HEATHEN LITERATURE.
James Dodson
[from The Covenanter, Devoted to the Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 3.10 (May 1848) ed. James M. Willson. Philadelphia: David Smith, 1847. pp. 302-306.]
It might be supposed that the question, whether some years of our brief life should be devoted to the study of Heathen literature, could be at once, and unanimously answered: that all, learned and unlearned, would unite in rescuing the precious years of youth, and ripening manhood from so deplorable misappropriation. However, when we consider the extent and antiquity of the evil, and the multitude of prejudices and interests involved in the present system, we do not wonder that a movement towards reform should appear to some fanatical, to others perilous. Change is often no improvement. Changes embracing wide scope and far-reaching, ought not to be lightly made. Our purpose at this time, is not to enter upon the direct argument against the use of the Pagan classics in the instruction of youth, but merely to furnish the outlines of a reply to the arguments in their favour offered in our last number by an esteemed father in the ministry. This defense is able, as able as the subject admits of If we can meet his arguments, our work is done. We remark then,
1. That no one imagines that we “set boys to learn the classics as a system of religion and morality.” Nor has our design any important bearing pro or con, upon the question. The point at issue is, what effect the study of Pagan morals and religion is likely to have—what effect it does really have upon the moral and religious character of children and youth? Now, can it be conceived that no injury will result from an intimacy with corrupt Pagan idolaters, of years—and these too, years of intense mental exertion? With regard to their gods, we are perfectly aware that the decent moralist in Christian countries, and perhaps in some respects, even the libertine, looks upon them with disgust; but, in other aspects, and in many connections, they exhibit attractive, and consequently ensnaring, attributes. Even Venus, the goddess of sensual impurity, appears in the Æneid of Virgil, in the amiable light of a watchful and affectionate mother. This combination of good with evil, tends to conceal the latter, or at least, veil its most repulsive features. We speak for ourselves, when we say that it requires some effort to dismiss these same deities as mere figments of reprobate minds and debased hearts. There is danger to youth in these studies.[1]
2. There is no need to study the classics as school-books, for any of the four reasons which our respected father has assigned. 1. As to learning the “mythology of the Ancients,” if this must be done, a small volume in English will contain its outlines—enough of it to answer every purpose. We may read of it, but not study it? Have we not in existing Pagan nations, facts enough with which to combat the infidel? In China? In Hindostan [India]? In every part of the earth, even in Protestant lands? 2. As to the “secular knowledge” of which these authors are in some respects, a “store-house,” can we get it in no other way? What is there in mathematics, in Geology, in Natural Philosophy, in the science of mind, or in any other department of secular knowledge, that we cannot get improved a thousand-fold, in the writings of Christian authors? Will any advocate, however zealous, of heathen literature, pretend to say that in any one department of knowledge, the Pagan writers of the schools, are equal to the moderns? 3. We admit that they contain admirable models of style. We admire the polished simplicity of Homer, the sustained elegance of Virgil, the faultless arrangement, the skillful appeals, and sublime oratory of Cicero. But are they inimitable? Have we no models of style good enough among Christian authors? Chrysostom, although not equal to Demosthenes, was an accomplished orator. Lactantius has been deemed by many superior to Cicero. Why not study them? Or, if we must have Demosthenes and Cicero, or run the hazard of sinking into a “barbarous jargon,” let them be read, not as school-books, but as models of style. This argument is the main fortress of the advocates of Pagan literature, but who can believe that with the Bible, with specimens of eloquence and taste at our command in a dozen languages—who can believe that these writers are so essential to the preservation of good taste and polished composition, that without them we would lose all? Two or three Pagan authors, the grand preservatives of a finished style of writing and speaking in the Christian Church! Credat! Non Ego. [You may believe it! I do not.] Our doctrine is that if one quarter of the labour that is employed in the study of the classics, was spent in making pupils familiar with English models, and in the practice of composition and speaking, we would have far more good writers and public speakers. 4. As to the knowledge of history derived from these writers, we grant it But it has been derived. They have served their day. Few ever resort to them for this purpose. We read [Humphrey] Prideaux, we never or rarely consult his authorities. Yet we could consult them still, for we would not throw away the languages by banishing these books as school-books.
3. The argument from the monks before the incursion of the Romans, &c., is of no weight. If the monks had substituted the Bible, and learned and polished Christian authors or Pagan books, they would have done good service, and no such consequences would have followed as Hallam records. As to the revival of learning in the 15th century through the instrumentality of the learned Greeks from Constantinople, we have only to say, that it has no bearing on the question before us. That it was overruled for good, in breaking up the crust of ignorance and puerility that had contracted and enfeebled the European mind, we readily admit, but what of that? Is Pagan literature necessary to maintain the full glow of mental energy, we again ask, notwithstanding Bibles, printing presses, &c.? We trow not.
4. That these writings have “been eminently blessed as a means of preparing youth for the ministry,” we cannot, in this unqualified form, admit. We do admit that mind has been often highly cultivated by the study of the classics—mind that the head of the Church has employed in his own immediate service in the ministry. But that it has been blessed quoad [with respect to being] pagan—that it has been so peculiarly and signally blessed, as that in rejecting pagan books, we would be running contrary to the divine will expressed in this form—and this is the argument, if there be any in this reasoning—we cannot admit We believe that a more eminent blessing will rest upon the study of a course of Scriptural and Christian literature. Nor would we confine the course of study to such matters only as tend directly to sanctify the soul. No, we would have due attention given to mathematics, to the natural sciences, to the philosophy of the mind, to history, political economy, &c. What we wish, is to have the Bible the basis, and nothing introduced whose tendency is to interfere with the due effect of Bible truth.
