anny if ia! Pa F Setters Acne Withee i eee ahah pte bene att oy Ay ‘ As MN 3 he bal hes CRORE Be id, hy hats itd) Weds hi rsa rans oat ' 5. Wiccan hetea Nt iy : A mu tit args b) wey 1h 1G a Med iodo pods hae ahi 4 i Se | Sac ad i) ah aw i | en OR ne) BV aid Wage is Pah Gal pee ¥ d i Lyk i) 4 on MAW Hd it i NAAR ANH f ay i ay St ee eS = ee ss \ we as ie Srom fhe Librarp of Professor Wiffiam BHenrp Breen BWequeathed fp Bim fo tBe Lifrarp of Princeton Theofogicafl Seminary Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/originessacraeorO2stil r in L) twit) > i, " | KY . CD texte auc auem beomiGes (i520 ORIGINES SACRE: OR A RATIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE GROUNDS OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. TO WHICH IS ADDED PART OF ANOTHER BOOK UPON THE SAME SUBJECT, LEFT UNFINISHED BY THE AUTHOR. TOGETHER WITH A LETTER TO A DEIST. JBN , a A THE a le FATHER IN GOD af y EDWARD STILLINGFLEET, D. D. LATE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER. ee A NEW EDITION, IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. OXFORD, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. MDCCCXXXVI. SY, ic ass ‘ ‘' ‘ : : o et t j ‘be . eh ny a AG ae » eee & Bia 4) ‘4 ama) Mele MABE «ui? cya elt fon rah ter Safad ; Tata a 8 nee Cane: “KF - ee é a 2. one ™ i CONTENTS OF VOL. IL. BOOK III. CHAP. II. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. I. The necessity of the belief of the creation of the world, in order to the truth of religion. Of the several hypotheses of the philoso- phers who contradict Moses: with a particular examination of them. II. The ancient tradition of the world consonant to Moses; proved from the Ionic philosophy of Thales, and the Italic of Pythagoras. III. The Pythagoric cabala rather Egyptian than Mosaic. Of the fluid matter, which was the material principle of the universe. IV. Of the hypothesis of the eternity of the world, asserted by Ocellus Lucanus and Aristotle. V. The weakness of the foundations on which that opinion is built. Of the manner of forming principles of philosophy. VI. The possibility of creation proved. [No arguing from the present state of the world against its beginning, shewed from Maimonides.] VII. The Platonists’ arguments, from the goodness of God for the eternity of the world, answered. VIII. Of the stoical hypothesis of the eternity of mat- ter; whether reconcilable with the text of Moses. IX. Of the opinions of Plato and Pythagoras concerning the preexistence of matter to the formation of the world. X. The contradiction of the eternity of matter to the nature and attributes of God. XI, XII, XIII. Of the atomical hypothesis of the origin of the universe. XIV, XV, XVI, XVII. The world could not be produced by a casual concourse of atoms, proved from the nature and motion of Epicurus’s atoms, and the phenomena of the universe ; especially the production and nature of animals. XVIII. Of the Cartesian hypothesis, that it cannot salve the origin of the universe without a Deity giving motion to matter ...... SNe, HOSP agen , lv if CONTENTS. CHAP. ITI. OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. Of the being of Providence. II. Epicurus’s arguments against it refuted. The necessity of the belief of Providence in order to re- ligion. ILI. Providence proved froma consideration of the nature of God and the things of the world. Of the spirit of nature. IV. The great objections against Providence propounded. ‘The first concerns the origin of evil. V. God cannot be the author of sin, if the Scriptures be true. The account, which the Scriptures give of the fall of man, doth not charge God with man’s fault. God's power to govern man by laws, though he gives no particular reason of every positive precept. VI. T he reason of God’s creating man with freedom of will, largely shewed from Simplicius; and the true account of the origin of evil. VII. God’s permitting the fall, makes him not the author of it. VIII. The account which the Scriptures give of the origin of evil, compared with that of heathen philosophers. IX. The antiquity of the opinion of ascrib- ing the origin of evil to an evil principle. Of the judgment of the Persians, Egyptians, and others about it. X. Of Manicheism. XI, XII, XII, XIV. The opinion of the ancient Greek philoso- phers; of Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics ; the origin of evil not from the necessity of matter. XV, XVI. The remainders of the history of the fall among the heathens. XVI, XVII, XIX. Of the ma- lignity of demons. XX, XXI, XXII. Providence vindicated as to the sufferings of good, and the impunity of bad men. An account of both from natural light, manifested by Seneca, Plutarch, and Aah Oe MOG SE eS Hi i CSM aa apa etic f (C0 E CHAP. IV. OF THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS. _ All mankind derived from Adam, if the Scriptures be true. Il. The contrary supposition an introduction to Atheism. If. The truth of the history of the flood. The possibility of an universal deluge proved. IV. The flood universal as to mankind, whether universal as to the earth and animals; no necessity of asserting either. V. Yet supposing the possibility of it demonstrated with- out creation of new waters. VI. Of the fountains of the deep. The proportion which the height of mountains bears to the di- CONTENTS. Vv ameter of the earth. No mountains much above three miles per- pendicular. Of the origin of fountains. The opinion of Aristotle and others concerning it discussed. The true account of them from the vapours arising from the mass of subterraneous waters. VII. Of the capacity of the ark for receiving the animals, from Buteo and others. VIII. The truth of the deluge from the testi- mony of heathen nations. Of the propagation of nations from Noah’s posterity. IX. Of the beginning of the Assyrian empire. The multiplication of mankind after the flood. Of the Chronology of the LXX. Of the time between the flood and Abraham, and the advantages of it. X. Of the pretence of such nations, who called themselves Aborigines. XI. A discourse concerning the first planters of Greece: the common opinion propounded and re- jected. The Hellens were not the first inhabitants of Greece, but the Pelasgi. The large spread of them over the parts of Greece. XII. Of their language different from the Greeks. XIII. Whence these Pelasgi came ; that Phaleg was the Pelasgus of Greece, and the leader of that colony, proved from Epiphanius. XIV. The language of the Pelasgi in Greece oriental: thence an account given of the many Hebrew words in the Greek language, and the remainders of the eastern languages in the islands of Greece; both which not from the Pheenicians, as Bochartus thinks, but from the old Pelasgi. XV. Of the ground of the affinity between the Jews and Lacedemonians. Of the peopling of America,... 136. CHAP. V. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY. . That there were some remainders of the ancient history of the world preserved in the several nations after the dispersion. II. How it came to be corrupted : by decay of knowledge, increase of idolatry, confusion of languages. III. An inquiry into the cause of that. Difficulties against the common opinion that languages were confounded at Babel. IV. Those difficulties cleared. V. Of the fabulousness of poets. The particular ways whereby the hea- then mythology arose. Attributing the general history of the world to their own nation. The corruption of Hebraisms. Al- teration of names. Ambiguity of sense in the Oriental languages. VI. Attributing the actions of many to one person; as in Jupiter, Bacchus, &c. VII. The remainders of Scripture-history among the heathens. The name of God, Chaos: formation of man STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. b Vi CONTENTS. among the Phoenicians. Of Adam among the Germans, Egyptians, Cilicians. Adam under Saturn; Cain among the Pheenicians. Tubal-Cain and Jubal under Vulcan and Apollo; Naamah under Minerva. VIII. Noah under Saturn, Janus, Prometheus, and Bacchus. IX. Noah’s three sons under Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Canaan under Mercury ; Nimred under Bacchus; Magog under Prometheus. Of Abraham and Isaac among the Phoenicians. X. Jacob’s service under Apollo’s. The Barvdua from Bethel ; Joseph under Apis ; Moses under Bacchus ; Joshua under Hercules; Baldaur under the old Sitenns 9) Oe 4s, eh AA POD SS, CHAP. VIL OF THE EXCELLENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. . Concerning matters of pure Divine revelation in Scripture: the terms of salvation only contained therein. II. The ground of the | disesteem of the Scripture is tacit unbelief. ILI. The excellency of the Scriptures manifested as to the matters which God hath re- vealed therein. IV. The excellency of the discoveries of God’s nature which are in Scripture. V. Of the goodness and love of God in Christ. The suitableness of those discoveries of God to our natural notions of a Deity. The necessity of God’s making known himself to us, in order to the regulating our conceptions of him. VI. The Scriptures give the fullest account of the state of men’s souls, and the corruptions which are in them. The only way of pleasing God discovered in the Scriptures. VII. The Scriptures contain matters of greatest mysteriousness, and most universal satisfaction to mep’s minds. VIII. The excellency of the manner wherein things M revealed in Scriptures, in regard of clearness, authority, purity, IX. uniformity, and persuasiveness. X. The excellency of the Scriptures as a rule of life. The nature of the duties of religion, and the reasonableness ot them. .The greatness of the encouragements to religion contained in the Scrip- tures. XI. The great excellency of the Scriptures, as containing in them the covenant of grace in order to man’s salvation .. 216. ORIGINES — but TF ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK IIL. GTAP iT, OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. I. The necessity of the belief of the creation of the world, in order to the truth of religion. Of the several hypotheses of the phi- losophers who contradict Moses: with a particular examination of them. IJ. The ancient tradition of the world consonant to Moses; proved from the Ionic philosophy of Thales, and the Italic of Pythagoras. III. The Pythagoric cabala rather Egyp- tian than Mosaic. Of the fluid matter, which was the material principle of the universe. IV. Of the hypothesis of the eternity of the world, asserted by Ocellus Lucanus and Aristotle. V. The weakness of the foundations on which that opinion is built. Of the manner of forming principles of philosophy. VI. The possi- bility of creation proved. [No arguing from the present state of the world against its beginninggshewed from Maimonides. ] VII. The Platonists’ arguments, from the goodness of God for the eternity of the world, answered. VIII. Of the stoical hy- pothesis of the eternity of matter ; whether reconcilable with the text of Moses. IX. Of the opinions of Plato and Pythagoras concerning the preexistence of matter to the formation of the ~ world. X. The contradiction of the eternity of matter to the nature and attributes of God. XI, XII, XIII. Of the atomical hypothesis of the origin of the universe. IVA V CV LS XVII. The world could not be produced by a casual concourse of atoms, proved from the nature and motion of Epicurus’s atoms, and the phenomena of the universe ; especially the pro- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. B 2 ORIGINES SACRA. duction and nature of animals. XVIII. Of the Cartesian hypo- thesis, that it cannot salve the origin of the universe without a Deity giving motion to matter. ‘THE foundations of religion being thus established ——— in the being of God, and the immortality of the soul, we now come to erect our superstructure upon them, by asserting the undoubted truth and certainty of that account of the world which is given us in the writings of Moses; which, beginning with the world itself, leads us to a particular consideration of the origin of the universe ; the right understanding. of which hath great influence upon our belief of all that follows in the word of God. For although we should assert with Epicurus the being of a Deity, if yet with him we add that the world was made by a casual concourse of atoms, all that part of religion which lies in obedience to the will of God is unavoidably destroyed. All that is left is only a kind of veneration of a Being more excellent than our own, which reacheth not to the go- vernment of men’s lives, and so will have no force at all upon the generality of the world, who are only allured by hopes, or awed by fears, to that which of their choice they would be glad to be freed from. Be- sides, what expressions of gratitude can be left to God for his goodness, if he interpose not in the affairs of the world? What dependance can there be on Divine goodness, if it be not at all manifested in the world ? What apprehensions can we have of God’s infinite wis- dom and power, if neither of them are discernible in the being of the world? And as the opinion of Epi- curus destroys religion, so doth that of Aristotle, which. attributes eternity to the universe, and a necessary emanation of it from the first cause, as light comes from the sun; for if so, as Maimonides well observes, ORIGINES SACRA. 3 the whole religion of Moses is overthrown, all his GHAR, miracles are but impostures, all the hopes which are ree grounded on the promises of God are vain and fruit- Mora Ne- less. For if the world did of necessity exist, then God (?5:" i is no free agent; and if so, then all instituted religion is to no purpose: nor can there be any expectation of reward, or fear of punishment, from him who hath nothing else to do in the world but to set the great wheel of the heavens going. So much is it our con- cernment to inquire into the true original of the world, and on what evidence of reason those opinions are built, which are so contrary to that account given of it in the very entrance of the books of Moses; wherein we read the true origin of the world to have been by a production of it, by the omnipotent will and word of God. This being then the plain assertion of Moses, we come to compare it, in point of reason, with all those several hypotheses which are repugnant to it, which have been embraced in several ages by the phi- losophers of greatest esteem in the world; which may be reduced to these four: 1. Such as suppose the world to have existed as it is from all eternity. 2. Such as attribute the formation of the world as tt is to God; but withal assert the preexistence and eternity of mat- ter. 3. Such as deny any eternity to the world, but assert the origin of it to have been by a casual con- course of atoms. 4. Such as endeavour to explain the origin of the universe, and all appearances of na- ture, merely by the mechanical laws of the motion of matter. I begin with those who assert the eternity of the I. world as it is, among whom Aristotle hath borne the greatest name, who seems to have arrogated this opinion to himself; for when he inquires into the judgment of the philosophers who had wrote before him, he says of B 2 BOOK I Aristot. de Ceelo, |. i. C, 10: ed. Par. Cicero de Nat. Deor. aa, Cor 2h. 4. ORIGINES SACRE. them, yevoevo pev ow amavtes eivai dacw, all the philo- sophers asserted that the world was made, though some one way, some another. And were this true which Aristotle saith, it would be the strongest preju- dice against his opinion; for if the world had been eternal, how should it come to pass that the oldest phi- losophers should so readily and unanimously embrace that opinion which asserted the production of the world ? Was it not a strong presumption of the novity of the universe, that all nations to whom the philoso- phers resorted had memorials left among them of the first origin of things? And from hence it is observ- able, that, when the humour of philosophizing began to take the Greeks, (about the 40th Olympiad, when we may suppose Thales to flourish,) the beginning of the world was no matter of dispute; but, taking that for granted, the inquiry was, out of what material principle the universe was formed. Of which Thales thus delivers his opinion in Tully; Aquam dixit esse mitium rerum, Deum autem eam mentem, que ex aqua cuncta fingeret ; wherein he plainly distinguisheth the efficient from the material cause of the world. The prime efficient was God ; the material principle, water. It is a matter of some inquiry, whether the first prin- ciples of philosophy among the Greeks were not rather some traditional things conveyed to them from others, than any certain theories which they had formed from their own experiments and observations. The former is to me far the more probable on many accounts, but chiefly on this; that the first principles of the two founders of the chief sects of philosophers, viz. the Ionic and Italic, (for all the other were but the various issues of these two,) did come so near to that which we have the greatest reason to believe to have been the most certain account of the origin of the world. ORIGINES SACRA. 5 For this opinion of Thales seems to have been part of CHAP. that universal tradition which was continued in the oa world concerning the first principles of things; for I do not see any reason to aver, with so much confidence as some do, that those philosophers who spake any thing consonantly to Moses, must presently converse with the Jews, transcribe their opinions out of the Scriptures, or have them conveyed to them in some secret cabala of the creation, as it is affirmed of Pytha- goras and Plato, and may with no less reason of Thales. But this I suppose may be made evident to any con- siderative person, that those philosophers of Greece, who conversed most abroad in the world, did speak far more agreeably to the true account of things, than such who only endeavoured by their own wits to im- prove or correct those principles which were delivered by the other philosophers ; which I impute not so much to their converse with the Mosaic writings, as to that universal tradition of the first ages of the world, which was preserved far better among the Pheeni- cians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others, than among the Greeks. For which we have this evident reason, that Greece was far more barbarous and rude in its elder times, than those other nations were, which had means of preserving some monuments and general re- ports of the first ages of the world, when the Grecians wanted them: and therefore we find that Greece, from its beginning, shined with a borrowed light; and saw not by an extramission of rays of knowledge from it- self, but by an intromission of those representations of things which were received from other nations. ‘Those who formed Greece first into civil societies, and licked it into the shape of well ordered commonwealtis, were such who had been traders for knowledge into foreign parts. To which purpose Diodorus Siculus informs B 3 6 ORIGINES SACRA. OK us, that Lycurgus and Solon, as well as the poets Or- —_—— pheus, Museus, Melampus, and Homer, and the phi- i. feeae. losophers, afterwards Pythagoras, Plato, and others, ed. Wes- had gained most of their knowledge and wisdom out V. Et of Hgypt; nay, he saith in general, éoo tév wap’ “EAAyor Evangel. dedoEacnevwy emt cuvecel Kal TALDElA, mapéBaray eis Arryumroy év om Tol apy alos pOvoss, ya tov evtravba voped nay Kal models [Ae~ tacyoow. All those who were renowned among the Greeks for wisdom and learning, did in ancient time resort to Kgeypt, to be acquainted with their laws and knowledge. On this account, therefore, we are not to seek for the ancient and genuine tradition of the world from the native and homebred Greeks, such as Aristotle and E;ypicurus, but from those who took the pains them- selves to search into those records which were preserved among the elder and more knowing nations: and al- though the nations they resorted to sought to advance their own reputation in the histories of their ancient times, of which we have already given a large account, yet they were more faithful in the account they gave of the origin of the whole universe. For it appears from Diogenes Laertius, that the Egyptians did con- Diog. La. Stantly believe that the world had a beginning, and et was corruptible ; that it was spherical, and the stars were of the nature of fire; that the soul was of an emmortal nature, and did pass up and down the world: which Laertius cites from Hecatzus and Ari- stagoras. So that we need not make Pythagoras ac- quainted with such a cabala of the creation, which in all probability neither the Jews nor he ever dreamt of: we find a fair account may be given of most of the opinions of Pythagoras, and whence he derived them, without forcing the words of Moses into such a sense, which the plainness and perspicuity of the writings of Moses argue them not capable to admit of. But I will ORIGINES SACRA. 7 not deny, from those concurrent testimonies of Her- CHAP. mippus and Aristobulus, besides Origen, Porphyry, - Clemens Alexandrinus, and others, that Pythagoras ae might have had an opportunity of conversing with the ee Jews, (which it is most probable was in Chaldzea, after ° |! & 2: ‘the captivity, at which time Pythagoras was there among them;) but that Pythagoras should converse with the successors of Elisha on Mount Carmel, as Vossius thinks; or that Moschus, the Sidonian philo- Voss. de sopher, in Iamblichus, should be Moses, as others SCE fancy ; or that preexistence of souls should be part of "> the Mosaic cabala; or that the Pythagoric numbers, as they are explained by Nicomachus Gerasenus in Photius, should be adequate to the days of the crea- tion, cabalistically understood, are fancies too extrava- gant and Pythagorean to be easily embraced. If Py- thagoras was circumcised, it was more for love of the Egyptians than the Jews, among whom he spent twenty-two years; if preexistence of souls be a ra- tional hypothesis, we may thank the Egyptians for it, and not Moses; if numbers be so expressive of the work of creation, we are beholden to the arithmetical hieroglyphics of Egypt for them. But although Py- Wacanie thagoras might not be acquainted with such a philo- Kireberi, sophic cabala of the creation, which none of the Jews, Gidip. as far as we can find, understood, till one more versed “sy? in Plato and Pythagoras, than in the learning of his own nation, viz. Philo of Alexandria, began first to exercise his wit on the text of Moses, with Platonic notions; yet I shall easily grant that Pythagoras, by means of his great industry and converse with the learned nations, might attain to far greater knowledge of many mysterious things m natural philosophy, and as to the origin of the universe, than any of the home- bred philosophers of Greece, or it may be, than any B 4 8 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK one of the nations he resorted to, because he had the __ advantage of comparing the several accounts of them together, and extracting out that which he judged the Platarch.de best of them. And hence Plutarch tells us, that the ies first principles of the world, according to Pythagoras, Pac were these two: the one was 10 WolnTiKoy aiTiov Kal eidiKov (Gmep €otl vets 6 feds), an active and Sorming principle, and that was God, whom he called mind (as Anaxa- goras likewise did;) the other was 1d aa$yrikéy re Kad vasKov (Gmep arly 6 dpards Kéopos), passive and material, which is, the visible world. DL. And thus we see these two renowned founders of the Ionic and Italic societies of philosophers, both giv- ing their concurrent testimony with Moses as to the true origin of the world, and not at all differing from V tan each other; for thus Thales speaks in Diogenes Laer- P. 9. tius, mpeo Butatoy TOY ovTwD beds ary evn tov yap. KGAA OTOV ed. Lond. Z . Kio [.os" molnua yap beat. God is the eldest Being, because unbegotien; the world the most beautiful, because it ts God’s workmanship. To which those expressions Platoin of Plato, in his Timzeus, come very near, (whose phi- oe __ losophy was, for substance, the same with the Pytha- set gorean,) when he had before ascribed the production of the world to the goodness of God; which goodness of his did incline him to make all other things like himself. O¢uis ate’ Fv ott? or: TO apictw Spay aAAo wAHy Td Kaddcrov. Mor the most excellent Being cannot but produce the most excellent effects. And as to the ma- terial principle out of which the world was made, there appears no great difference between the {wp of Thales, and the vay of Plato and Pythagoras; for Plato, when he tells us what a kind of thing the material principle was, he describes it thus, ouy, novy tay HY OV, ALA KLVOv[LEVOY Chalcid. TAU MEAQS Kal ATEKTWS, which, as Chalcidius renders it, Tim. p. 2 ~ 24. « ° ° ed. Meurs. 1S Motu tmmportuno Jiuctuans, neque unquam quiescens, ORIGINES SACRA. 9 it was a visible corporeal thing (xév cov yy spariy') CHAP. which was never at rest, but in continual disorderly motion and agitation: which is a full explication, I suppose, of what Thales meant by his water, which is the same with that (Avs, or mixture of mud and water together, which others speak of as the principle of the universe; as Orpheus in Athenagoras, and the scho- liast on Apollonius, cited by Grotius and others. Which Grot, An- we have the more reason to believe, because the succes- ae fee zi sors of ‘Thales, Anaximander and Anaxagoras, express ©""* Re themselves to that purpose. Anaximander called the sea, THs mors vypacias Achbavev, the remainder of the primitive moisture: and Anaxagoras says, before the Novs, or God, set things in their order, TAVTA YNnara ny éuod meprppéva, all things were at first confused toge- ther; which must needs make that which Chalcidius ole in tells us Numenius attributes to Pythagoras, which his part: translator calls sylvam fluidam, or fluid matter. Which is the same likewise with the Phoenicians’ Mor, which, as appears by Eusebius, some call /Avy, others vdaradovs Ruseb. pikens ambi, some, mud or slime, others, the Jeane pang Lik tion of ap alery miatures, which they say was omopac.'% Kricews, Kat yéveris tev dw, the seed-plot of the creation, and the generation of things. Thus we see how Thales, with the Phcenicians, from whom he was derived, as Laertius tells us, and Pythagoras, with the Egyptians and others, concur with Moses, not only in the produc- tion of the world, but in the manner of it, wherein is expressed a fluid matter, which was the material prin- ciple out of which the world was formed; when we are told, that the earth was without form and void, Gen. i. 2. and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, i. e. that all at first was but fluid matter; for P. Fagius, from R. Kimchi, renders 4m by vy, which fluid matter was agitated and moved by the Divine 10 ORIGINES SACRA. Book Spirit, or the vis plastica mundi ; so Chrysostom calls ae évépyera Swrixy, and so Drusius and P. Fagius explain sr by motion or agitation. And herein we have like- wise the consent of those forenamed excellent philoso- phers, who attribute the origin of particular things in the world to this agitation or motion of the fluid mat- Chalcid. in ter. For Chalcidius, speaking not only of Thales, Py- Rr 8 thagoras, Plato, but of Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and others, says thus of them, omnes rgitur hi—in motu positam rerum originem censuerunt: they all agreed in this, that the origin of things was to be ascribed to the motion of the parts of matter. So the Phoenicians called this motion of the particles of matter caépa Sopady kai myevuatwoy, a dark and blustering wind. And how suitable this explication of the origin of things, from the motion of fluid matter, is to the history of nature, appears by those many experiments by which mixed bodies are shewed to spring from no other material principle than the particles of fluid’ matter: of which you may read a discourse of that ingenious and learned Boyle's gentleman, Mr. Boyle, in his Sceptical Chymist. Only ioe thus much may here suffice to have made it appear P1152 that all those philosophers, who were most inquisitive after the ancient and genuine tradition of the world concerning the first beginning of things, did not only concur with Moses in the main thing, that its begin- ning was from God, but in the particular circum- stances of it, as to the fluid matter and motion thereof. Concerning which I may yet add, if it be material, the testimony of Homer in Plutarch. < 5) ~ v4 ue / vs Homer. Quzavot, domep yéveois mavteoos TéTUXTAL. Jiiad. 2. A tae ° v.246. And in Chalcidius: Inque eadem sententia Homerus Odyss. é. . . : : Chalcia. CSS invenitur, cum Oceanum et Thetin dicat parentes . 378. ; Pibse : V. Meus, C88@ Qeniture ; cumque jusjurandum Deorum consti- in Chal. i idem 7 : , mek tuat aquam, quam quidem wpse appellat Stygem, antt- ORIGINES SACRA. 11 quitati tribuens reverentiam, et jurejurando nihil con- CHAP. stituens reverentius. To which purpose likewise 12) 2 | ebbanate stotle speaks in his Metaphysics, that the reason why alge col Styx was made the oath of the gods, was because Fis ne water was supposed to be the material PEscpre of things ; ; which he saith was apyaia Tis avy Kal TaAaLe mepl TIS pices ” SéEa, a most ancient tradition concern- ing the origin of the universe. And tells us before, that some were of (Oibely TOUS TApPTOABLOUS, KOL TOAD 70 THS vUY ryever Ecos Kas TpwTous beoruyyoavTas, that the most ancient and remote persons, and first writers of theo- logy, held this opinion of water bemg the first mate- rial principle of things. Having thus made it appear what a consent there _ Iv. was between the ancient tradition of the world, and the writings of Moses, concerning the origin of the world, I now come to consider upon what pretence of reason this tradition came to be contradicted, and the eternity of the world asserted. For which we are to consider, that the difference of the former philosophers of the Ionic sect, after the time of Thales, as to the material principle of the world, one substituting air, another fire, instead of water, rendered the tradition itself suspected among other philosophers, especially when the humour of innovating in philosophy was got among them; and they thought they did nothing un- less they contradicted their masters: thence came that multiplicity of sects presently among them; and that philosophy, which at first went much on the original tradition of the world, was turned into disputes and altercations, which helped as much to the finding out of truth, as the fighting of two cocks on a dunghill doth to the finding out the jewel that lies there. For which, scraping and searching into the natures of things had been far more proper than contentions and BOOK Ill. 12 ORIGINES SACRA. wranglings with each other; but by means of this liti- gious humour, philosophy, from being a design, grew to be a mere art; and he was accounted the best phi- losopher, not that searched further into the bowels of nature, but that dressed and tricked up the notions he had in the best posture of defence against all who came to oppose him. From hence those opinions were most plausible, not which were most true, but which were most defensible, and which, like Des Cartes’s se- cond Element, had all the angles cut off, on which their adversaries might have an advantage of justling upon them; and then their opinions were accounted most pure, when they were so spherical as to pass up and down without interruption. From such a dege- neracy of philosophy as this we have now mentioned, arose the opinion of the eternity of the world; for the certain tradition of the world being now lost in a crowd of philosophers, whose main aim was to set up for themselves, and not to trade with the common bank, so that there could be no certain and convictive evidence given to a shuffling philosopher that things were ever otherwise than they are; they found it most defensible to assert that the world never had a begin- ning, nor would have an end, but always did, and would continue in the state they were in. This opinion, though Aristotle seems to make all before him to be of another mind, yet was hatched, as far as we can find, at first under Pythagoras’s successors, by Ocellus Lucanus, as appears by his book still extant, wep: ris tod mavros picews, of the nature of the universe; to whom Aristotle hath not been a little beholden, as Ludov. Nogarola hath in part manifested in his notes on Ocellus ; although Aristotle had not the ingenuity of Pliny, agnoscere per quos profecertt. Krom Ari- stotle this opinion, together with his name, spread it- ORIGINES SACRE. ; 13 self much further, and became the opinion most in CHAP. vogue among the heathen philosophers, especially after ae the rise of Christianity ; for then not only the Peripa- tetics, but the modern Platonists, Plotinus, Apuleius, Taurus, Iamblichus, Alcinous, Proclus, and others, were all engaged in the defence of the eternity of the world, thinking thereby the better to overthrow Christianity. Hence came the hot and eager contests between Pro- clus, Simplicius, and Philoponus; who undertook to answer Proclus’s eighteen arguments for the eternity of the world, and to charge Aristotle with self-contra- diction in reference to it. But nothing were they more troubled about, than to reconcile the Timzeus of Plato with the eternity of the world, which they made to be a mere hypothesis, and a kind of diagram to salve Pro- vidence withal; although the plain words’ of Plato, not only there, but elsewhere, do express, as far as we can judge by his way of writing, his real judgment to have been for the production of the world by God. For Plato. So- which purpose we have this observable testimony in creat his Sophista, where he divides all manner of produc- iS tions of things into divine and human, and opposes the opinion that conceived all things to be produced by an eternal power, to the opinion of the vulgar; which, saith he, was THY prow OTE ryevvaly Amo Tivos alTlas avTo= warns Kat dvev diavelas provers, that all things were pro- duced by a blind force of nature, without any reason or counsel; to which he opposeth the other opinion, that they are made peta Adyou re Kat emoryuns Beias oud bec yiyvouerys, by a Divine power, with infinite reason and wisdom; and when Theetetus expresseth himself in an academical way as to either of these opinions, the Hospes Eleatensis, who there acts the part of the philosopher, tells him, if he thought he were inclinable to the other opinion, viv ay ro Adyw peta resBovs avaryKases BOOK ITI. Arist. de Ceelo, 1. i. cap. 10. 14 ORIGINES SACRA. emeyerporurey Torelv onoroyel, he would undertake to make him confess the contrary, by the evidence of reason which he would bring. And we shall see what great reason there is for this opinion, when we consider what weak and infirm foundations the contrary is built upon. For all the arguments which either Ocellus, or Aristotle, or the modern Platonists make use of, are built on these following suppositions; which are all false. 1. That it is unconceivable that things should ever have been in any other state than they are. 2. That there is no other way of production but by generation. 3. That God is no free agent, but pro- duced the world by necessity of nature. 1. That it is unconceivable that things should ever have been any otherwise than they are. ‘The reason of which supposition was this: That the general con- clusions of reason, which they proceed upon in philo- sophy, were taken up from the observation of things as they are at present in the world. Which is evident from the ground of Aristotle’s condemning the opinion of Empedocles; who asserted the production of the world, and yet the incorruptibility of it: ro pev obv ye- vecbat [ey ab dtoy 0 Cus elves pavat, TOY GOVVATOY, which he accounts impossible; and gives this as his reason, pova yap Taira Beréov evddyws, doa eal ToAAdY 4 TaVTWY dpdmeV vadpyovta. Hor, saith he, nothing else can be rationally asserted, but what we find to be in all things, or at least in most; now because there could nothing be found in the world which was produced, (i. e. by gene- ration,) and yet was incorruptible, therefore he con- cludes it impossible it should be so with the universe. By which we evidently see what the grand principles of reason among the philosophers were; viz. such ob- servations as they had made from the present course of nature in the order of the universe. From hence ORIGINES SACRA. 15 arose that strong presumption among them, which air hath been so taken for granted, that it hath beens aaa, looked on as a common notion of human nature, viz. ex nihilo nihil fit, which was the main argument used iba cota by them to prove the eternity of the world, and by mocriti. others, to prove the preexistence of matter. So Ocel- lus argues against both the dissolution and production of the world, from this principle: If the world be dis- solved, saith he, it must either be ‘ro eis 14 dy, 4 ets 10 uy ov, either into that which is, or into that which ts not. It cannot be dissolved into that which is, because then the universe cannot be destroyed ; for that which is, ts either the universe, or a part of it: neither can it be dissolved into that which is not, cpnyavoev yop 6 ov OcellusLu- amoteheobar eK TOY LY OvTwY, H els TO LY ov avarvOyvar, for tt ron: is impossible that a thing should be made out of that which is not, or be dissolved into nothing. And Ari- Aristot. stotle somewhere tells us, that it is a principle which )'""°'"™ all the writers of Natural Philosophy are agreed in, (eps yap TOUTS Omoyuaovovgs TIS Sens amavtes ob mept TIS dicews,) Which is é« py dvtav yiverbou adware, that it ts impossible for any thing to come out of nothing. But now when we observe upon what grounds this prin- ciple was took up by these philosophers, we have no reason to admit of it as an universal standard of na- ture. For we find by these naturalists, who thus as- serted this principle, that when they go about to prove it, it is only from the course of generations in the world, or from the works of art, both which suppose matter preexistent; and from these short collections they form this universal maxim. And from hence, when they discoursed of the manner whereby God did produce the world, their imaginations ran presently _ upon that which the Epicurean in Tully inquires after, cicero de Que molitio? Que ferramenta? Qui vectes? Que Mpa BOOK ll. Cicero de Nat. Deor. Lot Maimon. More Nev. i TRE eae oe 16 ORIGINES SACRE. machine? Qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt? They apprehend God only as an artificer, that contrives the world first into a platform, and then useth instruments to erect it; and consequently still suppose the matter ready for him to work upon. So true is that of Bal- bus in Tully, when he comes to discourse of the na- ture of God; In quo nihil est difficilius quam a con- suetudine oculorum aciem mentis abducere, nothing is more difficult than to abstract our minds from the ob- servations of this visible world, when we seek to ap- prehend the nature of the Deity. Thus we see upon what general grounds the philosophers proceeded, and from what they took them, and how insufficient any collections from the present order of the universe are to determine any thing concerning its production by. For supposing a production of the world, several things must of necessity be supposed in it different from what the present order of the world is; and it is an unrea- sonable thing to argue from a thing when it is in its greatest perfection, to what must always have been in the same thing; for by this means we must condemn many things for falsities which are apparently true, and believe many others to be true which are appa- rently false. For which Maimonides useth an excel- lent similitude. Swppose, saith he, one of exquisite natural parts, whose mother dies as soon as he is born, and his father brings him up in an island, where he may have no society with mankind till he be grown up to years of understanding, and that he never saw any female of either man or beast; suppose now this person to inquire of the first man he speaks with, how men are born, and how they come into the world? The other tells him, that every man is bred in the womb of one of the same kind with ourselves, thus and thus formed ; and that while we are in the womb, ORIGINES SACRE, 17 we have a very little body, and there move and are CHAP. Il. nourished; and we grow up by litile and litile till we ———— come to such a bigness, and then we come forth into the world, and yet grow still till we come to such a proportion as we are of. Here presently this young man stops him, and inquires, when we were thus little in the womb, and did live, move, and grow, did we not eat and drink, and breathe at our mouth and nos- trils as we do now? Did we not ease nature as we do now? If it be answered him, No, then he pre- sently is ready to deny it, and offers to bring demon- strations that it was utterly impossible that tt should be so. For, saith he, if etther of us cease breathing but for an hour, our motion and life is gone: how ts it then possible for one of us, though never so little, to live and move in the womb for so many months, when it is so close, and shut up, and in the middle of the body? If one of us, saith he, should swallow a little bird, it would presently die as soon as tt came into the stomach; how much more if it were im the belly? If we should be but for few days without eat- ing and drinking, we could not live; how can a child then continue so many months without it? Again; if one doth eat, and not void the excrement of what he eats, he will be killed with it in few days ; how can tt possibly be otherwise with a child? If it be replied, that there is a passage open in the belly, at which the child receives his nourishment, he will presently say that it is as impossible as the other ; for if our bellies were so open, we should be quickly destroyed. And again, if the child hath all its limbs perfect and sound, how comes it not to open its eyes, use the feet, mouth, and hands, as we do? And so concludes wt impos- sible that man should ever be born after this manner. Much after this way, saith that excellent author, do STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Cc BOOK Ill. 18 ORIGINES SACRA. Aristotle and others argue against the production of ——_——— the world; for if the world were produced, say they, Oceli. Luc. pio. ed. Comm. it must have been thus and thus; and it is impossible that it should have been so. Why? Because we see things are otherwise now in the world. Which how infirm a way of arguing, it appears from the consi- deration of the former similitude, in which the argu- ments are as strong to prove the impossibility of that which we know to be true, as in the case about which we dispute. And this now leads us to the second false hypo- thesis, which the opinion of the world’s eternity was founded on, which is, That there is no other way of production but by generation. Most of the arguments which are used by Ocellus and Aristotle against the production of the world, run upon this supposition, that it must be generated, as we see things are in the world. So Ocellus argues, za re ré yevérews apyyy eiAy~ dos, kat Siadrtoews opeiroy Kowvwvncat, dv0 emdeyetar pera(o- has? priav prev Tyv ood pelovos emi TO pellov, KaL TYY amd TOD xelpovos emt ro BéAtiov’ Kadelros Be rd pev ad? ovmep ay apty- TOL pETABAAAELY, yéveris" TO 0€ €is 0 APLKVETT Ol, OK [A" Oeuvté- pay O€ TYY amo TOD pueiSovos emt TO [Elov, Kal THY amo TOD BEA- TLovos emt TO x Ebpov" TO Oe TUMTEpUT LoL TyS meTAaBoANS TAUTNS dvonacerou pbopa Kat Sucédvats. Every thing that comes mto being, and is subject to dissolution, hath two ob- servable mutations in it: the one is whereby it Lrows Jrom less to greater, and from worse to better; and this is called generation, and the height of this muta- tion, perfection. The other begins from better to worse, and from bigger to less; and the conclusion of this ts corruption and dissolution. But now, saith he, of the world had a beginning, there would be such a mu- tation in it; and it would have grown by degrees e ° e e 6 greater, till it had come to its perfection, and from ORIGINES SACRE. 19 thence it would sensibly decay till it came to dissolu- CHAP. tion: but nobody hath ever observed such a mutation in the world, neither is there any appearance of tt; GA Gel Kat T? avTO Kat wcartws SiaTeAE? Kal Toov OpnoLoy avo éavtov: but the world is semper idem ; it varies not, nor alters any thing from itself. For which he parti- cularly instanceth in the courses, symmetries, figures, positions, intervals, proportions of motion which are in the world; which things are all capable of such a mu- tation: yet we see no such thing in the universe: from whence he infers that the universe was always, and will be, as it is. Upon the same principle doth Ari- stotle dispute for the eternity of the world, from the nature of his materia prima; because if the first mat- ter were generated, it must be generated of other mat- ter, and so in infinitum; and so he argues from the nature of the heavens, that they are not capable of ge- neration and corruption as other bodies are. All which arguments signify no more than this, that the world was not generated as plants or animals are; and who ever, right in his wits, asserted that it was? But do any of these arguments prove it impossible that God, having infinite power, should produce the universe after another way, than any of those things are pro- duced in, which we observe in the world ? For we assert an infinite and eternal Being, which was the efficient cause of the world, who by his omnipotent power produced it out of nothing, and continues it in its being; which is well expressed by the author of the Refutation of Aristotle, in Justin Martyr’s works. We assert, saith he, one God who is eternal himself, Aristot. that hath nothing else coequal with himself, neither by co raison! is way of subjection or opposition, whose power is sov great that nothing can hinder it; by which power he produced the world, dpyyy yvres tov civat, Kak TOU TL C2 BOOK IIT. Ibid. Just. Mart. Ep. 20 ORIGINES SACRA. Elva, Kal TOU mos Stapeverv, THY exelvov béaynows; which hath no other cause either of its beginning, or of its being, or continuance, but only his will. Who fully answers, in a philosophical manner, the particular allegations out of Aristotle, concerning the eternity of the world ; his design being, as he saith, to shew py Kata tyy amo- derikyy emotyuyy, Kab Hy emaryryeAAavT at "EAA nves mepl Ocav TE Kal KTITEwWS TOdS Aoyous TOLely, TOUTO METOLNKOTAS, GAN ELKAT AD +o doKovy Oropioapevous, that the Greek philoso- phers, in their discourses concerning God and the creation, were very far from being as good as their word to observe the laws of demonstration; but m- stead of them, proceeded only upon opinions and con- jectures. And as to this particular of the possibility. of another way of production, besides that of genera- tion, he proves it from Aristotle’s own’ opinion, from the equal necessity of the existence of matter, as of God. or, saith he, 7f God can produce any thing out of matter, which is as necessarily existent as him- self, he may produce something out of nothing ; for the same repugnancy that there is in that which is absolutely nothing to be produced, the same must there be in that which its necessarily existent. How then can God produce something out of matter which neces- sarily exists, and not be able to produce something out of nothing? For if matter have its original from it- self, how can it be subject to the power of another ? And besides, if we acknowledge God to have his being from himself, and on that account attribute infinite power to him, by the same reason we must attribute it to matter. But whatever hath infinite power in it- self, hath a power upon something beyond itself; but if God and matter have it. both, they can never have power upon each other, or without themselves; which is a far greater absurdity than the mere asserting a ORIGINES SACRA. Q] power to produce something out of nothing, which is implied in the very notion of infinite power; for if it be confined to any matter, the power is not infinite, because we cannot but conceive the bounds of it; for it extends no farther than matter doth. So that a power of creation is implied in the very notion of a Deity; and therefore it is a mere sophism to argue, because the world could not be generated, therefore it could not be produced, unless any other way of pro- duction, but by generation, be proved impossible. A third false hypothesis they proceeded on was this, That the being of the world was no effect of God’s will, but of the necessity of nature. For although the philosophers we now speak of did assert a Deity, which in some sense might be called the cause of the world, yet they withal asserted, that the world was coequal with God himself; and so, though there might be some priority in order of causes between them, yet there was none in order of time or duration; as we see the light, though it flows from the sun, yet the sun is never without light. This Aristotle proves from the necessity of motion and time. or, saith he, what- ever is moved, must be moved by something else, and consequently there must be a running in infinitum ; but this runs on a false supposition of the necessity of a continual physical motion in things, which we deny, since God, by his infinite power, may give motion to that which had it not before; and so all that can be proved is the necessity of some first cause, which we assert, but no necessity at all of his continual acting, since he may cause motion when he pleases. And for time continually existing, it denotes nothing real in it- self existing, but only our manner of conception of the duration of things, as it is conceived to belong to mo- tion; and so can argue nothing as to the real exist- Cc 3 CHAP. Il. VII. BOOK Il. 22 ORIGINES SACRE. ence of things from all eternity. But the latter Plato- nists look upon these as insufficient ways of probation, and therefore argue from those attributes of God, which they conceive most necessary and agreeable to God’s nature, and by which the world was produced, if at all; so that by the same arguments whereby we prove that the world was made by God, they prove it to have been from all eternity. It was well and truly said in Plato, in his Timeeus, that the goodness of God was the cause of the production of the world; from which speech the more modern Platonists gather a necessity of the world’s eternity; for from hence they infer, that since God was always good, he must always have an object to exercise his goodness upon; as the sun disperseth his light as soon as he is himself. True, were God of the nature of the sun, it would be so with him, or were the sun of the nature of God, it would not be so with it. But there is this vast differ- ence between them, that though God be essentially and necessarily good, yet the communications of his good- ness are the effects of his will, and not merely of his nature; for, were not the acts of beneficence and good- ness in God the free acts of his will, man must be made as happy as he was capable of being, not only upon his first existence in the world, but as long as it should continue, by mere necessity of nature, without any intervention of the will or actions of men. And so there could be no such difference as that of good and bad men in the world; for, if the lettings forth of God’s goodness to the world be so necessary, all men must become necessarily good, if God’s goodness be so great as to be able to make men so; which I suppose will not be questioned. By this, then, when we see that the communications of God’s goodness to the world are free, and depend upon the eternal coun- ORIGINES SACRA. 23 sels of his will, which is a depth too great for us to CHAP. I. approach or look into; by what necessity, then, if God ———— be a free agent, and of infinite wisdom as well as good- ness, must we either assert the eternity of the world, or fear to deprive God of his essential goodness ? Whereas to make the communications of God’s good- ness ad extra necessary, and therefore to make the world from eternity, that he might have an object to exercise his goodness on, is to take as much off from the infinite perfection and self-sufficiency of the Divine nature, as it would seem to flatter his goodness. For God cannot be himself without his goodness; and if his goodness cannot be without some creature to shew or display it upon, God cannot be perfect nor happy without his creatures, because these are necessary issues of his goodness; and consequently we make the being of the creatures necessary to his being God, which is the highest derogation from the absolute perfection of the Divine nature. We assert then so much goodness in God, as none can be imagined greater; we assert, that it was the communication of this Divine good- ness, which gave being to the world; but withal we acknowledge God to be an agent infinitely wise and free, who dispenseth this goodness of his in such a way and manner as is best pleasing to himself, though ever agreeable to his nature. As God is infinitely good in himself, so whatever he doth is suitable to this na- ture of his; but the particular determinations of the acts of God’s beneficence belong to the will of God, as he is a most free and independent agent; so that good- ness, as it imports the necessary rectitude of the Divine nature, implies a perfection inseparable from the true idea of God; but as it is taken; for the expressions of Divine bounty to somewhat without, as the object of it, it is not implied in our conception of God, as to his c 4 24 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK nature, but belongs to the free determinations of his will. We cannot then, neither ought we, to determine any thing concerning the particular ways of God’s bounty towards the whole universe, or any part of it, any further than God himself hath declared it to us. Now we see the world exists; we have cause to adore that goodness of God, which not only gave a being to the universe, but continually upholds it, and plentifully provides for the creatures which he hath made in it: which the heathen was so sensible of, that the Stoic Cicero de in Tully, taking notice of the abundant provision which es Peor +5 made in the world, not only for man’s necessity, but for delight and ornament, cries out, Ut interdum pro- ned nostra Epicurea fuisse videatur; God’s providence doth abundantly exceed man’s necessity. We see then from this discourse how unsafe and unsatisfactory (that I may not say bold and presumptuous) those argu- ments are, which are drawn from a general consider- ation of the Divine nature and goodness, without re- gard had to the determinations of his will, as to the existence of things in the world. It cannot certainly then be an argument of any great force with any can- did inquirers after truth and reason, which hath been lately pleaded in the behalf of that Pythagorean hy- pothesis of the preexistence of souls, viz. that of it be good for men’s souls to be at all, the sooner they are, the better; but we are most certain that the wisdom and goodness of God will do that which is best: and therefore if they can enjoy themselves before they come into those terrestrial bodies, (it being better for them to enjoy themselves than not,) they must be before they come wnto these bodies. W. herefore the preexistence of souls is a necessary result of the wisdom and good- ness of God, who can no more fail to do that which is best, than he can to understand it. now seriously ORIGINES SACRE. 25 inquire of such who love reason above Plato and Py- thagoras, whether, if the eternity of the world were put into the argument instead of the preexistence of souls, this argument would not hold as strongly for that as it doth for preexistence ? and if I am bound to believe preexistence on this ground, I be not likewise bound to believe at least the souls of men eternal, if not the universe? But how reconcilable the eternity of the world is to the Pythagoric cabala of the crea- tion, I am yet to understand. But if this argument doth not at all infer the eternity of the world, as we have shewed it doth not, much less doth it preexist- ence of souls. We have thus far considered the first hypothesis, which is repugnant to Moses, concerning the origin of the universe, which is that which asserts the eternity of the world as it ts; we come now to the second, which attributes the formation of the world, as it is, to God, as the efficient cause; but attributes eternity to the matter out of which the world was framed. I am not ignorant that some, who would be taken for the masters of reason, are so far from conceiving this CHAP. Il. Vill. hypothesis to be repugnant to the text of Moses, that Volkelius de Vera they conceive it to be the genuine sense of it, viz. that pe. 1. ii. there was a preexistent matter, out of which God* * formed the world. But I would willingly understand how Moses would have expressed that matter itself was created, supposing it had been his intention to have spoken it: for although the word x7. may not of itself imply necessarily the production of things out of nothing, i. e. out of no preexistent matter, yet it is acknowledged by all, that no word used by the Jews is more proper to that than ~ 72 is; and P. Fagius cites it from R. Nachmani, that the Hebrew language hath no other word to signify such a production out BOOK III. Galen. de Usu Part. 1. xi. Chalcid. in Tim. p- 372. 26 ORIGINES SACRA. of nothing, but x72. It is therefore a very weak man- ner of arguing, that, because N72 is sometimes used for no more than mwy, therefore the world was created out of preexistent matter; all that can rationally be inferred is, that from the mere force and importance of that word the contrary cannot be collected: but if other places of Scripture compared, and the evidence of reason, do make it clear that there could be no pre- existent matter which was uncreated, then it will neces- sarily follow that creation must be taken in its proper sense. And in this sense it is evident, that not only Jews and Christians, but even the heathens themselves, understood Moses, as is plain by Galen, where he com- pares the opinion of Moses with that of Epicurus, and ingenuously confesseth that of Moses, which attributed the production of things to God, to be far more rational and probable than that of Epicurus, which assigned the origin of things to a mere casual concourse of atoms: but withal adds, that he must dissent from both; and sides with Moses as to the origin of such things as depend on generation, but asserts the preex- istence of matter, and withal, that God’s power could not extend itself beyond the capacity of the matter which it wrought upon. Atque id est, saith he, in quo opinio nostra ac Platonis, tum aliorum qui apud Grecos de rerum natura recte conscripserunt, a Mose dissidet. How true these words are, will appear after- wards. Chalcidius, in his Commentaries on Plato’s Timeus, where he speaks of the origin of vay, which in him is still translated sylva, and inquires into the different opinions of all philosophers about it, takes it for granted, that, according to Moses, this ¥Ay had its production from God. Hebrei sylvam generatam esse confitentur ; quorum sapientissimus Moyses non humana facundia, sed divina, ut ferunt, inspiratione ORIGINES SACRA. Q7 vegetatus, in eo libro, qui “De genitura mundi” cense- CHAP. tur, ab exordio sic est profatus, juxta interpretationem ih LXX. prudentium ; “Initio Deus fecit coelum et ter- “ram. Terra autem erat invisibilis et imcompta.” Ut vero ait Aquila; “ Caput rerum condidit Deus “ ceelum et terram; terra porro tnanis erat et nihil.” Vel ut Symmachus ; “Ab exordio condidit Deus co- “lum et terram. Terra porro fuit otiosum quid, “ confusumque et inordinatum.” Sed Origines asse- verat ita sibi ab Hebreis esse persuasum, quod in ali- quantum sit a vera proprietate deriwata interpretatio. Fuisse enim in exemplari, “terra autem stupida qua- “dam erat admiratione.” Omnia tamen hee in unum aiunt concurrere, ut et generata sit ea, que suljecta est universo corpori, sylva, sermonesque wpsos sic in- terpretantur. Where we find, by the testimony of Chalcidius, an universal consent as to the production of the universal corporeal matter by God; for that is all which is understood by his term of generata est. But this same author afterwards tells us, that by hea- vens and earth, in the first verse of Genesis, we are not to understand the visible heavens and earth; for, saith he, the heavens, which are called the firmament, were created after; and on the third day, when the waters were separated, the dry land appeared, which was called earth. Qui tumultuario contenti sunt in-id.p.374. tellectu, coelum hoc quod videmus, et terram qua sub- vehimur, dict putant; porro qui altius indagant, ne- gant hoe coelum ab initio factum, sed secundo die. And therefore by the heavens he understands ¢ncorpo- ream naturam, and by earth, vay, or the primogenial matter. And this, saith he, appears by the following words, The earth was invisible, and without form ; i. e. this corporeal matter, before it was brought into order by the power and wisdom of God, remained a 28 ORIGINES SACRA&. BOOK rude and indigested lump; and that which is so, might "ll; well be called invisible and without form: and there- fore it is called enanzs and nihil, because of its capacity of receiving all forms, and having none of its own. Symmachus calls it otiosa et indigesta; the former, because of its inability to produce any thing of itself ; the latter, because it wanted a Divine power to bring it into due order. The stupidity and admiration which Origen attributes to it, he conceives to relate to the majesty of God, who was the orderer and contriver of it, sequidem opificis et auctoris sui majestate capta stupuerit. Thus we see, that, according to Moses, the first matter of the world was produced by God, Origen. which is largely manifested by Origen against the Philoc. shed pias aan c.24. Marcionists, a fragment of which is extant in his Phi- Tertull. ad localia; and by Tertullian against Hermogenes, and ea others, who, from the opinion of the preexistence of matter, are called Materiarit. ix: Having thus cleared the sense of Moses, it is far more difficult to find out the true opinions of the an- cient philosophers concerning the production or eter- nity of corporeal matter, there having been so great dissensions, not only about the thing itself, but about the opinions of some about it; for it is plain by Plu- ek tarch’s Wuxoyovia, as well as the discourses of the later Procreat. Platonists, how eager some have been to interpret c"™- Plato’s Timeeus in favour of the eternity, at least of matter, if not of the world. But although Plato doth assert therein a preexistence of rude matter before the formation of the world, yet I see no reason why he should be otherwise understood, than in the same sense that we believe a chaos to have gone before the bring- ing the world into the order it is now in. And in that sense may those places in Plutarch be interpreted, ov \ ») ~ MY. ¢ / ? by Mb eee NS oe Lets se YAP EK Tov [Ay OVTOS y YEVETIS, AAA EK TOU Ly KaAwS pend LKAVOS ORIGINES SACR. 29 Zyovros’ and so likewise those following words, 6 yx CHAP, beds ote Gdua TO aroparoy, ore Wuyny TO adbuyov emoinoev" for the meaning may be no more than that Plato con- ceived that all the productions of the kinds of things which are in the world was out of a preexistent hyle: the one spiritual and intelligible, out of which he sup- posed souls to be formed; the other sensible and cor- poreal, out of which other beings, which were more gross and material, were produced. So Chalcidius fate tells us, that both Pythagoras and Plato looked upon page constitutionem sylve to be opus providente ; which I suppose relates not only to the bringing of matter into form, but to the production of matter itself. But after this he takes a great deal of pains to search out Pag. 4or. the true meaning of Plato concerning the origin of hyle, and mentions the great dissensions among the Platonists about it, and the obscurity of the Timzeus in it. To him therefore I refer the reader; who like- wise brings in Numenius, largely discoursing concern- ing the opinion of Pythagoras about it, who condemns all those, as not understanding Pythagoras, who attri- bute to him the production of the indeterminate hyle. These are his words, Numenius ex Pythagore magi- Pag. 393- sterio Stoicorum hoc de initiis dogma refellens, Py- thagore dogmate, cui concinere dicit dogma Plato- nicum, ait Pythagoram Deum quidem singularitatis nominasse, (nomine appellasse,) sylvam vero duitatvs. Quam duitatem, indeterminatam quidem, minime geni- tam, limitatam vero, generatam esse dicere. Hoc est, antequam exornaretur quidem, formamque et ordinem nancisceretur, sine ortu et generatione ; exornatam vero atque illustratam, a digestore Deo esse genera- tam. Atque ita, quia generationis sit fortuna poste- rior, tnornatum illud minime generatum, equevum Deo, a quo est ordinatum, intelligi debeat. Sed non- 30 ORIGINES SACRA. Book nullos Pythagoreos, vim sententie non recte assecutos, ne putasse, dict etiam illam indeterminatam, et immen- sam, duitatem, ab una singularitate institutam, rece- dente a natura sua singularitate, et in duitatis habi- tum migrante. But however these Pythagoreans might be deceived, who thought the Unity itself became the Deity, yet it is evident by Numenius, that he looked on the undetermined and confused matter to have been coeval with God himself, and not produced by him. And if Numenius be as much to be credited in this, as when he calls Plato Moses Atticus, then the creation of universal matter can be no part of Pythagoras’s philosophic cabala. But whatever were the opinions of Plato and Pythagoras concerning the first origin of matter, we are certain that the Stoics generally as- serted the improduction of matter, and make that to be as necessary a passive principle for the being of the world, as God is the active and efficient cause. So Laert.V. Diogenes Laertius reports of the Stoical principles con- Zenon. é ee ° . x p.196. cerning the origin of the universe: Aoxei 9 avrois apyas ed. Lond. V. Lipsium oes Elva TyY amolov ovolay TYY vAyv' TO de qoLody, Tov ev our] Abyov tov becv. They make two principles of the universe, one active, and the other passive ; the passive, an es- sence without quality, called hyle, or confused matter ; the active, the reason which acts on the other, which ae as God. These two principles Seneca calls causa et materia. Lsse vero debet, saith he, aliquid unde fiat; deinde, a quo fiat; hoc causa est, illud materia. A\l- era though Seneca seems to make a query of it elsewhere ; Quest. quantum Deus possit: materiam ipse sibi formet, an pies data utatur? But Zeno is express in Stobzeus, Oveiay Elvak THY TOY TeV TaYTOV mporny VAyy, TaUTHY dé waoay aldiov, oure mAelw ryeryveoprevyy ote eaattwo. The Jjirst ESSENCE of all 1s matter, which is eternal, and not capable of 7 axl vk ot / \ ~ ee ee go Bling, See 5 Elva TWY OAwY Ovo, TO TOLOUY KAL TO TAaOX OV TO fev ovy TATV OV, ORIGINES SACRA. 31 accession or diminution. 'To the same purpose Chal- CHAP. cidius speaks, Stovc: ortum sylve rejiciunt, quin Paice tius ipsam et Deum, duo totius rei sumunt initia ; {0 Deum, ut opificem; Sylvam, ut que operationi sub- ?