Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

In the fection concerning the number of herefies which exifted in the first ages of Christianity, he obferves, that they have been augmented without fufficient reafon. Philafter enumerates 122 after the coming of Chrift; and Austin takes an account of 128. Many articles fet down in the heretical catalogue are fo egregiously trifling, that we cannot conceive how they could become objects of ecclefiaftical cenfure, even in the eye of a zealous Father. Philafter and St. Auguftin both agree in condemning as a herefy, what philofophy hath fince demonftrated to be true, that there are more worlds than one. And the former hiftorian, in his zeal against novelties, carries the point of orthodoxy fo far beyond its own limits, as to fet down those harmless ftar-gazers in the black lift of heretics, who prefumed to give names to thofe conftellations which had not been named in the fcriptures. He abhors the found of Hyades; and he accounts those heretics and madmen who adopted that term from the Pagans; and yet this furious opposer of herefy and paganifm is perfectly fatisfied with another word derived from the fame. unregenerate authority. By his leave, you may call the feven ftars Pleiades, but not Hyades. And why this partiality for the former, when it is equally Heathen Greek with the latter? Philafter gives you a truly orthodox reafon : you meet with Pleiades in the book of Job! Thus the term, though prophane before, is fanctified by the word of God !

Dr. Lardner having proved that the number of the ancient heretics had been augmented without fufficient reafon, proceeds to establish a pofition that may feem ftrange at first, but which we think he hath fupported by folid teftimonies and judicious reasoning, viz. that most of the herefies of the two first centuries may be reduced to two kinds.' The firft is that which was introduced (as Theodoret reports) by Simon Magus (the father of the Gnoftics), and which afterwards was worked into a more finished and regular fyftem by Manes of Perfia. This original and moft pernicious herefy (commonly called Manecheifm, after the laft heretic) taught two ruling principles of good and evil in the universe, acting independently of each other;-denied that God, or the good principle, was the Creator of the world; and afferted that Jefus Chrift was man in appearance and form, but not in reality. The fecond great herefy of the primitive church was that which is commonly fupposed to have been first propagated by Ebion, viz. that Jefus Chrift was but a mere man.' With the maintenance of this doctrine, the followers of Ebion alfo maintained, with much zeal, the neceffity of complying with the rituals of the Mofaic law. From these two fources of herefy, all the leffer ftreams of error, that polluted the church in the firft ages of Chriftianity, were derived. In fupport of this obfervation, Dr. Lardner ap

pcals

peals to Tertullian, who fpeaks but of two herefies in the Apoftolic ages, the Docetes (or Gnoftics) and the Ebionites.--But the authority which he more particularly refers to is that of Theodoret. We will tranflate one paffage from this ancient Father, which is only inferted in the margin in the Greek. "Simon (viz. the magician of Samaria), and Menander, and Marcion, and Valentinus, and Bafilides, and Bardefanes, and Cordon, and Manes, denied the proper humanity of Chrift. Artemon, and Theodotus, and Sabellius, and Paul of Somofata, and Marcellus, and Photinus, ran into a blafphemy diametrically oppofite to the former, and maintained that Christ was no more than a man, and denied his pre-existence and divinity.”

But however blameable or abfurd fome of the tenets of the ancient heretics might have been, yet Dr. Lardner thinks, that they were often treated with too much acrimony by the Fathers, who frequently, in their zeal against error, ran into a greater themselves, and in their contention for what they called the truths of the gospel, moft fhamefully violated the practice of it. St. Jerome fcruples not to fay, that heretics are worse than heathens; yea, that they are the worst of all men. Epiphanius's Introduction to his Account of Ebiotism must be allowed (fays our learned Author) to be a remarkable inftance of harshness, not to fay railing'' After producing a very bitter expreffion from this ancient Father, Dr. Lardner obferves, with his ufual candour and generofity, that there are many confiderations that may lead men to moderation one towards another, upon occafion of different fentiments, especially in matters which have in them fome abftruseness and difficulty. One confideration, of no fmall moment, is, that we are in danger of the fame treatment that we give to others. . ., . Philafter, who wrote a long treatise of Herefies, and condemns fome of them with severity, has not been thought orthodox by all, but has fallen under the charge or fufpicion of heresy. . . . . This is certain, that as bad things were fpoken of the primitive Chriftians by Jews and Heathens, as ever were faid of the ancient heretics by the orthodox. Modern reformers have been treated juft in the fame manner: and no wonder, fince there have in every age been men fo ftrongly attached to their prefent intereft, as to value the emoluments connected with old establishments, however erroneous, more than the truth. Such men will always reprefent every attempt towards a reformation, as proceeding from wicked and impious difpofitions, and will cry down the promoters of it as heretics, and as men of the most abandoned and profligate principles. This must be the cafe whenever men think themselves privileged to neglect the rules of candour and moderation, in the judgment they form concerning each other. For though truth is one and unchangeable, orthodoxy and herefy are as variable as the opinions of fallible and inconftant, of prejudiced and ignorant men.'

