Concerning the choice of our opinion amongst the different Sects of Christians.
Against Indifference in the choice of our Religion.
A New Edition.
PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN, AND PRIVY COUNSELLOR TO HER MOST SERENE MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN.
UPON the reprinting this excellent piece of that great man
Hugo
Grotius, concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, (whereunto I thought fit
to add something of my own, and also some testimonies, from which the good opinion
he had of the Church of England is evident), there was no other person, most reverend
Prelate, to whom I thought it so proper for me to dedicate this edition, with the
additions, as the Primate and Metropolitan of the whole Church of England.
I therefore present it to you, as worthy your protection upon its own account,
and as an instance of my respect and duty towards you. I will not attempt here either
to praise or defend
Grotius; his own virtue and distinguishing
JOHN LE CLERC.
Amsterdam,
the Calends of March,
MDCCIX.
THE bookseller having a design to reprint this piece of Grotius’s, I gave him to understand that there were many great faults in the former editions; especially in the testimonies of the ancients, which it was his business should be mended, and that something useful might be added to the notes: neither would it be unacceptable or unprofitable to the reader, if a book were added, to shew where the Christian religion, the truth of which this great man has demonstrated, is to be found in its greatest purity. He immediately desired me to do this upon his account, which I willingly undertook, out of the reverence I had for the memory of Grotius, and because of the usefulness of the thing. How I have succeeded in it, I must leave to the candid reader’s judgment. I have corrected many errors of the press, and perhaps should have done more, could I have found all the places. I have added some, but very short notes, there being very many before, and the thing not seeming to require more. My name adjoined, distinguishes them from Grotius’s. I have also added to Grotius a small book, concerning choosing our opinion and church amongst so many different sects of Christians; in which I hope I have offered nothing contrary to the sense of that great man, or at least to truth. I have used such arguments as will recommend themselves to any prudent person, easy and not far-fetched; and I have determined that Christians ought to manage themselves so in this matter as the most prudent men usually do in the most weighty affairs of life. I have abstained from all sharp controversy, and from all severe words, which ought never to enter into our determinations of religion, if our adversaries would suffer it. I have declared the sense of my mind in a familiar style, without any flourish of words, in a matter where strength of argument, and not the enticement of words, is required. And herein I have imitated Grotius, whom I think all ought to imitate, who attempt to write seriously, and with a mind deeply affected with the gravity of the argument upon such subjects.
As I was thinking upon these things, the letters which you will see at the end were sent me by that honourable and learned person, (to whose singular good-nature I am much indebted), the most serene Queen of Great Britain’s Ambassador Extraordinary to his Royal Highness the most serene Great Duke of Tuscany. I thought, with his leave, they might conveniently be published at the end of this volume, that it might appear what opinion Grotius had of the church of England, which is obliged to him, notwithstanding the snarling of some men, who object those inconsistent opinions, Socinianism, Popery, nay, even Atheism itself, against this most learned and religious man; for fear, I suppose, his immortal writings should be read, in which their foolish opinions are entirely confuted. In which matter, as in many other things of the like nature, they have in vain attempted to blind the eyes of others; but God forgive them, (for I wish them nothing worse), and put better thoughts into their minds, that we may at last be all joined by the love of truth and peace, and be united into one flock, under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ. This, kind reader, is what you ought to desire and wish with me; and may God so be with you, and all that belong to you, as you promote this matter as far as can be, and assist to the utmost of your power.
Farewell.
Amsterdam,
the Calends of March,
MDCCIX.
I HAVE nothing to add to what I said eight years since, but only, that in this my second edition of Grotius I have put some short notes, and corrected a great many faults in the ancient testimonies.
J. C.
Amsterdam,
the Calends of March,
MDCCXVII.
THE general acceptation this piece of Grotius has met with in the world encouraged this translation of it, together with the notes, which, being a collection of ancient testimonies, upon whose authority and truth the genuineness of the books of holy Scripture depends, are very useful in order to the convincing any one of the truth of the Christian religion. These notes are for the most part Grotius’s own, except some few of mr. Le Clerc’s, which I have, therefore, translated also, because I have followed his edition, as the most correct.
The design of the book is to shew the reasonableness of believing
and embracing the Christian Religion above any other; which our author does, by
laying before us all the evidence that can he brought, both internal and external,
and declaring the sufficiency of it; by enumerating all the marks of genuineness
in any books, and applying them to the sacred writings; and by making appear the
deficiency of all other institutions of religion, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Mahometan.
So that the substance of the whole is briefly this: That as certain as is
the truth of natural principles, and that the mind can judge of what is agreeable
to them; as certain as is the evidence of men’s bodily senses, in the most
plain and obvious matters of fact; and as certainly as men’s integrity and sincerity
may be discovered, and their accounts delivered down to
This is the author’s design, to prove the truth of the Christian
religion in general, against Atheists, Deists, Jews, or Mahometans; and he does
not enter into any of the disputes which Christians have among themselves, but confines
himself wholly to the other. Now, as the state of Christianity at present is, were
a heathen or Mahometan convinced of the truth of the Christian religion in general, he would yet be exceedingly at a loss to know what society of Christians
to join himself with; so miserably divided are they amongst themselves, and separated
into so many sects and parties, which differ almost as widely from each other as
heathens from Christians, and who are so zealous and contentious for their own particular
opinions, and bear so much hatred and towards those that differ from them, that
there is very little of the true spirit of charity, which is the bond of
peace, to be found amongst any of them: this is a very great scandal to the professors
of Christianity, and has been exceedingly disserviceable to the Christian religion;
insomuch that great numbers have been hindered from embracing the gospel, and many
tempted to cast it off, because they saw the professors of it in general agree so
little amongst themselves: this consideration induced mr. Le Clerc to add
a seventh book to those of Grotius; wherein he treats of this matter, and shews
what it becomes every honest man to do in such a case; and I have translated it
for the same reason. All that I shall here add, shall be only briefly to inquire
into the cause of so much division in the church of Christ, and to shew what
JOHN CLARK E.
MOST NOBLE AND EXCELLENT SIR,
I SHOULD offend against justice, if I should divert another way that time which you employ in the exercise of justice in your high station: but I am encouraged in this work because it is for the advancement of the Christian Religion, which is a great part of justice, and of your office; neither would justice permit me to approach any one else so soon as you, whose name my book glories in the title of. I do not say I desire to employ part of your leisure; for the discharge of so extensive an office allows you no leisure. But, since change of business is instead of leisure to them that are fully employed, I desire you would, in the midst of your forensic affairs, bestow some hours upon these papers. Even then you will not be out of the way of your business. Hear the witnesses, weigh the force of their testimony, make a judgment, and I will stand by the determination.
HUGO Grotius.
Paris, August 27,
CIƆ IƆC XXXIX.
[1639.]
BOOK I. |
||
Sect. | Page | |
I. | THE occasion of this work | 1 |
II. | That there is a God |
3 |
III. | That there is but one God |
5 |
IV. | All perfection is in God |
6 |
V. | And in an infinite degree |
7 |
VI. | That God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and completely good |
ib. |
VII. | That God is the cause of all things |
ib. |
VIII. | The objection, concerning the cause of evil, answered |
12 |
IX. | Against two principles |
15 |
X. | That God governs the universe |
ib. |
XI. | And the affairs of this lower world |
16 |
And the particulars in it |
ib. | |
XII. | This is further proved by the preservation of empires |
17 |
XIII. | And by miracles |
18 |
XIV. | But more especially amongst the Jews, who ought to be credited upon the account of the long continuance of their religion |
ib. |
XV. | From the truth and antiquity of Moses |
20 |
XVI. | From foreign testimonies |
22 |
XVII. | The same proved also from predictions |
66 |
And by other arguments |
67 | |
XVIII. | The objection, of miracles not being seen now, answered |
69 |
XIX. | And of there being so much wickedness |
ib. |
XX. | And that so great, as to oppress good men |
71 |
XXI. | This may he turned upon them, so as to prove that souls survive bodies |
ib. |
XXII. | Which is confirmed by tradition |
ib. |
XXIII. | And no way repugnant to reason |
74 |
XXIV. | But many things favour it |
77 |
XXV. | From whence it follows, that the end of man is happiness after this life |
78 |
XXVI. | Which we must secure, by finding out the true religion |
ib. |
BOOK II. |
||
I. | That the Christian religion is true |
79 |
II. | The proof that there was such a person as Jesus |
ib. |
That he died an ignominious death |
80 | |
III. | And yet, after his death, was worshipped by wise men |
81 |
IV. | The cause of which could he no other but those miracles which were done by him |
ib. |
V. | Which miracles cannot be ascribed to any natural or diabolical power, but must be from God |
82 |
VI. | The resurrection of Christ proved from credible testimony |
85 |
VII. | The objection drawn from the seeming impossibility of a resurrection, answered |
88 |
The truth of Jesus’s doctrine proved from his resurrection |
90 | |
VIII. | That the Christian religion exceeds all others |
ib. |
IX. | The excellency of the reward proposed |
91 |
X. | A solution of the objection taken from hence, that the bodies after their dissolution cannot be restored |
94 |
XI. | The exceeding purity of its precepts, with respect to the worship of God |
97 |
XII. | Concerning those duties of humanity which we owe to our neighbour, though he has injured us |
101 |
XIII. | About the conjunction of male and female |
104 |
XIV. | About the use of temporal goods |
107 |
XV. | Concerning oaths |
109 |
XVI. | Concerning other actions |
ib. |
XVII. | An answer to the objection drawn from the many controversies amongst Christians |
110 |
XVIII. | The excellency of the Christian religion further proved from the excellency of its Teacher |
111 |
From the wonderful propagation of this religion |
115 | |
Considering the weakness and simplicity of those who taught it in the first ages |
119 | |
XIX. | And the great impediments that hindered men from embracing it, or deterred them from professing it |
120 |
An answer to those who require more and stronger arguments |
122 | |
BOOK III. |
||
I. | Of the authority of the books of the New Testament |
125 |
II. | The books, that have any names affixed to them, were writ by those persons whose names they hear |
126 |
III. | The doubt of those books that were formerly doubtful, taken away |
127 |
|
The authority of those books which have no name to them evident from the nature of the writings |
127 |
V. | That these authors wrote what was true, because they knew the things they wrote about |
128 |
VI. | And because they would not say what was false |
130 |
VII. | The credibility of these writers further confirmed, from their being famous for miracles |
131 |
VIII. | And of their writings; because in them are contained many things which the event proved to he revealed by a Divine Power |
132 |
IX. | And also from the care, that it was fit God should take, that false writings should not be forged |
133 |
X. | A solution of that objection, that many books were rejected by some |
ib. |
XI. | An answer to the objection, of some things being contained in these books that are impossible |
136 |
XII. | Or disagreeable to reason |
ib. |
XIII. | An answer to this objection, that some things are contained in these books which are inconsistent with one another |
133 |
XIV. | An answer to the objection from external testimonies; where it is shewn that they make more for these books |
140 |
XV. | An answer to the objection of the Scriptures being altered |
141 |
XVI. | The authority of the books of the Old Testament |
143 |
BOOK IV. |
||
I. | A particular confutation of the religions that differ from Christianity |
156 |
II. | And, first, of Paganism. That there is but one God. That created beings are either good or bad. That the good are not to be worshipped without the command of the Supreme God |
157 |
III. | A proof that evil spirits were worshipped by the heathen, and the unfitness of it shewn |
158 |
IV. | Against the heathen worship paid to departed men |
160 |
V. | Against the worship given to the stars and elements |
161 |
VI. | Against the worship given to brute creatures |
162 |
VII. | Against the worship given to those things which have no real existence |
163 |
VIII. | An answer to the objection of the heathens taken from the miracles done amongst them |
165 |
IX. | And from oracles |
168 |
X. | The heathen religion rejected, because it failed of its own accord, as soon as human assistance was wanting |
172 |
|
An answer to this, that the rise and decay of religion is owing to the stars |
172 |
XII. | The principal things of the Christian religion were approved of by the wisest heathens: and if there be any thing in it hard to be believed, the like is to he found amongst the heathen |
174 |
BOOK V. |
||
I | .A confutation of Judaism, beginning with an address to the Jews |
181 |
II. | That the Jews ought to look upon the miracles of Christ as sufficiently attested |
182 |
III. | An answer to the objection, that those miracles were done by the help of devils |
188 |
IV. | Or by the power of words |
184 |
V. | That the miracles of Jesus were divine, proved from hence, because he taught the worship of one God, the Maker of the world |
ib. |
VI. | An answer to the objection drawn from the difference betwixt the law of Moses and the law of Christ; where it is shewn, that there might be given a more perfect law than that of Moses |
186 |
VII. | The law of Moses was observed by Jesus when on earth, neither was any part of it abolished afterwards, but only those precepts which had no intrinsic goodness in them |
188 |
VIII. | As sacrifices, which were never acceptable to God upon their own account |
191 |
IX. | And the difference of meats |
196 |
X. | And of days |
199 |
XI. | And circumcision of the flesh |
201 |
XII. | And yet the apostles of Jesus easily allowed of those things |
203 |
XIII. | A proof against the Jews, taken from their own confession of the extraordinary promise of the Messiah |
ib. |
XIV. | That he is already come, appears from the time foretold |
204 |
XV. | (With an answer to what is alleged, that his coming was deferred upon the account of the sins of the people) |
207 |
XVI. | Also from the present state of the Jews, compared with the promises of the law |
208 |
XVII. | Jesus proved to be the Messiah, from those things that were predicted of the Messiah |
2l0 |
XVIII. | An answer to what is alleged, that some things were not fulfilled |
218 |
XIX. | And to that which is objected of the low condition and death of Jesus |
214 |
|
And as though they were good men who delivered him to death |
218 |
XXI. | An answer to the objection of the Christians worshipping many gods |
221 |
XXII. | And that human nature is worshipped by them |
224 |
XXIII. | The conclusion of this part, with a prayer for the Jews |
226 |
BOOK VI. |
||
I. | A confutation of Mahometanism: the original thereof |
227 |
II. | The Mahometans’ foundation overturned, in that they do not examine into religion |
231 |
III. | A proof against the Mahometans, taken out of the sacred books of the Hebrews and Christians; and that they are not corrupted |
232 |
IV. | From comparing Mahomet with Christ |
234 |
V. | And the works of each of them |
235 |
VI. | And of those who first embraced each of these religions |
236 |
VII. | And of the methods by which each law was propagated |
ib. |
VIII. | And of their precepts compared with one another |
238 |
IX. | A solution of the Mahometans’ objection concerning the Son of God |
239 |
X. | There are many absurd things in the Mahometan books |
240 |
XI. | The conclusion to the Christians, who are admonished of their duty upon occasion of the foregoing things |
241 |
MR. LE CLERC’S TWO BOOKS. |
||
BOOK I. |
||
I. | WE must inquire amongst what Christians the trite doe-trine of Christ flourished most at this time |
249 |
II. | We are to join ourselves with those who are most worthy the name of Christians |
252 |
III. | They are most worthy the name of Christians who, in the purest manner of all, profess the doctrine the truth of which hath been proved by Grail’s |
254 |
IV. | Concerning the agreement and disagreement of Christians |
256 |
V. | Whence every one ought to learn the knowledge of the Christian religion |
260 |
|
Nothing else ought to be imposed upon Christians but what they can gather from the New Testament |
261 |
VII. | The providence of God in preserving the Christian doctrine is very wonderful |
261 |
VIII. | An answer to that question, Why God permits differences and errors to arise amongst Christians? |
265 |
IX. | They profess and teach the Christian doctrine in the purest manner of all, who propose those things only as necessary to be believed, practised, or hoped for, which Christians are agreed in |
268 |
X. | All prudent persons ought to partake of the sacrament with those who require nothing else of Christians but what every one finds in the books of the New Testament |
269 |
XI. | Concerning church-government |
271 |
XII. | The ancient church-government was highly esteemed by Grotius, without condemning others |
271 |
XIII. | An exhortation to all Christians who differ from each other, not to require of one another any points of doctrine but such as every one finds in the New Testament, and have always been believed |
274 |
BOOK II. |
||
I. | That we ought to have a love for truth in all things, but more especially in such as are of great moment |
277 |
II. | Nothing can be of greater moment than religion; and therefore we ought to use our utmost endeavours to come at the true knowledge of it |
27$ |
III. | That an indifference in religion is in its own nature unlawful, forbidden by the laws of God, and condemned by all sects of Christians |
280 |
IV. | We ought not hastily to condemn those who differ from us, as if they were guilty of such a crime, or such unlawful worship, as is inconsistent with eternal life; so that none who admit such persons should be capable of the mercy of God; nor yet, on the other hand, is it lawful for us to profess that we believe what we do not really believe, or to do what, at the same time, we condemn |
285 |
V. | A man that commits a sin by mistake may be accepted of God, but a hypocrite cannot |
288 |
TESTIMONIES concerning Hugo Grotius’s affection for the Church of England |
293 |
YOU have frequently inquired of me, worthy sir, (whom I know to
be a gentleman that highly deserves the esteem of your country, of the learned world,
and, if you will allow me to say it, of myself also), what the substance of those
books is, which I wrote in defence of the Christian religion, in my own language.
Nor do I wonder at your inquiry; for you, who have with so great judgment read every
thing that is worth reading, cannot but be sensible with how much philosophic nicety
Ræmuudus Sebundus, with what entertaining dialogues Ludovicus Vives, and with how
great eloquence your Mornæus, have illustrated this matter. These were the chief writers upon this subject in Grotius’s
time; but, since then, a great number have wrote concerning the truth of the Christian
religion, especially in French and English; moved thereto by the example of Grotius,
whom they imitated, and sometimes borrowed from him: so that the glory of so pious
and necessary a method of writing chiefly redounds to him. Le Clerc.
AND, that we may shew that religion is not a vain and empty thing,
it shall be the business of this first book to lay the foundation thereof in the
existence of the Deity; which I prove in the following manner: That there are some
things which had a beginning, is confessed on all sides, and obvious to sense: but
these things could not be the cause of their own existence; because that which
has no being, cannot act; for then it would have been before it was, which is impossible: whence it follows, that it derived its being from something else: this is true,
not only of those things which are now before our eyes, or which we have formerly
seen, but also of those things out of which these have arisen, and so on, till we
arrive at some cause, which never had any beginning, but exists, as we say, necessarily,
and not by accident: Because, as their manner of speaking is, there can be no such
thing as going on for ever; for of those things which had a beginning, either there
is some first cause, or there is none. If it be denied that there is any first cause; then, those things which had a beginning were without a cause; and consequently
existed, er name out of nothing, of themselves; which is absurd. Le Clerc. Metaphys. book xi.
ch. 5. where, after relating the fables of the gods, he has these words: “Which,
if any one rightly distinguishes, he will keep wholly to this as the principal
thing; that to believe the gods to be the first beings, is a divine truth; and
that though arts and sciences have probably been often lost, and revived, yet
this opinion hath been preserved as a relic to this very time.” Le Clerc. Grotius might have said, and that not rashly, that there are
much greater difficulties in the opinions of those who would have the world to be
eternal, or always to have been; such as, that it must have come out of
nothing of itself, or that it arose from the fortuitous concourse of atoms; opinions
full of manifest contradictions, as many since Grotius’s time have exactly demonstrated;
amongst whom is the eminent and learned dr. Ralph Cudworth, who wrote the English
treatise of the intellectual system of the universe. There are also other
very excellent English divines mid natural philosophers. Le Clerc.
HAVING proved the existence of the Deity, we come next
to his attributes: the first whereof is, that there can be no more Gods than one;
which may be gathered from hence;
But a great many single beings are a great many individual beings; this argument therefore might have been omitted, without any detriment
to so good a cause: Le Clerc.—Whoever would see the argument for the
unity of God, drawn from his necessary or self-existence, urged in its full
force, may find it at the beginning of dr. Samuel Clark’s Boyle’s Lectures. At least to the inhabitants of this our solar system, (as we
now term it), as those fiery centres the stars are to other erterns. Le Clerc.
THAT we may come to the knowledge of the other attributes of God,
we conceive all that is meant by perfection to be in him, (I use the Latin word
perfectio, as being the best that tongue affords, and the same as the Greek
τελειότης); because whatever perfection is in any thing, either had a
To this must be added, that these perfections are in God, in an infinite degree: because those attributes that are finite are therefore limited; because the cause whence they proceed has communicated so much of them, and no more; or else, because the subject was capable of no more. But no other nature communicated any of its perfections to God; nor does he derive any thing from any one else, he being, as was said, necessary or self-existent.
Now, seeing it is very evident that those things which have life are more perfect than those which have not; and those which have a power of acting, than those which have none; those which have understanding, than those which want it; those which are good, than those which are not so; it follows, from what has been already said, that these attributes belong to God, and that infinitely: wherefore he is a living infinite God; that is, eternal, of immense power, and every way good, without the least defect.
EVERY thing that is, derives its existence from God; this follows
from what has been already said. For we conclude,
Book iii. ch.10. which place is highly worth reading, but too
long to be inserted. But many later divines and natural philosophers in England
have explained these things more accurately. Le Clerc. Book xvii. where after he had distinguished betwixt the works
of nature, that is, the material world, and those of Providence, he adds: “After,
the earth was surrounded with water, because man was not made to dwell in the water,
but belongs partly to the earth and partly to the air, and stands in great need
of light. Providence has caused many eminences and cavities in the earth, that in
these the water, or the greatest part of it, might be received; whereby that part
of the earth under it might be covered; and that by the other the earth might be
advanced to cover the water, except what is of use for men, animals, and plants.”
The same hath been observed by rabbi Jehuda Levita, and Abeneadra, amongst the Jews,
and St. Chrysostom, in his 9th homily of statutes, among Christians. This was borrowed from the peripatetic philosophy, by this great
man; which supposed the water in a pump to ascend for fear of a vacuum; whereas
it is now granted by all to be done by the pressure of the air. But by the laws
of gravitation, as the moderns explain them, the order of the universe, and the
wisdom of its Creator, are no less conspicuous. Le Clerc. No, they are done by the soul of those beasts, which is so far
reasonable, as to be able to do such things, and not others. Other. wise
God himself would act in them instead of a soul, which a good philosopher will hardly
be persuaded of. Nothing hinders but that there may be a great many ranks of sensible and intelligent
natures, the lowest of which may be in the bodies of brute creatures; for nobody,
I think, really believes with Ren. Cartes, that brutes are mere corporeal machines.
But you will say, when brute creatures die, what becomes of the souls? That indeed
1 know not; but it is nevertheless true that souls reside in them. There is no
necessity that we should know all things, nor are we therefore presently to deny
any thing because we cannot give account of it. We are to receive those things that
are evident, and be content to be ignorant of those things which we cannot know.
Le Clerc. See Tully in his first book of offices, and his second of the nature of the
gods. This argument is learnedly handled by Maimonides, in his
Ductor Dubitantium, part ii. c. 4. And if you suppose the earth to be
moved, it amounts to the same thing in other words.—These, and some of the following
things, are according to the vulgar opinion, which is now exploded; but the efficacy
of the Divine Power is equally seen in the constant motion of the planets, in ellipses,
about the sun, through the most fluid vortex; in such a manner as not to recede
from, or approach to, their centre, more than their wonted limits, but always cut the sun’s equator at
like obliquity. Le Clerc.—Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated that there are
no such vortexes, but that their motions are better explained without them. Or ship, or engine. t Tertullian treats of this matter, from history, in his book
concerning the soul, sect. 30. “We find” (says he) “in all commentaries, especially
of the antiquities of men, that mankind increase by degrees,” &c. And a little after,
“The world manifestly improves every day, and grows wiser than it was.” These
two arguments caused Aristotle’s opinion (who would not allow
mankind any beginning) to be rejected by the learned historians, especially the
Epicureans. Lucretius, book v.— ” If heaven and earth had no original, With a great deal more to the same purpose. Virgil, Eclogue vi. ——“From these first principles And in his Georgics. “Use first produc’d those various arts we see,
By small degrees; this taught the husbandman Horace, book i. sat. iii. “When first mankind began to spread the earth. Pliny, in his third book of natural history, about the beginning,
“Wherefore I would be so understood as the words theinselvei signify, without the
flourish of men; and as they were understood at the beginning, before any great
exploits were performed.” The same author affirms, that the Hercynean wood (in Germany)
was coeval with the world, book xvi. Seneca, in Lanctantius, “It is not a thousand
years since wisdom had a beginning.” Tacitus’s Annals, iii. “The first men, before
appetite and passion swayed them, lived without bribes, and without iniquity; and
needed not to be restrained from evil by punishment: neither did they stand in
need of reward, every one naturally pursuing virtue; for so long as nothing
was desired contrary to morality, they wanted not to be restrained by fear; but
after they laid aside equity, and violence and ambition succeeded in the room of
honesty and humility, then began that power which has always continued amongst some
people. But others immediately, or at least after they grew weary of kings, preferred
a legal government.” And Aristotle could not fully persuade himself, any more than
others, of the truth of his own hypothesis, that mankind never had any beginning.
For he speaks very doubtfully of the matter in many places, as Moses Maimonides
observes in his Ductor Dubitantium, part ii. In the prologue to his second book, concerning
the heavens, he calls his position only a persuasion, and not a demonstration;
and there is a saying of the same philosopher, in the third book of the soul, chap.
iii. “that persuasion is a consequence of opinion.” But his principal argument
is drawn from the absurdity of the contrary opinion, which supposes the heavens
and the universe not to be created, but generated; which is inconsistent. Book xi. of his Metaphysics, chap. 8, he says,
“It is very likely that arts have often been lost, and invented again.” And,
in the last chapter of the third book of the generation of animals, he has these
words, “It would not be a foolish conjecture, concerning the first rise of men
and beasts, if any one should imagine, that of old they sprung out of the earth
one of these two ways; either after the manner of maggots, or to have come from
eggs.” After his explication of each of these, he adds, “If therefore animals had
any beginning, it is manifest it must be one of these two ways.” The same Aristotle,
in the first of his Topics, chap. xi. “There are some questions against which very
good arguments may be brought; it being very doubtful which side is in the right,
there being great probability on either hand, we have no certainty of them: and though they be of great weight, we find it very difficult to determine
the cause and manner of their existence; as for instance, whether the world were
from eternity, or no: for such things as these are disputable.” And again, disputing
about the same thing, in his first book of the heavens, chap. x. “What shall be
said will be the more credible, if we allow the disputants arguments their due weight.”
Tatian, therefore, did well not to pass by this, where he brings his reasons for
the belief of the scriptures, “That what they deliver, concerning the creation
of the universe, is level to every one’s capacity.” If you take Plato for
the world’s having a beginning, and Aristotle for its having had none, you will
have seen both the Jewish and Christian opinions.”
How is it, that, before the Trojan war,
No poets sung of memorable things;
Bat deeds of heroes died so oft with them;
And no where monuments raised to their praise?
This shews the world is young, and lately made.
Whence ’tis that arts are every day increas’d,
Or fresh renew’d; and ships so much improv’d,
And music, to delight the ear.”
All things arose; hence sprung the tender world.”
To plough and sow his fields; from the hard flint
To fetch the hidden sparks; then men began
With hollow boats to cross the stream; pilots
Call’d Hyades and Pleiades their signs,
And Charles’s wain: then sportsmen spread their nets
To catch wild beasts, and dogs pursued their game.
Some drain the rivers, and some seek the main,
Stretching their nets to inclose the finny prey:
Others with iron forge whet instruments
To cleave the yielding wood: then arts arose.”
Like animals devoid of speech, they strove
With utmost strength of hands, for dens and acorns;
From thence to clubs, and then to arms, they came,
Taught by experience; till words express’d
Their meaning, and gave proper names to things:
Then ended wars, cities were built, and laws
Were made for thieves, adulterers, and rogues.”
NOR ought we to be in the least shaken in what has been said,
because we see many evils happen, the original of which cannot be ascribed to God,
who, as was affirmed of him, is perfectly good. For when we say, that God is the
cause of all things, we mean of all such things as have a real existence; which
is no reason why those things themselves should not be the cause of some accidents,
such as
”God, indeed, foresaw that free agents would abuse their liberty,
and that many natural and moral evils would arise from hence; yet did not this hinder
him from permitting such abuse, and the consequences thereof; any more than it hindered
his creating beings endued with such liberty. The reason is plain. Because a free
agent being the most excellent creature, which discovers the highest power of tile
Creator, God was unwilling to prevent those inconveniencies which proceed from the
mutability of their nature; because he can amend them as he pleases, to all eternity; in such a manner as is agreeable to his own goodness, though he has not yet revealed
it to us. Concerning which we have largely treated in French, in a book wrote against
Pet. Bayle, the seeming advocate of the Manichees. Le Clerc.
AND here, by the way, we ought to reject their opinion, who imagine
there are two active principles, the one good, and the other evil. This has respect to the ancient disciples of Zoroastres, and to the Manichees.
Le Clerc. But here the author was speaking of moral and not of natural good.
It had therefore been better to have forborne such kind of reasoning. Le
Clerc.
THAT the world is governed by the providence of God, is evident from hence; that not only men, who are endued with understanding, but birds, and both wild and tame beasts, (who are led by instinct, which serves them instead of understanding), take care of, and provide for, their young. Which perfection, as it is a branch of goodness, ought not to be excluded from God: and so much the rather, because he is all-wise, and all-powerful, and cannot but know every thing that is done, or is to be done, and with the greatest facility direct and govern them: to which we may add, what was before hinted concerning the motion of particular things, contrary to their own nature, to promote the good of the whole.
AND they are under a very great mistake, who confine this
providence to the heavenly bodies; This was the opinion of Aristotle. See Plutarch concerning
the opinions of the philosophers, book. ii. chap. 3. and Atticus in Eusebius’s Gospel
Preparation, book v. ch. 3. Le Clerc. Though not for man only; for it
doth not appear that there are no other intelligent beings in other planets; yet partly for him, and,
so far as he makes use of them, without any detriment to other creatures. Because
we cannot live without the sun, we may well conclude it was made upon our account; unless we can imagine that chance provided every thing that is necessary for us; which is very absurd; just like a man who, happening upon a house well
furnished, should deny that it was built for the convenience of men, who are alone
capable of enjoying it. Le Clerc.
And the particulars in it.
NEITHER is their error less, who allow the universe to be governed
by him, but not the particular things in it. This was the opinion of the stoics: see Arrius’s Dissertations
upon Epictetus, book i. ch. 12. and Justin Lipsius, in his stoical physiology,
Le Clerc.
THE preservation of commonwealths hath been acknowledged, both
by philosophers and historians, to be no mean argument for the Divine Providence
over human affairs. First, in general; because wherever good order in government
and obedience hath been once admitted, it has been always retained; Because without it there is no such thing as human society,
and without society mankind cannot be preserved; whence we may collect, that men
were created by Divine Providence, that they might live in society, and make use
of laws, without which there neither is nor can be any society. Le Clerc. Thus Lucretius: “Some secret cause confounds the exploits of men.” He seems to mean Genghiz Can, who came out of eastern Tartary,
and out of the city Caracarom, and subdued not only Tartary, but also the northern
Sina and India. From him sprung the Mogul kings, and the princes of the lesser Tartary.
His life is written in French, and published at Paris in 1710. Le Clerc. Here, in justice, Manca Capacus ought to be named, who was the founder of the
empire of Peru. (See Garsilazzi de la Vega, in Incarum historia).
BUT the most certain proof of Divine Providence is from miracles, and the predictions we find in histories: it is true, indeed, that a great many of those relations are fabulous; but there is no reason to disbelieve those which are attested by credible witnesses to have been in their time, men whose judgment and integrity have never been called in question. For, since God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why should we think him not able to signify his knowledge or his resolution to act out of the ordinary course of nature, which is his appointment, and subject to his direction and government? If any one should object against this, that inferior intelligent agents may be the cause of them, it is readily granted; and this tends to make us believe it the more easily of God: beside, whatever of this nature is done by such beings, we conceive God does by them, or wisely permits them to do them; in the same manner as, in well regulated kingdoms, nothing is done otherwise than the law directs, but by the will of the supreme governor.
Now, that some miracles have really been seen, (though it should
seem doubtful from the credit of all other histories), the Jewish religion alone
may easily convince us: with though it has been a long time destitute of human
Hecatæus, concerning the Jew; which lived before the time of
Alexander, has these words: “Though they be severely reproached by their neighbours
and by strangers, and many times harshly treated by the Persian kings and nobility; yet cannot they be brought off from their opinion. but will undergo the most cruel
torments and sharpest death, rather than forsake the religion of their country.”
Josephus preserved this place, in his first book against Appion: and he adds another
example out of the same Hecatæus, relating to Alexander’s time, wherein the Jewish
soldiers peremptorily refused to assist at the repairing the temple of the god Belus.
And the same Josephus has very well shewn, in his other book against Appion, that
the firm persuasion of the Jews of old, concerning God’s being the author of their
law, is from hence evident; because they have not dared, like other people, to
alter any thing in their laws; not even when, in long banishments, under foreign
princes, they have been tried by all sorts of threatenings and flatteries. To this
we may add something of Tacitus about the proselytes: “All that are converted to
them do the like; for the first principle they are instructed in is to have a contempt
of the gods; to lay aside their love to their country, and to have no regard for
their parents or brethren.” That is, when the law of God comes in competition with
them; which this profane author unjustly blames. See further what Porphyry has
delivered about the constancy of the Jews, in his second and fourth books against
eating of living creatures; where Le mentions Antiochus, and particularly the constancy
of the Essenes amongst the Jews. Even those so highly commended laws of Lycurgus, as is observed by Josephus
and Theodoret. To which we give credit, because it was worthy of God to institute
a religion in which it was taught that there was one God, the Creator of all things,
who is a spiritual Being, and is alone to be worshipped. Le Clerc. Philo says, it was done “with very
great pain.” The same Philo says,
“It was a thing laughed at by every body:” whence the Jews by the poets are called cropt, circumcised, fore-skinned.
THIS also gives the greatest credit imaginable to the writings
of Moses, in which these miracles are recorded to posterity; that there was not
only a settled opinion and constant tradition amongst the Jews that this Moses was
appointed by the express command of God himself to be the leader and captain of
this people; but also because, as is very evident, he did not make his own glory
and advantage his principal aim, but he himself relates those-errors of his own,
which he could have concealed; and delivered the regal and sacerdotal dignity to
others, (permitting his own posterity to be reduced only to common Levites). All
which plainly shew, that he had no occasion to falsify in his history; as the style
of it further evinces, it being free from that varnish and colour, which uses to
give credit to
Herodotus in his Terpsichore says, “That the Ionians had their
letters from the Phœnicians, and used them, with very little variation; which
afterwards appearing, those letters were called Phœnician, (as they ought to be),
from the Phœnicians bringing them into Greece.” He calls them, “The Phœnician characters of Cadmus,” And Callimachus; ——Cadmus, from whom the Greeks And Plutarch calls them Phœnician or Punic letters, in his ninth
book, and third prob. of his Symposiacs, where he says, that alpha in the
Phœnician language signifies an ox, which is very true. Eupolemus, in his
book of the kings of Judæa, says, “That Moses was the first wise man, and that
letters were first given by him to the Jews, and from them the Phœnicians received
them;” that is, the ancient language of the Jews and Phœnicians was the same,
or very little different. Thus Lucian: “He spake some indistinct words, like the
Hebrew or Phœnician.” And Chærilus, In his verses concerning the Solimi, who,
he says, dwelt near the lake, I suppose he means Asphaltites, “These with their tongue pronounced Phœnician words.” See also the Punic scene of Plautus, where you have the words
that are put in the Punic language twice, by reason of the double writing; and also
the Latin translation; whence you may easily correct what is corrupted. And as the
Phœnician and Hebrew languages were the same, so are the ancient Hebrew letters
the same with those of the Phœnicians. See the great men about this matter. Joseph
Scaliger’s Diatriba of the Eusebian year IƆ
IƆCCXVII. and the first book, ch. x. of Gerard Vossius’s Grammar,
(and particularly Sam. Bochart, in his Chanaan). You may amid also, if you please,
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. book 1. and Esebius’s Gospel Preparation, book
x. ch. 5. He means the Samaritan letters, which are the same as the Phœnician,
as Lud. Capel, Sam. Bochart, and others, have shewn. I also have treated
of the same in French, in the Biblioth. Select. vol. xi. Le Clerc.
You have a famous instance of this, in thieves that rob by night, which we have
treated of in the second book of war and peace, chap. i. sect. 12. and another
in that law which Sopator recites, “Let him that is next a-kin possess the
heiress;” which is thus explained by Terence: “There is a law, by which widows
ought to be married to the next kinsmen, and the same law obliges these kinsmen
to marry them.” Donatus remarks upon this place thus: “That the widow should be
married to the next kinsman, and he marry her, is the Attic law,” viz. taken from
the law of Moses, in the last chap. of Numbers, which we shall have opportunity
of speaking more of afterwards. A great many other things may be found to this purpose,
if any one search diligently for them: as the feast in which they carried clusters
of grapes, taken from the feast of tabernacles; the law that the high priest should
marry none but a virgin, and his countrywoman; that next after sisters, kinsmen
by the father’s side should inherit: wherefore the Attic laws agree with many of
the Hebrew, because the Attics owe many of their customs to Cecrops, king of Egypt; and because God established many laws amongst the Hebrews, very much like those
of the Egyptians, to which they had been accustomed, only reforming such things
as were bad in them; as we have often observed in our notes upon the Pentateuch,
and, before us, John Spencer in his book about the ritual laws of the Jews. Le Clerc.
Their written books derive.”
TO these we may add the testimony of a great number, who were
strangers to the Jewish religion, which shews that the most ancient tradition among
all nations is exactly agreeable to the relation of Moses. For his description of
the original of the world is almost the very same as in the ancient Phœnician histories,
which are translated by Philo
Eusebius
has preserved them for us in his first book, chap.
10. of his Preparation. “The theology of the Phœnicians supposes the foundation
of the universe to have been a dark and windy air, or the breath of a dark air,
and a dismal chaos, covered with thick darkness; that these were infinite, and had
no bounds for many ages. But, when this spirit or breath placed its desire or love
on these first principles, and a mixture was produced thereby, this conjunction
was called love: this was the beginning of the creation of all things; but
the breath, or spirit, was not created; and from its embraces proceeded Μὼτ,
Mot, which some call Mud, others the corruption of a watery mixture.