- 38°. jiciatur. Una quidem essentia preditos facientem, et quod fit ac patitur, id corpus esse; diversa vero vir- tute, quia faciat, Deum; quia fiat, Sylvam esse. Having now found out the certain assertors among x. the heathen philosophers of the eternity and impro- duction of matter as the passive principle of things, we come to examine the reason of this hypothesis, and whether there were foundation enough for this matter to subsist upon to all eternity. It might be sufficient prejudice against this opinion, that it was built on the same infirm conclusions which that of the eternity of the whole world was, viz. that maxim which Lipsius attributes to Democritus, but was embraced by all those philosophers who denied production of matter, pondev eK ToD py ovtos yivecBau, payde eis TO fay Ov pbeiperbat, that nothing could be produced out of nothing, nor could return into nothing ; which, as we have already said, was only taken up from the established order of the universe, and the manner of production of material beings. But this is not all we have to charge this hypothesis with; for, 1. It is repugnant to the natural notion of a Deity, which must imply in it an omnipotent power; for otherwise we degrade him to the imbecility of finite creatures, if he cannot produce any thing which doth not imply a contradiction: but what contradiction is there in this, that God should give a being to that which had none before? For that is all we under- stand by creation, viz. the producing of something out of nothing, or which had nothing out of which it was produced. Now what repugnancy is there to any free BOOK Ill. 32 ORIGINES SACRA. principle of reason, that a power infinite should raise an insect into being, without any passive principle out of which it was caused ? And if an infinite power can do that, it may as well produce the world out of no- thing, else the power would not be infinite; for it would have its bounds set, that thus far it could go, and no further. Now if such a power in God implies no contradiction in itself, I say, the asserting the ne- cessary existence of matter implies a contradiction to this power. For, 1. A power to produce something out of nothing would be to no purpose, if a passive principle or preexistent matter be necessary to the pro- duction of any thing; and so that Being which hath a power to produce something out of nothing, hath only a power to produce something out of something; which is a plain contradiction. 2. If God hath a power to produce something out of nothing, either this power doth extend to the production of this matter, or not; if it doth, then it depends on him; if not, his power is not infinite, and so the same power is infinite. and not infinite; which is another contradiction. So that it is plainly repugnant to the notion of a God, to assert the necessary and eternal existence of matter. 2. If matter be unproduced, then necessary exist- ence must belong to it as well as to God; and if ne- cessary existence belongs to matter, infinite power must belong to it too; for whatever necessarily exists is self- originated ; whatever is self-originated could not by any cause whatsoever be hindered from being; what cannot by any cause be hindered from being, hath in- finite power; what hath infinite power may produce any thing, and is God; and so matter cannot be a mere passive principle, but must be an active, and must be God himself, or else there must be more Gods than one. To an argument something of this nature ORIGINES SACRA. 33 Hermogenes in Tertullian replies, that matter would CHAP. not lose the name or nature of matter because of its coeternity with God; neither could it be God merely ade. on that account, unless it had other things that were BER agreeable to the nature of God as well as that. But I have already shewed that necessary existence implies other perfections going along with it; which is like- wise thus proved by Tertullian in answer to Hermo- genes. The reason of the imperfections which are to be seen in any creatures, is from hence, that they de- rive their beings from a higher cause, who creates them in what order he pleases; but that which hath its ori- ginal from itself, must on that account want those im- perfections which other creatures in the world have ; and therefore if necessary existence be of the nature of matter, all other perfections must belong to it too: and so there can be no superiority and inferiority between God and matter, because on both sides there will be necessary existence. Divinitas gradum non habet, Teri. utpote unica: and so the eternal existence of matter ne is repugnant to the unity of God. 3. It is repugnant to the independency of God; for it makes God subject to matter, and not matter to God. For if God cannot produce any thing without preexistent matter, the matter is necessary to his ac- tion, and so God must depend on that which he can do nothing without; and so God’s using matter is, as Tertullian speaks, ex necessitate mediocritatis sue, to help him in the production of things. Nemo non sub- ibid. c. 8. jicitur ei cujus eget, ut possit uti, as he goes on. ‘Thus matter at last is crept above the Deity, that God can do nothing without its aid and concurrence; and so, as Tertullian sharply says, God is beholden to matter for every being known to the world ; grande benefi- cium Deo contulit ut haberet hodie per quem Deus STILLINGFLEET, VOU. II. D BOOK BE Orig. Phi- loc. c. 24. 34 ORIGINES SACRA. cognosceretur, et omnipotens vocaretur ; nist quod jam non omnipotens ; st non et hoc potens ex nihilo omnia proferre. Thus we see how irreconcilable this hypo- thesis is with these attributes of God. 4. It is repugnant to the immensity of God. For either God did exist separate from this eternal matter, or was conjoined with it: if conjoined with it, then both made but one being, as Maximus or Origen ar- gues; if separate from it, then there must be some- thing between them, and so there will be three real improduced things. If it be answered that they are neither conjoined nor separate, but God is in matter as in his proper place, as the Stoics asserted, it is easily replied, that either then he is in a part of matter, or the whole matter; if in a part only, he cannot be im- mense; if in the whole, as his adequate place, how could he then ever frame the world? For either he must then recede from that part in which he was, and contract himself into a narrower compass, that he might fashion that part of the world which he was about, or else he must likewise frame part of himself with that part of the world which he was then fram- ing of ; which consequence is unavoidable, on the Sto- ical hypothesis of God’s being corporeal, and confined to the world as his proper place. And so much for this second hypothesis, concerning the origin of the universe, which supposeth the eternity of matter as » 45 coexisting with God. I come now to that which makes most noise in the world, which is the atomical or Epicurean hypothesis ; but will appear to be as irrational as either of the fore- going, as far as it concerns the giving an account of the origin of the universe. For otherwise supposing a Deity which produced the world, and put it into the order it is now in, and supremely governs all things in ORIGINES SACRA. 35 the world, that many of the phenomena of the universe CHAP. are far more intelligibly explained by matter and mo- i tion than by substantial forms and real qualities, few free and unprejudiced minds do now scruple. But because these little particles of matter may give a tolerable account of many appearances of nature, that therefore there should be nothing else but matter and motion in the world, and that the origin of the uni- verse should be from no wiser principle than the casual concourse of these atoms, 1s one of the evidences of the proneness of men’s minds to be intoxicated with those opinions they are once in love with; when they are not content to allow an hypothesis its due place and subserviency to God and providence, but think these atoms have no force at all in them, unless they can extrude a Deity quite out of the world; for it is most evident that it was not so much the truth, as the ser- viceableness of this hypothesis, which hath given it entertainment among men of atheistical spirits. Epi- curus himself, in his Epistle to Pythocles, urgeth that as a considerable circumstance in his opinion, that he brought no God down upon the stage to put things in order, Kai 4 beia pvats pos Tata pndapen moorayer be, which Diog. Laer. 4 ‘ 1X p20; his paraphrast Lucretius hath thus rendered : occ : eee te Nat. v.199. Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Me Soh Naturam rerum. | If this opinion then be true, the history of the creation quite falls to the ground; on which account we are obliged more particularly to consider the reason of it. The hypothesis then of Epicurus is, that before the world was brought into that form and order tt 1s now in, there was an infinite empty space, in which were an innumerable company of solid particles, or atoms of different sizes and shapes, which by thew weight were in continual motion; and that by the various | D2 36 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK occursions of these, all the bodies of the universe were eee framed into that order they now are in. Which is Euseb, fully expressed by Dionysius in Eusebius, and very ee agreeably to the sense of Epicurus, in his Epistles to ct Pac 3 Herodotus and Pythocles, and to what Plutarch re- Zee ports of the sense of Epicurus, though he names him Phil. l.i- not, (if at least that book be his, which Muretus de- C. 4. 2 . ° : Muret. An-nies.) The words of Dionysius are these, concerning not. in Se- e ¢ \ \ EY / 6 , nec.de the Epicureans, of prev yap atomous mpocelmovtes apbapta Proyid. \ / ; 70 ey / if TLVA KaAk TPLKPOTATEa TWKATA, Thy 0S AVaps La, Kat Th XKepsov \ / b) / / , / \ Kevor, jneyelos ameptoprotov mpoBarcuevolr, Tavtas On pack Tas ATO pLOUS Os eT UY EV ey TO KEVD pepopnevaac, AUTOMATWS TE TUK 4 > / \ Cw + \ / \ Tinmtovoas aAAnAais Oto PUNY ATAKTOY Kak TuumAEKOMEVAS DLA 0 TOAVTY N[LOV, ahAnAwY emiAauCaverbas, Kal ovUTH TOY TE KOO [AOV, \ Q J , 6 os) x ¥. > / b) ~ K&L TH EV GUT, MaAAoY dé KOT(AOUS ameloous amoTehely. So that, according to this opinion, all the account we have of the origin of the world is from this general ren- dezvous of atoms in this infinite space; in which, after many encounters and facings about, they fell into their several troops, and made up that ordered battalia which now the world is the scheme of. It was not impru- dently done of Epicurus to make the worlds infinite, as well as his space and atoms; for by the same reason that his atoms would make one world, they might make a thousand; and who would spare for worlds, when he might make them so easily ?. Lucretius gives us in so exact an account of the several courses the atoms took up in disposing themselves into bodies, as though he had been muster-master general at the rendezvous ; for thus he speaks of his atoms: Lucret. i. Sed quia multimodis, multis, mutata, per omne 1023. ed. . . ; : \ os Ex infinito vexantur percita plagis, Omne genus motus et coetus experiundo, Tandem deveniunt in taleis disposituras, Qualibus hee rebus consistit summa creata. ORIGINES SACRA. 37 And more particularly afterwards : CHAP. Sed quia multa modis multis primordia rerum Ex infinito jam tempore percita plagis, Ponderibusque suis consuerunt concita fern, Omnimodisque coire, atque omnia pertentare, Qusecunque inter se possent congressa creare 5 Ut non sit mirum, si in taleis disposituras Deciderunt quoque, et in taleis venere meatus, Qualibus hac rerum genitur nunc summa novando. Id. v. 423. Thus we see the substance of the Epicurean hypothe- sis, that there was an infinite number of atoms, which by their frequent occursions did at last meet with those of the same nature with them, and these being con- joined together, made up those bodies which we see; so that all the account we are able to give, according to this hypothesis, of all the phenomena of the uni- verse, is from the fortuitous concourse of the atoms in the first forming of the world, and the different con- texture of them in bodies. And this was delivered by the ancient Epicureans, not with any doubt or hesita- tion, but with the greatest confidence imaginable. So Tully observes of Velleius the Epicurean, beginning his discourse, fidenter sane, ut solent tsti, nihil tam Cicero de . : . Nat. Deor. verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur; tan-\,;, quam modo ex Deorum concilio, et ex Epicurt inter- mundiis descendisset: confidence was the peculiar ge- nius of that sect, which we shall see in them to be accompanied with very little reason. For those two things which make any principles in XIU. philosophy to be rejected, this atomical hypothesis is unavoidably charged with; and those are, Lf the prin- ciples be taken up without sufficient ground in reason for them; and if they cannot give any sufficient ac- count of the phenomena of the world. I shall there- fore make it appear, that this hypothesis, as to the D3 BOOK IIL. 38 ORIGINES SACRAL. origin of the universe, is, jist, merely precarious, and built on no sufficient grounds of reason; secondly, that it cannot give any satisfactory account of the origin of things. 1. That it is a precarious hypothesis, and hath no evidence of reason on which it should be taken up; and that will be proved by two things. 1. I¢ is such an hypothesis as the E’picureans themselves could have no certainty of, according to their own princi- ples. 2. That the main principles of the hypothesis itself are repugnant to those catholic laws of nature which are observed in the universe. 1. The Hpicureans, according to their own prin- cuples, could have no certainty of the truth of this hypothesis. And that, 1. Because they could have no certain evidence of its truth. 2. Because their way of proving it was insufficient. 1. That they could have no certain evidence of the truth of it, I prove from those criteria, which Epicu- rus lays down as the only certain rules of judging the truth of things by; and those were, sense, anticipa- tion, and passion. Let sense be never so infallible a rule of judgment, yet it is impossible there should be any evidence to sense of the truth of this hypothesis ; and let him extend his 1d qpocpevduevw as long as he please, which was his great help for correcting the errors of sense, viz. as it was in the Roman court, when the case was not clear, ampliandum est: so Epicurus would have the object represented every way it could be before he passed his Judgment; yet this prudent caution would do him no good for this hypo- thesis, unless he were so wise as to stay till this world were crumbled into atoms again, that by that he might Judge of the origin of it. There is but one way left to find out the truth of things inevident to sense, (as by ORIGINES SACRE. ; 39 Epicurus’s own confession all these atoms are, which CHAP. are now the component particles of bodies; much more 3 those which by their fortuitous concourse gave being to the world,) and that is, if something evident to sense doth apparently prove it, which is his way of proving a vacuity in nature from motion: but though that be easily answered by principles different from those of Epicurus, and more rational, yet that very way of probation fails him in this present hypothesis. For what is there evident to sense which proves a fortui- tous concourse of atoms for the production of things ? Nay, if we grant him that the composition of bodies is nothing else but the contexture of these insensible par- ticles, yet this is far from being an evidence to sense, that these particles, without any wise and directing Providence, should make up such bodies as we see in the world. And here, when we speak of the evidence of sense, we may well ask, as the Stoic in Tully doth, whether ever Epicurus found a poem made by the casual throwing of letters together ; and if a concourse of atoms did produce the world, cur porticum, cur Cicero de Nat. Deor. templum, cur domum, cur urbem non potest? why i. did it never produce a cloister, a temple, a house, a city ? which are far easier things than the world. I know Epicurus will soon reply, That things are other- wise in the world now than when it was first pro- duced. J grant it, and from thence prove, that be- cause no such thing ever happens in the world now, as a merely casual concourse of atoms to produce any thing, Epicurus could have no evidence from sense at all to find out the truth of his hypothesis by. And as little relief can he find from his second criterzum, viz. anticipation; for by his own acknowledgment all an- Moe Nac de Logica ticipation depends on the senses, and men have it only se : p. fom. 1. ish one of these four ways. 1. By incursion, as the species c. 7. can. 7. D 4 BOOK III. XIII. 2s 40 ORIGINES SACRA. of a man is preserved by the sight of him. 2. By pro- portion, as we can enlarge or contract that species of a man either into a giant or pigmy. 3. By similitude, as we may fancy the image of a city by resemblance to one which we have seen. 4. By composition, where- by we may join different images together; as of a horse and a man to make a centaur. Now though it be very questionable how some of these ways belong to a criterium of truth, yet none of them reach our case; for there can be no incursion of insensible par- ticles as such upon our senses: we may indeed by pro- portion imagine the parvitude of them; but what is this to the proving the truth of the hypothesis? Simi- litude can do no good, unless Epicurus had ever seen a world made so; the only relief must be from compo- sition, and that will prove the origin of the world by atoms to be as true as that there are centaurs in the world, which we verily believe. These are the only criteria which Epicurus would judge of the truth of natural things by, (for the third, passion, relates wholly to things moral, and not physical;) and now let any one judge whether the hypothesis of the origin of the universe by atoms can ever be proved true, either by the judgment of sense or by anticipation. | The way they had to prove this hypothesis was in- sufficient ; and that was, by proving that the bodies of the world are compounded of such insensible particles. Now granting the thing, I deny the consequence; for what though the composition of bodies be from the contexture of atoms, doth it therefore follow that these particles did casually produce these bodies ? Nay, doth it at all follow, that because bodies upon their resolu- tion do fall into insensible particles of different size, figure, and motion, therefore these particles must be preexistent to all bodies in the world ? For it is plain ORIGINES SACRE. 4) - that there is now an universal lump of matter, out of CHAT which these insensible particles arise, and whither they return on the dissolution of bodies; and all these va- rious corpuscles may be of the same uniform substance, only with the alteration of size, shape, and motion. But what then? Doth this prove, that because parti- cular bodies do now emerge out of the various configu- ration and motion of insensible particles of that matter which exists in the world, that therefore this whole matter was produced by the casual occursions of these atoms? It will ask more time and pains than is usually taken by the philosophers, either ancient or modern, to prove that those things, whatsoever they are, whether elements or particles out of which bodies are supposed to be compounded, do exist separately from such compounded bodies, and antecedently to them. We find no Aristotelian elements pure in the world, nor any particles of matter destitute of such a size, figure, and motion, as doth make some body or other. From whence then can we infer either the ex- istence of Aristotle’s materia prima, without quiddity, quantity, or quality, or the Epicurean atoms without such a contexture as makes up some bodies in the world ? Our profound naturalist Dr. Harvey, after his most accurate search into the natures and generation of things, delivers this as his experience and Judgment concerning the commonly reputed elements or prin- ciples of bodies. For, speaking of the different opinions of Empedocles and Hippocrates, and Democritus and Epicurus, concerning the composition of bodies, he adds, igo vero neque in animalium productione, nec Harvey de omnino in ulla corporum similarium generatione (sive eae ea partium animalium, sive plantarum, lapidum, m- neralium, &c. fuerit,) vel congregationem ejusmodt, vel miscibilia diversa in generationis opere unienda BOOK Ill. Cicero de Nat. Deor. Js c. 745 42 ORIGINES SACRE. preeaistere, observare unquam potut, And after ex- plaining the way which he conceived most rational and consonant to experience in the generation of things, he concludes his discourse with these words. Idemque in omni generatione fiert crediderim ; adeo ut corpora similaria mista, elementa sua tempore priora non habeant, sed wlla potius elementis suis prius eaistant (nempe Empedoclis atque Aristotelis wgne, aqua, aere, et terra, vel chymicorum sale, suf- phure, et mercurio ; aut Democriti atomis) utpote na- tura quoque wpsis perfectiora. Sunt, inquam, mista, et composita, etiam tempore priora elementis quibus- libet sic dictis, in que tla corrumpuntur et desinunt ; dissolvuntur scilicet, in ista ratione potius quam re ipsa et actu. Llementa itaque que dicuntur, non sunt priora is rebus que generantur aut oriuntur ; sed posteriora potius, et reliquie magis quam prin- cipia. Neque Aristoteles ipsemet aut alius quispiam unquam demonstravit elementa in rerum natura se- paratim existere, aut principia esse corporum simila- rium. If then none of these things which bodies are resolved into, and are supposed to be compounded of, either have been or can be proved to exist separate from and antecedent to those bodies which they com- pound, what then becomes of all our company of atoms, which are supposed, by their concourse in an infinite space, to be the origin of the world? I know not where to find them, unless dancing with the schoolmen’s chimeras in a vacuum, or in a space as empty as the infinite one, viz. some Epicurean’s brains. Neither therein will they be much unlike their great master EKpicurus, if we believe the character which the Stoic in Tully gives of him; who saith, he was homo sine arte, sine literis, insultans in omnes, sine acumine ullo, sine auctoritate, sine lepore. But allowing the ORIGINES SACRA. 43 Stoic some of that passion, which he disclaimed so CHAP. much, in these words, yet we may rather believe what “ Tully himself elsewhere speaks of Epicurus’s senti- ments, that they were none of them handsome, or be- coming aman. Af tlle quid sentit? saith he of Epi- Idem de curus; and soon replies, sentit autem nihil unquam\. i elegans, nihil decorum. And in another place, speak- tdem de Fi- ing of his morals, he saith, nzkil generosum sapit at- ve a que magnificum, there was nothing noble and gene- rous in him; which censure of Epicurus, all the pains that P. Gassendus hath taken in the vindication of the life and opinions of Epicurus, hath not been able to wipe off. For although we should yield what that learned man so much contends for, that all the calum- nies which were cast on Epicurus arise from the anti- pathy between Zeno and the following Stoics, and the school of Epicurus; yet all this will not make Epi- curus to have been comparable with some other philo- sophers for parts and judgment, whose principles have somewhat more generous and venerable in them than the morals of Epicurus had, taking them in their more refined sense. But it is not the morality of Epicurus which we xiv. now inquire after; our business is to see how well he acquits himself in rendering an account of the origin of the universe without a Deity. And so we come to consider the hypothesis itself, whether it be rational or no, or consistent with the catholic laws of nature which appear in the world. Two things I shall here inquire into, which are the main principles of Epicu- rus, viz. the motion of these atoms in the infinite space, and the manner of the concretion of bodies by the concourse of these atoms. 1. I begin with their motion; which Epicurus at- tributes to his atoms without any hesitation, and yet 44 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK never undertakes to give an account of the origin of "that motion ; which argues his whole hypothesis to be extremely precarious. The thing then (which he must assume as his main principle, without which all his other do nothing) is, that motion doth inseparably be- long to the least atom or insensible particle; for with- out this there cannot be imagined any concourse of atoms at all, much less any such contexture of bodies out of them. But for one to say that atoms move, be- cause it is their nature to move, and give no other account of it, is so precarious, that it will never give the least satisfaction to an inquisitive mind: and it will be the least of all pardonable in the exploders of substantial forms and occult qualities, when the origin of the whole world is resolved into an occult quality which gives motion to atoms. And herein the atomists outdo the most credulous Peripatetics, seeing they lay the prime foundation of the world and of their own philosophy together in a thing they can give no rational account of at all; which is, the motion of atoms in an infinite vacuity. If it be. replied, which is all Epicurus hath to say, that the motion of atoms de- pends upon their gravity, the question returns upon him with the same violence; how comes this gravity to belong to these atoms in such an empty space, where there can be no impulsion from other bodies, no attraction from any magnetic particles, which are sup- posed to be the causes of the descent of heavy bodies ? eee Nay, Epicurus himself takes away any centre of that i. Lili. c. 7. motion of atoms, and yet attributes a necessary descent eae to his atoms by virtue of their gravity; and if a philo- humilis et SOpher may beg such things as these are, so repugnant sublimis, to the phenomena of nature, without assigning any Ep. iv. sect. hee other reason for them, but that it is their nature, let e Motu . oe ° . Phys. sect, US Never venture philosophizing more, but sit down in Le deWs C52. ORIGINES SACRA, 45 that contented piece of ignorance, which attributes the CHAP. causes of every thing unto specific forms and occult = qualities; for this is so shameful a piece of beggary, that P. Gassendus doth more than once disclaim it; and in his discourse of motion doth prove an impos- v. Ep. de sibility of motion in an infinite empty space. Might Lang not Epicurus then have saved his credit better by sit- Mo", ting down with the opinions of his forefathers, than tom. iii-Op. thus to go a begging for such hypotheses, which none, who are not resolved to be ignorant, will be ready to grant him ? But yet this is not all: but according to this funda- xv. mental principle of Epicurus, viz. that there is a prin- ciple of motion in every insensible particle of matter, he plainly overthrows another principle of his, which is, the solidity and different magnitude of these atoms. These particles are supposed so solid, that Dionysius in Eusebius tells us, the account Shor why they are Euseb. called arouc: was, da tHv advtov orepporyta, because OF hoa their indissoluble firmness; and the different sizes of *'” “ 7% these atoms is so necessary a principle, that from thence they undertake to resolve many phenomena of the universe. Let us now see how consistent these things are with the inseparable property of motion be- longing to atoms: for if there be particles of such dif- ferent sizes, then it is plain that there are some par- ticles which may not only be conceived to be bigger than others, but are really so; and so there must be more parts of matter imagined in this bigger particle than in another less; and if there be more parts, these parts may be conceived separate from each other, that this particle may be equal to the other. Now then I demand, if motion doth inseparably belong to the least particle of matter, how comes one to be bigger than the other? For herein we see that every particle is BOOK 111. V. Descar- tes, Prin- cip. p. ii. art. 54, 555 56. 46 ORIGINES SACRA. not in distinct motion: for there cannot but be more imaginable particles in an atom of a bigger size than in a less; and if so, there must be some union of those imaginable particles in that bigger atom; and how could such an union be without rest, and what rest could there be, if motion doth inseparably belong to every particle of matter? And so it must be in all those atoms which are supposed to have angles and hooks, in order to their better catching hold of each other for the composition of bodies; how come these hooks and angles to be annexed to this atom? For an atom may be without them; whence comes this union, if such a principle of motion be in each particle? If it be answered, that motion did belong to all these par- ticles, but by degrees the lesser particles hitting toge- ther made up these angled and hooked particles; 1 soon reply, that the difficulty returns more strongly: for if these angled and hooked particles be supposed necessary to the contexture and union of bodies, how came those least imaginable particles ever to unite without such hooks and angles? And so the question will return 7 infinitum. If then the solidity and in- divisibility of these angled atoms doth depend on the union and rest of those lesser imaginable particles joined together, then. it is evident that motion is no inseparable property of all these particles, but some are capable of union, in order to the making of such hooks and angles, which are necessary for the contex- ture of bodies; and where there is union and solidity, there is rest, which is at least accompanied with it, if it be not one of the great causes of it: and without which the atomists, of all other philosophers, will be least able to give an account of firmness in bodies, when they make bodies to consist of an ageregation of particles ; by which it will be very hard finding a suf- ORIGINES SACRA. 47 ficient account of the difference between fluid and firm nee. bodies, unless it be from the quicker motion and agita- ; tion of the particles of fluid bodies, and the rest of the small and contiguous parts that make up the firm body, according to that catholic law of nature whereby things continue in the state they are in till some stronger force puts them out of it. The only thing which the Epicurean atomists have left to give any account of the solidity of particles of such different sizes, is, the want of vacuity: for, say they, the ground of divisibi- lity of bodies is the interspersion of a disseminated vacuum: now where there ts no vacuity, though the particles be of different size, yet they may be solid and indivisible. But this is taken off by the instance SHER produced against other persons, by that ingenious and Firm. p. honourable person Mr. Boyle, in his Physiological Es- °°” says, which is to this purpose. Suppose two of these presumed indivisible particles, both smooth and of a cubical figure, should happen to le upon one another, and a third should chance to be fitly placed upon the upper of the two, what should hinder but that this aggregate may, by the violent knock of some other corpuscles, be broken in the midst of the whole con- cretion, and consequently in the middlemost body ? For suppose them as solid as may be, yet since cor- puscles as hard as they can be made very violently to knock against them, why may not those grate or break the middlemost corpuscles, or any of the others? And if there be a possibility of breaking off these cubical particles in the middle, then mere want of vacuity is no sufficient account of their being indivisible. By this we see how far the atomists are from giving any ra- tional account of the origin of the motion of the atoms themselves without a Deity. 2. Supposing this motion to be granted them, yet XVI. BOOK III. Gassend. Physic. sect. i. ja ac sy 48 ORIGINES SACRA. they cannot give any satisfactory account of the man- ner of concretion of bodies, by the casual occursions of these atoms moving in an infinite empty space ; which appears from those gross and extravagant suppositions of Epicurus, in order to the making these atoms of his so hit together that they make up any bodies by their contexture. 1. He supposeth as it were two regions, a superior and inferior, in an infinite empty space, which hath no centre at all in it, nor any body, from which to mea- sure those respects of above and below, as appears by his Epistle to Herodotus, wherein he saith, These terms of avw and xérw, or upwards and downwards, must be conceived without any bounds or limits at all. So that though we conceive something superior, we must imagine nothing supreme; and so on the con- trary. Whereby it is evident, as Gassendus confesseth, that Epicurus thought the surface of the earth to be a plane, and this plane to be continued up in a level su- perficies to the heavens, and so to all that immense space of the universe; so that all those heavy bodies which should fall downwards in any parts of the widest distance on the earth, as in Europe, Asia, and Africa, would never meet (if they continued their mo- tion) in the centre of the earth, but would continue their motion still in a parallel line; and so he ima- gined that which is said to be above as to us, was really the upper part of the world, and so the descent of his atoms must necessarily be downwards towards the earth, according to the weight of them. And was not this a worthy mathematical supposition, for one who would undertake to give an account of the origin of the universe without a Deity ? This motion of descent, by reason of the gravity of atoms, would not serve his turn; for if the atoms ORIGINES SACRA. 49 moved downwards thus in a parallel line, how was it cHek. possible for them ever to meet for the contexture of bodies ? Now for this purpose he invented a motion of declination ; for finding the motion ad lineam, or ad perpendiculum as some call it, could not possibly pro- duce those varieties of bodies which are in the uni- verse, he supposed therefore the descent not to be in a perpendicular right line, but to decline a little, that so several particles, in their descent, might make some occursions one upon another. And this Epicurus added Cicero de to Democritus; but therein, as Tully observes, was ae very unhappy; that where he adds to Democritus, ea que corrigere vult, mihi quidem depravare videatur ; that he marred what Democritus had said, by mend- ing of it. The reason of which motion of declination is thus given by Lucretius: Quod nisi declinare solerent, omnia deorsum, Lucret. ii. Imbris uti gutta, caderent per inane profundum ; pee: Nec foret offensus natus, nec plaga creata Principiis; ita nil unquam natura creasset. It was obvious to object, that, according to the prin- ciples of Epicurus, there could have been no concourse at all of atoms in an infinite space, on the two grounds he went on; which were the natural descent of atoms, and the equi-velocity of the motion of all atoms of what size soever ; which he likewise asserted (although one would think, if gravity were the cause of motion, then the more gravity the swifter the motion would be). From hence, I say, it were not easy to conceive how the atoms should embrace each other in a parallel line, if they fell down, as Lucretius expresseth it, like drops of rain; and therefore they saw a necessity to make their motion decline a little, that so they might justle and hit one upon another. But this oblique mo- tion of the atoms, though it be the only refuge left to STILLINGFLEET, VOL. Il. E BOOK I[f. Cicero de Fin. Bon. et Mal. J. i. Platarch. de Anim. procreat. é Timeo. Turnebus in Ciceron. de Fato. Lucret. ii. 243. 50 ORIGINES SACRA. salve the origin of things by a concourse of atoms, is yet as precarious, and without reason, as any other supposition of theirs whatsoever. Tully chargeth this motion of declination with two great faults; futility and inefficacy, gue cum res tota ficta sit pueriliter, tum ne efficit quidem quod vult. It is a childish fancy, and to no purpose: For, first, it is asserted without any reason at all given for it, which is unworthy a philosopher ; neither is it to any purpose: for if all atoms, saith he, decline in their motion, then none of them will stick together: if some decline, and others do not, this is as precarious as any thing can be ima- gined, to assign a diversity of motion in indivisible particles, which yet have all the same velocity of mo- tion; and, as Tully saith, loc erit quasi provincias atomis dare, que recte, que oblique ferantur, as though Epicurus were the general at this rendezvous of atoms, who stands ready to appoint every one his task and motion. This, Plutarch tells us, was the great charge against Epicurus, os dvafriov émesodyovrs Ki- vyow ex Tov jy ovtos, because he introduced such a mo- tion of declination out of nothing, upon no pretence of reason. And Turnebus tells us, that the ground why they desired so small a declination, was, because they were conscious to thernselves that it was founded upon no ground of reason; Lt E’picuret sibi conscii culpe, timide eam ponebant, et minimam sibi postulabant. To which purpose Turnebus cites those verses of Lu- cretius : Quare etiam atque etiam paullum clinare necesse ’st Corpora, nec plus quam minimum, ne fingere motus Obliquos videamur, et id res vera refutet. Nam hoc in promptu manifestumque esse videmus, Pondera, quantum in se ’st, non posse obliqua meare, Ex supero cum precipitant, quod cernere possis. ORIGINES SACRE. 51 Sed nihil omnino recta regione viai Declinare, quis est, qui possit cernere, sese ? But this argument of Lucretius will hold, if at all, further than this little declination, (for it is no more they desire than as little as may be imagined, quo ni- hil possit fiert minus, as Tully expresseth it;) but if they may decline a little, why not a great deal more ? Nay, it is impossible to conceive, but a little oblique motion at first will in an infinite space grow to be very oblique; for there is nothing to hinder the mo- tion which way it bends: now if there be never so little motion of declination, the atom will be inclined that way; and what then should hinder, but that the obliquity in a motion through a great space should at last come to be very great; there being no centre at all to guide the motion towards, and the gravity not hindering this little declination ? Therefore Tully asks CHAP. II. that question, Cur declinet uno minimo, non declinet Cicero de duobus aut tribus? Why only it declines one minim, and not two or three? For, saith he, it is no impul- sion from any other atom which niakes it decline that one minim; neither is there any impediment in the space to hinder it from declining more ; so that, as he well saith, optare hoc quidem est, non disputare, this is to beg hypotheses, and not to prove them, which is the thing we have proved Epicurus to do. Which was the first thing premised, viz. that: this hypothesis of Epicurus was very precarious, and is built on no foun- dation of reason. 2. It is unsatisfactory and insufficient, as well as precarious ; for should we grant his two main prin- ciples, atoms, and his infinite empty space, yet we deny that his atoms, with all their occursions, would ever produce those things which are in the universe. To run through the noted phenomena of the universe, and E 2 Fato. XVII. BOOK IIL. 52 ORIGINES SACRA. to shew how insufficient an account the Epicureans are able to give of them from a fortuitous concourse of atoms, is a task too large to be here undertaken. There are only three things which I shall rather sug- gest, than insist upon, to see what miserable shifts the Epicureans are driven to for the salving of them, and shall then leave it with the reader to judge, what un- measurable confidence it is in any to reject the creation of the world for the sake of the Epicurean hypothesis ; and whether it be not the height of credulity, as well as infidelity, to believe the world ever to have been made by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. 1. The great variety of appearances in nature, which are attributed to particles of the same nature, only with the alteration of size, shape, and motion. That some things in the world should have no other reason given of them, may not only be tolerable but rational; as in the objects and operations on the or- gans of sense, those affections which are mistaken for real qualities, &c. But that all those effects which are seen in nature should have no other cause but the dif- ferent configuration and motion of atoms, is the height of folly as well as impiety. To imagine that the par- ticles of matter, as they are in men, should be capable of sensation, memory, intellection, volition, &c. merely because of a different shape, size, and motion from what they have in a piece of wood, is a riddle that re- quires a new configuration of atoms in us to make us understand. May it not be hoped, that at least one time or other, by this casual concourse of atoms, the particles may light to be of such a nature in stones, as to make them fly; in plants, to make them all sensi- tive; and in beasts, to make them reason and dis- course ? What may hinder such a configuration or mo- tion of particles, if all these effects are to be imputed ee ORIGINES SACR AS. . 53 to no higher principle? We see in other bodies what different appearances are caused by a sudden alteration of the particles of the matter of which they are com- pounded; why may it not fall out so in the things mentioned ? Neither can this be unreasonable to de- mand. 1. Because the motion of these particles of matter is casual still according to them: and who knows what chance may do? for the seminal princi- ples themselves are, I suppose, according to them, of the same uniform matter with the rest of the world, and so are liable to different motion and configuration. 2. Because all particles of matter are supposed to be in continual motion, because of that disseminated vacuity which is presumed to be in the world, and because a coacervate vacuity is not only asserted as possible, but as probably existent: I assume only then, (that which is insisted on as probable, viz.) that that space which lies between our atmosphere and the stars is empty of any other thing but only the rays of the stars which pass through it; I then supposing it a vacuity, whe- ther would not the particles of those bodies, which lie contiguous to that space, presently dislodge from the bodies wherein they are, and begin a new rendezvous of atoms there? for all atoms are supposed to be in perpetual motion; and the cause assigned why in solid bodies they do not fly away, is because of the reper- cussion of other atoms, that when they once begin to stir, they receive such knocks as make them quiet in their places. Now this cannot hold in the bodies con- tiguous to this space; for both those bodies are more fluid, and so there is no such knocking of particles to keep them at rest: but which is more, those which are contiguous have nothing at all to hinder them from motion, and so those particles will necessarily remove into that empty space where there is no impediment of E 3 CHAP. Il. 300K id. Euseb. Prep. Ev. 54: ORIGINES SACRA. their motion, and so the next atoms to those must re- move, because that space wherein the other were is made empty by their removal; and so the next, and so on, till not only the air, but the whole mass of the earth will, on supposition of such a vacuity, be dis- solved into its first particles, which will all mutiny in the several bodies wherein they are, and never rest till they come to that empty space, where they may again rendezvous together. So dangerous is the news of li- berty, or of an empty space, to these democratical par- ticles of the universe! Neither can I see how a disse- minated vacuity can salve the difficulty ; for those par- ticles of the most solid bodies being in continual mo- tion, and the ground of their union being repercussion, it thence follows, that, towards that part where the disseminated vacuum is, the particles meeting with no such strokes may fairly take their leaves of the bodies they are in, and so one succeed in the place of another, till the configuration of the whole be altered; and con- sequently different appearances and effects may be caused in the same bodies, though it results from se- minal principles. So that, according to the atomical principles, no rational account can be given of those effects which are seen in nature. This Dionysius in Eusebius urgeth against the atomists, that from the 1. xiv.c.25.Same principles, without evident reason given for it, ed. Par. they make of the same uniform matter some things conspicuous to sense, others not; some short-lived, others extremely long-lived. Twa dé Tpomav psig avons KAL THS GVTAS Omacdy ovolas, Kak THS avTys apbaptov picews, TAyY TOY peylor, cos pact, Kal Tov TXULATOY, TH pEV eats beter Kal AK NPAT OL Kal abovia, O¢ avTOL pycasey ay, THMATA, % [Aa~ Kpociwve. ve KATH Tov ouTws OVOULAT ONTO, pawvonevd Te Kal apavy 5 What ground can there be assigned of so vast a dif- JSerence between things, if they all be of the same na- ORIGINES SACRE. 55 ture, and differ only in size and shape? saith that cHapP. excellent person, who there with a great deal of elo- quence lays open the folly of the atomical philosophy, Oavpacry ye Tv atouay 4 OypoKxpatia, DeEroupévwr Te aAAHAAS Ib. p. 776. TOY pirwov Kak TE PLTAEKO[LEVOY, els pela TE KATATKNVOUY oUveLK ay exevyonevav. It is a rare democracy of atoms, saith he, where the friendly atoms meet and embrace each other, and from thenceforward live in the closest so- ciety together. 2. Not only the variety, but the exact order and beauty of the world, is a thing unaccountable by the atomical hypothesis. Were the whole world still a Hesiod’s chaos, (from the consideration of which Dio-Laert. 1. x. genes Laertius tells us Epicurus began to philoso- phize,) we might probably believe an agitation of par- ticles (supposing matter created) might settle it in such a confused manner; but that there should be nothing else but a blind impetus of atoms to produce those vast and most regular motions of the heavenly bodies, to order the passage of the sun for so great conveniency of nature, and for the alternate succession of the sea- sons of the year; which should cut such channels for the ocean, and keep that vast body of the water (whose surface is higher than the earth) from overflowing it; which should furnish the earth with such seminal and prolific principles, as to provide food and nourishment for those animals which live upon it, and furnish out every thing necessary for the comfort and delight of man’s life; to believe, I say, that all these things came only from a blind and fortuitous concourse of atoms, is the most prodigious piece of credulity and folly that human nature is subject to. But this part which con- cerns the order and beauty of the parts of the universe, and the argument thence, that it could be no blind for- tuitous principle, but an infinitely wise God, hath been E 4 BOOK II Dr.H.More Antidote against Atheism, part ii. 56 ORIGINES SACRA. so fully and judiciously handled by a learned person already, that I shall rather choose to refer the reader to his discourse, than insist any more upon it. 3. The production of mankind is a thing which the atomists are most shamefully puzzled with, as well as the formation of the internal parts of man’s body; of which I have already spoken in the precedent chapter. It would pity one to see what lamentable shifts the atomists are put to, to find out a way for the produc- tion of mankind, viz. that our teeming mother the earth at last cast forth some kind of bags like wombs _ upon the surface of the earth, and these by degrees Censor de Die Nat. €. 2: Lucret. v. 806. breaking, at last came out children, which were nou- rished by a kind of juice of the earth like milk, by which they were brought up till they came to be men. Oh what will not atheists believe rather than a Deity and Providence! But lest we should seem to wrong the atomists, hear what Censorinus saith of Epicurus ; Ls enim credidit, limo calefacto uteros ne- scio quos radicibus terre coherentes primum incre- visse, et infantibus ex se editis ingenitum lactis humo- rem naturam ministrantem prebuisse ; quos ita edu- catos et adultos genus hominum propagasse. But because Lucretius may be thought to speak more im- partially in the case, how rarely doth he describe it ! Crescebant uteri terre radicibus apti ; Quos ubi tempore maturo patefecerat zetas Infantum fugiens humorem, aurasque petissens, Convertebat ibi natura foramina terre, Et succum venis cogebat fundere apertis Consimilem lactis; sicut nunc foemina quzeque Quum peperit, dulci repletur lacte, quod omnis Impetus in mammas convertitur ille alimenti. Terra cibum pueris, vestem vapor, herba cubile Prebebat, multa et molli lanugine abundans. ORIGINES SACRA. 57 Had Lucretius been only a poet, this might have cuap. passed for a handsomely described fable; but to dee ver it for a piece of philosophy, makes it the greater mythology. That man’s body was formed out of the earth, we believe, because we have reason so to do; but that the earth should cast forth such fodlicult, as he expresseth it, and that men should be brought up in such a way as he describes, deserves a place among the most incredible and poetic fables. But if poets must be credited, how much more like a man did he speak, who told us, Natus homo est; sive hunc divino semine fecit Ovid. Me- Ile opifex rerum, Mundi melioris origo ; 5 ee ; Sive recens tellus, seductaque nuper ab alto Adthere, cognati retinebat semina cceli ; Quam satus Iapeto mistam fluvialibus undis, Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta Deorum. Thus have we considered the Epicurean hypothesis, both as to the principles on which it stands, and the suitableness of it to the phenomena of the universe ; and I suppose now there cannot be the least shadow of reason found, from the atomical philosophy, to make us at all question that account of the origin of the universe, which ascribes it not to the fortuitous con- course of atoms, but to the infinite wisdom of a Deity. I conclude then this discourse of the Epicurean hy- pothesis with the words of Automedon in the Greek epigram. Tait’ eldds cogos tobi, paryy 0 ’Eninxoupoy eau ov Antholog. [lod 7d xevov Cyreiv, nck tives ab movades. I. i. c. 15. Learn to be wise; let Epicurus chase To find his atoms, and his empty space. I come now to the last hypothesis mentioned, which xvul. undertakes to give an account of the origin of the unl- verse, from the mere mechanical laws of motion and BOOK Ill. 58 ORIGINES SACRA. matter; which is the hypothesis of the late famous ———— French philosopher, Mr. Des Cartes. For although Cartesii Princip. p- ili. art. 46, &c. there be as much reason as charity to believe that he never intended his hypothesis as a foundation of athe- ism, having made it so much his business to assert the existence of a Deity, and immateriality of the soul; yet because it is apt to be abused to that end by persons atheistically disposed, because of his ascribing so much to the power of matter, we shall therefore so far consider it, as it undertakes to give an account of the origin of the universe without a Deity. His hypothesis therefore is briefly this. He takes it for granted that all the matter of the world was at first of one uniform na- ture, divisible into innumerable parts, and divided into many, which were all in motion: from hence he sup- poseth, 1. That all the matter, of which the universe ws composed, was at first divided into equal particles of an indifferent size, and that they had all such a motion as is now found in the world. 2%. That all those particles were not at first spherical, because many such little globes joined together will not fill up a continued space, but that of whatever figure they were at first, they would by continual motion become spherical, because they would have various circular motions ; for seeing that at first they were moved with so great force that one particle would be disjoined JSrom the other, the same force continuing would serve to cut off all angles which are supposed in them, by their frequent occursions against each other; and so when the angles were cut off, they would become sphe- rical. 3. He supposeth that no space is left empty ; but when those round particles being joined, leave some intervals between them, there are some more subtle particles of matter, which are ready to fill up those void spaces which arise from those angles which ORIGINES SACRA. 59 were cut off from the other particles to make them CHAP. spherical; which fragments of particles are so little, and acquire thereby such a celerity of motion, that by the force of that they will be divided into innumerable little fragments, and so will fill up all those spaces which other particles could not enter in at. 4. That those particles, which fill up the intervals between the spherical ones, have not all of them the same celerity of motion, because some of them are more undivided than others are, which filled up the space between three globular particles when ther angles were cut off; and therefore those particles must necessarily have very angular figures, which are unfit for mo- tion, and thence it comes to pass that such particles easily stick together, and transfer the greatest part of their motion upon those other particles which are less, and therefore have a swifter motion ; and be- cause these particles are to pass through such trian- gular spaces which le in the midst of three globular particles touching each other, therefore he supposeth them, as to their breadth and depth, to be of a trian- gular figure; but because these particles are some- what long, and the globular particles, through which they pass with so swift motion, have their rotation about the poles of the heavens, thence he supposes that those triangular particles come to be wreathed. Now, from these things being thus supposed, Des Cartes hath ingenuously, and consonantly to his principles, under- taken to give an account of the most noted phenomena of the world; and those three sorts of particles mentioned he makes to be his three elements. The first is that sub- tle matter which was supposed to arise from the cutting off the angles of the greater particles ; and of this he tells us the sun and fixed stars consist, as those par- ticles of that subtle matter being in continual motion BOOK Tl. Dr. More Antidote, b. ii. ch. i. Immortali- ty of the Soul, b. i. c.1T. sect. 3. &c. Ep. 3. ad Cartes. p- 88, 60 ORIGINES SACRA. have made those several vortices or ethereal whirl- pools. The second element consists of the spherical particles themselves, which make up the heavens: out of the third element, which are those wreathed parti- cles, he gives an account of the formation of the earth, - and planets, and comets; and from all of them, by the help of those common affections of matter, size, figure, motion, &c. he undertakes to give an account of the phenomena of the world. How far his principles do conduce to the, giving men’s minds satisfaction as to the particular phenomena of nature, is not here our business to inquire, but only how far these principles can give an account of the origin of the universe with- out a Deity. And that it cannot give a satisfactory account how the world was framed without a Deity, appears by the two grand suppositions on which all his elements depend; both which cannot be from any other principle but God. Those are, 1. The existence of matter in the world, which we have already proved cannot be independent on God, and necessarily exist- ent; and therefore supposing that matter existent and put into motion would grind itself into those several particles by him supposed, yet this cannot give an ac- count of the origin of the universe without a Deity. 2. Lhe motion of the particles of matter supposeth a Deity; for matter is no self-moving principle, as hath been fully demonstrated in several places by that judi- cious philosopher Dr. H. More, who plainly manifests, that if motion did necessarily belong to matter, it were impossible there should be sun, or stars, or earth, or man in the world; for the matter being uniform, it must have equal motion in all its particles, if motion doth belong to it. For motion being supposed to be natural and essential to matter, must be alike every where in it; and therefore every particle must be sup- ORIGINES SACRA. 61 posed in motion to its utmost capacity, and so every CHAP. particle is alike and moved alike: and therefore there — being no prevalency at all in any one particle above another in bigness or motion, it is manifest that this universal matter, to which motion is so essential and natural, will be ineffectual for the producing of any variety of appearances in nature; for nothing could be caused by this thin and subtle matter, but what would be wholly imperceptible to any of our senses; and what a strange kind of visible world would this be! From hence then it appears that there must be an in- finitely powerful and wise God, who must both put matter into motion, and regulate the motion of it, in order to the producing all those varieties which appear in the world. And this necessity of the motion of matter by a power given it from God, is freely ac- knowledged by Mr. Des Cartes himself, in these words 3 Cartes, Considero materiam sibi libere permissam, et nullum See aliunde impulsum suscipientem, ut plane quiescentem; eee alla autem impellitur a Deo, tantundem motus sive translationis in ea conservante, quantum ab initio po- suit. So that this great improver and discoverer of the mechanical power of matter doth freely confess the necessity, not only of God’s giving motion in order to the origin of the universe, but of his conserving mo- tion in it for the upholding it; so that we need not fear from this hypothesis the excluding of a Deity from being the prime efficient cause of the world. All the question then is concerning the particular manner which was used by God as the efficient cause in giving being to the world. As to which I shall only in gene- ral suggest what Maimonides says of it: Omnia simul Maimon. creata erant, et postea successive ab invicem sepa- 5 Aen rata; although I am somewhat inclinable to that of Gassendus, mundus majus opus est, quam ut assequi 62 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK mens humana illius molitionem possit. To which, I UII. Ganson think, may be well applied that speech of Solomon ; Physic. Zhen I beheld all the work of God, that a man can- sect. I. ° l.viic.6. 20t find out the work that is done under the sun: be- Eccl. viii. 17. cause though a man labour to seek it out; yea fur- ther, though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. ORIGINES SACRA, 63 CHAP.ITI. OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. I, Of the being of Providence. II. Epicurus’s arguments against it refuted. The necessity of the belief of Providence in order to religion. III. Providence proved from a consideration of the nature of God and the things of the world. Of the spirit of nature. IV. The great objections against Providence pro- pounded. ‘The first concerns the origin of evil. V. God can- not be the author of sin, if the Scriptures be true. The account, which the Scriptures give of the fall of man, doth not charge God with man’s fault. God’s power to govern man by laws, though he gives no particular reason of every positive precept. VI. The reason of God’s creating man with freedom of will, largely shewed from Simplicius; and the true account of the origin of evil. VII. God’s permitting the fall, makes him not the author of it. VIII. The account which the Scriptures give of the origin of evil, compared with that of heathen philoso- phers. IX. The antiquity of the opinion of ascribing the origin of evil to an evil principle. Of the judgment of the Per- sians, Egyptians, and others about it. X. Of Manicheism. XI, XII, XIII, XIV. The opinion of the ancient Greek phi- losophers ; of Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics; the origin of evil not from the necessity of matter. XV, XVI. The remainders of the history of the fall among the heathens. XVII, XVIII, XIX. Of the malignity of demons. XX, XXI, XXII. Pro- vidence vindicated as to the sufferings of good, and the impunity of bad men. An account of both from natural light, mani- fested by Seneca, Plutarch, and others. It being now manifested not only that there is a God, but that the world had its being from him, it thence ———— follows, by an easy and rational deduction, that there is a particular hand of Divine Providence, which up- holds the world in its being, and wisely disposeth all events in it. For it is a most irrational and absurd opinion to assert a Deity, and deny Providence; and in nothing did Epicurus more discover the weakness and puerility of his judgment than in this. Indeed, BOOK II. 64 ORIGINES SACRA. if Epicurus had no other design in asserting a Deity, than (as many ancient philosophers imagined) to avoid the imputation of direct atheism, and yet to take away all foundations of religion, he must needs be said to serve his hypothesis well, though he did assert the being of an excellent nature, which he called God, while yet he made him sit as it were with his elbows folded up in the heavens, and taking no cognizance of human actions. For he well knew, that if the belief of Divine Providence were once rooted out of men’s minds, the thoughts of an excellent Being above the heavens would have no more awe or power upon the hearts and lives of men, than the telling men that there are jewels of inestimable value in the Indies, makes them more ready to pay taxes to their princes; for that philosopher could not be ignorant that it is not worth but power, not speculation but interest, that rules the world. The poor tenant more regards his petty landlord, than the greatest prince in the world that hath nothing to do with him: and he thinks he hath great reason for it; for he neither fears punish- ment, nor hopes for reward from him; whereas his landlord may dispossess him of all he hath upon dis- pleasure, and may advantage him the most if he gains his favour. Supposing then that there were such an excellent Being in the world, which was completely happy in himself, and thought it an impairing of his happiness to trouble himself with an inspection of the world, religion might then be indeed derived @ rele- gendo, but not a religando; there might be some plea- sure in contemplating his nature, but there could be no obligation to obedience. So that Epicurus was the first founder of a kind of philosophical Antinomianism ; placing all religion in a veneration of the Deity purely for its own excellency, without any such mercenary ORIGINES SACRA. 65 eye (as those who serve God for their own ends, as they say, are apt to have) to reward and punishment. And I much doubt that good woman whom the story goes of, who in an enthusiastic posture ran up and down the streets with emblems in her hands, fire in the one, as she said, to burn up heaven, and water in the other to quench hell, that men might serve God purely for himself, would, if she had compassed her design, soon have brought proselytes enough to Epicu- rus; and by burning heaven would have burnt up the cords of religion, and in quenching hell would have extinguished the awe and fear of a Deity in the world. Indeed the incomparable excellency and _ per- fection which is in the Divine nature, to spirits ad- vanced to a noble and’ generous height in religion, makes them exceedingly value their choice, while they disregard whatever rivals with God for it; but were it not for those magnetical hooks of obedience and eternal interest, there are few would be drawn to a due consideration of, much less a delight in, so amiable and excellent a nature. And it is impossible to con- ceive why God, in the revelation of his will, should ever so much as mention a future punishment, or pro- mise an eternal reward, were not the consideration of these things the sinews of religion. Which they, whose design was to undermine the very foundations on which all religion was built, under- stood far better than those weak pretended advancers of religion, who while in such a way they pretend to advance it, do only blow it up. For if men ought not to have an eye and respect to their own future condi- tion, nor serve God on the account of his power to make our souls miserable or happy, much less ought men to serve God with any regard to his Providence ; since the matters which Providence is employed about STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. F CHAP. Ill. Il. BOOK IIT. Diog. La- ert. 1. x. Max. Tyr. Dissert. 29. 66 ORIGINES SACRA. in this world, are of infinitely less moment than those which concern our future state. And if we have no eye on Divine Providence in the exercise of religion, we shall scarce be able to understand for what end God should take so much care of mankind, and mani- fest so much of his goodness to them, were it not to quicken them in their search after him, and excite them to the more cheerful obedience to him. And when once we question to what end God troubles him- self with the world, we are come next door to Epicu- rus, and may in few steps more delight in the flowers of his garden. For this was his strongest plea against Providence, that it was beneath the majesty and ex- cellency of the Divine nature to stoop so low, and trouble himself so far, as to regard what was done on earth. This being one of his rate sententie, or un- doubted maxims, To paxépsov xe apbaprov oltre attd mpay- poara eel, ote aAAw maptyet, The blessed and immortal Being neither hath any employment himself, nor trou- bles himself with others. Which, as Maximus Tyrius well observes, is rather a description of a Sardanapalus than a Deity; nay, of a worse than a Sardanapalus ; for he, in the midst of all his softness and effeminacy, would yet entertain some counsels for the safety and good of his empire: but Epicurus’s Deity is of so ten- der a nature, that the least thought of business would quite spoil his happiness. This opinion of Epicurus made the more raised-spirited moralists so far contemn the unworthy apprehensions which he entertained of the Divine nature, that they degraded him from the very title of a philosopher in it, and ranked him be- neath the most fabulous poets, who had written such unworthy things of their gods; as is evident by the censures which Tully, Plutarch, and others, pass upon him for this very opinion. And they tell him, that ORIGINES SACRA. 67 some of their own men were of a more noble and ex- CHAP. . e e . IIT. cellent spirit than Epicurus’s Deity, who abhorred ———— ° ° ° Cicero de softness and idleness, and made it their greatest de- Finib. 1. i. . ‘ WG . srre Nat. light to do good to their countries. But Epicurus 5... Vi. must needs make his God of his own humour, (the Petar. usual flattery which men bear to themselves, to think lot. that most excellent which they delight in most,) as Xenophanes was wont to say, that if his horse were to describe a god, it would be with a curled mane, a broad chest, &c. and in every thing like himself. Had Epicurus himself so little of an Athenian in him, as not to make it some part of his delight to understand the affairs of the world? Or at least, did he take no pleasure in the walks of his famous garden, nor to or- der his trees, and set his flowers, and contrive every thing for his own delight? Would Epicurus then count this a part of his happiness? And is it incon- sistent with the happiness of the Deity to take notice of the world, and order all things in it for his own glory? Must so excellent a nature as God’s was, by his own acknowledgment, be presently tired with business, when the more excellent any nature is, the more active and vigorous it is, the more able to com- prehend and dispatch matters of moment, with the least disturbance to itself? Is it a pleasure to a nurse to fill the child with her milk? Doth the sun rejoice to help the world with his constant light? And doth a fountain murmur till it be delivered of its streams which may refresh the ground? And is it no delight to the Divine nature to behold the effects of his good- ness upon the world? We see here then the founda- tion on which Epicurus went, viz. that his God must be like himself, or there must be none; and truly he might more suitably to his principles question his ex- istence, than supposing his existence deny his Provi- F 2 BOOK Il. Tif. 68 ORIGINES SACRE. dence on such miserable accounts as these are; which yet are the chief which either Epicurus or Lucretius could bring against it, from the consideration of the Divine nature. The which, to any one who considers it, doth neces- sarily infer a peculiar eye and hand of Providence in the world. For can we imagine that a Being of in- finite knowledge should be ignorant of what is done in the world? and of infinite power, should stand by and leave things to chance and fortune? Which were at first contrived, and brought into being, by the con- trivance of his wisdom and exercise of his power. -And where the foundation of existence lies wholly and solely in the power of an infinite Being producing, the ground of continuance of that existence must lie in the Same power conserving. When men indeed effect any thing, the work may continue, whatever become of him that did it; but the reason of that is, because what man doth is out of matter already existent, and his work is only setting materials together; but now what God effects, he absolutely gives a being to, and there- fore its duration depends on his conservation. What is once in its being, I grant, will continue till some greater force than itself put it out of being ; but withal I add, that God’s withdrawing his conservation is so great a force, as must needs put that being, which had its existence from his power, out of the condition it was in by it. The light of the sun continues in the air, and as long as the sun communicates it, nothing can extinguish the light but what will put out the sun: but could we suppose the sun to withdraw his beams, what becomes of the light then? This is the case of all beings which come from an infinite power: their subsistence depends on a continual emanation of the same power which gave then being; and when See eee ee Oe ee a a ae ORIGINES SACRA. 