heart, they constantly acted from the impulse of their passions. Desirous of honor, they were conceived to treat with the greatest severity those who dared to neglect or improperly perform the due ceremonial observances, and rewarded with riches and prosperity the man who was most zealous in their service. Their interest led them to revenge acts of flagrant injustice in men, whilst they indulged in their own breasts the most implacable anger towards a person, in consequence of a deed justifiable and proper, and committed adulteries of the most base and disgraceful character. If we view the gods as a community, we find that all the others were governed by Jupiter as sovereign. He was superior to them all in personal strength and wisdom; and from him did they receive their several departments of action, offices, and privileges; to him did they utter their complaints; by him could they be punished; and no project of importance appears to have been undertaken by any of them, without his concurrence or permission; all things, in short, relating to the community, were at his disposal, and determined by his irrevocable nod; and the exercise of his power was restricted only by a fear of rebellion. In their intercourse with each other, the gods displayed all the hurtful passions which reigned within them. Diversity of sentiment occasioned angry altercations: these were accompanied by invective and abuse; and on some occasions manual encounters were resorted to. Such were the beings to whom, in the primitive times of Greece, divine honors were paid; viewed in whatever light, the creatures of a depraved heart and a darkened imagination. All these deities were thought to interest themselves, each to a certain extent, in the concerns of mankind. The Homeric Greeks held the doctrine of divine providence in its utmost latitude, as respects the objects which it embraced. They not only believed in a general providence, which kept the world in being and directed the affairs of states, but likewise in a particular providence, which superintended the concerns of every individual: nor did they, in reference to these, make a distinction in favor of important, momentous transactions, but extended the providential care of the gods to circumstances which, comparatively speaking, are trivial and insignificant. Every paragraph of Homer's writings substantiates these observations. Thus far their ideas of divine providence accord with the declarations of the Christian Scriptures: widely different is the case, as regards the view they took of the design of the gods in their dispensations. Heathenish divinities, sensual and corrupt in themselves, could only be actuated by sensual motives, or impelled by disgraceful propensities. And thus, although, generally speaking, prosperity was considered the reward of piety,the ceremonial piety of those times, and adversity the punishment of impiety, or some daring violation of justice; there were distressful occurrences which were attributed to the capricious malevolence of a deity or deities. Moreover, so numerous were the gods, and so differently were they affected towards individuals, that the most constant and scrupulous observance of appointed rites was insufficient to insure them success in their lawful enterprises, or freedom from trouble and suffering, if by any mischance they had incurred the displeasure of one of the misnamed heavenly beings. The effect of these sentiments on the conduct of those who were guided by them towards others, was in some small degree salutary, as they deterred them from such improprieties of action, as, it was conceived, might draw down on them divine vengeance; but viewed as stimulants to action, and as encouragements to rectitude of practice, how lamentably deficient, how miserably poor do they appear! By some, the doctrine of divine providence was converted into that of divine compulsion; in some cases, it may seem, to serve political purposes. Thus Agamemnon says, ̓Αλλά μοι αιγίοχος Κρονίδης Ζεὺς ἄλγε' ἔδωκεν, Ος με μετ' ἀπρήκτους ἔριδας καὶ νείκεα βάλλει. Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ̓Αχιλεύς τε μαχησάμεθ' εἵνεκα κούρης, κ. τ. λ. II. B. 375 sqq. ἐγὼ δ ̓ οὐκ αἴτιός είμι, ̓Αλλὰ Ζεὺς, καὶ Μοῖρα, καὶ ἠεροφοῖτις Εριννύς, 11. T. 86-88. We have good reason to conclude, however, that this was far from being generally the case. There must always subsist an intimate connexion between the opinions entertained of the attributes of the deity or deities, and the ideas of a future state of existence: so it is with the Christian scheme, and so with the creed of every heathen nation and every heathen philosopher. On this great subject, indeed, notions in every respect proper and becoming, can only be derived from an express revelation of the designs of Omnipotence, as even from premises the most correct our deductions must be vague and imperfect; but independently of revelation, in proportion as our views of the attributes of deity approach to perfection, and as our reasonings on the matter are legitimate, so will our ideas of future being correspond to fact. Agreeably to these principles, we can expect but little of correctness or propriety in the opinions of the primitive Greeks on this important particular. As their imagined gods were influenced, like corrupt man, by selfish