Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The next thing our author mentions for proof of the universal reception of this article, is the custom of the Heathens in deifying their heroes on account of their virtues and piety. But our author knew too much of the Gentiles' religion to believe that this proves any more, than the fulsome flattery of the blinded world that der fied even devils, and, as our author elsewhere well observes, men that were no better than devils; or if there was any more in this custom, when at first invented, it was only some ill applied piece of gratitude to persons, who had been their benefactors, or the benefactors of mankind. And all this respect, that was put on them was not because their virtues reflected any glory on God, but because they had been useful to men. Besides, religion was old in the world before this novel Grecian invention took place. As the Roman poet and satyrist observed,

-nec turba deorum

Talis, ut est hodie, contentaque sidera paucis
Numinibus, miserum urgebant Atlanta minore
Pondere.*

Nor did this universally obtain. So that the argument concludes just nothing. It neither proves that all the world were agreed that virtue and piety are the principal parts of the worship of God, nor that on account of these, men get eternal happiness. What their immortality was, of which they talked, we may see un der the fifth article.

Some few quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Plato, and one or two more compose our author's last argument. Seneca speaking somewhere of Scipio Africanus says, " Animam quidem ejus in cœlum, ex quo erat, redisse persuadeo, non quod magnos exercitus duxit (hos enim Cambyses furiosus, & furore feliciter usus habuit) sed ob egregiam moderationem, pietatemque. Offic. Deos placatos facit pietas & sanctitas."

Cicero Lib. de
And elsewhere

he says, "Nec est ulla erga deos pietas, nisi honesta de numine eorum ac mente opinio: Quum expeti nihil ab iis quod sit injustum, ac in honestum arbitrere."+ Some others he adduces from Plato and others, wherein they say, that happiness and likeness to God are obtained by virtue.

*" Nor was there such a multitude of gods, as there is now, and the "stars being content with a few deities, pressed the poor Atlas with less tc weight."

De Relig. Gentil. pag. 187..........." I am persuaded that his soul returned to that heaven from whence it came, not because he had great armies (for Cambysis who was a madman, and fortunate in his madness, had these too) but on account of his remarkable moderation and piety. Piety and holiness appease the gods. Nor is there any piety towards the gods, except an honorable opinion of their deity and mind, when one thinks that nothing unjust and dishonorable should be asked of them."

But to what purpose are all these brought? 1. There are words here of gods, and their worship and piety as respecting them; but not one word of the one true God, of whom alone we speak. 2. It is certain that this piety and sanctity according to those authors, comprehended the worship of their gods, as our author expressly confesses, " Atque ad pietatem consummatam plurima insuper (that is, besides virtue of which he speaks before) postulari aiebant, sed ea præsertim quæ grati in superos animi indicia essent, puta sacrificia, ritus & ceremonias & hujusmodi alia; quorum farrago ingens fuit: Cæterum sine prædictis divis sive deabus,animam regentibus, aditum in cœlum non dari." This last part is only our author's say, and is not reconcileable with what he tells us of their deifying some, who were so far from being gods, that they were, says he, Ne viri quidem probi.‡ 3. As for what Cicero says, "That for virtue and piety we are advanced to heaven;" I do not know well how to reconcile it with what he says elsewhere in his book de Amicitia," Vult plane virtus honorem: nec virtutis est ulla alia merces," otherwise than by thinking that by heaven, (his cœlum,) he meant, that which many of them meant by their immortality, that is, an immortal fame, a good reputation after they are gone, amongst the survivors. As for Seneca, Christianity had taught him a little more, and his testimony is not much to be regarded. 4. Were there twenty more of them, they never come near to a proof of the point: it is the sentiments of the world that we are inquiring after, and not what were the thoughts of some of the more improved philosophers. The question is not, Whether men by the light of nature saw an excellency in virtue, and that it was to be followed? but, Whether they looked on it as a part, a principal part of the worship, not of their deities, but of the one true God: and that for which heaven, not that imaginary heaven which men had at their disposal; but an eternity of happiness in communion with God, is to be obtained? Now our author advances nothing to prove this point.

ARTICLE IV.

We must repent when we do amiss.