69 once this is withdrawn, all those beings which were produced by this power must needs relapse into no- thing. Besides, what dependence is there upon each other in the moments of duration of any created being? The mode of existence in a creature is but contingent and possible; and nothing is implied in the notion of an existent creature beyond mere possibility of exist- ence: what is it then which gives actual existence to it? That cannot be itself, for it would be necessarily existent. If another then gives existence, this exist- ence must wholly depend upon him who gave it; for nothing can continue existence to itself, but what may give it to itself, (for it gives it for the moment it con- tinues it;) and what gives existence to itself must necessarily exist, which is repugnant to the very no- tion of a created being. So that either we must deny a possibility of non-existence, or annihilation in a crea- ture, which follows upon necessity of existence; or else we must assert that the duration or continuance of a creature in its being doth immediately depend on Di- vine Providence and conservation; which is with as much reason as frequency said to be a continued crea- tion. But yet further. Was an infinite wisdom and power necessary to put things into that order they are in? And is not the same necessary for the governing of them? I cannot see any reason to think that the power of matter, when set in motion, should either bring things into that exquisite order and dependence which the parts of the world have upon each other ; much less that, by the mere force of that first motion, all things should continue in the state they are in. Perpetual motion is yet one of the desiderata of the world. The most exquisite mechanism cannot put an engine beyond the necessity of being looked after. Can we then think this dull, unactive matter, merely by F 3 CHAP. if Acts xvii. 70 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK the force of its first motion, should be able still to pro- III. 28. IV. duce the effects which are seen in the world, and to keep it from tumbling, at least by degrees, into its pristine chaos? It was an infinite Power, I grant, which gave that first motion; but that it gave power to continue that motion till the conflagration of the world, remains yet to be proved. Some therefore find- ing, that, in the present state of the world, matter will not serve for all the noted and common phenomena of the world, have called in the help of a spirit of nature, which may serve instead of a man-midwife to matter, to help her in her production of things: or, as though God had a plurality of worlds to look after, they have taken care to substitute him a vicar in this; which is the spirit of nature. But we had rather believe God himself to be perpetually resident in the world, and that the power which gives life, and being, and motion . to every thing in the world, is nothing else but his own providence; especially since we have learnt from himself, that it is 7x him we live, and move, and have our being. | Thus then we see a necessity of asserting Divine Providence, whether we consider the Divine nature, or the phenomena of the world; but yet the case is not so clear, but there are two grand objections behind, which have been the continual exercise of the wits of inquisi- tive men almost in all ages of the world. The one concerns the first origin of evil; the other concerns the dispensations of Providence, whence it comes to pass. that good men fare so hard in the world, when the bad triumph and flourish. If these two can be cleared with any satisfaction to reason, it will be the highest vindication of Divine Providence, and a great evidence of the divinity of the Scriptures ; which give us such clear light and direction in these profound specula- Re, a ee ae OTE a eee ORIGINES SACRA. 71 tions, which the dim reason of man was so much to cHap. seek in. sah I begin with the origin of evil; for if there be a hand of Providence which orders all things in the world, how comes evil then into it, without God’s being the author of it? Which is a speculation of as great depth as necessity, it highly concerning us to entertain the highest apprehensions of God’s holiness, and how far he is from being the author of sin; and it is likewise a matter of some difficulty so to explain the origin of evil, as to make it appear that God is not the author of it. I easily then assent to what Origen Origen. saith on this subject, when Celsus, upon some mistaken ae a places of Scripture, had charged the Scripture with’ *°” laying the origin of evil upon God; efmep abv aAdds tus TOmos Tay ev avbowmors ebeTacews Dedprevos, Sucbyparos €oTk TH pices tysdv, ev rors Kal 7 Tov KaKdv Tay Hein av yeveric. If any thing which calls for our inquiry be of difficult investigation, that which concerns the origin of evils is such a thing; and as Simplicius well begins his discourse on this subject, mept TAS UTOTTATEWS THY KAKwY 6 Simplic. in Aoyos wen KaAWS Sropbeobers, Kal THS mepl To beiov aceRelas aitios eed yeyoves Kat TyS Tov yBcoY evarywylas TAS apyas duerapacte, Kat — WOAAaIS Kal ardbrots crapias eve Bade TOvS wen KaAwS aiTLoAo- yoirtas array. The dispute concerning the nature and origin of evil, not being well stated, vs the cause of great impiety towards God, and perverts the princt- ples of good life, and involves them in innumerable perplexities, who are not able to give a rational ac- count of it. So much then is it our great concernment to fix on sure grounds in the resolution of this import- ant question; in which I intend not to launch out into the depth and intricacies of it, as it relates to any in- ternal purposes of God’s will, (which is beyond our present scope,) but I shall only take that account of it F 4 72 ORIGINES SACRE, BOOK; which the Scripture plainly gives in relating the fall ne of the first man. For the clearing of which I shall proceed in this method: 1. That if the Scriptures be true, God cannot be the author of sin. 2. That the account which the Scripture gives of the origin of evil, doth not charge it upon God. 3. That no account given by philosophers of the origin Of evil, is so clear and rational as this is. 4. That the most material circumstances of this account are attested by the heathens themselves. 1. That if the Scriptures be true, God cannot be the author of sin. For if the Scriptures be true, we are bound without hesitation to yield our assent to them in their plain and direct affirmations; and there can be no ground of suspending assent, as to any thing which pretends to be a Divine truth, but the want of certain evidence whether it be of Divine revelation or no. No doubt it would be one of the most effectual ways to put an end to the numerous controversies of the Christian world, (especially to those bold disputes concerning the method and order of God’s decrees,) if the plain and undoubted assertions of Scripture were made the rule and standard whereby we ought to judge of such things as are more obscure and ambiguous. And could men but rest contented with those things which concern their eternal happiness, and the means in order to it, (which on that account are written with all imaginable perspicuity in Scripture,) and the mo- ment of all other controversies be judged by their re- ference to these, there would be fewer controyersies and more Christians in the world. Now there are two grand principles which concern men’s eternal condi- tion, of which we have the greatest certainty from Scripture, and on which we may with safety rely, ORIGINES SACRA. 73 without perplexing our minds about those more nice and subtle speculations, (which it may be are uncapa- ble of all full and particular resolution;) and those are, That the ruin and destruction of man is wholly from himself ; and, That his salvation is from God alone. If then man’s ruin and misery be from himself, which the Scripture’ doth so much inculcate on all occasions, then without controversy that which is the cause of all the misery of human nature is wholly from himself too, which is sin. So that if the main scope and de- sign of the Scripture be true, God cannot be the author of that, by which (without the intervention of the mercy of God) man’s misery unavoidably falls upon him. For with what authority and majesty doth God in the Scripture forbid all manner of sin? With what earnestness and importunity doth he woo the sinner to forsake his sin? With what loathing and detestation doth he mention sin? With what justice and severity doth he punish sin? With what wrath and indigna- tion doth he threaten contumacious sinners? And is it possible (after all this, and much more, recorded in the Scriptures, to express the holiness of God’s nature, his hatred of sin, and his appointing a day of judgment for the solemn punishment of sinners) to imagine that the Scriptures do in the least ascribe the origin of evil to God, or make him the author of sin? Shall not the Judge of all the world do right? Will a God of infi- nite justice, purity, and holiness, punish the sinner for that which himself was the cause of? Far be such un- worthy thoughts from our apprehensions of a Deity, much more of that God whom we believe to have declared his mind so much to the contrary, that we cannot believe that and the Scriptures to be true to- gether. Taking it then for granted in the general, that God CHAP. Ill. 74 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK cannot be the author of sin, we come to inquire, Whe- ther the account which the Scripture gives of the ori- gin of evil, doth any way charge it upon God? There are only two ways, according to the history of the fall of man recorded in Scripture, whereby men may have any ground to question whether God were the cause of man’s fall; either, first, by the giving him that posi- tive law which was the occasion of his fall; or, se- condly, by leaving him to the liberty of his own will. First, The giving of that positive law cannot be the least ground of laying man’s fault on God ; because, 1. It was most suitable to the nature of a rational crea- ture to be governed by laws, or declarations of the will of his Maker: for, considering. man as a free agent, there can be no way imagined so consonant to the nature of man as this was, because thereby he might declare his obedience to God to be the matter of his free choice. For where there is a capacity of reward and punishment, and acting in the consideration of them, there must be a declaration of the will of the lawgiver, according to which man may expect either his reward or punishment. If it were suitable to God’s nature to promise life to man upon obedience, it was not unsuitable to it to expect obedience to every de- | claration of his will; considering the absolute sove- reignty and dominion which God had over man as being his creature, and the indispensable obligation which was in the nature of man to obey whatever his Maker did command him. So that God had full and absolute right to require from man what he did, as to the law which he gave him to obey ; and in the gene- ral we cannot conceive how there should be a testi- mony of man’s obedience towards his Creator, without some declaration of his Creator’s will. Secondly, God had full power and authority not only to govern man ORIGINES SACRA. 75 by laws, but to determine man’s general obligation to CHAP. Ill. obedience to that particular positive precept by the ———_ breach of which man fell. If God’s power over man was universal and unlimited, what reason can there be to imagine it should not extend to such a positive law? Was it because the matter of this law seemed too low for God to command his creature? But whatever the matter of the law was, obedience to God was the great end of it, which man had testified as much in that in- stance of it as in any other whatsoever; and in the violation of it were implied the highest aggravations of disobedience; for God’s power and authority were as much contemned, his goodness slighted, his truth and faithfulness questioned, his name dishonoured, his majesty affronted in the breach of that, as of any other law whatsoever it had been. If the law were easy to be observed, the greater was the sin of disobedience $ if the weight of the matter was not so great in itself, yet God’s authority added the greatest weight to it; and the ground of obedience is not to be fetched from the nature of the thing required, but from the au- thority of the legislator. Or was it then because God concealed from man his counsel in giving of that posi- tive precept ? Hath not then a legislator power to re- - quire any thing, but what he satisfies every one of his reason in commanding it? If so, what becomes of obedience and subjection? It will be impossible to make any probative precepts on this account; and the legislator must be charged with the disobedience of his subjects, where he doth not give a particular ac- count of every thing which he requires; which as it concerns human legislators, (who have not that abso- lute power and authority which God hath,) is contrary to all laws of policy, and the general sense of the world. This Plutarch gives a good account of, when he dis- BOOK i: Plutarch. de his qui sero puni- untur a numine. VI. 76 ORIGINES SACRA. courseth so rationally of the sobriety which men ought to use in their inquiries into the grounds and reasons of God’s actions; Hor, saith he, physicians will give prescriptions without giving the patient a particular reason. of every circumstance in them: «id? yap ws ab sw7ot vopAous tibevtal, TO eVAOyov OT OS eyoues kal mévToTE patvouevor, aAr elves Kat doxer Kopson yerola rev TpooTay|Ld= tw. Neither have human laws always apparent rea- son for them; nay, some of them are to appearance ridiculous: for which he instanceth in that law of the Lacedemonian ephori, wy rpépew wuvotaKxa, to which no other reason was annexed but this, xat weibccbos tore YoIAols, Os UM YaAremol ool adrols. They commanded every magistrate, at the entrance of his office, to shave him- self, and gave this reason for it, that they might learn to obey laws themselves. He further instanceth, in the Roman custom of manumission ; their laws about tes- taments, Solon’s law against neutrality in seditions ; and concludes thence, Kai CAws moraAde dv Tis belies vouwy aromas, peyTe Tov Aaryoy ex cov TOU vonoberov, pnTe TYyY aitiay Tumels exdorov Td»Y ypapoutyer. Any one would easily Jind many absurdities in laws, who doth not. consider the intention of the legislator, or the ground of what he requires. i ¥y avuactorv, saith he, ef rédv avbpwmivey oUT@s Huly dvTwY ucbewpyrwv, ovK eUmopdv ott TO wept Toy bedy elTely, @ TLL Aoyw TOUS prev VOTEDOV, Tovs de TpOTEpav TOY nap Tavevtwy Kordtovaws What wonder is at, if we are so puzzled to give an account of the actions of men, that we should be to seek as to those of the Deity? This cannot be then any ground on the account of mere reason, to lay the charge of man’s disobedience upon God, because he required from him the observance of that positive command of not eating of the forbidden Sruit. The only thing then left is, Whether God be not ORIGINES SACRE. 717 hable to this charge, as he left man to the liberty of cHar. his will? And that may be grounded on two things ; Meise: either that God did not create man in such a condi- tion, in which it had been impossible for him to have sinned ; or that, knowing his temptation, he did not give him power to resist it. Tf neither of these will lay any imputation of the origin of evil upon God, then God will appear to be wholly free from it. First, concerning man’s being created a free agent. If the determination of the schools be good, that possibility of sinning is implied in the very notion of a creature, and consequently that impeccability is repugnazit to the nature of a created being, then we see a necessary reason why man was created in a state of liberty. But via. Thom. endeavouring to shew that the grounds of our religion bu e ay are not repugnant to natural reason, I shall rather as make use of the testimony of such who professed to be an i ; followers of nothing else but reason and philosophy: among whom I shall make choice of Simplicius, both for the reason he produceth, and because he is farthest from any suspicion of partiality, by reason of his known opposition to the Mosaic history of the creation. He simplic. then, in his Commentaries on Epictetus, professedly Ree ee disputes this very subject of the origin of evil; and,* ‘75 after having rejected that fond opinion of two princi- ples, one of good, and the other of evil, undertakes to give an account whence evil came into the world; which, because it tends so much to the illustrating our present subject, I shall give an account of. God, saith he, who ws the fountain and principle of all good, not only produced things which were in themselves good, nor only those things which were of a middle nature, but the extremes too; which were such things which were apt to be perverted from that which is according to nature, to that which we call evil. And that after 78 ORIGINES SACRA, BooK those bodies which were (as he supposeth) wncorrupt- Ut ble, others were produced which are subject to muta- tion and corruption; and so after those souls which were immutably fixed in good, others were produced which were liable to be perverted from it; that so the riches of God’s goodness might be displayed in mak- ing to exist all beings which are capable of it; and that the universe might be perfect, in having all sorts of beings in it. Now, he supposeth, that all those beings which are above this sublunary world are such as are immutably good, and that the lowest sort of beings, which are lable to be perverted to evil, are such which are here below. Therefore, saith he, the soul being of a more noble and immutable nature, while it ts by itself, doth not partake of evil; but it being of a nature apt to be joined with these terres- trial bodies, (by the providence of the Author of the universe, who produced such souls, that so both ex- tremes might be joined by the bonds of vital union,) thereby it becomes sensible -of those evils and pains which the body is subject to; but these things are not properly evils, but rather good, considering our ter- restrial bodies as parts of the universe, which is up- held by the changes and vicissitudes which are in this lower world; which he largely discourses on, to shew that those particular alterations, which are in bodies, do conduce rather to the perfection and beauty of the universe, than are any real evils in it. But now, saith he, for the origin of those things which are properly evils, viz. moral evils, which are ru r45 cvbowaivys Woy ns aratcpara, the lapses and errors of the human soul, we are to consider, that there are souls of a more excel- lent nature than ours are, which are immutably good; and the souls of brutes are of a lower kind than ours are, and yet are middle between the rational and ON Oe ORIGINES SACRE. 49 egetative, having something in them parallel both to CHAP. ae appetites and evils which are in men; which will therefore be understood by an account f the other. ‘H de sings ext peon “Lani i TOY TE GEL Ove boli to . alee vy cor, bua Te 7 éy nt boxe ovoia axpirnea, Kat ue vn TOU Epict. c. 34. vou pebeEry, Kas TOY Hel KaT@ Osc THY mpos TO TOG Tinpyaelay Weeesiene TIS adoyou Coins, Kal cuvder pos SwriKos yivomevy TOY TE avy Kak Tov Kato, dice THs avreEsveloU oYécEws, Tore prev mpos exelva, wore be pos TOAUTA OfLOLOUT EL. The soul of man 1s nexus utriusque mundi, 7 the middle between those more excellent beings which perpetually remain above, with which it partakes in the sublimity of its nature and understanding, and those inferior terrestrial beings, with which it communicates through the vital union which it hath with the body; and by reason of that JSreedom and indifferency which it hath, it sometimes ts assimilated to the one, sometimes to the other of these extremes. So that while it approacheth to the nature of the superior beings, it keeps itself free from evil, but because of its sires at may sometimes sink down into these lower things; and so he calls the cause of all evil in the soul ryv airobeay Kdbodov eis révde tov bvyrov ronor, tts voluntary descent into this lower world, and immersing itself in the feculency of terrestrial matter : Kay prow de appl Boray ELUY EVs OUK avayKatorery Ibid. KATELTLY Y GVELTLY, GAN oUTwS UmeoT, ws bray adTy OéAy KarT- sévou Te Kat anévasr. Hor though the soul be of a kind of amphibious nature, yet it is not forced either upwards or downwards, but acts either way, according to its enternal liberty. But, saith he, while the rational soul keeps that power which it hath in its hands over the body, and makes use of it only as an instrument Jor its own good, so long it keeps pure and free from any stain of evil; but when it once forgets the simili- tude it hath with the more excellent being, and throws 80 ORIGINES SACRA. Book away the sceptre of its power, and drowns itself in Ut the body and brutish affections, (preferring the plea- sure of sense above that of reason ;) when it so far degenerates below the principles of reason, that in- stead of commanding the brutish faculties it becomes a slave to them, then wt conceives and brings forth evil; but this it doth not through any coaction or necessity, but through the abuse of that power and liberty which tt hath: for the choice is a proper action of the soul itself: which he proves from hence, because God and the laws, and all good men, do not measure the good and evil of actions so much by the event, as by the will and intention of the person; and that punishment and reward have chiefly a respect to those. And therefore men are pardoned for what they do out of constraint and force, and the fault ts ascribed, wv TO TpaTTOvTt AAG Bialopero, not to him that did it, but to him that forced him to the doing of tt. And so from hence he concludes, that, because of the Jreedom of the will of man, nothing else can be said to be the author of evil properly, but the soul of man ; and concludes that discourse with this excellent speech, Simplic. "Exyovtes ody tiv aitiav Tod KaKoi, Aapmpa te pwvy Cowmer, ork Com. in ¢ Qe \ 7, > / » / \ \ td Nid ~ > Epict.c.34.0 EOS KAKiAS GVOITLOS, O10TL TO KAKOY Y wuyn evepryel avtTecou- p- 184. ed. Salinas. / \ ’ ¢ / > \ \ i \ Ne OY; ¢€ \ Tlws, Kat ovy 0 eos et pev yap Bia TO KaKov exparrev y Wuyy, : TAX O. ow Tho Toy cov YTLaoaro Tov OVAIT IOS auTyy ouyxwpycavra. Rracbyves, Kaitos ovde KaKov jv TO Big mpatromevor’ Kato mpo~ iA de oe mN ¢ 4 SA SN VES / / ALPETLY VE AUTO ADLULEYYN, AUTY Ay aiTia AEYyoITO dixalws. HH av- ing thus found out the true origin of evil, let us cry out with a loud voice that God is not the author of sin, because the soul freely doth that which ts evil, and not God; for if the soul were forced to do what at doth, one might justly lay the blame on God, who permits such a force to be offered it, neither could it be properly evil which the soul was constrained to; ee ORIGINES SACRA. 81 but since it acted freely, and out of choice, the soul must alone be accounted the author and cause of evil. Thus we see that God cannot with any shadow of reason be accounted the author of evil, because he gave the soul of man a principle of internal freedom ; when the very freedom of acting which the soul had, put it into a capacity of standing as well as falling. And. certainly he can never be said to be the cause of the breaking of a person, who gave him a stock to set up with, and supposed him able to manage it when he gave it him. Indeed, had not man had this freedom of will, he could not have fallen; but then neither had he been a rational agent, which supposing no corruption, doth speak freedom of action. So that while we in- quire after the origin of evil, we have no other cause to assign it to but man’s abuse of that free power of acting which he had: but if we will be so curious as to inquire further, why God did create man with such a freedom of will, and not rather fix his soul immuta- bly on good; if the order of beings be no satisfactory reason for it, we can give no other than that why he made man, or the world at all, which was the good pleasure of his will. But secondly, Supposing God’s giving man this Jreedom of will, doth not entitle him to be the author of evil; doth not his leaving man to this liberty of his in the temptation, make him the cause of sin? I an- swer no: and that on these accounts: 1. Because man stood then upon such terms, that he could not fall but by his own free and voluntary act. He had a power to stand, in that there was no principle of corruption at all in his faculties; but he had a pure and undefiled soul, which could not be pol- luted without its own consent. Now it had been repugnant to the terms on which man stood, (which STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. G CHAP. Hil. VII. 82 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK were the trial of his obedience to his Creator,) had he ue sen irresistibly determined any way. Simplicius puts Simplic.in this question after the former discourse, Whether God Epictet. * p- 184,187. may not be called the author of sin, because he per- mits the soul to use her liberty? But, saith he, he that says God should not have permitted this use of ats freedom to the soul, must say one of these two things; either that the soul being of such a nature as is indifferent to good or evil, it should have been wholly kept from the choosing evil, or else that it should have been made of such a nature, that tt should not have had a power of choosing evil. The Jjirst ts irrational and absurd; Jor what freedom and liberty had that been, where there was no choice? And what choice could there have been, where the mind was necessitated only to one part? For the second we are to consider, saith he, that no evil is in viself desirable, or to be chosen; but withal, if this power of determining itself either way must be taken away, wt must be either as something not good, or as some great evil; and whoever saith so, doth not con- sider how many things in the world there are which are accounted good and desirable things, yet are no ways comparable with this freedom of will: for it excels alt sublunary beings; and there is none would rather desire to be a brute or plant, than man. If God then shewed his goodness, in giving to inferior beings such perfections which are far below this, is it any ways incongruous to God’s nature and goodness to give man the freedom of his actions, and a self: determining power, though he permitted him the Sree use of it? Besides, as that author reasons, had God, to prevent man’s sin, taken away the liberty of his will, he had likewise destroyed the foundation of all virtue, and the very nature of man; for virtue would ORIGINES SACRA. 83 not have been such, had there been no possibility of acting contrary ; and man’s nature would have been divine, because empeccable. Therefore, saith he, though we attribute this self- determining power to God, as the author of wt, which was so necessary in the order of the universe, we have no reason to attribute the origin of that evil to God, which comes by the abuse of that liberty. For, as he further adds, God doth not at all cause that aversion from good, which as in the soul when it sins, but only gave sucha power to the soul, whereby it might turn itself to evil, out of which God might afterwards produce so much good ; which could not otherwise have been without it. So consonantly to the Scripture doth that philosopher speak on this subject. 2. God cannot be said to be the author of sin, though he did not prevent the fall of man; because he did not withdraw before his fall any grace or assistance which was necessary for his standing. Wad there been in- deed a necessity of supernatural grace to be communi- cated to man for every moment, to continue him in his innocency ; and had God, before man’s fall, withdrawn such assistance from him, without which it were im- possible for him to have stood, it would be very diffi- cult freeing God from being the cause of the fall of man. But we are not put to such difficulties for ac- quitting God from being the author of sin; for there appears no necessity at all for asserting any distinc- tion of sufficient and efficacious grace in man before his fall, that the one should belong only to a radical power of standing, the other to every act of good which Adam did. For if God made man upright, he cer- tainly gave him such a power as might be brought into act without the necessity of any supervenient act of grace to elicite that habitual power into particular G 2 CHAP. Ill. BOOK II. VILL. 84 ORIGINES SACRA. actions. If the other were sufficient, it was sufficient for its end; and how could it be sufficient for its end, if, notwithstanding that, there were no possibility of standing unless efficacious help were superadded to it ? God would not certainly require any thing from the creature in his integrity, but what he had a power to obey; and if there were necessary further grace to ~ bring the power into act, then the subtracting of this grace must be by way of punishment to man; which it is hard to conceive for what it should be before man had sinned; or else God must subtract this grace on purpose that man might fall, which would necessarily follow on this supposition, in which case man would be necessitated to fall; Velutt cum subductis columnis domus necessario corrutt, as one expresseth it, 4s a house must needs fall, when the pillars on which tt stood are taken away from it. But now if God with- drew not any effectual grace from man, whereby he must necessarily fall, then though God permit man to use his liberty, yet he cannot be said to be any ways the author of evil, because man had still a posse st vellet, a power of standing, if he had made a right use of his liberty; and God never took from man his ad- jutorium quo potuit stare, et sine quo non potuit, as divines call it, man enjoying still his power, though by the abuse of his liberty he fell into sin; so that granting God to leave man to the use of his liberty, yet we see God cannot in the least be charged with being the author of sin, or the origin of evil, by the history of the fall of man in oes which was the thing to be cleared. We come now in the third place to compare that account given of the origin of evil in Scripture, with that which was embraced by heathen philosophers, in point of reason and evidence. There was no one in- ORIGINES SACRE. 85 quiry whatsoever, in which those who had nothing but natural light to guide them, were more to seek for satisfaction in, than this concerning the origin of evil. They saw, by continual experience, how great a tor- rent of both sorts of evils, of sin and punishment, did overflow the world; but they were like the Egyptians, who had sufficient evidence of the overflowing their banks by the river Nile, but could not find out the spring or the head of it. The reason was, as corrup- tion increased in the world, so the means of instruction and knowledge decayed; and so as the phenomena grew greater, the reason of them was less understood ; the knowledge of the history of the first ages of the world, through which they could alone come to the full understanding of the true cause of evil, insensibly decaying in the several nations; insomuch that those who are not at all acquainted with that history of the world, which was preserved in sacred records among the Jews, had nothing but their own uncertain conjec- tures to go by, and some kind of obscure traditions which were preserved among them: which, while they sought to rectify by their interpretations, they made them more obscure and false than they found them. They were certain of nothing, but that mankind was in a low and degenerate condition, and subject to con- tinual miseries and calamities. They who cried up the most the avreécdcucy, or the self-determining power of the soul, could not certainly but strangely wonder, that a principle indifferent to be carried either way, should be so almost fatally inclined to the worst of them. It. was very strange, that, since reason ought to have the command of passions, by their own acknowledgment, the brutish part of the soul should so master and en- slave the rational, and the beast should still cast the rider in man; the sensitive appetite should throw off G 3 CHAP. Gi BOOK III. Hieroe. in Aurea Carmina, i oP 86 ORIGINES SACRA. the power of the 10 yyeuouxor, of that faculty of the soul which was designed for the government of all the rest. The philosophers could not be ignorant what slaves they were themselves to this terrestrial hyle, how easily their most mettlesome souls were mired in the dirt, how deep they were sunk into corporeal plea- sures, that it was past the power of their reason to help them out. Nay, when the soul begins to be fledged again, after her wrepogsivyots, or moulting, at her entrance into the body, which Plato speaks of, and strives to raise herself above this lower world, she then feels the weight of such plummets hanging at her feet, that they bring her down again to her former flutter- ing up and down in her cage of earth. So Hierocles complains, that when reason begins to carry the soul to the perception of the most noble objects, the soul with a generous flight would soar above this world, ray wy Tals mabyrixais 6AKais womep Tigk poruBdior, umope- putas mpos Kakiav, were it not borne down to that which is evl by the force of passions, which hang like leads upon the soul’s feet. What a strange unaccountable thing must this needs be to those who beheld the con- stancy of the effect, but were to seek for the cause of it! It could not but be clear to them, that the adrefot- cuv they were wont to extol so high, was (in the state man was now in) but a more noble name for slavery ; when themselves could not but confess the porn, OY in- clination in the soul, was so strong to the evil. And could that be an even balance, where there was so much down-weight in one of the scales, unless they made, as some of them did, the voluntary inclinations of the soul to evil an evidence of her liberty in this most degenerate condition? As though it were any argument that the prisoner was the freer, because he delighted himself in the noise of his shackles. Neither — ORIGINES SACRE. 87 was this disorder alone at home in the soul, where there was still a Xantippe scolding with Socrates, pas- sion striving with reason; but when they looked abroad in the world, they could not but observe some strange irregularities in the converse among men. What debaucheries, contentions, rapines, fightings, and destroying each other, and that with the greatest cruelty, and that frequently among countrymen, friends, nay relations and kindred! And could this hostility between those of the same nature, and under the most sacred bonds of union, be the result of na- ture, when even beasts of prey are not such to those of their own kind? Besides all this, when they summed up the life of man together, and took an account of the weaknesses and follies of childhood, the heats and extravagancies of youth, the passions, dis- quietments, and disappointments of men in their strength and height of business, the inquietude, aches, and infirmities of old age, besides the miseries which through every. one of these all men are subject to, and few escape, into how small a sum will the solid plea- sure and contentment of the life of man be reduced ? Nay, if we take those things in the world which men please themselves the most in enjoyment of, and con- sider but with what care they are got, with what fear they are kept, and with what certainty they must be lost, and how much the possession of any thing fails of the expectation of it, and how near men are upon the top of Teneriffe to fall into the depth of the sea, how often they are precipitated from the height of prosperity into the depth of adversity, we shall find yet much less that by the greatest chemistry can be extracted of real satisfaction out of these things. Whence then should it come that men’s souls should — so delight to feed on these husks, and to embrace these G 4 CHAP. Ill. BOOK IT]. Plutarch. de Isid. et Osir. Plat. in Pheed. 88 ORIGINES SACRA. clouds and shadows, instead of that real good, which is the true object of the soul’s desire? They could easily see there was no pure, unmixed good in the world; but there was a contemperation of both toge- ther, according to that of Euripides: Osx dv yevoiro ywpis EcbAd xa) nana, "AAW Eats Tig oUrynpacic. There is a kind of continual mixture of good and evil in the world; which Socrates observed upon the rub- bing of his thigh where the fetters made it itch, os ATOTOV, @ avdpes, €orkKé Tk €lvat ToUTO 0 madovoW avOpcwmos ov § ws bavpaciws TépUKE 70s TO doKodY evayTioy Elva, TO Avanper 5 What a strange thing is that which men are wont to call pleasure? How near akin is it to that which seems so contrary to wt, pain ? Now the observing the strange and sudden vicissi- tudes of these things, and what near neighbours pain and pleasure were to each other, (so that there is fre- quently a passage out of one into the other,) did yet more entangle them to give a clear account of the origin of both these. Those who believe there was a God who produced the world, and ordered all things in it, did easily attribute whatever was good in the world to the fountain of all goodness; but that any evil should come from him, they thought it repugnant to the very notion of a Deity; which they were so far right in as it concerned the evil of sin; which we have already shewed God could not be the author of; but therein they shewed their ignorance of the true cause of evil, that they did not look upon the miseries of life as the effects of God’s justice upon the world for the evil of sin. And therefore that they might set the origin of evil far enough off from God, they made two different principles of things; the one of good, and the other of evil, This, Plutarch tells us, was the ORIGINES SACRA. 89 most ancient and universal account which he could CHAP. meet with of the origin of good and evil. To which —_—~ purpose we have this ample testimony of his, in his learned discourse De Iside et Osiride, Avs xat mapma- seater e€ tsid. € alos QUTY KOTELTW eK beoAcywv Kal vorobeT cov, cis TE Toitas Osir. c. 45. \ / / \ > \ A/ ” \ \ / ed. Oxon. Kat pirocopous do€a, THY ApKXyY ADETMOTOV EXOVTA, THY Oe mioTLy 5 x \ / pb] > Fi / ISN: aD / boxNupay Kak OuaekaAeLmTOV, OVK ev Aoyots prover, oude eév PYAAlSs GhAd ey Te TerETAIs eV Te BuTias, Kal BapBapots Kat“ RAAnos vy / ¢ sy > »*+ Xi. Sf Na / TOAAAYOD TEPLPEPOLEVYY, WS OUT avouY Kal adoyov Kal axvPEpvy- TOV aicopelt au TO AUT OMATW TO Wa, OTE Cig EoTW 6 KpaToY Kal Katevdvvev, womep otakLy n TIOL aetbnviots NaAwvors, Adyoss OAKS TOAAG Kak Poe [abry evar KaKOIS KG aryabais® peadrov de penoer, ws e ~ 5 Nn + » > n ~ / fd by ~ OmADS Elmeiv, axpatov evtavla THs putEews epavoys, ov Ovely aibwv eis Tala, womep VOAAT TH TOA [LOT OL KannriKkas Stave= ? / ¢ n =) See Sa ns p) / > or] \ ~ fAwY GVaKEpavyaly yiAlv’ GAA amo duel evavtiov apyay, Kat dveiv ) ? V6 n \ See \ \ \ > > Nn ¢e QUT LM AAwY Ovvc ew, THs poev em Ta debian Kal KaT evbeiay upy- / n A 5/ > / ee) / WA YOUREVNS, TIS ”) EUTAALY AVATTPEPovoNsS Kal aVAKAWTNS, 0, TE / \ ¢/ / 3 VWeaS ~ Dy RRCE / oad Bios [ALKTOS, 0, TE KOT[LOS, EL KGL [AN TAS, AAA O TEPIYELOS OUTOS \ \ , Sad \ / , \ A KOL ETH TEAYVIY, AVWUaAOS Kab TOlKidos Yyeyoves Kat peTaBodas / / b) AN tn > / ie i St TATAS Deyo KEV. Ei yap ovbev avaiting mepvxe yiverat, aiTiav Oe Kakod Tayabor ovK av mapharyot, Sel yevecty idiav Kat apyyy, womep ayabod Kal Kakov, tyv prow eye. Which words I have the more largely cited, because they give us the most full account of the antiquity, universality, and reason of that opinion, which asserts two different principles of good and evil. Jt 7s a tradition (saith he) of great antiquity, derived down from the ancient masters of Divine knowledge, and formers of com- monwealths, to the poets and philosophers, whose first author cannot be found, and yet hath met with firm and unshaken belief; not only in ordinary discourses and reports, but was spread into the mysteries and sacrifices both of Greeks and others, that the universe did not depend on chance, and was destitute of mind and reason to govern it; neither was there one only 90 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK reason which sat at the stern, or held the reins, —_* _ whereby he did order and govern the world; but since there is so much confusion and mixture of good and evil in the world, that nature doth not produce any pure untainted good, there is not any one who, like a drawer, takes the liquor out of two several ves- sels, and mixeth them together, and after distributes them ; but there are two principles and powers con- trary to each other, whereof one draws us to the right hand, and directs us straight forward, the other pulls us back, and turns us the other way; since we see the life of man so mixed as it is; and not only that, but the world too, at least so much as is sublunary and terrestrial, which is subject to many varieties, irregu- larities, and changes. For if nothing be without a cause, and good cannot be the cause of evil, tt necessa- rily follows, that as there is a peculiar nature and principle which is the cause of good, so there must be another, which ts the cause of evil. | But lest we should think it was only a sect of a kind of heathen Manichees which held this opinion, he tells us, to prevent that, cat doxe? todro Tols mAelotos Kal coporaros, Lt was the opinion of the most, and wisest of the heathen. Now these two principles some (saith he) call two opposite Gods, whereof the one is the cause of good, and the other of evil; him they call | Geds, this Aaiuwr. By this one would imagine that this very ancient tradition was nothing else but the true | account of the origin of evil a little disguised. For the Scripture making the Devil the first author of evil himself, and the first solicitor and tempter of man to q ‘it; who when God directed him straight forward, pulled man back, and put him quite out of his way, by which means all the miseries of the world came into it: for while man kept close to his Maker, his in- ORIGINES SACRA. 91 tegrity and obedience were to him what the vasa um- CHAP. bilicaha are to the child in the womb; by them digas received whatever tended to his subsistence and com- fort: but sin cut those vessels asunder, and proved the midwife of misery; bringing man forth into a world of sorrow and sufferings. Now, I say, the Scripture taking such especial notice of one, as the chief of devils, through whose means evil came into the world, this gave occasion to the heathens, when length of time had made the original tradition more obscure, to make these two, God and the Demon, as two anti- gods; and so to be the causes, the one of all good, and the other of all evil. Which at last came to that, (which was the Devil’s great design in thus corrupting the tradition,) that both these anti-gods should have solemn worship by sacrifices; the one by way of im- petration, for bestowing of good; the other by way of deprecation, for averting of evil. Such, Plutarch there tells us, were the Oromasdes and Arimanius of Zoro- astres, which were worshipped by the Persians; the one for doing good, and the other for avoiding evil: the one they resembled to light, (or fire,) the other to darkness and ignorance. What animals were good and useful they ascribed to Oromasdes, and all venomous and noxious ones to Arimanius; whom Plutarch else- where calls tov wovypov Aatuova Teta, The evil Demon Piast. in Alex. Diog. of the Persians. The same Diogenes Laertius relates Laertius in of the magi, the philosophers of Persia, that they made ‘"°°"” two distinct principles, “Ayabev Aatpova Kal KaKov, a good and bad demon; for which he quotes Dinon, Aristotle, Hermippus, Eudoxus, and others. The same Plutarch makes to be the opinion of the ancient Greeks; who attribute the good to Jupiter Olympius, the bad to Hades. The Chaldeans, saith he, make the planets their gods; of which, two they suppose the cause of BOOK Ill. August. de Heres. c. 46. 92 ORIGINES SACRE. good; two more of only a malignant influence; and other three to be indifferent to either. The same he affirms of the Egyptians, that whatever was evil and uregular, they ascribed to Typho; what was good, comely, and useful, they attributed to Isis and Osiris ; to Isis as the passive, Osiris as the active principle. Thus we see how large a spread this opinion of the origin of evil had in the Gentile world. Neither did it expire with heathenism; but Manes retained so much of the religion of his country, being a Persian, that he made a strange medley of the Persian and Christian doctrine together. For that was his famous opinion, of which St. Austin tells us; Iste duo prin- cipia inter se diversa et adversa, eademque ceterna, et co-eterna, hoc est, semper fuisse, composuit; duas- que naturas atque substantias, boni, scilicet, et malt, sequens alios antiquos hereticos, opinatus est. St. Austin thinks that Manes had his opinion concerning two principles from the ancient heretics; by whom I suppose he means the Marcionists and Valentinians ; but it seems more probable that Manes had his doc- trine immediately from his countrymen, though it be generally thought that Scythianus and Buddas were his masters in it. But from whomsoever it came, the opinion was merely heathen, and not more contrary to Scripture than it is to reason. The former I meddle not with, that opinion being now extinct in the Chris- tian world; I only briefly consider the unreasonable- ness of it, to shew what a far better account of the origin of evil the Scriptures give us, than was disco- vered by the heathen philosophers. For on both sides that opinion is repugnant to the notion of a Deity ; so that while they would make two such Gods, they make none at all. Hor how can the principle of good be God, if he hath not infinite power as well as good- a en ORIGINES SACRA. 93 ness ? And how can he have infinite power, if he hath not the management of things in the world ? And how can he have the management of things, if they be liable to evil, which the other God, which is the prin- ciple of evil, may lay upon it; from which, according to this supposition, the principle of good cannot rescue it? So that they who hold this opinion, cannot, as Simplicius tells us, give God 10 juicy trys Crys dvvdpews, the half of that infinite power which belongs to him; for neither can he keep the good creatures which he makes from the power of the evil Demon, and there- fore if he loves them, must be in continual fears of the power of the contrary principle: neither can he free them from the evil which the other lays upon them; for then God’s power would be far greater than the evil Demon’s, and so he could be no anti-god. And on the other side, the notion or idea of an infinite evil Being, is in itself an inconsistent idea; for it is an infinite nonentity, if we suppose his very being to lie in being evil, which is only a privation of goodness: and besides, if he be infinitely evil, he must be infi- nitely contrary to the good principle; and how can he be infinitely contrary, which enjoys several of the same perfections which the other hath; which are infinity of essence, and necessity of existence? Now if this principle of evil be absolutely contrary to the other, it must be contrary in all his perfections; for whatever is a perfection, belongs to that which is good; and now if it be contrary in every perfection, infinity of essence, and necessity of existence, being two, it must be as contrary as is imaginable to them; by which this evil principle must be infinitely defective in being and existence, and so it will be an infinite nonentity which yet exists, which is the height of contradiction. Again, if there be such a contrary principle, which is CHAP. III. BOOK Ill. 94 ORIGINES SACRA. the cause of all evil, then all evil falls out unavoidably, ——_——and by the power of this infinitely evil principle, by x, which means not only all religion, but all virtue and goodness will be taken out of the world, if this prin- ciple be infinite; and if not infinite, no anti-god: and not only so, but all difference of good and evil will be taken away; (and then what need making two such contrary principles to give an account of the origin of evil?) for when once evil becomes thus necessary, it loseth its nature as a moral evil; for a moral evil im- plies in it a voluntary breach of some known law: but how can that breach be voluntary, which was caused by an infinite power in the most proper way of effi- ciency ? And thus, if all freedom of will be destroyed, (as it is necessarily by this supposition,) then no go- vernment of the world by laws can be supposed, and- consequently no reward or punishment, which suppose liberty of action; and by this means all religion, law, and providence are banished out of the world, and so this evil Demon will get all into his own hands, and instead of two contrary principles, there will be but one infinitely evil Demon: which that there is not, ap- pears by this, that notwithstanding all the evil in the world, there is so much good left in it, of which there would be none, if this evil Demon had infinite power. By this we see there cannot be a principle infinitely evil; for while they go about to make two such con- trary principles infinite, they make neither of them SO; and so while they make two Gods, they take away any at all. So that this opinion of the origin of evil is manifestly absurd, irrational, and contradictious. But all the heathen philosophers were not so gross as to imagine two such anti-gods with infinitely active power; but yet those who would not in terms assert it, might be driven to it by the consequence of their ORIGINES SACRA. 95 opinion concerning the origin of evil, which did sup- cHar. pose a necessity of it in nature, as flowing from that — passive principle out of which the world was produced. Hence it was that Heraclitus, as Plutarch tells us, at- tributed the origin of all things to discord and anti- pathy, and was wont to say, that when Homer wished "Ex te Gediv piv, ex v dvOpdnwy arorérbas, eintior That all contention were banished out of the world, Osivide. that he did secretly curse the origin of things, and wished the ruin of the world. So Empedocles called the active principle which did good, harmony and friendship, but the other | Neixos odAduevoy xal bijpiv aivatdzoouy, ie a by which he makes it to be a quarrelsome, pernicious, cd. Steph. and bloody principle. The same Plutarch tells us of these two renowned philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato. Thence he tells us the Pythagoreans called the principle of good 10 ev, wemepacpévav, To pévey, Td evbd, TO TEpLT TOV, TO TET PAY OVO, To deksov, TO Aapnmpor, Unity, finite, quiescent, straight, uneven number, square, right, and splendid ; the principle of evil they called ry dudda, ré GrELpOV, 10 peporeror, TO KO[ATVAOY, TO CPT LOY, TO ETEPCUNKESs 70 ULTOV, TO aplotepoy, to oxotevov, Whe binary, enfinite, moving, crooked, even, long of one side, unequal, left, obscure. The opinion of Plato, he tells us, is very obscure, it being his purpose to conceal it; but he saith in his old age, in his book de Legibus, ob 80 ai- viryniv, ovde TULBoAKds, Without any if’s or and’s he as- serts the world to be moved by more than one prin- ciple; by two at the least, ryy ev dyabovpyov elvar, trv de evartiay TAUTY, Kal tev evayrioy Dnasoupyov. The one of a good and benign nature, the other contrary to it both in its nature and operations. Numenius in Chalcidius thus delivers the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato de ehalee: originibus, as he speaks; Igitur Pythagoras quoque, p. 394. BOOK I{l. Plutarch. de Animee procreat. e Tim. 96 ORIGINES SACRA. nquit Numenius, fluidam et sine qualitate sylvam esse censet; nec tamen ut Stoict nature medie, inter- que malorum, bonorumque viciniam, sed plane noxiam; Deum quippe esse (ut etiam Platoni videtur) initium et causam bonorum; sylvam malorum : so that, accord- ing to Numenius, both Plato and Pythagoras attri- buted the origin of evil to the malignity of matter, and so they make evils to be necessarily consequent upon the being of things. For thus he delivers ex- pressly the opinion of Pythagoras; Qu? ait, existente providentia, mala quoque necessario substitisse, prop- terea quod sylva sit, et eadem sit maltia predita: Platonemque idem Numenius laudat, quod duas mundi animas autumet: unam beneficentissimam ; malignam alteram se. sylvam. Igitur juaxta Platonem mundo bona sua Dei, tanquam patris liberalitate col- lata sunt; mala vero, matris sylve vitio coheserunt. But Plutarch will by no means admit that Plato attri- butes the origin of evil merely to matter; but he makes the principle of evil to be something distinct from matter, which he calls ry draxrov, Kai adpiotoy, av- ToKivyTov O€ Kot KivYyTIKYY apynv, A confused, infinite, self- moving, stirring principle ; which (saith he) he else- where calls necessity, and in his de Legibus, plainly, Wuyyy araxrov kot koxonolov, a disorderly and malignant soul; which cannot be understood of mere matter, when he makes his hyle cycppu Kal aoynpdtictov Kat TOONS WOLOTYTOS Kat Suvaiprews oikelas EON [LOY, without form or figure, and destitute of all qualities and power of operation: and it is impossible (saith he) that that which is of itself such an inert principle as matter as, should by Plato be supposed to be the cause and principle of evil; which he elsewhere calls AVOYKYY TOAAK TD Oc@ Ovopayoioay Kai apyuictovoav, Neces- sity which often resisted God, and cast off his reins. ORIGINES SACRA. 97 So that, according to Plutarch, Plato acquits both God and Hyle from being the origin of evil, ry ye vAyy d1e~ popiis amaons amaddarror, Kal TU Oecd yy TOY KaKay aiTiay anwrarw rtiféwevos, and therefore attributes it to that malignant spirit which moves the matter, and is the cause of all the disorderly motions in the world. But what this spirit should be, neither he nor any one else could ever understand. What darkness and ignorance then was there among the wisest of philosophers con- cerning the origin of evil, when they were so confused and obscure in the account which they gave of it, that their greatest admirers could not understand them! But though Plato seemed so ambiguous in his judg- ment of the origin of evil, whether he should attribute it to the hyle, or some malignant spirit in it, the Stoics were dogmatical, and plainly imputed the cause of evil CHAP. Ifl. XIT. to the perversity of matter. So Chalcidius tells us, pene ied Drba ty that the Stoics made matter not to be evil in itself, ) 305. as Pythagoras, but that it was indifferent to either; perrogati unde igitur mala? perversitatem semina- rium malorum esse causatt sunt: they made the per- versity of matter the origin of evil; but as he well observes, nec expediunt adhuc unde ipsa perversitas, cum juxta ipsos duo sint initia rerum, Deus et sylva. Deus summum et precellens bonum; sylva ut cen- sent, nec bonum nec malum. They give no rational account whence this perversity of matter should arise ; when, according to the Stoics, there are but two prin- ciples of things, God and matter: whereof the one is perfectly good, the other neither good nor evil. But this perversity, they tell us, is something necessarily consequent upon the generation of things. Tatra yap éots maby TH TH yevéces TPOETro|Aevar women 105 TD YAAKD, Kak 0 pms TG copatt. These are affections (viz. the disor- ders in the world) which follow the generation of STILLINGFLEET, VOL. Il. H 98 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK things, as rust comes upon brass, and filth upon the a Eee Holy, as the counterfeit Trismegistus speaks ; so Max- Maxim. imus Tyrius saith that evils in the world are ov téyyy¢s XV Soya, Gar bans dby, not any works of art, but the affec- Seneca de trons of matter. Non potest artifex mutare materiam, Provid.c. 5. E 3 ne saith Seneca, when he is giving an account why God suffers evils in the world: and elsewhere gives this Idem Pref. account why evils came into the world, non quia cessat Quest. ars, sed quia id, in quo exercetur, inobsequens arti est. So that the origin of evil, by this account of it, lies wholly upon the perversity of matter, which it seems was uncapable of being put into better order by that God who produced the world out of that matter which the Stoics supposed to be eternal. And the truth is, the avoiding the attributing the cause of evil to God, seems to have been the great reason why they rather chose to make it matter necessary and coexist- ent with God; and this was the only plausible pre- tence which Hermogenes had for following the Pla- tonists and Stoics in this opinion, that he might set God far enough off from being the author of sin. But I cannot see what advantage comes at all by this hy- pothesis, but it is chargeable with as many difficulties as any other: for, 1. Lt ewther destroys God’s omni- potency, or else makes him the approver of evil; so that if he be not auctor, he must be assentator malt, peeled as Tertullian speaks against Hermogenes, because he mogen. Suffered evil to be in matter; for, as he argues, Aut ed. Pam, enim potuit emendare sed noluit; aut voluit quidem, verum non potuit infirmus Deus. Si potuit et noluit, malus et ipse, quia malo favit; et sic jam habetur ejus quod licet non instituerit; quia tamen si noluis- set wlud esse, non esset; ipse jam fecit esse, quod noluit non esse. Quo quid est turpius? si id voluit esse quod ipse noluit fecisse, adversum semetipsum ORIGINES SACRE. $9 egit, cum et voluit esse quod noluit fecisse, et noluit cuar. fecisse quod voluit esse. So that little advantage is _''' gained for the clearing the true origin of evil by this opinion; for either God could have taken away evil out of matter, but would not, or else would but could not. This last destroys God’s omnipotency, the former his goodness; for by that means evil is in the world by his consent and approbation; for if God would not remove it when he might, the being of it will come from him; when if he would have hindered it, it would not have been; and so God, by not rooting out of evil, will be found an assertor of it; Dale st per ivia. voluntatem; turpiter si per necessitatem. Aut famulus erit malt Deus, aut amicus: if God’s will were the cause why sin was, it reflects on his goodness ; if God’s power could not hinder it, it destroys his omnipotency. So that by this opinion God must either be a slave or a friend to evil. 2. Ths principle overturns the foun- dations of religion, and all transactions between God and men’s souls, in order to their welfare, because it makes evil to be necessarily existent in the world; which appears from hence, in that evil doth result from the being of matter, and so it must necessarily be as matter is supposed to be; for whatever results from the being of a thing, must be coexistent with it; and so what flows from what doth necessarily exist, must have the same mode of existence which the being itself hath; as is evident in all the attributes of God, which have the same immutability with his nature: now then if evil did exist from eternity together with matter, it must necessarily exist as matter doth, and so evil will be invincible and unavoidable in the world; which if once granted, renders religion useless, makes God’s commands unrighteous, and destroys the founda- tion of God’s proceedings in the day of judgment. H 2 100 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK 3. This opinion makes God not to be the author of aris good, while it denies him to be the author of evil. For either there was nothing else but evil in this eter- nal matter, or there was a mixture of good and evil; if nothing else but evil which did necessarily exist, it were as impossible for God to produce good out of it, as to annihilate the necessarily existent matter. If there were a mixture of good and evil, they were both there either necessarily or contingently; how could either of them be contingently in that which is sup- posed to be necessarily existent, and no free agent 2 If they be both there necessarily, 1. It is hard conceiving how two such contrary things as good and evil should necessarily be in the same uniform matter. 2. Then God is no more the author of good than of evil in the world; for he is said not to be the author of evil be- cause it comes from matter; and so it appears good doth too: and so God, according to this opinion, is no more the author of good than he is of evil. But if it be said that good is not in matter, but God produced that out of nothing ; then I reply, 1. If God did pro- duce good out of nothing, why did he not produce matter out of nothing too? If he were so powerful as to do the one, there could be no defect of power as to the other. What insufficiency is there in God’s nature for producing all things out of nothing, if he can pro- duce any thing out of nothing? 2. If God did pro- duce good out of evil, why could he not have removed all evil out of matter? For good could not be produced but by the removing of some evil which was before that good; and so God might have removed all evil out of matter. And so, by not doing it when he might, this opinion gives not the least satisfaction, in point of reason, for acquitting God from being the author of sin, nor for clearing the true origin of evil. Se, ee ORIGINES SACRA. 101 Thus we have now compared the account given of CHAP. it in Scripture, with that given by the heathen philo-_!! sophers, and find it in every thing more clear, rational, *!!" and satisfactory than theirs is; which doubtless is the reason why the more modern philosophers, such as Hierocles, Porphyry, Simplicius, and others, though otherwise great opposers of Christianity, did yet in this side with the Scriptures, and attribute the ori- ginal of evil not to matter, but to the will of man. And whoever is seriously conversant with the writ-. ings of those philosophers, who were ék rijs lepéis yevedis, of the sacred succession out of the school of Ammonius at Alexandria, such as Plotinus, Porphyrius, Iambli- chus, and Hierocles, will find them write in a higher strain concerning many weighty and important truths, as of the degeneracy of men’s souls from God, and the way of the soul’s returning to him, than the most sub- lime of the ancient philosophers had done. Which speculations of theirs no doubt arose not so much from the school of Plato and Pythagoras, as of that great restorer of philosophy, Ammonius of Alexandria, whose scholars Herennius, Origen, and Plotinus were; who living and dying a Christian, as Eusebius and Hierom fuseb. Fe- assure us, whatever Porphyrius suggests to the con-('** a4 trary, did communicate to his scholars the sublimer Soca mysteries of Divine revelation, together with the spe- Eccl. culations of the ancient philosophers: which Holste- Holsten. nius conceives he did with an adjuration of secrecy, nent fe which he tells us Porphyrius himself acknowledgeth, ?"" °° that those three scholars of Ammonius, Herennius, Origen, and Plotinus, were under an obligation to _ each other not to reveal and discover; though it were after violated by them. It is an easy matter to con- ceive what an excellent improvement might be made of the ancient Platonic philosophy by the advantage of H 3 102 ORIGINES SACRA. Book the Scriptures, by one who was so well versed in both ll. _of them as Ammonius is supposed to have been; and how agreeable and becoming would that philosophy seem which had only its rise from Plato, but its height and improvement from those rich and truly Divine truths which were inlaid with them? The want of observing this, viz. whence it was that those excellent discourses in the latter Platonists had their true ori- ginal, hath given occasion to several mistakes among learned men: as first, the overvaluing of the Platonic philosophy; as though in many of the discourses and notions of it, it seemed to some (who were more in love with philosophy than the Scriptures) to outgo what is discovered therein concerning the same things. A most groundless and unworthy censure! when it is more than probable (and might be largely manifested, were it here a fit opportunity) that whatever is truly generous and noble in the sublimest discourses of the Platonists, had not only its primitive rise, but its ac- cession and improvement from the Scriptures, wherein it is still contained in its native lustre and beauty, without those paintings and impure mixtures which the sublimest truths are corrupted with in the Platonic writings. ‘The reason of which is, though these phi- losophers grew suddenly rich through the spoils they had taken out of the Scriptures, yet they were loth to be known from whence they had them, and would seem to have had that out of their own gardens, which was only transplanted from the sacred writings. There- fore we find them not mentioning the Scriptures and the Christian doctrine without some contempt of its meanness and simplicity; and whatever improvement they had gained by them, they would have it less taken notice of by professing their opposition to the Chris- tians ; as is notorious in those great philosophers, Por- ORIGINES SACRA. 