This was the seminary, and from hence were all things produced.” In Moses’s history
we find the spirit or breath, and the darkness; and the Hebrew word מרחפת Merachepheth,
signifies Love. Plutarch, Symposiac. viii. prob. 1. explaining of
Plato, says, that God is the father of the world, not by the emission of seed,
but by a certain generative power infused into matter; which he illustrates by
this similitude: ” The female bird is oft impregnated And Μὼτ, Mot, ומוט,
whence the Greeks derive their Μόθος,
Mothos, signifies in Hebrew תהום Tehom, in Greek, Ἄβυσσος, an
Abyss already in motion. For Ἄβυσσος, Abyssos, is in Ennius nothing
else but Mud, if I understand him right:— “From muddy Tartarus a birth
gigantic sprung.” This mud separated into earth and sea. Apollonius in the ivth
of his Argonautics, “The earth’s produced from mud.” Upon which place the Scholiast says; “Zeno affirms, that the
chaos in Hesiod is water, of which all things were made; the water subsiding made
mud, and the mud congealing made solid earth.” Now this Zeno was a Phœnician, a
colony of whom were planted in Cittium, whence the Hebrews call all beyond the seas
כתים Chittim. Not much different from which is that of Virgil, Eclogue vi. “Then earth began to harden, and include Numenius, cited by Porphyry, about the nymph’s den, affirms,
“That it
was said by the prophet, (meaning Moses), that the Spirit of God was moved upon the waters;” the same expression
which Tertullian uses concerning baptism. Now, because the Hebrew word מרחפת Merachepheth
signifies properly the brooding of a dove upon her eggs, therefore
it follows in Sanchuniathon, that the living creatures, that is, the constellations,
were in that mud, as in an egg; and hence that spirit is called by the name of the
dove: under the similitude of which dove, rabbi Solomon explains the word מרחפת Merachepheth. Nigidius, in the Scholiast of Germauicus, says,
“That there was found an egg of a huge bigness, which, being rolled about, was cast
upon the earth, and, after a few days, Venus, the goddess of Syria, was hatched
thereby.” Lucius Ampelius, in his book to Matrinus, says, “It is reported that,
in the river Euphrates, a dove sat many days upon a fish’s egg, and hatched a goddess,
very kind and merciful to the life of man.” Macrobius resembles the world to an
egg, in the viith book and 16th chap. of his Saturnalia. It is said to be “the
beginning of generation” in the Orphic verses mentioned by Plutarch, Symposiac.
xi. chap. 3. and Athenagoras. And hence the Syrian gods are called by Arnobius,
“the offspring of eggs;” by which gods he means the stars.
For it follows in the Phœnician theology, that “the mud was illuminated with light, whence came the
sun and moon, and great and little stars.” You see here, as in Moses, that light
was before the sun. The word that Moses uses immediately after, I mean ארץ Erets;
where evidently that which was dried from the water is called יברהJabashah; the same Pherecydes, from the authority of the Syrians, expresses thus, (as
we are informed by others, but particularly by Josephus in his first book against
Appion:) “Chthonia was the name given to the earth after that Jupiter had honoured
it.” This place we find in Diogenes Laërtius, and others; and Anaximander calls
the sea “that which remained of the first moisture of things.” That
things were confused before their separation, (concerning which you have the very
words of Moses in Chalcidius’s explication of Timæus), Linus informs us, as he was
himself taught, that “In the beginning all things were confused.” So Anaxagoras, “All things were blended together, till the Divine
Mind separated them, and adorned and regulated that which was confused.” And for
this reason was the name mind given by Anaxagoras, as Phliasius assures us
in his Timon; “For Anaxagoras, that hero fam’d, All this came from the Phœnicians, who held a very ancient
correspondence with the Greeks. The ancients say that Linus was descended from
Phœnix: so Orpheus had his opinions from the Phœnicians, one of which was this
in Athenagoras, “That mud proceeded from water.” After which he mentions a great
egg split into two parts, heaven and earth. From the same Orpheus, Timotheus the
chronographer cites this passage; “The chaos was dark as night, in which
darkness all things under this sky were involved; the earth could not be seen by
reason of the darkness, till light, breaking from the sky, illuminated every creature.”
See the place in Scaliger, in the beginning of the first book of the Greek Chronicle
of Eusebius. In that which follows of Sanchuniathon, it is called βάαυν,
which is certainly the בהו bohu of Moses. And the winds, which are there
called κολπία, Kolpia, are the same with קל־פ־יהKolphijah, the voice
of the mouth of God. Megasthenes, in the
fifteenth book of Strabo, expresses their opinion thus: “That in many things
they agree with the Greeks; as that the world had a beginning, and will have an
end; that it is of a spherical figure; that God, the Creator and Governor of it,
penetrates all things; that things had different beginnings; and that the world
was made of water.” Clement has preserved the words of Megasthenes himself out
of his third book of the Indian history, strom. i. “All that was of old said
concerning the nature of things, we find also said by the philosophers who lived
out of Greece, the Brachmans among the Indians, and they that are called Jews in
Syria.” Concerning whom, see Laërtius in his Prœmium,
“The foundation
was a confused chaos, from whence the four elements welt separated, and living creatures
made.” And a little after, “That as the world had a beginning, so it will
have an end.” Diodorus Siculus explains their opinion thus: “In the beginning of
the creation of all things, the heavens and the earth had the same form and appearance,
their natures being mixed together; but afterwards the parts separating from one
another, the world received that form in which we now behold it, and the air a continual
motion, The fiery part ascended highest, because the lightness of its nature caused
it to tend upwards; for which reason the son and multitude of stars go in a continual
round; the muddy and grosser part, together with the fluid, sunk down, by reason
of its heaviness. And this, rolling and turning itself continually round, from in moisture
produced the see, and from the more solid parts proceeded the earth, as yet very
soft and miry; but when the sun began to shine upon it, it grew firm and hard;
and the warmth causing the superficies of it to ferment, the moisture in many places
swelling, put forth certain putrid substances, covered with skins; such as we now
see in fenny moorish grounds, when, the earth being cool, the air happens to grow
warm, not by a gradual change, but on a sudden. Afterwards the fore-mentioned
substances, in the moist places, having received life from the heat in that
manner, were nourished in the night by what fell from the cloud surrounding them,
and in the day they were strengthened by the heat. Lastly, when these fœtuses were
come to their full growth, and the membranes by which they were inclosed broke by the heat, all sorts of creatures immediately appeared; those that were
of a hotter nature became birds, and mounted up high; those that were of
a grosser and earthy nature became creeping things, and such like creatures, which
are confined to the earth; and those which were of a watery nature immediately
betook themselves to a place of the like quality, and were called fish. Now the
earth being very much dried and hardened, by the heat of the sun, and by the wind,
was no longer able to bring forth living creatures, but they were afterwards begotten
by mixing with each other. Euripides seems not to contradict this account, who was
the scholar of Anaxagoras the philosopher; for he says thus in his Menalippe, “Heaven and earth at first were of one form, “This therefore is the account we have received of the original
of things. And if it should seem strange to any one, that the earth should in the
beginning have a power to bring forth living creatures, it may be further
confirmed by what we see comes to pass even now. For at Thebais in Egypt, upon the
river Nile’s very much overflowing its banks, and thereby moistening the
ground, immediately by the heat of tile sun is caused a putrefaction, out of
which arises an incredible number of mice. Now, if after the earth has been thus
hardened, and the air does not preserve its original temperature, yet some
animals are notwithstanding produced; from hence, they say, it is manifest, that
in the beginning all sorts of living creatures were produced out of the earth in
this manner.” If
we add to this, that God is the Creator, who is called by Anaxagoras a Mind, you will find many things agreeing
with
Moses, and the tradition of the Phœnicians: as the heavens and earth mixed together,
the motion of the air, the mud or abyss, the light, the stars, the separation of
heaven and earth, and sea, the birds, the creeping things, fishes, and other
animals; and, last of all. mankind. Macrobius, in his seventh of his Saturnalia,
chap. 18, transcribed the following words from the Egyptians: “If we allow, what
our adversaries affirm, that the things which now are had a beginning; nature first
formed all sorts of animals perfect; and then ordained, by a perpetual law, that
their succession should be continued by procreation. Now, that they might be made
perfect in the beginning, we have the evidence of very many creatures produced
perfect from the earth and the water; as in Egypt, mice; and, in other places,
frogs, serpents, and the like.” And it is with just reason that Aristotle prefers
Anaxagoras before any a the ancient Greek philosophers, Metaphys. book i. chap.
3, as a sober man, when the rest were drunken; because they referred every thing
to matter, whereas this man added also a cause, which acts with design; which cause
Aristotle calls Nature, and Anaxagores Mind, which is better; and Moses,
God; and so does Plato. See Laërtius, where he treats concerning the first
principles of things, according to the opinion of Plato; and Appuleius concerning
the opinions of Plato. Thales, who was before Anaxagoras, taught the same; as Velleius
in Cicero tells us, in his first book of the Nature of the Gods. “For Thales Milesius,
who was the first that inquired into such things as these, says, that water was
the beginning of all things; and that God was that Mind which formed all things
out of water.” Where, by water he means the chaos, which Xenophon and others
call earth; all of them well enough, if we rightly apprehend them. In the verse quoted above. In his Theogonia:— “The rise of all things was a chaos rude, Greek writers, mention is made of a chaos, (signified by some under the name
of an egg), and of the framing of From hence rose Erebus, and gloomy night. If we compare this with those of the Phœnicians now quoted, it
will seem to be taken from them. For Hesiod lived hard by the Theban Bœotia, which
was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. Ἔριβος,
Erebus, is the same as Moses’s ערב Ereb, which night and
day follow in the hymns that
are ascribed to Orpheus, “All things that are, sprung from
a chaos vast.” In the Argonautics, which go under the same name; “In verse he sang the original of things, So also Epicharmus, the most ancient comic poet, relating an
old tradition, “’Tis said that chaos was before
the gods.” And Aristophanes, in his play called the Birds, in a passage
pre. Served by Lucian, in his Philopatris, and by Suidas, “First of all was chaos and night, dark Erebus and gloomy Tartarus; There was no earth, nor air, nor heaven, till dusky night, By the wind’s power
on the wide bosom of Erebus, brought forth an egg, Of which was hatch’d the god of love, (when time began), who,
with his golden wings Fixed to his shoulders, flew like a mighty whirlwind; and mixing
with black chaos, In Tartarus’ dark shades, produced mankind, and brought them into
light. For, before love joined all things, the gods themselves had no
existence; But upon this conjunction, all things being mixed and blended,
æther arose; And sea and earth, and the blessed abodes of the immortal
gods.” These appear, upon a very slight view, to be taken from the tradition
of the Phœnicians, who held an ancient correspondence
with the inhabitants of Attica, the most ancient of the Ionians.
We have already spoken of Erebus. Tartarus is תהום
Tehom, Αβυσσος, Abyssos;
and מרחפת
Merachepheth, signifies Love, as was shewn before:
to which agrees that of Parmenides, “Love was the first of all the
gods.” The place is no further than the first book of his Metamorphoses,
and is very well worth reading; the principal things in it being so very like those
of Moses, and almost the same words, so that they afford much light to what has been already said, and are likewise much illustrated by it:— “Before the sea, and earth, and heaven’s high roof, Here you see man has the dominion over all inferior creatures
given him; and also that he was made after the image of God, or of divine beings.
To the same purpose are the words of Eurysus the Pythagorean, in his book of fortune:
“His (that is, man’s) tabernacle, or body, is like that of other creatures, because
it is composed of the same materials; but worked by the best Workman, who framed
it according to the pattern of himself.” Where the word σκῆνος is put for
body, as in ——“A particle of breath divine.” And Virgil, “An æthereal sense.” And that of Juvenal, sat. xv. ——“Who alone And those remarkable things relating hereto, in Plato’s Phædon
and Alcibiades. Cicero, in the second book of the nature of the gods, says thus:
“For when he (that is, God) left all other creatures to feed on the ground, he
made man upright, to excite him to view the heavens, to which he is related, as
being his former habitation.” And Sallust, in the beginning of the Catiline war:
“All men, that desire to exceed other animals, ought earnestly to endeavour not
to pass away their days in silence, like the beasts, which nature has made prone,
and slaves to their bellies.” And Pliny, b. ii. c. 20. “The never enough to be
admired Hipparchus; than whom none more acknowledged the relation betwixt man
and the stars, and who considered our souls as a part of the heavens.” ”Man’s
reason is derived from that of God.” Amelius the Platonic: “And this is that reason, or word, by
which all things that ever were, were made; according to the opinion of Heraclitus.
That very Word, or Reason, the barbarian means, which set all things in order in
the beginning, and which was with God before that order, and by which every thing
was made, and in which was every creature; the fountain of life and being.” The
barbarian he here speaks of is St. John the evangelist, a little later than whose
time Amelius lived. Eusebius has preserved his words in the eleventh book and nineteenth
chapter of his Preparation; and Cyril in his eighth book against Julian. St. Austin
mentions the same place of Amelius, in his tenth book, and 29th chapter, of tile city
of God, and in the eighth book of his confessions. And Tertullian against the Gentiles:
“It is evident (says he) that with your wise men, the Λόγος,
Logos, Word
or Reason, was the Maker of the universe; for Zeno would have this Word to he the
Creator, by whom all things were disposed in their formation.” This place of Zeno
was in his book περὶ οὐσίας, concerning being, where he calls the
τὸ ποιοῦν,
the efficient cause, Λόγος, the Word, or
Reason; and in
this he was followed by Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus, and Posidonius, as we
are told by Laërtius in his life of Zeno. Seneca, in his lxvth epistle, calls it
the “Reason which formeth every thing.” And Chalcidius to Timæus says, “That the
reason of God is God himself, who has a regard to human affairs, and who is the
cause of men’s living well and happily, if they do not neglect the gift bestowed
on them by the most high God.” And in another place, speaking of Moses, he has
these words: Who is clearly of opinion, “that the heaven and earth were made by
the Divine Wisdom preceding: and that then the Divine Wisdom was the foundation
of the universe.” The verses are these:— “I swear by that first word the Father spake, They are extant in the admonition to the Greeks, among the works of Julian: as
also these:— ” I speak to those I ought; begone, profane, These we find in the admonition to the Greeks; as also in a
book
concerning the monarchy of the world, in the works of Justin Martyr; in Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 5. and in the xiiith book of Eusebius’s Gospel Preparation,
from Aristobulus. Of whom Laërtitis says,
“That he affirmed the sun to be a great
heap of fire.” And he that wrote the opinions of the philosophers has these words:
“Empedocles said, that the æther was first separated, then the fire, and
after that the earth; the superficies of which being compressed by its violent motion,
the water burst out; from which the air was exhaled; that the heavens were composed
of æther, and the sun of fire.” And, chap. 20. Empedocles affirms, “There are two
suns, one the original, and the other the apparent.” And Philolaus, as we there
also read, says, “That the sun is of the same nature as glass, receiving its splendour
from the fire that is in the world, and transmitting its light to us.” Anaxagoras,
Democritus, Metrodorus, affirmed the sun to be a certain mass of fire; as you find
it in the same place. And Democritus shews, that these were the roost ancient opinions,
as Laërtius relates. Aratus:— “As far as the dire gulf Eridanus, Catullus, the interpreter of Callimachus, introduces Berenice’s
hair, speaking after this manner: “Tho’ in the night the gods upon me tread.” As we see in Diogenes Laërtius; and Herodotus and Leander assert
him to have been originally a Phœnician. In his hymn to night: “I sing the night, parent of men and gods.” Whose verses upon this subject are cited above. The Numidians in Libya “reckon their time not by days, but
by nights,” says Nicolaus Damascenes: and Tacitus affirms of the Germans, “that
they do not, like us, compute the number of the days, but of the nights; so they
date their decrees and citations; night seems to begin the day with them.” See
the Speculum Saxonicum, book i. art. 3, 67. and in other places. So likewise the
learned Lindenbrogius, upon the word Night, in his Vocabulary of the German
laws. The neighbouring people of Bohemia and Poland preserve this custom to this
very day, and the Gauls used it of old. Cæsar, in his sixth book of the Gallic
war, says, “That all their distances of time were reckoned, not by the number of
days, but of nights.” And Pliny, concerning the druids, in the sixteenth book of
his natural history, says, “The moon with them began their months and years.” It
is a known custom amongst the Hebrews. Gellius, in his third book, chap. ii. adds
the Athenians, who in this matter were the scholars of the Phœnicians. His words are quoted above, which are to be found in Laërtius,
the writer of the opinions of the philosophers, and others: as are also the
verses of Timon concerning his opinion. In the beginning of his Phænomena:— “Begin with Jupiter, whose essence is That by Jupiter we are here to understand God, the true Maker
of the world, and all things in it, St. Paul chews us in the “Such, both in number and in form, did God And Chalcidius to Timæus “To which thing the Hebrews agree,
who affirm that God was the adorner of the world, and appointed the sun to rule
the day, and the moon to govern the night; and so disposed the rest of the
stars, as to limit the times and seasons of the year, and to be signs of the
productions of things.” In the sixth book of his Æneid, which Servius says was composed from many of the ancient Greek writings:— “At first the heav’n and earth, and wat’ry seas, Which may be explained by those in his Georgics, iv. “By such examples taught, and by such marks, In his poem upon Labour and Days:— “Then ordered Mulciber, without delay, Iliad, viii. “You all to earth and water must return.” For all things return from whence they came. Euripides in his
Hipsipyle (as Stobæus tells us in the title) uses this argument, for bearing patiently
the events of things; which is transcribed by Tully in his third book of Tusculan
questions:— ——“All which in vain us mortals vex: To the same purpose, Euripides in his Supplicants:— “Permit the dead to be entomb’d in earth, All which, you see, exactly agree with Moses, Who, in his Scazon, calls man Prometheus’s clay.
Of this clay we find mention made in Juvenal and Martial. To which we may add
this place of Censorinus: “Democritus, the Abderite, was of opinion, that men
were first formed of clay and water; and Epicurus was much of the same mind.” In his first dissertation: “Notwithstanding the great discord,
confusion, and debates that are amongst men; the whole world agree in this one constant
law and opinion, that God is the sole King and Father of all; but that there
are many other gods, who are Ida sons, and share in his government. This is affirmed
by the Greek and the barbarian; by him who dwells in the continent, and by hint
who lives on the sea-shore; by the wise and by the foolish.” To which may be added
those places cited in the second book attar and peace, chap. xx. § 45. And that
of Antisthenes, related by Tully in his first book of the nature of the gods: “that there are many vulgar gods, but there is but one natural
God.” And Lactantius,
book i. chap. 5. adds, from the same Antisthenes, that he is “The Maker of the whole world.” So likewise Sophocles:— “There is really but one God, To which may be added that place of Varro, cited by St. Austin, in the fourth
book, and chap. 31. of his City of God. Against Appion, about the cud of the second
book, where he says, “There is no city, Greek or barbarian, in which the custom
of resting on the seventh day is not preserved, as it is amongst the Jews.” Concerning
the seventh day: “It is a festival celebrated not only in one city or country,
but throughout the whole world.” ”The seventh day is
sacred to the Jews.” Who, in his Strom. v. quotes out of Hesiod, “that the seventh day was sacred.” And the like out of Homer and Callimachus. To which may be
subjoined what Eusebius has taken out of Aristobulus, book xiii. chap. 12. “Theophilas
Antiochenus, b. ii. to Autolychus, concerning the seventh day, which is distinguished
by all men.” And Suetonius, in his Tiberius, xxxii. “Diogenes the
grammarian uses to dispute at Rhodes upon the sabbath day.”—(The seventh day of
the month ought not to be confounded with the last day of the week. See what John
Selden has remarked upon this subject, in his book of the laws of nature and nations,
book chap. 17. Le Clerc. Who tells
us in his Paralogist, “That boys were used to play on the seventh day.” As is evident by the names of the days among the different nations
of the Celtæ, viz. Germans, Gauls, and Britons. Helmoldus tells us the same of the
Sclavonians, book i. chap. 84. Book
iii. chap. 13. speaking of the Indians. Book xxxvii. “The day called Saturn’s.” Where he adds, that the
custom of computing the time by weeks was derived from the Egyptians to all mankind.
And that this was not a new, but a very ancient custom, Herodotus tells us in his
second book: to which may be added Isidore concerning the Romans, book v. ch. 30.
and 33. See the Oracle, and Orpheus’s verses in Scaliger’s Prolegomena to his emendation of times.—(I suspect that the foundation of weeks was rather
from the seven planets, than from the creation of the world in seven days. Le
Clerc.) See what we have said of
this matter, book ii. sect. 12. concerning the
right of war, and the notes belonging to it. Whose opinion Diodorus Siculus thus relates:
“The first men
lived very hardy, before the conveniencies of life were found out; being accustomed
to go naked, and wanting dwellings and fires; and being wholly ignorant of the food
of civilized nations.” And Plato, in his politics: “God their governor fed them,
being their keeper; as man, who is a more divine creature, feeds the inferior creatures.” And a little after:
“They fed naked and
without garments in the open air.” And Dicearchus the peripatetic, cited both by
Porphyry, in his fourth book against eating living creatures, and to the same
sense by Varro, concerning country affairs: “The ancients, who were nearest to
the gods, were of an excellent disposition, and led so good lives, that they
were called a golden race.” Book
xv. where he brings in Calanus the Indian speaking thus: “Of old we met every
where with barley, wheat, and meal, as we do now-a-days with dust. The fountains
flowed, some with water, some with milk; and likewise some with honey, some with
wine, and some with oil. But men, through fullness and plenty, fell into
wickedness; which condition Jupiter abhorring, altered the state of things, and
ordered them a life of labour.” In his guide to the doubting, part iii. chap. 29. In those places which Philo Biblius has translated out of Sanchuniathon.
The Greek word πρωτόγονος, first-born, is the same with the
Hebrew אדם
Adam; and the Greek word αἰὼν,
Age, is the same with the Hebrew word חוה Chavah,
Eve. The first men found out the fruit of trees. And in the
most ancient Greek mysteries, they cried out Εὗα, Eva, and at the same time
shewed a serpent. Which is mentioned by Hesychius, Clemens in his exhortations,
and Plutarch in the life of Alexander. Chalcidius, to Timæus, has these words: “That, as Moses says, God forbade the first man to eat the fruit of those trees
by which the knowledge of good and evil should steal into their minds.” And in
another place; “To this the Hebrews agree, when they say, that God gave to man a
soul by a divine breath, which they call reason, or a rational soul; but to dumb
creatures, and wild beasts of the forest, one void of reason: the living
creatures and beasts being, by the command of God, scattered over the face of
the earth; amongst which was that serpent who, by his evil persuasions, deceived
the first of mankind.” See, amongst others, Ferdinand Mendesius de
Pinto. What Simplicius relates out of Porphyry, comment, xvi. upon
book ii. concerning the heavens, agrees exactly with this number; that the observations
collected at Babylon, which Callisthenes sent to Aristotle, were to that time cm
to CIƆ IƆ CCCCIII. [1903], which is not far from the flute of the deluge. Josephus, in the first book, chap. 4, of his ancient history,
quotes the testimony of all these writers, whose books were extant in his time;
and besides these, Acusilaus, Ephorus, and Nicolaus Damascenus. Servius, in his
notes upon the eighth book of Virgil’s Æneid, remarks, that the people of Arcadia
lived to three hundred years. In his Laconics,
he mentions the bones of men, of a more than ordinary bigness, which were shewn
in the temple of Æsculapius at the city of Asepus:
and, in the first of his Eliacs, of a bone taken out of the sea, which aforetime
was kept at Piso, and thought to have been one of Pelops’s. In the beginning of his Heroics, he says, that many bodies
of giants were discovered in Pallene, by showers of rain and earthquakes. Book vii. chap. 16.
“Upon the bursting of a mountain
in Crete
by an earthquake, there was found a body standing upright, which was reported by
some to have been the body of Orion, by others the body of Eetion. Orestes’s body,
when it was commanded by the oracle to be digged up, is reported to have been seven
cubits long. And, almost a thousand years ago, the poet Homer continually complained
that men’s bodies were less than of old.” And Solinus, chap. i. “Were not all who were
born in that age less than their parents? And the story of Orestes’s funeral testifies
the bigness of the ancients, whose bones, when they were digged up in the fifty-eighth
Olympiad, at Tegea, by the advice of the oracle, are related to have been seven
cubits in length. And
other writings, which give a credible relation of ancient matters, affirm this,
that in the war of Crete, when the rivers had been so high as to overflow and break
down their banks, after the flood was abated, upon the cleaving of the earth there
was found a human body of three and thirty feet long; which L. Flaccus the legate,
and Metellus himself, being very desirous of seeing, were much surprised to have
the satisfaction of seeing what they did not believe when they heard.” See Austin’s
fifteenth book, chap. 11. of the city of Cod, concerning the cheek tooth of a man,
which he himself saw. Josephus, book v. chap. 2. of his ancient history;
“There remains to this day some of the race of the giants, who, by reason of the
bulk and figure of their bodies, so different from other men, are wonderful to see
or hear of: their bones are now shewn, far exceeding the belief of the vulgar.” Gabinius, in his history of Mauritania, said, that
Antæus’s bones were found by
Sertorius, which, joined together, were sixty cubits long. Phlegon Trallianus, in
his ninth chapter of wonders, mentions the digging up of the head of Ida, which
was three times as big as that of an ordinary woman. And he adds also, that there
were many bodies found in Dalmatia, whose arms exceeded sixteen cubits. And the
same man relates out of Theopompus, that there were found in the Cimmerian Bosphorus
a heap of human bones twenty-four cubits in length. And there is extant a
book of the same Phlegon, concerning long life, which is worth reading.—(That in
many places of old time, as the present, there were men of a very large stature,
or such as exceeded others some few feet, is not very hard to believe; but that
they should all of them have been bigger, I can no more believe, than that the trees
were taller, or the channels of the rivers deeper. There is the same proportion
between all these, and things of the like kind, now, as there was formerly, they
answering to one another, so that there is no reason to think they have undergone
any change. See Theodore Riekius’s oration about giants. Le Clerc.) In his epithalamium on Peleus and Thetis:— “But when the earth was stain’d with wickedness Of this, see those excellent things said by Plutarch in his
Isis; Maximus Tyrius in his first and sixteenth dissertations, and Julian’s hymn
to the sun. The name of angels is used, when they treat of this matter, not
only by the Greek interpreters of the Old Testament, but also by Labeus, Aristides,
Porphyry, Jamblicus, Chalcidius, and by Hostanes, who was older than any of them,
quoted by Minutius: the fore-mentioned Chalcidius relates an assertion of Heraclitus,
that such as deserved it were forewarned by the instruction of the divine powers. Homer, Iliad ix. and Hesiod, in his Labours. To this may be
referred the wars of the gods, mentioned by Plato in his second republic; and those
distinct and separate governments taken notice of by the same Plato, in his third
book of laws. See the first book of Ovid’s metamorphoses,
and the fourth book of Lucan, and Seneca’s third book of natural questions,
quest. 30. where he says concerning the deluge, “That the beasts also perished,
into whose nature men were degenerated.” Thus Censorinus: “Now I come to treat of that space of
time which Varro calls historical. For he makes three distinctions of time; the first
from the creation of man to the first flood, which, because we are ignorant of it,
is called the unknown. The second, from the first flood to the first Olympiad; which is called the
fabulous, because of the many fabulous stories related
in it. The third, from the first Olympiad to our time, which is called the
historical, because the things done in it are related in a true history.”
The time which Varro calls unknown, the Hebrew rabbins, call void. Philo,
in his book of the eternity of the world, remarks, that the shells found on the
mountains are a sign of the universal deluge. Concerning whom Josephus says thus, in his first book against
Appion “This Berosus, following the most ancient writings, relates, in the same
manner as Moses, the history of the flood, the destruction of mankind, the ark or
chest in which Noah, the father of mankind, was preserved, by its resting on the
top of the mountains of Armenia.” After having related the history of the
deluge, Berosus adds these words, which we find in the same Josephus, book i.
and chap. 4. of his ancient history: “It is reported that part of the ship now
remains in Armenia, on the Gordyæan mountains, and that some bring pitch from
thence, which they use for a charm.” Eusebius has preserved the place in the ninth book of his preparation,
chap. 12. and Cyril in his first book against Julian. “After whom reigned many
others, and then Sisithrus, to whom Saturn signified there should be an abundance
of rain on the fifteenth day of the month Desius, and commanded him to lay up all
his writings in Heliopolis. a city of the Sipparians; which when Sisithrus had
done, he sailed immediately into Armenia, and found it true as the god had declared
to him. On the third day after the waters abated, he sent out birds to try if the
water was gone off any part of the earth; but they finding a vest sea, and
having no where to rest, returned back to Sisithrus: in the same manner did others:
and again the third time, (when their wings were daubed with mud). Then the gods
took him from among men; and the ship came into Armenia, the wood of which
the people there use for a charm.” Sisithrus, and Ogyges, and Deucalion, are all
names signifying the same thing in other languages, as Noah does in the Hebrew, in which Moses wrote; who so expressed proper names, that the Hebrews
might understand the meaning of them: for instance, Alexander the historian, writing Isaac in Greek, calls him
Γέλωτα, Laughter, as we learn
from Eusebius: and many such like we meet with among the historians as in
Philo concerning rewards and punishments; “The Greeks call him Deucalion, the
Chaldeans Noach, in whose time the great flood happened.” It is the tradition
of the Egyptians, an Diodorus testifies in his first book, that the universal deluge
was that of Deucalion. Pliny says it reached as far as Italy, book iii. chap. 14.
But, to return to the translation of names into other languages, there is a remarkable
place in Plato’s Critias concerning it: “Upon the entrance of this discourse,
it may be necessary (says he) to premise the reason, lest you be surprised when
you hear the names of barbarians in Greek. When Solon put this relation into verse,
he inquired Into the signification of the names, and found, that the first Egyptians,
who wrote of these matters, translated them into their own language; and he likewise,
searching out their true meaning, turned them into our language.” The words of Abydenus
agree with those of Alexander the historian, which Cyril has preserved in his fore-mentioned
first book against Julian: “After the death of Otiartes, his son Xisuthrus reigned
eighteen years, in whose time, they say, the great deluge was. It is reported that
Xisuthrus was preserved by Saturn’s foretelling him what was to come; and that it
was convenient for him to build an ark, that birds and creeping things, and beasts,
might sail with him in it.” The most high God is named by the Assyrians and other
nations from that particular star of the seven (to use Tacitus’s words) by which
mankind are governed, which is moved in the highest orb, and with the greatest force:
or certainly the Syriac word, איל Il, which signifies God, was therefore
translated Κρόνος Kronos, by the
Greek interpreters, because he was called איל
Il by the Syrians. Philo Biblius, the interpreter of Sanchuniathon,
hath these words: “Ilus, who is called Saturn.” He is quoted by Eusebius: in whom it immediately follows from the same Philo,
“that Kronos was the same
the Phœnicians call Israel;” but the mistake was in the transcriber, who put Ἰσραὴλ
Israel, for ἵλ Il,
which many times amongst the Greek Christians is the contraction of Ἰσραὴλ; whereas ἵλ is, as we have observed, what the Syrians
call איל Il, and the Hebrews אל El.— (It ought not to be overlooked,
that in this history, Deucalion, who was the same person as Noah, is called
ἀνὴρ πύῤῥας, that is,
איש אדמה
a man of the earth, that is, a husbandman.
Sac my notes upon In his book where he inquires which have most cunning, water or land animals:
“They say Deucalion’s dove, which he
sent out of the ark, discovered at its return that the storms were abated, and the
heavens clear.” It is to be observed, both in this place of Plutarch’s, and in that
of Alexander the historian, as well as in the book of Nicolaus Damascenes, and the
writers made use of by Theophilus Antiochenes in his third book, that the Greek
word λάρναξ lrnax, answers to the Hebrew word
תבה tebah, and so Josephus
translates it. In his book concerning the goddess of Syria,
where having begun to treat of the very ancient temple of Hierapolis, he adds: “They say this temple was founded by Deucalion, the Scythian, that Deucalion in
whose days the flood of water happened. I have heard in Greece the story of this
Deucalion from the Greeks themselves, which is thus: the present generation of
men is not the original one, for all that generation perished; and the men which
now are came from a second stock, the whole multitude of them descended from
Deucalion. Now, concerning the first race of men, they relate thus: they were
very obstinate, and did very wicked things; and had no regard to oaths, had no
hospitality or charity in them; upon which account many calamities befel them.
For on a sudden the earth sent forth abundance of water, great showers of rain
fell, the rivers overflowed exceedingly, and the sea overspread the earth, so
that all was turned into water, and every man perished; Deucalion was only saved
alive, to raise up another generation, because of prudence and piety. And he was
preserved in this manner: he, and his wives, and his children, entered into a
large ark, which he had prepared; and after them went in bears, and horses, and
lions, and serpents, and all other kinds of living creatures that fed upon the
earth, two and two; he received them all in, neither did they hurt him, but were
very familiar with him, by a divine influence. Thus they sailed in the same
ark, as long as the water remained on the earth. This is the account the Greeks
give of Deucalion. Now concerning what happened afterwards: There was a strange
story related by the inhabitants of Hierapolis, of a great hole in the earth in
that country, which received all the water; after which, Deucalion built an
altar, and reared a temple to Juno over the hole. I saw the hole myself; it is
but a small one, under the temple; whether it was larger formerly, I know not; I
am sure this which I saw was but small. To preserve this story, they perform
this ceremony: twice every year water is brought from the sea into the temple;
and not only the priests, but all the people of Syria and Arabia, fetch it; many
go even from the river Euphrates as far as tile sea to fetch water, which they
pour out in the temple, and it goes into the hole, which, though it be but
small, holds a vast quantity of water: when they do this, they say it was a rite
instituted by Deucalion, in memory of that calamity, and his preservation. This
is the ancient story of this temple.” Eusebius relates his words in his ninth book of the Gospel
Preparation, chap. 19. “At the deluge, the man and his children that escaped
came out of Armenia, being driven from his own country by the inhabitants; and,
having passed through the country between, went into the mountainous part of
Syria, which was then uninhabited.” Josephus gives us his words, out of the ninety-sixth book of
his universal history, in the fore-cited place: “There is above the city Minyas,
(which Strabo and Pliny call Milyas), a huge mountain in Armenia called Batis, on
which they say a great many were saved from the flood, particularly one, who was
carried to the top of it by an ark; the relics of the wood of which were preserved
a great while: I believe it was the same man that Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews,
mentions in his history.” To these writers we may add Jerom the Egyptian, who wrote
the affairs of Phœnicia and Mnaseas, mentioned by Josephus. And perhaps Eupolemus,
which Eusebius quotes out of Alexander the historian, in his Gospel Preparation,
book ix. chap. 17. See Josephus Acosta, and Antonius Herrera. Book v. chap.
xiii. Mela and Solinus agree with Pliny. Compare
it with that which we have quoted out of Abydenus. Which Moses calls Ararath; the Chaldean interpreters
translate it Kardu; Josephus, Cordiæan; Curtius, Cordæan;
Strabo writes it Gordiæan, book xvi. and Pliny, book vi. and Ptolemæus.—(These, and what follows in relation to the sacred geography and the founders of
nations, since these of Grotius were published, are with great pains, and much more
accuracy, searched into by Sam. Bochart, in his sacred geography, which add weight
to Grotius’s arguments. Le Clerc.) Theophilus Antiochenus says, in his third book, that
the relics of the ark were shewn in his time. And Epiphanius, against the Nazarites:
“The relics of Noah’s ark are shewn at this time, in the region of the Cordiæans:” and Chrysostom, in his oration of perfect love. And Isidore, book xiv. chap. 8.
of his antiquities: “Ararath, a mountain in Armenia, on which, histories testify
the ark rested after the deluge; where at this day are to be seen some marks of
the wood.” We may add the words out of Haiton the Armenian, ch. 9. “There is a
mountain in Armenia, higher than any other in the whole world, which is commonly
called Ararath, on the top of which mountain the ark first rested after the deluge.”
See the Nubian geographer, and Benjamin’s Itinerary. It is the very same word יפת Japheth; for the same letter
פ is by some pronounced like π p, by others
φ ph; and the like difference
is now preserved among the Germans and Dutch. Jerom upon Daniel has observed
this of the Hebrew letter. For ἰάονες iaones is often found amongst the ancient
writers. The Persian in Aristophanes’s play, called Acharnenses, pronounces it ἰαοναῦ iaonau. Now it was a very ancient custom to put a digamma between
two vowels, which afterwards began to be wrote by a V, formerly thus,
F.
In like manner, that which was αὐὼς auos, is now
ἀὼς aos, and ἡὼς eos,
ταυὼς tauos, a peacock;
τοὺς Ἒλληνας κάλουσιν ἰαῦνας, the Greeks are called
iaunas. Suidas. the Greeks sometimes render the Hebrew letter ח Cheth by
an aspirate, and sometimes omit it; as חצר־מות
Chatzarmuth, ἈδράμυττοςAdramyttos, or
Ἁδράμυττος Hadramyttos;
חכמת Chachmoth, ἀχμὼθ
Achmuth, in Irenæus and others: חברה
Chabrah, a companion, by the ancient Greeks ἄβρα abra; חיה
Chajah, αἰὼν aion, an age. הנה
Hanno or Anno; חני־בעל Hannibal or
Annibal, חצר־בעל Hasdrubal or
Asdrubal; חשים
Chashim; ἀξουμῖται
axoumitai, for ων on is a Greek ending. This person is transformed,
not only by the Lybians, but also by many other nations, into the star Jupiter, as a god. Lucan, book ix. “Jupiter Ammon is the only god And the sacred scripture puts Egypt amongst them. He says, Γομαρεῖς Gomareis, the Galatians, is
derived from גמר Gomar, where Pliny’s town Comara is. The people of Comara
we find in the first book of Mela. The Scythians are derived from מגוגMagog,
by whom the city Scythopolis in Syria was built, and the other city Magog; Pliny,
book v. chap. 23. which is called by others Hierapolis and Bambyce. It
is evident that the Medes are derived from מדי
Medi; and, as we have
already observed, Javones, Iaones, Iones, from יוזJaven. Josephus says,
the Iberians in Asia come from תבל Thebal, in the neighbourhood of whom
Ptolemy places the city of Thabal, as preserving the marks of its ancient original.
