whipped on the altar of Diana, sometimes till they died. How many lovely infants did the Carthaginians sacrifice to their implacable god Moloch! What numbers of human victims, in times of public danger, did they immolate, to appease the resentment of the offended deities! It has been said that the mysteries were designed to instruct the people in the principles of true religion and of true morality; and ingenious and learned men have laboured to represent them in this light, and also to shew how well calculated they are for this end. "They have said, that the errors of polytheism were detected and exposed, and the doctrines of the divine unity and supreme government taught and explained in them; that the initiated became bound by solemn engagements to reform their lives, and to devote themselves strictly to the practice and cultivation of purity and virtue; and that the celebration of the mysteries was extensive; and their influence great :'initiantur,' says Cicero, 'gentes orarum ultimæ.' "It is true, that the priests of the mysteries were highly ostentatious of their own morality, and zealous in their professions to regenerate the people. But the means which they employed were neither suitable nor adequate to that end; nor did they answer it. The mysteries, which, it has been pretended, were calculated to produce it, served only, in fact, to explain some of the subjects of mythology, and to promote the designs of human policy --to inspire heroism, and to secure civil subordination and obedience. In proof of this we may ask, if they contributed at all to change the people's polytheistical opinions, or to improve their morals? Did they not, in place of becoming better by them, degenerate daily? were they not oppressed more and more by superstition, and dissolved in vice? Did not some of the best and wisest philosophers disapprove of the mysteries? — Alcibiades mocked the gods- Anaxagoras was expelled by the Athenians for the neglect of them.-Socrates certainly had no good opinion of the mysteries - he was not initiated into them; and circumstances attending them have been suggested, which ought to render their moral tendency more than suspicious. "They were celebrated in the silence and darkness of the night, handsomest of their captives, the flame of whose funeral pile was so great as to set their camp on fire. (Ib. lib. xx. c. 65.) Lactantius (Divin. Instit. lib. i. c. 21.) has recorded numerous similar horrid sacrifices of human victims. Beside the preceding authorities, the reader will find numerous additional testimonies, drawn from classic authors, in Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 111-116.; Mr. Bryant's Analysis of Antient Mythology, vol. ii. pp. 224. 266. 312.; and also in Dr. Leland's Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, vol. i. ch. vii. pp. 134–157. 1 Dr. Hill (Essays on the Institutions, &c. of Antient Greece, p. 52.) is of opinion, after many eminent writers, that the doctrine of the unity of God was taught in the mysteries. See also Bp. Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, book ii. sect. 4. But Dr. Leland has long since examined the various proofs adduced in support of this sentiment; and has shewn that there is great reason to think that the notion of the Deity taught in the mysteries was not a right and just one; and even if it were so, that it would have been of little use, as it was communicated only to a few, and under the strictest seal of secrecy. Advant. and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, vol. i. pp. 158-196. with the utmost secrecy. They were frequently conducted under the patronage of the most licentious and sensual deities. The most indecent objects were exhibited, and carried in procession. It is a shame,' saith the apostle, 'even to speak of those things which were done of them in secret.' At last they became so infamous, in respect both of morality and good order, that it was found necessary to prohibit them. "It is hard to conceive how the mysteries could have any good effect on the morals of the people. It might excite the ambition of a few, to be told that the gods were nothing more than eminent men; but it was more likely to disgust the greater part of them, and to render them completely unbelieving and irreligious. Besides, considering how few were initiated, the influence of the mysteries, even supposing them to have had a beneficial influence, must have been very small on the mass of the people. Farther, the initiated were prohibited, under a solemn oath, ever to reveal the mysteries. Whatever benefit, therefore, they might themselves derive from them, they could communicate none to others; nor could the impression, however strong during the initiation, be always retained with equal strength during life. On the whole, taking the account even of those who favour them, the mysteries neither diminished the influence of Polytheism nor promoted the belief of the divine unity; they contributed rather to the increase of superstition, and to the prevalence of licentiousness and vice. If they were designed, as has been affirmed, to shew that the public religion had no foundation in truthto hold it up to contempt-what could have a worse effect on the mind of the people? what more injurious to religious and moral principles and