103 phyrius, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Simplicius, and others: CHAP. it being their design to take so much and no more out es of the Christian doctrine as they could well suit with their Platonic notions; by which means they so dis- guised the faces of the truths they stole, that it were hard for the right owners of them to know them again. Which was the grand artifice of their great master Plato, who doubtless, by means of his abode and ac- quaintance in Egypt, about the time when the Jews began to flock thither, had more certain knowledge of many truths of grand importance concerning the Deity, the nature of the soul, the origin of the world, than many other Greek philosophers had; but yet therein lay his great fault, that he wrapt up and disguised his notions in such a fabulous and ambiguous manner, that partly it might be less known from whence he had them, and that they might find better entertain- ment among the Greeks, than they were ever like to do in their plain and native dress. Which Plato him- Plato in self seems somewhere to intimate, when he saith, that saa what the Greeks received from the Barbarians, xéAdoy feet ar ToUTo eis TéALs amepyatovtat, they put wt into a better fashion, i.e. they disguise it, alter and change it as they please, and put it into a Greek habit, that it might never be suspected to have been a foreigner. Thence Tertullian speaks with a great deal of truth and freedom of such philosophers, who did ingenit sittm de prophetarum fonte irrigare, (as he express- eth it,) that quenched their thirst after knowledge with the waters of Jordan, (though they did not, like Naaman, cure the leprosy of the head by washing in them ;) for, as Tertullian saith, they came only ew ne- foal gotio curiositatis, more to please the itch of their cu- 7°’ “*” riosity than to cure it. And wherein they seemed most to agree with the H 4 104 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK Scriptures, their difference was beyond their agree- uh ment. Siquidem vera queque et consonantia pro- i haat phetis aut aliunde commendant aut alorsum subor- nant, cum maxima injuria veritatis, quam efficiunt aut adjuvari falsis, aut patrocinart. Whatever the philosophers speak agreeable to the Scriptures, either they do not own whence they had it, or turn it quite another way, whereby they have done the truth a great deal of injury, by mixing tt with their corruptions of it, and making that little truth a plea for the rest of their errors. Neither was this only among the ancient philosophers; but the primitive Christians began to discern the underhand workings of such, who sought to blend philosophy and Christianity together: for Tertullian himself takes great notice of such, who did veritatis dogmata ad philosophicas sententias adul- terare, suborn Christianity to maintain philosophy ; poe which makes him cry out, Viderint qua Stowcum, et advers, tix. Llatonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protule- eT punt; by which we see what tampering there was be- times rather to bring Christianity down to philosophy, than to make philosophy truckle under the truth and simplicity of the Scriptures. Whether Ammonius him- self, and some others of the school of Alexandria, might be guilty in this kind, is not here a place to inquire ; though it be too evident in the writings of some, that they rather seek to accommodate the Scriptures to the sentiments of the school of Plato, than to reform that by the Scriptures: but I say, however it were with those who were Christians, yet those who were not, but only philosophers, made their great advantage by it. For when they found what was reconcilable with the doctrine of Plato in the Scriptures, done already to their hands by the endeavours chiefly of Ammonius and Origen, they greedily embrace those improvements ORIGINES SACRA, 105 of their philosophy, which would tend so much to the CHAP, credit of it, and as contemptuously reject what they —— found irreconcilable with the dictates of their philo- sophy. Now what an unreasonable thing is it, when, whatever was noble and excellent in the heathen phi- losophy, was derivative from the Scriptures, as the sa- cred fountain of it, that the meeting with such things should in the least redound to the prejudice of the Scriptures, from whence it was originally derived ? When on the other side it should be a great confirma- tion to our faith, as to the Scriptures, that they, who were professed philosophers and admirers only of rea- son, did so readily embrace some of those grand truths which are contained in the word of God. For which we need no other instance than that be- xiv. fore us concerning the origin of evil; the making out of which will tend to the clearing the last thing men- tioned concerning it, which was, that the most mate- rial things in it are attested by the heathens them- selves. And this honey which is gained out of the lion’s mouth, must needs taste sweeter than any other doth. For it is a weak and groundless mistake on the other side, which is the second, (which ariseth from meeting things consonant to the Scriptures in the writings of philosophers,) presently to conclude from such things that they were Christians (as it is said some have lately done in the behalf of Hierocles). For there being such clear accounts given in Scripture of the grand difficulties and perplexities which the minds of men were troubled with, when these came to the knowledge of such who were of philosophic and inqui- sitive heads, we cannot but think they would meet with acceptation among them, especially if they might be made consistent with their former speculations : thus it was in our present case concerning the origin BOOK If. 106 ORIGINES SACRA. of evil. We have already beheld the lamentable per- plexities the ancient philosophers were in about it, what meanders they were lost in for want of a clue to guide them through them: now it pleased God, after the coming of Christ in the flesh, to declare to the world the only way for the recovery of souls, and their eternal salvation; the news of which being spread so far that it soon got among the philosophers, could not but make them more inquisitive concerning the state and condition of their souls; and when they had searched what the philosophers had formerly disco- vered of it, their curiosity would presently prompt them to see what account of things, concerning the souls of men, was delivered by the preachers of this new doctrine. By this they could not but presently understand that they declared all men’s souls to be in a most degenerate and low condition, by being so con- tinually under the power of the most unreasonable and unruly passions, that they were estranged from God, and prone to fix on things very unsuitable to their nature; as to all which, their own inward sense and experience could not but tell them, that these things were notoriously true; and therefore they inquire fur- ther how these things came to be so; which they re- ceive a full aécount of in Scripture: that man’s soul was at first created pure and holy, and in perfect friendship with God: that God dealt bountifully and favourably with man; only expected obedience to his laws: that man being a free agent, did abuse his liberty, and disobeyed his Maker: and thence came the true arepopsiyois, the feathers of the soul, whereby it soared up to heaven, moulted away, and the soul sunk below itself into a degenerate and apostate con- dition; out of which it is impossible to be recovered without some extraordinary expression of Divine fa- ORIGINES SACRA. 107 vour. Now what is there in all this account, but what is hugely suitable to principles of reason, and to the general experience of the world, as to those things which were capable of being tried by it? And those philosophers who were any thing ingenuous, and lovers of truth, could not but confess the truth of those things which we are now speaking of, viz. That men’s souls are in a very degenerate condition ; that the most ra- tional account of it is, that man, by the act of his own will, brought himself into it; and that, in order to the happiness of men’s souls, there was a necessity of re- covery out of this condition. As to the degeneracy of the souls of men; this was the common complaint of those philosophers who minded the government of themselves, and the prac- tice of virtue; especially of the Platonists and Stoics. Seneca, in all his moral discourses, especially in his Epistles, may speak sufficiently in behalf of the Stoics, how much they lamented the degeneracy of the world. And the Platonists all complain of the slavery of the soul in the body, and that it is here by way of punish- ment for something which was done before; which makes me somewhat inclinable to think that Plato knew more of the lapse of mankind than he would openly discover, and for that end disguised it, after his usual manner, in that hypothesis of preexistence, which, taking it cabalistically, (for I rather think the opinion of preexistence is so to be taken than the his- tory of the fall of man,) may import only this, That men’s souls might be justly supposed to be created happy; but by reason of the apostasy of man’s soul from God, all souls came now into their bodies as into a kind of prison, they being enslaved to the brutish part within them; there having been such a true arepoppunots, the soul being now deprived of her chiefest CHAP. III. XV. 108 ORIGINES SACRA. BooK perfections in this her low and degenerate condition. ti And it seems far more rational to me to interpret those persons’ opinions to a cabalistical or an allegori- cal sense, who are known to have written designedly in a way obscure and ambiguous, than to force those men’s expressions to cabalas, who profess to write a plain history, and that with the greatest simplicity and perspicuity. But it cannot but seem very strange, that an hypothesis capable of being reconciled to the plain literal sense of the Scriptures (delivered by a per- son who useth great artifice and cunning to disguise his opinions, and such a person withal, who (by such persons themselves who make use of this opinion to that end) is supposed to have been very conversant with the writings of Moses) should be taken in its literal sense, as it really imports preexistence of each particular soul in the grossest manner; and this should be made to be a part of the philosophic cabala of the writings of such a person, who useth not the least arti- fice to disguise his sense, nor gives us any where the least intimation that he left behind him such plaited pictures in his history of the beginning of the world, that if you look straight forward, you may see a literal cabala; on the one side a philosophical, and on the other a moral. But now if we remove the cabala from Moses to Plato, we may find no incongruity or repug- nancy at all, either as to Plato’s way of writing, or the consonancy of the opinion so interpreted to the plain genuine sense of Moses; if by Plato’s opinion of the preexistence and descent of souls be understood, by the former, the happy state of the soul of man in conjunc- tion with God, and by the latter, the low and degene- rate condition which the soul is in after apostasy from him; which the latter Platonists are so large and elo- quent in expressing. Porphyry, where he speaks of ORIGINES SACRA. 109 some things he counsels men to do, hath these words: CHAP. But if we cannot do them, let us at least do that which ——.— Y Porphyr. de was so much lamented of old, Td Opyvatjrevov mpd¢ rév wan Abdinent. Aad, Which is, os tolwv xr epider, exre verkéov yevoneba, ad le Ort TO Oeiov Kal AKNPATOV, Kal ev waow arabes owtery ov dvva~ pela. Let us at the least join with our forefathers in lamenting this, that we are compounded of such dis- agreeing and contrary principles, that we are not able to preserve divine, pure, and unspotted innocency. And Hierocles fully expresseth his sense of the dege- Hieroc. in neracy of mankind in these words; Oi yp wAciores Kako), oun” Kal THS mpoomabeias NTTOUS, Kal ppeveBraBeis vo TIS ks vnv pr eriaee vevoews ryevopuevar" OS Ka TOUTO map” EQUTOY TO KaKoV EN ELY, Ola 0 Bovdnfjvas puyeiy amd Oecd, Kat amowepica altos Tys To TOU OpLAlas, is EUT UY OUY ey avyy Kabapa Orcryoures* Tov yap Omo Ocod ywpicpov BrAdarovta THs ppevas 4 mpos yy vevors Dydor. Lhe most of men in the world are bad, and under the command of their passions, and grown ampotent through their propensity to earth; which great evil they have brought upon themselves by their wilful apostasy from God, and withdrawing themselves Jrom that society with him which they once enjoyed in pure light; which departure of men’s souls Strom God, which as so hurtful to the minds of men, is evident by their strong inclination to the things of this world. The same author mentions, with much approbation, that speech of Heraclitus, speaking of those souls which are antoros eig xaxiav, Which I cannot better render than undeclinably good; he saith, ér Coney TOV exeivey bavaroy, tebynKapev O€ tov exelvwv Biv’ We live their death, and die Wia.p. 253. their life: KATELCL yap Kab AMOWITTEL TIS evdalsLovos yepas 6 avipwxos. Hor man is now fallen down Srom that blessed region, and as Empedocles the Pythagorean speaks, Duyas dedbev xal dAnrne Ibid. p.254. Neixes wouvomévm mlouvos. BOOK I. Hieroc. in Pythag. Carm. p- 254- ed. Lond.;} P2857; 110 ORIGINES SACRE. Which words cannot be better rendered than in the words the Scripture useth concerning Cain; and he went from the presence of the Lord, and was a fugi- tive in the earth, and under continual perplexities. For the soul of man having left tov Acudva tig adnbeias, (it is Hierocles’s own expression,) the pleasant meadow of truth, (a fit description of Paradise,) 7} spun tas mrepoppu- noews €b¢ ynivoy EK ET OL TOMA 6ABlov alovos apefets, through the violence of her moulting, or deplumation, she comes into this earthly body deprived of that blessed life which she before enjoyed. Which he tells us is very consonant to Plato’s sense of the xa6cdos, or descent of souls; that when, by reason of their impotency of fix- ing wholly on God, they suffer cuvruyiay xat TT EPOPOUNTLY, some great loss, and a deprivation of former perfec- tions, (which I suppose is meant by the zrepopéiyoss, the soul’s impotency of flying up above this earthly world,) then they lapse into these terrestrial and mor- tal bodies. So Hierocles concludes with this excellent and divine speech, dcmep civ 7 bedbev puyn, Kal 9 mrepoppuy- oLs TOY oe [AOS aie TH dw els Tov Tov OvyTov yvEeyKE TOTO, ois TH KOKO ede oa ovTws ovy ” TNS bunt ys Tpoo= mabeias amoBoan, Kok n TOV visas olov Ce TLUOV, EKPUTIS p05 TOY TOY Kadoy kabapoy Tomov, €ls ry beiav evColay NAS dvéka. As therefore, by apostasy from God, and the moulting of those feathers of our souls, whereby we may be raised up above this world, we have fallen into this place of mortals which is compassed about with evils; so by the casting off carnal affections, and by the growth of virtues like new feathers to the soul, we shall ascend to the place of pure and perfect good, and to the enjoyment of a Divine life. So much more becoming Christians do these excellent philosophers speak of the degeneracy of men’s souls, and the conse- quents of it, than some who would be accounted the ORIGINES SACRA. itt followers of reason, as well as of Christ, who make it cHap. so much of their business to extenuate the fall of man: which we find those who were mere philosophers far more rational and ingenuous in, than those who pre- tend so highly to reason; but I think with as little of it as any, supposing the Scriptures to be of Divine authority. But it is not here our business to consider the opinions of those who pretend to Christianity, but only of such who, pretending only to reason, have yet consented with the doctrine of the Scriptures as to the degeneracy of the souls of men, that it lies in an apo- stasy from God, and having lost those perfections which they had before. Lhat man’s will is the cause of his apostasy; this xvt. we have already manifested at large from the testi- mony and reason of Simplicius; and Hierocles is as large and clear in it as the other, with expressions much of the same nature. Méoy yap cica 4 tod dvbodaov Hieroe. in Aur. Carm. y # ~ Siu\ / \ Si \ ~ , ~ OUTLA TWY TE HEL YOOUYTWY TOV beov, Kal Towv [ydemore VOELV Tepu- p. 258. KOTWY, QVELTL TpOS eKElVa, Kal KoTELCL mos Tata, vou KTHCEL Kat anoBoryn, mpos Tyy Delay duciwow Kal Ty Ojpescv, Oia TO THs proews aupiBiov avapépos oixeounéry. Man’s nature lying between those beings which perpetually contemplate God, and those which are uncapable of it, it some- times ascends to those, and sometimes descends to these, according as it observes or rejects the dictates of reason; and so, by reason of the indifferency of the will, is liable to take upon it the similitude of God or a beast. Tair civ 6 Tepl TIS avbowmivys eyVWKwS ouclas, ofd€ Ibid. TOs avbaipeta mar EXOUTLY of avOpwmrot, Kab ms TANIMOVES KEL Tadaves Tals éavTov aiperert ylvovra. And whoever tho- roughly considers this, will easily understand how men are the causes of their own evils, and become un- happy and miserable through their own choice and BOOK Ill. 112 ORIGINES SACRA. self-wills. Which he brings in by way of explication ___ of that truly golden Pythagorean verse, Hieroc. in Aur. Carm. Pp 203. P.. 264. Ibid. Tyaoy 3 aviowmous abbciperce TNT Ex OvTAs Tanpovas. Men are grown miserable through their own fault. And afterwards Hierocles excellently describes the na- ture of evil in these words, jv 0 cupdves apa Kat exixty- Tov yaly KaKOY, ) TOV avreLovolon mop prow kiyots. Both our natural and contracted pravity is nothing else but the unnatural motion of our free wills: according to which, saith he, évavriotcbas tois betats YOpLOLS mespenebar, ovdev eraucbavopevas Soov Eavtovs BAdmToKEY, Six Tov SoKely av Titeivery Oe" GAAG [ovOY TOUTO TUPADS dpavTEs, Ort eduvnbywey adyucoos tiv éxelvov becpav. We dare to contradict the laws of God, not being sensible how much we wuygure ourselves when we doit; and only look at this, that we are able to cast off the reins of God’s laws from our necks. And he truly saith, That it is the greatest abuse of liberty to offend God, when we either do what he forbids, or neglect what he requires. “Iva Exarkpober ths abAoryres EavTovs mAnporwow of tov Belov YOpLoV exBaivovtes, TH TE wy moLely Ta TPOTTET Ary [neva Kab TO Tosedy TH amnyopeueva. So that on both sides men bring misery upon themselves, by transgressing the Divine law, both by not doing what they are commanded, and by doing what they are forbidden. So that he fully as- cribes the origin of evil to the ro abteovotoy Kina Tapa picw Siarebev, as he calls it, the regular motion of the will of man; which we have already shewed to be the doctrine of the Scriptures. As to the necessity of the soul’s recovery from this condition, in order to her felicity, we have these philo- sophers expressing their consent with the Scriptures. Porphyrius, as St. Augustine tells us, in the end of his ORIGINES SACRE. 113 first book de Regressu Anime, doth acknowledge the CHAP. necessity of a way of recovering souls, which should be universal. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius, nondum Sone receptam unam quandam sectam, que universalem ap ee viam anime contineat lberande, nondumgue tn 1°13 suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione per- latam, proculdubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed non- dum in suam venisse notitiam. But the necessity of the purgation of the soul in order to its felicity, is so largely and fully discoursed of by all the Platonists and Pythagoreans, that it will be needless to insist upon it. Thus far then we find the account given of the origin of evil in Scripture to be embraced by the sublimest of the heathen philosophers, as most rational and satisfactory; which was the thing to be proved. Neither do we find only the main of this account XVII. acknowledged as rational; but we may trace some not obscure footsteps of the truth of particular circum- stances which concern the fall of man, among the hea- thens; such as the Devil’s envying of man’s happt- ness, his disguising himself under the form of a ser- pent, and man’s being thrown out of Paradise upon his fall. 1. The Devil’s envying the happiness of man. It D.Casaub. hath been truly observed by a learned man, that the ae original of that very ancient opinion among the hea- i then, de invidia Demonis, had its rise from the his- tory of the fall of man; which he hath made out so fully, that I shall the less need to prove it. And that there was an undoubted tradition of some malignant spirits which envied the welfare of mankind, appears by that ample testimony of Plutarch, in his Dvo, men- tioned by the same author; Ovx ofda, wy tay wavy wa- Vit. Paral. ~ \ 5) / ~ - 958. Auudy Tov atomorarey avayKacbioner mpordeyerbas Adyor, ws TH Siete _ / ‘ x ~ ~ paira Sapoua kat Baoxava, spoopbevedvta trois ayabois avdpa- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. I BOOK IIT. Plutarch. de Isid. et Osir. p.361 et c. 26. ed. Oxon. Tamblich. de Myster. p- 105. ed. Lugd. 114 ORIGINES SACRA. ow Kat Tals mpakeow euordpeva, Tapaycs Kat poBous emaryel, CELOvTa Kak oparrovTa THY apeT yy" ws By Drapretvavtes ORTOTES ey TD KaAD Kal AKEALOL, GBeAtiovos eKELVOY polpas [eT OL THY TE Acvtyy téxwow. Plutarch was much troubled to give an account of the apparitions which Brutus and Dio, who were learned and philosophical men, were haunted withal; and doubts he can give no just account of it, unless he embraced that very ancient tradition (which yet seemed absurd and incredible), viz. That there are certain wicked and malignant demons, which envy good men, and withstand their enterprises, by raising fears and troubles to them, that so they might hinder them in their pursuit of virtue ; lest, if they continue stedfast and unmoveable in good, they should be at last partakers of greater felicity than they enjoy. There being so ancient a tradition of such VBprotat dai poves, (as the learned man mentioned hath more fully shewed in his notes on this place of Plutarch,) gives a great confirmation to the truth of what the Scripture reports concerning the Devil’s being so great an in- strument in procuring the fall of man. To him there- fore I refer the inquisitive reader, and shall only add to the testimonies of him cited, that of Xenocrates in Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, where he saith, that the calamities of life, and misfortunes men meet with, do not agree with that veneration which we have for the Deity and good spirits, AAW elvar pices ev TH weprexorte peyahas pev Kal loyupiuc, Svaetpdmovs Ve Kal oKxrdpwmas, ot yal pouoe Tols towitos. But that there are in the air some great and potent beings, which are of a surly and malignant nature, and rejoice to do men all the mis- chief they can. Tamblichus, in his answer to Porphy- rius concerning the Egyptian mysteries, undertakes to give an account of these evil spirits or daemons, and that from them the origin of evil in the world is; for ORIGINES SACRE. 115 thus he speaks, (as he is translated by Ficinus:) S$? cHap. verum est quod de idolis dicebamus, improbisque De- oe monibus, hinc sane exoritur multiplex origo malorum. Stimulant enim Deorum presentiam, Demonumque bonorum, ideoque cultorem suum jubent esse justum, ut ipsi videantur boni, sicut et Du; quoniam vero na- tura sunt mali, rogati mala inferre, libenter inferunt, atque nobis ad injusta conducunt. Li sunt omnino qui et in oraculis mentiuntur et fallunt, et turpia con- sulunt atque peraguut. By which we see he acknow- ledgeth some spirits whose natures are wicked, and help men to do evil; and that these very spirits may sometimes command that which is good, lest they should be suspected to be what they are, of a wicked and malignant nature, which only design the ruin of men. By which we have a good account of whatever was commendable delivered by the heathen oracles ; which yet might come from the Devil still, by this confession of Iamblichus himself. For the Devil’s appearing under the form of a xvin. serpent. It is very probably conjectured, that from ”* hence it was that the prince of those who contended with Saturn, was by that enigmatical writer, Phere- cydes Syrius, called ’Oduoveds. Celsus, who had so little skill in antiquity as to think that the history of Moses was, as to many passages of it, taken out of heathen fables, insists on this very story of Ophioneus as the groundwork of that relation in Genesis concerning the fall. But Origen well answers him, épa civ, ef pH 6 ey- Orig. cont. Karov yuiv, wo oparrouévors aceBeotara, Kal amomemAan Le sea) vols beiev LVI LAT OV, QUTOS Tapas oparrerat ; Ly KaTavoynoas ene rete OTL TH TOAA® ov peovoy ‘Hpaxaeirov Kal Depexvdov GP ALOT EPA, GAhu Kat ‘Opypav, Mwiicéws ypaupara ebonyarye TOV TEpt TOD Tovnpov GUTOU Kl eKTETOYTOS THY ovpavicy Aovyov. See there- Sore if this rare antiquary, who chargeth us with im- I 2 116 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK piety in corrupting and altering the heathen fables, be not himself more justly chargeable with the same fault, not understanding the far greater antiquity of the writings of Moses, than either of Heraclitus, or Pherecydes, or HLomer himself, which reports the story of that evil one which fell from heaven, 6 yap ods (zap av 6 Topo TO Depexvdy yeryovev "Oguoveds) ALTLOS yevd= poevos ToD EKBAYOyvaL Tod Belov mapadeicov Toy avbpwmrov, Tear Tiva alviccetal, erraryyeria. beorytos Ka pres Coveov amaryoas TO OyAvrepoy yevos® @ ovyyKorovbyKevat Neyerau Kal 6 avin’ For the serpent, (from which Ophioneus in Pherecydes derived his name,) which was the cause why man was cast forth of Paradise, doth intimate some such thing, _while under a pretence of divinity, and of a better “condition, he Jirst deceived the woman, and by her Cel. Rho- means the man. Ceelius Rhodiginus calls this Ophi- dig. Antiq. Lect. 1.i, Oneus Demonicum serpentem, qui antesignanus fuerit C. 7. agmims a Divine mentis placito deficientis. This Euseb. be ' Pherecydes, as appears by Eusebius, had much con- Prep. E lisc.10, verse with the Phoenicians ; where he purposely speaks concerning this Ophioneus. Now the Pheenicians, as Eusebius likewise tells us, worshipped their god under the form of a serpent; which probably might be occa- sioned by the Devil’s ambition and tyranny over men, that would be worshipped among them in that very form wherein he had done so much mischief to the world. It was very early in the world when the Phe- nicians and Egyptians did begin to adore their gods under the form of serpents; for the beginning of it is attributed to Taautus by Eusebius, ryy jev civ rod Apd- Kovtos puow Kal Tov opewy avtos ebebelacev 6 Taavtos, Kat pet avtoyv aibis Doinxes te Kea Atytariot. Neither was this only among the Phcenicians and Egyptians; but where- ever the Devil reigned, the serpent was had in some peculiar veneration: thence Justin Martyr saith, xapx ORIGINES SACRA. 117 mavtl vopslopeveov rap viv bedv, opis cunPBorov peya Kat v= CHAP. If. otypiov avaypapera. The serpent was the symbol of ——~— “ : aphe Just. Mart. adoration among them; and was the proper tzdicium, Apotos. i. or note of a consecrated place, as is evident by that of ¢,77,. Persius : Pinge duos angues: pueri, sacer est locus. Pers. Satyr. Thence the scholiast on Aristophanes, on that place in pike Plutus, e&yEarny ctv dv0 SpaKxovr’ €x Tov ved, Observes, Kolvds TAL TOS poo OpaKovtes mapetibevro, so that wherever any god or hero was to be worshipped, there were serpents painted to denote so much. So Orus Apollo saith of the Egyptians, ovCaiov 6 éorw EAAyvioTt: BacidtoKey xX pucovy mepitibecbas tois Oeois, they were wont to put the form of a golden basilisk to their gods. Heinsius conceives Heins. Ari- that the first worship of Apollo at Delphi was under ahh the form of a serpent; whither Nonnus tells us that '°?7 Cadmus the Phoenician went upon his first coming into Beeotia; and from hence he derives the name Pytho, from the Hebrew ns, which signifies a serpent. Ut non dubitandum sit, saith he, quin Pythius Apollo, hoc est, spurcus ile spiritus, quem Hebret Ob et Abaddon, Helleniste ad verbum ’Amoddtwva, ceteri ’ArorddAwva Aix- erunt, sub hac forma, qua miseriam humano olim ge- nert invexit, primo cultus sit in Grecia. And which is further observable, the Devil was always ambitious to have the world think that the knowledge of good and evil was to come by the serpent still. ‘Thence the famous oracle of Apollo here at Delphi; thence came the use of serpents so much in divination; thence wm signifies to divine, from wri, a serpent; and so among the Greeks ciwifecba: is taken in the same sense, from ciwvos, a Serpent. So that excellent glossographer, He- sychius ; olwvos, odis® CTLELKOS yep AeyeTau eig TAS poavtelas Tous bets EXEL, CVS KAL olwvors cAeyov. The serpent was reckoned among the pedestria auspicia by the Ro- I 3 118 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK mans; and Homer tells, in that solemn divination con- CaN ail cerning the Greeks’ success at Troy, there appears, Tliad. p’. Apaxwy emi vita dagoids. i‘ Which, saith Heinsius, is an exact description of the nachas; whom they would have so called from the marks on his back, which they accurately observed in divination. Thus we see how careful the Devil was to advance his honour in the world under that form, wherein he had deceived mankind into so much folly and misery. Oe We meet with some remainders of man’s being cast Cels. liv. out of Paradise, upon his fall, among the heathens. eee Origen thinks that Plato, by his converse with the Jews in Egypt, did understand the history of the fall of man; which he, after his way, enigmatically de- scribes in his Symposiacs. Where he brings in Porus, the god of Plenty, feasting with the rest of the gods; after supper Penia comes a begging to the door; Porus being drunk with nectar, goes into Jupiter's garden, and there falls asleep; Penia observing: tt, steals to him, and by this deceit conceived by him. In this fable of Plato, Origen takes notice what a near resemblance the garden of Jupiter hath to Paradise, Penia to the serpent which circumvented Adam, and Porus to man, who was deceived by the serpent. Which he conceives more probable, because of Plato’s custom, Ta peyara EavTo chavopnevar Ooypara Kevan prev duce Tovs ToAAovs ev TO TOV pvbou CN NAATL, to wrap up those excellent things he knew under some fables, because of the vulgar; for which he after speaks of his custom in altering and disguising what he had from the Jews, lest he should too much displease the fabulous Greeks, if he should adhere too close to the Jews, who were so infamous among them. Some have thought the story of Paradise was preserved among the heathens in the ORIGINES SACRE. 119 fable of the gardens of Adonis, which comes near that CHAP. If. of Eden; but what footsteps may be gathered of the ———— truth of Scripture-history in the heathen mythology, will appear afterwards. Thus much here then may serve to have manifested the account which the Scrip- ture gives of the origin of evil by the fall of man, to be in itself rational, and attested by the consent of such persons, who cannot be suspected of any partiality to the Scriptures. We come now to consider the other grand difficulty which concerns the origin of evil, and the truth of Di- vine Providence together: which is, that if sin be the cause of misery, and there be a God which governs the world, whence comes it to pass that the worst of men do so frequently escape sufferings, and the best do commonly undergo them? 'This hath been in all ages of the world, where men have been philosophical and inquisitive, one of the great inquiries which the minds of men have been perplexed about. The true and full resolution of which question depends much upon those grounds and principles which are discovered to us by Divine revelation in the Scriptures, concerning the grounds of God’s patience towards wicked men; the nature and end of sufferings which good men are exer- cised with. And certainly this should very much com- mend the Scriptures to all sober and inquisitive per- sons, that they contain in them the most clear and cer- tain grounds of satisfaction to the minds of men, in such things wherein they are otherwise so irresolved. But of that afterwards. Our present business is to give an account of this difficulty from natural reason 5 which will be most satisfactorily done by the pro- ducing those grounds from which they have resolved this question, Cur malis bene, et bonis mate, who I 4 XX. BOOK Ill. Simplic. Comment. in Epictet. ¢. 38. p. B23: 120 ORIGINES SACRA. either have not had, or at least owned any thing of Divine revelation. I begin with that which doth concern the prosperity and impunity of wicked men, which men have with more confidence insisted on, on this account, because all men could not but understand a general reason of sufferings, by reason there were none whose consciences could wholly acquit them of evil actions; but why persons notoriously wicked should live in impunity, when others suffer, that they were unable to give an account of. And this was the common pretence of atheism; as Simplicius tells us, cup Baives dé TLAS KO Ou TO OVOATEOOELKTOS TLOTEVEL, Kol Osc TO opay wore joey aryabovs dvoTUYXoWTAs, WoTe De KAKOS ev EaUTOIS EevpoovvTac, oAsyeopeiy ov eyouer TPCANPEW, KOL ny copay dsddveus TH Tparyod iat Aéyely, ToaApa xatemsiv unmot ovx sicly @eo}, Kaxol yao edruyotvres émimAnrroucl jue. It comes to pass, that such who have no grounded belief of a Deity, when they observe the miseries of good men, and the tranquillity and felicity of bad men, they regard not the common notions they have of a Deity, and are ready to cry out with the trage- dian, Shall I not dare to say there are no gods, When those do prosper who have injur’d me? And it is observable, that the most of those who have taken occasion amongst the heathens to question Providence, have done it upon some remarkable injury which they have conceived to be done to themselves ; and so we have ground to think that 1t was more pas- sion and interest, than any clear reason, which was the inducement to it. So Diagoras resolves to set up for an atheist, because the perjured person was not struck dead in the place. ORIGINES SACRA. 121 And Jason in Seneca, when he sees Medea fly away cHap. after killing his children, cries out, ae Testare nullos esse qua veheris Deos. Med. v. ult. Thou tell’st the world there are no gods that way Where thou dost fly. And so Claudian, who largely reasons the case on both sides, for Providence and against it, at last tells us what it was which was the main cause of his doubts, viz. the long impunity of Rufinus. Abstulit hunc tandem Rufini poena tumultum In Rufin. Absolvitque Deos. sae Rufinus’ death doth clear the gods, and set My mind at ease. But because some carry it higher, as Cotta in Tully, oe ids who reasons the most (as became a statesman) in re-1.iii, ference to such persons who had been useful or hurt- ful to the commonwealths, we may suppose there might be somewhat more of reason than interest in such ar- - gumentations; and yet even in those discourses we may still find, that the main original of this quarrel against Providence was an over-high esteem of them- selves; that they thought they deserved better from the gods than to receive such injuries, or undergo such calamities. Therefore Cotta cries out on Providence, because such persons who were useful to the Roman commonwealth were destroyed, when the enemies to it escaped ; as though Providence had been only a tutelar Deity of Rome, and had nothing to do elsewhere. Thence he cries out, If there be Providence, why were the two Scipios destroyed in Spain by the Carthagi- nians ? Why was Maximus killed by Hannibal? Why were the Romans, with Paulus, ruined at Cannez ? Why did Regulus undergo so much cruelty by the Carthaginians? Why did not Africanus die in his own bed? Nay, saith he, to come nearer home, why BOOK III. XXI. Plutarch. de his qui sero puni- untur a nu- mine, tom. HAD. 5S. ed. Fr 122 ORIGINES SACRA. is my uncle Rutilius in banishment? Why was my friend Drusus killed in his own house? On the other side, why did Marius die in peace, and the most cruel Cinna enjoy so long tranquillity? With many other instances of both sorts. But this is it which I take notice of these for, because we hereby see how com- mon it is for men to question Providence, more out of passion and interest, than out of any solid grounds of reason. Let us therefore appeal from persons who were par- ticularly engaged by some private interest in those passages, from whence they would infer that there was no Providence, to such who stood by unconcerned, and made use of the free dictates of their reason in - these cases. And such persons, when they come to reason the case like philosophers, and men out of pas- sion, have given satisfactory and rational accounts why God in his wise providence may sometimes suffer the worst of men to go on in impunity, when good men may go through the troubles of this world. As, 1. God forbears wicked men, to propound the ex- ample of his goodness to their imitation, to teach them not to revenge their injuries too greedily on each other. This Plutarch, in that admirable discourse of his on this subject, insists on, as his first reason, why God doth not presently punish wicked men. For, saith he out of Plato, God hath set forth himself in the midst of the world for our imitation ; and true virtue is nothing else but an imitation of the Divine nature. And therefore God, saith Plato, gave man the use of sight, that by the sight of the heavenly bodies, and the exact motions which are in them, men should learn +o eloynuov Kal teraypevor, that which was comely and or- derly, and hate all disorderly and irregular motions ; for, as he excellently speaks, Ov yap éoriv G, Ts meiCoy av- ORIGINES SACRA. 123 Bownos amorave Oecd wépuxer, y TO pupnoer. Kat SiwEer tev ev exelun Kahiv Kat aryabay eis aperyy kabictacbar, There is no greater benefit man can receive from God, than to at- tain true virtue by the imitation and pursuit of those perfections which are in him. And thence, saith Plu- tarch, God forbears to punish wicked men presently, not lest, if he should punish them, he might do that he would repent of afterwards; aA yudv 7o wept Tas TipLw-= plas Onpsades Kal Aa Bpov aparpoy, but that he might take away the fury and violence of men in revenging their injuries on each other, that they should not do it in wrath and anger, with as much eagerness as they sa- tisfy their hunger and thirst, whereby they do, éwmyda Tois AeAvankdow, leap upon them who have injured them, with as much fury as a wild beast upon his prey; but men should learn to imitate ryy éxeivev mpactyta Kat THY LeA- ayow, God’s gentleness and patience, whereby he gives the offender time to consider with himself what he hath done before he doth severely punish him. As Plato, when his boy had angered him, stood still a while without striking him, rov évucv xordhov, as he said, punishing himself first for his anger, before he would chastise the boy for his fault; and Archytas, when he saw how negligent his workmen had been, and began to be very angry with them, told them, ev- tuxeite Ott dpyioua: viv, Lt 1s well for you that I am angry with you. Now, saith Plutarch, if the consi- deration of this forbearance in men should tend to mo- derate men’s heat and violence, how much more should the consideration of the lenity and patience of God do it! Kat Beiov yyetobau [AOplov apeT ns THY TPAOTYT a Kal THY jLEya~ Aordbeav; and to account gentleness and forbearance to be an imitation of Divine perfections. Now what can be more rational and agreeable to our apprehen- sions of a Divine nature than this is, that he should CHAP. Ill. 124 ORIGINES SACR&, BOOK shew his goodness to all, and, by his forbearance of so oes many, teach the world more meekness and gentleness towards each other? For if offences rise by the quality of the person against whom they are committed, no injuries can be so great in one man to another, as those affronts are which men put upon God by their continual provocations of him: and if God then be of so infinite patience to forbear such who have offended him, what justice and reason is there, but that men should express more lenity and patience towards each other? So Hierocles excellently speaks, pupetra: kat é&v TOks irias [A€T POLS Tov Ocov, d6 palo [eev ovoeva. avbpwomwy, TO THs prravOpwmias aryabov Kole TH yéver wporeivwv, A good man imitates God in the measures of friendship, who hates no man, and extends his loving-kindness to all mankind. Of which Seneca likewise somewhere speaks : Sen. de Be- We Deos quidem immortales ab hac tam effusa be- Poe nignitate sacrilegt negligentesque eorum deterrent; utuntur natura sua, et cuncta, mterque ila ipsos mu- nerum suorum matos interpretes, juvant. The Divine benignity extends itself to all; even to such as affront and dishonour them, and abuse the gifts they bestow upon them. And since there is so much truth and reason in that of Plato, réAcs trav ayabdv 1d spotwbyvas Oca, et ts the height of goodness to be like to God; we see what excellent reason there is for that command of Lukevi.35,0ur Saviour, Love ye your enemies, and do good, and oe lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the flighest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 2. God forbears presently to punish wicked men, to Plutarch, gave them time to become better. This the same excel- p55! lent moralist gives as another account of God’s pa- ORIGINES SACRA. 125 tience; that thereby he gives them ypévev mpo¢ emavdphu- CHAR. ow, a space to repent mm, as the Scripture calls it. For men, saith Plutarch, 72 their punishments look at no- thing further than mere satisfying their revenge and malice, and that makes them pursue those that have offended them with so much rage and eagerness ; but God, saith he, aems at the cure of those who are not utterly incurable ; to such he gives petaCarecbat “povor, atime to reform in. Here he brings in the examples of such who were bad at first, and-came afterwards to be changed from what they were; for which he in- stances in Cecrops, who was thence called A:duys, be- cause, from a cruel severe prince, he became gentle and mild; and so Gelon and Hieron of Sicily, and Pi- sistratus the son of Hippocrates, who, from being usurpers, became excellent princes. If Miltiades, saith he, had been cut off while he acted the part of a ty- rant, and Cimon in his incest, or Themistocles in his debaucheries, what had become of Marathon, Euryme- don, Dianium, by which the Athenians got so great elory and liberty ? And, as he well observes, Ovéév yap pintareh. al peyddar pices puxpov expépovor, great spirits do no-* 55” thing mean ; Ovdé apryel Or o€utyta TO opadpov év auTais Kal Rev. ii. 21. Sparrypioy, Gr ev THAW OraépovTas, mol elg 0 [LOVE OV Keak Kabectyxos “Sos edbetv, That sharp and active spirit that as in them can never le at rest by reason of tts vi- gour, but they are tossed up and down, as it were in a tempest, till they come to a settled composed life. But as the multitude of weeds argues the richness and softness of the ground, though for the sake of those weeds one not skilled in husbandry would not account such ground worth looking after, so, saith he, arora TOAAa Kal avara mpocbavbovow ai peycdru proces, great spirits usually bring forth no commendable fruits at Jirst ; which we considering the danger and hurtful- BOOK Ill. Plutarch. P- 553: 126 ORIGINES SACRE. ness of, are presently for cutting them down ; but one that more wisely considers the generous nature which may lie under this ill fruit, waits time and leisure, tll reason and age begin to master these headstrong pas- sions. And therefore, according to the prudent law of the Egyptians, the woman with child must be re- ~prieved till the time of her delivery. 3. God spares some wicked men from punishment, to make them instruments of his justice in punishing others. °?Evios yup CLEAEL Kak KoAaoTais et épwy TOVYPOV, olov Syucxolvoss, ameyoyoaro To Saspovov, as Plutarch goes on, God spares some from punishment, that by them he might punish others. Which he supposeth to be the case of all tyrants: and thereby Cotta’s difficulty con- cerning Marius, Cinna, Sylla, and those other cruel and tyrannical persons who usurped authority among them, is clearly taken off: for Divine Providence might let those trees grow, from whence he intended to take his rods to scourge others withal. God makes the same use of tyrants (saith Plutarch) to common- wealths, that physicians do of the gall of a hyaena and other hurtful creatures; which may be good for curing some dangerous diseases; so may the tyrannical seve- rity and sharpness of such persons be continued 4 72 voooiy amarrakas kat xoabcpas, till the diseases of the polt- tical body be cured by these sharp medicines. Such a one was Phalaris to the Agrigentines, and Marius to the Romans; and the oracle told the Sicyonians in ex- press terms, pactryoviuov deicbar ryv modu, the city wanted some severe discipline. Thence Totilas, when he found what strange success he had in his enterprises, called himself Flagellum Dei, and thought God raised him up on purpose to be a scourge for the sins of the world. And no doubt those strange passages of the Roman commonwealth, (which made Cato at least dispute Pro- ORIGINES SACRA. 127 vidence, and say, es divinas multum habere caligi- nis, when he saw Pompey successful as long as he served his ambition, but presently overthrown when he stood for the commonwealth ;) these things, I say, had a higher end than they looked at, which was to make both Pompey and Cesar the instruments of Di- vine justice to punish the Romans for their lusts, am- bition, and cruelty ; which were never greater than in that age. Now then, if God must justly punish of- fenders, why may he not spare some to make them his instruments in the punishing of others: especially since, after he hath used his rods, he may cast them into the fire too? As was evident in the instance of Cesar, who, after all his slaughters and triumphs, was murdered in the senate, and that by some who had been as active as any for him. And herein Divine jus- tice, both as to the punishment of the persons, and the means of it, hath been very remarkable in a multitude of instances; which every one’s reading may afford him. 4. Therefore another account why God may spare wicked men a while, is, that Divine Providence might more remarkably be observed in the manner of their punishment afterwards. Plutarch tells us of Callip- pus, who was stabbed by his enemies with the same dagger with which he had killed Dion under a pre- tence of friendship. And when Mitius, the Argive, was killed in a tumult afterwards, upon the day of a solemn show, a brass statue in the market-place fell upon his murderer, and killed him there. But most remarkable is the story of Bessus, recorded by the same author, who having killed his father, and a long time concealed it, goes one night to supper to some friends; and while he was there, thrusts up his spear into a swallow’s nest, and pulls it down, and kills the CHAP. Ill. 128 ORIGINES SACRA. Book young ones. His friends asking him the reason of so “- strange an action, Ov yap (epy) pov mara KATOpAApTUPOUTLY abta Wevdes Kal KataBodoLVy, OS AMEKTOVOTOS ToY TATED Ay Do not you hear, saith he, how they falsely accuse me, and cry out that I have killed my father ? Which being by the persons present carried to the king, and the truth of it found out, he was executed for it. Such strange ways doth Providence sometimes use to shew how vigilant it is, even when we think it sleeps the most ! 5. Though God spares the persons of wicked men, he doth not defer their punishment, when the thoughts of their evil actions is the greatest torment to them; Maxima peccati poena est, peccasse, as Seneca speaks ; sin bears its own punishment along with it. Wicked- Ness is dewy tig Biov Oypsoupryas oxtpov, the most exquisite contriver of misery, which fills the minds of those who commit it with continual consternations, anxieties, and perplexities of mind. But as that often and deservedly cited author on this subject, Plutarch, tells us, most men are in this like children, who when they behold malefactors in the theatres in their cloth of gold and purple robes, with their crowns on their heads dancing about, they admire them, and imagine them to be most happy men, till they see them lashed and beaten, and fire come out from their brave apparel; so, saith he, as long as men see others in their pomp and gran- deur, they think them very far from punishment, till they behold their execution; which, adds he, is not so much the entrance of their punishment, as the perfec- tion of it. So that the longer the time of their lives is, the longer is the time of their punishment here; Ovde yypdoavres exohacbycav, aA eynpacay Kodatopevat. They are not punished when they grow old, but are grown old in punishments. Cannot we say a person ORIGINES SACRE. 129 is punished while he is in prison, and hath his fetters Tse upon him, till his execution comes? nor that one that hath drunk poison, is a dying while he walks about, till the cold comes to his heart and kills him? I/we deny, saith he, that all the inquietudes, horrors, and anxieties of mind, which wicked men have, are no part of their punishment, we may as well say that a fish which hath swallowed the hook is not taken, because he ws not fried, or cut in pieces. So it is with every wicked man; he hath swallowed the hook when he hath committed an evil action, (10 yAvkd tis adixias womep déreap evbs e€edydoxe,) and this conscience within him, as he expresseth it, , Odvvog Boraios merayos ws SsactpoBsr Plutarch. D- 554. Which in the prophet’s expression is, The wicked are 'sa-\Wwii.21. like a troubled sea, which casts forth nothing but mire and dirt. As Apollodorus dreamt that he was flayed and boiled by the Scythians, and that his heart spake to him out of the cauldron, ’Eyé co: tovrwv aitia, I am the cause of all this. God deals by wicked men, as Caligula was wont to say of those he commanded to be executed, Merit ut sentiant se mori, he so punishes them, as to make them sensible of their punishments. And as Tacitus speaks of cruel and wicked persons, quorum mentes st recludantur, possint aspici laniatus et ictus; quando ut corpora verberibus, ita sevitia, libidine, malis consultis animus dilaceretur. Wicked- ness is the only fury which continually haunts and lashes those who delight in it, and leaves still behind it aioxpa Kat poBepx way, loathsome and terrible per- turbations, secret gripings of conscience, and self-con- demning thoughts for their folly and wickedness; like Lysimachus, who for extreme thirst offered his king- dom to the Getz to quench it, which when he had done, ped ts euys Kakias, 0¢ d¢ yovyv ovrw Bpayciav, erré- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. K BOOK IIf. 130 ORIGINES SACRA. pypnact Bacirelas trdsxaitys, What a wretch was I (saith he) ¢o lose such a kingdom for so short a pleasure! And though wicked men be not sensible of the loss of a far more glorious kingdom than this of Lysimachus, viz. that of heaven, yet they cannot but be sensible how much they have lost that kingdom which every good man hath in the tranquillity of his spirit, and the command of his passions. 6. The time that God spares wicked men, is not so long as we think for. It is all one, as Plutarch saith, as if we should complain, that the malefactor was pu- nished in the evening, and not in the morning; God’s forbearance is but for a very little time, compared with his own duration. We measure God by the short hour-glass of our time, when we are so ready to con- fine him to our measures. The time seems long to us, but it is as nothing In itself: éwe: tots Te beols wav avOpw- mivov Biov Oiaory Ma, TO pndev eott, The whole life of man, compared with eternity, is nothing. Besides, all this time God suffers wicked men to live here, he hath them under safe custody; he doth but let them take the air within the prison-wall; or it may be they may play and sport themselves there, but there is no possi- bility of escaping out of the hands of Divine justice. 7. God forbears wicked men here, because the time 2s to come wherein God intends to punish them. This Is the highest vindication of Divine Providence, as to the present impunity of wicked men in the world, be- cause this is not the proper season for the open execu- tion of justice. There are but few in comparison, whom justice causeth to be executed in the prison, of what are reserved for the general assizes; God re- serves them for a fair and open trial, for the greater vindication of his honour, and manifestation of his jus- tice to the world. And although God’s judgments, ORIGINES SACRA. 13] even in this world, be sometimes so remarkable that we cannot but see a hand of Providence in them, yet they are but few whom God doth so remarkably punish here, to make us more firmly believe a day of judg- ment to come. Which, though it be most clearly and fully revealed in Scripture, yet the heathens themselves, from mere reason, have had such a persuasion of it, that they have given this as another great reason why God did forbear to punish wicked men here, because he did reserve them for future punishment. For, as the same moralist speaks in the same discourse con- CHAP. IIT. cerning the soul, ’AyeviSeras yap waomep abayrns Kata toy Plutarch. / o \ / / / ~ / Ww? Pp 561. Biov, OTaAY de Qrayoviontas TORE TUYXAVEL Twv TPOTNKOVT WY. This &c. xvill. present life is the place of the soul's combat, which when it hath finished, it then receives according to its performance of it. And as he before speaks, Eis éots Aoyos 0 Tov Oeod ry Tpovalay Cat Kal Siamovyy THs avbowmivys woyys Pearcy, Kal barepov OUK EOTLY ATOALTEN, avepovyTa ba- tepov. Lhe same reason which confirms Providence, doth likewise confirm the immortality of the soul; and of one be taken away, the other follows. Ovcn vé rH wuyy KaTa THY TeAEUTYY, [eaAAov ELKOS €oTh Kal TLpacns Om0dl~ Socbou Kat tynwpias. And if the soul doth subsist after death, tt stands to the greatest reason that it should there receive either reward or punishment. Thus we see how far natural light and moral reason will carry men in the vindicating of Divine Providence, as to the present impunity of wicked men. ed. Oxon. The other part, which concerns the sufferings of xx. good men, is not of so great difficulty, because there are none so good as not to have a mixture of evil in them; and as they have a mixture of evil, so they have but a mixture of punishment; none lying under so great miseries here, but withal they have some K 2 Senec. de Provid.c. 1. Ibid. c. 2. 122 ORIGINES SACRA. share in the comforts of this life. And therefore it is less wonder that this part of Divine Providence which concerns the sufferings of men, hath not wanted some among the heathen moralists, who have made it their design to vindicate it; which, setting aside what Sim- plicius on Epictetus and many others have done, is fully performed by Seneca, in his tract on this subject, Cur bonis male sit, cum sit Providentia, (as Muretus restores the title of that book;) wherein these follow- ing accounts are given of it. 1. God brings them up as his children, under sharp discipline, for ther future benefit. A good man, in Seneca’s language, is, Discipulus Dei, emulatorque, et vera progenies ; which in the language of the Scrip- ture is, one taught of God, and a follower of God, and one born of him. Now, saith he, Parens tlle magnificus, virtutum non lenis exactor, sicut severi patres, durius educat. God, who is the great Father of good men, keeps them under discipline while under age, and by hardship fits them for the practice of virtue. Thence he bids us take notice of the different indulgence of fathers and mothers to their children: the father he hastens them to school, suffers them not to be idle on their play-days, makes them toil, and sometimes cry; the mother she is all for holding them in her lap, keeping them out of the sun, and from catching cold, would not willingly have them either cry or take pains. Patrium habet Deus adversus bo- nos animum, et illos fortiter amat. God bears the indulgence of a father towards his children, and loves them with greater severity. 2. Good men receive benefit by their sufferings ; Quicquid evenit in suum colorem trahit, saith Seneca of a good man; which in the language of the apostle ORIGINES SACRA. 133 is, Livery thing works together for his good. The sea loseth nothing, saith he, of its saltness, by the rivers running into it; neither doth a good man by the current of his sufferings. And of all benefits which he receives, that of the exercise and trial of his virtue and patience is most discernible. Marcet sine adversario virtus ; as soon as Carthage was destroyed, Rome fell to luxury. True wrestlers desire to have some to try thew strength upon them; Cui non in- dustrio otium poena est? An active spirit hates idle- ness and cowardice; for, etzamst ceciderit, de genu pugnat, though his legs be cut off; he will fight on his knees. 3. It redounds to God’s honour, when good men bear up under sufferings. Ecce par Deo dignum, virtus fortis cum mala fortuna compositus. It is a spectacle God delights to see, a good man combat with calamities. God doth, in Seneca’s phrase, guosdam Jastidio transire, pass them by in a slight. An old wrestler scorns to contend with a coward, one who is vinci paratus, ready to yield up presently. Calami- tates sub jugum mittere proprium magni viri est. It argues a noble spirit to be able to subdue miseries. 4. It tends to the trial and increase of their strength. Seneca highly extols that speech of the philosopher Demetrius, Nzhil infelicius eo cui nihil unquam evenit adverst; non licuit enim illi se expe- rirt. He is the most unhappy man who never knew what misery meant; for he could never know what he was able to bear. And, as he saith, to pass one’s life away sine morsu animi, without any trouble, it is 7gno- rare rerum nature alteram partem, not to know what is upon the reverse of nature. Idem licet fecerint qui integri revertuntur ex acie, magis spectatur qui sau- K 3 BOOK III. 134 ORIGINES SACRA. cius redit. Though he that comes home sound, might fight as well as he that is wounded; yet the wounded person hath the more pity, and is most cried up for his valour. The pilot is seen in a tempest, a soldier in the battle, and a good man in sufferings. God doth by such as masters do by scholars, guz plus laboris ab his exigunt, quibus certior spes est; who set the best wits the hardest tasks. 5. God exerciseth good men with sufferings, to dis- cover the indifferency of those things which men value so much in the world, when he denies them to good men. Blindness would be hateful, if none were blind but such whose eyes were put out; and therefore Ap- pius and Metellus were blind. Riches are no good things, therefore the worst as well as the best have them. Nullo modo magis potest Deus concupita tra- ducere, quam si ila ad turpissimos defert, ab optimis abigit. God could not traduce or defame those things more which men desire so much, than by taking them away from the best of men, and giving them to the worst. 6. Lhat they might be examples to others of pa- trence and constancy: for, as Seneca concludes, Nati sunt im exemplar, they are born to be patterns to others. If to these things we add what the word of God discovers concerning the nature, grounds, and ends of afflictions, and that glory which shall be revealed, in comparison with which exceeding weight of glory, these light and momentary afflictions are not at all to be valued; then we have a clear and full vindication of Divine Providence as to the sufferings of good men, as well as to the impunity of such as are wicked. But however, from hence we see how far the mere light of reason hath carried men in resolving these difficulties Ce en ee es ee ORIGINES SACRA. 135 concerning God’s providence in the world, and what cHap. a rational account may be given of them, supposing a evil of punishment to arise from sin, and that there is a God in the world, who is ready to punish the wicked, and to reward the good: which was the thing to be shewed. 136 ORIGINES SACRE. CHAP. IV. OF THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS. I. All mankind derived from Adam, if the Scriptures be true. II. The contrary supposition an introduction to Atheism. III.The truth of the history of the flood. The possibility of an uni- versal deluge proved. IV. The flood universal as to mankind, whether universal as to the earth and animals; no necessity of asserting either. V. Yet supposing the possibility of it demon- strated without creation of new waters. VI. Of the fountains of the deep. The proportion which the height of mountains bears to the diameter of the earth. No mountains much above three miles perpendicular. Of the origin of fountains. The : opinion of Aristotle and others concerning it discussed. The true account of them from the vapours arising from the mass of subterraneous waters. VII. Of the capacity of the ark for re- ceiving the animals, from Buteo and others. VIII. The truth of the deluge from the testimony of heathen nations. Of the pro- pagation of nations from Noah’s posterity. IX. Of the begin- ning of the Assyrian empire. The multiplication of mankind after the flood. Of the Chronology of the LXX. Of the time between the flood and Abraham, and the advantages of it. X. Of the pretence of such nations, who called themselves Ab- ‘origines. XI. A discourse concerning the first planters of Greece: the common opinion propounded and rejected. The Hellens were not the first inhabitants of Greece, but the Pelasgi. The large spread of them over the parts of Greece. XII. Of their language different from the Greeks. XIII. Whence these Pelasgi came ; that Phaleg was the Pelasgus of Greece, and the leader of that colony, proved from Epiphanius. XIV. The lan- guage of the Pelasgi in Greece oriental: thence an account given of the many Hebrew words in the Greek language, and the remainders of the eastern languages in the islands of Greece ; both which not from the ‘Pheenicians, as Bochartus thinks, but from the old Pelasgi. XV. Of the ground of the affinity between the Jews and Lacedemonians. Of the peopling of America. poe ‘Tue next thing we proceed to give a rational ac- ~——— count of, in the history of the first ages of the world ORIGINES SACRA. 137 contained in Scripture, is the peopling the world from Adam ; which is of great consequence for us to under- stand, not only for the satisfaction of our curiosity as to the true origin of nations, but also in order to our believing the truth of the Scriptures, and the universal effects of the fall of man: neither of which can be suf- ficiently cleared without this. For as it is hard to conceive how the effects of man’s fall should extend to all mankind, unless all mankind were propagated from Adam; so it is unconceivable how the account of things given in Scripture should be true, if there were persons existent in the world long before Adam CHAP. IV. was; since the Scripture doth so plainly affirm, That dcts xvii. God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the earth. Some Greek copies read it é& es, leaving out aizaros, which the vulgar Latin follows: the Arabic version, to explain both, reads it ex homine, or, as De Dieu renders it, ex Adamo uno; there being but the difference of one let- ter in the Eastern languages between 7 and t5n, the one denoting blood, and the other man. But if we take it as our more ordinary copies read it, é& évd¢ atua- tos, yet thereby it is plain that the meaning is not that all mankind was made of the same uniform matter, as the author of the Prze-Adamites weakly imagined, (for by that reason not only mankind, but the whole world might be said to be é& és aijsatos, of the same blood, since all things in the world were at first formed out of the same matter;) but aiua is taken there in the sense in which it occurs in the best Greek authors, for the stock out of which men come: so Homer, » 2 > / S90 AN ’ Q X\ og € / Ei éreoy Y EM0S COT XAb AiLATOS NMETEPOIO. Thence those who are near relations are called in So- ¢ Q ' vA phocles o: zpos atwatos, thence the name of consan- Hom. Odyss. 7. 300. BOOK II. Virg. En. i, 23. 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47- Mark x. O27. Gen. ii. 23> 24. II. 138 ORIGINES SACRA. guinity for nearness of relation; and Virgil useth san- guis in the same sense, Trojano a sanguine duci. So that the apostle’s meaning is, that however men now are so dispersed in their habitations, and differ so much in language and customs from each other, yet they were all originally of the same stock, and did de- rive their succession from that first man whom God created. Neither can it be conceived on what account Adam in the Scripture is called the first man, and that he was made a living soul, and of the earth, earthy, unless it were to denote that he was absolutely the first of his kind, and so was to be the standard and measure of all that follows. And when our Saviour would reduce all things to the beginning, he instanceth in those words which were pronounced after Eve was formed. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female ; for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife. Now nothing can be more plain and easy than from hence to argue thus:.those of whom these words were spoken, were the first male and female which were made in the beginning of the creation ; but it is evident these words were spoken of Adam and Eve: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and Jlesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his fa- ther and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. If the Scriptures then of the New Testament be true, it is most plain and evident that all mankind is de- scended from Adam; and no less conspicuous is it from the history of the creation, as delivered by Moses. For how necessary had it. been for Moses, when he was giving an account of the origin of things, to have discovered by whom the world was first planted, if ORIGINES SACRA. 139 there had been any such plantation before Adam. But CHAP. DV to say that all the design of Moses was only to give-————— an account of the origin and history of the Jewish na- tion, and that Adam was only the first of that stock, is manifestly ridiculous; it being so clear, that not only from Adam and Noah, but from Sem, Abraham, and Isaac, came other nations besides that of Jews. And by the same reason that it is said that Moses only speaks of the origin of the Jewish nation in the history of Adam, it may as well be said that Moses speaks only of the making of Canaan, and that part of the heavens which are over it, when he describes the creation of the world in the six days work. For why may not the earth, in the second verse of Genesis, be as well understood of the land of Judea, and the light and production of animals and vegetables refer only to that, as to understand it so in reference to the flood, and in many other passages relating to those eldest times? But the author of that hypothesis an- swers, That the first chapter of Genesis may relate to the true origin of the world, and the first peopling of it; but in the second Moses begins to give an ac- count of the first man and woman of the Jewish na- tion. Very probable! But if this be not a putting asunder those which God hath joined together, nothing is. For doth not Moses plainly at first give an account of the formation of things in the first six days, and of his rest on the seventh? But how could he be said to have rested then from the works of creation, if after this followed the formation of Adam and Eve in the second chapter? Besides, if the forming of man, men- tioned Gen. i. 7, be distinct from that mentioned Gen. 1. 27, then by all parity of reason, YANM DMwT MN, the generations of heaven and earth mentioned Gen. ii. 4, must be distinct from the creation of the heaven BOOK Ill. Gen. iil. 20. Selden. de Jure Natur. et Gent. is eager p- 65. 140 ORIGINES SACRE. and earth mentioned Gen. i. 1. And so if there were another creation of heaven and earth belonging to the Jews in Gen. ii. we may likewise believe that there was a new creation of man and woman in that chap- ter, distinct from that mentioned in the former. Again further, if there had been any such persons in the world before Adam, no doubt Adam himself was igno- rant of them; or else it had been a false and ridicu- lous account which he gives of the name of his wife mn, because she was 7 93 ON, the mother of all living; not of all living things, for that had been a more pro- per description of a Ceres, or Magna Mater, or Diana multimammia, of our grandmother the earth; but cer- tainly it extends to all of the kind, that all living crea- tures that are of human nature came from her. So the Chaldee paraphrast understands it: she was called Hava, because she was NWN 932 557 SDN, the mother of all the sons of men. And so the Arabic version, quia ipsa fuit mater omnis viventis rationalis. To which purpose our learned Selden cites the version of the Mauritanian Jews, and the Persic of Tawasius. But whatever the credit or authority of these ver- sions be, this is most certain, that Adam had no rea- son at all to have given this name to his wife, as being the mother of all living, if there had been any of man- kind existing in the world from other mothers, which had been long before Eve was formed. So that we find it plain and clear, that if the report given of things in Scripture be true, the hypothesis of Prae-Adamites is undoubtedly false. And certainly, whoever seriously considers the frequent reflections on the authority of the Scriptures, which were cast by the author of that fiction, and his endeavouring on all occasions to dero- gate from the miracles recorded in it, may easily sus- pect the design of that author was not to gain any ORIGINES SACRA. 