5. The Bible is imitable, generally, in its style. Our Father has read the Pilgrim’s Progress, and knows well the history of its author, and has heard of the remark of [John] Owen, that he would give half his learning to be able to preach with the point and pathos of “the tinker.” [John] Bunyan’s was, pre-eminently, a Bible style. The Scripture style is highly imitable. It is so because it is eminently natural: free from the false taste and other corruptions which are so apt to disfigure the writings of the uninspired. The great British Orator, Charles James Fox, though an irreligious man, read and re-read the book of Job, as the best method of keeping up the pitch of his eloquence. The Bible can be imitated—it cannot, indeed, be equaled. That is a different matter. We should imitate Christ, we will never equal him. We are surprised at this argument.
6. As to proscribing those who quote, or even recommend the classics, we cannot see that this follows. We do not object to classical quotations, we object to making pagan authors our school-books.
7. And this we think by far the strongest argument adduced in the article before us. Moses and Daniel studied “Heathen Literature.” Admitted, but what then? God designed both these men, with Daniel’s companions, for important service among the very people whose learning they acquired. Moses was forty years in the court of Pharaoh, but is that any reason why the Jews, when settled in their own land, should have sent their youth to Egypt to acquire the same knowledge? Or have invited some Egyptian literati lo abide in Judea for the purpose of instructing their youth? Or finally, any reason why they should establish schools of Egyptian learning in Palestine, instead of directing all their efforts to making them proficients in their own literature? As to Daniel, we may say the same, and besides, he was designed to be the chief ruler over the realm, and was, providentially qualified for the station. These are extraordinary cases, and no argument can be drawn from them. It may be right for missionaries to study the Shasters of Hindostan, that they may refute the Brahmans, but we need not, and ought not to set our youth to study them.
8. As to the footsteps of the flock, we are not willing to admit that this is one of those things in which we are divinely instructed to “go forth by the footsteps of the flock.” If so, then throughout the millennium every nation must read Homer, &c. &c. If so, and this has been the designed path of the flock, then, in India, the missionaries must either introduce Homer, &c., or retain the ancient Sanskrit writers![2] Is Mr. [William] S[loane] himself willing to go this consequence? We think he will not, we certainly will not. Allowing Eastern Christians the liberty of repudiating the Shasters, we claim the right to repudiate Homer.
9. That no “pious youth” has been made either a pagan or an infidel by such studies, is undoubtedly true; but who can tell how many unconverted, and finally lost, have stumbled over this stumbling-stone? As to the ministry sinking into ignorance and insignificance, “without a respectable knowledge of the learned languages,” we are perfectly willing to admit it—we maintain it And we would have, if possible, a more enlarged and thorough course of literary instruction preparatory to an entrance upon the ministry. But we would have it without any, or, at least, very limited resort to heathen writers, and that in the end of the course. We would have the Bible read in Hebrew and in Greek. We would have a well selected course in Christian authors. We would not diminish the amount, we would alter the kind. We would make the Bible the basis, and the centre of all operations. And with the whole course in foreign and ancient tongues, we would have a far richer infusion of our own. Under such a system, instead of “sinking,” we feel assured the ministry would rise.
ENDNOTES:
[1] The April number of the Evangelical Repository, contains a good article on this subject. It thus sums up the character of the authors of our school-books, and their heroes, &c.
“Lycurgus, the Spartan lawgiver, authorized sodomy and theft. Socrates abounded in profane swearing, and prostituted his wife for gain. Plato was a notorious liar, and taught the lawfulness of exposing children [i.e., infanticide]. Cato killed himself. Cicero cried out, I hate the gods. Seneca encouraged Nero to murder his mother. Cicero and Seneca pleaded for self-murder. Demosthenes, Cato, Brutus, Cassius, carried with them the instruments of death. And what was the Roman government but the horrid monster described by Daniel and John?—And what were the republics of Greece, but the combined conspiracies of a few to trample upon the rights and liberties of the masses?—And who were these classic authors? Cæsar, a land pirate and scourge of unoffending nations. Horace, a drunken sycophant of Maecenas. Cicero, a demagogue and braggadocio. Virgil, a parasite of Augustus. What claim such states and statesmen, such authors and their sentiments, possess to be retained in perpetual remembrance, and rescued from merited oblivion by Christians, is not in my power to declare. Now when we consider the utter destitution of moral principles, and the horrid licentiousness, which teems through these productions, shall we say that it is possible for a youth to drink at these corrupt fountains and his soul not experience their deadly influence? ‘Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals and his feet not be burned?’ Expurgate these books as you please, mark every line with a note or an asterisk, and it is impossible to divest them of their diabolical tendencies. There is more than sufficient left to leaven all our schools of learning with the spirit of the prince whom these historians, and poets, and orators served. No pious parent would intrust his child in a common school, where the class books taught lying, swearing, drunkenness, pride, ambition or revenges—or taught them to revile the Deity, mock at religion, to deny the soul’s immortality, or a future state of rewards and punishments. And are these instructions the less dangerous because communicated in a college? or because the youth has grown a little in age and stature? There is no doubt but many youths, who were once the pride of their families, having imbibed vile sentiments from these class books, go forth from the college to be pests in society. I know not upon what other supposition to account for the fact, that though there are some thousands of colleges and schools of learning in our country, and though young men graduate by thousands every year, the church of Christ everywhere complains she is destitute of labourers. Why! she has corrupted the fountains of learning, she has rejected God’s counsel— and therefore he is blasting her efforts. Her doctors teach their pupils polytheism six days, and on the seventh try to indoctrinate them with the knowledge of God.”
We are glad to see this article. The subject is attracting attention.
[2] The Sanscrit is as complete and copious a language as the Greek, and even more so.