The city Mazaca, mentioned by him, comes from משד Masach, which we find in Strabo, book xii. and in Pliny, book
vi. 3. and in Ammianus Marcellinus, book xx. Add to this the Moschi mentioned
by Strabo, book xi. and in the first and third book of Mela, whom Pliny calls Moscheni,
book vi. chap. 9. and we find in them and Pliny the Moschican mountains. Josephus
and others agree, that the Thracians were derived from תירס Tiras, and the
word itself shews it; especially if we observe, that the Greek letter ξ x at first
answered to the Syriac letter ס s, as the place of it shews. Concerning those
that are derived from אשכנץAschanaz, the place is corrupt in Josephus;
but without doubt Ascania, a part of Phrygia and Mytia, mentioned in Homer, comes
from thence; concerning which see Strabo, book xii. and Pliny, book v. chap.
32. The Ascanian lake, and the river flowing from it, we find in Strabo, book xiv.
and in Pliny’s fore-cited fifth book, chap. 32. The Ascanian harbour is in Pliny, book v. chap. 30.
and the Ascanian islands also, book iv. chap. 12. and book v. chap. 31. Josephus
says, the Paphlagonians are derived from ריפחRiphath, by some called Riphatæans,
where Mela, in his first book, puts the Riphacians. The same Josephus tells us,
that the αἰολεῖς aioleis, come from
אלישה Alishah; and the Jerusalem
paraphrast agrees with him, in naming the Greeks Æolians, putting the part for
the whole; nor is it much unlike Hella, the name of the country. The same Josephus
also says, that the Cilicians are derived from תרשיש Tarshish, and proves it
from the city Tarsus; for it happens in many places, that the names of the
people are derived from the names of cities. We have before hinted that Κίττιον Kittion,
is derived from כתיםChitim. The Ethiopians
are called Chusæans by themselves and their neighbours, from כושChush, now; as
Josephus observed they were in his time; from whence there is a river so called
by Ptolemy; and, in the Arabian geographer, there are two cities which retain the
same name. So likewise Μισὠρ in Philo Biblius is derived from מצריםMitzraim; those which the Greeks call Egyptians, being called by themselves
and their neighbours Mesori; and the name of one of their months is Μεσιρὶ,
Mesiri. Cedrenus calls the country itself Μέστσα,
and Josephus rightly conjectures, that the river in Mauritania is
derived from פית Phut. Pliny mentions the same river, book v. c. 1.
“Phut, and the neighbouring Phutensian country, is so called to this day.” Jerom,
in his Hebrew traditions on Genesis, says, it is not far from Fesa, the name
remaining even now. The חנעו Chenaan, in Moses, is contracted by Sanchuniathon,
and from him by Philo Biblius, into Χνᾶ Chua; you will find it in Eusebius’s
Preparation, book i. chap. 10. and the country is called so. Stephanus, of cities,
says, “Chna was so called by the Phœnicians.” And St. Austin, in his book
of expositions on the epistle to the Romans, says, in his time, if the country people
that lived at Hippo were asked who they were, they answered, Canaanites. And in
that place of Eupolemus, cited by Eusebius, Prepar. ix. 17. the Canaanites are called
Mestraimites. Ptolemy’s Regema, in Arabia Felix, is derived from רעמה
Raamah,
by changing ע into γ
g, as in Gomorrha and other words. Josephus deduces
the Sabins from סבא Saba, a known nation, whose chief city Strabo says, book
xvi. was Saba, where Josephus places the Sabateni, from סבתה
Sabatah; there
Pliny places the city Sobotale, book vi. chap. 28. The word להבים Lehabim, is not much different from the
name of the Lybians; nor the word נפתחיםNephathim from Nepata, a city of
Ethiopia, mentioned by Pliny, book vi. chap. 29. Nor Ptolemy’s Nepata, or the Pharusi
in Pliny, book v. chap. 8. from פצריסיםPhatstrasim, the same
as Ptolemy’s Phaurusians in Ethiopia. The city Sidon, famous in all poets and
historians, comes from צידוTridon. And Ptolemy’s town Gerasa, from
גרגשיGergashi: and Arca, a city of the Phœnicians, mentioned by Ptolemy and Pliny,
book v. ch.18. from ערקי Arki. And Aradus, an island mentioned in Strabo,
book xvi. and Pliny, book v. chap. 20. and Ptolemy in Syria, from ארודיArodi;
and Amathus of Arabia, mentioned by Herodotus in his Euterpe and Thalia, from
המחי Hamathi; and the Elymites, neighbours to the Medes, from
עילם Eelim, mentioned by Strabo, book xvi. Pliny, book vi. ch. 25. and Livy, book
xxxvii. Their descendants in Phrygia are called Elymites by Athenæus, book iv.
Every one knows, that the Assyrians are derived from אשור Ashur, as the
Lydians are from לודLud, from whence comes. the Latin word
Ludi. Those
which by the Greeks are called Syrians, from the city צור Tzur, are called Aramites
to this day, from ארם Aram: for צ tz is sometimes translated
τ t,
and sometimes σ s,; whence the city צור
Tzur, which the Greeks
call Tyre, is by Ennius called Sarra, and by others Sina and Tina. Strabo, book
xvi. towards the end: “The poet mentions the Arimites, whom Possidonius would
have us to understand, not to be any part of Syria, or Cilicia, or any other country,
but Syria itself.” And again, book xiii. ” Some mean Syrians by Arimites, whom they
now call Aramites.” And in the first book: “For those we call Syrians, are by
themselves called Aramites.” “The country Ausanitis, mentioned by the Seventy in
Job, is derived from הוצ Hutz. Aristæus calls it Austias. And the city Cholla,
placed by Ptolemy in Syria, from חול Chol; and the city Gindarus in Ptolemy,
from נהר Geher; and the Gindaren people in Pliny,
book v. chap. 23. in Cœlo-Syria.
And the mountain Masius, not far from Nisibus, mentioned by Strabo, book xi. and
Ptolemy, in Mesopotamia, is derived from מש Mash. The names יקטוJoktan,
and חצרמוחHatzoramuth, and
הולן Holan, are represented by the Arabian
geographers under the names of Balsatjaktan, Hadramuth, and Chaulan; as the learned
Capell observes. The river Ophar, and the people called Opharites, near Mæotis,
Pliny, book vi. 7. If I mistake not, retain the name אופר Ophar; and
those cities, which Moses mentions in this place, appear to be the most ancient
by comparing of authors. Every one knows front whence Babylon is derived. ארך
Arach is Aracca, placed by Ptolemy in Susiana; from whence conic the Aracæan
fields in Tibullus, as the famous Salamasius, a man of vast reading, observes.
Acabene, a corruption of Acadene, is derived from אכד Achad,
as is probably conjectured by Franciscus Junius, a diligent interpreter of scripture,
who has observed many of those things we have been speaking of. חלנה Chalnah
is the town Caunisus on the river Euphrates, whose name Ammianus tells us,
in his twenty-third book, continued to his time. The land שנער Senaar
is the
Babylonian Senaas, in Histiæus Milesus, which place Josephus has preserved in his
ancient history, book i. chap. 7. and in his Chronicon; as has Eusebius in his
Preparation. He wrote the affairs of Phœnicia; whom also Stephens had read. Again,
צ being changed into γ g, Ptolemy from hence calls the mountain Singarus
in Mesopotamia. And Pliny mentions the town Singara, book v. chap. 24. and hence
the Singaranæan country in Sextus Rufus. נינוהNineveh is
undoubtedly the Ninos
of the Greeks, contractN1; thus, in Sardanapalus’s epitaph;— “I, who great Ninus rul’d, am now but dust.” The same name we find in Theognis, and Strabo, b. xvi. and Pliny,
book vi. chap. 13. whose words are these: “Ninus was built upon the river Tigris,
towards the west, a beautiful city to behold.” Lucan, book iii. “Happy Ninus, as
fame goes.” The country Calachena has its name from the principal city כלה Chala:
Strabo, book xi. and afterwards in the beginning of book xvi. רסן
Resin is Resaina in Ammianus, book xxiii. Sidon every one knows. עוה Azzah,
is without doubt rendered Gaza in Palestine, by changing, as before, the letter
ע into γ
g; it is mentioned by Strabo, book xvi. and Mela, book i. who calls
it a large and well fortified town; and Pliny, book v. ch. 13. and book vi. chap.
28. and elsewhere. ספרהSephirah, is Heliopolis, a city of the Sipparians,
in that place of Abydenus now quoted. Sippara is by Ptolemy placed in Mesopotamia.
אור Ur is the castle Ur, mentioned by Ammianus, book xxv. חרן Curran is Carra,
famous for the slaughter of the Crassi. See Homer, Odyss. 30. and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, book i. “The giants, by report, would heaven have storm’d.” See also Virgil’s first Georgic, and Lucan, book vii. It is a
frequent way of speaking amongst all nations, to call those things which
are raised above the common height, things reaching to heaven, as we often
find in Homer, and Book xix. where he describes the lake Asphaltites: “The neighbouring
country burns with fire, the ill smell of which makes the bodies of the inhabitants
sickly, and not very long lived.”—(See more of this in our dissertation added to
the Pentateuch concerning the burning of Sodom. Le Clerc.) Book
xvi. after the description of the lake Asphaltites: “There are many signs of
this country’s being on fire: for about Masada they shew many cragged and burnt
rocks, and in many places caverns eaten in, and ground turned into ashes, drops
of pitch falling from the rocks, and running waters stinking to a great
distance, and their habitations overthrown; which makes credible a report
amongst the inhabitants, that formerly there were. thirteen cities inhabited
there, the chief of which was Sodom, so large as to be sixty furlongs round; but
by earthquakes and fire breaking out, and by hot waters mixed with bitumen and
brimstone, it became a lake, as we now see it; the rocks took fire, some of the
cities were swallowed up, and others forsaken by those inhabitants that could
flee away.” In the fifth book of his history: “Not far from
thence are those fields which are reported to have been formerly very fruitful,
and had large cities built in them, but they were burnt by lightning; the marks
of which remain; in that the land is of a burning nature, and has lost its
fruitfulness. For every thing that is planted, or grows of itself, as soon as it
is come to an herb or flower, or grown to its proper bigness, vanishes like
dust, into nothing.” He describes the lake Asphaltites, book v. chap. 16. and
book xxxv. chap. 15. In the 36th chap. of Salmasius’s
edition: “At a good distance from Jerusalem, a dismal lake extends itself, which
was struck by lightning, as appears from the black earth burnt to ashes. There
were two towns there, one called Sodom, the other Gomorrha; the apples that grow
there cannot be eaten, though they look at if they were ripe; for the outward
skin incloses a kind of sooty ashes, which, pressed by the least touch, flies
out in smoke, and vanishes into fine dust.” With some little mistake. The words are in his Euterpe,
“Originally
only the Colchians, and Egyptians, and Ethiopians, were circumcised. For the Phœnicians,
and Syrians in Palestine, confess they learned it from the Egyptians. And the Syrians
who dwell at Thermodoon, and on the Parthenian river, and the Macrons, their neighbours,
say, they learnt it of the Colchians. For these are the only men that are circumcised,
and in this particular agree with the Egyptians. But concerning the Ethiopians and
Egyptians, I cannot affirm positively which learned it of the other.” Josephus rightly
observes, that none were circumcised in Palestine Syria but the Jews; in the eighth
book, chap. 4. of his ancient history, and first book against Appion. Concerning
which Jews, Juvenal says, “They take off their foreskin;” and Tacitus, “that they
instituted circumcising themselves, that they might be known by such distinction.”
See Strabo, book xvii. But the Jews are so far from confessing that they derived
this custom from the Egyptians, that, on the contrary, they openly declare, that
the Egyptians learnt to be circumcised of Joseph. Neither were all the Egyptians
circumcised, as all the Jews were, as we may see from the example of Appion, who
was an Egyptian, in Josephus. Herodotus undonbtedly put the Phœnicians for the Idumæans; as Aristophanes
does in his play called the Birds, where he calls the Egyptians and
Phœnicians, “the circumcised.” Ammonius, of the difference of words, says, “the Idumæans were
not originally Jews, but Phœnicians and Syrians.” Those Ethiopians which were circumcised,
were of the posterity of Keturah, as shall be observed afterwards. The Colchians
and their neighbours were of the ten tribes that Salmanasar carried away, and from
thence some came into Thrace. Thus the Scholiast on Aristophanes’s Acharnenses says,
“That the nation of the Odomants is the same as the Thracians; they are said to
be Jews.” Where, by Jews, are to be understood, improperly, Hebrews, as is usual.
From the Ethiopians, circumcision went across the sea into the new world, if it
be true what is said of that rite’s being found in many places of that world.—(The
learned dispute whether circumcision was instituted first amongst the Egyptians
or amongst the Jews; concerning which, see my notes upon Book i. of the Colchians; “That this nation sprang from the
Egyptians appears from hence, that they are circumcised after the manner of the
Egyptians; which custom remains amongst this colony, as it does amongst the Jews.”
Now, since the Hebrews were of old circumcised; it no more follows, from the Cholchians
being circumcised, that they sprang from the Egyptians, than that they sprang from
the Hebrews, as we affirm they did. He tells us, book iii. that the Troglodites
were circumcised, who were a part of the Ethiopians. Book xvi. concerning the Troglodites: “Some of these are circumcised,
like the Egyptians.” In the same book he ascribes circumcision to the Jews. In the fable of Saturn, in Eusebius, book i. chap. 10. To
which Abraham, that the precept of circumcision was first
of all given, Theodorus tells us in his poem upon the Jews; out of which Eusebius
has preserved these verses in his Gospel Preparation, book ix. chap. 22.— “He who from home the righteous Abraham brought, So called from Esau, who is called Οὐσωός
Ousoos, by Philo
Biblius. His other name was Edom, which the Greeks translated Ἐρυθρᾶν
Eruthran, from whence comes the Erythræan sea, because the ancient dominions of Esau and his posterity extended
so far. They who are ignorant of their original confound them, as we observed, with
the Phœnicians. Ammonius says, the Idumæans were circumcised; and so does Justin,
in his dialogue with Trypho; and Epiphanius against the Ebionites. Part of these
were Homerites, who, Epiphanius against the Ebionites tells us, were circumcised
in his time. These were circumcised of old, but on the same year of their
age as Ismael. Josephus, book i. chap. 12. and 13. “A child was born to them (viz.
Abraham and Sarah) when they were both very old, which they circumcised on the eighth
day; and hence the custom of the Jews is, to circumcise after so many days. But
the Arabians defer it thirteen years: for Ismael, the father of that nation, who
was the child of Abraham by his concubine, was circumcised at that age.” Thus Origen,
in his excellent discourse against fate, which is extant in Eusebius, book vi. chap.
11. and in the Greek collection, whose title is Φιλοκαλία;
“I don’t know how this
can be defended, that there should be just such a position of the stars upon every
one’s birth in Judæa, that upon the eighth day they must be circumcised, made
sore, wounded, lamed, and so inflamed, that they want the help of a physician, as
soon as they come into the world. And that there should be such a position of the
stars to the Ismaelites in Arabia, that they must be all circumcised when they are
thirteen years old; for so it is reported of them.” Epiphanius, in his dispute
against the Ebionites, rightly explains these Ismaelites to be the Saracens; for
the Saracens always observed this custom, and the Turks had it from them. Namely those that descended from Keturah, concerning
whore there is a famous place of Alexander the historian in Josephus book i. chap.
16. which Eusebius quotes in his Gospel Preparation, book ix. chap. 20. “Cleodemus
the prophet, who is called Malchus, in his relation of the Jews, gives
us the same history as Moses their lawgiver, viz. that Abraham had many children
by Keturah, to three of which he gave the names Afer, Asser, and Afra. Assyria
is so called from Asser; and from the other two, Afer, and Afra, the city Afra, and the country Africa, are denominated. These fought with Hercules
against Lybia and Antæus. Then Hercules married his daughter to Afra: he had a son
of her, whose name was Deodorus, of whom was born Sophon, whence the barbarians
are called Sophaces.” Here the other names, through the fault of the transcribers,
neither agree with Moses, nor with the books of Josephus and Eusebius, as we have
them now. But Ἀφὲρ Apher, is undoubtedly the same
עפר Apher in
Moses. We are to understand by Hercules, not the Theban Hercules, but the Phœnician
Hercules, much older, whom Philo Biblius mentions, quoted by Eusebius often, in
the fore-mentioned 10th chapter of the first book of his Gospel Preparation. This
is that Hercules who, Sallust says in his Jugurthine war, brought his army into
Africa. So that we see whence the Ethiopians, who were a great part of the Africans,
had their circumcision, which they had in Herodotus’s time; and even now, those
that are Christians retain it, not out of a religious necessity, but out of respect
to so ancient a custom. Scaliger thinks that several things, which Eusebius has preserved
out of Philo Biblius, certainly relate to Abraham: see himself in his appendix to
the Emendation of Time. There is some reason to doubt of it. How far we are to give credit to Philo’s Sanchuniathon does
not yet appear; for the very learned Henry Dodwell has rendered his integrity very
suspicious, in his English dissertation on Sanchuniathon’s Phœnician history, published
at London, in the year 1681, to whose arguments we may add this, that in his fragments
there is an absurd mixture of the gods unknown to the eastern Grecians in the first
times, with the deities of the Phœnicians, which the straitness of paper will not
allow me to enlarge upon. Le Clerc. Josephus has preserved his words in his ancient history,
book i. chap. 8. “In the tenth generation after the flood, there was a man amongst
the Chaldæans, who was very just and great, and sought after heavenly things.” Now
it is evident from reason, that this ought to be referred to the time of Abraham. He
wrote a book concerning Abraham, which is now lost, but was extant in Josephus’s
time. Nicolaus, that famous man, who was the friend of
Augustus and Herod, some of whose relics were lately procured by that excellent
person Nicholas Peiresius; by whose death, learning and learned men had a very
great loss. The words of this Nicolaus Damascenes, Josephus relates in the
fore-cited place: “Abraham reigned in Damascus, being a stranger who came out of
the land of the Chaldæans, beyond Babylon; and, not long after, he, and those
that belonged to him, went from hence into the land then called Canaan, but now
Judæa, where he and those that descended from him dwelt, of whose affairs I
shall treat in another place. The name of Abraham is at this day famous in the
country about Damascus, and they shew us the town which from him is called
Abraham’s dwelling.” Eusebius, in his Preparation, book ix. ch. 16, 17, 18, 21, 23.
has quoted several things, under these men’s names, out of Alexander the historian,
but the places are too long to be transcribed; nobody has quoted them before Eusebius.
But the fable of the Bethulians, which Eusebius took out of Philo Biblius, Prepar.
book i. chap. 10. came from the altar of Bethel, built by Jacob, mentioned 2 For certainly those that we find in Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom.
v. and Eusebius, book xiii. chap. 12. can be understood of no other:— “The Maker of all things is known to none, Where Abraham is called only begotten, as in Book xxxvi. chap. 2. “The original of the Jews was from Damascus,
an eminent city in Syria, of which afterwards Abraham and Israel were kings,” Trogus
Pompeius calls them kings, as Nicolaus did; because they exercised a kingly
power in their families; and therefore they are called Anointed, See Eusebius, in the fore-mentioned book ix. chap. 26, 27, 28.
Those things are true which are there quoted out of Tragicus Judtæus Ezechiel, part
of which we find in Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. i. who reports, out of the books
of the priests, that an Egyptian was slain at Moses’s word; and, Strom. v.
he relates some things belonging to Moses, out of Artapanus, though not very
exactly. Justin, out of Trogus Pompeius, says of Moses, “He was leader of those
that were banished, and took away the sacred things of the Egyptians; which they
endeavouring to recover by arms, were forced by a tempest to return home; and that
Moses having entered into his own country of Damascus, took possession of mount Sinah;” and what follows, which is a mixture of truth and falsehood, where we find
Arvas written by him, it should be read Arnas, who is Aaron, not the
son, as he imagines, but the brother of Moses, and a priest. As the great Scaliger has mended the place; who with a very
little variation of the shape of a letter, instead of ὑλογενὴς,
hulogenes, as
it is quoted out of Aristobulus, by Eusebius, in his Gospel Preparat. book xiii. chap.
12. bids us read ὑδογενὴςhudogenes,
born of the water. So that the verses
are thus:— “So was it said of old, so he commands The ancient writer of the Orphic verses, whoever he was, added
these words, after he had said, that there was but one God to be worshipped, who
was the Creator and Governor of the world. He seems to have lived in the time of Ptolemy Epiphanes: concerning
which, see that very useful book of the famous Gerard Vossius, of the Greek historians.
Africanus says, the Greek histories were wrote by him; which is the same book Athenæus
calls Ἑλλαδικόν. His words are these:
“In the reign of Apis the son of Phoroneus,
part of the Egyptian army went out of Egypt, and dwelt in Syria, called Palestine,
not far from Arabia.” As Africanus preserved the place of Polemon, so Eusebius,
in his chronology, preserved that of Africanus. The places are in Josephus against Appion, with abundance of
falsities, as coining from people whit) hated the Jews; and from hence Tacitus took
his account of them. But it appears, from all these compared together, that the
Hebrews descended from the Assyrians; and, possessing a great part of Egypt, led
the life of shepherds; but afterwards, being burthened with hard labour, they came
out of Egypt under the command of Moses, some of the Egyptians accompanying them,
and went through the country of the Arabians, unto Palestine Syria, and there set
up rites contrary to those of the Egyptians; but Josephus, in that learned
book, has surprisingly shewn, how the Egyptian writers, in the falsities which they
have here and there mixed with this history, differ with one another, and some with
themselves, and how many ages the books of Moses exceed theirs in antiquity. From whom
they went away, by force, whose laws the Jews abolished. Concerning the
implacable hatred of the Egyptians against the Jews, see Philo against Flaccus,
and in his Embassy, and Josephus in each book against Appion. Who inherited the ancient hatred between Jacob and Esau; which
was increased from a new cause, when the Idumæans denied the Hebrews a passage,
Those, I mean, that descended from Ismael. Namely, the Canaanites, and the neighbouring nations, who had continual wars
with the Hebrews. In his first book, where he treats of those who made the gods to be the authors
of their laws, he adds; “Amongst the Jews was Moses, who called God by the name
of Ἰάω, Iao;” where by Ἰάω,
he means יחוה Jehovah, which was so pronounced
by the oracles, and in the Orphic verses mentioned by the ancients, and
by the Basilidian heretics, and other gnostics. The same name the Tyrians, as we
learn from Philo Biblius, pronounced
Ἰευὼ, Ieuo, others
Ἰαοὐ, Iaou, as
we see in Clemens Alexandrinus. The Samaritans pronounced it Ἰαβαὶ,
Iabai, as we read in Theodoret; for the eastern people added to the same words, some
one vowel, and some another; from whence it is that there is such difference in
the proper names In the Old Testament. Philo rightly observes, that this word signifies
existence. Besides Diodurus, of those who make mention of Moses, the exhortation
to the Greeks, which is ascribed to Justin, names Appion, Ptolemy on Mandesius,
Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, Thallus, Alexander the historian: and Cyril mentions
some of them in his first book against Julian. The place is in the sixteenth book, where he thinks that Moses
was an Egyptian priest; which he had from the Egyptian writers, as appears in Josephus: afterwards he adds his own opinion, which him some mistakes in it:
“Many who
worshipped the Deity agreed with him (Moses); for he both said and taught, that
the Egyptians did not rightly conceive of God, when they likened him to wild
beasts and cattle; nor the Libyans, nor the Greeks, in resembling him by a human
shape; for God is no other than that universe which surrounds us; the earth, and
the sea, and the heaven, and the world, and the nature of all things, as they
are called by us. Who (says he) that has any understanding, would presume to
form any image like to these things that are about us? Wherefore we ought to lay
aside all carved images, and worship him in the innermost part of a temple worthy of him, without
any figure.” He adds, that this was the opinion of good men: he adds also, that
sacred rites were instituted by him, which were not burdensome for the costliness,
nor hateful, as proceeding from madness. He mentions circumcision, the meats
that were forbidden, and the like: and, after he had shewu that man was naturally
desirous of civil society, he tells us, that it is promoted by divine and human
precepts, but more effectually by divine. 2 Book xxx. chap. 1.
“There is another sect of magicians,
which sprang from Moses.” And Juvenal; “They learn, and keep, and fear, the Jewish law, History v.
where, according to the Egyptian fables, Moses is called ” one of those that
were banished.” He lived in the time of Aurelian the emperor, a favourite or Zenobia,
queen of the Palmyrians. In his book of the Sublime, after he had said, that they
who speak of God ought to take care to represent him as great, and pure, and without
mixture; he adds, “Thus does he who gave laws to the Jews, who was an extraordinary
man, who conceived and spoke worthily of the power of God, when he writes in the
beginning of his laws, God spake: What? Let there he light, and there was light: Let there be earth, and it was so.”
Chalcidius took many things out of Moses, of whom he .speaks thus: “Moses was
the wisest of men, who, as they say, was enlivened not by human eloquence, but
by divine inspiration.” In the Gemara, in the title, Concerning Oblations, and
the chapter, All the Oblations of the Synagogue. To which add the Tanchuma,
or Ilmedenu. Mention is there made of the chief of Pharaoh’s magicians, and their
discourse with Moses is related. Add also Numenius, book iii. concerning the Jews: Eusebius quotes his words, book viii. chap, 8.
“Afterwards Jamnes and Mambres,
Egyptian scribes, were thought to be famous for magical arts, about the time
that the Jews were driven out of Egypt; for these were they who were chosen out
of the multitude of the Egyptians, to contend with Musæus the leader of
the Jews, a man very powerful with God by prayers; and they seemed to be able to
repel those sore calamities which were brought upon Egypt by Musæus.” Where Moses
is called Musæus, a word very near it, as is customary with the Greeks;
as others call Jesus, Jason; and Saul, Paul. Origen against Celsus refers us to
the same place of Numenius. Artaparnus, in the same Eusebius, book ix. ch. 27.
calls them the priests of Memphis, who were commanded by the king to be
put to death, if they did not do things equal to Moses. In the fore-cited place. In his second Apologetic. As in Strabo, Tacitus, and Theophrastus, quoted by Porphyry, in his second book, against eating living creatures, where
he treats of
priests and burnt-offerings; and in the fourth book of the same work, where he
speaks of fishes, and other living creatures, that were forbidden to be eaten. See the place of Hecatæus, in Josephus’s
first book against Appion, and in Eusebius’s Preparat.
book in, chap. 4,
You have the law of avoiding the customs of strange nations, in Justin’s and Tacitus’s
histories; of not eating swine’s flesh, in Tacitus, Juvenal, Plutarch’s Sympos.
iv. and Macrobius from the ancients. In the same place of Plutarch, you will
find mention of the Levites, and the pitching of the tabernacle. Hermippus, in the life of Pythagoras, quoted by Josephus against
Appion, b. ii. “These things he said and did, imitating the opinions of the Jews
and Thracians, and transferring them to himself; for truly this man took many things
into his own philosophy from the Jewish laws.” To abstain from creatures that die
of themselves, is put among the precepts of Pythagoras, by Hierocles, and Prophyry
in his epistle to Anebo, and Ælian, book iv.; that is out of Strabo, in his fourteenth book, after the history of Moses,
says, “That his followers for a considerable time kept his precepts, and
were truly righteous and godly.” And a little after he says, that
those, who believed in Moses, “worshipped God, and were lovers
of
equity.” And Justin says thus, book xxxvi, c. 2. ” Whose righteousness (viz. the kings and priests) mixed with religion,
increased beyond belief.” Aristotle also (witness Clearchus in his second book
of sleep, which Josephus transcribed) gives a great character of a Jew, whom he
had seen, for his wisdom and learning. Tacitus, amongst his many falsities, says
this one truth, that the Jews worshipped “that Supreme and Eternal Being, who
was immutable and could not perish,” that is, God, as Dion Cassius speaks,
treating of the same Jews), “who is ineffable and invisible.” Concerning whose prophecy, Eusebius says, Prep. book ix. chap.
30. that Eupolemns wrote a book. In the 39th chapter of the same book, Eusebius
quotes a place of his concerning the prophecies of Jeremiah. The verses are these:— Upon which place Tzetses says, “because he was three days within
the whale.” And Æneas Gazeus in Theophrastus: “According to the story of
Hercules, who was saved by a whale swallowing him up, when the ship in which he
sailed was wrecked.” And Servius, as Varro and Verrius Flaccus affirm. Book iii. in Cyril. Julian, in the tenth book of Cyril:
“Ye refuse to bring sacrifices
to the altar, and offer them, because the fire does not descend from heaven and
consume the sacrifices, as it did in Moses’s time; this happened once to Moses,
and again long after to Elijah the Tishbite.” See what follows concerning the fire
from heaven. Cyprian, in iii. of his testimonies, says, “That, in the sacrifices,
all those that God accepted of, fire came down from heaven, and consumed the things
sacrificed.” Menander also, in his Phœnician history, mentions that great drought
which happened in the time of Elias, that is, when Ithobalus reigned amongst the
Tyrians. See Josephus in his ancient history, book viii. chap. 7. See Nobody dared to do it after David. The
Hebrews used to remark upon those times, “Hitherto the prophets, now begin the
wise men.” Therefore, in the first book of Maccabees, See This is a conjecture of the rabbins, without any foundation
from scripture. It is much more credible, that the priest pronounced the oracle
with his mouth. See our observations on
By the quick motion of the wind.”
The seas within its bounds, and things to take
Their proper forms.”
was term’d a mind, ’cause that was thought by him
A mind, which from confusion order brought.”
But when their different parts were separate,
Thence sprung beasts, fowls, and all the shoals of fish,
Nay, even men themselves.”
Whence sprung the spacious earth, n seat for gods,
Who dwell oil high Olympus’ snowy top,
Nor are excluded from the dark abyss
Beneath the earth; from hence the god of love,
Most amiable of all, who frees the breasts
Of men and gods from anxious cares and thoughts,
And comforts each of them with soft delight;
These produced æther, and the gladsome day,
As pledges of their love.”
Nature’s great change; how heaven on high was fram’d,
The earth established, and begirt with sea;
How love created all things by his power.
And gave to each of them his proper place.”
Were framed, nature had but one form, one face;
The world was then a chaos, one huge mass,
Gross, undigested; where the seeds of things
Lay in confusion, and disorder hurl’d,
Without a sun to cherish with his warmth
The rising world, or paler horned moon.
No earth, suspended in the liquid air,
Borne up by his own weight; no ocean vast,
Through unknown tracts of land to cut his way;
But sea, and earth, and air, are mix’d In one;
The earth unsettled, sea innavigable,
The air devoid of light; no form remain’d:
For each resisted each, being all confin’d;
Hot jarr’d with cold, and moist resisted dry;
Hard, soft, light, heavy, strove with mighty force;
Till God and nature did the strife compose,
By parting heaven from earth, and sea from land,
And from gross air the liquid sky dividing;
All which, from lumpish matter once discharg’d,
Had each his proper place, by law decreed:
The light and fiery parts upwards ascend,
And fill the region of the arched sky;
The air succeeds, as next in weight, and place;
The earth, compos’d of grosser elements,
Was like a solid orb begirt with sea.
Thus the well-order’d mass into due parts
Was separated by Divine command.
And first, the earth not stretch’d into a plain,
But like an artificial globe condens’d;
Upon whose surface winding rivers glide,
And stormy seas, whose waves each shore rebound.
Here fountains send forth streams, there one broad lake
Fills a large plain; thus, mix’d with pools and springs,
The gentle streams which roll along the ground,
Are some by thirsty hollow earth absorb’d;
Some in huge channels to the ocean bend,
And leave their banks to beat the sandy shore.
By the same power were plains and vales produc’d,
And shady woods and rocky mountains rais’d.
The heaven begirt with zones; two on the right,
Two on the left, the torrid one between.
The same distinction does the earth maintain,
By care divine into five climates mark’d;
Of which the middlemost, through heat immense,
Has no inhabitants; two with deep snow
Are cover’d; what remain are temperate.
Next, between heaven and earth the air was fix’d,
Lighter than earth, but heavier than fire;
In this low region storms and clouds were hung,
And hence loud thunder timorous mortals fright;
And forked lightning, mix’d with blasts of wind.
But the wise Framer of the world did not
Permit them every where; because their force
Is scarce to be resisted, (when each wind
Prevaileth in its turn); but nature shakes,
Their discord is so great. And first the east
Obtains the morn, Arabia’s desert land;
And Persia’s, bounded by the rising sun:
Next, Zephyr’s gentle breeze, where Phœbus dips
Himself into the sea: then the cold north,
At whose sharp blasts the hardy Scythians shake:
And last the south, big with much rain and clouds.
Above this stormy region of the air
Was the pure æther plac’d, refin’d and clear.
When each had thus his proper bounds decreed,
The stars, which in their grosser mass lay hid,
Appear’d, and shone throughout the heaven’s orb.
Then, lest a barren desert should succeed,
Creatures of various kinds each place possess’d.
The gods and stars celestial regions fill,
The waters with large shoals of fishes throng’d,
The earth with beasts, the air with birds was stock’d.
Nothing seem’d wanting, but a mind endu’d
With sense and reason to rule o’er the rest;
Which was supplied by man, the seed divine
Of him who did the frame of all things make;
Or else when earth and sky——
Some of the heavenly seed remain’d, which sown
By Japhet, and with wat’ry substance mix’d,
Was form’d into the image of the gods.
And when all creatures to the earth were prone,
Man had an upright form to view the heavens,
And was commanded to behold the stars.”
Have ingenuity to be esteem’d,
As capable of things divine, and fit
For arts; which sense we men from heav’n derive,
And which no other creature is allowed;
For He that framed us both did only give
To them the breath of life, but us a soul.”
When the foundation of the earth was laid.”
Away: but, O Musæus, hearken thou,
Thou offspring of the moon; I speak the truth:
Let not vain thoughts the comfort of thy life
Destroy; the Divine Reason strictly view,
And fix it in thy mind to imitate;
Behold the Great Creator of the world,
Who’s only perfect, and did all things make,
And is in all; though we with mortal eyes
Cannot discern him; but he looks on us.”
Under the footstool of the gods extends.”
Ineffable by mortal man, whose presence
Does all things fill; assemblies, courts, and marts,
The deep abyss, and ports, are fill’d with him.
We all enjoy him, all his offspring are,
Whose nature is benign to man; who stirs
Them up to work, spewing the good of life.
’Tis he appoints the time to plough and sow,
And reap the fruitful harvest.——
’Twas he that in the heavens fix’d the stars,
Allotting each his place, to teach the year,
And to declare the fate us men attends;
That all things are by certain laws decreed.
Him therefore let us first and last appease,
O Father, the great help we mortals have.”
Upon the heavens place, and give in charge
To enlighten the thick darkness of the night.”
The moon’s bright orb, and all the glittering stars,
Were fed and nourish’d by a Power Divine:
For the whole world is acted by a sun,
Which throughly penetrates it: whence mankind,
And beasts, and birds, have their original;
And monsters in the deep produc’d: the seed
Of each is a divine and heavenly flame.”
Some have affirm’d that bees themselves partake
Of the celestial mind, and breath ethereal;
For God pervades the sea, and earth, and heavens;
Whence cattle, herds, men, and all kinds of beasts,
Derive the slender breath of fleeting life.”
To mix the earth and water, and infuse
A human voice.”
Earth must return to earth; for fate ordains
That life, like corn, must be cut off in all.”
From whence we all into this body came;
And when we die, the spirit goes to air,
To earth the body; for we can possess
Life only for a time; the earth demands
It back again.”
The Maker of heaven and earth,
And sea, and winds.”
And lust, and justice fled from every breast,
Then brethren vilely shed each others blood,
And parents ceas’d to mourn their children’s death;
The father wish’d the funeral of his soul;
The son to enjoy the father’s relic wish’d:
The impious mother, yielding to the child,
Fear’d not to stain the temple of the gods.
Thus right and wrong, by furious passion mix’d,
Drove from us the divine propitious mind.”
Amongst the happy Arabs, and amongst
The Indians and Ethiopians.”
Commanded him, and all
his house, with knife
To circumcise their foreskin. He obeyed.”
But one of the Chaldæan race, his son
Only begotten, who well understood
The starry orb, and by what laws each star
Moves round the earth, embracing all things in it.”
Who’s born of water, who receiv’d from
God
The two great tables of the moral law,”
Which Moses in his secret volume gave.”
THERE is another argument to prove the providence of God, very
like to this of miracles, and no less powerful, drawn from the foretelling of future
events, and was very often and very expressly done amongst the Hebrews; such as
the man’s being childless who should rebuild Jericho; Compare CCCLXI. as Josephus thinks, in his ancient history, book x. chap. 3. Daniel, In the fore-cited See Jerom upon Daniel, throughout. (Garcilazzo de la Vega) Inca, Acosta, Herrera, and others,
relate strange things of these oracles. See Peter Cieza, tome ii. of the Indian
affairs.
And by other arguments.. What is here said, does not so much prove the existence of God,
who takes care of the affairs of men; as that there are present with them some
invisible beings, more powerful than men, which whoever believes, will easily believe
that there is a God. For there is no necessity that all things, which come to pass
different from the common course of nature, should be ascribed to God himself; as
if whatever cannot be effected by men, or the power of corporeal things, must be
done by Him himself. Le Clerc.
To this may be referred very many dreams, exactly agreeing with
the events; which, both as to themselves and their causes, were so utterly unknown
to those that dreamed them, that they cannot without great shamelessness be attributed
to natural causes: of which kind the best writers afford us eminent examples. Tertullian Chap. xlvi. where he relates the remarkable dreams of Astyages,
of Philip of Macedon, of the Himerræan woman, of Laodice, of Mithridates, of Illyrian
Balaris, of M. Tully, of Artorius, of the daughter of Polycrates Samius, whom Cicero
calls his nurse, of Cleonomus Pieta, of Sophocles, of Neoptolemus the tragedian.
Some of these we find in Valetius Maximus, book i. ch. 7. besides that of Calpurnia
concerning Cæsar, of P. Decius, and T. Manlius, the consuls, T. Atinius, M. Tully
in his banishment, Hannibal, Alexander the great, Simonides, Crœsus, the mother of Dionysius
the tyrant, C. Sempronius Gracchus, Cassius of Parmenia, Aterius Rufus the Roman
knight, Hamilcar the Carthaginian, Alcibiades the Athenian, and a certain Arcadian.