141 credit to his opinion from those arguments from Scrip- ture which he makes show of, (which are pitifully weak and ridiculous,) but having, by the help of such arguments, made his opinion more plausible, his hope was, that his opinion would in time undermine the Scriptures themselves, when he had made it appear that the account given in the Scriptures of the planta- tion of the world was unsatisfactory, since there were men before Adam; which the Scriptures, to please the Jewish nation, take no notice of. So that after he had attempted to prostitute the Scriptures to his opinion, his next work had been to have turned them out of doors, as not of credit to be relied on by any, when they were so common to every opinion. But how im- pious, absurd, and rude that attempt was upon the sacred and inviolable authority of the Scriptures, hath been so fully discovered by his very many not un- learned adversaries, that it might seem needless so much as to have taken notice of so weakly grounded and infirmly proved an opinion, had it not thus far lain in my way, in order to the clearing the true ori- gin of nations according to the Scriptures: the main foundations of which fabulous opinion lying chiefly in the pretended antiquities of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and others, have been fully taken away in our first book; where our whole design was to manifest the want of credibility in those accounts of ancient times, which are delivered by heathen nations in opposition to the Scriptures. There is nothing at all in Scrip- ture, from the creation of Adam to the flood, which seems to give any countenance to that figment, but only what may be easily resolved, from the considera- tion of the great conciseness of the Mosaic history, in reporting that long interval of time which was between the fall of Adam and the flood; by means of which CHAP. IV. 142 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK conciseness such things are reported as speedily done, III. Ill. because immediately succeeding in the story, which asked a very considerable time before they could be effected; and besides, all things which were done be- fore the flood being all quite obliterated by it, and all the numerous posterity of Adam being then destroyed, (only Noah and his family excepted,) to what purpose had it been any further to have reported the passages before the flood, otherwise than thereby to let us un- derstand the certainty of the succession of persons from Adam, and such actions in those times, which might be remarkable discoveries of God’s providence and man’s wickedness in it: which being most ap- parent at first in Cain and his posterity, did by de- grees so spread itself over the face of the then inha- bited world, that the just God was thereby provoked to send a deluge among them, to sweep away the pre- sent inhabitants, to make room for another generation | to succeed them. This therefore we now come to consider, viz. The history of the flood, and the certainty of the propaga- tion of the world, from the posterity of Noah after the flood. I begin with the history of the flood itself; as to which two things will be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of it. 1. If there be nothing in tt repugnant to reason. 2. If we have sufficient evidence of the truth of wt, from such who yet have not believed the Scriptures. There are only two things which seem questionable to reason concerning the flood. The first is concerning the possibility of the flood itself; the other is concerning the capacity of the ark for pre- serving all kinds of animals. The only ground of questioning the possibility of such a flood as that is related in Scripture, hath been from hence: that some have supposed it impossible that all the water which ORIGINES SACRE. 143 is contained in the air, supposing it to fall down, cee should raise the surface of water upon the earth a foot and a half in height; so that either new waters must be created to overflow the earth, or else there must be supposed a rarefaction of the water contained in the sea and all rivers; so that it must take up at least fifteen times the space that now it doth: but then, they say, if the water had been thus rarefied, it could neither have destroyed man nor beast, neither could Noah’s ark have been borne up by it, any more than by liquid air. To this therefore I answer, first, I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert, that the flood did spread itself over all the surface of the earth. That all mankind (those in the ark excepted) were destroyed by it, is most cer- tain, according to the Scriptures. When the occasion ‘of the flood is thus expressed, And God saw that the Geu. vi. s, wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and” that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth. It could not be then any particular deluge of so small a country as Palestine, which is here ex- pressed, as some have ridiculously imagined; for we find an universal corruption in the earth mentioned as the cause; an universal threatening upon all men for this cause; and afterwards an universal destruction expressed, as the effect of this flood. And all flesh Gev.vii.2r. died that moved upon the earth, and every man. And Ver. 23. every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth, and Noah only re- mained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. So then it is evident that the flood was universal as to BOOK Ill. 144 ORIGINES SACRA. mankind; but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was peopled before the flood ; which I despair of ever seeing proved. And what reason can there be to extend the flood beyond the occasion of it, which was the corruption of mankind ? And it seems very strange, that in so short an interval, in comparison, as that was from Adam to the flood, according to the ordinary computation, viz. 1656 years, and not much above two thousand, according to the largest, the world should then be fully peopled, when in so much longer a space of time, since the flood to this day, the earth is capable of receiving far more inhabitants than now it hath. The only probability then left for asserting the uni- versality of the flood, as to the globe of the earth, is from the destruction of all living creatures, together with man. Now though men might not have spread themselves over the whole surface of the earth, yet beasts and creeping things might, which were all de- stroyed with the flood; for it is said, That all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. ‘To what end should there be not only a note of universality added, but such a particular enumeration of the seve- ral kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls, if they were not all destroyed? ‘To this I answer, I grant, as far as the flood extended, all these were destroyed : but I'see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond that compass and space of earth where men inhabited: because the punishment upon the beasts was occasioned by, and could not but be concomitant with the destruction of mankind; but (the occasion of the deluge being the sin of man, who was punished in ORIGINES SACRE. 145 the beasts that were destroyed for his sake, as well as in himself) where the occasion was not, as where there were animals, and no men, there seems no necessity of extending the flood thither. But to what end, then, it will be replied, did God command Noah with so much care to take of all kind of beasts, and birds, and creeping things into the ark with him, if all these living creatures were not destroyed by the flood? 1 answer, because all those things were destroyed where- ever the flood was. Suppose then the whole continent of Asia was peopled before the flood, which is as much aS we may in reason suppose, I say all the living crea- tures in that continent were all destroyed; or if we may suppose it to have extended over our whole continent of the anciently known world, what reason would there be, that, in the opposite part of the globe, viz. Ame- rica, which we suppose to be unpeopled then, all the living creatures should there be destroyed, because men had sinned in this? And would there not, on this sup- position, have been a sufficient reason to preserve liv- ing creatures in the ark for future propagation, when all other living creatures extant had been in such re- mote places as would not have been accessible by them in many generations, and those beasts growing wild for want of inhabitants, would not have proved pre- sently serviceable for the use of men after the flood ? Which was certainly the main thing looked at in the preservation of them in the ark, that men might have all of them ready for their use after the flood; which could not have been, had not the several kinds been preserved in the ark, although we suppose them not destroyed in all parts of the world. All this proceeds on supposition that animals were propagated much further in the world than men were, before the flood. Which I confess seems very probable STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. L CHAP. IV. IV. 146 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK to me on this account; because the production of ani- i mals is parallel in Genesis with that of fishes, and both Gen. i. 20, of them different from man. For God saith, Let the a waters bring forth every moving creature that hath life, viz. fish and fowl; and accordingly it is said, that the waters brought forth abundantly every living crea- ture after their kind, and every fowl after his kind. ve.2s. Accordingly in the production of beasts, we read, Let the earth bring forth the living creature afier his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so. But in the pro- Ver. 26. duction of man, it is said, Let us make man in our own likeness. From hence I observe this difference be- tween the production of animals and of man; that in the one God gave a prolific power to the earth and waters for production of the several living creatures which came from them; so that the seminal principles of them were contained in the matter out of which they were produced: which was otherwise in man, who was made by a peculiar hand of the great Creator Gen. ii. 7. himself, who thence is said to have formed man of the dust of the ground. Now therefore although there were but one male and female of mankind at first, which had a special formation by God himself, yet there is no reason we should conceive it to be so as to the production of other living creatures, whether fish, or fowl, or beasts; but the prolific virtue being by God’s power given to that material principle out of: which they were formed, it may very well be supposed that many of the same kind were at first produced. For it seems very strange to imagine, that in the whole ocean there should be only two of a kind produced ; but fish and fowl both arising from the water, we may have just reason to think, that the waters, being sepa- rated before this prolific virtue was communicated to ORIGINES SACRA. 147 the whole mass of waters, might in the several parts CHAP. IV. of the globe of the earth bring forth both fish and fowl —_—— after their kinds. The same I say of the production of animals in the sixth day’s work, which are ranked into three sorts; cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kinds. Now God saying, Let the earth bring forth her living creatures, (and that after the waters had divided some parts of the earth from other, so that there could be no passage for the cattle, creeping things, and beasts out of one part into an- other, without the help of man,) it seems very pro- bable that at least those parts of the earth, which were thus divided from each other, did bring forth these several living creatures after their kinds, which did after propagate in those parts, without being brought thither by the help of man. If now this supposition be embraced, by it we presently clear ourselves of many difficulties concerning the propagation of animals in the world, and their conversation in the ark, which many have been so much to seek for satisfaction in: as how the unknown kind of serpents in Brasil, the slow-bellied creature of the Indies, and all those strange species of animals seen in the West Indies, should either come into the ark of Noah, or be conveyed out of it into those countries which are divided from that continent where the flood was, by so vast an ocean on the one side, and at least so large a tract of land on the other, (supposing any passage out of one continent into another, which yet hath not been discovered.) Be- sides, some kinds of animals cannot live out of that particular clime wherein they are; and there are many sorts of animals discovered in America, and the ad- joining islands, which have left no remainders of them- selves in these parts of the world. And it seems very strange that these should propagate into those remote L 2 148 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK parts of the world from the place of the flood, and Ill. leave none at all of their number behind them in those parts from whence they were propagated. These things at least make that opinion very probable, which ex- tends the production of animals beyond that of man- kind in the old world; and that the flood, though it destroyed all mankind, and every living creature with- in that compass wherein mankind inhabited, yet might not extend itself to those parts, and the animals there- in, in which men had never inhabited. And by this means we need not make so many miracles as some are fain to do about the flood; and all those difi- culties, concerning the propagation of animals, do of themselves vanish and fall to the ground. This is the first way of resolving the difficulty concerning the pos- sibility of the flood, by asserting it not to have been over the whole globe of the earth, but only over those parts where mankind inhabited. V. Secondly, Suppose the flood to have been over the whole globe of the earth, yet there might have been water enough to have overwhelmed it to the height mentioned in Scripture. For which we are to consider that many causes concurred to the making of this de- luge: first, the air was condensed into clouds, and those fell down with continued force and violence ; not break- yates ing into drops, but all in a body, (which sir Walter History. Raleigh parallels with the spouts of the West In- dies,) which are thence called the cataracts or flood- gates of heaven, God loosening (as he expresseth it) the power retentive which was in the clouds, and so the waters must needs fall in abundance, according to Job xii. 15. the expression of Job, Behold, he withholdeth the wa- ters, and they dry up; also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth. Now I say, although these waters falling down with so much fury and violence, ORIGINES SACRA. 149 as well as in so great abundance, might quickly de- icc stroy all living creatures, yet this was not all; for God, who held in the ocean within its bounds, whereby he saith to it, Thus far it shall go, and no further, might then give it commission to execute his justice upon the sinful world: and to all this we have another cause of the deluge, which was, Zhat the fountains of Gen.vii.1. the great deep were broken up; by which Vatablus most probably understands, zmmensam illam et pro- fundam aquarum copiam que est subter terram, that vast body of water which lies in the bowels of the earth. Now when all these fountains were broken up, and the waters within the earth rush out with violence and impetuosity upon it, it must needs cause an inun- dation so great as that is mentioned in the Scripture. For as that judicious historian, sir W. Raleigh, ob- sir water serves, Let us consider that the earth had above 21,000 pe ees miles compass, the diameter of the earth, according to that circle, 7000 miles, and then from the superficies to the centre 3500 miles; take then the highest moun- tain of the world, Caucasus, Taurus, Teneriffe, or any other, and I do not find, saith he, that the highest ex- ceeds thirty miles in height. It is not then impossible, answering reason with reason, that all those waters mixed within the earth, 3500 miles deep, should be able to cover the space of 30 miles in height, which 30 miles upright being found in the depths of the earth 116 times; for the fountains of the great deep were broken, and the waters drawn out of the bowels of the earth. But then withal, saith he, if we consider the proportion which the earth bears to the air about it, we may easily understand the possibility of the flood, without any new creation of waters: for sup- posing so much air to be condensed, and so turned into water which doth encompass the earth, it will not 1, 3 150 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK seem strange to men of judgment, yea but of ordinary __') understanding, that the earth (God so pleasing) was covered over with waters, without any new creation. But this will yet appear more probable, if the height of the highest mountains doth bear no greater propor- tion to the diameter of the earth, than of the 1670th part to the whole, supposing the diameter of the earth Gassend. to be 8355 miles, as P. Gassendus computes both. And eben it is more than probable that men have exceedingly eek mistaken as to the height of mountains, which comes | so far short of what sir Walter Raleigh allows to them, that the highest mountain in the world will not be found to be five direct miles in height, taking the altitude of them from the plain they stand upon. Olympus, whose height is so extolled by the poets and ancient Greeks, that it is said to exceed the clouds; Putin z. yet Plutarch tells us that Xenagoras measured it, and milan. found it not to exceed a mile and a half perpendicu- lar, and about 70 paces; much about the same height Plin. ii, Pliny saith that Dicaearchus found the mountain Pe- lion to be. The mount Athos is supposed of extraor- dinary height, because it casts its shadow into the isle of Lemnos, which, according to Pliny, was 87 miles ; Voss. in YCt Gassendus allows it but two miles in height; but ee Isaac Vossius, in a learned discourse concerning the € 3. P15, height of mountains, in his notes on Pomponius Mela, doth not allow above 10 or 11 furlongs at most to the height of Mount Athos. Caucasus, by Ricciolus, is said to be 51 miles in height: Gassendus allowing it to be higher than Athos or Olympus, yet conceives it not above three or four miles at most; but yet Vossius will not yield it above two miles perpendicular, for which he gives this very good reason: Polybius af- firms, there is no mountain in Greece which may not be ascended in a day’s time, and makes the highest ORIGINES SACRS. 151 mountain there not to exceed 10 furlongs; which, CHAP. saith Vossius, it is scarce possible for any one to reach, ie unless he be a mountaineer born; any other will scarce be able to ascend above six furlongs perpendicular ; for in the ascent of a mountain every pace doth reach but to an hand-breadth perpendicular: but if we do allow eight furlongs to a day’s ascent, yet thereby it will ap- pear that the highest mountains in the world are not above 24 furlongs in height, since they may be as- cended in three days time: and it is affirmed of the top of Mount Caucasus, that it may be ascended in less than the compass of three days, and therefore can- not be much above two miles in height. Which may be the easier believed of any other mountain, when that which is reputed the highest of the world, viz. the Pike of Teneriffe, which the inhabitants call Pica de Terraria, may be ascended in that compass of time, viz. three days; for in the months of July and August (which are the only months in which men can ascend it, because all other times of the year snow lies upon it, although neither in the isle of Teneriffe, nor any V. Vare- other of the Canary islands, there be snow ever seen) Nena Res the inhabitants then ascend to the top of it in three wea 5 te days time; which top of it is not pyramidal, but plain, from whence they gather some sulphurous stones, which are carried in great quantities into Spain. So that ac- cording to the proportion of eight furlongs to a day’s journey, this Pike of Teneriffe will not exceed the height of a German mile perpendicular, as Varenius confesseth; than which he thinks likewise that no mountain in the world is higher. For what Pliny speaks of the Alps being fifty miles in height, must be understood not perpendicular, but in regard of the obliquity of the ascent of it; so that he might account so much from the foot of the Alps to the top of them, and yet the L 4 BOOK Ill. Vi. 152 ORIGINES SACRA. Alps, in a perpendicular line, not come near the height of a German mile. If then the highest mountains do not exceed much above three miles in height, (for the Spaniards themselves affirm, that those lofty mountains of Peru, in comparison of which, they say, the Alps are but like cottages, may be ascended in four days compass,) we see from hence, then, far greater proba- bility how the waters in the time of the general flood might overtop the highest mountains. | Kspecially if it be made evident that there is so great an abyss of subterraneous waters, that the breaking open of the fountains of it may so much increase the inundation arising from the clouds, and from the break- ing in of the ocean upon the main land. And that there is such a mass of waters in the body of the earth, is evident from the origin of fountains; for the opinion of Aristotle imputing them to the condensation of air in the caverns of the earth, and that of other philosophers ascribing them to the fall of rain-water received into such cisterns in the earth which are ca- pable of receiving it, are both equally unsatisfactory, unless we suppose a mass of waters in the bowels of the earth, which may be as the common stock to sup- ply those fountains with. For it is very hard con- ceiving how mere air should be so far condensed, as to cause not only such a number of fountains, but so great a quantity of water as runs into the sea by those rivers which come from them, (as the river Volga is Supposed to empty so much water in a year’s time into the Caspian sea, as might suffice to cover the whole earth ;) by which likewise it is most evident, that there must be some subterranean passages into the sea, or else of necessity, by that abundance of water which continually runs into it from the rivers, it would over- flow and drown the world, And from this multitude ORIGINES SACRE. , 153 of waters which comes from fountains, it is likewise cHap. evident, that the origin of fountains cannot be merely ci from such water which falls from the clouds, which would never suffice to maintain so full and uninter- rupted a stream as many fountains have; especially if that be true which some assert, that rain-water doth never moisten the earth above ten feet deep; for of far greater profundity many fountains are. And _ besides, the rain-water runs most upon the surface of the earth, and so doth rather swell the rivers, which thereby run with greater force in their passage to the ocean, and doth not lodge itself presently in the earth; especially if it descends in a greater quantity, which alone is able to fill such cisterns supposed to be in the earth, espe- cially in mountains, which may keep a stream conti- nually running. Although therefore we may acknow- ledge that the fall of rain may much conduce to the overflowing and continuance of fountains, as is evident by the greater force of springs after continued rains, and by the decay of many of them in hot and dry weather, (which yet I had rather impute to the sun’s exhaling, by his continued heat, those moist vapours in the earth, which should continually supply the springs, than merely to the want of rain,) and by the rise of most great rivers from such fountains which came from the foot of mountains, where the ground is supposed to be of so hard and consistent a substance as stone or chalk, or something of like nature, which might help to the conservation of water there, from whence it after ran in streams to the ocean, (which was the great argument of the famous Peireskius for V. Gassend. his opinion ;) although, I say, these things may argue ae he? thus far, that rain-water doth much conduce to the? *9” preservation of springs, yet it cannot give a sufficient account of the origin of them; which with the greatest 154 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK reason and probability is imputed to those subterra- Nt neous waters which pass up and down through the bowels of the earth. Some have fancied the earth to be as one great animal, whose subterraneous passages were like veins in the body, which received water out of the sea, as the veins do blood out of the liver; and that there are some kind of vapours in the earth, which supply the place of vital spirits, which are diffused up and down the body through the arteries. And that as in an animal there are some parts which upon the least prick do send forth blood, and others are more callous, where the incision must be deeper before any blood appears, so it is in the earth; when it is opened in a right vein, we find presently a spring of water; but if we chance to hit on a wrong place, we go deep, and may find none; not that water is wanting, but we have not hit on the veins through which it runs. And thence as the blood, with equal freedom and velocity, ascends into the head as it runs into the legs, because it is equally dispersed into all the parts from the centre of it; so in the body of the earth it is as natural for the water to ascend into the tops of mountains, as it is to fall down into the centre of the earth; and that it is nO more wonder to see springs issue out of moun- tains, than it is to see a man bleed in the veins of his forehead, when he is let blood there. So in all places of the earth the parts of it are not disposed for aper- tion; for some of them are so hard and compact, that there seems to be no passage through them, (which is the most probable reason why there is no rain neither in those places, because there is no such exsudation of those moist vapours through the surface of the earth, which may yield matter for rain, as it is in many of the sandy places of Africa;) but usually mountainous countries have more large, and as it were temple-veins, ORIGINES SACRA. 155 through which the moist vapours have a free and open passage; and thence there are not only more frequent springs there, but clouds and rains too. Now if this account of the origin of springs in the earth be as rational as it is ingenious and handsome, (and there is not much can be said against it, but only that then all fountains should be salt as the water is from whence they come,) then we easily understand how the earth might be overflowed in the universal deluge; for then the fountains of the deep were broken up, or there was an universal opening of the veins of the earth, whereby all the water contained in them would presently run upon the surface of the earth, and must needs, accord- ing to its proportion, advance itself to a considerable height. But because the salving the difference of the water in springs from what it is in the sea is so consi- derable a phenomenon in our present case, I therefore rather take this following as the most rational account of the origin of fountains, viz. that there are great cavities in the earth, which are capable of receiving a considerable quantity of water, which continually runs into them from the sea, (which as it continually re- ceives fresh supplies from the rivers which empty them- selves into it, so it dispatcheth away a like quantity through those spongy parts of the earth under the ocean, which are most apt to suck in and convey away the surplusage of water;) so that by this means the sea never swells by the water conveyed into it by the rivers, there being as continual a circulation in the body of the earth of the water which passeth out of the ocean into the subterraneous caverns, and from thence to the mountains, and thence into the sea again, as there is a circulation of blood in man’s body from the heart by the arteries into the exterior parts, and returning back again by the veins into the heart. Ac- CHAP. IV. 156 ORIGINES SACRA, BOOK cording to which we may imagine such a place in the it heart of the earth like Plato’s Baratrum, Iliad. 6’. 14. Tyas war’, is Badsoroy tro xOovis éors Bepeipov. As Plato in his Phezedrus describes it out of Homer, a long and deep subterraneous cavity, cis yap todt0 16 MAT [nos cuppeovel TE MAVTES of TOTH[L0l, Kol eK TOUTOU TaAW Tav= tes expéovor. Into which cavity all the rivers at last flow, and from which they again disperse themselves abroad. Now this cavity of the earth, thus filled with water, supplies the place of the heart in the body of the earth, from which all those several aqueducts which are in the earth have their continual supply ; but that: which makes those passages of water, which we call springs and fountains properly, I suppose, is thus ge- nerated: from those cavities filled with water in the earth, by reason of the hot steams which are in the body of the earth, there are continually rising some vapours, or little particles of water, which are disjoined from each other by the heat, by reason of which they attain a greater celerity of motion, and so pass through the inner pores of the earth, till they come near the superficies of it; which when they have approached to, they are beat back again by the cold, which envi- rons the surface of the earth, or at least are so arrested by the cold, and condensed by it, that they lose the form of vapours, and become perfect water again: which water, being now more gross than while it was a mere vapour, cannot descend again through the same pores through which it ascended before, because these are not now capable of receiving it; and therefore it seeks out some wider passages near the surface of the earth, by which means it moves in an oblique manner, and is ready to embrace any other vapours which are arrested in the same manner. Now when these are grown toa considerable body in the surface of a mountain or a ORIGINES SACRA. 157 plain, and find a vent fit for them, there appears a proper fountain, whose streams are still maintained by the same condensation of vapours; which, when they are once come abroad, are in continual motion, where- by rivers are made, which are still finding a passage through the declivity of the surface of the earth, where- by they may return to the ocean again. Now accord- ing to this account, that grand phenomenon of the freshness of fountain-water, when the water of the sea is salt, whence it originally comes, is sufficiently re- solved. For mere transcolation may-by degrees take away that which the chemists call the fixed salt; and for the volatile salt of it, (which being a more spirituous thing, is not removable by distillation, and so neither can it be by transcolation;) yet such an evaporation as that mentioned may serve to do it, because it is evident that fresh water will fall from the clouds, which hath risen from those vapours which have come out of the sea; and besides, these vapours, or small particles of water, in their passage through the earth, (especially when they come near the surface of it,) do incorporate with other sweet vapours, as those which come from rain and others, by which means they in- sensibly lose their former acidity and sharpness. But those fountains which do retain their former saltness, as there are many such in the world, may very proba- bly be supposed not to have come from those vapours condensed, but to be a kind of breaking of a vein, in which the salt water was conveyed up and down the body of the earth. Now then, considering that mass of waters, and multitude of vapours arising thence which are in the earth, how easy is it for us to un- derstand what the breaking open the fountains of the deep means in Scripture, and how by that means, to- gether with the falling down of the cataracts of the CHAP. IV. 158 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK clouds, and the letting loose of the ocean, the whole uh earth might be overspread with an universal deluge! The possibility of which was the thing to be shewed. VII. The next thing we come to concerning the flood, is the capacity of the ark for receiving the several ani- mals which were to propagate the world afterwards. Concerning which, two things are necessary to be un- derstood; what the measure of the ark was, and what the number of animals contained in it. The measure of the ark must be determined by the proportion of the cubit; which there is no reason at all to suppose, either with Origen and others, to have been the geo- metrical cubit, which contains six ordinary cubits, or nine feet; both because we find no mention at all of any such cubit in Scripture, and because the fabric of the ark would have been of too vast a proportion. Neither yet is it probable, what sir W. Raleigh sup- poseth, that this cubit must be of a proportion as much exceeding ours as the stature of a giant doth ours, both because there is no certain evidence, either from Scripture or reason, that the proportion of men then did generally exceed what is now; and, besides, this tends not in the least to make the thing more plain. For according to that proportion, we must then have imagined beasts to have been as well as men; for the horse must have been proportionably as great to have been serviceable to men of that stature; and so the animals would have taken up as much more room in the ark as the cubit is supposed to be bigger. I sup- pose, then, that Moses speaks of the cubit most in use in his own time, (for he wrote so that they for whose use he wrote might be easily able to understand him). Now this cubit, by the consent of writers, contained a foot and a half in length; according to which propor- Gen. vi. 15. tion, supposing the ark, by Moses’s description, to have ORIGINES SACRA. 159 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height, cHap. the whole capacity of the ark, according to the com- . putation of Joh. Buteo, comes to 450,000 solid cubits. Buteo de For the length of 300 cubits being multiplied into the eee breadth of 50 cubits, and the product by the height of 30 cubits, makes the whole concavity 450,000. Which Mattheus Hostus reducing to the German measure, Hostus de makes the longitude of the ark to be 31 perches, 4 cu- Da Nock, bits, 5 fingers; the latitude 5 perches, 2 cubits, and a 11 fingers; the altitude 3 perches, 1 cubit, 9 fingers, allowing to every perch 15 Roman feet. So that if we take a perch to contain 10 Hebrew cubits, which exceeds the former 11 fingers, the whole capacity of the ark will be 450 cubical perches. And as he saith, LTujusmodi sane edificti amplitudo capacissima est, et quamlibet magno animantium numero haud dubie sufficere potuit, the ark of so large a capacity might easily contain the several kinds of animals in it. Which will be easily understood, if, according to our former supposition, only the animals of the inhabited part of the world were preserved in the ark; but admitting that all kinds of animals were there, there would be room enough for them, and for provision for them. For which sir W. Raleigh gives a prudent caution, that men ought not to take animals of a mixed nature, as mules and hyzenas, nor such as differ in size and shape from each other, as the cat of Europe, and ounce of India, into the several species of animals. Sir W. Raleigh, following Buteo, reckons eighty-nine, or, lest any be omitted, one hundred several kinds of beasts; and undertakes to demonstrate, from a triple proportion of all beasts to the ox, wolf, and sheep, that there was sufficient capacity for them in the ark. Hostus allows one hundred and fifty several kinds of animals, yet questions not the capacity of the ark: BOOK III. VIII. V. Grot. Annot. in ]. i. de Ve- rit. Relig. Christ. Voss. Isa- gog. Chron. dissert. iv. c. 2. et 3. Bochart. C. Ae August. de Civit. Dei, ]. xviil. c. 12. et ibid. Lud. Viv. Euseb. Chr. Dis. CO. 2. Scaliger. Is. Voss. Epist. ad Colvium, p- 409. Martin. Hist. Sinic. Lap. 228 Joh. de Laet. de Orig. Gent. American. l,i, p. 115. 160 ORIGINES SACRA. but these things are so particularly made out by those learned authors, especially by Buteo, that I shall ra- ther refer the reader, for further satisfaction, to the authors themselves, than take the pains to transcribe them. I come now therefore to the evidence of the truth and certainty of this universal deluge, of which we have most clear and concurring testimonies of most ancient nations of the world. For which purpose Grotius and others have at large produced the testi- mony of Berosus, the Chaldean, out of Josephus, con- cerning the flood and the ark in which Noah was preserved ; of Abydenus, out of Cyril and Eusebius, concerning Xisuthrus, or Noah’s sending out of the birds to see if the flood was assuaged; and of Alexan- der Polyhistor, concerning the preservation of animals in the ark; of Plutarch, concerning the sending out of the dove; of Lucian de Dea Syria, concerning the whole story ; and so of Molon and Nicolaus Damasce- nus. Besides, it is manifested by others, how among the Chaldeans the memory of Noah was preserved under the fable of Oannes, which had part of a fish, and part of a man: as is evident from the fragments of Apollodorus, Abydenus, and Alexander Polyhistor, preserved in Eusebius’s Greek Chronica; among the Chinese, under the name of Puoncuus, who by them is said to have escaped alone with his family out of the universal deluge, saith Isaac Vossius, who sup- poseth Pu or Pi to be only a prefix to the name; and so that Puoncuus is the same with 6 Nayos. Martinius tells us, de diluvio multa est apud Sinicos scriptores mentio, that the ancient writers of the Sinic history speak much of the flood. Johannes de Laet tells out of Lescharbotus, how constant the tradition of the flood is among the Indians, both in New France, Peru, and ORIGINES SACRA. 161 other parts. This being therefore so fully attested by CHAP. the evident and apparent consent of so many writers — and historians, which did not own the authority of the Scriptures, I shall suppose this sufficiently proved, and proceed to the main thing which concerns the origin of nations, which is, the certainty of the propagation of mankind from the posterity of Noah. Of which there is this strong and convincing evidence, that in all that account which the Scripture gives of the pro- pagation of nations. from the sons of Noah, there is some remainder in the history of that nation to justify ‘the reason of the imposition of the name from the names of the nations themselves, which have preserved the original name of their founder in their own; as the Medes from Madai; the Thracians from Thiras ; the Ionians from Javan; the Sidonians from Sidon ; the Philistines from Polesthim; the Arczeans, Aradi- ans, Elymeeans, Assyrians, Lydians, from Arki, Arad, Elam, Assur, and Lud; and many others produced by Grotius, Montanus, Junius, and especially Bochartus, oe An- ad 1. i. who, with admirable industry and learning, hath cleared de Vert all this part of sacred history which concerns the rea- mae pais. son of the imposition of the names of the people which ee were propagated from the posterity of Noah, and given rs a full and satisfactory account of the several places Sacr. p.t. where the posterity of Noah seated themselves after the deluge. Instead of that, therefore, I shall consider the pretences which can be brought against it; which are chiefly these three: 1. That the Chaldean empire seems to have greater antiquity than can be attributed to it by the history of Moses. 2. That the most learned heathen nations pretend to be self-originated, and that they came not from any other country. 3. That no certain account is given from whence America should be peopled. STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. M BOOK III. IX. Petav. de Doct. Temp. Laer, 14: tom. il. 162 ORIGINES SACRA. 1. The history of the Assyrian empire seems in- consistent with the propagation of the world, from the sons of Noah; for the reign of Ninus and Semiramis is placed by many chronologers within the first cen- tury after the flood, which seems a manifest inconsist- ency with the propagation of mankind from the sons of Noah; for it seems utterly impossible that the foundations of so great an empire should be laid in so small a compass of time by the posterity of three persons; and besides, Ninus and Semiramis were not the first who began the Assyrian empire, for Belus not only reigned fifty-five years before Ninus, but, ac- cording to the Chaldzan antiquities, from HEvechous, who they say first reigned among them, are reckoned 495 years. But admit that the beginning of the As- syrian empire be placed so low as Petavius and other chronologers would have it, viz. in the year after the flood 153, yet the difficulty is only somewhat abated, but not removed; for it seems yet unconceivable, that from three persons, in. 150 years, such multitudes should spring, as to make so large an empire as that of Ninus, and that within an hundred years after the flood there should be such vast multitudes for the building the tower of Babel, and dispersion up and down the world; so that, according to the Hebrew computation, in the compass of 300 years, viz. about Abraham’s time, the world was so fully peopled, that we read of several kings encountering one another; by which it is evident the world had been peopled some time before, or else there could not have been such potent kings as some of them were at that time. This being the grand difficulty, to it I answer these things : 1. There is no such certainty of the beginning of the Assyrian empire, as for the sake of that to question the truth of the propagation of the world by the sons of ORIGINES SACRA. 163 Noah. I have already largely manifested the want of cHApP. credibility in the chronology of the ancient Chaldzeans, Biba she and that we have no certain grounds to rely upon in reference to it; especially as to those seven first Baby- lonian kings which are cited out of Africanus, by Eu- sebius and Georgius Syncellus, viz. Evechous, Chomas- bolus, Porus, Nechubes, Abius, Oniballus, Chinzirus, who are said to reign 225 years two months; and alike fabulous, I suppose, is the other dynasty of six Arabian kings, whose empire is said to have stood 215 years, to the time of Belus, who expelled the Arabians, and took the power to himself. And it is much more agreeable to reason to reject these two dynasties, which had no record of them left in any history of the Assy- rian empire, but only in Berosus, whose authority in this case hath been discussed already, than to follow our late excellent primate of Armagh, who punctually sets down the reign of the kings of these two dynas- ties, but cuts off at least eight ages in the time of the Assyrian empire from Ninus to Sardanapalus; which time he confines to 496 years, and placeth Ninus in the 2737th year of the world, according to the Hebrew Usser. Ann. Vet. Test. computation, and so to live in the time of the Judges, a.m. 2737. and be contemporary with Deborah: which he builds only on a place in Herodotus, which relates not to the time between Ninias and Sardanapalus, but to the time of the defection of the Medes from the Assyrian em-Castigat. pire, as Isaac Vossius hath already shewed. We can- as not then find any certainty in the beginning of the Assyrian empire, which may give us cause to question the propagation of the world from the posterity of Noah. 2. We have reason to think that there was a more than ordinary multiplication of the world from the sons of Noah after the flood. For as God had before M 2 BOOK Ill. Gen. ix. 1. Fetay. de Doct. emp. 7s: Gt: Uss. Chron. Sacr. ¢. 5. 164. ORIGINES SACRA. punished the world by destroying mankind in it by an extraordinary manner, so after the flood he did in a particular manner bless Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth; which may well be thought to have then had an extraordinary effect. Several ways have been attempted, by learned men, to make appear to what a vast number the posterity of Noah would increase in the space of two or three hundred years after the flood. Petavius supposeth that the posterity of Noah might beget children at seventeen, and that each of Noah’s sons might have eight children in the eighth year after the flood, and that every one of these eight might beget eight more; by this means in only one family, as of Japhet in the year after the flood 238, he makes a diagram, consisting of almost an innumerable company of men. Johannes Temporarius, as our most learned primate tells us, takes this way; that all of the posterity of Noah, when they attained twenty years of age, had every year twins; on which sup- position, by arithmetical progression, he undertakes to make it appear, that in the 102d year after the flood there would be, of males and females, 1,554,420; but taking away the one half, because of the groundless supposition of twins, yet then in that time there would be 388,605 males, besides females. Others suppose that each of the sons of Noah had ten sons; and, by that proportion, in few generations it would amount to many thousands within a century. Others insist on the parallel between the multiplication of the children of Israel in Egypt; that if from 72 men, in the space of 215 years, there are procreated 600,000, how many will be born of three men in the space of an hun- dred years? Some have said above 23,000; but with what success in their arithmetic, I shall not determine. ORIGINES SACRA. 165 But whether all or any of these ways be sufficient and cHAp. satisfactory, we have yet cause to believe that there!" _ was a more than ordinary multiplication in the poste- oe e rity of Noah after the flood. ae 3. If we embrace the account of those copies which the Septuagint followed in their version, all this diffi- culty is then ceased. For that account doth very much enlarge the times, and makes almost a thousand years between the flood and Abraham; by which means there will be sufficient space given for the propagation of mankind, the building of the tower of Babel, the dispersion of nations, the founding the Assyrian em- pire, the plantation of Egypt, China, and other places; all which seem to have been in that time, and to con- cur with that computation, as well as Josephus doth, and the whole primitive church before Jerome, which certainly ought in no case to be disregarded. The whole controversy concerning this part of the chronology of the world comes at last to this: Whe- ther it be more probable that the Jews, who lived under the second temple, (who then were the trustees to whom were committed the oracles of God,) whom the LXX. followed in their version, had the true read- ing, or the Talmudic Jews, after their dispersion and banishment from their country, when they were dis- carded by God himself from being his people, when he broke up house among them at the destruction of Je- rusalem and the temple. But if the reader desire further satisfaction concerning this difference of the chronology of the LXX. from that of the present He- Walton brew copies, he may consult the learned dissertation Bibl. Polya. of the late learned bishop of Chester upon the LX 3’ 63, ae. and the later discourses of Isaac Vossius on this sub- pe de ject. Setting aside then the controversy between the LXX. In- terpr.et Ai- present Hebrew copies and the LXX. in point of in-tat. Mundi. M 3 BOOK 166 ORIGINES SACRA. tegrity and incorruption, which I meddle not with, I cannot but subscribe to the judgment of our judicious Sir Walter historian, sir Walter Raleigh: That if we look over Raleigh’s Hist. p. i. din Con ke sect. 7. all, and do not hastily satisfy our understanding with the first things offered, and thereby being satiated do slothfully and drowsily sit down, we shall find tt more agreeable rather to follow the reckoning of the LX X. who, according to some editions, make it above 1072 years between the flood and Abraham’s birth, than to take away any part of those 352 years given. For if we advisedly consider the state and countenance of the world, such as it was in Abraham’s time, yea be- fore Abraham was born, we shall find that it were very ill done of us, by following opinion without the guide of reason, to pare the time over deeply between Abraham and the flood; because in cutting them too near the quick, the reputation of the whole story might perchance bleed thereby, were not the testimony of the Scriptures supreme, so as no objection can approach it; and that we did not follow withal this precept of St. Austin, that wheresoever any one place in the Scriptures may be conceived disagreeing to the whole, the same is by ignorance of misinterpretation under- stood. For in Abraham’s time all the then known parts of the world were peopled; all regions and countries had their kings. Egypt had many magni- jficent cities, and so had Palestine and all bordering countries; yea all that part of the world besides, as far as India: and those not built with sticks, but of hewn stones, and defended with walls and rampiers; which magnificence needed a parent of more antiquity than those other men have supposed. And therefore where the Scriptures are plainest, and best agreeing with reason and nature, to what end should we labour to beget doubts and scruples, or draw all things into ORIGINES SACRA. 167 wonders and marvels? giving also strength thereby to common cavillers, and to, those men’s apish brains, who only bend their wits to find impossibilities and monsters in the story of the world and mankind. 'Thus far that excellent historian, whose words deserve con- sideration. Thus much for the first objection. The second is, vom the great pretence of several nations that they were self-originated, or came not from any other place. ‘This was the pretence of the Egyptians, Grecians, ancient inhabitants of Italy, and others. But_how little reason we have to give credit to these pretences, will appear on these accounts: 1. The impossibility in nature that mankind should be produced in such a way as they imagined; which we have manifested already in our discourse of the origin of the universe. 2. That the nations which pre- tended this, were never able to give sufficient evidence of it to any other nation which demanded it; which is manifest by their want of any certain records of their ancient times; which is fully proved in our dis- course in the first book of the want of credibility in the heathen histories. 3. The only probable reason which induced these nations to make themselves 4b- origines, was, because they supposed themselves to be the first inhabitants of the countries they lived in; which although I may allow to the Egyptians, and some other ancient nations, yet I cannot do it to the Hellens or Greeks, who most vainly and arrogantly pretend to it. Which because it may give more light into the greatest antiquities of Greece, and some other nations, than hath been yet discovered or taken notice of; and because it may further tend to clear the truth of the Scriptures as to the origin of nations, I shall more particularly inquire into the first plantation of Greece. That it was first inhabited by some of Noah’s M 4 CHAP. IV. nn BOOK Til. 168 ORIGINES SACR, posterity, is out of question with all those who prefer the most ancient and undoubted records of Scripture before the fabulous impostures of men’s brains. But by whose immediate posterity the country of Greece was first inhabited, is not yet so clear as it hath been generally presumed to be, by most who had rather fol- low the dictates of others, than spend time in such in- quiries themselves; which yet certainly are so far from being unworthy men’s labour and industry, that ne- thing tends more clearly to advance the truth of Scrip- ture-history, than the reconciling the antiquities of the elder nations to what we find delivered of the planta- tion of the world from the posterity of Noah. As to this particular, therefore, of the first plantation of Greece, I shall first propound the epinion generally embraced among learned men, and then shew how far it is defective, and what other more true account may be given of it. It is evident from Moses, Gen. x. 5, that the posterity of Japhet took possession of the isles of the Gentiles, i. e. according to the Hebrew idiom, not only such as are properly so called, but all those countries which lay much upon the sea, being at any distance from Palestine, especially such as lay between the ocean and Mediterranean sea; and so both Greece and Italy come under the name of the isles of the Gen- tiles. Among the sons of Japhet, none is conceived so probable to have first peopled Greece, as he whose name was preserved among the inhabitants of Greece, with very little alteration; and so as the Medes from Madai, the Assyrians from Assur, the Thracians from Thiras, by the like analogy the Ionians from Javan. From which it is observable, that although among the Greeks themselves the Ionians were but as one division of that people which inhabited Greece, yet other na- tions comprehended all under the name of Tonians. ORIGINES SACK A. 169 For which we have sufficient. evidence from Hesychius, GH ou and the Scholiast on Aristophanes. O: GapBapo as “Badyvas "lovas Aéyevow, saith Hesychius; and more to pS hats v. this purpose the Scholiast speaks. [avtas tous ° EAAqvas reaate Tdovas ot BapBapats exéaovy. Kor ’Idcves, with the inser- aes tion of the Aolic digamma, (which is always done when two vowels meet,) is ‘Téqpoves, 1. €. Javones; and Stephanus Byzantius tells us, that from Tdcwv Comes Sy oe e aN rb. v- I2v, and so Homer, lév. "Byba 82 Bowrol, xal Idoves sAnzyitwyes. Het Vv. 5. And Dionysius Periegetes reckons up ‘Idey as one of the rivers of Arcadia, "Eda pcrxs, 001 Kpcdis, iva pees vyeos Lawy. Boe And which much confirms this opinion, the Hebrew ea. spi word for Javan, before the points added by the Ma- sorites, viz. 1 bears a-perfect analogy with the Greek ’Iév3 and jy ys in Scripture is taken for Greece ; and so Dan. viii. 21, Alexander is called }* thn, which the LXX. render Bacireds ‘EAAjvev; and Joel iv. 6, You have sold my sons mx 1125 to the sons of Javan, i.e. to the Greeks, as it is generally understood. But as Javan cannot be supposed to have come into these parts without his family, so it is generally presumed that there are no obscure footsteps left of Javan’s eldest son, Elisha’s seating himself in Greece. For from him Josephus derives the name AlwAcis, with whom the Je- rusalem paraphrast concurs. Montanus from thence *'. nie derives the name Elis; from whence he supposeth the p. 24. Greeks are called “EAAyves. Bochartus finds the clearest remainders of Elisha in Elis, the same with Pelopon- nesus, one part of which by Homer is called Alisium ; thence Ezek. xxvii. '7, we read of the purple and scar- let from the isles of Elisha, which makes it most pro- bable to be that part of Greece which lay upon the Ionian sea, where the best purple next to the Tyrian 170 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK was found, as the learned Bochartus hath demonstrated from several authors. ‘This is now the substance of Phatee the generally received account concerning the planta- iil. ¢. 1 tion of Greece from the posterity of Noah; which if it be taken as to that people which did at length pos- sess Greece, I see no reason to disapprove it; but, if it be extended to the first plantation of Greece, I see as little to embrace it. That we may therefore judge more freely of the first inhabitants of Greece, it is re- quisite we take an account of it from those who pro- fess themselves most versed in their own antiquities, who may in a matter of this nature, which is attested by the common consent of the most learned antiqua- ries of Greece, be the more credited, in that what they thus deliver may be supposed to come from an ancient and undoubted tradition. AL It is evident therefore, from the judgment of the most learned and judicious even of the Greeks them- Selves, that Greece was first inhabited by a people by them called barbarous, i. e. a people different from them in language and manners. So Ephorus, whom Polybius commends as the best writer of the Greek antiquities, saith that Greece was inhabited by a bar- barous people before the Hellens came into it. And Hecatzeus Milesius, cited by Strabo concerning Pelo- ponnesus, ¢r: 700 Tey “EAA Hey OKT AY aut yy CapBapos, eas which Strabo himself not only believes of Peloponne- “Sus, but of all Greece, that it Was KatolKia BapBapav ro v. pelol, Smee), anciently a plantation of barbarians. The iv. 262. Same is affirmed by Aristotle, writing of the common- wealth of the Tegeates concerning Arcadia, that before its being possessed by the Arcadians it was inhabited by a barbarous people, who, because they were ex- pulsed their country before moon-rising, the Arca- dians called themselves mpocédyvor. Whether that be the SOE eR eee ee bien ds + Seariny & y i gala ee = ete. Te ae te ee ORIGINES SACRA. 171 ground of that vain-glorious boast, (of which many CHAP. reasons are given by learned men,) I here dispute not ; aa it is sufficient that we find the Grecians were not the first who peopled any of these several places ; which . is likewise attested by Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, whose testimonies we shall afterwards produce. It being then evident that the Grecians were not the first who inhabited that country after from them called Greece, it follows to be inquired what this barbarous people was, and from whence they came. Strabo hath given us in a large catalogue of the names of many of them; as the Dryopes, Caucones, Leleges, besides the Aones, Tembices, Hyantes, and many others ; but these seem not to have been that ancient people, but rather some latter castlings of the Carians, who, as Thucy- dides tells us, did very often make inroads upon the quarters of Greece. That people which had the largest spread, and greatest antiquity, was the Pelasgi: thence Peloponnesus was anciently called TleAacyia; Stephanus Byzantius [leAsmovvycou tpets erwvyjatat, "Aria, Tledacyia, and “Apyos; and Apollodorus saith, that the Pelopon- nesians were anciently called Pelasgi; and Euripides, Tlevacyioras Bvomacevovs TO mol Aavaous. And elsewhere, Tlparov Teracyol, Aavatdas 7o Seitecoyv. These Pelasgi were not only in Peloponnesus, but in Attica too, as appears by Strabo, where he saith the nation of the Pelasgi did inhabit ; and by the Atheni- ans (that is after their mixture) they were called weAap- - yol, Storks, 9a thy wAdeyy, for their frequent removals Strabo, 1. from place to place: and Pausanias mentions their be-ea. Ga. ing under the Acronoli at Athens: that they were i eae Thessaly, is evident from Hesychius. ITeracyst, of Oco- "‘ \ + ~ \ \ ~ ~~ carol Kat evict tev BapBapwv, Kat yevos amo LleAaoyou tov 172 ORIGINES SACRM. BOOK "Apxados yevoprevov morAvaaAaytov. Arcadia seems to have vt been the first or chief place of their residence; for the Arcadians, who were accounted taradrata lyn rev eAAN- yoy, do vindicate the founder of this nation, whom they call Pelasgus, to themselves, and say he was an atré- x%ev among them, that is, the first who came into that country ; for all those, whose original they knew not, Pausan. in they called Terre Filios, and Genuinos Terre. Pau- Arcad. ‘ , ‘ sanias rightly conjectures that he was the first man among them, not as though he was alone, but because the chief ruler and commander among them, and that Strabo, brought them into the country; but though they might tee fix themselves about Arcadia, it is evident they spread further, for Menecrates Eleates, in his book of the founders of cities, affirms, that all the sea-coasts of Greece called Ionica, beginning from Mycale, were first Idem, l.vii. Inhabited by the Pelasgi: nay, we find them yet much ee higher in Epirus, who were, as Strabo tells us, the first founders of the famous oracle of Dodona; for so Ephorus in him saith it was TleAacyav ideuua, and that these were réyv mept THY EdAAAA Svvacrevdvtey CPYALOTATOL $ thence the poet, liad. 7’. Zid ava, Awdwvaie, TleAaoyixe, ie And Hesiod, Hesiod. Aaravny gnydy re leAaoyoy eCpavoy qev. Oe east bo farther makes it evident that they were a barbarous people, which lived about Dodona, from the description Homer gives of them, Iliad. 7’, uP 08 Serro} 234. Sol valous’ Umpires, avimtonodes, ny ce cue YC, Pbilosty in Which Philostratus best interprets, when he saith they _ were autooy dial TLVES Kal cure KATETKEVAT LEV! Tov Giov, such that thought the gods were best pleased with their sim- plicity and severity of life, and therein far different from the Grecian humour. Suidas in Thessalicis (cited ere ee eS yee ee j 7 - ak Pe ree is ee ORIGINES SACRE. 173 likewise by Strabo) saith that the temple of Dodona CHAP. ‘was removed from Scotusa in Pelasgia to Thessala ; which is confirmed by Herodotus in Euterpe, where he largely speaks of the temple and oracle at Dodona. These Pelasgi confined not themselves to Greece nei- ther, but were dispersed into the neighbour islands, as Chios, Crete, Lesbos, Lemnos, Imbro, Samos, as will appear afterwards; and at last came into Italy, as is well known, and are thought to be the same with the Tyrrhenians, and by some conceived to be the first founders of Rome. We see what a large spread the Pelasgi had over Greece, which was divided, after the Hellens began to appear, into 10 wedAagyixov and 10 €AAy- vixov, as Herodotus witnesseth ; and so these two ap- pear to be a very different people from one another, and not the same, under different names, as is com- ~monly thought. Which sufficiently appears from their language, Ae p which was quite different from one another. So He-c. or. rodotus, “Heav of TleAagryot Bap Bapov yAoooay LEVT ES, they Senko used a barbarous language, i.e. a language not un- derstood by the Hellens, who at first had their chief residence in Thessaly; from whence by degrees they came forwards into Greece, as Thucydides shews. For although the name of Hellens at last spread itself over all the people of Greece, yet it was at first peculiar to that part of Thessaly called Pthiotis; and thence Homer calls them properly Hellens which followed Achilles from thence: and it appears by Homer, that there was a city there called “EAdas, which, as Ste- phanus de Urbibus tells us, was there built by “EAAys ; although he will not have him to be Hellen the son of Deucalion, but the son Phthius, wherein he is mis- taken; for Thucydides plainly shews that it was from Hellen, the son of Deucalion, that the name “EAAnve> BOOK Ill. Salmas. de Hellen. p. 315. 174 ORIGINES SACRA. came; and this Hellen lived in Phthiotis. But al- though they were first in Phthiotis, yet they daily in- creasing in numbers and power, by degrees they got all Thessaly into their hands, of which one part was called [leAagyitis ; afterwards under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they conquered Hestizctis, that part of Thessaly which lies under the mountains Ossa and Olympus; from thence they were beaten back by the Cadmeans into Pindus, where the Greeks were first called Maxedvei, as Herodotus tells us; from hence they went into Dryopis, and thence into Peloponnesus, and there had the name Dorians; but before their coming hither, they had first secured themselves of the Hellens lying between Thessaly and Peloponnesus, and there they dispossessed the Pelasgi in all the Attic region, who were now forced to submit or to fly. They who submitted, as most of them did, were incorporated into the Greeks, and became one people with them; and so by degrees lost that former language which was pecu- liar to themselves, and wholly distinct from the Greek tongue. ‘That the Hellens did thus gradually come into Peloponnesus, is evident from the names of people and places common to Thessaly and Peloponnesus ; which came from hence, that though the Greeks left the cities behind them, yet they carried most of the names along with them. Thus the Acheei, Ionians, and Aolians, and Dorians in Peloponnesus came from those of the same names in Thessaly; and so likewise the names of these following regions and cities were common to both, as Ellopia, Estiaea, Eretria, and Oro- pos, Graia, Larissa, Psophis, Iton, Gichalia, and very many others. Salmasius seems to be of opinion, that the Pelasgi never used any language distinct from the Hellens; but besides that it is directly contrary to the testimony of Herodotus, the arguments he produceth ST 2, eee in ee en _ a SP eg ee er ae ee ORIGINES SACRA. 175 for it are very weak. The first is, because the Pelasgi CHAP. IV. that went into Italy did use the Greek tongue, from their calling Agylla Care, from yaipe, a word pro- nounced from one on the walls; and because the Ar- cades used only the Greek language in the Aolian dia- lect, which Evander carried with him into Italy, and from which most of the old Roman language was de- rived. But doth not Herodotus expressly say, that, after the mixture between the Greeks and Pelasgi, these by degrees lost their own proper language, and made use of the common Greek tongue? Yet after- wards, too, it is evident from Herodotus, in some places, as at Crotona, they did use a language different from the Greek. His other argument is, That the names of the eldest persons mentioned were originally Greek ; but this is expressly denied by Strabo, who makes the contrary one of his strongest arguments, that the Barbarians did anciently inhabit Greece; and instanceth in Cecrops, Codrus, Molus, Cothus, Dry- mas, Crimanus. Thus we have abundantly proved, against the common opinion, that Greece was not first peopled by the Hellens, or the posterity of Elisa, al- though these did afterwards come to the full possession of Greece. It remains that we shew whence these Pelasgi came, and of whose posterity they were, and what the lan- guage was which was used by them. He that gave the name to this people, according to the Grecian fables, was one Pelasgus; which none will wonder at among them, whose constant custom it was (partly by reason of their ignorance of the true account of their names, and partly by their pride, that they might not seem ignorant of any thing,) when they met with any names of people, to find out some person near it, who was the founder of them. Thus Attica from Actzus, XIII. BOOK III. Grot. Not. in lib. i. de Jure Bel. &c. Cc. 3. Salm. de Heilen. 176 ORIGINES SACRA. it being anciently called “Artix, and Crane from Cra- naus, Aigialea from A¢gialeus, Mauritania from Mau- rus, Scythia from one Scythes, Galatza from Galates, and thus in multitudes of other names. But from the name Pelasgi we may probably find out the true founder of the people, allowing that variation which is usually caused through the Greeks’ melting the harsher words of the eastern languages into a sound fit for their more delicate palates; as is evident in the com- paring the names of the prophets in Hebrew, with what they are in the Greek version. Thus the Pelasgi may with great probability be derived from 355, Pha- leg; for which we have the concurrent testimony of two learned persons, Grotius and Salmasius, who are contented to mention it without bringing much evi- dence of reason for it. What they only touch at, we shall endeavour to make out more at large; which we shall do by removing the great presumptions against it, and laying down the probabilities for it. The great presumptions lying against it are; for that the isles of the nations fell to the posterity of Japhet, and that Phaleg lived with Eber in Chaldza. For the first, it must be acknowledged that the greatest part, of the countries lying upon the ocean and Mediterranean were in the time when Moses wrote so inhabited ; not that the habitations of the sons of Noah had their bounds and limits set them either by God or Noah, but that the posterity of Japhet did chiefly address themselves to those parts which lay towards Europe; but yet not so as to exclude any of the posterity of Sem, if their necessities for further room made it ne- cessary for them to seek for habitations further abroad. For we can have no reason to think, that, because the chief of Sem’s posterity did live together, therefore none of them went further off, which necessity would ORIGINES SACRE. 