On the principles of that moderation which our amiable Author profeffes, he endeavours to rescue the heretics from he feveral ill-founded calumnies which had been thrown on them by the malevolence or ignorance of the adverfe party. It

D 3

is

is worth obfervation, that the horrid charges produced by the Pagan writers against the Chriftians, in the firft and fecond centuries, very nearly refemble thofe which the hiftorians, and other writers among the orthodox Chriftians in a later period, alleged with fuch repeated and malicious triumph against the primitive heretics. This (fays Dr. Lardner) may create a fufpicion that thefe laft were formed on the model of the former, and confequently are without ground.' The moft fhocking crime imputed to the firft Chriftians by their perfecutors and calumniators, was the feafting, at their lewd nocturnal meetings, on the flesh of young children, killed on purpose for this unnatural banquet. The fame accufation is brought by Epiphanius against the Gnoftics: and we fuppofe the one to be just as probable as the other, and no more. When the ancient apologifts for the Chriftians (particularly Tertullian and Minutius Felix) relate the feveral charges that were alleged against them by the Heathens, they frequently ridicule their accufers for their abfurd credulity, in believing the improbable ftories that ftupidity, in league with malice, had propagated concerning their principles and their practices. The fame argument holds good in behalf of the heretics, of whom the fame incredible things were related by the orthodox writers. If (fays our Author) they are incredible with regard to one, they are fo likewife with regard to the other. Befides, there are fome things related of the Gnoftics by Epiphanius and Theodoret, which in all probability were never practifed by any individuals, not even amongst the most vicious and abandoned; much lefs were they the rites or facraments of any religious fect. When all this is confidered, I cannot help thinking that there is too much justice in Monf. Bayle's fatire; who having given an account of the five crimes charged on the Cainites, adds, "When we read these things in the Fathers of the church, one can fcarce forbear thinking that the cafe was the fame with them, in refpect to heretics, as with the Heathens in refpect to Christianity. The Heathens imputed to Christianity a hundred extravagancies and abominations, that had no foundation. . . . . . Is it not more reafonable to believe, that the Fathers did not, with all the patience re-quifite, thoroughly inform themfelves of the real principles of a fect, than it is to believe that thofe very men who held that Jefus Chrift, by his death, was the Saviour of mankind, thould at the fame time hold, that the beaftlieft pleasures are the ready way to Paradife ?"

The following fections of the first book treat of the general principles of the heretics: morc particularly it is remarked, that they believed only in one God;-that they made great ufe of the fcriptures ;-that fome of them ufed apocryphal books; and that many of thefe fuppofititious writings were forged by them, particularly a pretended Gofpel of St. Peter, by one of the feet of the Docetæ, and fome other fpurious books, by the Ebionites or Unitarians. But on this head the learned Author is very unwilling that the heretics should bear the whole in

famy

infamy of this fraudulent practice. The catholics, i. e. the orthodox themselves, fays he, are not free from this charge. There were several books forged by them, and afcribed to perfons who were not their real authors. Among these may be reckoned the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Sibylline Poems, the Books afcribed to Hydafpes, Hermes Trifmegiltus, and divers others. Thus much has been owned by feveral learned writers, particularly Ifaac Cafaubon. Mofheim, many years fince, published a differtation, fhewing the reafons and caufes of fuppofititious writings in the first and fecond centuries and all allow that Chriftians of all forts were guilty of this fraud. Indeed we may fay that it was one great fault of the times.'

