Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

they began to deprave and corrupt it. For from their profane and vain babblings, Tertullian assures us, every heresy took its birth. Ipsi illi SAPIENTIE PROFESSORES, de quorum ingeniis omnis hæresis animatur. And, in another place, he gives us their genealogy. Ipsæ denique hæreses à PHI"LOSOPHIA Subornantur. Inde Eones & formæ, "nescio quæ, & trinitas hominis apud Valentinum: "PLATONICUs fuerat. Inde Marcionis deus melior

[ocr errors]

de tranquillitate, a STOICIS venerat; & uti anima "interire dicatur, ab EPICUREIS observatur: ET

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

UT CARNIS RESTITUTIO NEGETUR, DE UNA OMNIUM PHILOSOPHORUM SCHOLA SUMITUR; et ubi materia cum deo æquatur, ZENONIS disciplina est: et ubi aliquid de igneo deo allegatur, "HERACLITUS intervenit. Eædem materiæ apud "hæreticos & philosophos volutantur; iidem re

tractatus implicantur. Unde malum, & quare? " & unde homo, & quomodo? & quod proximè Va"lentinus proposuit, unde deus? Scilicet & de

Enthymesi, ectromate inserunt ARISTOTELEM, qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi &

* See the Introduction to Julian, or a Discourse concerning his attempt to rebuild the Temple, vol. viii.

† Adv. Marc. 1. i. The author of a fragment concerning the Philosophers going under the name of Origen, says the same thing: ἀλλ ̓ ἔσιν αὐτοῖς [Αἱρετικοῖς] τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀρχὴν μὲν ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλήνων σοφίας λαβόνια, ἐκ δοΓμάτων φιλοσοφεμένων, καὶ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΩΝ ἐπικεχειρημένων καὶ ἀτρολόγων ρεμβομένων.

[blocks in formation]

"destruendi, versipellem in sententiis coactam, in

[ocr errors]

conjecturis duram, in argumentis operariam, con"tentione molestam, etiam sibi ipsi omnia retrac"tantem, nequid omnino tractaverit. Hinc illæ "fabulæ & genealogiæ indeterminabiles, & quæsti ones infructuosæ & SERMONES SERPENTES

έσ

VELUT CANCER, a quibus nos apostolus refrænans *, &c. One would almost imagine, from these last words, that Tertullian had foreseen that ARISTOTLE was to be the founder of the SCHOOL DIVINITY.

He observes, that the Heresy, which denies the Resurrection of the Body, arose out of the whole School of Gentile philosophy. But he omits another, which we have shewn stood upon as wide a bottom; namely, that which holds the HUMAN SOUL TO BE

OF THE SAME NATURE AND SUBSTANCE WITH

GOD; espoused before his time by the Gnostics, and afterwards, as we learn by St. Austin, by the Manichæans and Priscillianists †.

*De præsc. adv. Hæret. pp. 70, 71. Ed. Par. 1580.

+ Priscillianista quos in Hispania Priscillianus instituit, maxime Gnosticorum & Manichæorum dogmata permixta sectantur; quamvis et ex aliis hæresibus in eas sordes, tanquam in sentinam quandam horribili confusione confluxerint. Propter occultandas autem contaminationes & turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus & hæc verba, Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli. Hi,

ANIMAS DICUNT EJUSDEM NATURE ATQUE SUBSTAN

TIE CUJUS EST DEUS. Aug. De Hæresibus.

Why

Why the heathen Philosophers of our times should be displeased to see their ancient brethren shewn for knaves in practice, and fools in theory, is not at all strange to conceive: but why any else should think themselves cóncerned in the force and fidelity of the drawing, is to me a greater mystery than any I have attempted to unveil. For a stronger proof of the necessity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot, I think, be given than this, That the SAGES OF GREECE, with whom all the WISDOM of the world was supposed to be deposited *, had PHILOSOPHISED themselves out of the most evident and useful TRUTH with which mankind hath any concern.

Besides, what greater regard could any one shew to the authority of the Sacred Writers than to justify their CENSURE of the Greek philosophy; a censure which Deists and Fanatics, though for different ends, have equally concurred to represent as a condemnation of human learning in general?

In conclusion, it is but fit we should give the reader some account why we have been so long and so particular on this matter.

One reason was (to mention no other at present) to obviate an objection, which might possibly be urged against our proof, of the divine legation of MOSES, from the omission of a future state. For if now the Deists should say (and we know they are ready to say any thing) that Moses did not

1 Cor. i. 20.

propagate

propagate that doctrine, because he did not believe it; we have an answer ready: having shewn from fact, that the not believing a doctrine so useful to society, was esteemed no reason for the Legislator not to propagate it. I say, having shewn it from the practice of the Philosophers: For as to the Lawgivers, that is, those who were not Philosophers, professed, it appears, by what can be learnt from their history and character, that they all believed, as well as taught, a future state of rewards and punishments. And indeed how should it be otherwise? for they were free from those metaphysical whimsies, concerning GOD and the SOUL, which had so besotted the Greek Philosophers. And I know of nothing else that could hinder any man's believing it.

66

Against all this force of evidence, weak, indeed, as it is against the force of prejudice, the learned Chancellor of Gottingen has opposed his Authority, which is great, and his talents of reasoning and eloquence, which are still greater. Magnam non ita pridem (says he) ut Antiquiores mittam, ingenii viin et doctrinæ copiam impendit, ut in hanc nos sententiam induceret GUILIELMUS WARBURTONUS, vir alioquin egregius & inprimis acutus, in celeberrimo et eruditissimo libro, quem, The divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, inscripsit Lib. iii. Sect. 4. Jubet ille nos existimare OMNES PHILOSOPHOS, qui animorum immortalitatem docuerunt, eamdem clam negasse. Naturam rerum revera Dei loco habuisse atque mentes hominum Particulas censuisse

censuisse ex mundi anima decerptas, et ad eam post corporum obitum reversuras. Verum, ut taceam, Græcorum tantum Philosophos éum testari, quum aliis tamen Populis sui etiam Philosophi fuerint, a Græcoruin sententiis multis modis semoti, ut hoc, inquam, seponam, non apertis & planis testimoniis causam suam agit Vir præclarus, quod in tanti moinenti accusatione necessarium videtur, sed conjecturis tantum, exemplis nonnullis, denique consectariis ex institutis quibusdam et dogmatibus Philosophorum quorumdam ductis."-De rebus Christ. ante Constantinum Magnum, p. 18. Here the learned Critic supposing the question to be,--What the Philosophers of the ancient World in general thought concerning a future state? charges the Author of the Divine Legation with falling short in his proof, which reaches, says he, only the Greek Philosophers though there were many other in the world besides, who dogmatized on very different principles. Now I had again and again declared, that I confined my Inquiry to the Greek Philosophers. We shall see presently, for what reason. What then could have betrayed this great Man into so wrong a representation? It was not, I am persuaded, a want of candour, but of attention to the Author le criticised.-For, seeing so much written by me against the principles of those Ancients who propagated the doctrine of a future state, he unwarily concluded that it was in my purpose to discredit the doctrine, as discoverable by the light of nature; and, on that ground,

« IndietroContinua »