177 put them upon because of their great increase; for we CHAP. read of Phaleg and others, that, besides those in direct line to Abraham, (whose genealogy it was Moses’s great design to recount,) they begat many other sons Gen. xi. and daughters, which would make it necessary for‘? *™ them to seek their habitations further abroad. And that Phaleg and Ragau did so, we have the express testimony of Epiphanius, Badex xai “Payad olrives eat 10 Epiph. de ~ ae), ~ / ~ ow / / \ ~ Scythis, }. tH¢ Hupwrys Kripa vevevKotes TH THS LKvOias pepel, KaL TOS Epiad Aen, et Paulum. sect. 2. xewa, e€ odmep of Opaxes yeyovact, That Jrom the age of Therah, and thence forward, Phaleg and Ragau di- verted towards the clime of Europe, to part of Scy- thia, and were joined with those nations from which the Thracians arose. Several things make this not so improbable as some have imagined it to be: for first, it is the constant acknowledgment of all sober in- quirers into the original of the Greeks, that Greece was first peopled from Scythia; and indeed almost all the nations in Europe have come out of that country: besides, there is evidence of it even in the Grecian fables; for Prometheus (from whom the Greeks de- rived themselves) is fancied by them to lie bound in Mount Caucasus, which must be supposed to be the country from whence he came. Again, it is evident already that the Hellens came not into Greece before it was peopled by the Pelasgi, and that these had dif- ferent language and customs from one another. Now then in all probability, although the posterity of Elisa might come first down from Scythia into those parts, and seat themselves in Macedonia and Thessaly, where they had in probability more than room enough at first, and a country to their desire, they might be wil- ling to permit the posterity of Phaleg to pass on fur- ther ; for in those first plantations we cannot otherwise STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. N >, Nw + “My >] \ ~ ~~ fg ¢ Md ee | / auTdY EeTET! TpoTEKplOncay, amo THs TOU Oxpas yAiKlas, Kat eme- 178 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK conceive, but that the last comers must be the furthest th goers, unless they had strength enough to drive the former inhabitants out of their seats, whereof they were already possessed, as the Scythians did after- wards, and so the Hellens. So then the posterity of Phaleg being forced to quit their own country, because of the multitude of inhabitants, must be supposed to take that course, where in probability they might find an empty seat fit for them to dwell in. Thence they come towards Europe; for they saw how the posterity _ of Sem did spread itself eastwards already, and Cham southwards, and coming to part of that vast country of Scythia which was both already taken up, and not so convenient an habitation for them, they draw down- wards towards Thracia; and there the posterity of Thiras, from whom the Thracians came, had already possessed themselves. Passing further into Thessaly, they find that already planted by some of the posterity of Elisa, but as yet but scant and thin of inhabitants; therefore they disperse themselves up and down through some part of Epirus, most part of Ellas, and some pass into Peloponnesus, where they fix themselves chiefly upon Arcadia, and thence spread up and down by de- grees towards the sea-side; for we cannot but think that the maritime parts were the last peopled, partly for fear of another deluge, partly for want of conve- miency of navigation, most of their travels being by land, and partly, when navigation grew more in use, for fear of pirates, who drove a great trade upon the coasts of Greece in elder times, as is most evident from Thucydides in the beginning of his history. Thus we have a reasonable account given of the Pelasgi, their first coming into Greece, and how by degrees the Hel- lens came to possess their country, and what a fair pretence the Arcadians had to boast of the greatest ve A ge Pie ORIGINES SACRE. 179 antiquity ; their country being probably first peopled CHAP. IV. by the Pelasgi of any part of the whole Chersonese, —_—— and the seat of the leader of the whole company whom they call Pelasgus, and the Scriptures Phaleg. Having thus far cleared the antiquities of Greece as to the first planters of it, whom we have evidenced to have been the Pelasgi, and these derived from Peleg, it will be no great difficulty to resolve what language they brought along with them; which must be sup- _ posed to be the same with that used in the family from whence Peleg or Phaleg came, as to the sub- stance of it, although it might admit as great variation of dialect from it as the Chaldee or Syriac doth. But this I will not only suppose, but offer these probabili- ties for the proof of it. The first is, the agreement of the ancient Greek language with the Hebrew, in many of its primitive words. And here we have a most ra- tional and probable account given of it; which is, the Greeks mixing with the Pelasgi, and both coming to be one people, they must needs retain many of the old words used by the Pelasgi in their Greek language, which are evidently of an eastern extraction; the ground of which cannot with such probability be fetched from Cadmus and the Pheenicians, because it is not so easy admission of a foreign language after the perfection of their own, unless by long tract of time, or great numbers overrunning the former people, neither of which can be so truly affirmed of Cadmus and his company; for they were soon driven out of Greece, he himself ending his days in Ilyricum: nei- ther was their spread so large as that of the Pelasgi, who were before possessors of the country; and it is continually seen how impossible it is for any con- querors, as the Greeks were, to bring their own lan- _ guage so into a place, where some of the former people N 2 XIV. BOOK iit. Strabo, }. xiii. p- 247- Td. 1. xii. P- 394- 180 ORIGINES SACRA. are suffered to live, and not to retain many of their old words among them, and so make the language mixed of both, as it is in all nations conquered by the Ro- mans; the Roman not being purely spoken by any, but corrupted with a mixture of the former language in use among them. The second argument is from the different pronunciation and dialects in use in the Greek language; of which no account so likely can be given, as the mixture with different languages. This is most evident in the Dorie dialect; for the Dorians inhabit- ing probably where most of the Pelasgi had been, their pronunciation. and dialect comes the nearest to the eastern of any of the Greeks; for in the Doric dia- lect the [lAaresacpos, or broad pronunciation, is most taken notice of. So he in Theocritus upbraids the Do- rians, 611 mAateacdovow dmavta, they speak every thing very broad; which answers to the pronunciation of the eastern languages: besides, the Doric dialect de- lights much in adding a to the end of words, which besides that it is the custom of eastern tongues, espe- cially the Syriac, it doth much widen the pronuncia- tion. ‘The third argument is from the remainders of the eastern tongues in those places, especially where the Pelasgi had been. The Pelasgi are much taken notice of for their frequent removes, and travelling from one place to another; which I suppose was chiefly after the Hellens had conquered the country where they dwelt, then they were forced to go seek better habitations abroad: thence Strabo calls the na- tion of the Pelasgi moAvTAaveV Kel TAXD ro bvos 70s eTava= racers: and elsewhere, that they were woAdAayud t%5 Ev- poms TO madasoy TAAVOILEVOL, they went up and down to a great part of Europe: but we may suppose them to have made their first and chief resort to the neighbour islands to Greece; where we shall see what evidence ORIGINES SACRA. 181 they left of their language there. The first island we CHAP. meet with them in, is te so Strabo pbeaicne | hos them, Kai yap ths Konrys emoxos Yeyav0. Wr os yo * ‘Oun- Strabo, l.v. pos, that a colony of them lived in Crete, for which ee voucheth Homer’s authority : "Addy 8 dddrwy yadoou meiymery? ev wav Arao, Hom. "Ev @ ’Eredupytes meyaarnropes, év 03 Kudwves, 175 Awpices te Tpiycixes, O10 te TeAacyol, It is evident then that the Pelasgi were in Crete. Now most of the Cretan words are of an eastern extraction, if we believe the learned Bochartus, who hath pro- Boeliatt. fe mised a discourse on that eubjedts besides Crete, we1.i.c. 15. find the Pelasgi in Chios, cai Xis: 88 otxictas éavrdv Tle- hacyots dacs todo éx Oetradrias, saith Strabo; the inha- bitants of Chios say that the. Pelasgi of Thessaly were their first inhabitants; and here the forenamed learned person hath derived the name Chios, the mountain Pe- linzeus, and the wine Arvisium, all from the eastern languages. The next we find them in, is Lesbos, xa: yup tyv Neo Gov LleAacyiay eipyxact, which from them was called Pelasgia, saith Strabo, whose name is likewise Strabo, 1.y. fetched out of the east. By Bochartus further we find ” a them in Lemnos and Imbros. So Anticlides in Strabo, TpWTOUS pyat TleAacyovs TH mept Aéuvov Kal "TG pov KTIOOL § concerning whose names, see Bochartus, 82. I know Bochart. — that learned author makes the Pheenicians the authors FEORE BAe of all these names, from no other ground generally, but because they are of an eastern derivation; but ac- cording to what we have laid down we may yield to the thing itself, and upon clearer grounds; for of some of these islands he ingenuously confesseth he can find | no evidence of the Phoenicians being in them. Phoe-14)' 9. nices in his insulis habitasse nusquam legimus: but we find it very plain, that in those very islands the Pelasgi inhabited ; and whether account then be more N 3 BOOK Ill. Tertull. de Spect. c. 8. Bochart. Geogr. p. il. Lhe 12. Herod. 1. ii. C. Bi. Cf. Wess. Vossius de Idol. 1. ii. C. 57. Grot. An- not.in Mat. >t ne XV. 182 ORIGINES SACRE. probable, let the reader judge. One thing more I shall insist on, which is the original of the Samothracian mysteries. That these were, as to their names, from the eastern languages, is now acknowledged by all learned men; the Cabiri being so evidently derived from 33, which signifies strength and power, i.e. the Dii potes, so Cabiri is explained by Varro and Tertul- lian, and the particular names of the several Cabiri mentioned by the Scholiast on Apollonius, ’A&sepos, ’Absoxepoa, Abioxepoos, and Kaédusdos, are very handsomely explained by that learned and excellent Bochartus, from the eastern languages: only he will needs have them derived from the Phoenicians; whereas Herodotus ex- pressly tells us, that they were from the Pelasgi, whose words are these: doris 0€ ta KaBelpwov dpyian pepvytal, Te Lapobpyixes emitehéovor maparaGovres mapa Lledaoyav. And again, Tyy yap Laproboyixyy otkeov moor epov TleAasryot obrot, tot TEp "AOnvatoras otvorkos eyeverTo, Kau Ta.0. TOUTwY Dapobpnixes To Oprysan maoaranPavovct. We see evidently by this, that the Samothracians derived their mysteries from the Pelasgi; and without all question they had their names from thence, whence they derived their mysteries. And to this purpose it is further observable, that, as the old Hetrurians were certainly a colony of the Pelasgi, upon their removal out of Greece, so Vossius observes, that the old Hetruscan language (fere a Syris habet cuncta sacrorum nomina) hath almost all the sacred appella- tions from the eastern tongues. For which purpose it is further observable, which Grotius takes notice of, that the jus pontificum Romanorum was taken a great part from the Hetrusci, and the Hetrurians had it ab Hebreis out of the eastern parts. By all which I cannot conceive but this opinion, notwithstanding its novelty, is advanced to as high a degree of probability as any that stands on the like ORIGINES SACRA. 183 foundations ; and not only so, but it is an excellent clue CHAP. to direct us to the labyrinth of antiquities, and gives us a fair account whence the eastern tongues came to be so much used among both the ancient Greeks and Hetrurians. One thing more this will help us to un- derstand far better than any salvo hath been yet used for it; which is the affinity spoken of by Arius, king of Lacedzmon, in his letters to Onias, between the Jews and Lacedzemonians: Eipé6y ev ypapy epi re ray 1 Maceab. Laaptraroy Kat lovdaiwv, ors tory aderApols Kal Ott eiow ex ?* yévous “ABpadus which is explained by Josephus thus : Joseph. An- "Evrvyovres ypay tiv, evpomev we e& Evdg elev yévous Tovdaior as KGl Aaxedatpoviot, eK THC mos "A Rodov OLKELOT TOS. Der O7o8- had found in a book that the Jews and Lacedemo- nians were of the same stock, from their mutual rela- tion to Abraham. Vossius thinks the original of this voss. de was from those of the posterity of Anak, who came ak i into Greece, and peopled Sparta, and would seem to have been of the posterity of Abraham; or that they were partly of the posterity of Abraham by Agar or Ceturah, and partly of the Canaanites, driven out by Joshua. But how unlikely a thing is it (supposing Sparta peopled by the Canaanites, which yet is not evi- dent) that they should give out themselves to be of that stock which they had been expelled their country by? And for the true posterity of Abraham coming thither, as we have no ground for it but the bare as- sertion, so we have this strong evidence against it, that all that came from Abraham were circumcised, as the Ishmaelites, Hagarens, &c. which we never read of among the Lacedemonians. Hugo Grotius differs not much from the opinion of Vossius concerning the ground of this kindred between the Jews and Spar- tans ; for in his notes on that place in the Maccabees, where it is spoken of, he gives this account of it. The N 4 BOOK III. 184 ORIGINES SACRA. Dorians, of whom the Spartans were a part, came from ———the Pelasgi; the language of the Pelasgi was different Aristoph. Acharnen. ACE 1, Sty 4. from that of the Greeks, as appears by Herodotus in his Clio: "Heay oi Teaacyat BapBaoov yrAdtray tevtes. Now the Pelasgi (saith he) are »395 dispersi, a scattered na- tion ; thence he supposeth these Pelasgi, or banished people, to have come from the confines of Arabia and Syria, in which the posterity of Abraham and Ceturah had placed themselves. But, 1. It is uncertain whe- ther the posterity of Abraham, by Ceturah, were placed so near Canaan or no. I know Junius endeavours to find the seat of all the sons of Ceturah in Arabia; but Mercer gives several not improbable reasons why he conceives them placed not in the east of Canaan, but in the eastern parts of the world. 2. We have no evi- dence at all of any remove of these sons of Abraham by Ceturah out of the parts of Arabia, supposing them placed there, nor any reason why they should be ban- ished thence. 3. That which was the badge of Abra- ham’s posterity, was never, that we read of, in use among the Spartans; which was circumcision. In- deed, in much later ages than this we speak of, we read of a people among the Thracians who were cir- cumcised, whom the Greeks themselves judged to be Jews. So Aristophanes brings the Odomantes in: Tig tv Obopnevrwy 1d wéos amoteO pansy cy" amotéboaxev, (saith the scholiast,) i. e. avétire, eAcalvevra de Kal ameriAdOvTO Of Opaxes TH abdoia Kat TOT ET UPLLEVaL elyav avré. Whereby it is plain that circumcision was in use among the Thracians; for these Odomantes were (saith the scholiast) a people of Thrace: gas) 38 aibrods ‘Toudaious eivar. It seems it was a tradition among them, that they were Jews. If so, it seems most probable that they were some of the ten tribes, who were placed about Colchis, and the adjacent places: for Herodotus ORIGINES SACRA. 185 in Euterpe saith, that the Syrians that lived about the CHAP. ; : ; IV. rivers Thermodoon and Parthenius, learned circum- cision from the Colchi; of whom he saith, Movve: av- Tw Koryo Kat Atyvarios kat Aibiones TEpITE[AVOVT OL on APXNS tx aidoia. Only the Colchi, and Egyptians, and Ethio- pians had originally the custom of circumcision. Or else the Odomantes might be some of the dispersed Jews in Armenia, where Strabo mentions a region Strabo,1.xi. called Odomantis; and so they retained the name of the place from whence they came, after their removal into Thrace. But whatever these Odomantes were, they were far enough from the Spartans, who never were thus suspected of Judaism, nor laughed at for circumcision; so that this opinion of Grotius, on that account, seems not very probable. Bochartus, who Bochart. de hath been so happy in many other conjectures, yet ' an es : here gives out, unless it may depend upon the testi- mony of Claudius Jolaus in Stephanus Byzantius, who fabulously derives the Jews from one Judzus Sparton, who went from Thebes along with Bacchus into the wars; which Sparton they might confound with an- other Sparton, the son of Phonoreus, the founder of Sparta; which yet is rejected as a fable by Pausanias in Laconicis. Surely the Lacedzemonians were very ambitious of kindred with the Jews, that would claim it upon such grounds as these, especially at such a time when the people of the Jews were under distress, and their kindred might be like to cost them so dear ; and if they had never such a mind to have claimed kindred with the Jews, they would certainly have done it upon a more plausible testimony than the fable of one Claudius Iolaus, that had neither sense nor reason in it; and yet supposing his fable true, it had been nothing to the purpose without the linking another fable to it, which was so gross, that even the Greeks BOOK If. Scalig. Ca- non. Isag. P- 332- 186 ORIGINES SACRA. themselves were ashamed of it, who were always the most daring forgers of fables in the world. But let us see further what the divine (as some have loved to call him) Jos. Scaliger saith to it. All that he saith, is only a wonder or two at it; Quid magis mirum quam Lacedemonios ab Abraham prognatos esse, &e. and a refutation of an absurd opinion, that Gbalus, the father of Tyndareus, and grandfather of Castor, Pol- lux, and Helena, was the same with Ebal, mentioned Gen. x. 28, which there can be no reason for, since Ebal was the son of Joktan, and so of another race from Abraham; and Joktan’s sons were placed east- ward; but chiefly Gibalus was within an hundred years before the destruction of Troy; but Phaleg, uncle to Ebal, died 664 years before (Ebalus, in A. M. 1993. ‘Thus far then we cannot find any plausible account of this claim of kindred; but though it be an endless task to make good all the claims of kindred in the world, especially to persons of power and author- ity, yet there being no visible interest or design which the Spartans could have in such a claim, especially at that time, with a nation generally hated and maligned by heathen idolaters, we cannot suppose but there must be some at least plausible ground for such a persuasion among them. What if we should conjecture that the Spartans might find in the Greek version of the Pen- tateuch, which was much spread abroad at that time among the sons of Ishmael, one whose name makes the nearest approach to their Cadmus, from whom they Suppose themselves derived; for the youngest of Ish- mael’s sons was called Kedemah, Gen. xxv. 15, which the Syriac renders Kedem, the very name of Cadmus in the eastern tongues. But this being a light conjec- ture, I pass it by, and return to the subject of our dis- course, which gives a plausible account of the ground of 9 ORIGINES SACRA. 187 this kindred. We have already shewed that the Pelasgi were the first who peopled Greece, (kata tv “HAAdda micay emenddsace, is Strabo’s expression of that nation, that it spread over all Greece ;) and withal it appears that the chief seat of the Pelasgi was in Arcadia, to which next adjoins Laconia, and therefore in all pro- bability was peopled by them ; and besides, the Dorians sprang from the Pelasgi, and the Spartans were a part of the Dorians, as appears already out of Grotius ; so that what kindred the Pelasgi had, was derived down to the Spartans; and we have manifested that these CHAP. IV. Pelasgi were from Phaleg; and the Scripture tells us Gen. xi. that Phaleg was the son of Eber, from whom Abraham came in a direct and lineal succession. And thus the Jews coming from Abraham, and the Spartans by the Pelasgi from Phaleg, they both came out of the same stock: for so Josephus expresseth it; not that the Lacedzemonians came from Abraham, but that the Jews and they were both e& évs yéuus, out of the same stock, and both had relation to Abraham ; the Jews as coming in a direct line, the Spartans as deriving from Phaleg, from whom Abraham came. And thus much may now suffice to clear the first plantation of Greece, and to shew how consonant it is to sacred Scripture; which I have taken the more pains 1n, be- cause of the serviceableness of this discourse to that end, and to shew what use may be made of this kind of learning, for vindicating the honour of the sacred Scriptures. The only thing remaining as to the origin of na- tions, is the peopling of that vast continent of America, which I cannot think we have yet sufficient informa- tion, either concerning the passages thither, especially east and north, or concerning any records the Indians have among themselves, absolutely to determine any 1725. 188 ORIGINES SACRA, Book thing nit. It seems most probable that the several a parts of it were peopled at several times, and from several parts, especially north and east; but to go about absolutely to determine from what nation, in what age, by what means they were first peopled, were a piece of as great confidence as ignorance, till we have more certain discoveries of it. I choose there- fore rather to refer the reader to the bandyings of this V.Grot. controversy in the many writers about it, than to un- Jon. oe om. dertake any thing as to the decision of it. Only in the de Ong. general it appears, from the remaining tradition of the Gent. Ame- rican. ~~ flood, and many rites and customs used among them, V. Manesse cae that they had the same original with us; and that Et Spizzel. there can be no argument brought against it from Amon, themselves, since some authors tell us, that the eldest accounts and memoirs they have do not exceed 800 years backward; and therefore their testimony can be of no validity in a matter of so great antiquity as the origin of nations is. ORIGINES SACRA. 189 CHAP. V. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY. I. That there were some remainders of the ancient history of the world preserved in the several nations after the dispersion. II. How it came to be corrupted: by decay of knowledge, in- crease of idolatry, confusion of languages. III. An inquiry into the cause of that. Difficulties against the common opinion that languages were confounded at Babel. IV. Those difficulties cleared. V. Of the fabulousness of poets. The particular ways whereby the heathen mythology arose. Attributing the general history of the world to their own nation. The corruption of Hebraisms. Alteration of names. Ambiguity of sense in the Oriental languages. WI. Attributing the actions of many to one person ; as in Jupiter, Bacchus, &c. VII. The remainders of Scripture-history among the heathens. The names of God, Chaos: formation of man among the Pheenicians. Of Adam among the Germans, Egyptians, Cilicians. Adam under Saturn ; Cain among the Phoenicians ; Tubal-Cain and Jubal under Vul- can and Apollo; Naamah under Minerva. VIII. Noah under Saturn, Janus, Prometheus, and Bacchus. IX. Noah’s three sons under Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Canaan under Mer- cury ; Nimrod under Bacchus ; Magog under Prometheus. Of Abraham and Isaac among the Phoenicians. X. Jacob’s service under Apollo’s. The SartdAva from Bethel ; Joseph under Apis ; Moses under Bacchus; Joshua under Hercules; Balaam under the old Silenus. ‘THE main particulars contained in the Scriptures concerning the history of ancient times, being thus far cleared, there remains only that evidence which there is of the truth of the historical part of those eldest times, in those footsteps of it which are contained in the heathen mythology. For we cannot conceive, since we have manifested that all mankind did come from the posterity of Noah, that all those passages which concerned the history of the world should be presently obliterated and extinguished among them, but some kind of tradition would be still preserved; although CHAP. BOOK Ill. i. Booki. c.1. sect. 16. 190 ORIGINES SACRA. by degrees it would be so much altered for want of certain records to preserve it in, that it would be a hard matter to discover its original, without an exact comparing it with the true history itself from whence it was first taken. For it fared with this tradition of the first ages of the world, as with a person who hath a long time travelled in foreign parts, who, by the variety of climes and countries, may be so far altered from what he was, that his own relations may not know him upon his return, but only by some certain marks which he hath in his body; by which they are assured, that, however his complexion and visage may be altered, yet the person is the same still. Thus it was in this original tradition of the world, through its continual passing from one age to another, and the various humours, tempers, and designs of men, it re- ceived strange disguises and alterations as to its out- ward favour and complexion; but yet there are some such certain marks remaining on it, by which we find out its true original. Two things then will be the main subject of our inquiry here. 1. By what means the original tradition came to be altered and cor- rupted. 2. By what marks we may discern its true original, or what evidences we have of the remainders of Scripture-history in the heathen mythology. 1. Concerning the means whereby the tradition by degrees came to be corrupted ; there may be some more general, and others more particular. The general causes of it were, 1. The gradual decay of knowledge, and increase of barbarism in the world, occasioned by the want of cer- tain records to preserve the ancient history of the world in; which we at large discoursed of in our entrance on this subject. Now in the decay of knowledge, there must needs follow a sudden and strange altera- ORIGINES SACRA. 191 tion of the memory of former times, which hath then nothing to preserve it but the most uncertain report of fame, which alters and disguiseth things according to the humours, and inclinations, and judgments of those whose hands it passeth through. 2. The gradual increase of idolatry in the world; which began soon after the dispersion of nations, and in whose age we cannot at so great a distance, and in so great obscurity, precisely determine; but as soon as idolatry came in, all the ancient tradition was made subservient in order to that end; and those persons, whose memories were preserved in several nations, by degrees came to be worshipped under diversities of names; and such things were annexed to the former traditions, as would tend most to advance the greatest superstition in the world. 3. The confusion of languages at Babel was one great reason of corrupting the ancient tradition of the world. For in so great variety (as suddenly hap- pened) of languages in the world, it cannot be con- ceived but such things which might be preserved in some uniform manner, had all nations used the same language, would, through the diversity of idioms, and properties of several tongues, be strangely altered and disguised, as will appear afterwards. This alteration of languages in the world, upon the confusion of tongues at Babel, brought as great a confusion into the original tradition, as it did among those who were the design- ers of that work. And because this subject of the original and cause of this diversity of languages among men, doth both tend to explain the present subject, and to clear the truth of Scripture-history, I shall a little further in- quire into it; chiefly on this account, because it is pretended that such a confusion is needless, which is CHAP. V. Ill. 192 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK delivered in Scripture, for the producing such diversi- nadie SP eye) languages, which would arise through mere length of time, and the varieties of climes and customs in the world. But if we only speak concerning the V.Mer. Ca-sense of Moses about it, the inquiry is of greater diffi- ee culty than at first view it seems to be. For it is pre- cee tended that Moses no where speaks of a diversity of languages, as we understand it, but only of a confusion of their speech who were at Babel, which might well be, although they all used the same language; that is, there might be a confusion raised in their minds, that they could not understand one another; their notions of things being disturbed, so that, though they heard one word, they had different apprehensions of it; some thinking it signified one thing, and some another: as peals Ever, J tlins Scaliger tells us, that the Jews he had con- dan. 259. versed with did not understand by it a multiplication of tongues, but only by that confusion their former notions of things, by the same words, were altered. As if one called for ya, a stone, one by that word understands lime, another water, another sand, &c. this must needs produce a strange confusion among them, and enough to make them desist from their work. But supposing no such division of languages there, yet after their dispersion, which might be caused by the former confusion, by the different laws, rites and customs, commerce and trading, and tract of time, there would have risen a division of their several tongues. But if there were such a division of tongues miraculously caused there, (that, as it is commonly said, all those who were of the same language went together in their several companies,) whence comes it to pass, that in their dispersion we read of several families dispersed which used the same language after their dispersion ; as all the sons of Canaan, mentioned Gen. x. 15, 16, eS a ORIGINES SACRA. 193 17, 18, used the Canaanitish tongue; in Greece, Javan ee P. and Elisa had the same language; in Egypt, Mis- ———— raim and Pathrusim; in Arabia, the sons of Joktan and Chus; in Chaldza, Aram, and Uz, the inhabitants of Syria, Mash of Mesopotamia, Nimrod of Babylon, Assur of Assyria: whence comes it to pass, if their several tongues were the cause of their dispersion, that these several heads of families should use the same tongue? Another reason against the common opinion is this, which seems to have a great deal of force in it. If tongues were divided at Babel, as it is imagined, whence was it, that the nearer any nation lay to those who had the primitive language, the Hebrew, they did participate more of that tongue than those who were more remote, as is plain in the Chaldzeans, Canaanites, Greeks, and others? Whereas if their languages were divided at Babel, they would have retained their own languages as well as others. ‘This very argument pre- vailed so far with the learned Is. Casaubon, as appears Csenl 4 by his Adversaria on this subject, (published by the. Heb. learned doctor’s son,) as to make him leave the com-"*7"* mon opinion, and to conclude the several tongues to be only some variations from the Hebrew; but yet so as many new words were invented too. Hence he ob- serves, that the Asiatic Greeks came nearer to the He- P. 47. brew than the European. And if this opinion hold true, it is the best foundation for deriving other lan- guages from the Hebrew; a thing attempted by the same learned person, as you may see in the book fore- cited, and endeavoured by Guichardus, Avenarius, and others. Thus we see there is no agreement in men’s minds concerning the division of tongues at Babel. But having set down this opinion, with its reasons, _ IV. I shall not so leave the received opinion, but shall first see what may be said for that, and leave the judgment STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. oO BOOK iif. Calvin. An- not.in Gen. oe Fer rae 194 ORIGINES SACRA, concerning the probability of either to the understand- ing reader. And it seems to be grounded on these reasons. 1. That had it been left to men’s own choice, there cannot be a sufficient reason assigned of the di- versity of languages in the world. For there being one language originally in the world, whereby men did represent their conceptions to one another, we cannot imagine that men should of themselves introduce so great an alteration, as whereby to take off that neces- sary society and converse with each other, which even nature itself did put men upon. Hence Calvin and others conclude that prodigii loco habenda est lingua- rum diversitas ; because there having been that free- dom of converse among men, it is not to be supposed they should of themselves cut it off to their mutual disadvantage. But to this it is said, That the long tract of time, and diversity of customs, might alter the language. 1 grant it much, but not wholly; and they would only therein differ in their languages, wherein their customs differed: so that there would remain still such an agreement as whereby they might understand each other; which it will be hard to find in many of the eldest languages. As for the length of time, though that doth alter much in reference to words and phrases, in which that of Horace holds true, Multa renascentur que jam cecidere, &c. yet it will be more difficult to find where mere length of time hath brought a whole language out of use, and an- other in the room of it. But that which I think de- serves well to be considered, is this, that the greatest alteration of languages in the world hath risen from colonies of nations that used another language; and ‘so by the mixture of both together, the language might be much altered: as the Hebrew by the Chaldees in Babylon; the Spanish, Italian, and others, by the Latin, ORIGINES SACRA. 195 as Breerwood shews; our own by the Normans and cuap. others. So that were there not a diversity of languages supposed, this interfering of people would bring no? , considerable alteration along with it, no more than a quiries,c. 5, colony from New England would alter our language here. And as for another cause assigned of the change of languages, the difference of climates, which Bodin Bodin. Me- gives as the reason why the northern people use con- ha ee sonants and aspirates so much, especially the Saxons, and those that live by the Baltic sea, who pronounce thus, Per theum ferum pibimus ponum finum. And ° so R. D. Kimchi observes of the Ephraimites, Judges xii. 6, that it was the air that was the cause of their lisp- ing, and calling it Sibboleth, as he there observes the Mayer. men of Sarpliath: that is, the French, that they could aa not pronounce Schin, but pronounced it like Thau”” Raphe. But by these examples we see that this would cause only an alteration as to some letters and sylla- bles, and rather as to the pronunciation, than any va- riety of the language. So that we see that, setting aside the confusion of languages at Babel, there can be no reason sufficient assigned for the variety of lan- guages in the world. 2. Though it be granted that a confusion in their minds, without distinct languages, were enough to make them desist from their work, yet the context in that place, Gen. xi. doth infer a diver- sity of tongues, as will appear from the antecedents and consequents; as from the first verse, where it is not conceivable why it should be there taken notice of as such a remarkable circumstance, that then they had but one language before they set upon this work, if there was not a diversity of tongues caused by the work they went about; but especially ver. 6, where God takes such notice of this very thing, that they had but one language, wherein they were so confident O 2 196 ORIGINES SACRA. to carry on their work; therefore, ver. 7, when he would destroy their work by confounding their lat- guage, it must be by multiplying that language into many more; for it must be taken in opposition to what is said in the other verse. And what is there added, their not understanding one another’s speech, seems to refer not to their inward conceptions, as though they did not understand one another’s minds, but to the outward expressions, as naw doth apparently re- late to them: further, in ver. 8, this is set down as the cause of their dispersion; which, had the tongue been the same afterwards as it was before, could have been no reason for it. Again, some argue from the name Babel given to the place, from 552, which signifies to confound and mingle things of several kinds together. So used Judges xix. 21. Isaiah xxx. 24. Job vi. 5, &c. thence the name 5a3 for 5252, the middle 5 left out, as in Golgotha for Golgoltha, Kigaltha for Kilkaltha, and others of a like nature. Besides, there seems to be somewhat in what is said, that the families were divided according to their tongues, Gen. x. 5, 20, 31; which doth at least imply a diversity of tongues among them; the cause of which must be assigned by them who will not allow of the confusion and division of languages at Babel. Further, this seems most agree- able to God’s end in making of them thus leave off their work, that there might be not only a present judgment upon them, but that which might remain to posterity as a note of the folly of their ancestors. Those who recede from the common opinion, lest they should give advantage to infidels by attributing that to a miracle which might be done without, seem to be more wary than wise in it. For besides that it is cer- tain that miracles may be in those things which might be effected otherwise by natural causes, when they are ORIGINES SACRE. 197 produced without the help of those causes, and in a eet P, space of time impossible to nature; and that it hath not been as yet proved how such diversity of tongues as is in the world would have been effected without such a miracle, it must be granted by them that there was a miracle in it; and what greater difficulty there should be in the variety of languages, than in the sig- nification of the same words, I understand not. But I see no necessity of asserting that every one of the families had a distinct language; and the common opinion of 70 or 72 (as the Gr.) families, and as many languages, is now taken for a groundless fancy by Bochart. learned men; as is easily proved from the dividing fa- eae a ther and children, whose families could not certainly sneaiger be without them; and some supposed to be unborn aie pes then, as Joktan’s 13 children; especially if we say, as many do, that the confusion was at the birth of Pha- leg, and Joktan was his younger brother, as the Jews generally do. ‘To the last objection it may be replied, that the agreement of languages in some radical words doth not infer the derivation of the one from the other; as is plain in the Persian and German, in which learned men have observed so many words alike. And so by Busbequius of the inhabitants about Tauric Cherso- Lips.cent.3. nese; and so in most of our modern tongues there may Hata be some words alike, without any such dependence or ©? *™”: derivation. Again, though it be granted that the lan- guages of them who were at Babel were confounded, yet it is not necessary we should say that all Noah’s posterity were there. It is thought by some that they meee arte were chiefly Cham and his company; if so, then Sem p. ii. c. 6. and his posterity might retain the language they had before, only with some variations. But this is very uncertain, unless we take it for Heber and Phaleg, from whose vicinity other bordering nations might 03 BOOK HI. 198 ORIGINES SACRA. make use of many of their primitive words; and for the Greeks, it will be granted that many of their words, especially the old Beeotic, had affinity with the Hebrew; but it was from the Pelasgi at first, and Cad- mus the Phoenician afterwards; the old Canaanitish language being, if not the pure Hebrew, yet a dialect of that tongue, as is proved by many learned men. But however these things be, it is not necessary to say that all mother-tongues, so called, were then existent at that confusion: but the present curse did divide their languages who were there, and that all division of languages since is to be looked upon as the effect of that curse. It being thus manifested what a strange confusion of languages was caused in the world, we may thereby easily understand how the ancient tradition came to be corrupted and altered in the world. Another reason of the alteration of the ancient tra- ditions, was the fabulousness of the poets: for these made it their design to disguise all their ancient sto- ries under fables, in which they were so lost, that they could never recover them afterwards. For the elder poets of Greece being men of greater learning than generally the people were of, and being conversant in Egypt and other parts, did bring in new reports of the ancient times, which they received from the nations they went to; and by mixing their own traditions and others together, and by suiting what was remaining of the ancient tradition to these, they must needs make a strange confusion of things together, and leave them much more obscure and fabulous than they found them. And herein all their cunning and subtlety lay, in put- ting a new face on whatever they borrowed from other nations, and making them appear among themselves in a Greek habit, that the former owners of those tradi- ORIGINES SACRA. 199 tions could scarce challenge them as theirs under so CHAP. strange a metamorphosis. For those things which ni were most plain and historical in the fountains whence they derived them, they did so reparede, as Clemens Alexandrinus speaks, (or as Origen, wapaxctcavtes cvé- Clemens mAacav,) wrapt them up under so great mythology, that As oe the original truths can hardly be discerned, because of 4S" that multitude of prodigious fables with which they have inlaid them. But as great as their artifice was in the doing this, we may yet discern apparently many of those particular courses which were taken by them to disguise and alter the primitive tradition. 1. Attributing what was done by the great ances- tors of mankind to some persons of their own nations. Thus the Thessalians make Deucalion to be the person who escaped the flood, and from whom the world was peopled after it. And whoever compares the relation of the flood of Deucalion in Apollodorus, with that in the Scripture, might easily render Apollodorus’s Greek Sheena in the language of the Scriptures, only changing Greece 1. i. p. 19. into the whole earth, and Deucalion into Noah, Par- nassus into Ararat, and Jupiter into Jehovah. On the same account the Athenians attribute the flood to Ogyges; not that the flood of Ogyges and Deucalion were particular and distinct deluges, which many have taken a great deal of needless pains to place in their several ages, but as Deucalion was of the eldest me- mory in Thessaly, so was Ogyges at Athens; and so the flood, as being a matter of remotest antiquity, was on the same account in both places attributed to both these: because as mankind was supposed to begin again after the flood, so they had among them no me- mory extant of any elder than these two, from whom, on that account, they supposed mankind derived. And on the same reason it may be supposed that the Assy- oe BOOK HL Apud Cyr. c. Julian, Clemens Peed: 11; c. 8. p. 138. ed. Oxon. 200 ORIGINES SACRA, rians attribute the flood to Xisuthrus, whom they sup- posed to be a king of Assyria: but the circumstances of the story, as delivered by Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus, are such as make it clear to be only a re- mainder of the universal flood, which happened in the time of Noah. So the Thessalians make Prome- theus to be the Protoplast ;_ the Peloponnesians Phoro- neus, as Clemens Alexandrinus tells us, whom Phoro- nides the poet calls warépa rév avbpoxav, The Father of Mankind. This may be now the first way of corrupt- ing the ancient tradition, by supposing all that was conveyed by it to have been acted among themselves ; which may be imputed partly to their ignorance of the state of their ancient times, and partly to their pride, lest they should seem: to be behind others in matters of antiquity. 2. Another fountain of heathen mythology, was the taking the idiom of the oriental languages in a proper sense. For whether we suppose the ancient traditions were conveyed to them in the ancient Hebrew by the Pelasgi, or were delivered to them by the Phoenicians, or were fetched out of the Scriptures themselves, (as some suppose, though improbably, of Homer and some ancient poets,) yet all these several ways agreeing in this, that the traditions were oriental, we thereby un- derstand how much of their mythology came by taking the Hebrew in a proper and literal sense, without at- tending to the idiom of the tongue. From hence Bo- chartus hath ingeniously fetched many heathen fables. Thus when Noah is said to be roam wx Gen. ix. 20, which in the idiom of the Hebrew only signifies a husbandman, they took it in a proper sense for 6 avyp ™7s ys, and thence Saturn, who was the same with Noah, (as will appear atterwards,) is made by mytho- logists the husband of Rhea; which was the same ee le eee ORIGINES SACRA. 201 with the earth. So the giants making war against CHAP. heaven, was only a poetical adumbration of the design at the building of Babel, whose top in the Scripture is said to reach Oynw3, which in the Hebrew signifies only a great height; but to aggrandize the story, was Gen. xi. 4. taken in the literal interpretation, that they attempted heaven. So when they are said to fight against the gods, Bochartus thinks it might be taken from that phrase of Nimrod, that he was a mighty hunter, 1399 rim, before the Lord we render it, but it sometimes signifies against the Lord. So what pend egUs saith of the giants, that they were EK TNS YS GVATXGYTES, those Ap. Euseb. that came out of the earth, is supposed to be taken i mh Seat from that phrase, Gen. x. 11, 83> yUNT YD, é terra ipsa extit. But far more likely and probable is that which learned men are generally agreed in concerning Bac- chus’s being born of Jupiter’s thigh, which is only an expression of that Hebraism 19° *Nx', wherein coming Gen. xlvi. out of the thigh is a phrase for ordinary procreation. 3. A third way observable, is the alteration of the names in the ancient tradition, and putting names of like importance to them in their own language. ‘Thus Jupiter, who was the same with Cham, was called Zeds Topx tyv Céow, as tam from wan fervere, incalescere. "Appotv yap Aiytario Kadéovor tov Aia, saith Herodotus ; him whom the Greeks call Zevs, the Egyptians call Cham. So Japhet, whose memory was preserved un- der Neptune, to whose portion the islands in the sea fell, was called by the Greeks Iecedev, which comes (saith Bochartus) from the Punic wp, which signi- Bochart. fies large and broad, which is the very importance of | \"<%. the Hebrew rm‘; thence, in allusion to the name, it is said, Gen. ix. 27, n> ombx mp, God shall enlarge Japhet. Thence the epithets of Neptune are Evpv- OTEDVOS, Evpverp, Evpuxpeswy, all equally alluding to the 202 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK name Japhet. So “AzcAdwy, in the Greek, is of the He same importance with the Hebrew, qw, Demon, from Tw, to destroy. ‘Thence we read, Deut. xxxii. 17, they sacrificed Ww), to devils. Canaan in the Hebrew sig- nifies a merchant; thence Mercury, under whom the memory of Canaan, the son of Cham, was preserved, is derived by many from 37, to sell. Ceres, which was the inventress of agriculture, from wn), which im- ports bread-corn. These and many others are pro- duced by Vossius, Heinsius, Bochartus, and other learned men, which I insist not on, because my design is only digitos ad fontes intendere, and to make these handsome and probable conjectures argumentative to our purpose, and to bind up those loose and scattering observations into some order and method, in which they have not yet appeared, nor been improved to that end which I make use of them for. - When the oriental phrases were ambiguous and equivocal, they omitted that sense which was plain and obvious, and took that which was more strange and fabulous. From hence the learned Bochartus hath fetched the fable of the Golden Fleece, which was no- thing else but robbing the treasury of the king of Colchis; but it was disguised under the name of the Golden Fleece, because the Syriac word 1) signifies both a fleece and a treasury. So the bulls and dra- gons that kept it were nothing but the walls and bra- zen gates; for Ww signifies both a budl and a wall, and wm, brass and a dragon. And so the fable of the brass bull in the mountain of Tabyrus, which fore- told calamities, arose from the equivocation of the Phoenician or Hebrew words wrya sox, which signify either doctor, augur, or bos ex ere, a Joreteller of events, or a brazen bull. From the like ambiguity of the word N'D?N arose the fable of Jupiter stealing Eu- a ae ORIGINES SACRA. 203 ropa in the form of a bull, because the word either sig- CHAP. nifies a ship, in which he casein her away, or. a a bull; or it may be the ship had zapacyuov bovis, as the ship St. Paul sailed in had Castor and Pollux; it being usual to call their ships by the names of the signs they carried. From the like equivocation in the Phoe- Bochart. nician language doth Bochartus fetch many other hea- ‘i Sane then fables, in his excellent piece de Phoenicum Colo- ns; as particularly that of Arethusa coming from Alpheus, which was from ‘95x a ship, because it was not far from an excellent haven. And so he makes the Chimzera to be no more than a mere ens rationis; for he takes the Chimzra which Bellerophon conquer- ed, to be only the people of Solymi under the three generals, Aryus, Trosibis, and Arsalus; x that sig- nifies a dion; Trosibis was xm wn, the head of a ser- pent; Arsalus was 7x, a young kid; and so the Ibid Li Chimeera consisted of the form of a lion, a goat, and“ a serpent. ‘Thus we see how easy a matter it was to advance the heathen mythology from the equivocation of the oriental languages, in which their traditions were conveyed to them. But yet a more prolific principle of mythology was VI. by attributing the actions of several persons to one, who was the first or the chief of them. Thus it was in the stories of Jupiter, Neptune, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Juno, Bacchus, and Hercules; which were a collection of the actions done by a multitude of per- sons, which were all attributed to one person. So Voss. de Vossius tells us, before the time of the Trojan wars, 5 aries most of their kings, who were renowned and power- ful, were called Joves. Now when the actions of all these were attributed to one Jupiter of Crete, they must needs swell his story up with abundance of fa- bles. Vossius hath taken a great deal of pains to di- BOOK Ill. Cicero de Nat. Deor, lear Steph. V. "Ixdvioy. 204 ORIGINES SACRA. gest, in an historical manner, the stories of the several Jupiters ; whereof he reckons two Argives, a third the father of Hercules, a fourth a king of Phrygia, and two more of Crete; to one of which, without any dis- tinction, the actions of all the rest were ascribed, and who was worshipped under the name of Jupiter. And so besides the ancient Neptune, who was the same with Japhet, they sometimes understood any insular prince, or one that had great power at sea: but be- sides these, there were two famous Neptunes among the Greeks; the one of Athens, the other the builder — of the walls of Troy. Now the stories of all these being mixed together, must needs make a strange con- fusion. So for Mars, besides that ancient one they had by the criental tradition, they had a Spartan, Thracian, and Areadian Mars. What abundance of Mercuries are we told of by Tully; and of no less than five Minervas! Every angry, scornful, jealous queen would fill up the fables of Juno; who was equally claimed by the Argives and Samians. What contests were there between the Greeks and Egyptians, con- cerning the country of Bacchus, or Liber Pater, whose story was made up of many patches of the oriental story, as will appear afterwards. The same may be said of Hercules. Now what a strange way was this to increase the number of fables! When they had one whose memory was anciently preserved among them, they attributed the actions of all such to him, who came near him in that which his memory was most remarkable for: and in those things which they did retain of the eastern tradition, it was an usual thing to confound persons, places, and actions together. So the story of Enoch and Methuselah is joined together by Stephanus de Urbibus, under the name of "Awakos, who is there said to live above 300 years (which agrees ag a a i | en ORIGINES SACRE. 205 with Enoch, as the name doth,) and that at his death CHAP. the world should be destroyed by a flood; which —— agrees with Methuselah. So Abraham by Orpheus is called Movyevys, which belongs to Isaac his son; so the actions of Nimrod, Ninus, and Cham, are confounded together in their mythology. By these several ways now we understand how the original tradition was by degrees corrupted and altered in the heathen my- thology. _ I come now to the footsteps of Scripture-history, vit. which, notwithstanding these corruptions, may be dis- cerned in the heathen mythology; which I shall me- thodically inquire after according to the series of Scrip- ture-history. That the names given to God in Scrip- v.Scaliger. ture were preserved among the Pheenicians, appears Pea Gloss sufficiently by the remainders of the Pheenician theo- Pee logy, translated by Philo Byblius out of Sanchoni- mst aghe athon; wherein we read of the god “Iv, which hath« 2 the same letters with mim; besides which, there we meet with ’EAwiv, the same with joy, The most High, and “fdcs, which is 9x, The strong God; Beelsaman, which is ow Oya The God of Heaven; and ’Edweip, the very name of God used in the beginning of Genesis so often. Besides, in those fragments we have express mention of the chaos, and the evening following it, or the darkness on the face of the deep; the creation of angels under the Zodacnui, DIDW MD, those beings which contemplate the heavens; and the creation of mankind, "Ex tov xcAmov avéuou, i. e. PHI, saith Bo- chartus, The voice of the mouth of God, which is by God’s word and inspiration, when it is expressed that God said, Let us make man, and that he breathed into him the breath of life. After we read of yyivos and avtéx$ey, which properly agree to Adam, who was made out of the earth. Vossius conceives that the memory BOOK in. Voss. de doled: viz c. 38. Tacit. de Moribus German. C. 2. ed. Ernest. Stephan. V. ’Adavd. Tertull. Apolog. c. 10. 206 ORIGINES SACRA. of Adam was preserved among the old Germans; of whom Tacitus speaks, Celebrant antiquis carminibus Tuistonem Deum, terra editum, et filium Mannum, originem gentis conditioresque. Hither by Tuisto Adam is understood, who was formed of the earth, and by Mannus, Noah; or by Tuisto God may be understood, and by Mannus, Adam: to which conjec- ture may be added further, that the same author re- ports that some of the Germans sacrificed to Isis; which Vossius likewise conceives to be a remainder of the Hebrew Ischa. And so among the Egyptians it is with like probability conceived that Adam and Ischa were preserved under Osiris and Isis, as they were his- torically taken. In Cilicia, the city Adana is thought to have some remainder of the name of Adam; for the Greeks had no termination in M, therefore for Adam they pronounced it Adan, and that from ’Adav;; and so the city Adana. Now that ’Adav<, by Stephanus de Urbibus, is said to be the son of Heaven and Earth. “Ecri Se 6 ’Adavde ns Kal oupavov mais. This Adaunus, he tells us, was otherwise called Kpoves, or Sa- turn, under whom the Greeks preserved the memory of Adam; for Diodorus, Thallus, Cassius, Severus, and Cornelius Nepos, do all (as Tertullian saith) confess Saturn to have been a man; and, according to their fables, he must have been the first of men. Saturn was the son of Heaven and Earth, and so was Adam: he taught men husbandry: and was not Adam the first that tilled the ground? Besides, that power which Sa- turn had, and was deposed from, doth fitly set out the dominion man had in the golden age of innocency, which he lost by his own folly; and Adam’s hiding himself from the presence of the Lord, gave occasion to the name of Saturn, from satar, to hide. We find something of Cain preserved in the Phoenician anti- ORIGINES SACRA. 207 quities, under the name of ’Aypadnpos. or "Aypérys, the CHAP. first countryman or husbandman, who with his bro- ther ’Aypes built houses; and the first foundation of a city is attributed to Cain: and on that account Vos- Mante sius conjectures that the memory of Cain’s wife wasc. 17. preserved under Vesta, both because she was the daughter of Saturn, i. e. of Adam, and that she is said TOY oikoy RatacKeryy evpelv, to find out Jirst the way of building houses. That Tubal-Cain gave first occasion to the name and worship of Vulcan, hath been very probably conceived, both from the very great affinity of the names, and that Tubal-Cain is expressly men- tioned to be an instructer of every artificer in brass Gen.iv. 22. and iron; and as near relation as Apollo had to Vul- can, Jubal had to Tubal-Cain, who was the inventor Gen. iv.2r. of music, or the father of all such as handle the harp and organ; which the Greeks attribute to Apollo. And if that be true which Genebrard and others ascribe to Naamah, the sister of Jubal and Tubal-Cain, viz. that she was the inventor of spinning and weaving, then may she come in for Minerva. Thus we see there were some, though but obscure footsteps preserved even of that part of Scripture-history which preceded the flood. The memory of the deluge itself we have already VIII. found to be preserved in the heathen mythology ; we come therefore to Noah and his posterity. Many par- cels of Noah’s memory were preserved in the scattered fragments of many fables, under Saturn, Janus, Pro- metheus, and Bacchus. Bochartus insists on no fewer Bechart. than 14 parallels between Noah and the heathen Sa-."™ turn; which he saith are so plain, that there is no doubt but under Saturn Noah was understood in the heathen mythology. Saturn was said to be the com- mon parent of mankind; so was Noah. Saturn was BOOK Il. Diod. |. i. V. Mayer. Philol.Sacr. Pp. li, Cc. 5. 208 ORIGINES SACRA. a just king; Noah not only righteous himself, but a preacher of righteousness. The golden age of Sa- turn was between Noah and the dispersion of nations. | In Noah’s time all mankind had but one language, which the heathens extend under Saturn both to men and beasts. ‘The plantation of vines attributed to Sa- turn by the heathens; as to Noah by the Scriptures. The law of Saturn mentioned by the poets, that none should see the nakedness of the gods without punish- ment, seems to respect the fact and curse of Cham, in reference to Noah. Saturn and Rhea, and those with them, are said to be born of Thetis, or the ocean; which plainly alludes to Noah and his company’s escaping the flood: thence a ship was the symbol of Saturn; and that Saturn devoured all his children, seems to be nothing else but the destruction of the old world by Noah’s flood. And not only under Saturn, but under Prometheus too, was Noah’s memory pre- served. Diodorus speaks of the great flood under Pro- metheus ; and Prometheus implies one that hath fore- cast and wisdom, such as Noah had, whereby he fore- told the flood, and was saved in it, when others were Epimetheus’s, that had not wit to prevent their own destruction. And no wonder, if Prometheus were Noah, that the forming mankind was attributed to him, when the world was peopled from him. Herodotus’ saying that Asia was Prometheus’s wife, might relate to the coun- try Noah lived in, and our propagation from thence. Another part of Noah’s memory was preserved under Janus. The name of Janus is most probably derived from }*, because of Noah’s planting a vine; and Janus was called Consivius, saith Macrobius, a conserendo, hoc est, a propagine generis humani, que Jano autore conseritur. Now to whom can this be so properly ORIGINES SACRA. 209 applied as to Noah, from whom mankind was propa- paay gated? And Janus’s being b2frons, or looking zpécow —___ kai orisow, forward and backward, is not so fit an em- blem of any thing as of Noah’s seeing those two ages before and after.the flood. And it is further observ- ~ able, which Plutarch speaks of in his Roman Ques- tions, that the ancient coins had on one side the image of Janus with his two faces, on the other wAciov mpipvav ” mpwpav eyxeyapaypevyy, the fore or hinder part of the ship; by which the memory of the ark of Noah seems to have been preserved. ‘Thus we see what analogy there is in the story of Janus to that of Noah: not that I give credit to those fooleries which tell us of Noah’s coming from Palestine with his son Japhet into Italy, and planting colonies there, for which we are beholden to the spurious Etruscan antiquities: but all that I assert is, that the story of Noah might be pre- served in the eldest colonies, though disguised under other names, as here in the case of Janus. And on the same account that the name of Janus is attributed to Noah, some likewise believe him to have been the most ancient Bacchus, who was, according to Diodorus, Dioa. Biv- Eiperys tis dumédov, the first planter of vines, and in-"°"*™ structer of men in making wines: and besides, Bac- chus’s being twice born, seems only an adumbration of Noah’s preservation after the flood; which might be accounted a second nativity, when the rest of the world was destroyed. And withal, Philostratus, in the Life oe of Apollonius, relates, that the ancient Indian Bacchus c. 4. came thither out of Assyria, which yet more fully agrees with Noah. So that from these scattered mem- bers of Hippolytus, and these broken fragments of tra- ditions, we may gather almost an entire history of all the passages concerning Noah. As the story of Saturn and Noah do much agree, so ‘IX. STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. a Se 210 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK the three sons of Noah and those of Saturn, Jupiter, __\* _ Neptune, and Pluto, have their peculiar resemblances Vossius de to each other: of which Vossius and Bochartus have re largely spoken, and we have touched on already. Be- Phileas 1.3. Sides which, this latter author hath carried the parallel Cy 2 lower, and finds Canaan, the son of Cham, the same with Mercury, the son of Jupiter. As it was the curse of Canaan to be a servant of servants, so Mercury is always described under servile employments. His wings seem to be the ships of the Phoenicians, who were derived from Canaan, and his being the god of trade, noting the great merchandise of the Phoenicians, and Mercury’s thievery noting the piracies, or at least the subtlety and craft of the Phoenicians. He was the father of eloquence and astronomy ; as letters and astronomy came from the Phoenicians into Greece. The same author parallels Nimrod and Bacchus, and Magog and Prometheus together. The name of Bac- chus is but a light variation of wip 72, Bar-chus; as Nimrod was the son of Chus, and Bacchus is called Nebrodes by the Greeks, which is the very name of Nimrod among them; and Bacchus is called Zwypeds, which excellently interprets Nimrod’s being a mighty hunter. Bacchus’s expeditions into India were the attempts of Nimrod and the Assyrian emperors; on Voisande which account Vossius makes Nimrod or Belus the ©. 16. most ancient Mars; for Hestizeus Milesius speaks of Enyalius, which is Mars, his being in Sennaar of Babylonia. That the memory of Magog was pre- served under Prometheus, these things make it proba- ble, that Magog was the son of J aphet, as Prometheus of Japetus; and that the posterity of Magog was placed about Caucasus, where Prometheus is feigned to lie: and the eating of Prometheus’s heart is only an in- terpretation of 3172; which, applied to the heart, sig- OO —————— a ORIGINES SACRA. Q11 nifies to waste away, and be consumed. Thus far cuap. Bochartus. Mi The Phoenician antiquities seem to have preserved the memory of Abraham’s sacrificing his son Isaac, by that place which Eusebius produceth out of Porphy- ry’s book concerning the Jews; where he relates, hovw V. Sand ge Saturn, whom the Phoenicians call Israel, when he Gree. reigned in those parts, and had an only son called Jeoud, of a nymph called Anobret, being under some great calamity, did sacrifice that son of his, being clothed with a royal habit. Here we have a royal person called Israel; and that Abraham should be ac- counted a king in those elder times is nothing strange, considering his wealth, and what petty royalties there were in those times. But Grotius, and from him Grot. in Deut. xviii. Vossius, do not think that Abraham was here calledtc. Israel, but that the transcriber of Eusebius meeting rl with 7A, supposed it to be a contraction of Icpayi, and “ 1°: so writ at length. It must be acknowledged that / is used in the Pheenician theology for Saturn; but yet the circumstances of the story make the ordinary read- ing not improbable: neither is it strange that Abraham should be called by the name of the people which he was the progenitor of. That Isaac should be meant by his only son called Jeoud, is most likely ; for when God bids Abraham go sacrifice him, he saith, Take Gen. xxii.2. thy son, wr, thy only son; Jehid is the same with the Phoenician Jeoud. That Sara is meant by Ano- bret, the original of the name implies; which is, as Bochartus derives it, nva\y73n, Annoberet, that is, ex Bochart. de gratia concipiens; which the apostle explains, Through rit oak faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed." *"'" Now all the difference is, that which was only designed and intended by Abraham, was believed by the Phee- nicians as really done, that it might be as a precedent P 2 212 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK to them for their a$pwrcbioi, sacrificing of men; a LMS Shing so much in use among the Pheenicians, and all the colonies derived from them, as many learned men have at large shewed. But besides this, there are par- ticular testimonies concerning Abraham, his age, wis- dom, and knowledge; his coming out of Chaldza, and the propagation of knowledge from him among the Chaldzans, Phoenicians, and Kgyptians, are extant out Joseph.An-Of Berosus, Eupolemus, and others, in Josephus and Hs Phe Eusebius, and from thence transcribed by many learned cvee\i™ men, which on that account I forbear transcribing, as being common and obvious. Xi Some have not improbably conjectured, that the me- mory of Jacob’s long peregrination and service with his uncle Laban, was preserved under the story of Apollo’s banishment, and being a shepherd under Ad- Callimach. metus. For Callimachus reports, that love was the Hymn. in : : Apoll. cause of Apollo’s travels, as it was of Jacob’s; and withal mentions a strange increase of cattle under Apollo’s care, answerable to what the Scripture re- Sheree ports concerning Jacob. But it is more certain that pbetoe the memory of Jacob’s setting up the stone he had Bochart. ested on for a pillar, and pouring oil upon it, and : oe tae calling the place Bethel, was preserved under the an- ped. de _ ointed stones, which the Pheenicians from Bethel called Diis Syris. predetnsin BaitvAra, as hath been frequently observed by learned Strom. 7. men; from whence came the custom of anointing Casaubon. . ad Theoph. SCoves among the heathens, of which so very many Dy LA . ae aq Have largely discoursed. Thence the proverb of a Arnob. 1. i. Fray ty Bd / / \ ms . Colvinumaq superstitious man, wévta dAibov Aimapov apooxuvet, Which peal Flor, Arnobius calls lubricatum lapidem, et ex olivi un- uzel. e : . e ° Elmen- guine sordidatum. It seems the anointing the stones horst. ad : . : Minuc. de With oil was then the symbol of the consecration of eee them. The name Ba/rvacs for such a stone occurs in Hesychius, the Greek etymologists, Damascius in Pho- ORIGINES SACRA. 213 tius, and others. That the memory of Joseph in Egypt CHAr. was preserved under the Egyptian Apis, hath been shewed with a great deal of probability by the learned Vossius, in his often-cited piece of idolatry, from the testimonies of Julius Maternus, Rufinus, and Suidas ; and from these three arguments. 