As to this article our author confesses several things, which it will be meet to notice in the entry. 1. He owns that the ancients,

† De Relig. Gentil. pag. 185.-" And they said, that many other things besides were requisite in order to constitute perfect piety, but especially such things as were indications of a mind grateful to the gods, viz. sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies, and other things of this sort, of which there was a great number, but that there was no access to heaven without the aforesaid gods and goddesses, who directed the soul."

Ibid, pag. 195.-" Nor even good men."

the wiser sort of them, thought not repentance a sufficient atonement for the grosser sort of sins ;* and quotes Cicero, saying, Expiatio scelerum in homines nulla est. Where God was offended they sought sanctuary in repentance, and thought it sufficient, but not where men were wronged. "Cæterum licet in remedium pec"cati, ubi Dei Summi majestas læderetur, pænitentiam sive dolorem. "efficacem esse crederent: Non ita tamen ubi homines injuria vel contumelii affiicarentur, de pœnitentia illa statuebant Gentiles.‡ 2. He confesses that they thought not, "Repentance alone a sufficient atonement." He tells us, that they had Expiationes lustrationesque, sine quibus neque crimine neque pœna solutos semetipsos arbitrabantur. Again, 3. He confesses that the word repen•tance or penitence, was rarely used among the ancients, in that sense we use it. "Neque mihi dubium quin eorum (scil. peccato“rum)pœnituerit Gentiles, quæ tot mala; arcessiverunt; licet rarius quidem pœnitentiæ verbum inter autores, eo quo jam usurpatur "sensu reperiatur.** Since then he makes all these concessions, there remains no more save this, that he pretends all the "world "were agreed upon repentance, as that which was of use to expiate, "at least, some lesser faults committed against God, and that we "should, when we sin, be grieved for it."

[ocr errors]

To prove this, he quotes some passages from Ovid, Seneca and some others. The only considerable testimony is from Periander, who was one of the seven wise men of Greece: One of whose sentences, he says it was Α'μαρτων Μεταμελου, της άμαρτήσας, Τε mali pæniteat, ubi peccaveris. Seneca says, Quem pœnitet peccasse pene est innocens. And Ovid,

Sæpe levant pœnas, ereptaque lumina reddunt
Quem bene peccati pœnituisse vides.§

But all these are alleged to no purpose. They do not prove that repentance was looked on as an expiation by the Gentiles. Ovid and Seneca lived too late in the world, and had too great access to learn from others, to be much regarded in this matter; but they only speak their own mind, and we have here no argument of the

* De Rel. Gen. pag. 197.

Cicero de Leg. Lib. 1----“ There is no expiation of crimes against men." De Rel. Gent. pag. 198.-" But although they thought that penitence or sorrow was an effectual mean of taking away sin, whereby the majesty of the Supreme God was injured, yet they had not the same opinion of penitence, "in regard to those sins where by men were injured and insulted."

[ocr errors]

|| Ibid. pag. 195.—“Expiations and lustrations, without which they did "not think themselves absolved either from crime or from punishment." ** De Rel. Gent. pag. 198.-" Nor is it a doubt with me that the Gentiles "repented of those crimes which brought so many evils upon them, although "the word repentance, in that sense in which it is now used seldom occurs in "their authors."

"You see that he who duly repents of his offence often alleviates his pun"ishment, and restores his lost light."

31

agreement of the world as to any thing about repentance. The opinions of the wise are no just measure of the knowledge or ap prehensions of the vulgar.

But that whereon our author seems to lay more stress, is their sacrifices, which he pretends are an evidence of their grief for sin, or repentance. Quorsum enim nisi interno dolore perciti, tot ritus sacraque ad deos placandos excogitassent ?‡

