Part 5

CIC. de Naturâ Deorum.

-----

Plato’s attention to the same celestial science unquestionably enlarged his notions of the Deity, and enabled him to think the more justly of the moral attributes of human nature. According to Plato—whose morality, on the whole, corresponds with the system maintained by Socrates,—the human soul is a ray from the Divinity. He believed, that this minute portion of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, was omniscient, while united with the Parent stock from which it emanated; but, when combined with the body, that it contracted ignorance and impurity from that union. He did not, like his master Socrates, neglect natural philosophy; but investigated many principles which relate to that branch of knowledge:—and, according to this philosopher, all things consisted of two principles,—God and matter.

-----

Footnote 8:

While Plato followed the morals of Socrates, he cultivated the metaphysical opinions of Pythagoras. He is said to have founded his physics on the notions of Heraclitus: it may be presumed, nevertheless, that he derived that branch of his system from a better source.

-----

It is evident that Plato believed in the immortality of the soul of man; but he had, at the same time, very inadequate conceptions of the mode or state of its existence, when separated from the body. It seems to have been reserved for the Christian dispensation, to elucidate this great arcanum, hidden from the most sagacious of the heathen philosophers. It was the difficulty that arose on this subject, the incapability of knowing how to dispose of the soul, or intellectual principle in the constitution of our species, after its disentanglement from the body; a difficulty by which all the philosophers, antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity, were subjected to unsurmountable perplexities;—it was this, that rendered even the expansive genius of Anaxagoras utterly incompetent to conceive of the possibility that the soul should exist, independent of some union with matter. He therefore invented the doctrine of the Metempsychosis; in order to provide some receptacle of organised matter for that imperishable intellectual principle attached to our nature here, after its departure from the human frame; and to which new vehicle of the vital spirit of its original but abandoned abode, the extinguished corporeal man, its union with it should impart the powers and faculties of animal life.

-----

Footnote 9:

“Reason, tho’ taught by sense to range on high, To trace the stars and measure all the sky; Tho’ fancy, memory, foresight fill her train, And o’er the beast he lifts the pride of man; Yet, still to matter, form and space confin’d, Or moral truths or laws that rule mankind, Could ne’er, unaided, pierce the mental gloom, Explore new scenes beyond the closing tomb, Reach with immortal hope the blest abode, Or raise one thought of spirit or of GOD.” Vision of Columbus, book VIII.

-----

Cultivating, as Plato did, the mind-expanding science of Astronomy, faintly even as the true principles of this branch of science were then perceived, this philosopher could not fail to derive, from the vastness, beauty and order, manifested in the appearances and revolutions of the heavenly bodies, a conviction of the perpetual existence of a great intelligent First Cause. It was, indeed, as the Abbé Barthelemy justly remarks, the order and beauty apparent through the whole universe, that compelled men to resort to a First Cause: This, he observes, the early philosophers of the Ionian school (which owed its origin to Thales) had acknowledged. But Anaxagoras was the first who discriminated that First Cause from matter; and not only this distinguished pupil of Thales, but Anaximander, who, antecedently to him, taught philosophy at Athens, with Archelaus the master of Socrates, all treated in their writings of the formation of the universe, of the nature of things, and of geometry and astronomy.

-----

Footnote 10:

“An inordinate desire to explain and generalise, without facts and observations, led the ancient philosophers to the most absurd and extravagant notions; though, in a few cases, they have displayed the most wonderful ingenuity, and sagaciously anticipated the discoveries of modern times.”

New Edinb. Encyclop. tit. Astronomy.

Footnote 11:

“If the petty motions of us mortals afford arguments for the being of a God, much more may those greater motions we see in the world, and the phænomena attending them: I mean, the motions of the planets and heavenly bodies. For these must be put into motion either by one common mighty Mover, acting upon them immediately, or by causes and laws of His appointment; or by their respective movers, who, for reasons to which you can by this time be no stranger,” (referring his reader to preceding arguments), “must depend upon some Superior, that furnished them with the power of doing this. And granting it to be done either of these ways, we can be at no great distance from a demonstration of the existence of a Deity.”—Wollaston’s Rel. of Nat. delineated, sect. v. head 14th.

Footnote 12:

A disciple of Anaximenes, and preceptor to Socrates. He died 428 years B. C. in the seventy-second year of his age.

Footnote 13:

Thales, of Miletus in Ionia, was one of the seven sages of Greece: he was born about six hundred and forty years before the Christian era. After travelling into other countries, he returned to his own, and there devoted himself exclusively to the study of nature. Being the first of the Greeks who made any discoveries in Astronomy, he is said to have astonished his countrymen, by predicting a solar eclipse; and he instructed them, by communicating the knowledge of geometry and astronomy, which he had acquired while in Egypt. He died in the ninety-sixth year of his age,—544 years B. C.

-----

According to Mr. Gibbon, the philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, as we are informed by this very ingenious historian, on the Divine Nature, as a most curious and important speculation; and, in the profound enquiry, they displayed both the strength and the weakness of the human understanding. The Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to reconcile the interests of reason with their notions of piety. The opinions of the Academicians and Epicureans, the two other of the four most celebrated schools, were of a less religious cast: But, continues Mr. Gibbon, whilst the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the providence of a Supreme Ruler.

Cicero denominated the God of Plato the Maker, and the God of Aristotle the Governor, of the world. It is somewhere observed, that it is no reflection on the character of Plato, to have been unable, by the efforts of his own reason, to acquire any notion of a proper creation; since we, who have the advantage of his writings, nay of writings infinitely more valuable than his, to instruct us, find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how any thing can first begin to have an existence. We believe the fact, on the authority of Revelation.

-----

Footnote 14: