ἔσται, χρόνου γεγονότος εἴδη, φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀΐδιον οὐσίαν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν, ἔστι τε καὶ ἔσται· τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστι μόνον, κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον, προσήκει.-Platon. Timæus, p. 37, tom. iii. in edit. Stephan. 1587.