practice, than to exhibit the whole civil and ecclesiastical constitution as a trick and imposition as reared by falsehood and maintained by hypocrisy ?"1 -- But whatever motives may have induced the first inventors of mysteries to introduce them, the fact is that they neither did nor could correct the polytheistic notions of the people, or correct their morals, and in the course of time they became greatly corrupted; consequently they could not but have a bad effect on the people, and tend to confirm them in their idolatrous practices. All men, indeed, under pain of displeasing the gods, frequented the temples and offered sacrifices; but the priests made it not their business to teach them virtue. So long as the people were punctual in their attendance on the religious ceremonies of their country, the priests assured them that the gods were propitious, and they looked no farther. "Lustrations and processions were much easier than a steady course of virtue; and an expiatory sacrifice, which atoned for the want of it, was much more convenient than a holy life." Those who were diligent in the observance of the sacred customary rites, were considered as having fulfilled the duties of religion; but no farther regard was had to their morals, than as the state was con 1 Dr. Ranken's Institutes of Theology, pp. 180, 181. Glasgow. 1822. 8vo. cerned. It cannot therefore excite surprise, that the polytheistic religion was every where preferred to virtue; and that a contrary course of thinking and acting proved fatal to the individual who professed it. 2. They were ignorant of the true account of the creation of the world. The notion of a Creative Power, that could produce things out of nothing, was above the reach of their natural conceptions. Hence one sect of philosophers' held that the world was eternal; another,2 that it was formed in its present admirable order by a fortuitous concourse of innumerable atoms; and another, that it was made by chance; while those who believed it to have had a beginning in time, knew not by what gradations, nor in what manner, the universe was raised into its present beauty and order. 3. They were also ignorant of the origin of evil, and the cause of the depravity and misery which actually exist among mankind. The more judicious heathens saw and lamented the universal tendency of men to commit wickedness; but they were ignorant of its true source. They acknowledged, generally, that the chief good of man consisted in the practice of virtue; but they complained of an irregular sway in the wills of men, which rendered their precepts of little use and they could not assign any reason why mankind, who have the noblest faculties of any beings upon earth, should yet generally pursue their destruction with as much industry as the beasts avoid it. 4. Equally ignorant were the heathens of any method, ordained and established by the Almighty, by which a reconciliation could be effected between God and man, and his mercy exercised, without the riolation of His justice; and by which the pardon of sinners might not only be made consistent with the wisdom of His government, and the honour of His laws, but also the strongest assurances might be given them of pardon, and restoration to the divine favour. "Man is not only a subject of the divine government, and therefore in the highest degree concerned to know the divine law, that he may obey it; but he is also a rebel subject, and therefore in the highest degree concerned to discover the means of restoration to the favour of God. Man has violated such precepts of the divine law as are discovered and acknowledged either by reason or revelation; such precepts, for instance, as require him to be thankful to his Maker, and sincere, just, and kind to his fellow-men. These things may be considered here as known to be parts of the law of God; because those philosophers, who acknowledge God, generally agree that these are, plainly, duties of man. But all men have violated the precepts which require these things. The first interest of all men is, therefore, to obtain a knowledge of the means, if there be any, of reconciliation to God, and re-instatement in the character and privileges of faithful subjects. To be thus reconciled and re-instated, 1 The Peripatetics. 2 Democritus, and his followers. 3 The Epicureans. VOL. I. 2 men must be pardoned; and pardon is an act of mere mercy. But of the mercy of God there are no proofs in his Providence." The light of nature, indeed, showed their guilt to the most reflecting of the antient philosophers; but it could not show them a remedy. From the consideration of the divine goodness, as displayed in the works of creation, some of them indulged the hope that the Almighty might, in some way or other (though to them inscrutable), be reconciled; but, in what manner, revelation only could inform them. That God will receive returning sinners, and accept repentance instead of perfect obedience; and that He will not require something further for the vindication of his justice, and of the honour and dignity of his laws and government, and for more effectually expressing his indignation against sin, before He will restore men to their forfeited privileges, they could not be assured. For it cannot be positively proved from any of the divine attributes, that God