There are many remarkable things in Tully’s books of divination; neither ought
we to forget that of Pliny, book xxv. chap. 2. concerning the mother of one that
was fighting in Lusitania. And also those of Antigonus and Artucules, who was the
first of the race of the Osmanidæ, in the Lipsian Monita, book i. chap. 5. and
others collected by the industrious Theodore Zuinger, vol. v. book iv. the title
of which is, concerning dreams. See Plutarch, in the life of Dion and Brutus, and Appion of
the same Brutus, in the fourth of his Civilia, and Florus, book iv. chap. 7. Add
to these, Tacitus concerning Curtius Rufus, Annal. xi. which same history is in
Pliny, epist. xxvii. book vii. together with another; concerning that which that
wise and courageous philosopher Athenodorus saw at Athens. And those in Valeriva
Maximus, book i. ch. 8. especially that of Cassius the Epicurean, who was frighted
with the sight of Cæsar, whom he had killed; which is in Lipsius, book. i. chap.
5. of his warnings. Many such histories are collected by Chrysippus, Plutarch in
his book of the soul, and Numenius in his second book of the soul’s immortality,
mentioned by Origen, in his fifth book against Celsus. See the testimonies of this matter, collected by Francis Juret,
upon the 74th epistle of Ivon, bishop of Chartres. Sophocles’s Antigone tells us
how old this is, where the Theban relations of Œdipus speak thus:— “We are prepared to handle red-hot iron, Which we learn also from the report of Strobe, book v. and Pliny’s natural hist. book vii. chap. 2. and Servius upon Virgil’s eleventh
Æneid. Also those things which were seen of old, in Feronia’s grove upon the mountain
Soracte. To these things which happened contrary to the common course of nature,
we may add, I think, those we find made use of to preserve men’s bodies from being
wounded by arrows. See also the certain testimonies concerning those who have spoke
after their tongues were cut out upon the account of religion, such as Justinian,
book i. chapter of the prætorian office, concerning a prefect in Africa; Procopius
in the first of his Vandalics; Victor Uticensis, in his book of persecutions and
Æneas Gaza in Theophrastus.
To pass through fire, or to invoke the gods,
That we are innocent, and did not do it.”
NEITHER is there any reason why any one should object against what has been said, because no such miracles are now seen, nor any such predictions heard. For it is sufficient to prove a Divine Providence, that there ever have been such. Which being once established, it will follow, that we ought to think God Almighty forbears them now, for as wise and prudent reasons as he before did them. Nor is it fit that the laws given to the universe for the natural course of things, and that what is future might be uncertain, should always, or without good reason, be suspended, but then only, when there was a sufficient cause: as there was at that time when the worship of the true God was banished almost out of the world, being confined only to a small corner of it, viz. Judæa; and was to be defended from the wickedness which surrounded it, by frequent assistance: or when the Christian religion, concerning which we shall afterwards particularly treat, was, by the determination of God, to be spread all over the world.
SOME men are apt to doubt of a Divine Providence, because they
see so much wickedness practised, that the world is in a manner overwhelmed with
it, like a deluge: which, they contend, should be the business of Divine Providence,
if there were any, to hinder or suppress. But the
Thus Tertullian against Marcian, ii.
“An entire liberty of the will
is granted him either way, that he may always appear to be the master of himself,
by doing of his own accord that which is good, and avoiding of his own accord that
which is evil. Because man, who is in other respects subject to the determination
of God, ought to do that which is just, out of the good pleasure of his own free
will. But, neither the wages of that which is good or evil can justly be paid to
him who is found to be good or evil out of necessity, and not out of choice. And
for this reason was the law appointed, not to exclude, but to prove liberty, by
voluntarily performing obedience to it, or by voluntarily transgressing it; so
that, in either event, the liberty of the will is manifest.” And again afterwards;
“Then the consequence would have been, that God would have withdrawn that liberty
which was once granted to man; that is, would have retained within himself his
fore-knowledge and exceeding power, whereby he might have interposed, to hinder
man front falling into danger, by trying to make an ill use of his liberty. For,
if he had interposed, he would then have taken away that liberty which his reason
and goodness had given them.” Origen, in his fourth book against Celsus, handles
this matter, as he uses to do others, very learnedly; where, amongst other
things, he says, “That you destroy the nature of virtue, if you take away
liberty.” Concerning this whole matter, see the note at sect. viii.
AND if at any time vice should go unpunished, or, which is wont to offend many weak persons, some good men, oppressed by the fury of the wicked, should not only lead a troublesome life, but also undergo an infamous death; we must not presently from hence conclude against a Divine Providence; which, as we have before observed, is established by such strong arguments; but rather, with the wisest men, draw this following inference:—
THAT, since God has a regard to human actions, who is himself just, and yet those things come to pass in the mean time, we ought to expect a judgment after this life, lest either remarkable wickedness should continue unpunished, or eminent virtue go unrewarded, and fail of happiness.
In order to establish this, we must first shew, that souls remain
after they are separated from their bodies: Whoever has a mind to read this argument
more largely handled,
I refer him to Chrysostom on 2 Cor. ch. iv. and to his Ethics, tome vi. against
those who affirm that human affairs are regulated by daemons; and to his fourth
discourse upon Providence. Especially in that part called νεκυΐα,
“concerning those
that are departed:” to which may be added, the like in Virgil, in Seneca’s Œdipus,
Lucan, Statius, and that in Samuel, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, and Plato, and all the disciples of
them. To these Justin adds Empedocles, and many oracles in his second Apologetic; and Xenocrates. These taught that souls did not die. See Cæsar, book vi. of
the war with the Gauls; and Strabo, book iv. of the same. “These and others say,
that souls are incorruptible.” (See also Lucan, book i. 455.) Whose opinion
Strabo explains to us thus, book xv. “We are
to think of this life, as of the state of a child before it be born; and
of death, as a birth to that which is truly life and happiness to wise men.” See
also a remarkable place concerning this matter, in Porphyry’s fourth book, against
eating living creatures. Herodotus, in his Euterpe, says, that it was the opinion of
the Egyptians, “That the soul of man was immortal.” The same is reported of them
by Diogenes Laërtius, in his preface, and by Tacitus, book v. of his history of
the Jews. “They buried rather than burnt their bodies, after the manner of the
Egyptians; they having the same regard and persuasion concerning the dead.” See
Diodorus Siculus, concerning the soul of Osiris; and Servius on the sixth Æneid,
most of which is taken from the Egyptians. See again here, the places of Hermippus, concerning Pythagoras,
which we before quoted out of Josephus. Mela, book ii. concerning the Thracians,
says, “Some think, that the souls of those who die return again; others, that
though they do not return, yet they do not die, but go to a more happy place.”
And Solinus, concerning the same, chap. x. “Some of them think, that the souls
of those who die return again; others, that they do not die, but are made more
happy.” Hence arose that custom of attending the funerals with great joy, mentioned
by these writers, and, by Valerius Max. book i. ch. v. 12. That which we before
quoted out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, makes this the more credible, viz.
that some of the Hebrews of old came into Thrace. Diodorus Siculus,
book i. says, that what Orpheus delivered concerning
souls departed, was taken from the Egyptians. Repeat what we now quoted out of Tacitus. Amongst whose opinions, Strabo, book xv. reckons
that “concerning the judgments that are exercised amongst the souls departed.” Concerning
those whose punishment is deferred by the gods,
and concerning the face of the moon’s orb, see a famous place of his, quoted by
Eusebius, book xi. ch. 38. of his Gospel Preparat. out of the dialogue concerning
the soul. (See Justin’s second Apologetic, and Clemens, Strom. vi. whence is quoted that
from the Tragœdian:— Metamorphoses, book i. Book i. Lucan was preceded by his uncle Seneca, in the end of his
book to Marcia: “The stars shall ran upon each other; and, every thing being on
a flame, that which now shines regularly, shall then burn in one fire.” See Ferdinand Mendesius. See Copernicus’s Revolutions, book iii. chap. 16. Joachim Rhæticus
on Copernicus, and Goma Frisius. See also Ptolemy, book iii. chap. 4. of his mathematical
syntax. That the world is not now upheld by that power it was formerly, as
itself declares; “and that its ruin is evidenced, by the proof, how the things
in it fail,” says Cyprian to Demetrius.—(Tbe earth is nearer to the
sun in its perihelions, that is, when it is in the extreme parts of the lesser
axis of its parabola, though the earth always approaches at the same distances;
yet it is manifest from hence, that, at the will of God, it may approach still nearer,
and, if it so pleases him, be set on fire by the sun, as it happens to comets.
Le Clerc.)—“It were to be wished that the learned remarker had left out
this and some other notes of this kind, unless he had studied such sort of
things more.”
NEITHER can we find any argument drawn from nature, which
overthrows this ancient and extensive tradition: This matter might be handled more exactly, and upon better principles
of philosophy, if our room would allow it. I. We ought to define what we mean by
the death of the soul, which would happen, if either the substance of the
soul were reduced to nothing, or if there were so great a change made in it, that
it were deprived of the use of all its faculties; thus, material things are said
to be destroyed, if either their substance ceases to be, or if their form be so
altered, that they are no longer of the same species; as when plants are burnt or
putrefied; the like to which befals brute creatures. II. It cannot be proved that
the substance of the soul perishes: for bodies are net entirely destroyed, but only
divided, and their parts separated front each other. Neither can any man prove, that the soul ceases to think, which is the life of the
soul after the death of the man; for it does not follow, that, when the body is
destroyed, the mind is destroyed too, it having never yet been proved that it is
a material substance. III. Nor has the contrary yet been made appear, by certain
philosophic arguments, drawn from the nature of the soul; because we are ignorant
of it. It is true, indeed, that the soul is not, by its own nature, reduced to nothing;
neither is the body; this must be done by the particular act of their Creator. But
it may possibly be without any thought or memory; which state, as I before said,
may be called the death of it. But, IV. If the soul, after the dissolution
of the body, should remain for ever in that state, and never return to its thought
or memory again, then there can be no account given of Divine Providence, which
has been proved to be by the foregoing arguments. God’s goodness and justice, the
love of virtue, and hatred to vice, which every one acknowledges in him, would be
only empty names; if he should confine his benefits to the short and fading good
things of this life, and make no distinction betwixt virtue and vice; both good
and bad men equally perishing for ever, without seeing in this life any rewards
or punishments dispensed to those who have done well or ill: and hereby God would
cease to be God, that is, the most perfect being; which, if we take away, we cannot
give any account of almost any other thing, as Grotius has sufficiently shewn, by
those arguments whereby he has demonstrated, that all things were created by God.
Since, therefore, there is a God, who loves virtue and abhors vice, the souls of
men must be immortal, and reserved for rewards or punishments in another
life. But this requires further enlargement. Le Clerc.—The proof of the soul’s
immortality, drawn from the consideration of the nature of it, may be seen in its
full force in dr. Clarke’s letter to mr. Dodwell,
and the defences of it. That there is none, Aristotle proves very well from old men,
book i. ch. 4. concerning the soul. Also, book iii. ch. 4. he commends Anaxagoras
for saying, that mind was simple and unmixed, that it might distinguish other things. Aristotle, book iii. of the soul; “that there is not
the like weakness in the intellectual part that there is in the sensitive, is evident
from the organs of sense, and from sensation itself; for there can be no sensation,
where the object of such sensation is too strong; that is, where the sound is too
loud, there is no sound; and where the smell is too strong, or the colours too
bright, they cannot be smelt, nor seen. But the mind, when it considers things most
excellent to the understanding, it is not hindered by them from thinking, any more
than it is by meaner things, but rather excited by them: because the sensitive part
cannot be separated from the body, but the mind may.” Add to this, the famous place
of Plotinus, quoted by Eusebius, in his Preparat. book xv. chap. 22. Add also, that
the mind can overcome those passions which arise from the body, by its own power;
and can choose the greatest pains, and even the death of it. And those are the most excellent actions of the mind which call it off most
from the body.
NAY, there are many not inconsiderable arguments for the
contrary; such as, the absolute power every man has over his own actions; And over all other living creatures, to which may be added,
the knowledge of God, and of immortal beings. “An immortal creature is not understood
by any mortal one,” says Sallust the philosopher. One remarkable token of this knowledge
is, that there is nothing so grievous, which the mind will not despise, for the
sake of God. Beside, the power of understanding and acting is not limited, as it
is in other creatures, but unwearied, and extends itself infinitely, and is by this
means like unto God; which difference of man from other creatures was taken notice
or by Galen. See Plato’s first
book of his commonwealth: “When death seems to approach any me, fear and
solicitude come upon him about those things which before he did not think of.” Witness that epistle of Tiberius to the senate:
“What should
write to you, O senators, or how I should write, or what I should not write, at
this time, let the gods and goddesses destroy me, worse than I now feel myself to
perish, if I know.” Which words, after Tacitus had recited in the sixth of his annals,
he adds, “So far did his crimes and wickedness turn to big punishment.
So true is that assertion of the wisest of men, that, if the breasts of tyrants
were laid open, we might behold the gnawings and stingings of them; for as the
body is bruised with stripes, so the mind is torn with rage, and lust, and
evil designs.” The person which Tacitus here means is Plato, who says of a tyrant,
in book ix. of his commonwealth; “He would appear to be in reality a beggar,
if any one could but see into his whole soul; full of fears all his life long, full
of uneasiness and torment.” The same philosopher has something like this in his
Gorgias. Suetonius, ch. 67. being about to recite the fore-mentioned epistle of
Tiberias, introduces It thus “At last, when he was quite wearied out, in the beginning
of such an epistle as this, he confesses almost all his evils.” Claudian had an
eye to this place of Plato, when he describes Rufinus in his second poem:— ———Stains within Deform his breast, which bears the stamp of vice.
IF then the soul be of such a nature as contains in it no principles
of corruption; and God has given us many tokens, by which we ought to understand,
that his will is it should remain after the body; there can be no end of man proposed
more worthy of him, than the happiness of that state; and this is what Plato and
the Pythagoreans said, that the end of man was to be made most like to God. Which the stoics had from Plato, as Clemens remarks, Strom. v.
Now, since the Christian religion recommends itself above all others; whether we ought to give credit to it or no, shall be the business of the second part of this work to examine.
THE design, then, of this second book (after having put up our petitions to Christ the King of heaven, that be would afford us such assistances of his holy Spirit, as may render us sufficient for so great a business) is not to treat particularly of all the opinions in Christianity, but only to shew that the Christian religion itself is most true and certain; which we attempt thus:—
THAT Jesus of Nazareth formerly lived in Judæa, in the reign
of Tiberius the Roman emperor, is constantly acknowledged, not only by Christians
dispersed all over the world, but also by all the Jews which now are, or have ever
wrote since that time: the same is also testified by heathens, that is, such as
did not write either of the Jewish or of the Christian religion, Suetonius, In his Claudius, chap. 25. where
Chresto is put for Christo,
because that name was more known to the Greeks and Latins. Book xv. where he is speaking of the punishment of the Christians.
“The author of that name was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered punishment
under his procurator Pontius Pilate.” Where the great crimes, and hatred to human-kind,
they are charged with, is nothing else but their contempt of false gods; which same
reason Tacitus had to curse the Jews; and Pliny the elder, when be calls the Jews
“a people remarkable for contempt of the gods.” That is, very many of the Romans
were come to this, that their consciences were not affected by that part of their
theology which was civil, (which Seneca commends), but they feigned it in their
outward actions, and kept it as a command of the law; looking upon worship as a
thing of custom, more than in reality. See the opinion of Varro and Seneca about
this matter, which is the same with that of Tacitus, in Augustine, book v. chap.
33. and book vi. chap. 10. of his city of God. In the mean time, it is worth observing,
that Jesus, who was punished by Pontius Pilate, was acknowledged by many at Rome,
in Nero’s time, to be the Christ. Compare that of Justin in his second Apologetic
concerning this history; where he addresses himself to the emperors and Roman senate,
who might know those things from the Acts. The epistle is obvious to every one, viz. book x. chap. 97.
which Tertullian mentions in his Apologetic, and Eusebius in his Chronicon; where
we find, that the Christians were used to say a hymn to Christ as God, and to bind
themselves not to perform any wicked thing, but to forbear committing theft, robbery,
or adultery; to be true to their word, and strictly perform their trust. Pliny blames
their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy in this one thing; that they would
not invoke the gods, nor do homage with frankincense and wine before the shrines
of deities, nor curse Christ; nor could they be compelled to do it by any torments
whatsoever. The epistle in answer to that of Trajan says, that he openly declares
himself to be no Christian who supplicates the Roman gods. Origen, in his fourth
book against Celsus, tells us, there was a certain history of Jesus extant in Numenius
the Pythagorean.
That he died an ignominious death.
THAT the same Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the president of Judæa,
is acknowledged by all the same
Who call him תלוי, that is, hanged. Benjaminis Tudelensis,
In his Itinerary, acknowledges that Jesus was slain at Jerusalem. See Epiphanius
in his Tessarescædecatitæ.—(It were better to have omitted this argument, because
some imprudent Christians might appeal to some spurious acts; for it does
not appear there were any genuine ones. Le Clerc.) Chrysostom handles this matter at large, upon
AND that not only in our age, or those immediately foregoing, but also even in the first, the age next to that in which it was done, in the reign of the emperor Nero; at which time the fore-mentioned Tacitus and others attest, that very many were punished because they professed the worship of Christ.
AND there were always very many amongst the worshippers of Christ
who were men of good judgment, and of no small learning; such as (not to mention
Jews) Sergius the president
Who suffered martyrdom in Asia, in the clxviiith year of Christ, according
to Eusebius. Who published writings in defence of the Christians in the cxliid year of
Christ. See the same Eusebius. He flourished at Lyons, in the clxxxiiid year of Christ. This man was an Athenian. He flourished about the clxxxth year of Christ, as
appears from the inscription of his book. He flourished about the ccxxxth year
of Christ. Who was famous in the ccviiith year of Christ. About the same time. See Eusebius.
WHICH report had so certain and undoubted a foundation, that neither Celsus, Whose
words, in book ii. of Origen, are, “You think he is the Son of God, because he
healed the lame and the blind.” Nay, he plainly confesses the thing, when he says, in the
words recited by Cyril, book vi. “Unless any one will reckon amongst the most
difficult things, healing the lame and the blind, and casting out devils in
Bethsaida and Bethany.” In the title Aboda Zara. The books about which were burnt by the advice of the disciples of Christ,
The
place is in Eusebius’s Prep. book v. chap. L. “After Christ was worshipped,
nobody experienced any public benefit from the gods.” We may add, that the event itself, in that so great a part
of mankind embraced the Christian religion, shows that it was a thing so worthy
of God, as for him to confirm it with miracles at the beginning. If he did so many
for the sake of one nation, and that no very great one, I mean the Jewish; how
much more agreeable to his goodness was it to bestow this heavenly light to so great
a part of mankind, who lay in the thickest darkness! Le Clerc. See
CHRIST’S coming to life again in a wonderful manner, after his
crucifixion, death, and burial, affords us no less strong an argument for those
miracles that were done by Lim. For the Christians of all times and places assert
this not only for a truth, but as the principal foundation of their faith: which
could not be, unless they, who first taught the Christian faith, had fully persuaded
their hearers that the thing did conic to pass. Now, they could nut fully persuade
men of any judgment of ibis, unless they affirmed themselves to be eye-witnesess
of it; for, without such an affirmation, no man in his senses would have believed
them, especially at that time, when such a belief was attended with so many evils
and dangers. That this was affirmed by them with great constancy, their own books,
and the books of others, Even of Celsus, who wrote against the Christians. See Origen, book ii. Paul, See Chrysostom handles this argument at large, upon Even Celsus. Sec Origen, book i.
INDEED, nobody can withstand the credibility of so many and so
great testimonies, without saying, that a thing of this nature is impossible
to be, such as we say all things that imply a contradiction are. But this cannot
be said of it. See the seventh answer to the objections concerning the resurrection, in the works of Justin.
“An impossibility in itself is one thing; and
an impossibility in any particular is another; an impossibility in itself is, that
the diagonal of a square should be commensurate with the side; a particular impossibility
is, that nature should produce an animal without seed. To which of these two kinds
of impossibles do unbelievers compare the resurrection? If to the first, their reasoning
is false; for a new creation is not like making the diagonal commensurate with
the aide; but they that rise again, rise by a new creation. If they mean a particular
impossibility; surely all things are possible with God, though they may be impossible
to any one else.” Concerning this difference of impossibilities, see the learned
notes of Maimonides, in his guide to the doubting, part iii. ch. 15. All those, who are skilful in the true philosophy, acknowledge
that it is as hard to understand how the fœtus is formed in the mother’s womb,
as how the dead should be raised to life. But ignorant men are not at all surprised
at the things which they commonly see; nor do they account them difficult, though
they know not the reason of them: but they think those things which they never saw
are impossible to be done, though they are not at all more difficult than those
things they see every day. Le Clerc. The place of Plato concerning this matter is extant in his tenth
book of Republics, transcribed by Eusebius, in his Gospel Preparat. book xi. chap.
35. The report of which history is in Valerius Maximus, book i. chap. 8. the first
foreign example; in the hortatory discourse among the works of Justin; in Clemens,
Strom v.; in Origen, book ii. against Celsus; in Plutarch, Symposiac ix.
5.; and in Macrobius, in the beginning, upon Scipio’s dream. There was a book of his “concerning the
dead,” mentioned by
Diogenes Laërtius in his preface, and in his Empedocles; and by Galen, in the sixth,
concerning the parts that are affected. Pliny speaks thus of him, book vii. chap.
52. “That noble volume of Heraclides amongst the Greeks, of a woman’s being restored
to life, after she had been dead seven days.” And Diogenes Laërtius, in the latter
place, assigns her thirty days. In his Melpomene. See Pliny’s Nat. Hist. book vii. ch. 52. Plutarch’s Romulus,
and Hesychius concerning the philosophers. Of Thespesius. Plutarch has this in his discourse of God’s deferring
punishment. And Antyllus, concerning whom Eusebius has preserved that place of Plutarch,
from his first book of the soul, in his Prepar. book xi. ch. 36. and Theodoret,
serm. xi.
The truth of Jesus’s doctrine proved from his resurrection.
IF it be not impossible that Christ should return to life again,
and if it be proved from sufficient testimonies, such as convinced Bechai, a teacher
of the Jews, so far as to acknowledge the truth of it; It were to be wished that
Grotius had quoted the place; for
though his reasoning, drawn from the resurrection of Christ, does rot want the approbation
of R. Bechai, yet perhaps the Jews might be affected with his authority. Le
Clerc. See
THESE arguments are drawn from matters of fact; we come now to those which are drawn from the nature of the doctrine. Certainly all manner of worship of God must be rejected; (which can never enter into any man’s mind, who has any sense of the existence of God, and of his government of the creation; and who considers the excellency of man’s understanding, and the power of choosing moral good or evil, with which he is endued; and consequently that the cause, as of reward, so of punishment, is in himself); or else we must receive this religion, not only upon the testimony of the facts which we have now treated of, but likewise for the sake of those things that are intrinsical in religion; since there cannot be any produced, in any age or nation, whose rewards are more excellent, or whose precepts are more perfect, or the method in which it was commanded to be propagated more wonderful.
To begin with the reward, that is, with the end proposed to man;
because, as we are used to say, that which is the last in execution is the first
in intention.—Moses, This is observed by Chrysostom, on In Plato’s Phædon:
“Now I would have you to understand, that
I hope to go amongst good men; but I will not be too positive in affirming it.”
And afterwards, “If those things I am speaking of should prove true, it is very
well to be thus persuaded concerning them; but if there be nothing after death,
yet I shah always be the less concerned for the present things of this life; and
this my ignorance will not continue long, (for that would be bad), but will shortly
vanish.” And Tertullian, concerning the soul: “From such a firm steadiness and
goodness of mind did that wisdom of Socrates proceed, and not from any certain discovery
of the truth.” The same is observed of Socrates, in the exhortation among the works
of Justin. In his first Tusculan question; “Shew me first, if you can,
and it be not too troublesome, that souls remain after death; or, if you cannot
prove this, (for it is difficult), declare how there is no evil in death.” And a
little after: “I know not what mighty thing they have got by it, who teach,
that, when the time of death comes, they shall entirely perish; which, if it should
be, (for I do not say any thing to the contrary), what ground of joy or glorying
does it afford?” And again, “Now suppose the soul should perish with the body,
can there be any pain, or can there be any sense at all in the body after death?
Nobody will say so.” Lactantius, book vii. chap. 8. cites the following passage
out of the same Cicero, spoken after a dispute about the soul: “Which of these
opinions is true, God only knows.” Epistle lxiii. “And perhaps (if the report of wise men be
true, and any place receives us) that which we think perishes, is only sent
before.” Justin Martyr says in general, in his dialogue with Trypho:
“The philosophers knew nothing of these things, nor can they tell what the soul is.” As that argument of Socrates to Plato, that “that which moves
of itself is eternal.” See Lactantius, in the fore-mentioned place. As the Brachmans of old, and now also; from whom Pythagoras and his scholars
had it. See Tully’s second Tusc. question; and Lactantius’s institutions,
book iii. chap. 27. where he strenuously disputes against this opinion; and Augustin,
epist. lii. Lactantius, boor iii. chap. 12. “Virtue Is not its own happiness, because the whole power of it consists, as I said, in bearing evils.”
And a little after, when he had quoted a place of Seneca’s, he adds: “But the stoics,
whom he follows, deny that any one can be happy without virtue. Therefore the reward
of virtue is a happy life; if virtue, as is rightly said, makes life happy. Virtue,
therefore, is not to be desired for its own sake, as they affirm, but for the
sake of a happy life, which necessarily attends virtue: which argument might instruct
them what is the chief good. But this present bodily life cannot be happy, because
it is subject to evils, by means of the body.” Pliny, in his nat. hist. book
vii. chap. 40. says well, “That no mortal man is happy.” The places are quoted beneath, in the fifth book. See the Alcoran, Azoara
ii. v. xlvii. liv. lxv. lxvi.
BESIDES the objection which we have now answered, it is commonly
alleged, that the bodies of men, after their dissolution, cannot be restored to
the same frame again; but this is said without the least foundation. For most philosophers
agree, that, though the things be ever so much changed, the matter of them still
remains, capable of being formed into different shapes; If any one be not satisfied with this account of Grotius,
he
may be answered, that it is not at all necessary that the matter which is raised
should be numerically the same with that which the dying man carried to the grave
with him; for he will be as much the same man, though his soul were joined to matter
which it was never before joined to, provided it be the same soul, as a decrepit
old man is the same as he was when a child crying in the cradle, though perhaps
there is not in the old man one particle of that matter there was in the infant,
by reason of the continual effluvia which fly from the body. It may very well
be called a resurrection of the body, when a like one is formed by God out
of the earth, and joined to the mind; therefore there is no need of reducing ourselves
to so great straits, in order to defend too stitily the sameness of the matter.
Le Clerc. See Alfenus, in lib. Proponebar. D. de Judiciis: “If any one should
think, that, by altering the parts, any thing is made different from what it was
before; according to such reasoning, we ourselves should be different from what
we were a year since: because, as philosophers say, those small parts, of
which we consist, continually fly off from our bodies, and other foreign ones come
in their room.” And Seneca, ep. lviii. “Our bodies are in a continual flux, like a river; all that we see runs away as time does: none of those things we see are durable.
I myself am changed, while I am speaking of their change.” See Methodius’s
excellent dissertation upon this subject, whose words Epiphanius has preserved in
his confutation of the Origenists, number xii. xiii. xiv. xv. See Ovid in the last book of his Metamorphoses:— We may add something out of Pliny’s natural history, book ix.
chap. 51. concerning frogs: he says, “For half a year of their life they are turned
into mud, and cannot be seen; and, by the waters in the spring, those which were
formerly bred, are bred again afresh.” And in book x. chapter 9. “The cuckow seems
to be made of a hawk, changing his shape in the time of year.” And book xi. chap.
20. “There are who think, that some creatures which are dead, if they be
kept in the house in water, will come to life again, after the sun shines hot upon
them in the spring, and they be kept warm all day in wood ashes.” And again, chap.
22. speaking of silk-worms, “Another original of them may be from a larger sort
of worm, which shoots forth a double kind of horns; these are called canker-worms,
and afterwards become what they call the humble-bee; from whence comes another sort
of insect. termed Necydalus, which, in six months time, turns into a silkworm.”
And again, chap. 23. speaking of the silk-worm of Coos, he says, “They were first
small and naked butterflies.” And chap. 26. concerning the grasshopper; ” It is
first a small worn, but afterwards comes out of what they call Tettygometra,
whose shell being broke, they fly away about midsummer.” Chap. 30. “Flies drowned
in liquor, if they be buried in ashes, return to life again.” And chap. 32. “Many
insects are bred in another manner. And first the horse-fly, out of the dew: in
the beginning of the spring, it sticks to a radish-leaf, and being stiffened by
the sun, it gathers into the bigness of a millet. Out of this springs a small worm,
and, in three days after, a canker-worm, which increases in g few days, having a
hard shell about it, and moves at the touch of a spider; this canker-worm,
which they call a chrysalis, when the shell is broken, flies away a butterfly.” If Grotius had lived till our days, he would have spoken more
fully; since it is evident that all animals, of whatever kind, spring from an egg,
in which they are formed, as all plants do from seeds, though never so small. But
this is nothing to the resurrection, for bodies will not rise again out of such
principles. Le Clerc. See Clemens, Strom. v. Clemens, Strom. v.
“He (Heraclitus) knew, having
learnt it from the barbarian philosophy, that men who lived wickedly should be purified
by fire, which the stoics call ἐκπύρωσιν, whereby they imagine every one shall
rise again such a one as he really is: thus they treat of the resurrection.” And
Origen, book v. against Celsus: “The stoics say, that, after a certain period of
time, the universe shall be burnt, and after that shall be a renovation, in which
all things shall continue unchangeable.” And afterwards: “They have not the name
of the resurrection, but they have the thing.” Origen here adds the Egyptians. Chrysippus, concerning Providence, quoted by Lactantius, book vi. of his Institutions,
has
these words; “Which being thus there is evidently no impossibility, but that we
also, when we are dead, after a certain period of time is past, may be restored
again to the same state in which we now are.” He that is at leisure may
look into Nathaniel Carpenter’s sixteenth exercise of free philosophy. Concerning whom, see
Diogenes Laërtius in the beginning of
his book. “And Theopompus in his eighth Philippic relates, as the opinion of
the wise men, that men shall live again, and become immortal, and every thing
shall continue what it is.”
ANOTHER thing, in which the Christian religion exceeds all
other religions that ever were, are, or eau be imagined, is the exceeding purity
and holiness of its precepts, both in those things which concern the worship of
God, and also in all ether particulars. The rites of the heathens, almost all
over the world, were full of cruelty; as Porphyry has largely shewn; In his book prohibiting eating living creatures; whence Cyril
took many things, in his fourth against Julian. Plutarch mentions them in his Themistocles, and also Pausanias.
The like rites of the Messenians, Pellæans, Lictyans in Crete, Lesbians, Phocæensians,
you have in the hortatory discourse in Clemens. Dionysius Halicarnassensis tells us in his first book, that
it was a very ancient custom in Italy to sacrifice men. How long it remained, Pliny
says, book xxviii. ch. 2. “Our age hath seen in the beast-market a Grecian man
and woman slain, or these of some other nation with whom they dealt.” This custom
remained till Justin’s and Tatian’s time: for Justin, in his first Apologetic,
addresses the Romans thus: “That idol which you worship, to whom not only the
blood of irrational creatures is poured out, but also human blood; which blood
of slain men is poured out by the most noble and eminent person among you.” And
Tatian: “I find among the Romans, that Jupiter Latialis was delighted with
human blood; and with that which flows from men that are slain.” Porphyry tells
us, that these rites remained till Adrian’s time. That there was a very ancient
custom amongst the Gauls of offering human sacrifices, we learn from Tully’s oration in defence
of M. Fonteius; and out of Plutarch, concerning superstition. Tiberius abolished
it, as we find in Pliny, book xxx. chap 1. See the same Pliny there, concerning the
Britons, and Dion in Nero, and Solinus; also Hermoldus concerning the Sclavonians,
book i. chap. 3. Porphyry, in his second book against eating living creatures, says, that it remained till his time in Arcadia, in Carthage, and
“in the
great city,” that is, Rome, where he instances in the rite of Jupiter Latialis. In his hortatory discourse. Especially Arnobius. See Martial, in the beginning of his epigrams; Gellius, x. 13. and Valerius
Maximus, book. ii. chap. 10. This is the reason given for such precepts by Maimonides, whom Josephus
Albo follows. Whence it is called a reasonable service, Math vi. 4.
THE duties towards our neighbour, required of us, are also of
the like sort. The Mahometan religion, which was bred in arms, breathes nothing
else; and is propagated by such means only. Thus, Aristotle takes notice of, and
blames, the laws of the Laconians, Polit. vii. chap. 14.
“Like unto these are some, who afterwards
declared their opinions in their writings. For in praising the government of the
Lacedæmonians, they commend the design of the lawgiver, because the whole establishment
tended to power and war: which may easily be confuted by reason, and is now confuted by fact.” Euripides, in Andromache, said it before Aristotle, ———“If war, and glory, To this purpose is the 96th epistle of Seneca, and book ii. chap.
8. concerning
anger; and the second epistle of Cyprian. Petronius:— ———” If any secret holes, See Polybius, hist. iii. Florus, book iii. chap. 9. “So great was the report, and that
very justly, of its riches, that, though they were a people that conquered
nations, and were accustomed to bestow kingdoms, yet, at the instance of Publius Clodius the tribune, it was given in charge, to confiscate the king, though alive,
and their ally.” Plutarch mentions the same thing in his life of Cato, and Appion,
book ii. of his politics; and Dion, book xxxviii. See the same Florus, in his war
of Numantia and Crete. Thucydides, book “Formerly the Greeks, as well as the barbarians,
whether they lived on the continent near the sea-shore, or whether they inhabited
the islands, after they began to hold correspondence with one another by sailing,
fell to robbing, led on by great men, either for the sake of gain to themselves,
or to procure victuals for them that wanted. And happening upon cities which were
not walled, but inhabited like villages, they plundered them, and the greatest part
made their advantage of them, being not ashamed as yet of doing thus, but rather
accounting it glorious. This is evidently the practice of some that dwell upon the
continent now, who account it honourable to do thus; and, amongst the ancient poets,
it is very frequent for them who met sailors, to ask them if they were pirates;
knowing that they who were so asked would not disown it; nor they who asked them
think it any reproach. Nay, they robbed one another, upon the very continent; and
a great many of the Greeks live now in this ancient manner, as the Ozolan
Locrians, the Ætolians, the Acarnanians, and those of the adjoining continent.”
The question Thucydides here mentions is in Homer’s Odyss. T´. Upon which the Scholiast says,
“To plunder
was not accounted infamous, but glorious, by the ancients.” Justin, book xliii.
chap. 3. concerning the Phocensians: they were more diligent in occupying the
sea than the land, in fishing, and trading; and very often they spent their lives
in plundering,” (which at that time was looked upon as honourable). Concerning
the Spaniards, see Plutarch in Marius; and Diodorus, book v. concerning
the Tyrrhenians. Servius on the eighth and tenth Æneids, Cæsar, Tacitus,
and Saxo-Grammaticus, concerning the Germans. Aristotle’s ethics to Nicomacbns, iv.
11. “Such a one seems to
be no ways affected or concerned, nor to revenge himself, unless provoked; but
it shews a mean spirit to bear contemptuous treatment.” And Tully, in his second
book of Invention, places revenge amongst the duties that belong to the law of nature:
“Whereby, either in our own defence, or by the way of revenge, we keep off force
or reproach.” And to Atticus: “I hate the man, and will hate him: I wish I could
revenge myself upon him.” And against Antony: “I would revenge every single
crime, according to the degree of provocation in each.” See Lactantius, book vi. and Tertullian, concerning shews, chap. 19. See Justin’s second Apologetic, chap. 27. and Lactantius’s Institution, chap.
20. and Terence’s Hecyra. R. Levi ben Gerson tells us they were to endeavour to injure
them any manner of way. Bechai says, that what was taken from them by theft was
not to be restored. See a little book of prayers, put out at Venice, in a small
volume, page 8. and a German book of Antonius Margarita, and Maimonides on the
thirteen articles, where he says, they are to be destroyed who do not believe them.
And it is a frequent saying in the mouths of the Jews, “Let all sectaries suddenly perish.”
The like saying we find in R. Isaac’s Bereschith Rabba, and the Talmud in Baba Kamma,
and Baba Bathra.
And the sword, were from the Spartans taken,
There’s nothing excellent that would remain.”
If any land, did shining gold contain,
They war proclaim.”
THE conjunction of man and woman, whereby mankind is propagated,
is a thing that highly deserves to be taken care of by law; which that the heathen
neglected is no wonder, when they relate stories of the whoredom and adulteries
of those gods which they worshipped. See Euripides’s Ione:— See this matter fully handled by Clemens, in his hortatory discourse; by Athenagoras,
Tatian, Arnobius, book iv. Nazianzen, in his first against Julian, and Theodoret, discourse iii. See this also, in the fore-mentioned places of Clemens and Theodoret. Mentioned by Justin in his second Apologetic; by Clemens In
his hortatory discourse; by Origen in his second and eighth books against Celsus; by Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history, iv. 8. by Theodoret, 8. and the historians
of those times. So indeed it was thought, not only by Lucian, in his little book
concerning love but by Gregory Nazianzen, orat. iii. against Julian; and
by Elias Cretensis, and Nonnus, upon him. And also by Cyril in his sixth book
against Julian; and by Theodoret, very largely, in his thirteenth book to the Greeks.
I cannot omit a place of Philo’s, who had a great opinion of Plato, out of his book
concerning a contemplative life: “Plato’s feast is spent almost wholly upon love,
not only of men eager after women, and women eager after men; for such desires may
be satisfied by the law of nature; but of men after men, differing from themselves
only in age; and if any thing be speciously said concerning love and heavenly Venus,
those names are used only for a cover.” Tertullian, concerning the soul,
preferring the Christian wisdom to that of Socrates, adds, “Not bringing in new
demons, but driving out the old; not corrupting youth, but instructing them in
all the goodness of modesty.” See Plato, as in other places, so more particularly in his fifth
Republic. See Pliny, book x. chap. 34.
“The actions of doves are mightily
taken notice of by these, upon the same account; their customs are the same, but
the highest degree of modesty belongs specially to them; adulteries are not known
to either of them; they do not violate the fidelity of wedlock.” Concerning the conjugal
chastity of ring-doves, see Porphyry in his third book against eating living creatures. This appears from See Herodutus, book vi. and Plutarch, in his Cato Uticensis, and Lycurgus. Paul the apostle, Sallust well expresses it in his Jugurthine war.
“Amongst those
that have many wives there is but little affection, because the mind is distracted
with a multitude, so as to have none of them for an intimate companion; but they
are all equally esteemed of no value.” Ammianus, concerning the Persians, book xxiii.