1. The greatness of the benefit which the Egyptians received by Joseph ; which was of that nature that it could not easily be forgot, and that no symbol was so proper to set it out as the Egyptian Apis, because the famine was por- tended by lean kine, and the plenty by fat; and Mi- nucius at Rome, for relieving the people in a time of famine, had a statue of a golden bull erected to his memory. 2. The Egyptians were not backward to testify their respect to Joseph, as appears by Pha- raoh’s rewarding him. Now it was the custom of the Egyptians to preserve the memories of their great benefactors by some symbols to posterity; which were at first intended only for a civil use, although they were after abused to superstition and idolatry. 3. From the names of Apis and Serapis. Apis he conceives to be the sacred name of Joseph among the Egyptians, and is as much as ax, father; so Joseph himself saith, he was as a father to Pharaoh. And Serapis, as Rufi- nus and Suidas both tell us, had a bushel upon his head; and Serapis is probably derived from Ww, Sor, Gen. sly. 8. which signifies a bull, and Apis. So that by this means the story of Joseph is attested by the Egyp- tians’ superstitions ; of which they can give no account so likely as this is. Many things concerning Moses are preserved in the — Xt. story of Bacchus; not that from thence we are to con- clude that Moses was the Bacchus of the Greeks, as Vossius thinks; but they took several parts of the eastern traditions concerning him, which they might Pic 214 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK have from the Pheenicians who came with Cadmus into Greece, while the memory of Moses was yet fresh Mae! smneng, the Canaanites. In the story of Bacchus, as Cs 30. Vossius observes, it is expressly said that he was born in Egypt, and that soon after his birth he was put in an ark, and exposed to the river; which tradition was preserved among the Brasiate of Laconica: and Bac- chus in Orpheus is called Mécy;, and by Plutarch de Iside et Osiride, Palestinus; and he is called Biparwp, which agrees to Moses, who, besides his own mother, was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Bacchus was likewise commended for his beauty, as Moses was, and was said to be educated in a mount of Arabia called Nysa; which agrees with Moses’s residence in Arabia forty years. So Plutarch mentions Duyas Asovicov, the Rox: Dion. hanishments of Bacchus; and Nonnus mentions Bac- chus’s flight into the Red sea; who likewise men- tions his battles in Arabia, and with the neighbouring Diod. liv. princes there. Diodorus saith, that Bacchus’s army had not only men, but women in it; which is most true of the company which Moses led. Orpheus calls Bacchus @ecpoddpsv, and attributes to him Aimiaka Occusv: whereby we understand Moses’s being a legis- lator, and that he delivered the laws in two tables. Moses’s fetching water out of a rock with his rod, is preserved in the Orgia of Bacchus ; in which Euripides relates, that Agave and the rest of the Bacche cele- brating the Orgia, one of them touched a rock, and the water came out: and in the same Orgia Euripides reports how they were wont to crown their heads with Serpents ; probably in memory of the cure of the fiery Serpents in the wilderness. A dog is made the com- panion of Bacchus; which is the signification of Ca- leb, who so faithfully adhered to Moses. To these and some other circumstances insisted on by Vossius, ORIGINES SACRA. Q15 Bochartus adds two more very considerable ones; CHAP. which are, that Nonnus reports of Bacchus, that he touched the two rivers, Orontes and Hydaspes, with pi tens his thyrsus, or rod, and that the rivers dried, and he'*“ = passed through them; and that his ivy-staff being thrown upon the ground, crept up and down like a serpent; and that the Indians were in darkness while the Bacchz enjoyed light: which circumstances consi- dered, will make every one that hath judgment say as Bochartus doth, Ha mirabili ilo consensu vel coecis apparebit priscos fabularum architectos a scriptort- bus sacris multa esse mutuatos. From this wonderful agreement of heathen mythology with the Scriptures, it cannot but appear that one is a corruption of the other. That the memory of Joshua and Samson was Vossius de : R 4 we LO ta 3. preserved under Hercules Tyrius, 1s made likewise ¢.26. p.1r8, very probable from several circumstances of the stories. '° Others have deduced the many rites of heathen wor- ship from those used in the tabernacle among the Jews. Several others might be insisted on; as the parallel between Og and Typho, and between the old Silenus and Balaam; both noted for their skill in divi- nation; both taken by water, Num. xxii. 5; both noted for riding on an ass: él dv ta moAra éyovpevos, Saith Lucian of the old Silenus; and that which makes it Lucian. de more probable, is that of Pausanias, "Ev yap 77 ‘EBpatov pebiogs! xia LsAryvod avy, Which some learned men have been ca xyieea. much puzzled to find out the truth of; and this con- jecture, which I here propound, may pass at least for a probable account of it. But I shall no longer insist on these things, having, I suppose, done what is suf- ficient to our purpose, which is, to make it appear what footsteps there .are of the truth of Scripture- history amidst all the corruptions of heathen mytho- logy. P 4 216 ORIGINES SACRA. CHAP. VI. OF THE EXCELLENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. ik Concerning matters of pure Divine revelation in Scripture: the terms of salvation only contained therein. II. The ground of the disesteem of the Scripture is tacit unbelief. III. The excellency of the Scriptures manifested as to the matters which God hath revealed therein. IV. The excellency of the discoveries of God’s nature which are in Scripture. V. Of the goodness and love of God in Christ. The suitableness of those discoveries of God to our natural notions of a Deity. The necessity of God’s making known himself to us, in order to the regulating our con- ceptions of him. VI. The Scriptures give the fullest account of the state of men’s souls, and the corruptions which are in them. The only way of pleasing God discovered in the Scrip- tures. VII. The Scriptures contain matters of greatest mysterious- ness, and most universal satisfaction to men’s minds. VIII. The excellency of the manner wherein things are revealed in Scrip- tures, in regard of clearness, authority, purity, IX. uniformity, and persuasiveness. X. The excellency of the Scriptures as a rule of life. The nature of the duties of religion, and the rea- sonableness of them. The greatness of the encouragements to religion contained in the Scriptures. XI. The great excellency of the Scriptures, as containing in them the covenant of grace in order to man’s salvation. es Havin G thus largely proved the truth of all those I. passages of sacred Scripture, which concern the history of the first ages of the world, by all those arguments which a subject of that nature is capable of, the only thing left in order to our full proving the divinity of the Scriptures, is the consideration of those matters contained in it, which are in an especial manner said to be of Divine revelation. For those historical pas- sages, though we believe them, as contained in the Scripture, to have been divinely inspired, as well as others, yet they are such things as, supposing no Di- vine revelation, might have been known sufficiently to the world, had not men been wanting to themselves as ORIGINES SACRA. AVG to the care and means of preserving them. But those matters which I now come to discourse of, are of a more sublime and transcendent nature; such as it had been impossible for the minds of men to reach, had they not been immediately discovered by God himself. And those are the terms and conditions on which the soul of man may upon good grounds expect an eternal happiness; which we assert the book of Scriptures to be the only authentic and infallible records of. Men might, by the improvements of reason, and the saga- city of their minds, discover much, not only of the lapsed condition of their souls, and the necessity of a purgation of them, in order to their felicity, but might in the general know what things are pleasing and ac- ceptable to the Divine nature, from those differences of good and evil, which are unalterably fixed in the things themselves: but which way to obtain any cer- tainty of the remission of sins, to recover the grace and favour of God, to enjoy perfect tranquillity and peace of conscience, to be able to please God in things agreeable to his will, and by these to be assured of eternal bliss, had been impossible for men to have ever found, had not God himself been graciously pleased to reveal them to us. Men might still have bewildered themselves in following the ignes fatut of their own imaginations, and hunting up and down the world for a path which leads to heaven; but could have found none, unless God himself, taking pity of the wander- ings of men, had been pleased to hang out a light from heaven, to direct them in their way thither, and by this Pharos of Divine revelation to direct them so to steer their course, as to escape splitting themselves on the rocks of open impieties, or being swallowed up in the quicksands of terrene delights. Neither doth he shew them only what shelves and rocks they must CHAP. Vi: 218 ORIGINES SACRAE. BOOK escape, but what particular course they must steer; i what star they must have in their eye, what compass they must observe, what winds and gales they must expect and pray for, if they would arrive at last at eternal bliss. Eternal bliss! What more could a God of infinite goodness promise, or the soul of man wish for? A reward to such who are so far from deserving, that they are still provoking; glory to such who are more apt to be ashamed of their duties than of their offences. But that it should not only be a glorious reward, but eternal too, is that which, though it in- finitely transcend the deserts of the receivers, yet it highly discovers the infinite goodness of the Giver. But when we not only know that there is so rich a mine of inestimable treasures, but if the owner of it undertakes to shew us the way to it, and gives us certain and infallible directions how to come to the full possession of it, how much are we in love with misery, and do we court our own ruin, if we neglect to hearken to his directions, and observe his com- mands ! II. This is that we are now undertaking to make good concerning the Scriptures; that these alone contain those sacred discoveries, by which the souls of men may come at last to enjoy a complete and eternal hap- piness. One would think there could be nothing more needless in the world than to bid men regard their own welfare, and to seek to be happy. Yet whoever casts his eye into the world, will find no counsel so little hearkened to as this, nor any thing which is more generally looked on as a matter trivial and im- pertinent. Which cannot arise but from one of these two grounds; that either they think it no great wis- dom to let go their present hold as to the good things of this world, for that which they secretly question ORIGINES SACRE. 219 whether they shall ever live to see or no} or else that their minds are in suspense, whether they be not sent on a Guiana voyage to heaven, whether the certainty of it be yet fully discovered, or the instructions which are given be such as may infallibly conduct them thither. The first, though it hath the advantage of sense, fruition, delight, and further expectation, yet to a rational person, who seriously reflects on himself, and sums up what (after all his troubles and disquietments in the procuring, his cares in keeping, his disappoint- ments in his expectations, his fears of losing what he doth enjoy, and that vexation of spirit which attends all these) he hath gained of true contentment to his mind, can never certainly believe that ever these things were intended for his happiness. For is it possible that the soul of man should ever enjoy its full and complete happiness in this world, when nothing is able to make it happy but what is most suitable to its na- ture, able to fill up its large capacity, and commen- surate with its duration? But in this life the matter of men’s greatest delight is strangely unsuitable to the nature of our rational beings; the measure of them too short for our vast desires to stretch themselves upon; the proportion too scant and narrow to run pa- rallel with immortality. It must be then only a su- preme, infinite, and eternal Being, which, by the free communications of his bounty and goodness, can fix and satiate the soul’s desires, and by the constant flow- ings forth of his own uninterrupted streams of favour will always keep up desire, and yet always satisfy it: one whose goodness can only be felt by some transient touches here; whose love can be seen but as through a lattice; whose constant presence may be rather wished for than enjoyed; who hath reserved the full sight and fruition of himself to that future state, when CHAP. VI. BOOK if. Hil. 220 ORIGINES SACRA. all these dark veils shall be done away, and the soul shall be continually sunning herself under immediate beams of light and love. But how, or in what way the soul of man, in this degenerate condition, should come to be partaker of so great a happiness, by the enjoyment of that God our natures are now at such a distance from, is the greatest and most important in- quiry of human nature; and we continually see how successless and unsatisfactory the endeavours of those have been to themselves at last, who have sought for this happiness in a way of their own finding out. The large volume of the creation, wherein God hath de- scribed so much of his wisdom and power, is yet too dark and obscure, too short and imperfect, to set forth to us the way which leads to eternal happiness. Un- less then the same God who made men’s souls at first do shew them the way for their recovery, as they are in a degenerate, so they will be in a desperate condi- tion. But the same bounty and goodness of God, which did at first display itself in giving being to men’s souls, hath in a higher manner enlarged the discovery of it- self, by making known the way whereby we may be taken into his grace and favour again. Which it now concerns us particularly to discover, thereby to make it appear that this way is of that pe- culiar excellency, that we may have from thence the greatest evidence it could come from no other author but God himself, and doth tend to no other end but our eternal happiness. Now that incomparable excel- lency which is in the sacred Scriptures, will fully ap- pear, if we consider the matters contained in them under this threefold capacity. 1. As matters of Di- vine revelation. 2. As a rule of life. 3. As contain- ing that covenant of grace which relates to man’s eternal happiness. ORIGINES SACRA. 221 1. Consider the Scripture generally, as containing in it matters of Divine revelation. and therein the ex- cellency of the Scriptures appears in two things. 1. The matters which are revealed. 2. The manner wherein they are revealed. 1. The matters which are revealed in Scripture may be considered these three ways. 1. As they are mat- ters of the greatest weight and moment. 2. As mat- ters of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. 3. As matters of the most universal satisfaction to the minds of men. 1. They are matters of the greatest moment and importance for men to know. The wisdom of men is most known by the weight of the things they speak ; and therefore that wherein the wisdom of God is dis- covered cannot contain any thing that is mean and trivial; they must be matters of the highest import- ance, which the supreme Ruler of the world vouch- safes to speak to men concerning. And such we shall find the matters which God hath revealed in his word to be, which either concern the rectifying our appre- hensions of his nature, or making known to men their state and condition, or discovering the way whereby to avoid eternal misery. Now which is there of these three, which, supposing God to discover his mind to the world, it doth not highly become him to speak to men of ? 1. What is there which it doth more highly concern men to know, than God himself? Or what more glo- rious and excellent object could he discover than him- self to the world? There is nothing certainly, which should more commend the Scriptures to us, than that thereby we may grow more acquainted with God; that we may know more of his nature and all his per- fections, and many of the great reasons of his actings CHAP. Vi. IV. BOOK III. 222 ORIGINES SACRE. in the world. We may by them understand with safety what the eternal purposes of God were, as to the way of man’s recovery by the death of his Son; we may there see and understand the great wisdom of God, not only in the contrivance of the world, and or- dering of it, but in the gradual revelations of himself to his people; by what steps he trained up his Church till the fulness of teme was come; what his aim was in laying such a load of ceremonies on his people of the Jews; by what steps and degrees he made way for the full revelation of his will to the world, by speaking in these last days by his Son, after he had spoke at sun- dry times and in divers manners by the prophets, &c. unto the fathers. In the Scriptures we read the most rich and admirable discoveries of Divine goodness, and all the ways and methods he useth in alluring sinners to himself; with what majesty he commands, with what condescension he intreats, with what importunity he wooes men’s souls to be reconciled to him, with what favour he embraceth, with what tenderness he chastiseth, with what bowels he pitieth those who have chosen him to be their God! With what power he supporteth, with what wisdom he directeth, with what cordials he refresheth the souls of such who are de- jected under the sense of his displeasure, and yet their love is sincere towards him! With what profound hu- mility, what holy boldness, what becoming distance, and yet what restless importunity do we therein find the souls of God’s people addressing themselves to him in prayer! With what cheerfulness do they serve him, with what confidence do they trust him, with what resolution do they adhere to him in all straits and dif- ficulties, with what patience do they submit to his will in their greatest extremities! How fearful are they of sinning against God, how careful to please him; how ORIGINES SACRA. 223 regardless of suffering, when they must choose either GaRE. that or sinning ; how little apprehensive of men’s dis- pleasure, while they enjoy the favour of God! Now all these things, which are so fully and pathetically expressed in Scripture, do abundantly set forth to us the exuberancy and pleonasm of God’s grace and good- ness towards his people; which makes them delight so much in him, and be so sensible of his displeasure. But above all other discoveries of God’s goodness, his sending his Son into the world to die for sinners, is that which the Scripture sets forth with the greatest ‘life and eloquence. By eloquence I mean not an arti- ficial composure of words, but the gravity, weight, and persuasiveness of the matter contained in them. And what can tend more to melt our frozen hearts into a current of thankful obedience to God, than the vigor- ous reflection of the beams of God’s love through Jesus Christ upon us! Was there ever so great an ex- pression of love heard of! Nay, was it possible to be imagined that that God, who perfectly hates sin, should himself offer the pardon of it, and send his Son into the world to secure it to the sinner, who doth so heartily repent of his sins, as to deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Christ! Well might the apostle say, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of: Tim. i. all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world’* to save sinners. Wow dry and sapless are all the voluminous discourses of philosophers, compared with this sentence! How jejune and unsatisfactory are all the discoveries they had of God and his goodness, in comparison of what we have by the gospel of Christ! Well might Paul then say, That he determined to know 1 Cor. ii. 2. nothing but Christ, and him crucified. Christ cruct- Jied is the library which triumphant souls will be stu- dying in to all eternity. This is the only library which BOOK ILE: 224 ORIGINES SACRA. is the true ’larpeiy Wuyys, that which cures the soul of all its maladies and distempers. Other knowledge makes men’s minds giddy and flatulent; this settles and composes them. Other knowledge is apt to swell men into high conceits and opinions of themselves ; this brings them to the truest view of themselves, and thereby to humility and sobriety. Other knowledge leaves men’s hearts as it found them; this alters them, and makes them better. So transcendent an excellency is there in the knowledge of Christ crucified, above the sublimest speculations in the world! And is not this an inestimable benefit we enjoy by the Scripture, that therein we can read and converse with all these expressions of God’s love and goodness, and that in his own language? Shall we admire and praise what we meet with in heathen philosophers, which is generous and handsome; and shail we not adore the infinite fulness of the Scriptures, which run over with continued expressions of that and a higher nature? What folly is it to magnify those lean fine, the notions of philosophers, and contemn the fat, the plenty and fulness of the Scriptures! If there be not far more valuable and excellent discoveries of the Di- vine nature and perfections; if there be not far more excellent directions and rules of practice in the sacred Scriptures than in the sublimest of all the philosophers, then let us leave our full ears, and feed upon the thin. But certainly no sober and rational spirit, that puts any value upon the knowledge of God, but on the same account that he doth praise the discourses of any phi- losophers concerning God, he cannot but set a value of a far higher nature on the word of God. And as the goodness of God is thus discovered in Scripture, so is his justice and holiness. We have therein recorded the most remarkable judgments of God upon contumacious ORIGINES SACRA. 225 sinners, the severest denunciations of a judgment to come against all that live in sin, the exactest precepts of holiness in the world ; and what can be desired more to discover the holiness of God, than we find in Scrip- ture concerning him? If therefore acquaintance with the nature, perfections, designs of so excellent a Being as God is, be a thing desirable to human nature, we have the greatest cause to admire the excellency, and adore the fulness of the Scriptures, which give us so large, rational, and complete account of the being and attributes of God. And, which tends yet more to com- mend the Scriptures to us, those things which the Scripture doth most fully discover concerning God, do not at all contradict those prime and common notions which are in our natures concerning him, but do ex- ceedingly advance and improve them, and tend the most to regulate our conceptions and apprehensions of God, that we may not miscarry therein, as otherwise men are apt todo. For it being natural to men so far to love themselves, as to set the greatest value upon those ex- cellencies which they think themselves most masters of ; thence men came to be exceedingly mistaken in their > apprehensions of a Deity; some attributing one thing as a perfection, another a different thing, according to their humours and inclinations. Thus imperious, self- willed men are apt to cry up God’s absolute power and dominion as his greatest perfection; easy and soft- spirited men, his patience and goodness; severe and rigid men, his justice and severity: every one, accord- ing to his humour and temper, making his God of his own complexion ; and not only so, but in things remote enough from being perfections at all; yet because they are such things as they prize and value, they suppose of necessity they must be in God; as is evident in the Epicureans’ arapatia, by which they excluded Provi- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Q . CHAP. Vi. BOOK Il. 226 ORIGINES SACRA. dence, as hath been already observed. And withal, considering how very difficult it is for one who really believes that God is of a pure, just, and holy nature, and that he hath grievously offended him by his sins, to believe that this God will pardon him upon true re- pentance: it is thence necessary that God should make known himself to the world, to prevent our misconcep- tions of his nature, and to assure a suspicious, because guilty creature, how ready he is to pardon iniquity, transgression, and sin, to such as unfeignedly repent of their follies, and return unto himself. ‘Though the light of nature may dictate much to us of the benig- nity and goodness of the Divine nature, yet it is hard to 2 Cor vs 18, 19. conceive that that should discover further than God’s general goodness to such as please him: but no foun- dation can be gathered thence of his readiness to par- don offenders; which being an act of grace, must alone be discovered by his will. I cannot think the sun, moon, and stars, are such itinerant preachers, as to un- fold unto us the whole counsel and will of God, in re- ference to man’s acceptance with God upon repentance. It is not every star in the firmament can do that which the star once did to the wise men, lead them unto Christ. The sun in the heavens is no parhelius to the Sun of righteousness. The best astronomer will never find the day-star from on high in the rest of his num- ber. What St. Austin said of Tully’s works is true of the whole volume of the creation; There are admirable things to be found in them: but the name of Christ is not legible there. The work of redemption is not en- graven on the works of Providence; if it had, a parti- cular Divine revelation had been unnecessary, and the Apostles were sent on a needless errand, which the world had understood without their. preaching, viz. That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto ORIGINES SACRA. Q27 himself, not imputing to men their trespasses; and CHAY. hath committed to them the ministry of reconciliation. How was the word of reconciliation committed to them, if it were common to them with the whole frame of the world ? And the Apostle’s quaere elsewhere might have been easily answered, How can men hear with-Rom.x. 4. out a preacher? For then they might have known the way of salvation, without any special messengers sent to deliver it unto them. I grant that God’s long- suffering and patience is intended to lead men to re- pentance ; and that some general collections might be made from Providence of the placability of God’s na- ture, and that God never left himself without a wit- detsxiv.r4. ness of his goodness in the world, being kind to the PEG. unthankful, and doing good, in giving rain and frut- ful seasons. But though these things might sufficient- ly discover to such who were apprehensive of the guilt of sin, that God did not act according to his greatest severity, and thereby did give men encouragement to hearken out and inquire after the true way of being reconciled to God, yet all this amounts not to a firm foundation for faith as to the remission of sin, which doth suppose God himself publishing an act of grace and indemnity to the world; wherein he assures the pardon of sin to such as truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel. Now is not this an inestima- ble advantage we enjoy by the Scriptures, that therein we understand what God himself hath discovered of his own nature and perfections, and of his readiness to pardon sin upon those gracious terms of faith and re- pentance, and that which necessarily follows from these two, hearty and sincere obedience ? 2. The Scripture gives the most faithful represent- V1. ation of the state and condition of the soul of man. The world was almost lost in disputes concerning the Q 2 — 228 ORIGINES SACRA. Book nature, condition, and immortality of the soul, before II. Divine revelation was made known to mankind by the gospel of Christ; but life and immortality was brought to light by the gospel, and the future state of the soul of man, not discovered in an uncertain Plato- nical way, but with the greatest light and evidence from that God who hath the supreme disposal of souls, and therefore best knows and understands them. The Scriptures plainly and fully reveal a judgment to come, in which God will judge the secrets of all hearts, when every one must give an account of himself unto God ; and God will call men to give an account of their stew- ardship here, of all the receipts they have had from him, and the expenses they have been at, and the im- provements they have made of the talents he put into their hands. So that the gospel of Christ is the fullest instrument of discovery of the certainty of the future state of the soul, and the conditions which abide it, upon its being dislodged from the body. But this is not all which the Scripture discovers as to the state of the soul: for it is not only a prospective glass, reach- ing to its future state, but it is the most faithful look- ing-glass, to discover all the spots and deformities of the soul; and not only shews where they are, but whence they came, what their nature is, and whither they tend. ‘The true original of all that disorder and dis- composure which is in the soul of man, is only fully and satisfactorily given us in the word of God, as hath been already proved. The nature and working of this corruption in man had never been so clearly manifested, had not the law and will of God been discovered to the world: that is the glass whereby we see the secret workings of those bees in our hearts, the corruptions of our natures; that sets forth the folly of our imagina- tions, the unruliness of our passions, the distempers of ORIGINES SACRA. Q29 our wills, and the abundant deceitfulness of our hearts. And it is hard for the most elephantine sinner (one of the greatest magnitude) so to trouble these waters, as not therein to discover the greatness of his own deform- ities. But that which tends most to awaken the drowsy, senseless spirits of men, the Scripture doth most fully describe the tendency of corruption, that the wages of sin is death, and the issue of continuance in sin will be the everlasting misery of the soul, in a perpetual separation from the presence of God, and un- dergoing the lashes and severities of conscience to all eternity. What a great discovery is this of the faith- fulness of God to the world, that he suffers not men to undo themselves, without letting them know of it be- forehand, that they might avoid it! God seeks not to entrap men’s souls, nor doth he rejoice in the misery and ruin of his creatures; but fully declares to them what the consequence and issue of their sinful practices will be; assures them of a judgment to come; declares his own future severity against contumacious sinners, that they might not think themselves surprised; and that if they had known there had been so great danger in sin, they would never have been such fools as, for the sake of it, to run into eternal misery. Now God, to prevent this, with the greatest plainness and faithfulness hath shewed men the nature and danger of all their sins, and asks them beforehand what they will do in the end thereof; whether they are able to bear his wrath, and wrestle with everlasting burnings? If not, he bids them bethink themselves of what they have done already, and repent, and amend their lives, lest inequity prove their ruin, and destruction overtake them, and that without remedy. Now if men have cause to prize and value a faithful monitor, one that tenders their good, and would prevent their ruin, we have cause exceedingly to prize Q 3 CHAP. Vi. BOOK IIT. VII. 230 ORIGINES SACRA. and value the Scriptures, which give us the truest re- presentation of the state and condition of our souls. 3. The scripture discovers to us the only way of pleasing God, and enjoying his favour. That clearly reveals the way (which man might have sought for to all eternity without particular revelation) whereby sins may be pardoned, aud whatever we do may be accept- able unto God. It shews us that the ground of our ac- ceptance with God is through Christ, whom he hath made a propitiation for the sins of the world, and who alone is the true and living way, whereby we may draw near to God with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science. Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will shew favour and grace to the world; and by him we have ground of a aapsyciz, access with JSreedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, re- sist temptations, conquer the Devil and the world, but, having fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well-doing, we may justly look for glory, honour, and immortality, and that crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who watt in faith, holiness, and humility, for the appear- ance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves, the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery, and enjoy everlasting bliss? The Scriptures discover not only matters of import- ance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God; things we may admire, but are never able to compre- hend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the ORIGINES SACRA. 231 Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spi- rit of God on the souls of men; which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason as to the particular manner of them. What certain ground our faith stands on as to these things hath been already shewed, and therefore I forbear in- sisting on them. The Scripture comprehends matters of the most uni- versal satisfaction to the minds of men; though many things do much exceed our apprehensions, yet others are most suitable to the dictates of our nature. As Origen bids Celsus see, Ei wy ta rips Tlorews Nay, Tals Kolvais evvotars apy ner cuvaryopetovrar, petatiOnos TOVS EvyVO[KLO~ vos axobarras tév Acyanévor, Whether it was not the agree- ableness of the principles of faith with the common notions of human nature, which prevailed most upon all candid and ingenuous auditors of them. And there- fore as Socrates said of Heraclitus’s books, what he understood was excellent; and therefore he supposed that which he did not understand was so too: so ought we to say of the Scriptures, if those things which are within our capacity be so suitable to our natures and reasons, those cannot contradict our reason which yet are above them. There are many things which the minds of men were sufficiently assured that they were, yet were to seek for satisfaction concerning them, which they could never have had without Divine reve- lation. As the nature of true happiness, wherein it lay, and how to be obtained, which the philosophers were so puzzled with, the Scripture gives us full satis- faction concerning it. True contentment under the troubles of life, which the Scripture only acquaints us with the true grounds of, and all the prescriptions of heathen moralists fall as much short of, as the direc- Q 4 CHAP. VI. Bilis ca 8: sect. 5, 6, 7- 3° Orig. cont. > -Cels: iit. p- 135. ed. Spencer. BOOK HT. VIll. 232 ORIGINES SACRAE. tions of an empiric do of a wise and skilful physician. Avoiding the fears of death, which can alone be through a grounded expectation of a state of happiness which death leads men to, which cannot be had but through the right understanding of the word of God. Thus we see the excellency of the matters themselves contained in this revelation of the mind of God to the world. As the matters themselves are of an excellent nature, so is the manner wherein they are revealed in the Scrip- tures; and that, : 1. In a clear and perspicuous manner: not but there may be still some passages which are hard to be understood, as being either prophetical, or consisting of ambiguous phrases, or containing matters above our comprehension: but all those things which concern the terms of man’s salvation, are delivered with the great- est evidence and perspicuity. Who cannot understand what these things mean, What doth the Lord re- quire of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? that without Jaith vé is impossible to please God ; that wethout holiness none shall see the Lord; that unless we be born again, we can never enter into the kingdom of heaven. These and such like things are so plain and clear, that it is nothing but men’s shutting their eyes against the light can keep them from understanding them. God intended these things as directions to men; and is not he able to speak intelligibly when he pleases? He that made the tongue, shall he not speak so as to be understood without an infallible interpreter ; especially when it is his design to make known to men the terms of their eternal happiness? Will God Judge men at the great day for not believing those things which they could not un- derstand ? Strange, that ever men should judge the Scriptures obscure in matters necessary, when the ORIGINES SACRA. 238 Scripture accounts it so great a judgment for men not CHAP. to understand them! If our gospel be hid, it is hid to ——— them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath a av blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them. Sure Lot’s door was visible enough, if it were a judgment for the men of Sodom not to see it; and the Scriptures then are plain and intelligible enough, if it be so great a judgment not to understand them. 2. In a powerful and authoritative manner; as the things contained in Scripture do not so much beg acceptance as command it; in that the expressions wherein our duty is concerned are such as awe men’s consciences, and pierce to their hearts and to their se- cret thoughts. All things are open and naked before web. iv. this word of God; every secret of the mind, and thought’? ** of the heart, lies open to its stroke and force: tt ts quick and powerful, sharper than a twoedged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The word is a telescope to discover the great luminaries of the world, the truths of highest concernment to the souls of men; and it is such a microscope as discovers to us the smallest atom of our thoughts, and discerns the most secret intent of the heart: and, as far as this light reacheth, it comes with power and authority, as 1t comes armed with the majesty of that God who reveals it, whose authority extends over the soul and conscience of man in its most secret and hidden recesses. 3. In a pure and unmixed manner. In all other writings, how good soever, we see a great mixture of dross and gold together ; here is nothing but pure gold, diamonds without flaws, suns without spots. ‘The most current coins of the world have their alloys of baser BOOK Ifl. 2 Tim. i. 13: IX. Quint. 1. i. c. 6. ed. Oxon. 234 ORIGINES SACRA. metals; there is no such mixture in Divine truths; as they all come from the same author, so they all have the same purity. There is a Urim and Thummim upon the whole Scripture; light and perfection in every part of it. In the philosophers we may meet, it may be, with some scattered fragments of purer metal, amidst abundance of dross and impure ore: here we have whole wedges of gold, the same vein of purity and holiness running through the whole book of Scriptures. Hence it is called the form of sound words ; here have been no hucksters to corrupt and mix their own inventions with Divine truths. 4. In an uniform and agreeable manner. This I grant is not sufficient of itself to prove the Scriptures to be Divine, because all men do not contradict them- selves in their writings: but yet there are some pecu- liar circumstances to be considered in the agreeableness of the parts of Scripture to each other, which are not to be found in mere human writings. 1. That this doctrine was delivered by persons who lived in differ- ent ages and times from each other. Usually one age corrects another’s faults; and we are apt to pity the ignorance of our predecessors, when it may be our pos- terity may think us as ignorant as we do them. But in the sacred Scripture we read not one age condemning another; we find light still increasing in the series of times in Scripture, but no reflections in any time upon the ignorance or weakness of the precedent; the dim- mest light was sufficient for its age, and was a step to further discovery. Quintilian gives it as the reason of the great uncertainty of grammar rules, Quia non ana- logia dimissa ccelo formam loquendi dedit: that which he wanted as to grammar, we have as to Divine truths : they are delivered from heaven, and therefore are al- ways uniform and agreeable to each other. ORIGINES SACRAL. 235 2. By persons of different interests in the world. CHAP. | God made choice of men of all ranks to be inditers of his oracles, to make it appear it was no matter of state- policy or particular interest, which was contained in his word, which persons of such different interests could not have agreed in as they do. We have Moses, David, Solomon, persons of royal rank and quality; and can it be any mean thing which these think it their glory to be penners of? We have Isaiah, Daniel, and other persons of the highest educa- tion and accomplishments; and can it be any trivial thing which these employ themselves in? We have Amos, and other prophets in the Old Testament, and the Apostles in the New, of the meaner sort of men in the world; yet all these join in consort together: when God tunes the spirits, all agree in the same strain of Divine truths, and give light and harmony to each other. 3. By persons in different places and conditions ; some in prosperity in their own country, some under banishment and adversity, yet all agreeing in the same substance of doctrine; of which no alteration we see was made either for the flattery of those in power, or for avoiding miseries and calamities. And under all the different dispensations before, under and after the law, though the management of things was different, yet the doctrine and design was for substance the same in all. All the different dispensations agree in the same common principles of religion; the same ground of acceptance with God, and obligation to duty, was common to all; though the peculiar instances wherein God was served might be different, according to the ages of growth in the church of God. So that this great uniformity, considered in these circumstances, 1S an argument that these things came originally from the 236 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK same spirit, though conveyed through different instru- ‘is ments to the knowledge of the world. 5. In a persuasive and convincing manner; and that these ways. 1. Bringing Divine truths down to our capacity, clothing spiritual matter in familiar expressions and similitudes, that so they might have the easier admission into our minds. 2. Propounding things as our interest, which are our duty; thence God so frequently in Scripture recommends our duties to us under all those motives which are wont to have the greatest force on the minds of men, and annexeth gracious promises to our performance of them; and those of the most weighty and concerning things. Of grace, favour, protection, deliverance, audience of prayers, and eternal happiness: and if these will not prevail with men, what motives will? 3. Courting us to obedience, when he might not only command us to obey, but punish presently for disobedience. Hence are all those most pathetical and affectionate strains Deut. v.29. we read in Scripture. O that there was such a heart within them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might so well with them, Renae and with their children after them! Woe unto thee, itr. O Jerusalem! wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be? Turn ye, turn ye from your evil Hos. xi. 8. ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. Matth. xx. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have "37 gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! What majesty, and yet what sweetness and condescension is there in these expressions! What obstinacy and rebel- ORIGINES SACRA. 237 lion is it in men for them to stand out against God, cHAp. when he thus comes down from his throne of majesty, von and wooes rebellious sinners to return unto him, that they may be pardoned! Such a matchless and un- paralleled strain of rhetoric is there in the Scripture, far above the art and insinuations of the most admired orators. Thus we see the peculiar excellency of the manner wherein the matters contained in Scripture are revealed to us: thus we have considered the excellency of the Scripture, as it is a discovery of God’s mind to the world. The Scriptures may be considered as a rule of life, *. or as a law of God, which is given for the government of the lives of men; and therein the excellency of it lies, in the nature of the duties, and the encouragements to the practice of them. 1. In the nature of the duties required, which are most becoming God to require, most reasonable for us to perform. 1. Most becoming God to require, as they are most suitable and agreeable to the Divine nature ; the imi- tation of which, in our actions, is the substance of our religion. Imitation of him in his goodness and holi- ness, by our constant endeavours of mortifying sin, and growing in grace and piety; in his grace and mercy, by our kindness to all men, forgiving the injuries men do unto us, doing good to our greatest enemies; in his justice and equity, by doing as we would be done by, and keeping a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men. The first takes in the duties of the first, the other the duties of the second table. All acts of piety towards God are a part of justice; for, as Tully saith, Quid aliud est pietas, nist justitia adver- Cicero de sus Deos? And so our loving God with our whole Si. ge" hearts, our entire and sincere obedience to his will, is n 238 ORIGINES SACR., BOOK a part of natural justice; for thereby we do but render ____unto God that which is his due from us as we are his creatures. We see then the whole duty of man, the fearing God, and keeping his commandments, is as necessary a part of justice as the rendering to every man his own is. é 2. They are most reasonable for us to perform, in that, 1. Religion is not only a service of the reason- able faculties, which are employed the most in it, the commands of the Scripture reaching the heart most, and the service required being a spiritual service; not lying in meats and drinks, or any outward observ- ations, but in a sanctified temper of heart and mind, which discovers itself in the course of a Christian’s life ; but, 2. The service itself of religion is reasonable; the commands of the gospel are such as no man’s reason — which considers them can doubt of the excellency of them. All natural worship is founded on the dictates of nature, all instituted worship on God’s revealed will; and it is one of the prime dictates of nature, that God must be universally obeyed. Besides, God requires nothing but what is apparently man’s interest to do ; God prohibits nothing but what will destroy him if he doth it; so that the commands of the Scriptures are very just and reasonable. 2. The encouragements are more than proportion- able to the difficulty of obedience. God’s commands are in themselves easy, and most suitable to our na- tures. What more rational for a creature, than to obey his Maker? All the difficulty of religion ariseth from the corruption of nature. Now God, to en- courage men to conquer the difficulties arising thence, hath propounded the strongest motives and most pre- vailing arguments to obedience. Such are the con- siderations of God’s love and goodness manifested to ORIGINES SACRA. 239 the world, by sending his Son into it to die for sin- ners, and to give them an example which they are to follow, and by his readiness, through him, to pardon the sins, and accept the persons of such who so re- ceive him as to walk in him; and by his promises of grace to assist them in the wrestling with the enemies of their salvation. And to all these add that glorious and unconceivable reward which God hath promised to all those who sincerely obey him; and by these things we see how much the encouragements over- weigh the difficulties, and that none can make the least pretence that there is not motive sufficient to down-weigh the troubles which attend the exercise of obedience to the will of God. Thus we see what a peculiar excellency there is in the Scriptures as a rule of life, above all the precepts of mere moralists; the foundation of obedience being laid deeper in man’s obligation to serve his Maker, the practice of obe- dience being carried higher in those most holy pre- cepts which are in Scripture, the reward of obedience being incomparably greater than what men are able to conceive, much less to promise or bestow. The excellency of the Scriptures appears, as they contain in them a covenant of grace, or the transac- tions between God and man, in order to his eternal happiness. The more memorable any transactions are, the more valuable are any authentic records of them. The Scriptures contain in them the Magna Charta of Heaven, an act of pardon with the royal assent of Heaven, a proclamation of good-will from God towards men; and can we then set too great a value on that which contains all the remarkable passages between God and the souls of men, in order to their felicity, from the beginning of the world? Can we think, since there is a God in the world of infinite goodness, CHAP. VI. BOOK lI. 240 ORIGINES SACRA. that he should suffer all mankind to perish inevitably, without his propounding any means for escaping of eternal misery? Is God so good to men as to this present life; and can we think, if man’s soul be immortal, as we have proved it is, that he should wholly neglect any offer of good to men as to their eter- nal welfare? Or is it possible to imagine that man should be happy in another world without God’s promising it, and prescribing conditions in order to it? If so, then this happiness is no free gift of God, unless he hath the bestowing and promising of it; and man is no rational agent, unless a reward sup- pose conditions to be performed in order to the ob- taining it; or man may be bound to conditions which were never required of him; or if they must be required, then there must be a revelation of God’s will, whereby he doth require them: and if so, then there are some records extant of the transactions between God and man, in order to his eternal happi- ness. For what reason can we have to imagine that such records, if once extant, should not continue still; especially since the same goodness of God is engaged to preserve such records, which at first did cause them to be indited? Supposing then such records extant somewhere in the world of these grand transactions between God and men’s souls, our business is brought to a period; for what other re- cords are there in the world that can in the least vie with the Scriptures, as to the giving so just an account of all the transactions between God and men from the foundation of the world? Which gives us all the steps, methods, and ways, whereby God hath made known his mind and will to the world, in order to man’s eternal salvation. It re- mains only then that we adore and magnify the good- ORIGINES SACRA. 24) ness of God in making known his will to us, and that cHap. we set a value and esteem on the Scriptures, as on the Mts only authentic instruments of that grand charter of peace which God hath revealed in order to man’s eter- nal happiness. STILLINGFLEET, VOE. ITI. | ane a in dee AS son HO ween | | ayia pale: gigs % ck erat Dyce Feigi sai , i * ‘ z > Me ae wha s ‘ h ” Ya ; - : Ps a 4 ibis, 3d " Ls ' ” ey wa 2 we y A : nie bv . boi, | a ) " Pa a . o al | p J 1 a iu . \ “ - : Pate i ere . . ; + } 4 2 a z \ ee - a ¢ 7 ¢ 4 ii a - cay Aue cs ei , - be i 44, ’ 4 Rs af eh, % ya i my lh : aI + J A BB ioe , F a Piya? ia Bee POS =) i” "amen hy iit a #17; j Pr, ~~ J ‘ee < hag aya POE BS ye 4 oN Pets sree er aT eee ae Cp Ound GEN: Bas Ay OURy As: RATIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE GROUNDS OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION: WHEREIN THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGION, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, ARE ASSERTED AND CLEARED. WITH AN ANSWER TO THE MODERN OBJECTIONS OF ATHEISTS AND DEISTS. IN FIVE BOOKS. R 2 4 ¢ 4 ’ (ASTOR are 0 HOVER FH ‘ I a oer ay SAOPE AD Petit x eee ee ia v7 * ¥ i iy the ie a 15 AI OE ED Se FE RE FP: ro Fo EN AS Sl SNR i UR lett - oleh a to a iene ay bey se ale rite He: ates a THE CONTENTS. BOOK I. Of the Grounds of Natural and Revealed Religion. II. Of the Credibility of the Scriptures compared with other Accounts. III. Of the Authority of the Writings of Moses, and the Matters contained therein. IV. Of the Authority of the Prophetical Writings, and other Books of the Old Testament. V. Of the Authority of the Writings of the New Testament, and the Matters therein contained. CONTENTS OF BOOK I. A general Discourse in Vindication of the Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion ; with an Answer to the Objections of Atheists and Deists. CHAP... I. The general Prejudices against Religion in our Age examined, and the old atheistical Hypotheses considered. GHA:P= II. The modern atheistical Hypotheses examined, and the Unreason- ableness of them shewed. CIA Pris The Reasonableness of Revealed Religion superadded to Natural ; with an Answer to the most specious arguments against Revela- tion. CHAP. IV. General Considerations about the Divine Revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures ; as to Antiquity, Integrity, Consistence, and Manner of Writing. R 3 246 CONTENTS. CONTENTS OF CHAP. I. BOOK I. The atheistical Pretences of this Age considered and answered. An Inquiry into the atheistical Pretences of this Age. The first, that it is a Contrivance of Politicians. The Falsehood of that shewed, from the first History of Religion in Egypt. In Pheenicia. In Greece. Diodorus Siculus’s Account of the Beginning of Religion examined. The Absurdity of his opinion about the Production of Animals at large, made out. The several Hypotheses of Democritus, and Anaximander, and Epicurus, about the Production of Mankind, shewed to be very unreasonable. The Opinion of the Ancient Philosophers, about the World’s being made by Chance or Providence, examined and compared; and the Foundations of Natural Religion asserted by the best of them. The second Pretence, that Religion is owing to Men’s Ignorance and superstitious Fear, examined. The third, that there are whole Nations without any sense of God or Religion, inquired into, and refuted by particular observations. CHAP. II. The modern atheistical Hypotheses examined, and the Unreason- ableness of them shewed. es + * * * * * * c a he ct ee ee - ee ee ee eee ee oa ee ee ee oe ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK I. DISCOURSE I. CHAP. I. The general Prejudices against Religion in our Age exa- mined; and the old athetistical Hypotheses considered. BerroreE I come to the particular vindication of the CHAP. I. truth and authority of the holy Scriptures, which is my ———— chief design, it will be necessary to remove, if possible, the common and general prejudices against religion in this age; as if it were only a cunning artifice of some crafty persons to support their own interest by deceiving the rest of mankind. If this were the truth of the case, none ought to be blamed for their contempt of religion, nor for their endeavours to set the minds of men free from the uneasiness and slavery of a superstitious and groundless fear; for this must be all that is implied in religion, if it were at first begun, and is still carried on by the craft of some men, and the folly of the rest. But such an imputation as this ought to be very well grounded, because it reflects on all mankind, (a very few excepted,) and ought in common justice to be proved by the most clear and convincing evidence; because no men have any reason to presume so far upon their own wit and capacity above all others, as to take it for granted R 4 BOOK if 248 ORIGINES SACRA. that the rest of mankind are either fools or knaves. For this is the meaning of those who go about to persuade others that religion is nothing but an imposture, that hath appeared under several shapes and disguises; but still the machine is the same, and the same design car- ried on by the different actors, according to the humour and inclination of several ages. I could be glad that all this might justly be looked on as a feigned case, only for a better introduction to the following discourses; but none that live in our age, and understand the too great prevalency of scepticism and infidelity in it, can apprehend it to be so; and there- fore I shall Jay down the true state of the present case, with respect to religion in general. It cannot be de- nied, by the greatest enemies to it, that there is still a general belief of the truth of it among mankind, how- ever they differ in their particular notions about it. For this cannot be looked on as a new thing, or an in- vention of the present age, since it is manifest, by the undoubted history of former times, that the same foun- dations of religion have been generally received by man- kind; by which I understand the being of God and Providence, and the rewards and punishments of a fu- ture state; but yet not so, but that there have been in several ages such as have gone about to unsettle men’s minds about them, and to represent them as an inven- tion of politicians, to keep the world in greater awe. But they have not met with such success as they ex- pected in their discoveries, for they have been opposed by the wisest and most thoughtful men in the several ages they appeared in; and the generality of mankind continued in the same belief which they had before. And yet they had then the same inclinations to ease and pleasure as they now have, and would have been as willing to be rid of the terrible apprehensions of a = oe ee ORIGINES SACRA. 249 God and another world; they had the same value and CHAP. esteem for themselves and their own interests, and hated all such as designed to cheat them; they fell into warm disputes and violent heats about some par- ticular parts and modes of religion, which are apt to make them call all the rest into question. Yet under all these disadvantages, the foundations of religion have been preserved among them; and mankind cannot be brought to look on them as an imposture. But those who think so are forced in great measure to conceal their thoughts, and to put on disguises to the world, that they may appear to be of another mind than really they are. Whence then comes it to pass, that those who are averse to the practice of religion, yet cannot be brought to shake off the principles of it? that those who are otherwise so fond of their own ease and interest, should abhor those atheistical principles, which are said to be very much for the advantage of both? that those nations which have had no communication with each other, and differ so much from one another in languages, cus- toms, and modes of religion, yet agree in the same com- mon sense of God, and a future state ? It is a ridiculous thing for any to pretend to make our religion to be an imposture, unless they can first give a just and satisfactory account of these things. All that I can meet with to that purpose may be re- duced to these three heads; which contain the great atheistical pretences of this age. I. That the notions of religion were first started among rude and barbarous people by politicians, to keep the people in better awe; and that the priests found it their interest to support them, because they were supported by them. II. That there are some pant qualities n man- 250 ORIGINES SACRE. fo kind, which, joined with their ignorance and fear, tend to preserve that seed of religion which is in man, and no other living creature. III. That the consent of mankind is not so great as is pretended; there being several nations now known, by the late discoveries, which have no sense or notion of God, or a future state. These are the things which I shall now make it my business to inquire into, and thereby shew the vanity and folly of these general prejudices against religion. I begin with the first, That religion was first in- vented and carried on by politicians and priests, who aimed only at keeping the world in better awe, and themselves in a better condition. This hath been sug- gested by atheistical persons in all ages, where they have dared to appear, and was thought the most plaus- ible artifice to draw in the people to their party; for no men love to be imposed upon, especially in what concerns their ease and interest; but they were not able to make out the persons, times, or places, when the notions of religion were first spread among man- kind. For they could never produce any instances of persons, who designed to impose upon mankind in mat- | ters of religion, but they found the general principles of religion were entertained-among them before; as will appear by the following examples of the Egyptians and Greeks, which are most insisted upon. | Eee The Egyptians are said by Lucian to have been the Herodot, first who set up religious worship; and Herodotus te: seems to be of the same opinion. Plutarch saith it was Plutrcah.de oo Isid. et one by Osiris ; and Diodorus Siculus saith, 74 was di- — Osiride. ope 8 Diod. Sic, TeCled by Hermes, who was a great politician, and we chief counsellor to Osiris. But all that Diodorus saith is, that he brought the honours and services of the gods into order; which supposes that there was religion ~ cael le . 7a host Ot i eo \ ORIGINES SACRA. 251 among them before, but he methodized it. And if we CHAP. believe Sanchoniathon, who makes him first counsellor ——__—. to Cronus, father to Misor or Osiris, he began the sym- arr bolical images of the gods, which caused such confu-“ '? sion in their worship afterwards. Diodorus saith, that Plutarch. de Osiris built Thebes or Diospolis; where there was ee a temple to the immortal God that made the world, as appears by the testimonies both of Plutarch and Por- phyry. And the former observes, that the most ancient, Er and universal, and most credible tradition, both of law-c. 1s. givers and others, philosophers, as well as poets iL eee divines, was, that the world was not made by chance, °° without a mind and reason to order and govern tt. From whence it follows, that, before such politicians took upon them to order matters of religion, there was a generally received tradition of a Divine Being which made and governed the world, and was the true foun- dation on which religious worship was built. And the same Plutarch in that discourse affirms it to be an am- pious and atheistical opinion to attribute the name of God to insensible matter; and adds, that there is one universal reason which governs the world, Ammi- Ammian. anus Marcellinus saith, that the first beginnings of reli- % pee gion were in Egypt, long before they were in other parts. Here therefore we must search out for the first laying this design by politicians; and here we find it fixed upon Hermes Trismegistus, who, by the accounts given of him, was a very great man, and that in the beginning of the Egyptian monarchy. Philo Byblius saith, he was called by the Egyptians Thoth; by the Pheenicians, Taautus; by the Greeks, Hermes. He flourished, he saith, with great reputation for wisdom guseb. Pr. among the Phoenicians ; who, it seems, at that time E ag ‘ Fe were under the government of Cronus, father to Osiris, er a (or Misor, as they called him, from Misraim, the son BOOK Euseb. Pr. Biv. lei. 252 ORIGINES SACRA. of Ham, who first peopled those countries.) And so far there is nothing improbable in the story; for the same person, being of an extraordinary capacity, might be in favour both with Cronus in Phoenicia, and with Osiris afterwards in Egypt. But he goeth on, and saith, TIpdros ta Kata tTyy OeocéBesav ex THs TO dalwv amesol c.10.p.4o. LIp@ros ta Kata tTyv Oe EK TYS THY YUdalwy amErpias, ed. Par... Euseb. Pr. Duel hae ed. Par. cis emiotymouxyy eumepiay diératev: that Taautus was the - Jirst who took the matters of religious worship out of the hands of unskilful men, and brought them into due method and order. So that we find plainly there was religion among the people before; but this wise politi- cian thought he could manage it better, if he appointed the rites of public worship so as to be most serviceable to government. And for that end he set up the wor- ship of princes after thei? death, (especially of Osiris, after his being cut in pieces by his brother,) and joined their names with those of the stars, as visible deities ; and of some animals, as so many living images of their gods. And herein, as far as we can find, lay the poli- tic invention of Hermes Trismegistus ; not in the first planting the principles of religion, but in turning them that way as he thought would serve best to the ends of government, by raising a high veneration for deceased monarchs, and deifying such things as they thought most useful to mankind. This was indeed playing the politician with religion. But that there was a sense of religion before among the people, not only appears by the former saying of Philo Byblius, but by another in his Proem to Sanchoniathon, where he saith, That the Pheenicians and Egyptians agreed (from whom other nations took it up) to worship those as their chief gods, which were most useful to mankind ; Kah es 1d ypedv KATATTOVTAS vHOUS PETATKEVATELEVOL : and to this purpose they turned the temples already standing, and erected pillars and statues to their memories, and made fes- eee ae ORIGINES SACRA. 253 tivals to them. From whence it appears that there CHAP. were rites of public worship among them before, but ‘ that Hermes caused them to be employed this way ; joining the worship of the stars and their kings to- gether. But there are two very different accounts concern- ing that religion which was first settled by Hermes in Egypt. The one is of those who believe there are some remainders of the old Egyptian doctrine in the Trismegistic books, though with many additions and interpolations: and their opinion is, that, under all the popular disguises and superstitious ceremonies for amusing the common people, he did cover the true prin- ciples of natural religion, asserting the being and pro- vidence of God, and the immortality of souls. And for this they produce not only divers passages in those books of Hermes, which were known in the Egyptian times, while their priests were yet in being to have contradicted them, if they had published falsehoods under so great a name, but from the testimonies of Plutarch and Iamblichus, which cannot be suspected 5: to which the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato, who sojourned so long among the Egyptian priests to learn their doctrine, may be added. But it is not pretended, that in those times this was the common and professed religion among the people; but that it was kept up as a secret, not to be communicated but only to such who were prepared for it. According to this opinion, the design of Hermes was not to establish any true religion among the people, but to entertain them with pomp, and sacrifices, and ceremonies; and (as some in Piu- plutarch. : is le Isid. tarch and Diodorus think) to keep up a difference Ogir. ¢. des among them about the sacred animals, to secure them Eins from an universal conspiracy against the monarchy.!.'- But if the true notions of God and Providence, and an- BOOK u Euseb. Prep. Ey. 1.14. 