But, 1. If the Gentiles had been as much agreed about repentance, as our author pretends, they would indeed have spared all this pains and cost. 2. They were indeed grieved, but this grief they did not willingly entertain, nor allow themselves in as their duty; but looked upon it as their torment, and sought sanctuary in means proper for appeasing their gods, as they thought. 3. This grief, which sacrifices prove them to have had, is no more but that uneasy sense of sin in the conscience, which is a part of its punishment, and no duty performed for their deliverance; and this forced them upon all ways that they could imagine to get rid of it; so that sacrifices were what they betook themselves to, to save themselves, or procure a deliverance from our author's penitence. 4. Further, our author, when it is for his purpose, can put another construction on their sacrifices; while we have heard above, he makes them only absurd enough testimonies of gratitude to the gods, and to have no respect to sin at all. It is indeed true, that sometimes they were in this way used; so Pythagoras is said to have used them when he offered Hecatombs to the gods, for a proposition which he found out; but for ordinary, they were designed as expiatory. 5. Do their sacrifices, which they offered to so many gods, prove that they were troubled for offending the one true God? I believe not. Aye, but this is what our author should have proved. 6. Does our author tell us that they were so little agreed about this purgative, that no less a person than Plato discarded repentance, and put philosophy in its room, as that whereby only we could be purged? And this leads me to a 7th thing, that shews of how little signification this pretended proof is. That it is known that the more discerning philosophers made most light of those sacrifices, yea of sin, and consequently of our author's Catholic remedy, repentance. As to the sufficiency of repentance for the place he assigns it, we have spoken to it above. Our author, I think, has badly proven that it universally obtained. And indeed had there been as much weight laid on it as is pretended, we could not have missed a more large account of it in the writings of the Gentiles. Further, 8. Our author pretends, that repentance is of no avail, as to the grosser evils, but only washes away lesser sins, and

"For to what purpose; unless they had been prompted by inward sorrow; would they have contrived so many rites and sacrifices for appeasing the gods!"

we fear our author would find some difficulty to prove that generally the Gentiles were so concerned for lesser sins, as he pretends. 9. Had they been so well agreed, as he pretends, about repentance, and had this been the design of their sacrifices, I do not well understand why our author should make such opposition betwixt sacrifices and repentance, as elsewhere he does; when he is speaking of several faults of the Heathen priests, he subjoins"Sed et hoc pejus, quod quum ex vera virtute, vel hinc ubi excide"rint ex pænitentia vera, pacem internam comparare debuissent, "ad ritus & sacra, quæ ipsi (Scil. Sacerdotes) peragerent res per“ducta est, &c."* Here it would seem plain, that the people came at length, if not of their own accord, yet by the persuasion of the priests, to overlook repentance, and reject it, substituting other things in its room; and when once this obtained in one generation, it is like it might spread and obtain in after ages, being transmitted from father to son, and the priests carrying on the cheat; and so at least the world in all ages hath not made any account of repentance as the only expiation. Again, it would seem from our author, that sacrifices did not import, and were not evidences of repentance, but on the contrary, means invented to make people neglect it.† I do not well understand how they, who, if we may believe our author, were all so fully agreed about repentance, and were so prone and inclined to it, that their minds run into it without any persuasion, should need so much the priests' persuasion, and be easily drawn off from what they accounted so available. Let us hear our author. Speaking of man's recovery from sin, says he, Atque "instaurationem hanc fieri debere ex pœnitentia, docuere tum philo"sophi, tum sacerdotes, ita ut hanc agendam animamque purifican“dum, sed non sine eorum ministerio, sæpius inculcarent. Bene “quidem, si pœnitentiam satis populo persuasissent, quod neutiquam tamem ab illis factum fuit; licet adeo prona in eam sit an"ima humana, ut etiam nullo suadente, in foro interno ex gratia "divina, conscientia que dictamine decernatur." Our author tells us, that the people's sacrifices were an argument of their repentance, as we heard above, and that the priests persuaded them to it, and that they were all agreed, that repentance was the only atone

66

[ocr errors]

* Del. Rel. Gent. pag. 10.-" But this too is worse, that when they ought to "have sought inward peace by true virtue, or when they had fallen from it, "by true penitence, the matter was reduced to rites and sacrifices performed "by the priests."

t

† Ibid. pag. 197.

+ "And both the philosophers and the priests taught that this recovery must be brought about by repentance, so that they often inculcated that "this ought to be done and the soul purified, but not without their ministry. "It would have been well indeed if they had sufficiently persuaded the people "to penitence, which however was not done by them, although the human "mind is so prone to it, that even without any adviser, it is determined in the Finward court by the divine grace and the dictates of conscience."

« AnteriorContinuar »