“By means of various lusts, divided love grows faint.” And Claudian, in his Gildonic
war:— ——” They have a thousand marriages, Euripides, in his Andromache, rightly apprehends and expresses them both.
For they regard no ties, no sacred pledge,
But their affection is in number lost.”
TO come now to the use of those things which are commonly called
goods; we find theft allowed by some heathen nations, as the Egyptians See Diodorus Siculus’s history, book i. See Plutarch, in his Lycurgus. Lactantius, in his epitome, chap. 1. cites the words of Tully to this purpose,
out of his third Republic. Laërtius and Suidas affirm this of Aristippus and Philostratus of Crates. In the See the fore-cited place in
OTHER laws forbid perjury; but this would have us entirely
to abstain from oaths, See the fore-mentioned place of
AND, indeed, there is nothing excellent to be found in the philosophic
writings of the Greeks, or in the opinions of the Hebrews, or of any other nation,
which is not contained here, and moreover ratified by divine authority. For instance;
concerning modesty,
BUT the answer to this is evident: there are scarce any arts but
the same thing happens to them, partly through the weakness of human nature, and
partly because men’s judgment is hindered by prejudices: but, for the most part,
this variety of opinion is limited within certain bounds, in which men are agreed,
and whereby they determine doubts: as in the mathematics, it is a dispute whether
the circle can
We may add also
in those opinions that are necessary, and upon
which the observation of commands depends; such as are mentioned in the most
ancient creeds which are extant, in Irenæus and Tertullian, and what we now call
the apostles’ creed, as I have somewhat more fully shewn in that little piece annexed
hereto, concerning the choice of our opinion, &c. sect. iv. Le Clerc.
THE third thing wherein we said the Christian religion exceeds
all other religions that are, or can be imagined, is the manner in which it was
delivered and propagated: in the consideration of which particular, the first thing
that
It was a saying of Democritus,
“That truth lay at the bottom of a well,”
as we find in Tully’s Academical Questions, and in other writers. See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book ii. chap. 1. “As the eyes
of a bat are dazzled at the light in the day-time, so is the understanding in
our soul confounded at the plainest things in the world.” Socrates is most commended, by the consent of all; yet Cyril, in his sixth
book against Julian, sets before us, in the words of Porphyry, the high degree
of anger he discovered in his words and sayings. Plato and Aristippus. Zeno, the chief of the stoics, was addicted to the love of men; and Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Aristippus, and almost all of them, to the love
of women; witness Athenæus’s books, xii. and xiii. Laërtius and Lactantius. Theognis
mentions it of himself in many places. Whence they were called Cynics. This is well observed by Timon Phliasius: “O wretched mortals, nought but sin and flesh, And again, “Sharp contest walks about with mighty noise; And again, “Who has enflam’d them with such deadly strife? The noisy multitude, who silence
hate, You will find these verses in Clemens, Strom. v. in Eusebius, at the end
of his Preparation, and in Theodoret’s second discourse. Xenophon, in his sixth Memorab. recites the oracle by which
the gods are commanded to be worshipped according to the laws of every city. Here
we may repeat the words of Seneca, before quoted out of Augustine; after which
Augustine adds these: “He worshipped that which he blamed; he did that which he
condemned; and that which he found fault with, he paid adoration to.” According
to what Plato says, in his Timæus, and other places; and Porphyry in that place
of Eusebius’s Preparat. book iv. ch. 8. that it is dangerous to speak the truth, in
divine matters, before the vulgar. The fear a which danger, both in the Greek and
Latin, and barbarian philosophers, prevailed over the sincere profession of the
truth; which thing alone is sufficient to hinder any one from thinking that such
men were to be followed in every thing. Justin Martyr, in his exhortation to the
Greeks, observes this of Plato. See what we have before quoted concerning
him. See what is
said in the sixth book. Origen observes this in his third book against Celsus. Lactantius, in the end of his Institutions, well observes,
“That he not only shewed the way, but walked before in it, lest any one should
dread the path of virtue on the account of its difficulty.”
Always deceiv’d
with words and fierce contests;
Vain men, like empty bladders, puff ’d with wind.”
Sister of
mortal hatred and confusion;
Till, wandering to and fro, at last she fix
Herself in human breasts, and raise their hopes.”
From whom the plague of tattle has its rise.”
From the wonderful propagation of this religion.
WE come now to the effects of the doctrine by him delivered;
which, indeed, if rightly considered, are such, that if God has any regard or care
of human affairs, this doctrine cannot possibly but be thought divine. It was agreeable
to Divine Providence to cause that to spread the furthest, which is in itself best.
And this has happened to the Christian religion, which we ourselves see is taught
all over Europe; even the further corners of the north not exempted; See Adam Bremensis and Helmoldus,
and the writers concerning Iceland. See the acts of the general councils. See Osorius in his Lusitanics. This appears from the acts of the general councils; from the
ancient ecclesiastical histories, and particularly Eusebius, vi. 31. out of the
Coptic liturgy. See Franciscus Alvaresius. See Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, and the acts of the African
councils: especially that council which is subjoined to the works of Cyprian. See Acosta and others, who have wrote about the affairs of America. See Abdias, book ix. Eusebius’s ecclesiastical history,
book i. towards the end; and book ii. chap. 1. and the beginning of book iii. Ruffinus,
book x. chap. 9. Add to these, Osorius and Linschotius, concerning the affairs of
East India; and Freita concerning the empire of the Lusitanians in Asia, The sepulchre
of this apostle is now to be seen in the country of Coromandel. See Eusebius, in the beginning of his fore-mentioned third book, and Origen
upon Genesis. He says, Strom.
v. that Christ was known in all nations. In his first book against the Jews.
“In whom else have all
nations believed, but in Christ, who lately came? In whom have all these nations
believed—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers of Mesopotamia, Armenia,
Phrygia, Cappadocia; the inhabitants of Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia; they that
dwell in Egypt, and they who live in the country of Africa, beyond Cyrene; Romans
and strangers; Jews and other nations in Jerusalem; the different sorts of people
in Getulia; the many countries of the Moors; all the borders of Spain; the different
nations of Gaul? And those places of Britain, which the Romans could not come at,
are yet subject to Christ; the Sarmatæ, and Dæci, and Germans, and Scythians; and
many other obscure nations, and many provinces and islands unknown to us, so many that they cannot be reckoned.
In all which places the name of Christ, who lately came, reigns.” Presently
after, he shews how much larger the kingdom of Christ was in his time, that is,
the end of the second century, than those of old, Nebuchadnezzar’s, Alexander’s,
or the Romans: “The kingdom of Christ overspreads all places, is received every
where, in all the above-named nations (he had mentioned the Babylonians,
Parthians, Indians, Ethiopia, Asia, Germany, Britain, the Moors, Getulians, and
Romans) it is in great esteem; he reigns every where, is adored in all places,
is divided equally amongst them all.” Irenæus, who was ancienter than Tertullian, book. i. chap.
3. “For though there be different languages, the power of tradition is the same; neither the churches founded in Germany have any other belief, or any other tradition; nor yet those in Iberia, nor those among the Celtæ, nor those which are in the
east, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those that are established in the middle of the world; but, like the sun, which God created, and is one
and the same throughout the whole world, so the light, the preaching of the truth,
shines every where, and enlightens all men, who are willing to come to the knowledge
of the truth.” And Origen’s homily upon the ivth of Ezekiel: “The miserable Jews
confess, that these things were foretold of the presence of Christ; but they are
foolishly ignorant of his person, though they see what is said of him fulfilled;
for when did the British land, before the coming of Christ, agree in the worship
of one God? when did the country of the Moors, when did the whole world together,
do so?” And Arnobius, book ii. “The powers which they saw with their eyes, and those
unheard-of effects, which were openly produced, either by him, or which were proclaimed
by his disciples, throughout the whole world, subdued those violent appetites, and
caused nations and people, and those whose manners were very different, to consent,
with one mind, to the same belief: for we might enumerate, and take into our account,
those things which were done in India among the Seræ, Persians, and Medes, in Arabia,
Egypt, in Asia, Syria, among the Galatians, Parthians, Phrygians, in Achaia,
Macedonia, Epirus; in those islands and provinces surveyed by the east and western
sun; and lastly in Rome, the mistress of the world.” And Athanasius, In his synodical
epistle, which we find in Theodoret, book iv. ch. 3. mentions the Christian churches
in Spain, Britain, Gaul, Italy, Dalmatia, Mysia, Macedonia, Greece, Africa, Sardinia,
Cyprus, Crete, Pamphylia, Lysia, Isauria, Egypt, Libya, Pontus, and Cappadocia.
And Theodoret, in his eighth discourse against the Greeks, speaks thus concerning
the apostles: “When they were conversant in the body, they went about, sometimes
to one sort, and sometimes to another; sometimes they discoursed to the Romans,
sometimes to the Spaniards, and sometimes to the Celtans; but after, they returned
to him that sent them: all enjoyed their labours without exception; not only the
Romans and they that love the Roman yoke, and were subject to their government,
but also the Persians, and Scythians, and Massagetæ, and Sauromatæ, and Indians,
and Ethiopians; and, to speak in one word, the borders of the whole world.” And
again, in his ninth book, amongst the converted nations he reckons the Persians,
the Massagetæ, the Tibareni, the Hyrcani, the Caspians, and Scythians. Jerom, in
the epitaph of Nepotian, reckons among the Christians, the Indians, Persians, Goths,
Egyptians, Bessians, and the people clothed with skins: in his epistle to Læta,
he reckons up the Indians, Persians, Ephiopians, Armenians, Huns, Scythians, and
Getans: and, in his dialogue between an Orthodox man and a Luciferian, he mentions
the Britons, Gauls, the east, the people of India, the Iberians, the Celtiberians,
and the Ethiopians. And Chrysostom, in his sixth homily upon 1 Cor. says, “If they
were not worthy to be believed in what they said, how should their writings have
spread all over barbarous countries, even to the Indians, and those countries beyond
the sea?” And again, in his last homily upon Pentecost: “The Holy Spirit descended
in the shape of tongues, divided its doctrine among the several climates of the
world; and by this gift of tongues, as it were by a particular commission, made
known to every one the limits of that command and doctrine that was committed to
him.” And again, in his famous oration concerning Christ’s being God: “We must
say then, that a mere man could not, in so short a time, have overspread the world,
both sea and land; nor have so called men to such things, who were withheld by
evil customs, nay, possessed with wickedness; yet he was sufficient to deliver mankind
from all these, not only Romans, but also Persians, and all barbarous nations.”
See also what follows, which is highly worth reading.
Considering the weakness and simplicity of those who taught it in the first ages.
We come next to examine in what manner the Christian religion
made such a progress, that in this particular also it may be compared with others.
We see most men are disposed to comply with the examples of kings and rulers, especially
if they he obliged to it by law, or compelled by force. To these the religions of
the pagans, and that of the Mahometans, owe their increase. But they who first taught
the Christian religion were not only men without authority, but of low fortune,
fishers, tent-makers, and the like: and yet, by the industry of these men, that
doctrine, within thirty years, or thereabouts, spread not only through all parts
of the Roman empire, but as far as the Parthians and Indians. Tertullian said in his time, apology ii. “We are but of yesterday, and have
filled all places belonging to you, your cities, islands, castles, towns, councils, your very camps, tribes,
companies, the palace, senate and forum; we have left you only your temples.” This was wisely observed by Chrysostom, on
To which consideration we may add this; that the minds of those
who embraced the Christian religion, taught by these men, were not entirely free
and unprejudiced from any established rule of religion, and consequently very pliable;
as they were who first embraced the heathen rites and the law of Mahomet;
and much less were they prepared by any foregoing institution; as the Hebrews were
rendered fit for the reception of the law of Moses, by circumcision, and the knowledge
of one God: but, on the contrary, their minds were filled with opinions, and had
acquired habits, which are a second nature, repugnant to these new instructions; having been educated and confirmed by the authority of laws, and of their parents,
in the heathen mysteries and Jewish rites. And besides this, there was another obstacle
as great, namely, the most
Domitius Ulplanus, a famous lawyer, wrote seven books about
the punishments that Christians ought to have inflicted on them. Lactantius mentions
them, book. v. chap. 11. As the innocent company of three hundred at Carthage, mentioned
in the xxivth Roman martyrology of Augustus; very many in Africa under Severus;
under Valerian at Antioch; and in Arabia, Cappadocia, and Mesopotamia, in Phrygia,
in Pontes, under Maximin; at Nicomedia, in Numidia, at Rome, in Thebais, Tyre,
Trevers under Dioclesian, in Persia under Cabada and Sapores. All which are mentioned
in the martyrology, without any names.
An answer to those who require more and stronger arguments.
IF there be any one who is not satisfied with the arguments hitherto
alleged for the truth of the Christian religion, bat desires more powerful ones,
he ought to know that different things must have different kinds of proof: See Aristotle’s ethics to Nicomachus, book i.
“It is
sufficient, if a thing be made appear according to the subject matter of it; for the
same evidence is not to be expected in all things.” And in the latter part of his
first Metaphys. the last chapter: “Mathematical certainty is not to be met with in all things.” And
Chalcidius on the Timæus, according to the opinion of Plato: “A disposition to
believe precedes all doctrines; especially if they be asserted, not by common,
but by great and almost divine men.” Thus Homer:— “No man for certain knows whose son he is.” That is, with the most exact kind of knowledge. There are two sorts of propositions in the Christian religion; one sort of which may be philosophically demonstrated, the other cannot. Of the
former are inch as these: the existence of God, the creation of the world, a
Divine Providence; the goodness and advantage of the precepts of religion;
all which are capable of a demonstration, and are actually demonstrated by Grotius
and others; so that a man must renounce his reason, or else admit them. But those
passions which are contrary to them hinder unbelievers from receiving them, because,
if they should own them to be true, they must subdue those passions, which they
are unwilling to do, because they have been so long accustomed to them. Of the latter
sort are the historical facts upon which the truth of the gospel depends, and which
are explained by Grotius, and proved by historical arguments. Which same
arguments would he allowed to be good by unbelievers, in the same manner as they
do the proofs of all those histories which they believe, though they did hot see
the facts, if they were not hindered by the prevalence of their passions; and which
they must entirely subdue, if such arguments came once to take place. See a little
book of mine, in French, concerning infidelity. Le Clerc. Chrysotsom treats very handsomely of this, in the beginning
of Chrysostom handles this argument on
HE who is persuaded of the truth and excellency of that religion
which Christians profess, having been convinced either by the arguments before offered,
or by any other besides them, in order to understand all the several parts of it,
he must go to the most ancient books which contain this religion; and they are
what we call the books of the New Testament, or rather Covenant: for it is unreasonable
for any one to deny that that religion is contained in those books, as all Christians
affirm; since it is fit that every sect, good or bad, should be believed in this
assertion, that their opinions are contained in this or that book; as we believe
the Mahometans, that the religion of Mahomet is contained in the Alcoran: wherefore,
since the truth of the Christian religion has been proved before, and at the same
time it was evident that it was contained in these books, the authority of these
books is sufficiently established by this single thing: however, if any one desire
to have it more particularly made appear to him, be must first lay down that common
rule amongst all fair judges, that he who would disprove any writing, which bas
been received
See Baldus in his rubric concerning the credibility of writings;
and Gailus, book ii. Obs. cxlix. numb. 6 and 7, and those he there cites.
We say then, that the writings, about which there is no dispute
amongst Christians, and which have any particular person’s name affixed to them,
are that author’s whose title they are marked with; because the first writers, such
as Justin, Irenæus, Clemens, There is only Clemens s epistle to the Corinthians extant, in
which he quotes places of the New Testament, but does not name the writers: wherefore
Clemens’s name might have been omitted; and so might Justin’s, who is not used
to add the names. Le Clerc. In his prescription against the heretics:
“Let any one, who
would exercise his curiosity principally in the affair of his salvation, let him
run over the apostolical churches, over which the seats of the apostles have
now the rule, in their respective places; in which the authentic letters themselves
are recited.” And why might not the hand of the apostles be then extant, when Quintilian
says, that in his time Cicero’s hand was extant; and Gellius says the same
of Virgil’s in his? The place is to be seen in Cyril’s tenth book.—(See also out
annotations, in the dissertation on the four Evangelists, added to the
Harmony of the Gospels. Le Clerc.)
THERE are, indeed, in the volume we now use, some books
which were not equally received from the beginning; as the second of Peter, However,
Grotius himself doubted of this; the reason, of Which
doubt he himself gives us, in the beginning of his annotations upon this epistle.
But, though one or two epistles could be called in question, this would not render
the rest doubtful; nor would any part of the Christian faith be defective, because
it is abundantly delivered in other places. Le Clerc.
THERE is no reason why any one should detract from the
credibility of the epistle to the Hebrews upon this account only, because we do
not know who wrote it; and so likewise of the two epistles of John, and the Revelation,
because
It had been more proper to say in writings, or books,
which is the meaning of Grotius, as appears from what follows. Le Clerc. See L. Falsi Nominis. D. de Lege Cornelia; and Paul, book v.
Sent. tit. xxv. sect. 10 and 11. See examples of this punishment, at the end of
the books of Valerius Maximus, and in Capitolinus in Pertinax.
IT is certain, therefore, that the books of the New Testament
were wrote by those whose names they bear, or by such persons as they profess themselves
to be; and it is moreover evident that they had a knowledge of things they wrote
about, and had no desire to say what was false; whence it follows, that what they
wrote must be true, because every falsity either proceeds from ignorance, or from
n ill intention. Matthew, John, Peter, and Jude, wore of the company of those twelve
which Jesus chose to be witnesses of his life and doctrines; so that they could
not want the knowledge of those things they relate: So others, and they not a few, think; and St. Chrysostom every
where. See Josephus also. (Add to these Eusebius, H. E. book ii. chap. 1 and 23. See In the preface of him
Gospel history. Irenæus, book iii. ch. 1. and Clemens in his Hypotyposes, cited in Eusebius’s
eccles. hist.
THE other thing we affirmed, viz. that they would not speak an
untruth, belongs to what was before treated of, when we shewed the credibility of
the Christian religion in general, and of the history of Christ’s resurrection.
They, who would disprove witnesses in this particular relating to the disposition
of their mind and will, must of necessity allege something to make it credible,
that they set their mind against the truth. But this cannot be said here: for if
any one should object that their own cause was concerned, he ought to examine upon
what account it was their cause; certainly nor for the sake of getting any advantage,
or shunning any danger; when, on the account of this profession, they lost all
advantages, and there were no dangers which they did not expose themselves to. It
was not therefore their own cause, unless out of reverence to God, which certainly
does not induce any man to tell a lie, especially in a matter of such moment, upon
which the eternal salvation of mankind depends. We are hindered from believing such
a wicked thing of them, both by their doctrines, which are in every part full of
piety; And abhor lying,
BUT, on the contrary, God himself gave remarkable testimonies
to the sincerity of them, by working miracles, which they themselves and their disciples
publicly avouched, with the highest assurance; See the Acts of the Apostles throughout, and The places are
quoted before. Book xiii. As Origen says in his second book against Celsus.
This is that Phlegon whose remains we have yet concerning miracles, and long-lived
men. The places are very many, especially in Origen. See the whole
eighth chapter of Augustine’s twenty-second book of the city of God. The miracles at the sepulchres of holy men then began to be
boasted of, when the Christians, having the power in their hands, began to make
an advantage of the dead bodies of martyrs and others that were buried in their
churches. Wherefore I would not have this argument made use of, lest we diminish
from the credibility of certain miracles, by these doubtful or fictitious ones.
Every one knows how many stories are related after the fourth century about this
matter. But Origen does not mention any such miracles; but, in his seventh book
against Celsus, says, “Very many miracles of the Holy Spirit were manifested at
the beginning of Jesus’s doctrine, and after his ascension, but afterwards they
were fewer; however, there are now some footsteps of them in some few, whose
minds are purified by reason, and their actions agreeable thereto.” Who can believe
that so many miracles should be done in one or two centuries after Origen, when
there was less need of them? Certainly it is as reasonable to derogate from the
credibility of the miracles of the fourth and fifth centuries, as it would
be impudent to deny the miracles of Christ and his apostles. These miracles could
not be asserted without danger; those could not be rejected without danger, nor
be believed without profit to those who perhaps forged them; which is a great difference.
Le Clerc. See Cyril’s tenth book against Julian, and Jerom against a, book of Vigilantius.
FOR we find in them many predictions concerning things which men
could not possibly know of themselves, and which were wonderfully confirmed by
the event; such
In the same places, and also
TO what has been said may be added, that, if it be granted that God takes care of human affairs, and especially those that concern his own honour and worship, it is impossible he should suffer such a multitude of men, who had no other design than to worship him with sincerity, to be deceived by false books. And, after there did arise several sects in Christianity, there was scarce any found, who did not receive either all or most of these books, except a few which do not contain any thing particular in them; which is a very good argument why we should think that nothing in these books could be contradicted; because those sects were so inflamed with hatred against each other, that whatsoever pleased one, for that very reason displeased another.
SECT. X. A solution of that objection, that many books were rejected by some.
THERE were, indeed, amongst those who were willing to he called Christians,
a very few who rejected all those
See Irenæus, book i. chap. 29. Tertullian against Marcion, and Epiphanius
concerning the same. See Tertullian, in his first against Marcion, says, “You cannot
find any church of apostolical order, who are not Christians out of regard to
the Creator.” See what will be said of this matter at the end of the sixth
book. Add also Irenæus’s epistle to Victor, and what Jerom writes concerning it
in his catalogue; and Cyprian in his African council, “Judging no man, nor
removing any one from the right of communion, for his differing in opinion.” Tertullian, in his sixth book against Marcion, makes it appear very
plainly.
FOR, if any one should say, that there are some things related
in these books that are impossible to be done, we have before shewn, that there
are some things which are impossible to be done by men, but are possible with God; Book ii.
NOR is there more heed to be given to them who say, that there
are some doctrines to be found in these books which are inconsistent with right
reason: for, first, this may be disproved by that great multitude of ingenious,
learned, and wise men, who have relied on the authority of these books from the
very beginning: also, every thing that has been shown in the first book to be agreeable
to right reason, viz. that there is a God, and but one, a most perfect
See Plutarch’s works, book iv. or the opinions of the philosophers. And Stobæus’s
physics, chap. xi. Tacitus says so in the vith of his annals. The
place is in his Phædon, and also in Timæus. It was well said by Ambrose, “Who
should I rather believe concerning God, than God himself?” “The latter constitutions are more valid than the former.” It
is a saying of Modestinas, L. ultima, D. de Constitutionibus Principum.
Tertullian, “I think (says he) that in human constitutions
and decrees, the latter are more bidding than the former.” And in his apology: “Ye lop and hew down the ancient and foul wood of the laws, by the new axes of
the decrees and edicts of the princes.” And concerning baptism, “In all things we
are determined by the latter; the latter things are more binding than those that
went before.” Plutarch, Sympos. ix. “In decrees and laws, in compacts and bargains,
the latter are esteemed stronger and firmer than the former.
IT is objected by some, that the sense of these books is sometimes
very different: but whoever fairly examines this matter will find, that, on the
contrary, this is an addition to the other arguments for the authority of these
books; that in those places which contain any thing of moment, whether in doctrine
or history, there is every where such a manifest agreement, as is not to be found
in any other writers of any sect, whether they be Jews, The different opinions amongst whom, as they are to be seen
in other places, so likewise in Manasses, the son of Israel, a very learned
man in this sort of learning, in his books of the creation and resurrection. See the fore-cited book of the opinion of the philosophers. See Galen of sects, and of the best sect; and Celsus of physic,
is the beginning; to which the Spagirici may be added. There was a remarkable difference of old between the Sabiniani
and Proculiani; and now betwixt those who follow Bartolus and his followers, and
those who follow Cujacius and others who were more learned. See Gabriel’s common,
more common, and most common sentences. See Xenophon’s epistle to Æschines, the disciple of Socrates. Athenæus xi.
Laërtius’s life of Plato; and Gellius, book xiv. Many have shewn this of Aristotle;
and others, of the Roman lawyers. This is what the emperor Adrian affirms; in witnesses, we are
to examine whether they offer one and the same premeditated speech; L. Testium,
D. de Testibus. Speculator, lib. i. part. v. de Teste in pr. n. 81. A very exact
knowledge of all circumstances is not necessary in a witness. See
BUT I confidently affirm that there are no such things to be found; unless any one will reckon amongst these what is said by those who were born a
long while after, and they such who professed themselves enemies to the name of
Christ, and who therefore ought not to be looked upon as witnesses. Nay,
on the contrary, though there is no need of them, we have many testimonies which
confirm some parts of the history delivered in these books. Thus, that Jesus was
crucified, that miracles were done by him and his disciples, both Hebrews and heathens
relate. Most clear testimonies of Josephus, published a little more than forty years
after Christ’s death, are now extant, concerning Herod, Pilate, Festus, Felix, John
the baptist, Gamaliel, and the destruction of Jerusalem; which are exactly agreeable
to what we find amongst the writers of the Talmud concerning those times: the cruelty
of Nero towards the Christians is mentioned by Tacitus: and formerly there were
extant books of private persons, such as Phlegon, Book xiii. of his Chronicon or Olympiads, in these words, “In the fourth year of the
CCIId Olympiad, there happened the greatest eclipse of
the sun that ever was known; there was such a darkness of night at the sixth hour
of the day, that the stars were seen in the heavens; and there was a great
earthquake in Bithynia, which overturned a great part of Nicæa.” These words are
to be seen in Eusebius’s and Jerom’s Chronicon. And Origen mentions the same thing,
Tract xxxv. upon Matt. and in his second against Celsus. See Tertullian’s apology, c. xxi. “This event which has
befallen the world, you find related in your mystical books.” Chalcidius the Platonist, in his commentary on Timæus: “There
is another more holy and more venerable history, which relates the appearance of
a new star, not to foretel diseases and death, but the descent of a venerable God; who was to preserve
mankind, and to shew favour to the affairs of mortals; which star the wise men
of Chaldæa observing as they travelled in the night, and being very well
skilled in viewing the heavenly bodies, they are said to have sought after the
new birth of this God and having found that majesty in a child, they paid him
worship, and made such vows as were agreeable to so great a God.”
I SEE no other objection can be made against these books, unless
it be that they have not continued to be the same as they were at the beginning.
It must be owned, that, as in other books, so in these it might happen, and has
happened, that, through carelessness or perverseness in the transcribers, some letters,
syllables, or words, may be changed, omitted, or added. But it is very unreasonable,
that, because of such a difference of copies, This is now very manifest, from the most accurate collection of the various
readings of the New Testament, and especially from the edition of dr. Mills.
Though there is a great variety, yet no new doctrine can be raised from thence,
nor no received one confuted; no history of any moment, in regard to the truth
of the Christian religion, which was before believed from the books of the New
Testament, is on that account to be rejected; nor any that was before unknown,
to be collected from the various readings. And what is said of the books of
the New Testament, the same we are to conceive said of the Old Testament. Le
Clerc. L. ult. C. de Edicto Divi Adriani tollendo. That is, so as that it should run through all the copies, and
corrupt all the versions: for otherwise wicked men, who are obstinately bent on
their own opinions, may here and there corrupt their own copies; as not only Marcion
did, but also some library-keepers, who had a better judgment; as we have shewn
in our Ars Critica, part iii. sect. i. ch. 14. Le Clerc.
BUT, since God has been pleased to leave us the records of the
Jewish religion, which was of old the true religion, and affords no small testimony
to the Christian religion, it
See what Josephus cites out of them, book viii. chap. 2. of
his ancient history; where he adds, that if any one would see the copies of those
epistles which Solomon and Hirom wrote to each other, they may be procured of the
public keepers of the records at Tyrus. (We must be cautious how we believe this;
however, see what I have said upon Concerning him, Josephus has preserved us a place of
Berosus,
in the tenth of his ancient history, and in his first book against Appion; which
may be compared with Eusebius, who, in his Chronicon about these times, and in his
Prepar. book ix. chap. 40 and 41. produces this and the following place of Abydenus:
“Nabopallasarus his father, hearing that he who was appointed governor over Egypt,
and the places about Cœlo-Syria and Phœnice, had revolted, being himself unable
to bear hardships, he invested his son Nabuchadonosor, who was a young man, with
part of his power, and sent him against him. And Nabuchadonosor, coming to a battle
with the rebel, smote him, and took him, and reduced the whole land to his subjection
again. It happened about this time that his father Nabopallasarus fell sick, and
died, in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. Nabuchadonosor
in a little time hearing of the death of his father, after he had put in order his
affairs in Egypt, and the rest of the country, and committed to some of his friends
the power over the captives of the Jews, Phœnicians, Syrians, and the people about
Egypt, and ordered every thing that was left of any use to be conveyed to Babylon,
he himself with a few came through the wilderness to Babylon; where he found affairs
settled by the Chaldæans, and the government maintained under one of the most eminent
amongst them, so that he inherited his father’s kingdom entire; and having taken
a view of the captives, he ordered them to be dispersed by colonies, throughout
all the proper places in the country about Babylon. And he richly adorned the temple
of Belus, and others, with the spoils of the war; and he renewed the ancient city
of Babylon, by adding another to it; so as that afterwards, in a siege, the river
might never be turned out of its course, to assault the city. He also encompassed the city with three walls within,
and three without, some made of tile and pitch, others of tile alone. The city being
thus well walled, and the gates beautifully adorned, he added to his father’s palace
a new one, far exceeding it in height and costliness; to relate the particulars
of which would be tedious. However, as exceeding great and beautiful as it was,
it was finished in fifteen days; on this palace he built very high walks of
stone, which to the sight appeared like mountains, and planted them with all sorts
of trees, and made what they call a pensile garden, for his wife, who was brought
up in Media, to delight herself with the prospect of the mountainous country. After
he had begun the fore-mentioned wall, he fell sick and died, having reigned forty-three
years.” This wife of Nabuchadonosor is Nitocris, according to Herodotus, in his first book, as we learn from the great Scaliger, in his famous appendix to the Emendation of Time.
These things are explained by Curtius, in his fifth book, to which I refer you,
and partly by Strabo, book xv. and Diodorus, book ii. Berosus, out of whom we have
quoted these things, and those before, was the priest of Belus, after Alexander
the great’s time; to whom the Athenians erected a statue with a golden tongue, in
the public gaming place, for his divine predictions. This is mentioned by Pliny,
book vii. chap. 37. of his natural history. Athenæus, in his fifteenth, calls his
book Babylonica. Tatian (who himself also affirms that Berosus mentions Nabuchadonosor)
and Clemens call it Chaldaica. King Juba confesses, that he took out hence
what he wrote concerning the affairs of Syria, as Tatian observes. He is also
mentioned by Vitruvius, and by Tertullian in his apology, and by the writer of the
Alexandrian Chronicon. Eusebius, both in his Chronicon and in the end of the ninth
of his Preparation, tells us, that Nabuchadonosor is mentioned also by Abydenus,
who wrote of the Assyrians: the words are these: “Megasthenes says, that Nabuchodrosorus
was stronger than Hercules, and waged war against Libya and Iberia, and having overcome
them, he planted them in several colonies on the right shore of the sea. And the
Chaldæans relate moreover concerning him, that as he was going into his palace
on a certain time, he was inspired by a god, and spake the following words: I Nabuchodrosorus
foretel a sad calamity that will befal you, O Babylonians; which neither Belus,
our forefather, nor queen Beltia, could persuade the fates to avert: there shall
come a Persian mule, who, assisted by your gods, shall bring slavery upon you; Medus, the glory of the Assyrians, will also help to do this.
I wish, that, before he betrays his countrymen, some Charybdis,
or sea, would swallow him up, and destroy him; or that he were directed another
way, through the wilderness, where there are no cities, or footsteps of men, where
the wild beasts feed, and the birds fly about; that he might wander solitary amongst
the rocks and dens; and that a happy end had overtaken me, before these things were
put into my mind. Having prophesied this, he suddenly disappeared.” Compare this
last with that which is said of this Nabuchadonosor in the book of Daniel; the first,
out of Megasthenes, we have also in Josephus, book x. chap. 11. of his ancient history;
and he says it is in the fourth of his Indian history. Eusebius likewise has this
concerning Nabuchadonosor, out of Abydenus: “It is reported (of the place where
Babylon stands) that at first it was all water, called sea, but Belus drained it,
and allotted to every one his portion of laud, and encompassed Babylon with a wall,
which time has worn out. But Nabuchadonosor walled it again, which remained till
the Macedonian empire; and it had brazen gates.” And a little after: “When Nabuchadonosor
came to the government, in fifteen days time he walled Babylon with a triple wall,
and be turned out of their course the rivers Armacale and Acracanus, which is an
arm of Euphrates. And, for the city of the Sipparenians, he digged a pool forty
furlongs round, and twenty fathoms deep; and made sluices to open and water the
fields; they call them guides to the aquæducts. He also built up a wall to exclude
the Red sea; and he rebuilt Teredon, to hinder the incursions of the Arabians;
and he planted his palace with trees, called the pensile gardens.” Compare this
with After the fore-cited words of Berosus, follow these, according
to Josephus, in both the places now mentioned: “His son Evilmaradoch was made
head of the kingdom; he managed affairs unjustly and wantonly; after he had reigned
two years, he was treacherously slain by Neriglissoroorus, who married
his sister: after his death, Neriglissoroorus, who thus killed him, possessed
the government, and reigned four years. His son Laborosoarchodus, a youth, reigned
nine months: but, because there appeared In him many evil dispositions, he was slain
by the treachery of his friends. After his death, they who killed him agreed to
devolve the government upon Nabonnidus, a certain Babylonian, who was also one of
the conspirators. In this reign, the walls of the city Babylon, along the river,
were beautified with burnt brick and pitch. In the seventeenth year of his reign,
Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army, and, having subdued all the rest of
Asia, he came as far as Babylon; Nabonnidus, hearing of his coming, met him with
a great army also, but he was overcome in the battle, and fled away with a few,
and shut up himself in the city of the Borsippeni. Then Cyrus, having taken Babylon,
ordered the outward walls of the city to be rated, because the people appeared to
be very much given to change, and the town hard to be taken; and went from thence
to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnidus; but he not mining the siege, yielded himself
immediately; whereupon Cyrus treated him kindly, and, giving him Carmania to dwell
in, he sent him out of Babylonia; and Nabonnidus passed the reminder of his days
in that country, and died there.” Eusebius, to the fore-mentioned place, has preserved
the following words of Abydenus, immediately after those now quoted concerning Nabuchadonosor:
“After him reigned his son Evilmaruruchus: his wife’s brother Neriglasarus, who
slew him, left a son, whose name was Labossoarascus. He dying by a violent death,
they made Nabannidachus king, who was nut related to him. Cyrus, when he took Babylon,
made this man governor of Carmania.” This Evilmerodach is mentioned by name in So the Seventy and Eusebius translate the Hebrew word חפרע Chephre. He
was contemporary with Nabuchadonosor. Book ii. See the places already quoted; and Diodorus Siculus, b. ii.
and Ctesias in his Persics; and Justin, book i. chap. 5. and the following. The
foundation of the temple of Jerusalem was laid in Cyrus’s time, and was finished
in Darius’s, according to Berosus, as Theophilus Antiochenus proves. Cadomannus.
See the fore-mentioned persons, and Æschylus’s
account of Persia, and the writers of the affairs of Alexander. lu the time of this
Darius, Jaddus was the high priest of the Hebrews, Book i. Hecatæus, transcribed by Josephus, in his first book against
Appion, speaking of the Jews: “Not a few,” (viz. thousands, as appears from
the foregoing words), “after the death of Alexander, went into Egypt and Phœnicia,
by reason of the commotions in Syria.” To which we may add that of Philo against
Flaccus; “There are no less than ten hundred thousand Jews, inhabitants of Alexandria, and the country about it, from the lower parts
of Libya, to the borders of Ethiopia.” See moreover Josephus, book xii. chap. 2,
3, and the following; book xiii. chap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. xviii. 10. And the Jews were
free of Alexandria, Josephus xiv. 17. See Josephus, book xvi. 10. of his ancient history. Josephus xii. 3. xiv. 17. xvi. 4. Josephus xviii. 5. of his ancient history. Book i. Sat. iv. ——“For we are many, And Sat. v. —“Let circumcised Jews believe it.” And Sat. ix. —“This is the thirtieth Sabbath,” &c. Sat. ix. Some are of parents born, who sabbaths keep.” And what follows, Sat. xiv. IV. 4. “The sabbath-keepers’ fasts.” And in other places: as vii. 29, and 34. xi. 95. 57. To which
we may add that of Rutilius, book i. of his Itinerary:— Which is taken out of Seneca, who said of the same Jews, “The
customs of the must wicked nation have prevailed so far, that they are embraced
all the world over; so that the conquered give Laws to the conquerors.” The place
is in Augustine, book vi. ch. 11. of his city of God. He calls them the most wicked
nation, only for this reason, because their laws condemned the neglect of the worship
of one God, as we observed before; upon which account Cato Major blamed Socrates.
To which may be added the testimony of Philo, in his embassy, on the vast extent
of the Jewish nation. “That nation consists of so great a number of men, that it
does not, like other nations, take up one country only, and confine itself to that; but possesses almost the whole world; for it overspreads every continent and island,
that they seem not to be much fewer than the inhabitants themselves.” Dion Cassius,
book xxxvi. concerning the Jewish nation, says, “That though it has been often
suppressed it has increased so much the more, so as to procure the liberty of
establishing its laws.” See Aristæus and Josephus, book xii. 2. By Onkelos, and perhaps by Jonathan. By the writer of the Jerusalem Targum, and by Josephus
Cæcus, or by him, whoever he was, one man or many, who translated Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, and what they call the Hagiography. Or next to Hebrews, as Justin, who was a Samaritan. As Origen, Epiphanius,
and especially Jerom. Josephus in his first book against Appion. “It is very manifest,
by our deeds, how much credit we give to our own writings; for after
so many ages past, no one has presumed to add, take away, or change any thing.”
See the law,
And, like the Jews, will force you to our side.”
