216 
and wise management of the universe, 
they naturally enquired, if such a glori- 
ous display of intelligence could possibly 
proceed from a fortuitous concourse of 
atoms, orif chance could have produced 
what the highest genius can never suth- 
ciently admire.* 
If the philosophers of Rome refuted 
the visionary svstem of Fpicurus, it was 
to be expected that on the establishment 
of Christianity, it would immediately de- 
cline. Some have pretended to trace, in 
the writings of the earlier Fathers of the 
Church, a resemblance to the moral code 
of Epicurus. It may be admitted, that 
all his tenets were not equally talse and 
dangerous. ‘There are some, no doubt, 
which might be consistently adopted by 
the professors of a purer, and more en- 
lightened faith. Even in his physical 
theory, which we have extracted above, 
may be traced discoveries consonant with 
the best-established axioms of modern 
philosophy. But these, the limited and 
peculiar plan of our undertaking will not 
permit us to investigate. The less offen- 
sive parts of his moral theory were suc- 
cessively revived and defended by Abe- 
lard, Bruno; and after the revival of let- 
ters by Philelphus, Volaterianus, Pic, 
Sennet, Gassendi, Du Rondelle, and Sir 
William Temple. But it was reserved 
for the bolder impiety of the writers of 
the seventeenth and eighteenth century; 
of Bayle, of Hume, Diderot, and other 
Materialists, to revive the leading piinci- 
ples of Epicurus, in all their natiyg-de- 
‘formity, which denied the immortéty 6f 
the soul, and the existence of a future 
state, They have attempted to shelter 
their infidelity under the specious pro- 
fessions of yeneral benevolence, and uni- 
versal love for mankind. Not daring 
openly to avow their irreligion, their ex- 
pressions would unply the recognition of 
a Deity; but as Cicero observes of the 
ancient Epicureans,'** Verdis penunt, re 
tollunt Deos.” Bayle has employed all 
that accumulated erudition, and natural 
sagacity, could furnish, or suggest, to es- 
tablish the position, that corruption of 
manners would not be the necessary con- 
sequence of atheism; and that a people 
of atheists might live as tranquilly toge- 
ther as the most religious nation, But 
this extraordinary assertion is victori- 
ously refuted by Warburton. Indeed, 
* Cicero never wrote any thing with great- 
er beauty and elegance than when he de- 
scribes the regularity, the riches, and the 
harmony of the physical world —See de 
Nat. Decorum, lib. 2, s. 39, et-seq. 
Lyceum of Ancient Literature—Lucretius. [April 1, 
what principles of morality, what regu- 
larity of manners, can be expected froni 
a philosophy which admits of no divinity 
but chance, and no other substances than 
matter and space ; which regards the im- 
mortality of the soul as a chimera, virtue 
as only a name; and considers pleasure 
as the only good to which mortals should 
aspire? What political harmony, what 
moral order, could result from a rejec- 
tion of those religious restraints which 
are so connected with the operation of 
temporal laws, that nations could not 
subsist, nor governments be supported, 
without them? In vain does the Epi- 
curean talk of temperance, justice, and 
the love of our country; in vain does the 
solemn verse of Lucretius inculcate these, 
and other qualities of the mind, if the 
great principles upon which society is 
formed be removed; if virtue have no 
motive for exertion, and vice no fear of 
punishment. 
When the system of Epicurus was made 
known to the Romans, it found an enthu- 
siastic admirer, and ardent supporter, 
in Lucretius. But he must be considered 
in the double light of philosopher and 
poet. As the ancient philosophers had 
two doctrines, the one public and exter= 
nal, which they inculeated among the 
people, the other secret and internal, 
which.was reserved for their pupils alone; 
so Lucretius, as a poet, appears to have 
adopted the theological ideas of his age, 
while,‘as an~ Epicurean philosopher, he 
argues against the gods, and strenuously 
denies their power. Unless we remem- 
ber this distinction, many parts of his 
poem will be absolutely unintelligible. 
For instance, as a philosopher, he disco- 
vers himself throughout his poem to be’ 
the declared enemy of a providence; and 
yet, as a poet, he appears to recognize it 
im the following lines. 
Usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quedam 
Obterit, & pulchros fasces se#vasque secures 
Proculcare, ac ludibrio sibi habere videtur. 
The design of Epicurus was to take 
from the gods the government of the 
world, by placing them beyond the sphere 
of biman events, and this seems to be 
the true sense of a line which has been 
seldom clearly understood, 
Semota ab nostris rebus secretaque long. 
Lucretius was an Epictrean, more, 
perhaps, from inclination and the bent 
of his genius, than from reason, or argu« 
ment; for though his suppositions are 
precarious, and his reasoning weak, his 
conclusions are delivered with the most 
.Poritive air of authority, as if they were — 
_ thee 