The following fections treat of the refpect fhewn by the heretics to the writings of the Apoftles, and apoftolical traditions ;—of the learning and genius of the ancient herefiarchs, and of their attempts to graft the refined speculations of philofophy on the fimple doctrines of Chriftianity. To the great learning, and more than common acutenefs and fagacity of these primitive corrupters of the Chriftian faith, both Jerom and Auguftin bear an ample and ftriking teftimony. The former acknowledges, that herefy can only be fupported by a vigorous and fplendid genius. Such (fays this learned Father) was Valentinus, fuch was Marcion; both of them we pronounce to be the most learned of men. Such alfo was Bardefanes, whofe, genius was an object of admiration to philofophers themselves." This compliment was a very flattering one, though it was by no means defigned to flatter. There are many would forgive every attempt to fix on them the deepeft ftigma of herefy, if they could fecure the character of philofophers. We can repeat, perhaps with confcious exultation, the abuse of an enraged adversary; but the contempt of a scornful, or the ridicule. of a witty foe, can neither be repeated nor borne with pa-: tience, even by a heretic in the full pride of fingularity. St. Auguftin obferves, that in the defence of fome errors and falfities the greateft ingenuity was difplayed by philosophers and heretics or in the more expreffive words of the Rev. Mr. David Williams, "The first Spirits of the universe were called forth!" The enterprize was undoubtedly worthy of fuch spi-. rits; and "in great attempts 'tis glorious e'en to fall."

The other fections in this book are employed in obviating an objection that hath been urged by infidels against the Chriftian religion, from the variety of fects with which it hath abounded : -in fhewing that a more than ordinary curiofity and inqui-: fitiveness of mind were difpofitions frequently indulged by the heretics-that they were not in general folicitous, like too many of the abfurdly fcrupulous and bigotted orthodox, about little matters, and were moderate towards thofe who differed: from them. They formed churches, fays Mr. Hogg→(for

[ocr errors]

D 4

this,

this, it feems, is his part of the work) each according to his own plan, both as to difcipline and doctrine. And this variety the Catholics (or orthodox) unreasonably objected to, as a mark of error; forgetting that the very fame arguments which they ufed against the Heathens might be retorted on themselves with equal force by the heretics. They (i. e. the orthodox) bear witness, however, to the moderation and charity which thefe people manifefted in their religious differences with each other; while they afcribe this good temper, very uncharitably, to their defire of making a united oppofition to the truth.' This, indeed, is the general conduct of bigots of every defcription. There is no pleafing thefe illiberal fouls but in their own way. The morality of a heretic must be damned as well as his faith: and if these uncharitable cenfors can fee nothing to find fault with in the action, they have one precious refource, which they will quit only with life-they will fufpect the motive: and when that is vilified, the merit of the action must fink of course!

Mr. Hogg, in the Conclufion, attempts to vindicate the doctrines of the heretics from thofe pernicious confequences which were unjustly charged on them by their orthodox opponents;-and to evince on the authority of fome of the ancient Fathers, that the feeds of thefe herefies were fown in the days of the Apostles, and that the Apoftle had them in his eye when he exhorted the primitive Chriftians to avoid philofophy, and queftions about endless genealogies, and oppofitions of fcience falfely fo called. This opinion, continues Mr. Hogg, that the foundation of thefe herefies was laid in the times of the Apostles, and Sprang up immediately after, is an opinion probable in itself, and is embraced by feveral learned moderns; particularly by Vitringa, and by the late Rev. Mr. Brekel of Liverpool.'

To what a diftinguishing height this foundation sprang up, and how many fhoots, fuckers, and branches it caft forth (to carry on Mr. Hogg's curious metaphor), the fecond book undertakes more particularly to manifeft, under twenty-three dif tinct chapters, divided into fections, proportioned in length and number to the importance of the feveral fubjects which are difcuffed in them,

The general contents of the fecond book are as follow: Of Saturninus Of Bafilides - Of Carpocrates and his fon Epiphanes-Of Cerinthus-Of Prodicus and his Followers-Of the Adamites-Of Marc, and his Sect, called Marcofians-Of Heraclion, a Difciple of Valentinus-Of Cordon- Of Marcion and the celebrated Sect of the Marcionites-Of Leucius-Of Apelles-Of the Sethians-the Cainites-the Ophians-Of Artemon-Of Theodotus-Of Hermogenes-Of the Montanifts Of Praxeas-Of Julius Caffianus-Of the Elcefaites, or Offens And lastly, Of the Alogians.

In these chapters the learned and inquifitive Reader may meet with many curious particulars relating to the principles and manners of the ancient Heretics-many obfcurities are illuftrated

« AnteriorContinuar »