motives, in the distribution of blessings, and the infliction of punishment, the present existence was chosen by them for the display of their judgments; inasmuch as here their conduct would be generally apparent, and as here only they could be honored with sacrifices and oblations, the honor in which they delighted. And as, with very few exceptions, the good-will and the malevolence of the divinities did not extend beyond the present life, so they entirely deserted disembodied spirits, and left them to a state of melancholy inactivity and negative infelicity, though not in one sense positive wretchedness. The soul was conceived to be enveloped, after death, with a peculiar atmospheric body, similar in appearance to the body of the person whilst living, but imperceptible to the touch; on which account it is properly termed a shade. The soul was in this state susceptible of all the emotions of which it was the subject on earth; but as it was in itself depraved, and as there very rarely occurred anything to excite pleasurable feelings, its almost universal condition was a kind of melancholy dejectedness. To confirm this statement, we have only to refer the reader to the eleventh book of the Odyssey: one remarkable passage, commencing with part of the address of Ulysses to Achilles, we may be allowed to extract: σεῖο δ ̓, ̓Αχιλλεύ, Οὔτις ἀνὴς προπάροιθε μακαρτερος, οὔτ ̓ ἄρ ̓ ὀπίσσω· For a few highly-favored individuals, related generally to some of the most powerful deities by birth or marriage, a fertile and enchanting spot, near the ends of the earth, (for this earth was conceived by the primitive Greeks to be a circular superficies,) was supposed to exist. It was termed "the Elysian plain;" to it, it was imagined, such as were privileged to be partakers of the delights it afforded, were translated without dying. Others were even exalted to divine honors and enjoyments. See Od. 4. 561 sqq. 4. 601 sqq. How poor must have been the effect of these notions in encouraging to the practice of virtue, or deterring from the perpetration of crime! how little of support could be derived from them by the most virtuous, in the article of leaving every thing that had animated or charmed! Taking a general view of the theological system of early Greece, as we find it delineated in the Homeric writings, the only conclusion to which we can come, is, that as a theory it is despicable; as affecting practice, though some few particulars were calculated to produce in this respect beneficial effects, it had much that was negatively bad, much positively injurious. We certainly do consider that Dr. Gillies, however excellent are many of his observations on the antiquities of the primitive Greeks, takes a very partial survey of his subject, when he mentions, (History of Greece, chap. 2.)" the amiable simplicity of their religious system;" and says, "it would require a volume completely to illustrate the salutary effects of this ancient and venerable superstition, which was distinguished above most other false religions by the uncommon merit of doing much good, without seemingly occasioning any considerable harm to society." Though we look to tradition as the source whence the early Greeks derived their sacrificial system, and the rudiments of their theology; yet we regard observation and their various civil and domestic institutions, as giving to it the character it possesses in the works of Homer. The bards appear to have had a principal share in the undertaking; their interest and desire of glory prompting them to a spirited exertion of the capabilities and influence they enjoyed. To specify, where we have no data to guide, cannot, in an article of this kind, and one written chiefly for the student, be attended with beneficial results on a subject so complicated and obscure as the present, it may be better to trace an outline with probability, than to enter into a minute conjectural detail. E. 9. 108 A CRITICAL DISSERTATION On Romans, viii. 28-31., showing that the Passage is altogether incapable of its usual acceptation; and comprising a Philological Investigation of the Scripture Terms, commonly rendered, The Called, Predestination, Foreknowlege, &c. THE verses which are the subject of the following dissertation, are as follows in the Greek original: Vs. 28. Οἴδαμεν δὲ, ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθὸν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. 29. Οτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 30. Οὓς δὲ προώρισε, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσε· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσε, τού τους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασε. 31. Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα; Εἰ ὁ Θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ' ἡμῶν ; Our authorised version translates: 28. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose: 29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 30. "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31. "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" These verses, it should seem, in connexion with Ephesians, i. 4—6. iii. 11, more particularly suggested the sentiments and phraseology of the seventeenth article of the Church of England: "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be |