An Account of the Remains of the Oriental, or Platonic Philofophy, in modern Systems of Chriftianity.

N the next place, it may not be unuseful

IN

to reflect how much remains of the oriental or Platonic philofophy in the religion that is established in the greater part of the christian world at the present day, though thofe fyftems themselves are now no more. It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that one fingle doctrine common to both those schemes of philofophy, has been the foundation on which almost every corruption of christianity rests, and this is the belief of an immaterial foul in man, capable of fubfifting, and alfo of having both sensation and action, when the body is in the grave. Had this doctrine, (countenanced by no appearances in nature, but utterly difcordant with them, and also with the whole fyftem of revelation) never

been known, it is hardly poffible to fuppofe, that the pre-existence of Christ would ever have been imagined, or that any of the doctrines which arofe from it, or are connected with it, would have been adopted. In this cafe, alfo, we fhould never have heard of the worship of dead faints, or the doctrine of purgatory, which are among the most enormous abuses of popery.

Another principle, common to both the fyftems of philofophy above mentioned, was, that matter is the fource of all evil, a doctrine which led either to making light of the most criminal fenfual indulgences, or to that rigour and aufterity which was imagined to purify and elevate the foul, by neglecting or macerating the body. This principle induced numbers of both fexes, to feclude themselves from the world, and to pass their lives in a manner equally uselefs to themselves and others. It also gave rife to the favourite doctrine of the fuperiority of the unmarried to the married state, and to the injunction of celibacy on those who were called priests.

VOL. IV.

U

The

The monaftic life was alfo greatly promoted by the Platonic doctrine of the union of the foul to God, attainable by contemplation and prayer, which was eagerly adopted by many chriftians, who thought it wise to neglect and mortify the body, and to give their whole attention to the foul.

These three doctrines, viz. that of the immateriality of the foul, that of matter being the fource of evil, and that of the union of the foul to God, by contemplation and abstraction from matter, have done unfpeakable mischief to the scheme of christianity, affecting the whole character of of it, and almoft every thing in doctrine, or in practice, relating to it. It may not be amifs, however, juft to notice a few other things of a lefs general nature, in which Gnofticism, or Platonism, have left traces of themselves in the creeds of chriftians.

That the Supreme God was not himself the maker of the world, was a capital article in the creed of the Gnoftics, and this was also a doctrine of the platonizing

christians,

christians, with this difference that, according to the Gnoftics, the maker of the world was one of thofe intelligences which. was derived, mediately or immediately, from the Supreme Being; whereas, according to the platonizing chriftians, the maker of the world was the logos, which had been an attribute of the Supreme Being. The former alfo thought that the world was made with a malevolent intention, and the latter with a benevolent one.

The Arians approached fomething nearer to the doctrine of the Gnoftics, than those who were called catholics, maintaining that the world was made by a creature properly fo called. For according to that philofophy from which Gnofticifm was derived, all intelligent beings fubordinate to the Supreme, were fuppofed to be fo far of the Jame nature, as to have been derived mediately or immediately from his fubftance, though they were not created out of nothing. According to both fyftems, the world was made by a being who might be called, if not an angel, at leaft a fuper-angelic fpirit. U 2

And

And all the three fyftems, viz. that of the Gnoftics, that of the catholics, and that of the Arians, go upon this common principle, that it is unworthy of the Supreme Being himself to condefcend to do any thing; he being fuppofed to be immoveably employed in contemplation only, and chiefly that of his own perfections.

The Docetæ among the Gnoftics held that Chrift had no body, but only the appearance of one, and that he was incapable of feeling pain. And though the platonizing christians believed that Chrift had a proper body, confifting of real flesh and blood, fome of them imagined it was incapable of feeling pain, and that in confequence of its union with the logos, the body as well as the foul of Christ, had various privileges fuperior to those that were poffeffed by other fouls and bodies; as that befides feeling no pain, it did not neceffarily require the recruits of food or fleep, &c. and that it was not liable to corruption. It was from the Gnoftics also, that the catholics derived the whimfical notion of Mary