is absolutely obliged to pardon all creatures all their sins, at all times, barely and immediately upon their repenting. There arises therefore, from nature, no sufficient comfort to sinners, but, on the contrary, anxious and endless solicitude about the means of appeasing the Deity. Hence the various ways of sacrificing, and numberless superstitions, which overspread the heathen world, were so little satisfactory to the wiser part of mankind, even in those times of darkness, that the more reflecting philosophers could not forbear frequently declaring that they thought those rites could avail little or nothing towards appeasing the wrath of a provoked God, but that something was wanting, though they knew not what. 5. They were ignorant, at least they taught nothing, of divine grace and assistance towards our attainment of virtue and perseverance in it. Some of their philosophers forbad men to pray to the gods to make them good,3 which, they said, they ought to do themselves; while others equalled themselves to the gods; for these, they affirmed, are what they are by nature; the wise man is what he is by his own industry." "The gods excel not a wise man in happiness, though they excel them in the duration of happiness." 66 6. They had only dark and confused notions of the summum bonum or supreme felicity of man. On this topic, indeed, Cicero informs us, that there was so great a dissension among the philosophers, that it was almost impossible to enumerate their different sentiments. At the same time he states the opinions of more than twenty philosophers, all of which are equally extravagant and absurd. Not to enter into unnecessary details, we may remark that, while one sect affirmed that virtue was the sole 1 Dr. Dwight's Two Discourses on the Nature and Danger of Infidel Philosophy, p. 16. 2 See particularly Plato's Alcibiades, ii. throughout. 3 The Stoics. See Seneca, epist. 31. (op. tom. iii. p. 99. ed. Bipont.) 4 Ibid. ep. 92. (tom. iii. p. 386.) 5 Ibid. ep. 53. (tom. iii. p. 155.) 6 Ibid. ep. 73. (tom. iii. p. 242.) 7 According to Varro, there were nearly three hundred opinions concerning the chief good. Augustin. de Civit. Dei. lib. xix. c. 1. 8 The Stoics. good, and its own reward, another rejected that notion in the case of virtue in distress, and made the good things of this life a necessary ingredient of happiness; and a third set up pleasure, or at least indolence and freedom from pain, as the final good which men ought to propose to themselves: On these discordant opinions, Cicero very justly remarks, that they who do not agree in stating what is the chief end or good, must of course differ in the whole system of precepts for the conduct of life."3 7. They had weak and imperfect notions of the immortality of the soul, which was absolutely denied by many philosophers as a vulgar error, while others represented it as altogether uncertain, and as having no solid foundation for its support. Concerning the nature of the human soul, various and most contradictory sentiments prevailed: its existence after death was denied. by many of the Peripatetics, or followers of Aristotle, and this seems to have been that philosopher's own opinion. On this important topic the Stoics had no settled or consistent scheme; the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not a professed tenet of their school, nor was it ever reckoned among the avowed principles of the Stoic sect. And even among those philosophers who expressly taught this doctrine, considerable doubt and uncertainty appear to have prevailed. Thus Socrates, shortly before his death, tells his friends, "I hope I am now going to good men, though this I would not take upon me peremptorily to assert; but, that I shall go to the gods, lords that are absolutely good, this, if I can affirm any thing of this kind, I would certainly affirm. And for this reason I do not take it ill that I am to die, as otherwise I should do; but I am in good hope tha there is something remaining for those who are dead, and that it will then be much better for good than for bad men." The same philosopher afterwards expressed himself still more doubtfully, and said, that though he should be mistaken, he did at least gain thus much, that the expectation of it made him less uneasy while he lived, and his error would die with him; and he concludes in the following terms: "I am going out of the world, and you are to continue in it; but which of us has the better part, is a secret to every one but God." What has been said of Socrates may in a great measure be applied to Plato, the most eminent of his disciples; but they greatly weakened and obscured their doctrine relative to the immortality of the soul, by blending with it that of the transmigration of souls and other fictions, as well as by sometimes expressing themselves in a very wavering and uncertain manner concerning it. And it is remarkable that, though there were several sects of philosophers, who professed to derive their original from Socrates, scarcely any of them taught the immortality of the soul as the doctrine of their schools, except Plato and his disciples; and many of these treated it as absolutely uncertain. 1 The Peripatetics. 3 Cicero, Acad. Quest. lib. i. in fine. 4 Plato, Phædon. (op. tom. i. p. 143. ed. Bipont.) 2 The Epicureans. |