THE fourth book (beginning with that pleasure men, for the most
part, take at the sight of the other men’s danger, when they themselves are placed
out of the reach of it) shews, that the principal aim of a Christian ought
to be, not only a satisfaction upon his having found out the truth himself, but
also an endeavour to assist others, who wander in various crooked paths
of error, and to make them partakers of the same happiness. And this we have, in
some measure, attempted to do in the foregoing books, because the demonstration
of the truth contains in it the confutation of error. But, however, since the particular
sorts of religion which are opposed to Christianity, as Paganism, Judaism, or Mahometanism,
for instance, besides that which is common to all, have some particular errors,
and some special arguments, which they use to oppose us with; I think it may not
be foreign to our present purpose to attempt a particular examination of every one
of them; in the mean
AND, first, against the heathens we say,—If they suppose many
gods, eternal and equal, this is sufficiently confuted in the first book; where
we have shewn that there is but one God, the cause of all things. If by gods they
mean created beings superior to man, these are either good or bad; if they say
they are good, they ought, in the first place to be very well assured of this, lest
they fall into great danger, by entertaining enemies instead of friends; deserters
instead of ambassadors. “Jupiter is worshipped by us, and other gods by others.” The
words are quoted by Origen, in his eighth book against Celsus. This is very well prosecuted by Arnobius, book iii.
BUT that the spirits to which the heathen pain their worship were
evil, and not good, appears from many substantial arguments. First, because they
did not direct their worshippers to the worship of the Supreme God; This is very well treated of by Augustin, book x. chap. 14, 16,
19. of his city of God. “As being cropt, circumcised, sabbath-keepers, worshippers
of the clouds and heavens, merciful to swine.” Josephus, xviii. 5. Tacitus, Annal. ii. Seneca, Epist. cix. Tacitus, Annal. xv. to which that of Juvenal relates: —“You, like a torch, shall burn, See what was said of this, book ii. As in their rites dedicated to Pan. See Livy, book i. Plutarch in Antonius,
and others. As in the rites of Flora. See
Ovid’s Fasti, book iv. and Titian, and Origen,
in his eighth against Celsus. See
Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, and Diogenes Laërtius in his
preface.—(See also Thomas Stanley, of the philosophy of the Persians; and our observations
upon the word Arimanes in the Index. Le Clerc.) Cicero, book iii. of the nature of the gods. “How can you love, unless you be afraid not to love?” Tertullian
first against Marcion. See the verses of Syrus the mimic. Sophocles. “Enemies’ gifts are no gifts, no advantage.”
As they who flaming stand, stifled with smoke,
And with their body’s print have marked the ground.
THERE have been, and now are, heathens, who say that they pay worship
to to the souls of men departed this life.
See an example hereof in Terence’s Eunuch, act iii. scene v.
Cyprian, epist. ii. “They imitate those gods they worship; the religion of those wretched
creatures is made up of sin.” Augustine, epist. CCII. “Nothing renders men so unsociable,
by perverseness of life, as the imitation of those whom they commend and
describe in their writings.” Chalcidius in Timæus: “So it comes to pass, that instead
of that gratitude that is due to Divine Providence from men for their original and
birth, they return sacrilege.” See the whole place.
MORE ancient than this was the worship of the stars, and what
we call the elements, fire, water, air, and earth; There are reasons to persuade us that idolatry began with the
worship of angels and the souls of men, as you may see in the in the index to the
Oriental Philosophy, at the word Idololatria. Le Clerc. By which argument a certain king of Peru was persuaded to deny that the sun
could be a god. See the history of the Incas.
BUT that which is of all things most abominable, is, that some
men, particularly the Egyptians, fell into the worship even of beasts. Concerning whom, Philo, in his embassy, says, “They esteem dogs,
wolves, lions, crocodiles, and many other wild creatures iv the water and on the
land, and birds, as gods.” To which may be added, a long discourse of this matter,
in the first book of Diodorus Siculus. Euripides in Æolus:— And Antiphon:— “They us in strength, we them in art, exceed.” Which affords us no bad explication of
We read that the Greeks and Latins, and others likewise, worshipped things which
had no real existence, but were
See Tully’s third book of the laws. Tully in the fore-mentioned place; and Livy, book xxvii. Perhaps some may explain this worship of the heathens in this
manner; as to say, that it was not so much the things, which were commonly signified
by those words, that they worshipped, es a certain divine power, from which they
flowed, or certain ideas In the divine understanding. Thus they might be said to
worship a fever; not the disease itself, which is seated in the human body, but
that power which is in God, of sending or abating a fever: to worship impudence;
not that vice which is seated in the minds of men, but the will of God,
which sometimes allows men’s impudence to go on, which he can restrain and punish; and the. same may
be said of the rest, as love, fear, anger, hope, which are passions, which God can
either excite or restrain; or of virtues, which are perfect in the divine nature,
and of which we see only some faint resemblances in men, arising from the ideas
of those virtues which are most complete in God: and of honour, which does not consist
so much in the esteem of men, as in the will of God, who would have virtue honourable
amongst men. But the heathens themselves never interpreted this matter thus; and
it is absurd to worship the attributes and ideas of God, as real persons, under
obscure names, such as may deceive the common people. It is much more sincere and
honest to worship the Deity himself without any perplexities. Le Clerc.
THE heathens used to recommend their religion by miracles; but
they were such as were liable to many exceptions. For the wisest men amongst the
heathens themselves rejected many of them, as not supported by the testimony
of sufficient witnesses. So Livy, in the beginning: “I do not design either to affirm
or deny those things related before, or upon, the building of the city, as
fitter for poetic fables, than the sincere memorials of affairs that were
transacted: thus much must be allowed antiquity, that by mixing human things
with divine, the original of cities was rendered the more venerable.” It were much better to acquiesce in this answer, than to allow
of their miracles, or that such things were done, as men could not commonly distinguish
from miracles, such as oracles, wonders, curing of diseases, which, if they
were done, could scarce be distinguished from true miracles, at least by the common
people. See what I have said upon this matter in the prolegomena to my
ecclesiastical
history, sect. ii. chap. 1. Le Clerc. Tatian: “There are certain diseases and contrarieties of the
matter of which we are compounded; when these happen, the dæmons ascribe the
causes of them to themselves.” Thus the oracle of Hecate in Porphyry:— “I come, invoked by well-consulted prayers, And again, “Why have you call’d the goddess Hecate And that of Apollo in the same
writer, “Hear me, for I am forc’d to speak against my will.” These are the rites of their secret arts by which they address
themselves to I know not what powers, as Arnobius expresses it, as if they compelled
them by charms to be their servants; so Clemens (explains it. There is a form of
their threats in Jamblichus, book vi. chap. 5, 6, 7. of his Egyptian mysteries. The same we meet
with in Lucan, book ix. in the words of Pompey the less; and in Eusebius out of
Porphyry, book v. chap. 10. of his gospel preparation. Other forms of threatenings
you have in Lucan, where he speaks of Erichthon, and in Papinius about Tiresias. See the Pharmaceutria of Theocritus and Virgil, and the confession
of Porphyry in Eusebius, book v. chap. 7. of his Preparat. and Augustin, book x.
chap. 11. of his city of God. And the same Porphyry against eating living creatures,
book ii. and Origen against Celsus, book vii. L. ejusdem. Sect. Adjectio. D. ad Legem Corneliam de Sicariis
et Veneficis. L. si quis aliquid ex metallo. Sect. qui abortionis. D. de Pœnis.
Paulus Sententiarum, lib. v. tit. xxiii. Tacitus, Hist. iv. “Many miracles were done, whereby the favour
of heaven, and the good disposition of the gods towards Vespasian, appeared.” He
had said before, in hist. i. “We believe, that, after previous good luck, the empire
was decreed to Vespasian and his children, by the secret law of fate, and by wonders
and oracles.” Suetonius ushers in his relation of the same miracles thus, chap. 7. “There was a certain authority and majesty wanting, viz. in a new and
unthought-of prince; to which this was added.” See the same Suetonius a little before,
chap. 5. Josephus says of the same Vespasian, book iii. chap. 27. of the wars of
the Jews, “That God raised him up to the government, and foretold him of the
sceptre by other signs.” But see the examination of miracles feigned to be done in favour
of Vespasian and Adrian, in my ecclesiastical history, century ii. 138th year.
Le Clerc.
Such as the gods have to mankind reveal’d.”
From heaven, and forc’d her by a charm divine?”
AND almost all the same things may be applied to solve that which
they allege concerning oracles; especially what was before said, that such men
deserved to be imposed upon, who despised that knowledge which reason and ancient
tradition suggested to every man. Moreover the words of the oracles were for the
most part ambiguous, and such as might be interpreted of the event, be it what it
would. See the places of Œnomaus, concerning this subject, in Eusebius,
book iv. chap. 20, 21, 22, 23, 21, 25, 26. Hence Apollo was by the Greeks called Λοξίας. Ambiguous. Cicero, in his second book of divination, says, the oracles
of Apollo were ambiguous and obscure. “Whichsoever of them came to pass, (says
he), the oracle was true.”—(Perhaps many of the oracles were counterfeited after
the event; and there are many reasons to suspect that abundance of frauds were used by diviners; concerning which
D. de Fontenelle has written an excellent book in French, which I
refer you to, and what is said in defence of it, vol. xiii. of the Choice Library;
and what Antony Van Dale has written of this matter above all others, in his book
of oracles. (Le Clerc). Chalcidius on Timæus. “Men are forewarned either by the flying
of birds, or by entrails, or by oracles, some propitious Dæmons foretelling,
who knew all things that will afterwards come to pass; just as a physician, according
to the rules of physic, de. dares either death or health, and as Anaximander and
Pherecydes did an earthquake.” Pliny, book ii. chap. 79. See the writers of the life of Atticus. “A plain evidence of
this thing, besides those books wherein he (Cicero) mentions it expressly, (which
are published among the common people), are sixteen volumes of epistles sent to
Atticus, from his consulship to the end of his days; which whoever reads, will not
think that he wants a complete and regular history of those times; there is such
a full description of the inclinations of princes, of the vices of great men, and
of the alterations in the republic, that there is no. thing which is not laid open;
so that one would easily be led to think prudence to be a kind of divination. For
Cicero did not only foretel future things that would happen in his own lifetime,
but, like a diviner, declared those also that came to pass lately.” Cicero affirms
truly of himself, in his sixth epistle of his sixteenth book: “In that war, nothing
happened ill which I did not foretel. Wherefore, since I who am a public augur,
like other augurs and astrologers, by my former predictions, have confirmed you
in the authority of augury and divination, you ought to believe what I foretel.
I do not make my conjecture from the flying of birds nor from the manner of their
chirping, as our art teaches us, not from the rebounding of the corn that
falls from the chickens’ mouths, nor from dreams; but I have other signs, which
I observe.” Thus Solon foretold that great calamities would come upon Athens,
from Munichia. And Thales, that the forum of the Milesii would one time
be in a place then despised. Plutarch in Solon. See Augustine’s city of God, book x. chap. 27. It is now sufficiently evident, that all the prophecies of the
Sibyls are either doubtful or forged; wherefore I would not have Virgil, an interpreter
of the Sibyl, be thought to have declared a kind of prophecy, without any design
like Caiaphas, who was ignorant of what he prophesied: I know not what Sibyl, or
rather person under the disguise of such a one, predicted, that the golden age was
a-coming; from the opinion of those who thought that there would be a renovation
of all things, and that the same things would come to pass again. See what Grotius
has said of this matter, book ii. sect. 10. and the notes upon that place. Wherefore
in this, the Sibyl was not a prophetess, nor did Virgil write thence any prophecies
of Christ. See Servius upon the place, and Isaac Vossius’s interpretation of that
eclogue. Le Clerc. Cicero
mentions him in his second book of divination. Suetonius of Vespasian, chap. 4. Tacitus, Hist. v.
5 See Augustine of the city of God, book xix. chap. 23. and Eusebius’s Preparat. book iv. chap. 4. And the same Porphyry, in his book of Oracles,
says, “the god (Apollo) testifies that the Egyptians, Chaldæans, Phœnicians,
Lydians, and Hebrews, are they who have found out the truth.” He that wrote the
exhortation to the Greeks, amongst the works of Justin, quotes this oracle:— “The Hebrews only and Chaldees are wise, And this, “Who the first mortal form’d, and
call’d him Adam.” There are two oracles of Cato’s concerning Jesus, which Eusebius in his
gospel demonstration, transcribed out of Porphyry:— “Souls, of their bodies stript, immortal are; The same are mentioned by Augustine, book xix. chap. 23. of his
city of God, out of the same Porphyry: where he brings another oracle, in which
Apollo said, that the Father whom the pious Hebrews worshipped, was a law to all
the gods. This is justly enough said upon Porphyry, and those who are
of the same opinion with him, concerning those oracles; and may be brought as
an argument ad hominem, as logicians call it; but since it does not appear
that these oracles were not feigned, nay, there are very good reasons to think they
were fictitious, they ought to be of no weight amongst Christians. Le
Clerc. See those alleged by Œnomaus, in Eusebius’s gospel preparat.
book v. chap. 23, and 35. See his same author, chap. 34. of Cleomedes; which we find also
in Origen’s third book against Celsus. This was shewn before. See Eusebius’s
gospel preparat. book v. chap. 22. Œnomaus recites oracles of this kind, which you may find in the
fore-mentioned book of Eusebius, chap 19, and 27.
Who truly worship God the Eternal King.”
This wise men know; and that which is endued
With greatest piety, excels the rest.”
“The souls of pious men to heaven ascend,
Though various torments do their bodies vex.”
BESIDES those things already alleged, the heathen religion affords
us a very strong argument against itself, in that wheresoever human force was wanting,
it immediately fell, as if its only support were then taken away. For, if you turn
your eyes towards all the Christian or Mahometan empires, you will find heathenism
no where mentioned but in books: nay, history informs us, that in those times when
the emperors made use of force and punishment, as the first emperors did, or of
learning and cunning, as Julian did, to support the heathen religion; even then
it continually decreased; no force being made use of against it, no greatness of
family, (for it was commonly believed that Jesus was the son of a carpenter), no
flourish of words, no bribes, (for they were poor), no flattery, for they on the
contrary despised all advantages, and said there was no adversity but they ought
to undergo, upon account of their law. And now, how weak must the heathen religion
be, to be overthrown by such weak forces? Nor did the vain credulity of the heathens
only vanish at this doctrine, but spirits themselves came out of men, at the name
of Christ; Tertullian, in his apology. See also Lucan against false diviners. Apollo in Daphne: “This place, Daphne, is filled with dead bodies, which
hinder the oracles.” Babylas and other Christian martyrs died there. See Chrysostom
against the gentiles.
THERE were some philosophers who ascribed the rise and decay of
all religion to the stars; but this starry science, which they profess to know
and understand, is delivered in
See the excellent dissertation of Bardesanes, the Syrian, concerning
this matter; which you may find in the Philocalia collected from Origen, and in
Eusebius’s Preparat. book vi. chap. 10. See Alexander Aphrodisæus’s book concerning this matter. See Eusebius’s gospel preparat. book vi. chap. 6. See Justin, apology ii. “If mankind ho not endued with a power
of choosing freely; to avoid that which is bad, and to comply with that which is
good; the cause of either of them cannot be said to be from himself.” See also
what follows. And thus Tatian: “The freedom of the will consists in this; that
a wicked man is justly punished, because his wickedness is from himself; and a good
man is rewarded, because he has not voluntarily transgressed the will of God.” To
this may be added Chalcidius’s disputation concerning this matter in Timæus. Plato speaks against this, in his second republic; “The cause
is from him that chooses; God is not the cause.” Thus Chalcidius translates it in
Timæus, which Justin, in the fore-mentioned place, says, agrees with Moses. But they speak most truly who deny any such influences at all,
and acknowledge nothing else in the stars but heat and light; to which we may add,
their weight resulting from their bigness; but these have, properly speaking, no
relation to the mind. Le Clerc. Thus Zoroaster: “Do not increase your fate.” And Ptolemais:
“A wise man may avoid many influences of the stars.”
SECT. XII. The principal things of the Christian religion were approved of by the wisest heathens: and if there be any thing in it hard to be believed, the like is to be found amongst the heathen.
THERE is the less reason for the heathens to oppose the Christian
religion; because all the parts of it are so agreeable
Menander:— “With a clean mind do sacrifice to God; Cicero in his second book of the nature of the gods: “The best
worship of the gods, which is also the most innocent, the most holy, and the most
full of piety, is to reverence them always with a pure, sincere, uncorrupted mind
and expression.” And again, in his second book of laws: “The law commands us to
approach the gods sincerely, that is, with our minds, which is all in all.” Persius,
Sat. ii. “This let us offer to the gods: (which blear’d These verses seem to have respect to the Pythian oracle, which
we find in Porphyry’s second book against eating living creatures; where any thing
offered by a pious man is preferred to hecatombs of another. In the
same book Porphyry has these words to the like purpose: “Now, they esteem him not
fit to offer sacrifice worthily, whose body is not clothed with a white and clean
garment; but they do not think it any great matter, if some go to sacrifice, having
their bodies clean, and also their garments, though their minds be not void of evil:
as if God were not most delighted with the purity of that which in us is
most divine, and bears the nearest resemblance to him. For it is written in the
temple of Epidaurus, “Let all who come to offer at this shrine “New, purity consists in holy thoughts.” And a little after:
“No material things ought to be offered or dedicated to God, who, as the wise man
said, is above all; for every thing material is impure to him who is immaterial: wherefore words are not proper to express ourselves by to him, not even internal ones, if polluted
by the passions of the mind.” And again: “For it is not reasonable that
in those temples which are dedicated to the gods by men, they should wear clean
shoes without any spots; and in the temple of the Father, that is, in this world,
not keep their inner clothes (which is the body) neat, and converse with purity
in the temple of their Father.” Neither can I omit what follows out of the same
book: “Whoever is persuaded that the gods have no need of these, (sacrifices),
but look only to the manners of those who approach them, esteeming right notions
of them and of things, the best sacrifices; how can such a one be otherwise than
sober, godly, and righteous?” Where we find these three known words of Paul, Thus Ovid:— “He who forbears only because forbid, Seneca the father: “There is such a thing as incest, without the
act of whoredom; viz. the desire of it.” And in another place: “She is reckoned
amongst sinners, and not without reason, who is modest out of fear, and not for virtue’s sake.” See Plato’s Criton, and Maximus Tyrius’s second dissertation. Menander:— “O Gorgias, he’s the very best of men, Ariston Spartianus: “To a certain person, who said that it was princely thing
to do good to friends, and evil to enemies: Rather, answered he, to do good to friends, and to make enemies friends.”
And the same Dion, the deliverer of Sicily, in Plutarch says, that a true demonstration
of a philosophical disposition consists not in any one’s being kind to his friends;
but, when he is injured, is being easily entreated, and merciful towards those who
have offended him. See what is before quoted
out of Sallust and others, about this matter. Euripides
in his Andromache:— ——“It is by no means fit And more to the same purpose, in the chorus of the same tragedy. So it was amongst the Romans till the five hundred and twentieth
year of the city, as Valerius Maximus informs us, book iii. chap.1. Anaxandrides
to the same purpose:— “’Tis shameful thus for men to ebb and flow.” Terence’s self-tormentor:— “I am a man, and think every thing humane belong to me.” “We are by nature related to each other,” says Florentinus the
lawyer, L. ut vim. D. de Justitia. And this is the meaning of the proverb, “One
man is a kind of god to another.” Cicero, in his first book of offices, says, there
is a mutual society betwixt men, all of them being related to one another. Horace, book ii.— “Wretch, why should any want, when
you are rich?” In Mimus:— “Mercy procures strong security.” Pythagoras: “We ought not to swear by the gods, but endeavour
to make ourselves believed without an oath:” which is largely explained by Hierocles,
on his golden verses. Marcus Antoninus, book iii. in his description of a good man,
says, “Such a one needs no oath.” Sophocles in his Œdipus Coloneus:— “I would not have you swear, because ’tis bad.” Clinius the Pythagorean would sooner lose three talents in a cause,
than affirm the truth with an oath. This story is related by Basilius concerning
reading Greek authors. Euripides:— “There are but two things which mankind do want, And Lucan:— “There is enough of bread and drink for all.” And Aristides:— ” We want nothing but clothes, houses, and food.” See Plato’s epistle to Dionysius. Plato calls the first principle
the Father; the second principle the Cause or Governor of all things, in his epistle
to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus. The same is called the Mind by Plotinus, in
his book “of the Three Principal Substances.” Numenius calls it the Workman, and
also the Son: and Amelius the Word, as you may see in Eusebius, book xi. chap.
17, 19, 19. See also Cyril’s third, fourth, and eighth books against Julian. Chalcidius
on Timæus, calls the first the Supreme God; the second, the Mind, or Providence; the third, the Soul of the World, or the Second Mind. In another place he distinguishes
these three thus: the Contriver, the Commander, and the Effecter. He speaks thus
of the second: “The reason of God is God consulting the affairs of men; which
is the cause of men’s living well and happily, if they do not neglect that gift
which the Supreme God has bestowed on them.”—“The Pythagoreans assign to the Supreme God the number three, as perfect,” says Servius, on the
seventh eclogue. Not much differing from which is that of Aristotle, concerning
the same Pythagoreans, in the beginning of his first book of the heavens.—(This
is more largely handled by the very learned R. Cudworth, in his English work of
the intellectual system of the world, book. i. chap. 4. which you will not repent
consulting. Le Clerc.) Book vi. “Amongst those things which have understanding,
Jupiter produced Æsculapius from himself, and caused him to appear upon earth, by means
of the fruitful life of the sun; he, taking his journey from heaven to earth, appeared
in one form in Epidaurus.” Thus Porphyry, as Cyril relates his words in his fore-mentioned
eighth book: “There is a certain kind of gods, which in a proper season are transformed
into men.” What the Egyptians’ opinion of this matter was, see Plutarch, Sympos.
viii. quæst. i. to which may be added that place of 2 The words are these, translated from the Greek: “He will be
scourged, tormented, bound, his eyes burnt out, and die by crucifixion, after he
has endured all those evils.” Whence he had that, which he relates in his third
book of Republic: “That a good man will be tormented, furiously treated, have
his hands cut off, his eyes plucked out, will be bound, condemned, and burnt.” Lactantius, in his institutions, book vi. chap. 17. has preserved this place of
Seneca: “This is that virtuous man, who, though his body suffer torments in every
part, though the flame enter into his mouth, though his hands be extended on a cross,
does not regard what he suffers, but how well.” Such a one Euripides represents
to us in these verses;— Burn, scald this tender flesh; drink your full glut To which that of Æschylus, mentioned by Plato in the fore-cited
place, exactly agrees:— “He strives to be, not to be thought, the best;
Not so much neat in clothes, as pure in heart.”
Messala’s offspring can’t, with all their cost):
Justice and right in all our secret thoughts,
An undissembled virtue from the breast:
Bring these, and what you please then sacrifice.”
Be pure; so we command.”
Does sin; hilt body’s free, his mind is staked;
Were be alone, he’d be an adulterer.”
Who can forgive the greatest injuries.”
One man should o’er two women have the rule:
One nuptial bed will a wise man suffice,
Who would have all things regulated well.”
A crust of bread, and draught of springing water;
Both which are near, and will suffice for life.”
Of purple blood. Sooner may heaven and earth
Approach each other, and be join’d in one,
Than I to you express a flattering word.”
Deep-rooted in his mind he bears a stock,
Whence all his wiser counsels are derived.”
NOW we are coming out of the thick darkness of heathenism: the
Jewish religion, which is a part and the beginning of truth, appears to us, much
like twilight to a person gradually advancing out of a very dark cave: wherefore
I desire the Jews, that they would not look upon us as adversaries. We know
very well, that they are the offspring of holy men, whom God often visited by his
prophets and his angels; This, and what follows, is taken out of the ixth,
xth, and xith,
of the Romans; to which may be added
FIRST, therefore, they are requested not to esteem that unjust
in another’s cause, which they think just in their own: if any heathen should ask
them, why they believe the miracles done by Moses, they can give no other answer,
but that the tradition concerning this matter has been so continual and constant
amongst them, that it could not proceed from any thing else but the testimony of
those who saw them. Thus, that the widow’s oil was increased by Elisha, In the fore-mentioned Chap. ii. of the fore-cited book. See what is quoted, book
ii.
BUT some say, that these wonders were done by the help of devils:
but this calumny has been already confuted from hence; that as soon as the doctrine
of Christ was made known, all the power of the devils was broken. What is added
by some, that Jesus learned magical arts in Egypt, carries a much less appearance
of truth, than the like objection of the heathen against Moses, which we find in
Pliny, Book xxx. chap. i. In his second Apology. Manethon, Chæremon, Lysimachus in
Josephus’s firs book against Appion, and
Justin, and Tacitus. Tacitus, annal. vi. Suetonius in his life, chap. 63. and 69. Concerning whom Pliny, book xxx. chap. 2. in his history of
magic, says, “He had not a greater desire after music and tragical singing.” And
afterwards; “No man favoured any art with greater cost; for these things he wanted
neither riches, abilities, nor disposition to learn,” Presently after he relates
how he was initiated into the magical suppers by king Tiridates. See the Talmud, entitled, Concerning the council; and that
concerning the Sabbath.
Some of the Jews ascribe the miracles of Jesus to a certain secret name, which was put into the temple by Solomon, and kept by two lions for above a thousand years, but was conveyed thence by Jesus; which is not only false, but an impudent fiction. For, as to the lions, which is so remarkable and wonderful a thing, neither the books of the Kings, nor the Chronicles, nor Josephus, mention any thing of them: nor did the Romans, who before the times of Jesus entered the temple with Pompey, find any such thing.
Now, if it be granted that miracles were done by Christ, which
the Jews acknowledge; we affirm, that it follows
And the foretelling future events, which may justly be reckoned amongst miracles.
See Moses Maimonides, and others quoted in Manasses’ Conciliator, quest. iv.
on Deut. And whose prophecies came to pass; this argument is strongly
urged in Chrysostom’s fifth discourse against the Jews; and in his discourse concerning
Christ’s divinity, vi. tom. Savil.
FOR the Hebrew doctors Themselves lay down this rule for the extent
of a prophet’s power, This rule is laid down in the Talmud, entitled, concerning the
council. Thus, at the command of Joshua, the law of the sabbath was broken, As we said just before. Origen against Celsus, book iii. “As a certain lawgiver
said to one who asked him, if he gave to his citizens the most perfect laws: not
says he, the most perfect in themselves, but the best they can bear.” Porphyry,
book i. against eating living creatures, concerning lawgivers, says thus: “If
they have regard to the middle sort of life, called natural, and according to
what is agreeable to most men, who measure good and evil by external things,
which concern the body if, I say, with this view they make laws; what injury is
done to life, if any one adds something more excellent than this?”
We may here observe by the way, to shew the wicked. ness of those
Jews who lived in our Saviour’s time, that Jesus was very basely treated by them,
and delivered up to punishment, when they could not prove that he had done any thing
contrary to the law. He was circumcised, So far from that, that some laws, such as those of first-fruits,
tithes, assembling upon festivals, relate expressly to the place of Judæa only,
whither it is certain all nations could not come. See Being very much addicted to rites, and, on that account, prone
to idolatry. This the prophets every where shew, especially L. Hac edictali. Cod. de Secundis nuptiis. L. Hac in perpetuum.
Cod. de Diversis Prædiis Libro xi. and in many other places. L. Valerius in Livy, xxxiv. “The laws which particular times
require are liable to be abolished, and I find are changed with the times;
those that are made in the time of peace are abrogated in war; and those made in
war, abrogated in peace.” As In Pereck Cheleck, and elsewhere, and in
THE principal, and which first offer themselves to us, are sacrifices; concerning which many Hebrews are of opinion that they first proceeded from the
invention of men, before they were commanded by God. Chrysostom xii. concerning statues, speaking of Abel, says, “That
he offered sacrifices which he did not learn from any other person, nor did be ever
receive any law that established any thing about first fruits; but he had it from himself, and was moved
to it by his own conscience only.” In the answer to the orthodox, in the words of
Justin, to the eighty-third query; “none of those who sacrificed beasts to God before
the law, sacrificed them at the Divine command; though it is evident that God
accepted them, and by such acceptance discovered that the sacrifices were well-pleasing
to him.”—(This matter is largely handled by dr. Spencer, concerning the Ritual
Law of the Jews, book iii. discourse 2. to which I refer you. Le Clerc). This very reason for the law of sacrifices is alleged by Maimonides,
in his Guide to the Doubting, book iii. chap. 32. Tertullian against Marcion,
book ii. “Would you have nobody find fault with the labour and burthen of
sacrifices, and the busy scrupulousness of oblations, as if God truly desired
such things, when Ile so plainly exclaims against them? To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices? And who hath required them at your hands But let
such observe the care God has taken, to oblige a people, prone to idolatry and
sin, to be religious, by such duties as that superstitious age was most
conversant in, that he might call them off from superstition, by commanding those things to be done
upon his account, as if be desired it, lest they should fall to making images.” This is Grotius’s paraphrase upon A mark of servitude amongst the Hebrews. So the Chaldee interpreter explains this place. Therefore the Jews say, that the six hundred and two
precepts of the law are by Isaiah contracted into six, Add this place of Jeremiah, See Chrysostom’s excellent paraphrase upon this place, in his second
discourse against the gentiles.
WHAT has been said concerning the law of sacrifices, the same
may be affirmed of that in which different kinds of meat are prohibited.
It is manifest, that after the universal deluge, God gave to Noah and his posterity
a right to use any sort of food; The mention of clean and unclean creatures seems to be an objection
against this, in the history of the deluge; but either that was said by way of prolepsis
to those who knew the law; or, by unclean, ought to be understood, those which men
naturally avoid for food, such as Tacitus calls profane, Hist. iv. Unless any one
had rather understand by clean, those which are nourished by herbs; and by unclean,
those which feed on other living creatures. Origen, in his fourth book against Celsus: “Some wicked dæmons,
and (as I may call them) Titanic or gigantic ones, who were rebellious against the
true God, and the heavenly angels, and fell from heaven, and are continually moving
about gross and unclean bodies here on earth, having some fore-sight of things to come, by reason of their freedom from earthly bodies; and being conversant
in such things, and being desirous to draw off mankind from the true God, they enter
into living creatures, especially those that are ravenous, wild, and sagacious,
and move them to what they will: or else, they stir up the fancies of such living
creatures to fly or move in such a manner; that men, taken by the divination in
these dumb creatures, might not seek the God that comprehends the universe, nor
enquire after the pure worship of God; but suffer their reason to degenerate into
earthly things; such as birds and dragons, foxes and wolves. For it is observed
by those who are skilful in these things, that future predictions are made by such
living creatures as these; the daemons having no power to effect that in tame creatures,
which, by reason of their likeness in wickedness, not real, but seeming wickedness in such creatures, they
are able to effect in other creatures. Whence, if any thing he wonderful in Moses,
this particularly deserves our admiration, that, discerning the different natures
of living creatures, and whether instructed by God concerning them, and the dæmons
appropriated to every one of them; or whether he understood by his own wisdom, the
several ranks and sorts of them; he pronounced them unclean, which were esteemed
by the Egyptians and other nations to cause divination, and he declared the other
to be clean.” The like to which we find in Theodoret, book vii. against the Greeks:
and not very different from this is that of Manetho, “having established in the
law many other things, particularly such as were contrary to the customs of the
Egyptians.” And that which Tacitus says of the Jews: “All things are profane amongst
them which are sacred amongst us.” And afterwards: “They slay a ram in contempt
of Jupiter Ammon; and sacrifice an ox, which the Egyptians worshipped the god
Apis by.” Barnabas in his epistle: “Moses said, Ye shall not eat a swine,
nor an eagle, nor a hawk, nor a raven, nor any fish which hath no fins. By which
he meant three opinions figuratively expressed. What he aims at is evident from
these words in Deuteronomy: And my judgments shall be established amongst my people.
Now the commandment of God is not literally to prohibit eating them; but Moses spake
of them in a spiritual sense. He mentions swine for this end, that they should not
converse with men who resemble swine; for when they live in luxury, they forget
their master; but when they want, they own their master: thus a swine, while he
is eating, will not know his master; when he is hungry, he cries out, and
when he is full, he is quiet. Again, Thou shalt not, says he, eat the eagle, or
the hawk, or the kite, or the raven. As much as to say, you shall not converse
with such men, who know not how to get their food by labour and pains, but
unjustly steal it from others; and who walk about as if they were sincere, when they
lie in wait for others; Thus these slothful creatures contrive how they may devour
the flesh of others, being pestilent by their wickedness. Again, Thou shalt not
eat, says be, the lamprey, nor the pourcontrel, nor the cuttle; that is to say,
you shall not converse with those men who are finally wicked, and condemned
to death; as these sort of fish alene are doomed to swim at the bottom of
the sea, not like others to hover on the top of the water, but to dwell on the ground
at the bottom. Also, he says, thou shalt not eat the coney: wherefore? that you
may not be a corrupter of children, nor such like; for the hare has a new place
to lay her excrements in every year; for so many years as she lives, so many
holes bas she under ground. Further, thou shalt not eat the hyæna; that is, thou
shalt not be au adulterer, or unclean person, or such like: for what reason? because
this creature changes its nature every year, and sometimes is a male, and sometimes
a female. And he justly hated the weasel; as much as to say, you shall not be like
such persons, who, we have heard, have committed iniquity in their mouths, by uncleanness; neither shall you have correspondence with such workers of iniquity; for this
animal conceives in its mouth. Concerning meats, therefore, Moses meant three things
spiritually; but they, through fleshly inclinations, understood him of meats. But
David knew these three opinions, and therefore agreeably thereto he says, Blessed
is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, as fishes
wander in darkness at the bottom of the sea; and hath not stood in the way of
sinners, viz. like them, who, though they would seem to fear God, sin like swine:
and hath not sat in the seat of the scornful, like birds watching
for their prey. Thus you have the end and the meaning of them. But Moses commanded
to eat every creature that is cloven-footod, and that chew. etb the cud. And what
does he mean by this? He that receiveth meat, knoweth him that feeds him, and is
satisfied with it, and seems to rejoice: which is very well said, if we consider
the command. What, therefore, is the meaning of it? Why, converse with those who
fear their master; with those who meditate in their hearts upon the word they have
received; with those who speak of and keep the judgments of their master; with
those who know that meditation is a pleasant work, and belongs to those who thoroughly
consider their master’s word. But what means cloven-footed? That a man should
walk uprightly in this world, in expectation of another life. See what excellent
laws are established by Moses.” Clemens commends this of Barnabas, in his
fifth Strome. You may find also many things partly alike, and partly
the same with these, in Philo’s book of agriculture; and in the book entitled,
“The
wicked lay snares for the righteous;” which are too long to be transcribed. The
like is to be seen in Eusebius, out of Aristæus, book viii. chap. 9. Holy men, but not circumcised, which you find mentioned, Thus R. Samuel in Mecor Chaim. The Talmud, entitled Nida,
says, the law was to continue but till the times of the Messiah. We may moreover
observe, that some Hebrew teachers, amongst whom is Bachai, were of opinion that
the laws concerning forbidden meats, were peculiar to the land of Canaan, nor was
any one obliged to observe them out of the bounds thereof. And beside, the Jews
themselves are ignorant, or at least dispute about the signification of many of
the names of those animals; which we cannot think God would have permitted, if the
obligations to observe that law were to have continued till this time.
THESE were all instituted in memory of the benefit they had received
from God, when they were delivered front the Egyptian bondage, and brought into
the promised land. Now the prophet Jeremiah says, זביר. שמיר. Thus Moses Gerundensis, and Isaac Aramas distinguish.—(Observation
and remembrance signify the same thing in Moses, as to this matter, as we
have shewn on From whom a certain veneration for the seventh day was
derived to the Greeks, as Clemens observes. See what is said in relation to this, book.
i. That the pious men of those times did in this sense σαββατίσαι,
that is, observe the Sabbath, is denied by Justin, in his dialogue with Tryphon,
and by Tertullian in two places against the Jews. Not those others, who out of Judæa observed the precepts given to the posterity
of Noah. This is the opinion of the Hebrews. Thus the Hebrew proverb: “The Sabbath gives way to circumcision.” See
WE come now to circumcision, which is, indeed, ancienter than
Moses, as being commanded to Abraham and his posterity; but this very precept was
the beginning of the
Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, says, “Circumcision was
given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness.” And Irenæus, book iv. chap.
30. “We learn from scripture, that circumcision is not that which perfects righteousness:
but God gave it, that Abraham’s posterity might continue distinguishable. For God
said to Abraham, Let every male of you be circumcised, and circumcise the flesh of
your foreskin, and it shall be for a sign and a covenant betwixt you and me.”
THERE was certainly very good reason why the Hebrews should return
their hearty thanks to Jesus and his ambassadors, in that he freed them from that
heavy burden of rites, and secured their liberty to them, by miracles and gifts
no way inferior to those of Moses. R. Levi Ben Gerson said, that the miracles of the Messiah ought
to be greater than those of Moses, which is most evident is the dead restored
to life.
BOTH they and we are agreed, that in the predictions of the prophets
there is a promise, that amongst the many persons who should make known to the Jews,
from heaven,
DANIEL, a testimony of whose great piety Ezekiel affords us, The great Hebrew doctors, such as Salomon Jarchi, rabbi Josue,
quoted by Abenesdras and Saadias, agree, that the Son of Mau in Daniel is the Messiah:
thus rabbi Josue, who saw the raising of the temple, said that the time of the Messiah
was then past, as R. Jacob in Caphthor testifies. Grotius ought to have told us whence he had this. If I remember
right, in some epistle of his to his brother William Grotius, he says, he received
it from a Jew. Le Clerc. R. Levi Ben Gerson tells us, that that stone, by the blow whereof
that image which represented the empires should be broken to pieces, was the Messiah.
Rabbi Solomon, r. Abenesdras, and r. Saadia, say, that that kingdom, which
would consume the rest of the kingdoms, was the kingdom of the Messiah. R. Levi
Ben Gerson and Saadia affirm the Son of Man in Daniel to be the Messiah. See the annotations upon this in the first book. Book x. chap. 12. “Daniel wrote concerning this time, and concerning
the Roman empire, and that (our nation) should be destroyed by it. God having discovered
all these things to him, he left them us in writing; so that whoever reads them,
and considers what has come to pass, cannot but admire the honour God did to Daniel.”
Iacchiades also upon In the title concerning instruction, and the Jerusalem Gemara, chap. 3. We must observe what goes before. “The desire of all nations
shall come and I will fill this house with glory.” Which wonderfully agrees with
what we have taken out of Malachi: so that these two prophets may serve for interpreters
of each other. Rabbi Akiba, and many others, as rabbi Solomon testifies, were of
opinion, that the Messiah ought to come in the second temple. This place of Malachi, the Jews commonly explain of the Messiah. As in the Talmud, chap. the last, concerning the council; anti that entitled Juma, and that entitled Rosch Haschana. Philo concerning the world: “That is not corruptible, all
the parts of which are corrupting gradually but that, all the parts of which are
destroyed together at the same time.” Add to this, L. Proponebatur. D. de Judiciis,
et L. quid tamen. Sect. in navis. D. quibus modis ususfructus amittatur. These were the Herodians, See Josephus xviii.
1.
THE Jews see themselves put to difficulties by these
arguments: that they may elude the force of them, therefore, some say, that their
sins were the cause why he did not come at the promised time. Now, not to mention,
that, in the fore-cited prophecies, This is expressly affirmed by r. Jochanan, in Schemoth Rabba,
and r. David Kimchi, on איש בוטר. See the Chaldee paraphrase on
AS to what we said, that the Messiah is long since come upon earth,
even experience might convince the Jews. God promised them, in the covenant made
with Moses, In the times
of Adrian, Constantine, and Julian. Chrysostom ii. against the Jews. Book xxiii.
Chrysostom ii. against the Jews. “Fire immediately broke out of the foundation,
and burnt many men, and also the stones of that place.” The whole place is worth reading, The
same author has the like words in his fourth homily upon Matthew, and in his discourse
of Christ’s being God. R. Samuel makes this objection in his R. Isaac. The Talmud in Baba Bathra. See the preface of Echad Rabbathi; the like to which we find
in the Talmud, entitled Chagiga, in Debarim Rabba, and in Berachoth. Thaanith and Aboda Zara. See the Talmud Baba Bathra, and the Chaldee paraphrast on the
Song of Solomon, Many of which Gerson the Christian has transcribed in his book
against the Jews; see those chapters in it concerning devils, concerning the Messiah,
concerning the revelations by Elias, concerning hell, concerning the kingdom of
the ten tribes beyond the river Sabbaticus, and concerning the deeds of the rabbies. Whereas, if we may believe themselves, they highly merit of
God for rejecting a false Messiah, who was received by so great a part of mankind.
AND these things do indeed prove, as was before said, that the
Messiah did come so many ages since; to which I add, that he was no other than
Jesus; for all others, who were willing to have themselves thought the Messiah,
or were really thought so, left no sect in which that opinion continued. None now
profess themselves to be followers of Herod, or Judas Gaulonita, or of Barchochebas, Whom Justin styles, the chief of the revolt of the Jews.
He is mentioned by Eusebius, Jerom, Orosius, in the Talmud, entitled concerning the Council, in Bereschith Raba, by the rabbies John and Abraham Salmanticensis, and others, in many places. As rabbi Akiba; see the Talmud, entitled concerning the Council, and the book
Zemach David. See what is said of this in the second book. Both Jonathan the author of the Jerusalem paraphrase, and the
writers of the Talmud, in the title concerning the Council; Bereschith Rabba, Jakumus
on the Pentateuch, rabbi Solomon, and others, שבמ, which the Jews now would have
to be a rod of chastisement; the Targum in Chaldee explains by שלטן, and the Greeks
ἄρχων, a governor; Aquila, σκῆπτρον, a sceptre; Symmachus,
ἐκουσία, power. And
שילח is explained by בגן his son, by the Chaldee r. Siloh, r. Bachai,
r. solomon, Abenesdras, and Kimchi. See what is excellently said concerning this
place in Chrysostom, in his discourse, that Christ is God. See the fore-cited place of
HERE the Jews commonly object, that there were some things predicted
of the times of the Messiah, which we do not see fulfilled. But those which they
allege are obscure, and may have a different signification; for which we ought not
to reject those that are plain; such as the holiness of the precepts of Jesus; the
excellency of the reward; the plainness of speech in which it was delivered; to
which we may add the miracles; and all together ought to engage us to embrace his
doctrine. In order to understand aright the prophecies of the sealed book, Grotius seems to have respect to the Chaldee interpreters of
the Old Testament, and to speak according to the opinion of the Jews, who thought
them older than they were. See Brian Walton’s Prolegomena to the Polyglot Bible,
ch. xii. Thus Maimonides, in his first book, would have that place of As As As In the place of the fore-cited psalm. In the fore-mentioned place of Perek Cherek, p. 97.
MANY are offended at the mean condition of Jesus, but without
any reason; for God says every where in the sacred writings, that he exalteth the
humble, and casteth
So says the tradition of the Jews, of which the author of the
Hebrews has respect xii. 37. and Josephus x. 4. Chalcidius on Timæus,
“As the prophets by wicked men, one cut in pieces, another overwhelmed with
stones.” Which place is interpreted of the Messiah, by the Chaldee paraphrast,
and the Babylonish Gemara, entitled concerning the council. Abarbanel upon this place tells us, that by diseases, are to be understood any
evils. Rabboth, and Solomom Jarchi, on the Gemara, entitled concerning the council,
explain these words concerning the Messiah. Alseck says, that evils borne with a willing mind are here spoken of. Alseck here says, that by the word seed in the Hebrew,
is meant disciples. Thus the seed of the serpent is by the Hebrews
interpreted the Canaanites; and so some understand it to mean their
children. Abarbanel refers these words to a future age. The Babylonish Gemara, entitled סובה, tells us, that these words
are to be understood in a spiritual sense. Alseck upon this place, says, that by
spoils are to be understood the honours and re. wards of wise men. This appears from those places of the prophets cited above,
and from See the Talmud, entitled, Succha, r. Solomon, and r. David Kimchi. Which Abarbanel follows, not in one place only, on this chapter of Isaiah.
MANY are withheld from embracing the doctrine of Jesus,
out of a prejudiced notion they have entertained of the virtue and goodness of their
forefathers, and especially of the chief priests; who condemned Jesus, and rejected
his doctrine, without any just reason. But what sort of persons their forefathers
often were, that they may not think I falsely slander them, let them hear in the
very words of their law, and of the prophets, by whom they are often called uncircumcised
in ears and heart; The places are observed before in the second book. In the He says no other city ever endured such calamities, nor was
there ever any age so fruitful of all kinds of wickedness. The Jews brought greater
mischiefs upon themselves than the Romans did, who came to expiate their crimes. Josephus xiv. 17. Josephus xviii. 3. and 6. See the Talmud, concerning the council; Ketuboth and Sota. R.
Solomon on the fore-mentioned title, concerning the council, c. Helec, and the Talmud,
entitled concerning weights. And also the tradition of rabbi Judah, in the Gemara,
ou the same title, concerning the council, c. Helec; “At that time, when the son
of David shall come, the house that was appointed of God, shall be made a brothel-house.”
See
IT remains that we answer two accusations, which the Jews assault
the doctrine and worship of the Christians with. The first is this; they affirm
that we worship many gods: but this is no more than an odious explication of a doctrine
which appears strange to them. For there is no more reason why this should be objected
against the Christians, than against Philo the Jew, Concerning the sacrifices of Abel and Cain. “When God, attended
with his two principal powers, government and goodness; himself, who is one only,
being between them, he framed three conceptions in the contemplative soul: each
of which can by no means be comprehended, for his powers are unlimited; they each
contain the whole.” Afterwards he calls government, power; and goodness,
he calls beneficence; and says, that they are not pronounced by a pious
mind, but kept in silent secrecy. And the same we find in his book of Cherubim.
In the second book of the husbandry of Noah, he mentions existence, the
governing power, the merciful power. Maimonides, in the beginning of his
book of fundamentals, and after him Joseph Albo, distinguish in God, “that which
understandeth; that by which any thing is understood; and the understanding.” We
find something belonging to this matter in Abenesdras, on In his Allegories, and of the Confusion of Tongues. In his Allegories: “His word, by making use of which, as of
an instrument, he made the world.” Concerning Cain: “The word of God was
the instrument by which it (the world) was made.”—(The word λόγον might better
be translated reason, here in Philo, as I have abundantly shewn in the dissertation
on the beginning of St. John. Le Clerc.) The place is in the book, entitled, Who shall inherit divine
things. The same word is called by Philo, the image of God, in his book of monarchy: and in that of dreams sent by God; sometimes
ἀπεικόνισμα, the resemblance,
as in the book entitled, The wicked lay snares for the righteous. Sometimes χαρακτὴρ,
the form, as in book ii. of agriculture. Compare He calls him Ἄγγελον,
angel, in his Allegories, and
in his book of Cherubim; Ἀρχάγγελον, archangel, in his book entitled,
Who shall inherit divine good things, and in his book of The confusion of tongues.
And the same is called angel and יהוה Jehovah by r. Samuel in Mecor
Chaim. The learned Masius has translated his words thus, on the vth
chapter of Joshua: “That angel, to speak the truth, is the angel, the Redeemer,
of whom it is written, because my name is in him. That angel, I say, who said to
Jacob, I am the God of Bethel. He of whom it is said, And God called Moses out of
the bush. And he is called an angel, because he governs the world. For it is written,
Jehovah (that is, the Lord God) brought us out of Egypt: and in other places, He
sent his angel, and brought us out of Egypt. Besides it is written, And the angel
of his presence hath made them safe; namely, that angel which is the presence of
God, concerning whom it is said, My presence shall go before, and I will cause
thee to rest. Lastly, this is that angel of whom the prophet said, and suddenly the Lord whom ye seek shall come into his temple, even
the angel of the covenant, whom ye desire.” And again, other words of the same person
to this purpose “Consider diligently what those things mean; for Moses and the Israelites
always wished for the first angel; but they could not rightly understand who he
was. For they had it not from others, nor could they arrive fully at it by prophetic
knowledge. But the presence of God signifies God himself, as is confessed by all
interpreters; neither could any one understand those things by dreams, unless he
were skilled in the mysteries of the law.” And again; “My presence shall go before,
that is, the angel of the covenant whom ye desire, in whom my presence will be seen.
Of whom it is said, I will hear thee in an acceptable time; for my
name is in him, and I will make thee to rest; or I will cause him to be kind and
merciful to thee. Nor shall he guide thee by a rigid law, but kindly and gently.”
Compare with this, what we find in Manasses Conciliator, in the xix. quest. on Genesis.—(The name of this rabbi’s
father may better be pronounced Nachman, for it is written נחמן.
Nahhman.
Le Clerc.) See the appendix to Schindler’s Hebrew Lexicon, in the characters
אכו. And the book called Schep-tal says ספרות Siperoth.
Number in God does
not destroy his unity. And they distinguish it from the Holy Ghost. See the Jerusalem Gemara, entitled concerning instructions, chap. 3. And the Babylonish Gemara, entitled
Joma, chap. 1. R. Jonathan, in his preface to Ecka Rabthi, says, that the Schechinah
remained three years and a half upon mount Olivet, expecting the conversion of the
Jews; which is very true, if we apprehend him right. Rabbi Solomon, on As Namely, יהוה Jehovah; Jonathan and David
Kimchi, on אלהים Elohim,
To the other objection they make against us, namely, that
we give the worship due to God to a being made by God; the answer is ready: for
we say, that we pay no other worship or honour to the Messiah but what we are commanded
in The very learned rabbi Saadia, explains these places, and The same second psalm is expounded of the Messiah, by Abraham Esdras,
and r. Jonathan in Beresith Rabba. And received the tithe of him by a sacerdotal right. As See them handled before in the second book; and what is said in the beginning
of this book. The name which the Hebrews give him is בוטטרי
Metator. So the Latins call him who prepares the way for the king. Thus Lucan:— As harbinger to the Hesperian fields, I boldly come. Vegetius, book ii. says,
“They were called metatores, harbingers in the camps, who went before and
chose a place fit for the camp.” And thus Suidas; “Μετάτωρ, a harbinger, is a messenger,
who is sent before from the prince.”—(The rabbies rather call it Metatron בומטרון,
pious, concerning which see John Buxtorf’s Chaldee and Rabbinical Lexicon.
Le Clerc.) As himself confesses, As the apostle confesses,
IT is not the design of this treatise, to examine more nicely
into these things: nor had we treated of them at all, but to make it appear, that
there is nothing in the Christian religion either impious or absurd, which
any man can pretend against embracing a religion recommended by so great
miracles, whose precepts are so virtuous, and whose promises are so excellent. For
he who has once embraced it, ought to consult those books, which we have before shewn
to contain the doctrines of the Christian religion, for particular questions. Which
that it may be done, let us beseech God, that he would enlighten the minds of the
Jews, with his own light, and render those prayers effectual, which Christ put up
for them when he hung upon the cross.
INSTEAD of a preface to this sixth book, which is designed against
the Mahometans, it relates the judgments of Cod against the Christians, down to
the original of Mahometanism; namely, how that sincere and unfeigned piety, which
flourished amongst the Christians, who were most grievously afflicted and tormented,
began by degrees to abate: See Ammianus Marcellinus, at the end of the twenty-first book
concerning Constantino: “And above all, he was very ready to take away what he
had given; counfounding the Christian religion, which is perfect and sincere,
with old wives’ fables; by more intricately searching into which, rather than
seriously settling them, he caused a great many differences: which spreading
further, be kept up by quarrelling about words; that the body of prelates, who
were the public pack-horses, running here and there in synods, as they call
them, might cut the nerves of their carriage, by endeavouring to make every rite
conformable to their own opinion.” See what is excellently said about this, in Chrysostom’s second moral
discourse on the xiith chapter of 2 Cor. after It is a commendable saying of Marcian in Zonaras, “That a
king ought not to take up arms, so long as he can maintain peace.” Ammianus, book xxvii. “The cruel seditions of the quarrel. some
people, which gave rise to this business, frighted this man also (Viventius, chief
commissioner of the palace). Damasus and Ursicinus, being above all reasonable measure
desirous of seizing the episcopal chair, contended with each other most vehemently
by different interests; their accomplices on each side carrying on their differences
as far as death and wounds; which Viventius not being able to correct or soften,
being compelled by a great force, retired into the suburbs; and Damasus overcame
in the contest, the party which favoured him pressing hard. And it is evident, that
in the palace of Sicininus, where the assemblies of the Chris. liens used to be,
there were found the dead bodies of one hundred and thirty-seven, slain in one day; and it was a long time before the enraged common people could be appeased.
Nor do I deny, when I consider the city’s pomp, but that they, who are desirous
of such things, may lawfully contend, by stretching their lungs to the utmost, in
order to obtain what they aim at. Because when they are arrived at it, they will
be so secure, that they may enrich themselves with the gifts of matrons, may sit
and ride in their chariots, be neatly dressed, have large feasts provided, insomuch
that their banquets will exceed the royal tables; but such persons might have been
more truly happy, if they had despised the grandeur of the city, which flattered
their vices; and had lived after the manner of some of the provincial bishops, whose
sparingness, in eating and drinking moderately, and meanness in clothes and eyes
fixed on the ground continually, recommend them as pure and modest to the Deity,
and to those that worship him.” And a little after; “The chief justice, whilst he
takes care of the govern. went in a higher degree, amongst other things,
by manifold acts of integrity and goodness, for which he has been famous from
the beginning of his youth, has obtained that which seldom happens; that at the same time that
he is feared, he does not lose
the love of his subjects; which is seldom very strong towards those judges they
are afraid of. By whose authority and just determinations of truth, the tumult,
raised by the quarrels of the Christians, was appeased; and Ursicinus being driven
away, the Roman subjects grew into a firm peace jointly, and with one mind; which
is the glory of an eminent ruler, regulating many and advantageous things.” This
was that chief justice of whom Jerome tells a story, not unworthy to be mentioned
here, to Pammachius, against the errors of John of Jerusalem. “The chief justice,
that died when he was designed for consul, used to say jestingly to the holy pope
Damasus, Make me bishop of the city of Rome, and I will be a Christian immediately.”
See also what the same Ammianus says, book xv. The African council did not without
reason admonish the bishop of the city of Rome thus: “That we may not seem to
bring the vain arrogance of the age into the church of Christ, which affords the
light of simplicity, and the day of humility, to them who desire to see God.” To
which we may add the noble epistles of the Roman bishop Gregory, truly styled the
great, book iv. 32, 34, 36. book vi. 30. book vii. Indict. 1. Epist. 30. See what was before quoted out of the twenty-first book of Ammianus.
The same historian, book xxii. in the history of Julian, says, “And that his disposition
of things might produce a more certain effect, having admitted the disagreeing prelates
of the Christians, together with the divided multitude, into the palace; he admonished
them that every one, laying aside their civil discords, should apply himself without
fear to his religion; which he urged the more earnestly, because liberty is apt
to increase dissensions; that he might have the less reason to fear the common people,
when they were all of one mind, knowing that no beasts are so mischeivous to mankind,
as very many of the Christians were, who were so outrageous against one another.”
See also Procopius, in the first of his gothics, to be read with some abatement
here, as in other places. “Ambassadors came from Byzantium, to the bishop
of Rome, viz. Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, and Demetrius, bishop of Philippi, in
Macedonia, concerning an opinion, which was controverted amongst the Christians. Though
I know what opposition they made, yet I ant very unwilling to relate it; for I think
it the maddest folly so search nicely into the nature of God, and wherein it consists.
For, as I conceive, man cannot fully comprehend human things, much less those
that appertain to the divine nature, I may therefore securely pass by these things
in silence, and not disturb what they reverence. As for myself I can say nothing
more of God, but that he is every way good, and upholds all things by his power;
he that knows more, whether he be a priest, or one of the common people, let him
speak it.” Gregoras, book viii. cites the saying of Lysis the Pythagorean, and afterwards
of Synesius; “That talking philosophy among the vulgar, was the cause of men’s
so much contemning divine things.” So also book the xth, he much dissuades men from
such disputes; and speaking of the Latins of his time, he says, “I blame and condemn
the Italians highly, because they run into divine matters with great arrogance.”
Afterwards he adds; “Amongst them the mechanics utter the mysteries of divinity,
and they are all as eager of reasoning syllogistically, as the cattle are of
food and grass. Both they who doubt of what they ought to believe rightly, and
they who know not what they ought to believe, nor what they say they believe;
these fill all the theatres, forums, and walks, with their divinity, and are not
ashamed to make the sun a witness of their impudence.” See Salvian book iii. concerning the government of
God. “Excepting a very few who avoid wickedness, what else is the whole body of
Christians, but a sink of vice?” Huns, Avari, Sabiri, Alani, Euthalites, and Turks. Goths, Ernii, Gepidæ, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Swedes, Almains, Saxons,
Varni, and Lombards. Dr. Prideaux’s life of Mahomet, wrote in English, is very well worth reading,
published at London, anno 1697. Le Clerc. See Leunclavius’s history of Turkey, and Laonicus Chalcocondylas.
THIS religion, which was plainly calculated for bloodshed, delights much in ceremonies,
and would be believed, without
See the Alcoran, Azoara xiii. according to the first Latin edition, which,
for the reader’s sake, we here follow. See the answer to the Orthodox, question the fourth, among the
works of Justin: “That it is impossible for him not to find the truth, who seeks
it with all his heart and power; this our Lord testifies, when he says, He that
asks receives, he that seeks shall find, and to him that knocks, it shall be opened.”
And Origen in his eighth book against Celsus “He ought to consider that he who
sees and hears all things, the common Parent and Maker of the universe, judges
according to men’s deserts, of the disposition of every one that seeks Min, and
is willing to worship him; and he will render to every one of these the fruit of
his piety.”
MAHOMET and his followers confess, that both Moses Azoara v. xxi. Azoara v. xii. Azoara v. lxxi. As the temple of Mecha, built by Abraham, Azoara xi. and many
other things of Abraham, Azoara xxxi. A confused history of Gideon and Saul, Azoara
iii. Many things in the history of Exodus, Azoara xvii. xxx. and xxxviii. Many things
in the history of Joseph, Azoara xxii. Concerning the birds cut in pieces by Abraham,
and called to life again, Azoara iv. Concerning Mary’s being brought up with Zachariah,
Azoara v. Concerning the birds made of clay by Jesus, ibid. and xiii. Azoara xi. Azoara ix.
LET ns now compare the adjuncts and circumstances of each doctrine
together, that we may see which is to be preferred to the other: and first let
us examine their authors, Mahomet himself confessed that Jesus was the Messiah promised
in the law and the prophets; Azoara xxix. Azoara v. and xi. and in the book of Mahomet’s doctrine:
Euthymius Zigabenus, in his disputations against the Saracens, says, that Jesus
is called by Mahomet, “the Word and Spirit of God.” Azoara iv. xi. xxix. and in the fore-mentioned book. In the fore-cited places. Azoara xxxi. See the book of Mahomet’s generation. See Mahomet’s Chronicon, translated out of Arabic. See a dispute
betwixt a Saracen and a Christian, published by Peter, abbot of Clugny. Azoara xlii.
xliii. lxxv. and lxxvi. See the fore-mentioned
disputation. Azoara xi.
LET us now proceed to the works of each of them. Jesus gave sight
to the blind, made the lame to walk, and recovered the sick; Azoara v. xiii. Azoara iii. xiv. xvii. xxx. lxxi. Concerning this matter, see the
life of Mahomet, published in English, by the learned dr. Prideaux, p. 30. where
be chews at large, that the false prophet dared not boast of any miracles. Le
Clerc. Azoara xliv. See this fable more at large, in the chapter Ceramur, in Cantacuzenus’s
oration against Mahomet, sect. 23.
THEY who embraced the law of Christ were men who feared God, and
led innocent lives; and it is not reasonable that God should suffer such
persons to be deceived with cunning words, or with a shew of miracles. But they
who first embraced Mahometanism were robbers, and men void of humanity and piety. This the word Saracen shews, which signifies robber.
See Scaliger’s emendation of the times, book iii. chap. of the Arabian period.—(The
first followers of Mahomet were, indeed, truly robbers; but the Arabian word, to
which Scaliger refers, signifies to steal privately, not to rob; nor is it credible that they would take upon themselves such an infamous name; not to mention that this was more ancient than Mahomet, for we find it in Ptolemy
and Philostorgius; wherefore, I rather follow the opinion of those who deduce the
name Saracen from the word שרק Schark, which signifies Eastern,
whence comes שרקיין, Sharkiin, Saracens, or people dwelling in the east, as
the Arabians are called in Scripture. About which see Edward
Pocock on the specimen of the history of the Arabians, in the beginning. Le Clerc).
NEXT let us see the method by which each religion was propagated.
As for the Christian religion, we have already said several times that its increase
was owing to the miracles not only of Christ, but of his disciples and their
successors; and also to their patiently enduring of hardships and torments. But
the teachers of Mahometanism did not work any miracles, did not endure any grievous
troubles, nor any severe kinds of death, for that profession. But that religion
follows where arms lead the way; Azoara x. xviii. xxxii. Azoara xxxii. lvii. And greater since the time of Grotius. For they were driven,
after many slaughters, from the Austrian dominions, from Hungary, Transylvania,
and Peloponnesus, not many years since. And since that time, the Turkish empire
seems to decrease. In the year 1715, after these short notes were first published,
the Turks recovered the Morea, which was poorly defended by the Venetian governors; but in the following year, 1716, when they attempted to invade Hungary and the
island of Corsica, they were first overthrown in a great fight by the Germans, under
the command of prince Eugene of Savoy, and lost Temeswaer, which was forced to yield
after a stout siege; then being repulsed by the valour of count Schulembourg, not
without loss, they retired to their fleet. While I was writing this, April 1717,
they threatened they would attempt the same again with new forces, but the Germans
did not seem to be much affected with it. Le Clerc. Azoara xix. Lactantius, book x. chap. 20. “For there is nothing so
voluntary as religion: in which, if the mind of the sacrificer goes contrary, it
is taken away; there remains none.” Azoara ii. and
xii. The book of the doctrine of Mahomet—see Euthymius.
LET us also compare their precepts together. The one commands
patience, nay kindness, towards those who wish ill to us: the other, revenge. The
one commands that the bonds of matrimony should be perpetual, that they should bear
with each other’s behaviour; the other gives a liberty of separating. See Euthymius, and others who have wrote of the Turkish affairs. Azoara viii. ix. xxxiii. See also Bartholomew
Gorgivitius of the rites of the Turks. As washings, Azoara ix. See also Euthymius. Azoara iii. xxvi. See Euthymius, and others who have wrote of the affairs of the Saracens.
THE Mahometans say, they are offended, because we ascribe a Son
to God, who makes nu use of a wife; as if the word son, as it refers to God, could
not have a more divine signification. But Mahomet himself ascribes many things to
God, no less unworthy of him, than if it were said he had a wife; for instance,
that he has a cold hand, and that himself experienced it by a touch; See the place in Richardus against the Mahometans, chap. 1.
and 14. and in Cantacuzenus, in the second oration against Mahomet, sect. xviii.
and in the fourth oration, not far from the beginning. In the same place. See above. See Plato in his banquet, and Abarbanel in his dialogue, which
is commonly called that of Leo Hebræus. See Euthymius concerning this matter,
in the fore-mentioned dispute, where he says, “In like manner as our word proceeds
from the mind,” &c. And Cardinal Cusan, i. chap. 13. &c. against the Maometaus;
and Richardus, chap. 9. and 15.
BUT, on the other hand, it would be tedious to relate bow many
things there are in the Mahometan writings that do not agree to the truth of history; As that of Alexander the great, who came to a fountain where
the sun stood still, Azoara xxviii. Concerning Solomon, Azoara xxxvii. This fable is in the book of the doctrine of Mahomet, taken
out of the book of Enarrations. See also Cantacuzenus, in his second oration against
Mahomet, chap. 15. This is in the fore-mentioned book of the doctrine of Mahomet. In the same
book. In the end of the fore-mentioned book of the doctrine of Mahomet. In the fore-cited book of the doctrine of Mahomet. See what was above alleged
on the second book.
HAVING finished this last dispute, I come now to the conclusion,
which regards not strangers but Christians of all sorts and conditions: briefly
shewing the use of those things which have been hitherto said; that those which
are right may be done, and those which are wrong may be avoided. First, that they
lift up undefiled hands Tertullian speaks thus concerning the heretics in his prescription:
“They were wont to say, that the apostles did not know all things; being
actuated by the same madness, by which they again change, and say that the apostles
did, indeed, know all things, but did not deliver all things to all men; in both
of which they make Christ subject to reproach; who sent apostles either nut well
instructed or not very honest.” See what there follows, which is very useful. In the same, In the fore-cited place of the Colossians. In the same place, and In the same chap. See, beside the afore-cited place to the Ephes. See, beside the fore-mentioned place, In the fore-cited place to the Romans, and Because this very excellent and learned man was kept in Lipstadt
prison, to which he was condemned for life; at which time, and in which place, he
could never have taken so great pains in accomplishing so many pieces remarkable
for great learning, accurate judgment, and singular brightness, without incredible
firmness and constancy of mind, and unshaken faith in Cod; for which endowments
bestowed upon him by God, for the benefit of all Christendom, let every one who
reads his other works, or this, with a mind intent upon truth, give thanks to God,
as I do from the bottom of my heart. Le Clerc.
WHOEVER reads over the books of the New Testament, with a
desire to come at the knowledge of the truth, and does not want judgment, will not
be able to deny, bat that every one of the marks of truth, alleged by Hugo Grotius,
in his second and third books, are to be found there. Wherefore, if he has any
concern for a blessed immortality, he will apprehend it to be his duty to embrace
what is proposed to him in those books as matter of belief; to do what he is commanded,
and to expect what he is there taught to hope for. Otherwise, if any one should
deny that he doubts of the truth of the Christian religion, and at the same time
thinks the doctrines, precepts, and promises of it not fit to be believed or obeyed
in every particular; such an one would be inconsistent with himself, and manifestly
shew that he is not a sincere Christian. Now this is one of the precepts of Christ
and his apostles, Thus Christ saith, Therefore, he says,
And it is further necessary for him to enquire, if there be any
of the same opinion with himself, and to maintain a particular peace and friendship
with them; Thus likewise all the philosophers transmitted their doctrine
to posterity, by the help of schools in which it was taught; but the Christian
churches, which are united by a much firmer and stronger bond, will, with more certainty
and ease, propagate the doctrine they received from their Master, to the end of
the world, which ma hardly be done without congregations. Pythagoras would Lave
effected this, but in vain, because his doctrine had nothing divine in it. See Laërtius
and Jamblichus.
Wherefore, whoever derives his knowledge of the Christian religion front
the New Testament, and thinks it true, such an one ought to make profession
of it, and to join himself
See the epistles to Timothy and Titus, where they are commanded to found churches.
And See
AMONGST Christians that differ from each other, and not only differ,
but (to their shame!) condemn one another, and with cruel hatred banish them their
society; to agree to any of them without examination, or, according to their order,
to condemn others without consideration, shews a man not only to be imprudent, but
very rash and unjust. That congregation which rejects, though but in part, the true
religion, (a representation of which he has formed in his mind), and condemns
him that believes it, cannot be
Here that precept of Christ’s takes place, Whilst it is allowed to have a different opinion, and to profess
our disagreement, there is no reason to depart from a public society, unless the
fundamentals of Christianity be perverted by it; but where this is not allowed,
and we cannot, without dissembling or denying the truth, live in it, then we ought
to forsake that society; for it is not lawful to tell a lie, or to dissemble the
truth, whilst a lie possesses the place of it, and claims to itself the honour due
to truth only. If this be not done, “the candle is put under a bushel.” Thus Christ
did not depart from the assemblies of the Jews, neither did the apostles forsake
them, so long as they were allowed to profess and teach the doctrine of their Master
in them. See
Wherefore, amongst Christians who differ from each other, we are to examine which of them all think the most right; nor are we ever to condemn any but such as seem to us worthy to be condemned after a full examination of the matter; and we are to adhere to those who do not require any doctrines to be believed, which are esteemed by us to he false, nor any to be condemned which we think to be true. If we cannot obtain this of any Christian society, we, together with those who are of the same opinion with ourselves, ought to separate from them all, that we betray not the truth, and utter a falsity.
BUT it is a question of no small importance, and not easily to
be resolved, who of all the societies of the present Christians have the truest
opinions, and are most worthy of that name by which they are called. All the Christian
See
note the 9th, on Section ii.
Now since Grotius has not proved the truth of the particular opinions of any present sect of Christians, but only of that religion which was taught mankind by Christ and his apostles; it follows, that that sect of Christians is to be preferred before all others, which does most of all defend those things which Christ and his apostles taught. In a word, that is in every particular truly the Christian religion, which, without any mixture of human invention, may be wholly ascribed to Christ as the author. To this agree all those arguments of truth, which are laid down in the second book Of the Truth of the Christian Religion; nor do they agree to any other any further than it agrees with that.
If any one adds to, or diminishes from, the doctrine delivered
by Christ, the more he adds or diminishes, so much the farther he goes from the
truth. Now when I speak of the doctrine of Christ, I mean by it, the doctrine which
all Christians are clearly agreed upon to be the doctrine of Christ, that is, which,
according to the judgment of all Christians, is either expressly to be found
in the books of the New Testament. or is by necessary consequence to be deduced
from them only. As to those opinions, which, as some Christians think, were delivered
by word of mouth, by Christ and his apostles, and derived to posterity in a different
method, namely, either by tradition, which was done by speaking only; or which
were preserved by some rite, as they imagine, and not set down in writing till a
great while after; I shall pass no other judgment upon them here, but only this,
that all Christians are not agreed upon them, as they are upon the books of the
New Testament. I will not say they are false, unless they This is the very thing St. Paul means,
THOUGH the controversies amongst Christians be very sharp, and managed with great heat and animosity, so that we may hear complaints made on all sides, of very obvious things being denied by some of the contending parties) yet notwithstanding this, there are some things so evident, that they are all agreed in them. And it is no mean argument of the truth of such, that they are allowed of by the common consent of those who are most set upon contention, and most blinded by passion. I do not mean by this, that all other things about which there is any contention are doubtful or obscure, because all Christians are not agreed in them. It may easily happen that that may be obscure to some, which would be very plain, if they were not hindered by passion; but it is hardly possible that the fiercest adversaries, who are most eager in disputing, should agree about an obscure point.
First, then, all Christians now alive are agreed concerning the
number and truth of the books of the New Testament; and though there be some small
controversies amongst learned men about some epistles of the apostles,
The epistle to the Hebrews, the second epistle of Peter, the
two last epistles of John, the authors of which are disputed by learned men.
Further, Christians are agreed in many articles of faith, which
they embrace, as things to be believed, practised, and hoped for. For instance;
all who have any understanding, believe, (I shall mention only the principal heads
here), I. That there is one God, eternal, all powerful, infinitely good
and holy; in a word, endued with all the most excellent attributes, without the
least mixture of imperfection: that the world and all things contained in it. and
consequently mankind were created by this same God; and that by him all things are
governed and directed with the highest wisdom. II. That Jesus Christ is the only
Son of the same God; that he was born at Bethlehem, of the virgin Mary. without
the knowledge of a man, in the latter part of the life of Herod the great, in the
reign of Augustus Cæsar; that he was afterwards crucified and died in the reign
of Tiberius, when Pontius Palate was governor of Judæa: that his life is truly
related in the history of the Gospel; that he was therefore sent from the Father,
that he might teach men the way to salvation, redeem them from their sins, and reconcile
them to God by his death; and that this his mission was confirmed by innumerable
miracles; that he died, as I before said, and rose again, and, after he had been
very often seen by many, who had discoursed with him, and handled him, he was taken
up into heaven, where he now reigns, and from whence he will one day return, to pass a final judgment, according to the laws of the Gospel, upon those who were then
alive, and upon all them that are
These things, and others that are necessarily connected with them,
(for it is not to our present purpose to mention
In the foregoing explication of the Christian doctrine, we have
followed the method of that which they call the apostles creed, and have avoided
all expressions, which have caused any controversies amongst Christians; because
we are treating of those things in which they are agreed: and we do not for this
ma-eon condemn as false any thing that may be added by way of explication or confirmation;
on the contrary, we highly approve of their endeavours, who explain and confirm
divine truths; and we doubt not but that many things have been already found, and
may yet be found, to illustrate it. Tertullian judges rightly of this matter, in
the first chapter of his book concerning veiling virgins: “The rule of faith is
altogether one and the same, entirely firm and unalterable; namely, that we believe in one all-powerful
God,
the creator of the world, and in his Son Jesus Christ, who was born of the virgin
Mary, was sacrificed under Pontius Pilate, was raised from the dead the third day,
was taken up into heaven, sits now at the right hand of the Father, and will come
to judge the quick and dead by the resurrection of the flesh. Keeping to this rule
of faith, other matters of discipline (or doctrine) and behaviour admit of correction,
viz. the grace of Cod operating and assisting to the end,” &c.
If any one weighs the arguments by which the truth of the Christian religion is proved, with these doctrines in his view, he will observe, (and if it be well observed, it will be of great use), that all the force of the argument is employed about these things, and not about those points which divide the Christian world, as was before hinted.
IN this agreement and disagreement amongst Christians, prudent men will judge it most safe to take their knowledge of the Christian religion from the fountain, which is not in the least suspected, and whose streams all confess to be pure and undefiled. And this fountain is not the creed or the confession of faith of any particular church, but only the books of the New Testament, which all acknowledge to be genuine. I confess seine Christians do sometimes say, that those books cannot be understood but by the doctrine of their church; but others again deny it; and (to mention but this one thing) that opinion is very suspicious which depends only on the testimony of those that affirm it; and they such, whose chief interest it is that it should seem true. Others say, that there is need of the extraordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit, not only in order to the belief of the Scripture, (which may without any great difficulty be allowed), but also in order to understand the meaning of the words contained in it; which I do not see how it can be proved; but we will grant this also, provided they will acknowledge that all men, who read the books of the New Testament with a religious mind, intent upon the truth, are afforded this Spirit by the goodness of God; there is no need of contending for any thing more than this. Every one, therefore, may wisely and safely gather his knowledge of the Christian religion from these books; yet making use of those helps that are necessary or profitable for the understanding of such books; which we will not now enquire after.
Whoever, therefore, believes that the revelation of the will of
God made by Christ is faithfully related in the books of the New Testament, such
an one must of necessity embrace ail things which he there meets with, according
as he understands them, as matters of faith, practice, and hope; for Whoever believes
in Christ, ought to receive with a religious mind, every thing which he thinks comes
from him; he cannot defend himself with any excuse, whereby to admit some
As to the rest, about which they contest, since they are not so very plain, a religious and pious man may and ought to deliberate concerning them, and withhold his judgment till they appear more evident to him: for it is very imprudent to admit or reject any thing, before it sufficiently appears to be either true or false. Nor is eternal salvation, in the books of the New Testament. promised to any one who embraces this or that controverted opinion; but to hire who heartily receives in his mind, and expresses in his actions, the sum of the Christian religion, as we have described it.
This, therefore, is the only thing that can justly be imposed
upon all Christians. To this belongs what Christ saith,
If any one, therefore, attempts to take away from Christians the
books of the New Testament, or to add to them such things as do not appear to be
true, we are by no means to hearken to such an one; To this relates that saying of Paul,
But they who differ from this, object, that if every one be left
to their own liberty, in judging of the meaning of the books of the New Testament,
there will be as many religions as there are men and truth, which is but one, will
immediately be oppressed by a multitude of errors. But I think, that before an opinion,
which is established upon Solid arguments, be opposed by objections, the foundation
In this particular, as in numberless others which relate to the government of human affairs, the Divine Providence is very wonderful; which notwithstanding so many differences, as were of old, and are at this day amongst Christians, yet hath preserved the books of the New Testament entire, even to our times; that the Christian doctrine may be recovered out of them as often as it happens to be corrupted. Nor has it only delivered down to us this treasure entire, hot also in the midst of the hottest differences, has so secured the Christian doctrine itself, that the sum of religion has never been forgot amongst Christians.
No inconsiderable number of Christians at this day contend, that
many errors, in former ages, crept by degrees in amongst the sects of Christians;
which when others denied, in the sixteenth century after the birth of Christ, that
famous separation in the west was made upon that account, by which Christianity
was divided into two parts, not very unequal. Yet in those ages, whose errors are
reproved by that part of the Christians which made the separation
None have a worse report than the tenth and eleventh centuries,
as is granted by those who stick to the see of Rome, as much as by those who have
made a separation front it. Yet if any one, for his own satisfaction, will read
amongst the books of the fathers, the writings of those centuries, he may easily
collect all the doctrines mentioned in the fourth section. At the beginning of the
twelfth century, lived Bernard, abbot of the monastery of Claravallis, whose learning,
piety, and constancy, are commended by very many, and whose writings were often
read in the following ages, and never condemned. Now from thence an entire body
of the Christian doctrine may easily be collected: and it is no less certain of
the following centuries down to the sixteenth. Nor is there any doubt of those that
follow. So we explain πύλας ἄδου, because neither that word,
nor the Hebrew, שאל Scheol, which answers to it, ever signifies in the sacred
writings, an evil spirit, but only the grave, or the state of the dead, as Grotius
and others have observed. Therefore, this one thing may be gathered from this place,
that it will never happen that the Christian church should entirely perish, or that there
should be no society left, amongst whom the sum of the doctrine of the Gospel should
not remain.
PERHAPS some may here object against what has been said, that the Divine Providence would have better consulted the preservation of the Christian doctrine, if it had prevented the errors that are and have been amongst Christians, and maintained truth and constant agreement, which is the companion of it, amongst them, by its omnipotence. But it is not for us to instruct God how be ought to direct himself in the government of human affairs, that they might be better. On the contrary, it is our duty to think that God had very wise reasons for suffering what he did suffer, though we cannot so much as guess at what they are. But if any probable reasons can be given for the things that are done, we ought to believe, that God permits those things which daily come to pass, to be done for these or more weighty reasons.
To make a conjecture from the reason of things; we are above all
things sure, that the design of God was to create men free, and to suffer them to
continue so to the end; This is taught with the highest consent by all Christian antiquity.
See Justin the Martyr’s Apology i. chap. 54. and 55. Irenæus, book iv. ch. 9.
and 29. towards the end, ch. 71. and 72. Origen’s Philocalia, chap. 21. Eusebius’s Gospel Preparation, book vi. chap. 6. and others,
whose sayings are quoted by Dionysius Petavius,
in his theological doctrines, tom. i. book vi. chap. 6. There are also many things
to this purpose, tom. iii. book iv. See this handled more at large in my ecclesiastical history, century anno lxxxiii.
8. Le Clerc.
If any one should object here, as some do, that it were better
there were no such kind of virtue, This objection is largely proposed, and set off with rhetorical
flourishes by Peter Bayle; whom we have confuted in some of the volumes of the
choice library, and especially in the xth, xith, and xiiith, in French.
TO pass by these things, therefore, and return to the choice of
our opinion amongst the different sects of Christians; nothing seems possible to
be done more safe and wise, in this state of affairs, than for us to join ourselves
with that sect of Christians which acknowledges the New Testament only for
the rule of their faith, without any mixture of human decrees; and who think it
sufficient that every one should learn their form of faith from thence, conform
their lives to its precepts, and expect the promises which are there made. Which
if it be done sincerely, and without any dissimulation, the end of such a search
will be that very form of sound words, which we have made appear to have remained
the same, amidst so many and so great storms of errors and dissensions, during the
passing of so many ages, and the changes of kingdoms and cities. In it are contained
all things that are necessary to faith and practice; to which if any one would
have any other things added it may lawfully be done, according to the circumstances
of time and place; provided they be not imposed as necessary, (which belongs only
to the supreme Lawgiver), See what Paul says upon this matter,
Christians disposed in the manner we have been speaking of, ought not to submit their neck to the yoke of human opinions, nor to profess they believe what they do not believe: nor to do that which they cannot approve in their own minds, because they think in contrary to the precepts of Christ. Therefore, wherever that Christian liberty, which I have now mentioned, is not allowed, they must of necessity depart thence; not as if they condemned all that are of a different opinion from themselves, but because every one is absolutely obliged to follow the light of his own mind, and not that of another’s; and to do that which he judges best to be done, and to avoid that which he thinks to be evil.
SINCE Christ has appointed two signs or symbols of Christianity, baptism and the Lord’s supper, it was not, indeed, in our power to receive baptism where we judged the Christian religion to be most pure, because we were baptized very young: but since we do not come to the other sacrament till we are of riper age, we may distinguish that society of Christians, in which we are willing to be partakers of it; which if we have not already done, we ought to do it now.
There are some who make the sacrament (which according to Christ’s
institution, is a token of that peace and love which is between Christians) a mark
of distinction; See And this was the opinion of Grotius, as appears from the little
book of his, Whether we ought always to join in receiving the sacrament;
where he speaks of the reasons of forbearing the communion. Tom. iv. of his theological
works, page 511. See the note on sect. i.
Perhaps some may here ask me by what name these Christian societies, which I have now described, may be distinguished? But it signifies nothing what denomination they go under: the reader may conceive all churches to be meant in which what I have said is to be found. Wheresoever that only rule of faith, and that liberty which I have described, is, there they may be assured true Christianity is, and they need not enquire for a name, which makes nothing to the purpose. I believe there are many such societies; and I pray the good and great God that there may be more and more every day; that at length his kingdom may come into all the earth, and that mankind may obey it only.
A SMALL difficulty may here be objected to us, which arises from
the form of church-government and discipline, commonly called ecclesiastical: for
no society, such as a church is; can subsist without order, and therefore there
must be some form of government appointed. Now it is debated amongst Christians,
what form of government was appointed by the apostles; for that seems preferable
to all others, which was appointed from the beginning; and therefore of two churches,
in which the Gospel is taught with equal purity and sincerity in all other respects,
that is to be preferred, in which the. form of government is apostolical;
There are now two forms of government, one of which is that wherein
the church acts under one bishop, who alone has the right of ordaining presbyters,
or the inferior order of the Gospel ministers; the other is that, where the church
is governed by an equality of presbyters, joined with some lay persons of prudence
and honesty. They who without prejudice have read over the most ancient Christian
writers that now remain, very well know that the former manner of discipline, which
is called episcopal, such as that in the south part of Great Britain, prevailed
every where in the age immediately after the apostles; whence we may collect
that it is of apostolical institution. See my ecclesiastical history, century i. to the year
iii, 6. and lxviii. 8.
and the following ones. Le Clerc.
They who read with attention the histories of that century, are
fully satisfied that this latter form of government was introduced for this reason
only, because the bishops would not allow to them, who contended that the doctrine
and manners of Christians stood in need of necessary amendment, that those things
should be reformed, which they complained were corrupted. Otherwise, if the bishops
every where at that time had been willing to do of their own accord, what was not
long after done in England; that government had prevailed even to this day amongst
all those who separated from the Romish church; and the numberless calamities which
happened, when all things were disturbed and confounded, had then been prevented.
For if we would judge of the matter truly, there was no other reason for changing
the government but this, that whilst the ancient government remained, nothing could
be procured, however just in itself. Therefore, the presbyterian form is appointed
in many places; which after it was once done, was so much for the interest of all
them who
Wherefore prudent men, though they above all things wish for the apostolical form of church-government, and that it might be every where alike; yet they think things had better be left in the state in which they now are, than venture the hazards which always attend the attempt of new things. In the mean time, they that are wise, will by no means hate, reproach, nor condemn one another upon that account, as the most violent men are apt to do; as if eternal salvation depended upon either form, which do not seem to be taught any where in the apostolical writings, nor can it be gathered from the nature of the Christian religion.
WHOEVER reads over the works of that great man, Hugo Grotius,
and examines into his doctrine and practice, will find that be had entertained in
his mind that form of sound words, the truth of which he has proved; See amongst other things,
“The institution of children that
are baptized,” which the author himself translated out of Dutch verse into Latin,
in his theological works, tom. iv. page 629. And in his latter works, he often
affirms, that whatever is necessary to salvation, is plainly enough contained in
the New Testament. See his Annotations on Cassander’s Consultation, towards the
end, where he speaks of the sufficiency and plainness of the Scripture. Which being
granted, it is manifest from thence, that the sum of the Christian religion,
as it was before produced by us, may be collected thence by any one. In his annotations on the consultation of Cassander, art. xiv.
“Bishops are the heads of the presbyters, and that pre-eminence was foreshewn
in Peter, and was appointed by the apostles wherever it could be done, and approved
by the Holy Ghost, in the Revelations. Wherefore, as it was to be wished that that
superiority were appointed every where,” &c. See also what follows concerning
the ecclesiastical power, and the discussion of Rivetus’s Apology, p. 714. col.
2. Other things are also alleged in the epistles added to this little treatise.
Therefore, it is not to be doubted but if it had been in his power, and he had not been so vehemently tossed to and fro by adversity, and exasperated and vexed by the baseness and reproachfulness of his enemies, at whose bands he did not deserve it, he would have joined himself with those who maintained the ancient form of discipline, and required nothing further than what has been already said, the truth of which he has proved excellently well; the arguments for which practice appear to us to be so weighty, that we have thought good to add them to this little treatise.
SEEING these things are so, we cannot but earnestly exhort all
Christians who differ in opinions, to remember that that only is the true sum and
substance of the Christian religion, the truth of which can be proved by the arguments
Grotius has alleged; and not those controverted points which each side deny, and
which have been the cause of so many evils: further no one that reads over the New
Testament with a religious mind, and meditates upon it, can be
The words of James, It This was the opinion of James I. king of Great Britain,
if we may give credit to Isaac Casaubon, who has these words in his answer to cardinal
Perron’s epistle, on the third observation, pag. 30. edit. Loud. 1612. “It is most
truly written, in the explication of those things which are absolutely necessary,
that it is the king’s opinion that the number of those things which are absolutely
necessary to salvation is not great. Wherefore, his majesty thinks, that there is
no shorter way to enter in an agreement, than by carefully separating those things
that are necessary from those that are not; and that their whole care be employed
in agreeing about the necessary things; and that in those things that are not necessary,
there be an allowance made for Christian liberty,” &c. It was very well said by Hilary, concerning the trinity. b.
x. ch. 70. “that God does not invite us to happiness through difficult
questions, confound us with various sorts of eloquence. Eternity is plain and
easy to us, to believe that God raised up Jesus from the dead, and to confess
him to be Lord.”
I THINK that person judged very rightly, whoever be was, that
said, there is an eternal alliance betwixt truth and the mind of man; John Smith, in his Select Discourses, published at London, 1660.
Hence St. Austin, in his cxlth Sermon concerning the words of the evangelist St.
John, tom. v. col. 682. “Every man searches after truth and life; but every man
does not find the way to them.” And Again, Sermon cl. col. 716. “The mind cannot
endure to be deceived. And how much the mind naturally hates to be deceived, we
may learn from this single thing, that every man of sense pities a changling. If
it were proposed to any one, whether he would choose to be deceived, or to
persist in the truth; there is nobody but would answer, that he had rather
persist in the truth.” See the Life of Pythagoras in Diogenes Laërtius,
book viii. 12.
But all truths are not of the same moment, and many theoretic notions, though they be true, may be laid aside, because little or no advantage can be had from them, and therefore it is not worth while to be at much pains about them; but, on the other hand, there are some truths of so great moment, that we justly think them worth purchasing at any rate. Of this sort are all those that relate to our well-being and happiness; the knowledge of which is most valued by every body, and most diligently pursued by them. To which if we add, that the consequence of a well-spent and happy life, (and we must always allow, that what is good, that is, agreeable to truth, is also an ingredient of happiness), during our short stay here, will be an eternal happiness hereafter, as all Christians of every sect whatsoever profess to believe; we cannot but own, that the knowledge of the way by which we may arrive at such happiness cannot be purchased at too dear a rate.
OUR business is not now with such persons as despise all religion; these have been sufficiently confuted by that great man Hugo Grotius, in the foregoing
books; which whosoever
Thus much being allowed, nobody can doubt but that religion is
a matter of the highest concern; and, therefore, as we see that Christians
do not consist of one entire body, we ought to endeavour to find out which sect
of them is most agreeable, in its doctrines and precepts, to those which are left
us by Jesus Christ; for we cannot have an equal regard for them all, because some
of them are so very different from others both in doctrine and worship, that they
accuse one another of the greatest errors, and of having corrupted the divine worship; nay, some of them speak of the rest as absolutely excluded eternal life. Now if
this could be made plainly appear, without doubt, we ought to withdraw ourselves
from all other sects, as soon as we can, and join with that alone which with truth
makes such objections against all others. For not only this present short life lies
at stake, which is subject to innumerable evils and misfortunes, let us live how
we will; but we render ourselves liable to the punishments which God has threatened
to those who do not believe the Gospel, and hazard that happiness which has no defect,
and will have no end. Yet there are some men, not indeed very learned, nor very
much addicted to reading the scriptures seriously, in order to judge of the divisions
amongst Christians, and to find out on which side the truth lies; for they have
no concern at all for that; but their notion of these divisions is, that they think
it all one, let their opinions be what they will, and that it is the same thing
whatever worship they follow: they imagine it to be quite indifferent what party
of Christians we really join ourselves with, or indeed only profess to join ourselves
with. I do not now speak of the common people only; there are kingdoms, in which
not only the common people, but the magistrates and nobility have separated from
the see of Rome, and yet in a very short time, upon having a new king, have returned
to
FOR any one to think that religion is one of those things that
are of an indifferent nature; so that we may change it as we do our clothes; or
at least, that we may profess or
First, to tell a lie is a very dishonest thing., especially in an affair of any great moment, when it is not so much as allowed in trifling matters, unless perhaps in such particulars where a lie is upon the whole more advantageous than the truth. But, in the affair of religion, it must be a very grievous fault for men to lie, or even to dissemble; because thereby they do all in their power to confirm a lie, in a thing of the greatest importance; to stifle truth, which is contrary to it, and to condemn it to perpetual obscurity. It is the worst example that can be sot, especially in persons advanced to any dignity, which the people of a lower rank are but too apt to imitate; whence it comes to pass, that they are not only offenders themselves, but they cause others to offend also by their example; which has the greatest influence over the common people, because they give a much greater attention to the actions of those they have a great respect for than to their words.
It is also a very dishonourable thing, and altogether unworthy
a man of courage, to tell a lie for the sake of this short life, and to choose to
displease God rather than men. For this reason the most eminent philosophers chose
rather to expose themselves to certain death, than to do a thing which they thought
was displeasing to the Deity; as we see in the instance of Socrates, who chose rather
to drink a dose of poison, than to leave off the study of philosophy, which be had
so much accustomed himself to, and live. See what I have collected about
him in my Silvæ Philologicæ, book i. chap. 3. See Galen, in that book where he says, “That the passions and
affections of the mind depend upon the constitution of the body;” in the last chapter,
towards the end, where speaking of the stoics, he states, “They were fully
persuaded, that they ought to forsake their country rather than their opinions.” Who was put to death by Nero, because he would not flatter him.
See Tacitus’s annals, book xvi. 24. and following sections. The son-in-law of Thraseas, who, as Tacitus there tells us,
was commanded to depart out of Italy at the same time. He was afterwards slain by
Vespasian, because he would not pay sufficient reverence to his new master, as Suetonius
informs us in the xvth chapter of the life of that emperor. His son was slain by
Domitian. See Suetonius’s life of him, and Tacitus in the life of Agricola, chapter
xlv.
All ages have seen and commended such as have, with an intrepid
mind, submitted to death for the sake of their earthly country. Now, after this,
who is it but must applaud all those who prefer a heavenly country to an earthly
one; and that eternal life which the Scriptures have revealed to us, to a temporal
one? Who can forbear despising those mean creatures that choose to preserve such
a life as they have in common with brute beasts, and which they must lose in a short
time, rather than to take the first opportunity of obtaining a life that can never
be lost? We see soldiers, with great bravery, face the most imminent dangers, in
order to obtain the favour of kings or princes to themselves, or their families
after them; and rejoice within themselves that they got such wounds as they must
in a very short time die of. Nay, even hired troops themselves will fight very valiantly,
and venture their lives for those who employ them, though it be but for very small
wages; and yet there are some who will not expose themselves to any hazard, I do
not say of their lives, but of the loss of their goods, or
Therefore, what Christ has commanded us in this respect is in
the following words: Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father which is in heaven; but whosoever shall deny me before men,
him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
This doctrine is so plain and evident, that there are no sects of Christians at this time that differ at all about it; they who own the pope’s authority, and they of all sorts who disown such authority, do every one of them, with one consent, affirm it to he a very wicked thing to dissemble our sentiments concerning religion; when opinions of the greatest moment are debated, and where the thing may be done without sedition and tumult. For, in those things in which faith towards God and uncorruptness of manners may be preserved, it may be right to conceal our notions, rather than raise perpetual contentions amongst Christians, when there are so few learned men who think alike in every thing. I say conceal, not dissemble; for to conceal your opinion is not to lie; but to affirm you believe that which you really do not believe, this is to lie. To which may be added, that if any opinion be established by the common law, which you think to be false, you ought modestly, and without contention or tumult, to declare your dissent from it; otherwise, instead of that mild and gentle government of Christian churches which does not exclude any dissent, provided it be done with charity, we shall run into absolute tyranny, which will allow of no dissent at all upon any account. There are innumerable obscure speculative questions, especially to those who never took any great pains in such sort of studies, in which Christian liberty ought to be allowed, as is confessed by all Christians; for there are a multitude of places in Scripture, and a vast number of theological opinions, in which learned men always have, and still do differ from each other with impunity, even amongst those who in other things require consent more strictly than they ought to do.
THEY who have separated from the church of Rome do no more agree
with each other in all points, than they who continue in it; but, according to
the judgment of some of the most learned men, they do not differ in any thing that
is consistent with that faith which is owing to God, and that obedience which ought
to be paid to him. But they object many things to the church of Rome, both in doctrine
and worship, which they think are plainly false and unlawful. Whether they judge
right in this or no, I shall not now inquire: however, thus much is evident, that,
according to the opinion even of that church, it is not lawful for them to
profess that they approve of what they do not approve of, nor do they admit any
persons to communion with them who profess to dissent from it in such things. However,
amongst those that dissent from the church of Rome, there are some famous and learned
men, Amongst others is mr. William Chillingworth, in his English
book, entitled, The Religion of Protestants, the safe way to Salvation, where
he mentions others who also think them as safe.
Surely no man can think that, from what has been said, it will follow that any person, who is brought up in a different opinion, and has employed himself in reading the Scriptures in the manner that the reformers do; if he should, contrary to his own conscience, say or do any thing which he thinks unlawful or false, for any present advantage; that any such person, I say, can hope for pardon from God; if he should die with a habit of saying and doing what be himself disapproves of, and would have said and done so, if he had lived longer. There is not at present, and I hope there never will be, any sect, which shall go under the name of Christians, who will allow that such a man can arrive at salvation.
Let hypocrites, therefore, look to themselves, whilst they behave
so, as shamefully to despise the light of reason and revelation, to resist the conviction
of them, and to look upon the judgment of all Christians whatsoever as nothing.
Yet these very men, as much despisers as they are of
truth and virtue, look upon themselves as better subjects
and more ingenious persons than others; though they be
neither, and though it be impossible they should be either, whilst they make no
distinction betwixt truth and falsehood, virtue and vice, and whilst they are ready to say or
any thing that may be of advantage to themselves. All
THE condition of human nature is such, that a great many men (who, in other respects, are not the worst of men, and yet, either by bad education, or for want of teachers or books, which might bring them off from their errors; or because they have not capacity enough to understand the controversies amongst Christians, and to form a judgment of them), lead their lives, as it were, in utter darkness. Such persons, as they sincerely believe and obey what they are taught concerning the Christian religion, so far as their capacity reaches, are more the objects of compassion than of anger, considering the natural state of mankind. Their religion, indeed, is very lame and defective, and abounds with mistakes, but yet they themselves are very sincere. Wherefore it is highly probable that He, who does not reap where he has not sown, will, out of his abundant equity, pardon those who are in such circumstances; or certainly will inflict a much lighter punishment upon them.
But if we consider that there are men to be found who have not wanted either education or teachers, either books, or capacity to understand who have the best and who the worst side of the question in controversies of religion; and yet have followed the wrong side, only for the sake of the wealth, or pleasure, or honours, that attend them in this present life; we cannot but have great indignation against such men, nor can any one presume to excuse them, much less to defend such a purpose of life, without the most consummate impudence. Whence it is easy to apprehend, that if we ourselves, whose virtue is very imperfect, could not pardon such persons, how much more severe will the infinite justice of God be against those who have knowingly and designedly preferred a lie to the truth, for the sake of the frail and uncertain good things of this present life.
God, out of his abundant mercy, is ready to pardon such
HAVING the following letters from that most excellent and learned person, Henry Newton, ambassador extraordinary from the most serene queen of Great Britain to his royal highness the most serene grand duke of Tuscany, to whose singular goodness I am very much indebted; I thought I should do a very acceptable thing to all that love the name of GROTIUS, and no small honour to the church of England, if I published them here. It appears plainly from them, that this very great man had the highest opinion of the church of England, and would Most willingly have lived in it, if he could. Make the best use of them you can therefore, courteous reader, and continue to have a good opinion of a man that deserved so well of the whole body of Christians.
BEING at length returned safe and well to Florence from Leghorn
and Pisa, where, through the intemperateness of the air, I was very near contracting
a fever; the first thing I had to do. most excellent Barcellinus, being furnished
with the most noble library of the illustrious Magliahechius, was to discharge my promise concerning that great man HUGO GROTIUS, and to shew from his writings,
particularly his
Here now Hugo Grotius’s own words, how he expresses his own sense, in his epistle to Johannes Corvinis, dated ix the year MDCXXXVIII, who was not an English, but a Dutch divine, of another church, and also a lawyer, and consequently skilled in matters both divine and human; concerning the reformation of religion made amongst us in the last age:—“You see how great a progress they have made in England, in purging out pernicious doctrines; chiefly for this reason, because they who undertook that holy work admitted of nothing new, nothing of their own, but had their eyes wholly fixed upon another world.” Then was it in a flourishing condition, before a civil war broke out, before the king was vanquished, taken captive, condemned, and beheaded; and it afterwards sprung up and flourished again, contrary to all human hopes, when his son returned to the throne of his ancestors, to the surprise of all Europe, and, after various turns, threats, and fears, continues still to flourish secure and unhurt.
Nor had he only a good opinion of the church of England
himself, but also advised his friends in Holland, who were of his party, and,
which was no small thing, who joined with him in partaking of the same danger and losses, to
take holy orders from our bishops; whom it is certain he did not believe, nor
would have others believe, to be schismatical, or heretical, upon that account.
He addressed his brother in these words: “I would persuade them (that is, the remonstrants) to appoint some amongst them in a more eminent station, such as bishops;
and that they receive the laying on of hands from the Irish archbishop who is there,
and that when they are so ordained, they afterwards ordain other pastors;” and
this in the beginning of the year MDCXLV, which was fatal to him, and unfortunate to learning
itself. The bishop he here speaks of is, if I be not mistaken, John Bramhall, who
was at that time bishop of Londonderry in Ireland, and, at the restoration of king
Charles II. archbishop of Armagh, and next to the most learned Usher, primate of
Ireland, and who afterwards in
It seems very probable that this man, who calls the reformation of the church of England a most holy work; who believed that the holy orders given and received from the bishops of that church, and the rites appointed about holy things, and the prescribed form of worshipping the Supreme Deity, exceeded all other churches in the Christian world; world have joined himself to that church, as well in outward worship, as in the judgment of his mind; and so have become now really, what he before was in wish, a member of the Catholic church. But he was never able to effect the thing, because death immediately after overtook him; for in the same year he went from France to Stockholm to resign his ambassadorship, and returning from thence home, and having suffered shipwreck, he departed this life at Rostock, on the 28th of August; a man never enough to be lamented, because study and learning decayed with him; and never enough to be praised, upon the account of what he began and finished in all parts of learning. He was a great lover of peace, if truth was not injured, (always having regard to times and differences), and of the ancient church-government, (freed from abuses), as it was settled from the beginning in England, and as it was from the very apostles’ time, if we may believe ecclesiastical annals. He always studied and consulted the peace of empires and churches, both in his discourses, and by his example, and in his writings. May he be rewarded with God and our common Lord! and may the memory of him be ever grateful to posterity Farewell.
Florence, XII. of the Kalends of May,.
MDCCVI.
MOST LEARNED SIR,
I SEND you a new and ample testimony concerning HUGO GROTIUS, more weighty than the former, if we consider the author’s dignity in the commonwealth, or his knowledge of things, or that it was writ while Grotius was alive. It is taken from letters to that great prelate, William Laud, then archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he often had correspondence by letters; they were written from Paris, October 24, Gregorian style, in the year MDCXXXIII, and were procured me lately out of England, by the kindness of that most illustrious person, John lord Sommers, formerly high chancellor of that flourishing kingdom, then president of the law, now of the council. In those letters that most illustrious viscount Scudamore, at the time ambassador for our nation in France, has the following words concerning Grotius:—
“The next time I see ambassador Grotius, I will not fail to perform your commands concerning him. Certainly, my lord, 1 am persuaded that he doth unfeignedly and highly love and reverence your person and proceedings. Body and soul he professeth himself to be for the church of England; and gives this judgment of it, that it is the likeliest to last of any church this day in being.”
Genoa, XVII. of the Kalends of February,
MDCCVII.
298 TESTIMONIES CONCERNING
THAT which you desire to know of me concerning HUGO GROTIUS, who
was one of the greatest men that ever any age produced, is this:—It happened that
I came to Paris a little after the transaction of that matter. Being very well acquainted
with dr. Crowder, he often told me with assurance, that it was the last advice this
great man gave to his wife, as he thought it was his duty, that he declared he died
in the communion of the church of England, in which church he wished her to live.
This she discovered when she came on purpose to our church, (which was in the house
of Richard Brown, who was then in France upon the king of England’s account), where
she received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper at the hands of dr. Crowder, then
chaplain to the duke of York. This was done as soon as matters would permit after
the death of that man. Archbishop Bramhall, primate of Ireland, in defence of himself
and the episcopal clergy, against Richard Baxter the presbyterian’s accusation of
popery, speaks thus concerning the religion of Grotius, p. 21.—“He was a friend
in his affection to the church of England, and a true son in his love for it: he
commended it to his wife and other friends, and was the cause of their family adhering
to it, as far as they had opportunity. I myself, and many others, have seen his
wife obeying the commands of her husband, as she openly testified, in coming to
our prayers, and the celebration of the sacrament.” When Matthew Turner, a great
friend of Grotius, desired to know why he did not go over to the communion of the
church of England, he answered, that he would very willingly have done it, if the
office of ambassador to Swedeland had not hindered it.
June 23, MDCCVII.
I LATELY told you very fully what I knew of the widow of that great man, Hugo Grotius. Afterwards I called to mind, that that pious and singular good man, sir Spencer Compton, knight, son of the earl of Northampton, told me he was present when Grotius’s widow professed this, and received the sacrament.
FINIS.
Genesis
1:26 2:1-25 2:17 3:1-24 3:19 4 9:20 11:1-9 11:5 14 17:5 17:8-10 17:10 18 18:21 19 19:18 22:2 32 36:1-7 37 49 49:10
Exodus
2:1 3 4:1 4:2 4:10 4:13 4:14 15 20:8 21:6 22:18 23:17 23:17 27:1 28:26 28:30 28:30 31:13 31:16 31:31 32 32:11 32:12 32:13 32:31 33:19 34:11 34:12 34:22-23 34:24 34:26 35:2
Leviticus
4:15 8:8 8:8 18:1-30 20:6 20:27 21:14 22:25 23:3 24:20 25:40 25:47 26 26:5
Numbers
11:1-35 11:1-35 11:2 11:6 12:1-16 12:13 14:1-45 14:13 16:1-50 20:1-29 20:12 20:12 20:14 21:7-8 22:27 23:23 25:1-18 27:21 27:21 27:21 28:9 33:52
Deuteronomy
1:28 4:1-49 4:2 5:1 5:15 6:1-25 7:1-2 7:1-26 9:1 9:18 9:26 10:16 11:1-32 11:1-32 11:1-32 12:1 12:5 12:20 13 13:3 13:5 14:21 14:21 14:23 16:16 17:16-17 17:22 18:10 18:20 19:21 20:19 21:15 23:13 23:19 24:1 24:2 24:3 24:4 26:2 28:1-68 28:1-68 28:1-68 28:4-5 28:6 28:7 28:8 28:11 28:12 30:1-20 30:6 32:5 32:6 32:15 32:28 33 33:1 33:9 34:4
Joshua
1 Samuel
1:22 2:8 7:17 13:8 16:7 16:11 21:2 22:10 22:13 22:15 23:2 23:4 23:9 23:10 23:11 23:12 28 28:6 28:6 28:9
2 Samuel
1 Kings
5:3 16:34 18:17 18:38 19:15 20 22
2 Kings
4 4:1 5 8:13 12:17 13:3 13:24 17:3 17:17 18:4 18:9 18:13 20:12 21:6 25:27
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Nehemiah
Psalms
1 2:1-12 2:8 5:15 6:30 8:5 8:6 10 10:2 18:8 22:28 31:2 34:15 34:18 40:6-10 45:7 50:7-14 51:16-17 68:32 72:8 72:17 78:51 79:1-13 89:4 105:23 105:27 106:22 106:31 110:1-4 110:1-7 118:22
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:11-12 1:14 1:17 2 2:2 2:2 2:18 2:20 3:14-15 5:23 7:14 8:14 8:18 9:1 9:7 11:2-3 11:6 11:6 11:10 11:10 11:10 14:1 19:1-25 19:18 19:18 19:24 25:9 27:13 29:11 29:13 31:7 33:15 35:1-10 35:5 36 37:1-38 38:1-22 39 39:1-8 42:1-25 42:2-3 42:4 43:1-28 46:1 49:6 51:2 51:5 52:15 53 53:1-12 53:4 54:1-17 55:4-5 56:1 57:15 59:1-21 60:3 61:1 61:1 61:2 65:1-2 65:1-25 66:1-24 66:2 66:19 66:23
Jeremiah
2:1-37 2:15 3:1-25 3:16 3:17 3:19 4:4 4:4 5:1-31 5:6 6:10 7:4 7:21-23 7:31 8:1-22 9:12 10:1-25 10:21 11:1-23 16:1-21 16:1-21 22:1-30 23:1-40 23:5 23:6 23:14 25:12 26 26:6 26:11 29:10 30:1-24 31:1-40 31:31 31:31-33 31:31-33 32:37 33:1-26 38 51:29-30 51:30 51:31 51:32
Ezekiel
2:1-10 6:1-14 7:1-27 8:1-18 11:19 11:21 14:14 16 16:1-63 16:3 22:1-31 24:1-27 28:3 34:24 36:1-38 37:1-28
Daniel
1:7 2:32 2:32 2:33 2:39 2:39 2:40 2:45 4:30 5:28 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:11 7:13 7:19 7:20 7:23 7:24 7:24 7:25 8:3 8:5-6 8:7 8:8 8:9-14 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23-26 9 9:1-27 9:24 9:24 9:27 10:16 10:20 10:20 11:2 11:3-4 11:5-6 11:7 11:8 11:9 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21-45 12:1-3 12:4 12:9 12:11
Hosea
1:7 2:23 2:23 2:23 3:4 6:6 14:9
Amos
Micah
2:1-2 2:3 4:1 4:2 5:2 5:2 6:8 6:8
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
2:11 8:20 8:20 9:9 9:9 9:9-10 9:11 12:1 13:2 14:16
Malachi
Matthew
1:18 1:20 1:20 1:22 1:23 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6 4:12-13 5:9 5:9 5:14 5:20 5:21 5:28 5:32 5:33-37 5:33-37 5:38-44 5:42 5:42 5:45 5:47 6:1 6:1-2 6:2 6:7 6:10 6:18 6:20 6:24 6:26 6:28 6:32 6:32 6:34 7:12 7:12 7:15 7:21 8:4 8:6 8:11 9:18 9:20 9:27 10:16 10:16 10:17 10:21 10:28 10:29 10:32 10:32 10:37 10:38 10:39 10:39 10:39 11:5 11:5 11:25 11:27 12:5 12:11 12:19 12:20 12:21 12:23 12:36 13:22 13:24 13:33 13:44 13:45 13:47 15:22 17:21 18:4 18:7 18:19 18:20 19:9 20:28 20:30-31 21:9 21:15 21:21 21:33 21:33 21:43 22 22:1-14 22:16 22:23 22:37 22:39 22:42 23:8 23:8 23:12 23:23 23:34 23:34 23:38 24:11 24:16 24:20 25:15 26:31 26:50 26:52 26:56 26:64 26:69 28 28:1-20 28:20
Mark
1:14 1:44 3:6 8:15 10:47 12:13 12:14 12:29 12:32 12:35-36 12:37 13:22 14:66 16:1 16:1-20 16:10 16:17 16:19 16:19
Luke
1:27 1:32 1:33 1:35 1:35 1:56 1:69 2:4 2:4 2:11 2:21 2:41 3:23 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:18 5:14 6:31 6:35 8:14 9:54-55 10:18 10:27 11:28 12 12:4 12:4 12:7 12:33 13:34 14:11 14:12 14:27 15:11 18:14 18:38-39 19:9 20:12 20:21 20:44 21:18 21:24 21:34 22:54 23:2 23:34 23:34 24:1 24:1-53 24:51-52 24:52 25:46-47
John
1 1:7 1:32 1:47 2:6 2:13 2:23 4:14 4:24 5:19 5:30 5:32 5:36 5:37 5:39 5:43 5:43 5:44 5:44 5:46 6:10 6:19 6:38 6:57 7:2 7:17 7:22 7:42 8:23 8:37 8:40 8:41 8:44-45 10:18 10:29 10:32 10:36 11:1 11:50 12:1 12:32 12:44 13:17 13:28 13:31 13:31 13:34-35 13:35 13:49 14 14:1 14:12 14:13 14:16 14:16 14:16 14:17 14:27 14:28 14:31 15:12 15:17 15:26 15:27 16:13 16:28 17:3 17:17 17:18 17:19 17:20 19:14 20:19 20:21 20:26 20:27-28 20:29 20:31 21:1
Acts
1 1:9-10 1:11 1:21-22 2:3-4 2:11 2:22 2:32 2:33-34 2:36 2:46 3:13-14 3:15 4:12 4:24 5:1 5:16 5:37 5:42 6:9 7:55 7:55-56 8:1 8:7 8:32 9:1 9:3-4 9:4-5 9:5 9:6 9:20 10 10:1 10:13-14 10:15 10:43 10:46 11:1 11:20 12:34 13:1 13:5 13:8-9 13:10 13:12 13:33 13:46 14:1 14:11 14:19 15 15 15:16 15:19-20 15:20 16:1 16:3 16:3 16:18 16:18 17 17:28 17:34 18:1 18:2 19 19:1 19:6 19:19 19:19 20 20:1 20:6 20:29 21:1 21:1-40 21:24 21:38 22:1-30 22:3 22:6 22:6-7 22:8 23:8 26:25 26:26 28:1 28:17
Romans
1:3 1:25 2:28-29 2:29 2:29 3:20 3:32 4:11 4:13 4:16 4:17 4:20 5:3 6:3-4 6:4 8 8:1-2 8:3 8:9 8:12 8:14 8:15 8:24 8:34 8:36 9:1 9:6 10:2 10:4 10:9 10:10 10:11 11:33-34 11:35 11:52 12:1 12:3 12:6 12:8 12:16 13:1 13:3 13:8 13:9-10 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:14 13:16 14 14:1 14:1 14:1-23 14:1-23 14:5 14:23 15:2 15:4 15:19 15:19 15:25 15:28 16:27
1 Corinthians
1 1:1 1:4 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:15 1:17 1:25 2:3 2:11 2:16 3:1 4:6 4:7 4:11 5:8 5:10-11 5:13 6:9 7:4 7:5 7:10 7:12 7:19 7:19 7:19 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:7 9:19 9:20 9:20 9:21 9:22 10:7 10:16 10:16 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:20 10:20 10:25 11 11:3 11:16 11:18 11:19 12:2 12:10 12:25 12:28 12:30 13:1 13:2 13:4 13:4 13:7 13:8 13:9 13:10 13:12 13:12 14:2 14:4 14:5 14:6 14:9 14:13 14:14 14:18 14:19 14:22 14:23 14:27 14:39 15:1 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:24 15:27 15:52
2 Corinthians
1:4 1:8 1:22 2:4 3:10 3:14 3:16 4:11 5:1 5:4 5:5 5:7 5:21 6:4 6:4 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:15 6:16 7:1 7:14 8:7 9:1 9:2 9:2 9:4 9:7 10:4 10:13 11:2 11:5 11:14 11:23 11:30 11:31 11:31 12:4 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:12 12:20
Galatians
1:6 1:8 1:8 1:20 1:20 2:3 2:9 2:11 2:14 2:16 3:7 3:24 3:29 3:57 4:5 4:10 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:14 5:20 5:21 5:22 5:22 6:1-2 6:6 6:12 6:13-14 6:15 6:15 6:16
Ephesians
1:8 1:14 1:20 1:21 2:2 2:2-3 2:3 2:11 3:12 3:14 3:17 4:1 4:2 4:2 4:5 4:7 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:25 4:25 4:29 5:3 5:9 5:18 5:22-23 5:24 5:25 5:28 5:33 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5-10 6:6 6:11-12 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17 6:18
Philippians
1:16 1:20 1:27 2:3 2:3 2:15 3:3 3:3 3:5 3:15 3:15 3:16 3:18 4:8 4:8 4:9 4:18
Colossians
1:16 1:16 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:21 2:23 2:23 3:1 3:9 3:9 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:18-19 3:20-21 3:22 3:23 3:24 3:25 4:14 4:16 24
1 Thessalonians
1:6 1:9 2:6 3:6 4:15 4:16 5:8 5:14 5:19 5:21 5:27
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
1:10 2 2:2 2:2 2:7 2:9 2:12 3:4 4:8 5:3 5:5 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:17 6:18 6:20
2 Timothy
1:3 1:6 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:14 2:8 2:12 2:15 2:16 2:24 4:2 4:11
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:6 1:13 2:3-4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 3:3-4 3:5 3:6 3:6 4 4 4:12 5:5 5:5 5:14 6:11 7:19 7:22 8:1 8:6 8:6 8:7 9:12 10:1 10:12 10:25 11:3 12:1 12:2 12:4 12:28 13:7-8 13:20 13:23 14:15-16
James
1:17 1:22-23 1:24 1:25 1:25 2:8 3 3:1 3:1 3:14 4:8 4:12 4:12 5:12
1 Peter
1:2 1:23 1:24 2:12 2:13 2:17 2:21 2:22 2:22 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:12 3:16 4:3 5:5 5:7
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:1-10 1:6 1:8 2:2 2:3-4 2:4 2:7 2:16 2:21 3:2 3:11 3:16 3:23 3:23 4:1 4:1 4:10 5:7 5:8 5:21
Revelation
1:1-2 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:16 3:5 3:7 4:1 5:5 6:17 9:20 9:20 22:15 22:16 22:18 22:20 22:21 22:29
Wisdom of Solomon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Sirach
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 50 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 191 198 109 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299