0. ed. Par. 254 ORIGINES SACRAL. other world, were preserved among the priests, especially at Diospolis, or the famous Thebes, where the chief of their residence was, then it appears that these were not scattered among the common people by priests and po- 1 ticians, but were kept secret, as not so fit for their ca- pacities; which would go no further than visible deities, and a pompous worship: so that the true principles of religion were not sowed by them to serve their ends, but the corruptions of it, in order to the pleasing and entertaining the senses and devotions of the common people, who they knew were most affected with what was most agreeable to their superstitious fancies. And there was much more of policy than religion, in keep- ing the best parts of it from the knowledge of the peo- ple; but the politicians knew very well those would not serve their turn so well. as the fopperies of their superstition. But there is another opinion which depends most upon the credit of Philo Byblius, who lived about Ha- drian’s time. This man, being learned, had a mind to make some noise in the world with the antiquities of his own country (for Byblus was a Pheenician town). He found the Jewish antiquities asserted by Josephus and others, and the Egyptian by Apion; and now he thought was a fit time to vie with them both. To that end he produces nine books of the Phoenician antiqui- ties, written, as he pretended, long since by Sanchoni- athon, and translated by him into Greek; which he pretends to have found after a most diligent search anto the Phoenician monuments. And to make it ap- pear how credible this account of Sanchoniathon was, he saith, fe took it out of the records of cities, and the monuments of temples, which were kept up in the sacred Ammonian letters. Aud this man is very much commended by Porphyry writing against the Christians, ORIGINES SACRA. Q85 for his antiquity and veracity. What ground there is cHap. for these pretences, may be examined afterwards: [ ———_— am now only to consider the scheme of religion, which ue a is produced with so much pomp: and yet the author of it, whoever he was, was neither divine, philosopher, nor politician; for it is one of the rankest and most insipid pieces of atheism that is to be found in anti- quity. And Porphyry could not but detest it, unless he had produced it in spite to the Christians; for he doth on all occasions declare not only his belief of God and Providence, but that he was the maker of the world, as Holstenius hath made it appear in his life, cap. 9, and it is well known that he was a professed Platonist. But let us now see what an account we have from this Phoenician scheme, about the making of the world. ** At first there was a dark, confused, restless chaos, Euseb. “which was agitated for a long time, and nothing Seah at “came of it. At length a mixture happened, and this °* *" “ was the first principle of making the universe ;. but “it was ignorant of its own making. From this mix- “‘ ture came J/0/, or a slimy kind of substance, out of “‘ which issued the generation of all things. There ** were some animals which had no sense; out of which * came those which had understanding, and were called “ Zophasemin, i. e. beholders of the heavens; and “were made in the figure of an egg: and the Mot “ shined forth, and the sun and moon and great stars “appeared. But it‘seems those living creatures were “ fast asleep, till they were awaked by dreadful thun- “ders, and then they began to bestir themselves.” This is the short account of this matter, which depends not, we are told, on Sanchoniathon’s authority ; but he took it out of the records of Taautus himself: And so we have the original of the world according to this ancient Hermes. And if this were his true doctrine, it BOOK i Cicero de Nat. Deor. J. iii. c. 16. 256 ORIGINES SACRE. is one of the most absurd and senseless pieces of athe- ism, and tends directly to overthrow all religion in the world. For can any thing do it more effectually, than to suppose that there was nothing originally in the world but stupid matter, which by its own motion, without a God to give and direct it, should produce the heavens and earth, and all living creatures; and that senseless creatures should beget those that had understanding ; and these not capable of acting till they were thoroughly awaked by cracks of thunder? Can we imagine this Taautus to have been any deep philosopher or politi- cian, by setting down such extravagant and unreason- able suppositions as these? But let us see how it was possible for him to advance any thing like religion upon these grounds: he must be a politician indeed that could do it. The first men, he saith, consecrated the fruits of the earth, by which they lived, and worshipped them, and made oblations to them. This was a very notable beginning of religion, according to this admir- able politician, for mankind to worship what they de- voured. But Cotta in Cicero thought xo man could be so mad to worship what he did eat. Ecquem tam a- mentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, credat Deum esse? But he saith, That these notions of wor- ship were suitable to their weakness and pusilianimity. This doth not give any account how they came to have any notions of Divine worship at all. What was there in the plants, which made them give such reverence and devotion to them? They saw how they grew out of the earth, and had no power to help themselves, when they made use of them for food. And how was it possible then to give Divine worship to them, which must suppose power at least in what is worshipped ? Or else it is a most ridiculous folly in mankind to stoop to things so much below them. Now this ori- ORIGINES SACRE. 257 ginal inclination to give Divine worship to something CHAP. or other, is that which argues that there is that which —— some call a natural seed of religion in human nature, and must come from some antecedent cause, since there could be nothing in these objects of worship which should move them to it, if it had been so, as Sanchonia- thon represents it, from the ancient records of Ta- autus. The two first mortals, he saith, were Avon and Pro- ruseb. togonus ; and their children were Genus and Genea,\"*? © who inhabited Pheenicia; and when they were scorched with the heat, they lift up their hands to the sun, whom they believed to be the Lord of heaven, and called him Beelsamen ; the same, saith he, whom the Greeks call Zevs. But how came they to imagine any Lord of hea- ven, if they knew that the sun was made out of sense- less matter, as well as themselves? It may be said, That they being weak and ignorant did not know it. But how then came their posterity to know it, if the very first race of mankind were ignorant of it? By what means came Taautus to be so well informed ? Reve- lation cannot be pretended; for that supposes what they deny, viz. a Supreme Being, above matter, which hath understanding, and gives it to mankind. But here man- kind come to be understanding creatures, by being born of animals that had no sense; which is a most unrea- sonable supposition. They could not have it by origi- nal tradition; for that fails in the fountain-head, if the first pair of mortals knew nothing of it. Then they must find it out by reason; and how was that possible, if there was no maker of the world, that there should be a Lord of heaven? It is a remarkable say- ing of Aristotle, observed by Cicero, (who saw several De Nat. of his pieces which we have not, after they were» see na brought to Rome by Sylla, and put into order by An- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. SS) 258 ORIGINES SACRA. Book dronicus Rhodius,) that if there were men bred under ‘"__ ground, and had there all conveniences of life, without coming upon the surface of the earth, but should only hear that there was a God and a Divine Power; and afterwards these persons should come out of their caves, and behold the earth, sea, and the heavens, the great- ness of the clouds, the force of the wind, the bulk, and beauty, and influence of the sun, with the orderly mo- tions and courses of the heavenly bodies, they could not but think not only that there was a Divine-power, but that these things were the effects of it. And why should there not have been the same thoughts in this first race of mankind, unless we can suppose that they had never heard of any such thing as God, or a Divine Power in the world? But then I ask, how they should come to think of worshipping this Beelsamen, or Lord of the heavens? for so he confesses they did, and lft up their hands to the sun. What could the lifting up their hands signify to a senseless mass of fire, which lately happened to be united together by chance in one body? If he had made mankind wholly devoid of religion, till they had been instructed in it by some crafty politician, it had been much more agreeable to this hypothesis: but to suppose them to pray to the heavenly bodies so early, and without any instructor, must imply some natural apprehension of a Deity, al- though they were so much mistaken in the object of Divine worship. But it is not reasonable to believe this should have been so early and so universal, but that they presumed the sun, moon, and stars, to have been the visible deities appointed to govern the visible world, and that the supreme Mind was to be worship- ped in a way suitable to his own excellency, by acts of the mind ; which was the opinion of many nations, and. some of the greatest philosophers. ORIGINES SACRA. 259 Then he proceeds to relate, how, after some of their posterity had found out some useful inventions as to the conveniences of life, after their death their children erected statues and pillars to their memories, and wor- CHAP. qi shipped and kept annual festivals at them; and that ‘ after the death of Uranus, and Cronus, and Dagon, and the rest, Taautus made symbolical images of them, being made king of Egypt by Cronus; and these things he saith, the Cabiri, by Taautus’s own command, en- tered into records, from whence we are to believe that Sanchoniathon took them, and Philo Byblius translat- ed them out of the Phoenician language. And Euse- bius seems not to question the antiquity of them, but prefers this plain and simple story far before the inven- tions of poets, or the allegories of the philosophers. If these things were recorded by the Cabiri, the sons of Sydye, brother to Misor, the father of Taautus, they do not seem to have consulted the honour of Taautus; for they make him not barely to be chief counsellor to Cro- nus, in the design against his father Uranus, but that he made use of magical arts against him, (but they do not tell us who invented them, nor upon what prin- ciples they could be founded, if there were nothing but matter in the world :) and besides this, he advised Cro- nus, having a suspicion of his brother, to bury him alive in the earth. And one would think so great a politician as Hermes would never have commanded the Cabiri to have preserved these stories of himself and his ancestors. However, this is the account given by Philo Byblius, out of Sanchoniathon, about the first planting religion by Hermes, who was after worshipped himself as a god by the Egyptians. And now let anyone consider whether | this be a reasonable or tolerable account of the first sowing the seeds of religion among mankind. And $2 BOOK I. Phin: €.L1- Diod. Sic. leatcuav. Huseb. Pr. Evang. 1. ii. Cr lel. Xs 6.0: 260 ORIGINES SACRA. yet this was the foundation of that sort of religion which came out of Phoenicia and Egypt into Greece. For they pretend to give an account of Uranus and Cronus, or Saturn, and his sons, and of Minerva at Athens, to whom Sanchoniathon saith, Saturn gave the dominion of it; but the Greeks, as Philo Byblius com- plains, confounded all with their fables and allegories : but this, he saith, is the true foundation which they raised their mythology upon. It is evident, by what is said by Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and others, that there were several colonies that went out of Egypt into Greece, in the times of Cecrops, Cadmus, Danaus, and Erechtheus; and it is very probable that they carried the Egyptian supersti- tions along with them: but the person who is pre- tended to have settled religion among the Greeks was Orpheus; who is said to have reduced them first from barbarism, and then to have modelled religion among them, and to have brought out of Egypt the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the rewards and punishments of a future state. This must therefore be more particularly inquired into. Orpheus is reported to have been a man of qua- lity in his own country of Thrace; his father having a command over a small territory there, called Sithonia, saith Pliny, near the mountain Rhodope, whence he had his title Rhodopeius Orpheus. But Diodorus Si- culus saith, That when he had accomplished himself at home, he went into Egypt; and from thence brought the greatest part of the Egyptian mysteries into Greece, only changing the names from Osiris and Isis to Bacchus and Ceres; and so he did as to the state of the good and bad after death: for, saith he, The Elysian fields for the good, and the torments of Hades for the bad, were both of Egyptian original. ORIGINES SACRE. 261 ee I do not question but the Egyptian superstition was in CHAP. great measure the foundation of the Greek; but it is hard to determine any thing concerning Orpheus, since Aristotle, who was born in Macedonia, knew nothing of De Nat. him, as Cicero informs us, and that the verses under eee te his name were written by a Pythagorean: which is not at all improbable. But not only Diodorus speaks po- sitively about him, but Strabo and Pausanias seem not at all to question him; and Diogenes Laertius men- tions an epitaph upon him at Dios in Macedonia. But I lay no weight on the verses under his name; for Suidas mentions several ancient poets of that name: and it is allowed on all hands that there have been at least great additions and interpolations in the verses that bear the name of Orpheus. The Argonautics, Suidas saith, were written by one Orpheus of Cro- tone; one well acquainted with Pisistratus. Others say, the true author of the Orphic Poems was Ono- macritus, who lived about that time; and the De- scent into Hades was written by one Orpheus of Cama- rine, saith Suidas. The most probable opinion is that of Aristotle, that his sacred poems were written by a Pythagorean; and therefore the Platonists, Syrianus and Proclus, might well boast of the agreement of the Orphic and Pythagorean doctrines. It is no objection, that there is no such thing now to be found in Ari- stotle; for I think Cicero may be trusted, who saw more of Aristotle than we now have. But I confess, if Dio- dorus were not deceived by the Egyptian priests, their mentioning him with Pythagoras, Plato, Kudoxus, and Democritus, who were certainly in Egypt, makes it very credible that Orpheus had been there too, and car- ried many of the Egyptian superstitions with him: and he might the easier settle them in Greece, because, as Diodorus Siculus observes, he had a particular interest | S 3 BOOK i Diod. Sic. Peiv. €. 25. ed. Wess. Herodot. |e Aon 93. ed. Wess. 262 ORIGINES SACRE. in the colony which Cadmus brought, and was much esteemed by them; and Cadmus himself was originally of Thebes or Diospolis; although Cadmus _ himself might call it after his own name, or at least the castle, which long continued it, when the city was called Thebes. But that Orpheus did not find those parts so barba- rous, as to be destitute of all religion before, will ap- pear from the account Diodorus Siculus himself gives of him: Kat ra wept ts Oeodoyins prboroyoupeva pabov, ancdnunce pev eis Alyunrov, That he was very well in- structed in the theology of his country before he went mto Heypt. How could this be, if they were a wild and barbarous people, without any sense of God and religion, till he returned and planted it among them ? It is true, he calls it a mythology ; and what else were the Egyptian doctrines about Osiris and Isis, or about Bacchus and Ceres, as Orpheus changed them? But whether it were a mythology or not, he calls it a the- ology ; such as was then known and thought to be true doctrine, and, I am apt to think, more decent and agreeable to their natural notions of religion, than the mysteries which Orpheus brought among them from the Egyptians. .Some have observed, that the very name of religion among the Greeks was derived from the Thracians (Qpycxeia) ; and such religion they had among them before Orpheus was born, as Diodorus himself confesses. Whether Zamolxis had instructed them in religion before the time of Orpheus, we can- not determine, unless his time had been better fixed. The Greeks, who write Pythagoras’s life in favour to themselves, make Zamolxis his servant; and that he went from them to instruct the Getz, among whom he was honoured as a god. But Herodotus, who ex- tols them as the most valiant and just of the Thracians, ORIGINES SACRA. 263 after he hath told the Greek story about Zamolxis being CHAP. servant to Pythagoras, he concludes, That he thought him long before Pythagoras. And he saith, that the Thracians had that opinion of his doctrine, that they despised death; saying, they only went to Zamolais. From whence it is plain, that the Thracians then be- lieved the immortality of the soul: and Pomponius Mela saith, That belief continued among them to his Mela, I i. time. But whereas Diodorus Siculus affirms, that > eh Sees Orpheus brought all the mythology about Hades and. Hi C92, the state of the dead out of Egypt, and the customs of ed. Wess. burial there. For the body was to be conveyed over the lake Acheron by Charon, where on one side were pleasant fields, and not far off the temple of Hecate, and Cocytus, and Lethe. I do not deny that Orpheus might add particular circumstances from what he had observed in Egypt; but that the whole tradition con- cerning a future state came from thence, is so far from being true, that the Thracians, the Getz, and Hyper- borei, had the like tradition among them, as appears by the Gothic Eddas, where we read of the judgment et ay of another world; and that the good shall dwell with Odin in a happy state, and the bad go to Hellen and Thiffulheim: and a large account is given of the man- ner of judicature in the other world, from the brass tables of the Hyperborei in the island of Delos ; which arementioned in the dialogue Axiochus, in Plato’s works. And however it be not genuine, it is sufficient to our purpose, that all this tradition came not out of Egypt. One would think, by the account given by Diodorus, that neither Orpheus nor the Egyptians believed any thing at all concerning a future state, but that only some ceremonies were used about burials, wherein the lives of men were inquired into, and judgment passed upon them; which the historian thinks more effectual S 4 264: ORIGINES SACRA. 800K for reforming mankind, than the Greek or poetical fa- —hles. But that the Egyptians had a real belief of an- other state, appears from Diodorus himself. For if any person were accused before the solemn judicature which sat upon him, if the matter were not proved, the ac- cuser was severely punished ; if it were, the body was deprived of burial; if there were no accusation, then the person’s virtues were remembered, his piety, justice, chastity, &c. and they concluded with a prayer, that he might be admitted to the blessed society of the good; and the people applauded his happiness in that respect. Porphyr. de But Porphyry, who cannot be suspected of forgery in AAS this matter, gives a more particular account of this prayer; which he saith EKuphantus translated out of the Egyptian language; and the substance of it is this. They first take out the bowels, and put them into a chest on purpose, and then lift it up towards heaven ; and the person to whom it belongs makes a prayer in the name of the deceased, to the sun and all the gods, which give life to men, that they would receive him into the society of the immortal gods. For he had piously worshipped the gods his parents had taught him, as long as he lived; he had honoured those from whom he came into the world; he had not killed, nor injured or defrauded any one, nor had committed any horrible wickedness ; but if he had offended in eating and drinking, it was for the sake of that which was in that chest; and so they took that, and threw it into the river, and entombed the rest of the body. By this we see a distinction is to be made between the general sense of another life, and some particular superstitions, such as those Orpheus carried into Greece; where they had a notion of another world before, as well as in Egypt: for it is not reasonable to presume that the Greeks should be worse in this respect than the most ye ORIGINES SACRAS. 265 barbarous northern people. For, besides those already CHAP. mentioned, Cesar, and Strabo, and Ammianus Mar- 3 cellinus say, that the Druids asserted the immortality Rae 4a) of souls ; and neither Orpheus, nor any out of Egypt, Aromian. ever conversed among them. 1, xv. But some in our age are so fond of the Egyptians, that they will by all means make the immortality of souls to be a noble invention of theirs: Nobilissimum Canon. autem eorum inventum fuit immortalitas anime. What 4 a is the meaning of this noble invention? Is it that none ever thought of it before them; and all others derived it from them? That appears already to be otherwise ; and that very distant and remote nations, who had no communication with these noble inventors, held the same opinions, as might, if it were needful, be proved by undoubted testimonies, both of t>e Kast and West Indies, where neither Orpheus nor the Egyptian priests were ever heard of. And Pausanias long since observed, Pausan. in That the Chaldeans and Indians held the same, and™** before the Egyptians; for he makes them the first. But Herodotus saith, That the Hgyptians were the terodot. first who asserted the immortality of souls: not abso-" ee lutely, but so as to pass from one body to another, till at last it came into a human body. Avnd of this noble invention let the Egyptians have the due honour, and not those Greeks, who, as he saith, would deprive them of it. It is great pity they should lose it; since Diodorus Siculus saith, The soul of Osiris passed onto Diets a bull; and that is the reason why they give so much’ "~~ honour to it. It cannot be denied, that some Greek philosophers of great reputation did assert the ¢rans- migration of souls, if their doctrine be not misrepresent- ed; but neither Pythagoreans nor Platonists did hold it universally, nor in such a manner as is commonly un- derstood. For they held no transmigration of the souls BOOK E. Epicharm. apud Grot. Excerpt. p- 481. Clement. 266 ORIGINES SACRE. of good men, which were fit for happiness, but asserted that they went immediately to heaven, or a state of bliss; as may be proved by the testimonies of Epi- charmus, Empedocles, Plato, and many others. But the difficulty lay about impure souls: the Pythagore- Alex. Str.5-ans utterly rejected the poetical fables about the state Poésis Phi- los. p. 28. Bessar. cont. Ca- lumn. |. ii. ee of the dead; and therefore they were forced to think of some way of purifying them after death. They had no light to direct them but their own imagination ; and - they thought it best for the same soul to come into another human body, to try if it would behave itself better, that it might be happy: but for profligate and very wicked persons, they told them of going into such beasts as were most remarkable for those vices they were most addicted to; as the cruel into tigers and beasts of prey; the voluptuous into swine; the proud and vain into birds; the idle and soft into fishes. This is the account given, saith Bessarion, by Timzeus, in his book de Mundo et Anima. And when Trapezun- tius charged Plato with asserting that brutes were in- formed by human souls, Cardinal Bessarion, a very learned Greek, utterly denies it, and saith, That Plato doth not make the soul of a man to become the soul of a brute; but only that it is confined to it as a prison for a certain time, but it is not capable of acting there for want of proper organs. So that these philosophers’ opinion was very different from the Egyptians. But whence came the most ancient philosophers to hold the immortality of souls? Had they it from the Egyptians ? Plutarch saith, that Thales was the first; not that held the soul to be immortal; for so many did before him; but that maintained it as a philosopher by reason ; that is, because it had the principle of motion within itself, and so could not be supposed to forsake itself, or to cease moving by the death of the body. a 2 ORIGINES SACRA. 267 Oarrjs amepyvaro ToT os THY Wuyyy, puow QELKIUNTOV Kal QUTOKI- CHAP. vyrov. For, as Cicero observes, a body is moved by im-__“ pulse from another body, but the soul finds it hath this Mae power wholly within and from itself; and therefore is! '¢. 2. ed. Xyland. immortal. Cie. Tuse. But Pythagoras is said to have learnt this doctrine” ** in Egypt. He called the soul a self-moving number, saith Plutarch in the same place, i. e. as he well ex- plains it, he puts number, after his mystical way, for a mind: and it seems very strange to me, that so great a man as Aristotle should think Pythagoras spake lite- rally of numbers; as though any number could move itself. But Plutarch rightly interpreted him; and the latter Pythagoreans, from Moderatus Gaditanus, made no scruple of saying that Pythagoras expressed his Porphyry. in sense about immaterial beings by numbers and figures, ee as having nothing of matter in them. And it is very een probable he learnt this way from the symbols and hi- eroglyphics of the Egyptians. But Cicero saith, Phat Cic. Tuse. he had learnt the immortality of the soul from his” master Pherecydes; which he confirmed very much. And it is observable, that he first supposes @ general Cap. 13. consent of mankind as to the immortality of souls, from a very ancient tradition; and then proceeds to the philosophers, who offered to give reasons for asserting it; of which he gives an account. And if there were Cap. 12. such a general consent from all antiquity, as he affirms, then this doctrine could not originally come out of Egypt by Orpheus into Greece. Let us now consider the sense of religion, or Divine worship among the Greeks, before Orpheus’s time ; whether they were such strangers to it as they must be supposed, if he brought it first among them. Plato pjato in was avery competent witness as to the old Greeks ; Cy! ; , p- 273+ and he affirms, that the first inhabitants of Greece BOOK I 268 ORIGINES SACRA. seemed to him to have worshipped no other gods but the sun, moon, and earth, and stars, and the heavens; as most barbarous nations still do. So that here we have the same religion in Greece, that was then com- mon to the rest of the world, i. e. the worship of visi- ble deities, and such as they apprehended to have the greatest influence upon their affairs. The heavenly bodies did strike them with astonishment at their vast- ness and beauty, and orderly motion, and the benefits they continually received from them; and these they were most ready to pay their devotions to, as to those which appeared most to them; but that which did not appcea’, vas to them that were so much governed by sense, as if 1t were not. As if we suppose a prince tra- velling with his chariot in the country, with the cur- tains drawn up on all sides, and a great retinue about him; the people are much surprised with so great an appearance, and flovk about them to see to whom they must pay their respects; and seeing nobody in the chariot, they turn their eyes to the attendants, and especially to him that sits so high in the coach-box, and manages the horses, and immediately give him that profound reverence which was only due to the prince himself, if he had appeared. Much after this manner it was with the barbarous people, both in Greece and other parts of the world. There was something so great as to require devotion from them; and they looked about them, and could see nothing which they thought could deserve it better than the sun, moon, and stars, which were placed very high, and were the great mov- ers which kept all things in their order, and made them so serviceable to them. But this is far from being an argument that they had no religion; it being rather a sign they had too much, but knew not how to govern it. But this was a far more reasonable wor- ORIGINES SACRA. 269 ship, than that which Orpheus or the old poets brought CHAP. in among the Greeks; whose stories and ceremonies were so filthy and indecent, as were enough to have turned the stomachs of modest and virtuous men from any kind of worship, which had the tincture of so much ob- scenity going along with it. And it is really to be wondered at, that the Orphic mysteries and poetical fables received among the Greeks, did not quite over- throw all religion among them. For, as Plutarch well saith, Absurd notions of God have very ba conse-Plutarch.de quences both ways; for some are plunged into theo i depth of superstition, and others, to avoid that, run themselves into atheism. And if there had not been some very great reason in nature to have kept the no- tion of a Deity in men’s minds, it is hardly conceivable, that, under all the horrible superstitions of Greece, there should be any such thing as a sense of religion left among them. But the cvidence of that was so great, as made all men of understanding to put any tolerable sense upon those vile superstitions, which were so prevailing in Greece, after the Egyptian fopperies were brought in among them. The rule they went by was this, that religion must be preserved in the world, not to serve politic ends, but to satisfy the reason and common sense of mankind; and that since such a way of worship was so generally received, they were willing to put the best constructions upon it, and to make it some way or other serve to keep up the sense of a Di- vine Power in the management of the world. And of this we have a remarkable instance in Plutarch, with respect to the Egyptian mysteries, in his treatise of Isis and Osiris. He professes at first a great desire to Jind out the truth of these things that concern the knowledge of God, it being the greatest blessing God can give, and mankind can receive ; and that without BOOK I. 270 ORIGINES SACRA. it emmortality is not life, but duration. And the end of all, he saith, is the knowledge of the first and prin- Plutarch. de cipal and intellectual Being. “Qu rédos éoriy 4 rod mporov Tsid. et Osir. c. 2. ed. Oxon. Ibid, c. 20. Ibid. c. 45. ed. Oxon. _ Kal Kuplov Kat voytov yveors. But he can make nothing at all of the matters of fact with relation to Osiris and Isis, which he looks on as very absurd; and so over- throws all the Phoenician scheme of Philo Byblus, who lived much about the same time under Trajan. But Plutarch saith, To understand those things of a Divine Being literally, is so absurd and impious, that they deserve to be spit at who offer them. And for those who interpret these things of great princes in former times, who had Divine honour given them, thas, he saith, is the way to overthrow the natural sense of a Divine Being, and so open the way to atheism, by confounding gods and men together; as he saith Huhemerus Mes- senius had done. And therefore he was fain to turn all into allegory, to avoid the mischief of absurd and im- pious opinions concerning that Divine Power which he owned to be in the world; and not only so, but he adds, (as is already observed,) Avs kai mapmadatos avty KaTELoLY éx Becdoryeov Kal vonoberav elg Te moLyTas, Kas PiAccopous doe, THY apyny DET TOTOY eyouea, THY de wloTwW boy upacy Kab dvoeba- AELTT OV, ovK ev Aoyots OVO, ovoe ev PILALG 5 AAC &y TE TEAETAIS év te Buoiass, Kat BapBapars Kat EAAnot woddayod mepspepo- PEVYY, OS OUT avoLY Kal dAvyov Kal aKuCéepyytov alwpeiTas TH av- roar 70 wav that there was a very ancient tradition in the world among all sorts of men, and which had obtained a firm and unshaken belief in the world, not only in common talk, but in their greatest mysteries, and that both among Grecks and Barbarians, that the universe was not made by chance, or without rea- son, but that it was made and governed by it. From whence it follows, that there was such a tradition among the old Greeks, which did not lose its authority- ORIGINES SACRA. 271 when those mysteries were brought in; and that made a a the most intelligent persons to apply them that way. For it seems, by the account he gives of Euhemerus Messenius, that atheistical persons took great advan- tages from these stories of their gods, to prove that there were none at all; but only that great men in former ages, that had found out some useful inventions, were deified after their deaths. Plutarch makes that a fa- bulous story, which he tells of his golden inscriptions in Pancheza, to prove the truth of his assertion, which none ever saw besides himself; and he affirms, that there were no such persons as the Panchei: but others have shewed that there was such a place as Panchea about Arabia Felix. And Diodorus Siculus mentions pjoq. sicul, it as a considerable island in the Arabian sea, and that ie ae the inhabitants are called Panchzei; and that near the city Panara there is a temple to Jupiter Triphyllius, which was in great veneration for its antiquity and magnificence, which he describes at large: and upon the mountain there it is said that Uranus of old inha- bited; and the people were called Triphyllii, from three different tribes which joined there, and were _ afterwards driven out by Ammon. And to make the story of Kuhemerus more probable, he saith, the inhabit- ants came first out of Crete in Jupiter’s time; so that Plutarch was very much to seek, when he denied that there was any such place as Panchzea, or such a person as Jupiter Triphyllius. And Diodorus further saith, there was in it a golden pillar in the old Egyptian let- ters, wherein there were inscriptions, containing the acts of Uranus and Jupiter, and of Diana and Apollo, written by Hermes; which is a very different account of this matter from what Plutarch gives. Some are willing to excuse Euhemerus, as though he intended nothing more but to let the Greeks know that they 272 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK worshipped such for gods which had been men; which ___’___was true enough. But this did not reach his design, Plutarch. de according to Plutarch; which was to prove that there PS te cenae were no other gods but these: so Plutarch ranks him with Diagoras Melius anJ Theodorus, who said, there Cicero de were no gods. And the Epicurean in Tully said, that Ses Huhemerus destroyed all religion; which could not be true, if he had left any Divinity to be worshipped. Sext. Emp. Sextus Empiricus reckons him among the atheists, and ad Mathe. . p3.7. Saith, he was a conceited man; but he charges him only with saying, that some great men in former ages had been made gods ; which was so evident a thing, that one would think none could have been called an atheist merely upon that account. But Jupiter of Crete had been advanced a long time to the highest Di- vine honour; and consequently those who went about to disprove his worship, were thought to destroy the worship which belongs to the supreme God. But Diodorus Siculus, in a fragment of his sixth book, pre- Euseb. | Served by Eusebius, gives a very different account of 1" Ev him, and that from Euhemerus’s own words, viz. That the ancients had delivered to their posterity two different notions of gods; one of those that were eter- nal and immortal, as the sun, moon, and stars, and other parts of the universe; but others were terrestrial gods, that were so made, because they were benefactors to mankind; as Hercules, Bacchus, and others. And as to Euhemerus, he saith, that he was a favourite of Cassander, king of Macedonia, by whose command he made a voyage into those parts, where he found the ee ie things before mentioned. But some learned men are still. c. 8, of Plutarch’s opinion, that Euhemerus’s Pancha is a mere figment of his; for which I do not see any reason sufficient, especially when the same persons do allow Sanchoniathon’s Phoenician antiquities; and methinks ORIGINES SACRA. 273 Euhemerus’s account of the inscriptions on pillars of the acts of Uranus and Cronus, and Jupiter and Am- mon, and the Sacred Letters by Hermes, comes so near to Philo Biblius, that one would think he had compared notes with Euhemerus and Diodorus Sicu- lus. But their design was different in this respect, that Sanchoniathon justified the making men to be gods, but Euhemerus went about to prove they were not gods, because they had been men. It is possible that the common people might account him an atheist for denying Jupiter of Crete to be God, or for saying that his sepulchre was to be found. But why should Plutarch charge him on this account, when he him- self so much finds fault with those who made men to be gods? He endeavoured, he saith, to avoid the ex- tremes both of superstition and atheism; but he could but endeavour it, when he allowed the practices of the Greeks and Egyptians, and only offered at some forced interpretations of them, against the general sense of the Egyptian mysteries. But however it appears from him, that the old Greeks did preserve the ancient tradition of the world not beng made by chance, which is the foundation of CHAP. all religion. And Plato, when he enters upon the dis- Plato de course against atheism, begins with two things, viz. That the sun, and moon, and stars, and the order of seasons, shewed there was a God and Providence ; and the consent of all mankind, Greeks and Barba- rians. Now, how could Plato have said this of the old Greeks, if they had been without any religion till Orpheus came out of Egypt? And we. have an evi- dent proof of the practice of Divine worship among them, from the Parian Chronicle; where it is said, LAS That Deucahon, after he had escaped the flood, went Marmor. to Athens, and there offered a solemn sacrifice for his*°™** STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. lly 274 ORIGINES SACRA. pook deliverance; and Pausanias saith, he there built a ae magnificent temple: which are sufficient evidences of aus™ the religion of the old Greeks, even before they had the name of Hellens from the son of Deucalion. But I have not yet done with Diodorus Siculus, who lets fall several insinuations, as though he were of the mind of Euhemerus Messenius; and that the old religion, both in Egypt and elsewhere, was nothing but a politic contrivance. For in the beginning of his history he pretends to give an account of the beginning of all things: but it is such a one as plainly shews he was no friend to religion; for he takes away the very foundation of it, by supposing the world to be pro- duced without any intellectual cause. He saith at first there were two opinions among the philosophers and historians: one was, that the world had been always just as it is; the other, that there was a beginning of mankind, and of other things. But how? This he undertakes to explain after this manner. At first there was a chaos, or a confused mixture of heaven and earth and all together; then followed a separation of bodies from each other, and thence came the present frame of the world. The lighter bodies moved for- ward, as the air and fire, by which motion came the sun, moon, and stars: but the grosser and more heavy parts subsided together: the moister made the sea, and the dry the earth; which was very moist, but being quickened by the heat of the sun, swelled up in several tumors, with thin skins, containing the ma- terials of living creatures; which having strength, brake through those skins, and thence came all sorts of animals. But the heat of the sun and the winds hardening the surface of the earth, no more of such swellings appeared; and so. the animals are since con- tinued by propagation. But the men which were thus ORIGINES SACRA. 275 born were very wild at first, but by degrees they came cHAP. to understand one another, and to find out the con- a veniences of living. This is the short abstract of the account he gives: which is just the Epicurean hypo- thesis in other terms; which was much in vogue in the time of Diodorus Siculus, (which, saith Suidas, was that of Augustus,) especially after Lucretius’s poem was in such reputation: for, he saith, he very well understood the Latin tongue, and had great helps to his history from Rome; and whosoever compares this with Lucretius, will scarce find any difference. And Eusebius observes, that he does not so much as Euseb. once mention the name of God in it, but leaves all to ae: a chance and a fortuitous concourse; and as it is ex-piade pul pressed in Plutarch, where the Epicurean opinion tes. delivered much to the same purpose, the world is said to have come together at first by a motion of atoms, without Providence. Where there must be something defective in the beginning, to shew this to have been the Epicurean hypothesis; for as it stands it seems to be Plutarch’s own opinion, which is directly contrary to what he had said before in the foregoing chapter, where he blames Anaximander for leaving out the effi- cient cause; for, saith he, matter alone can do nothing without it. And the same he repeats against Anaxi- menes 5 and saith plainly, Advvatov yap apny peta THY Plutarch.de 9 ~ + 5) = \ 7 € ~ Rt \ NERS ~, Plac; Phil. vAnY TWY OYTWY, €E 4S TH TAVTA UMOTTHVAL AAAG Kal TO TOLOVY], i. ¢, 3. ed. Xyland. OIT LOY Xen vroribevan’ olov, OvK apyupos apKeb m™pos TO EKTO [LOL ye- yeobas, ay en Kal TO WoLovy "Ns TOUTeOTLW 6 cpyvpoKemos" that it is as impossible that matter alone should be the cause of things, as it is for metals to form themselves into pots and cups without an artist. So that Plutarch must be cleared from that opinion, which he so justly op- poses; and he commends Anaxagoras in a particular manner, for adding mind as the efficient cause to mat- T 2 276 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK ter; which brought it out of confusion into that order pou that appears in the world. Pliny saith of Diodorus, he Apud Grecos desiit nugari; but he only applies it to is: the title of his book; and it is not true of the begin- L.iic. 1. ning of it. Pliny himself took the world to be an eternal Being, which he calls God; and so was against Diodorus’s making of the world. But Diodorus quotes Euripides, the scholar of Anaxagoras, for his chaos: but that is not the point, whether there were such con- fusion at first, but how the world came out of it. It is certain that Anaxagoras did not only hold a chaos at first, but an Eternal Mind, which ordered the world, and brought things into that beauty and usefulness Pecan which they have. Diogenes Laertius saith, that Anaxa- goras followed Linus, and he was before Orpheus: if it were only in that of the chaos, there was nothing extraordinary in that; for all that supposed the world to be made, asserted it: but if it were of the mind as the efficient cause, that is a considerable testimony of the antiquity of that opinion among the old Greeks. And Orpheus, as Suidas gives an account of his doc- trine, saith, That he held a chaos, and before that an ether of God’s making ; which was the great instru- ment in framing the world. Feiee But Eusebius charges the most part of the Greek lic.8 philosophers with being of Diodorus’s mind in this matter: but I hope to make it appear otherwise in the progress of this discourse; being now only to consider this assertion as we find it in him. And I cannot but take notice of the unfairness of it ; for he represents it as if there had been but two opinions among the phi- losophers ; that of the eternity of the world, and its being made by chance ; as if he had never heard of an Eternal Mind among them; which it is impossible so inquisitive and learned a man should be ignorant ORIGINES SACRA, at of. But he offers no kind of proof of the truth of what he lays down; not so much as the inscriptions of Her- mes, or the Commentaries of Taautus, which Sancho- niathon and Philo Byblius pretended to. He gave no manner of reason how the confused matter was put into, motion, or how the separation of the lighter and heavier bodies was effected; how the heavenly bodies came to have distinct vortices, without interfering with each other; how the moister and heavier parts came to be divided, so as to make two such great bodies as the earth and sea to be so distinguished and parted from one another ; which are considerable difficulties, and ought to have been cleared. It may be said, That he writes not like a philosopher, but as an historian ; and only in general lays down the principles that had been received by philosophers. But this doth not vin- dicate him; for then he should have set down all their opinions, which he doth not, but purposely avoids that which would have resolved these difficulties. For if an Eternal Mind be supposed to give and direct the mo- tion of matter, then we may easily conceive not only whence motion itself came, but whence gravitation, or the tendency of bodies towards their centre; whence the several great bodies of the heavens came to have their distinct circumvolutions ; and whence the earth and sea came to be so divided and parted from one another. But Diodorus was sensible that there would be great objections made against the production of animals out of the earth, without any other cause than the heat of the sun, and moisture and putrefaction of the slimy substance of the earth. And therefore to answer them, CHAP. ‘fs the Egyptians, he saith, produce this experiment) Diod. Sic. » C. 10. among them, that about Thebes, when the earth is' oa Wises moistened by the Nile, by the intense heat of the sun T 3 278 ORIGINES SACRA. Book falling upon it, an innumerable multitude of mice do 1. 7 Ovid. Me- tamorph. Plin. 1. ix. c. 58. Mela, 1. i. | co); spring out ; which being done after the earth was so much hardened, and the first influences abated, much more might all kind of animals come out of the earth at first. f But, in the first place, we have nothing but the testimony of these Egyptians for the original truth of this; who brought it as an argument to justify theiv own hypothesis. And from them other writers have taken it, without examining the truth of it; as Ovid, Mela, Pliny, &c. lian goes farther, (who lived in Adrian’s time;) for he saith, in his way between Na- ples and Puteoli he saw such imperfect animals, half mud, and half living creatures ; altera pars vivit, ru- dis est pars altera tellus, as Ovid describes them. But this is very far from making any tolerable proof ; for they might be perfect animals, and only one part ap- pear out of the mud or dirt, and the other be covered over with it. And this in all probability was the case in Egypt; for these were seen only 2 the mud, after the Nile was returned into its channel, as Mela affirms, Ubi sedavit diluvia et se sibi reddidit, per humentes campos. quedam nondum perfecta animatia, &e. Now this was a very ill time for any persons to go farther than as to what appeared to them at a distance; and because they saw but some parts, they concluded the rest to be nothing but slime. But this is a very slight and imperfect way of making experiments. Did any of the Egyptians take and dissect any of these im- perfect animals, and shew how it was possible, in the formation of them, for one part of them. to. be nothing: but mud, when. the rest had: all the proper organs be- longing to such animals? If the internal and vital parts be first formed, (as no doubt they are,) and: the blood passing through the heart into the outward parts ORIGINES SACRA. 279 ° be the great instrument of perfecting the organs of os sense and motion, how is it possible to conceive, that, where the inward parts are perfect in their kind, one main part of an animal should have nothing like or- gans, but merely be a mass of dirt? And by what means could that afterwards be joined with the other, to make up one perfect animal? It is agreed among the best observers, and most curious inquirers into these things, that the heart is the first of the solid parts, and the blood of the fluid: but whether it be by a dilatation of the punctum saliens, or red beating speck, into several parts, whereof one is for the upper, and the other for the lower and remoter parts; or it be by extension of the several parts in little, as an embryo, (as it is in plants;) or by a fermentation raised in the fluid matter by an active fluid conveyed into it, upon the conjunction of male and female, (which are the several hypotheses of the most inquisitive per- sons in this philosophical age;) which way soever we take it, this Egyptian hypothesis of imperfect animals is repugnant to the most accurate observations which have been made about the generations of animals. And however such things might then pass among such who take all upon trust from the Egyptians, or others, who never examined them; yet it would be the only proof of imperfect animals, to find any in our age to defend those crude and absurd opinions. As though any thing were to be believed rather than the most reason- able things in the world, viz. God and Providence ; which appear most conspicuously in the production of animals: insomuch that our sagacious Dr. Harvey, after all his diligent and exact inquiries, confesses, that the power antl presence of the Deity is no where Harveius de Generat. more observable than in the formation of animals. Avimal. Neque sane uspian alibi, quam in animales fabrica, epi 5 T 4 280 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK I. Hobb. de Homine, lis vesares ad fin, omnipotens Creator in operibus suis aut manifestius conspicitur, aut presentius ejus Numen adest. And he could find no satisfaction in any hypotheses of the greatest naturalists, without taking in the immediate power and providence of God. Quapropter rem recte preque (mea quidem sententia) reputaverit, qui rerum omnium generationes ab eodem illo eterno atque omni- potente Numine deduxerit, d cujus nutu rerum ipsa- rum universitas dependet. Quod ubique presens, sin- gulis rerum naturalium operibus non minus adsit, quam toti universo, quod Numine suo sive Providen- tia, arte ac mente divina, cuncta animalia procreet. And even Mr. Hobbes himself, who was as unwilling to call in the help of Providence as another, yet is forced to give up the cause in this matter; and freely confesses, That if men examine the several machines in order to generation and nutrition, and think they were not ordered by an intelligent Being to their se- veral offices, they must be said to be without under- standing themselves. Qui si machinas omnes tum Senerationis tum nutritionis satis perspexerint, nec tamen eas a mente aliqua conditas ordinatasque ad sua quasque officia viderint, ipsi profecto sine mente esse censendi sunt. And yet he sets down the words of Diodorus Siculus in the beginning of that chapter ; and thinks that is as far as men can go by philosophy, without revelation, How can these things consist ? For men without revelation may find out all the ma- chines in the body, and therefore may be convinced that there was an Eternal Mind, which gave a being to these things; which is more than Diodorus Siculus or his philosophers could find. For they affirmed, that animals were formed by chance, out of mud and putrefaction, without any mind; and therefore, ac- cording to him, they had none themselves, And some ORIGINES SACRA. 281 of our most experienced and skilful anatomists, after all cuap. their debates about the several mechanical hypotheses les concerning the production of animals, have concluded that 7 1s impossible that mere matter and motion, of whatsoever figure the particles of matter be, should make up the body of an animal; but that we must have recourse to a most wise and omnipotent Agent, which alone is able to do it. Interea ratum maneat Exercit. juata normam optine philosophie fiert non posse, pa ae particule sive corpuscula quomodocunque figurata yf .% solo motu fortuito in corpus humanum aut belluinum v- 126. ; sponte coalescant: sed necessario ad hoc opus omnino saptentissimum potentissimumque Architectam requiri, quit animalium machinas tam affabre et artificiose com- ponat. Adeoque Deum solum formare cuncta anima- lia, et foecunditatem ovis addere. And those who plead most for the motion of the Etmulleri ° ° ° Instit. Me- particles of matter in forming the body, yet confess, dica, c. 23. that it is hardly possible to conceive how the kinds of animals can be preserved, unless there be something beyond that, to regulate and determine that motion; but what that is, they are not able to explain. Let now any persons that have the use of understanding, consider whether this Egyptian hypothesis have the least credi- bility in it, since it is grounded on so little authority. But that is not all: for we shall prove it to be re- U1. pugnant to the most certain accounts we have of the nature, as well as the production of animals ; both which are impossible to be conceived to be the mere result of a fortuitous motion of matter, by the heat of the sun upon the slime of the earth. As will appear by considering the most necessary and vital parts of animals themselves, and what relates to the several kinds, and the preservation of them: for the Egyptians argued from their mice to all other animals. The most 282 ORIGINES SACRAL. BOOK necessary and vital parts of animals are such as the __*__ course of the blood and respiration depend upon; without which it is impossible for them to live. The course of the blood supposes the heart, as the ¢ reat ma- chine in the body; and the several arteries are as so many vessels to convey the blood into the several parts. But here is so much wisdom and contrivance in this, that unless the heart had been framed in such a man- ner, and the blood put into such a motion as it is, the preservation of life had been impossible. And life it- self is something beyond the mere coalition of the par- ticles of matter: for if that were sufficient, then there must be life in all parts of matter united together, (but neither stones nor plants are animals;) and they be- come animals by that which makes the difference be- tween them and inanimated things; which are the constant course of the blood, and the distribution of nourishment to the several parts of the body in order to their support; and when these are at an end, the life of an animal is gone. Now, in order to this course of the blood, the heart hath its peculiar and wonderful frame and motion; for therein is the chief seat of that which is called the flame of life ; which is nothing else but that brisk and vigorous motion of the blood, which actuates and enlivens the whole body. But both the natural heat and motion of the blood are unaccountable Ent. Apolo-1n the mechanical way. Unde autem aliter calor hic om P22 nerennis enascatur, haud facile dixerim, siquidem ad Jermentationis operam recurrere inane auxilium est, quoniam ipsamet sine calore nihil egerit. To say the natural heat is caused by fermentation, can give no man- ner of satisfaction; for from whence comes this fermen- tation, but from heat ? And so heat must be supposed. in order to the producing heat ; and there can be no end in such kind of suppositions. And if the particles ORIGINES SACRA. 283 did of themselves give it, then it must be discerned as CHAP. much at first as afterwards: but the contrary is ob- : served in animals; for the blood is more fixed at first, and its heat rises by degrees, as the parts are forming. If it be said, There ts a spiritus genitalis, which causes all that heat and motion; J ask, whence that arises. Not from mere matter and motion. But it must be something of a higher nature, and from a su- perior cause. But if heat and mud can produce ani- mals, there is no need of any such spiritus genitalis in nature; but all must arise from mere motion, and the continuation of animals might as well have been with- out any distinction of sexes. But how came matter of itself to form such a distinction, with parts suitable to such a design? How come the instincts of nature in animals to be so violent to such an end, when, if there be nothing but matter, there can be no such end de- signed ? How come some animals (as mules) not capa- ble of propagating their kind, when, upon anatomical searches, no kind of defect hath been found in them, as. some imagined? How come the species of animals to be so determined and limited, that in the revolution. of so many ages no new species. have appeared, although they are so different in some countries from. others ? How comes the number of some animals so very much to exceed others? i. e. How come the beasts of prey to fall so much short of the most. tractable and useful animals to mankind, as. sheep and oxen? And. those are observed to be most fruitful, which afford the best food for them. Can we suppose the heat. of the sun Cicer. de and slime of the earth should regard so much the; s" °°" benefit of mankind ? How comes the difference of ani- mals as to the manner of their production? i.e. How come some to hatch their young ones within their own bodies, and others to bring forth eggs, and so to bring 284 ORIGINES SACRA. Book them to maturity by incubation? And how comes ‘__ this difference to have always continued without alter- ation ? Whence comes that difference in animals, that some do ruminate, and others do not? Did mud, quick- ened by the sun, design to supply the want of teeth for mastication, by those several ventricles, and the mus- cles belonging to them? How come some animals to have their senses more exquisite than others, according to the nature of their food; as sight in some, and smelling in others ? How come birds and fishes so very much to exceed mankind in the frame of those nerves which serve for smelling ?. Whence comes that wonder- ful sagacity in some animals, to pursue others merely from the scent left upon the ground at some distance of time, and to distinguish it from all others of the same kind? Whence comes that wonderful care and tenderness of their young ones in the most cruel and fiercest animals? If heat and mud could produce the beasts themselves, yet what influence could they have upon their brood ? How comes the change of the pas- sage between the lungs and the heart, when a young animal is come into the open air, from what it had in the womb? What particles of matter close up the, fora- men ovale, and direct the passage of the blood another way? What makes the milk to come into the proper vessels of the breeding animal just at such a time, and to decay when there is no farther occasion for it? Whence came the wonderful contrivance of birds in making their nests, and feeding and preserving their gona young? Neque alia parte ingenia avium magis admi- ed. Par. 7anda sunt. What particles of matter disposed them to find out their proper food and physic? How come the seasons of bringing forth to be so settled, that there is a sufficient provision to support the young animals, when they come into the world, by the milk ready pre- ORIGINES SACRA. 285 pared for them, and such conveniences for the young to CHAP. suck it? How come they to run so naturally to their dams without any director, and to avoid such as would destroy them? What had the particles of matter to do in all this? If we go to insects; how came the silk- worms to hatch their eggs when the mulberry-trees are ready for their food? the bees to come forth in May, when there is most plenty of dew? the wasps near autumn, when the fruit is grown ripe to support them ? How come the several insects by that sagacity to find out the most proper places to lay their egos in? It being observed of them, by those who have most curi- ously inquired about these matters, That all the several Mr. Ray of sorts of insects lay their eggs in places most safe and NG 5. agreeable to them; where they are seldom lost or miscar- ry; and where they have a supply of nourishment. for their young, so soon as they are hatched and need it. But there are some things yet further to be consi- dered in the necessary vital parts of animals, which shew that they could not be the result of a fortuitous motion of matter. The main vitals of animals are the same; and where there is any observable difference, these two things are remarkable: 1. That they are alike in the same kind. 2. That it is for the greater conve- niency of those kinds. As the position of the heart is higher in mankind, than in creatures that put their heads down to eat; because if the heart of mankind were in the centre of the body, and not in the upper part, there could not be so easy a passage of the blood from the heart to the head, which is so necessary for the support of life; but in those creatures which hold their heads downwards, although the passage may be longer in such which have long necks, yet no inconveni- ence comes by it, because of the easiness of the descent in holding down their heads. But how comes a fortuitous BOOK i Harv. Boyle of Final Causes, p15 7. Arist. Hist. Anim. }. vi. C. 29. 286 ORIGINES SACRE. production of animals to cause such an agreement in the several parts of living creatures, that all have the same vitals, insects excepted, in which the heart is the whole body, (¢ofa cor sunt,) none wanting the heart with its arteries carrying out the blood, and the veins returning it; nor the lungs for respiration, nor the brain for sense and motion? (to name no more.) How comes a blind motion of matter to hit so exactly on all these, and to put them into such a convenient situation for the preservation of life? How comes the heart to be endued with such strong fibres, unless it were in- tended not merely to receive the blood in its passage, but to disperse it again by its contraction of itself? How come the coats of the arteries about the heart to be so much stronger than in the outward parts, but that there is the greatest necessity of their being so, to receive the blood in its first heat and quickest motion ? How come the veins to be so dispersed in all parts of the body, but to receive the blood in its return, and so to keep up the life and warmth of all parts? What motion of matter could frame the valves in the veins, so as to give free passage of the blood towards the heart, but oppose the passage of the venal blood the other way? (which gave the first occasion to the discovery of the circulation of the blood, as Mr. Boyle tells us from Dr. Harvey himself.) What is it which keeps the blood in its constant course for so.many years, as some animals live to? And what makes the very dif- ferent periods of their lives, when we can see no reason, from their mechanical frame, why one should in an or- dinary course survive another for so great a compass of years ? What is there in the texture and coalition of the parts of a stag, to make it outlive an ox or a horse so many years; when Aristotle saith, They seem to be less made for long life than other animals, as far as ORIGINES SACRE. 287 he could judge by their bearing and Srowth : but CHAP. Pliny so long after him saith, Vita cervis in confesso longa est; « was a thing taken for granted that they), ees A lived long. But I meddle not with any improbable sto- ries about it; for my argument depends not upon any thing but what all grant to be true, viz. that there is a ereat diversity in the lives of animals; of which, I say, no account can be given from mere matter and motion. There is no probability of any kind of animals arising HI. from putrefaction, which the Egyptians and Diodorus Siculus make their foundation. After the inundation Diod. Sicul. of the Nile, a sudden heat of the sun falling on the Nee slime causes a putrefaction ; and from thence an in- numerable company of mice came. But Theophrastus, a very great philosopher, in a fragment preserved in Photius, saith, That the great number of mice is to be pot Sound in dry soils, and not in moist; for water ts eee great enemy to them, and they are certainly destroyed by it. How comes Theophrastus to differ so much herein from Diodorus Siculus and the Egyptians? Or must we suppose that the water of Nile was quite of a different nature from all other waters to them? Pro- Plin. N. H. ventus eorum in siccitatibus, saith Pliny; where he, nay ee speaks of the great increase of them. How then came they to multiply in such moist places, where the Nile hath overflowed? Rain-water kills them, saith Ari- Arist. Hist. stotle ; how then comes the Nile to produce them? If; yee ooh it be said, that Aristotle speaks of great showers which drown them ; it is easily answered, that at their going off, upon these principles, they produce more; and so the greatest numbers would be after great rains. But what Theophrastus saith before of small frogs, will hold of these mice too: They do not come from the water, but that discovers them, and brings them out of the places where they were before. And Pliny’s words 288 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK are remarkable, when he speaks of this matter, Defe- __* gente eo (Nilo) musculi reperiuntur, &c. And so the “4 regal late editor confesses it was in the best MSS. So that C. 51. the going off of the Nile is that only which brings them to light. And before, Pliny saith, the Gyrini (the name given to these small frogs) do come from other frogs, and not from putrefaction; Pariunt mint- mas carnes nigras, quas Gyrinos vocant, oculis tan- tum et cauda insignes; mox pedes figuraniur, &c. These are called tadpoles, and seem imperfect at first, but by degrees do come to all their parts. But as to animals arising from putrefaction, learned and inquisi- tive persons of our age have taken great pains to dis- cover the truth of it in several countries, but with no success. In Italy, Franc. Redi undertook the discovery of this matter with incredible diligence, and great va- riety of experiments; but after all could not find that any putrefied flesh would produce animals, much less Pe putrefied water or slime; but that lesser animals hide p. 195, &c. themselves under dirt and slime, and therefore have been suspected to have come out of it; anduf those who Jirst broached this opinion had examined this matter more strictly, they would have found them only covered over, or at least some part of them, with that earth P.208. which they thought had brought them forth. And _for the little frogs, ke saith, that they are so much of the colour of the earth, that they might easily be mistaken Jor parts of it; but upon opening of them, their stomachs and intestines are full of food and excrements. Which is a plain demonstration against their original from the P.209. earth; and he concludes it a thing zmpossible for any such creatures, that are part mud and part animals, to be produced by the inundation of the Nile. There is a remarkable passage in Olaus Wormius concerning the Norway mice, which seem to come out of the clouds; ORIGINES SACRA. 289 that as soon as they are fallen, they have found green cuar. herbs in their bowels: (and I do not think any grass ———_— grows in the clouds.) But he thinks Scaliger’s opinion w: ayia! not improbable, that they come from putrefied water in 5. 336, °° the clouds; and he saith, The seamen have found them Exercit. fallen into their vessels, and that the clouds stink, and ge ar hinder their breathing : but at last he thinks they may be only carried by some violent storms from the moun- tains and islands, where they breed in great abundance. And Etmullerus, a German physician, concludes all Etmuller. equivocal generation to be ampossible. Some of our oe sc own most diligent inquirers, after all their searches, declare that they can find no such thing as a sponta- Lister in Goedart. de neous generation of animals; and I remember I have for- jnsect. merly read a discourse in MS. of Mr. Boyle’s to that pur-” 4” pose. Our i Ingenious and learned Mr. Ray positively hee vk affirms, That there is no such thing in nature as equi- cote ii. vocal or spontaneous generation ; but that all animals,” as well small as great, are generated by animal parents of the same species with themselves. And because some were offended at it, he goes about to justify his asser- tion, not only from reason, but from the authority of Malpighius, as well as Redi, Swammerdam, and Le- wenhoek, and many others, who have examined this mat- ter carefully and circumspectly ; and therefore their authority sways more with him, than the concurrent suffrages of a thousand others, as he saith. But there are some things not yet sufficiently clear- ed as to this matter, especially as to animals breeding in human bodies, of particular times, and in some dis- eases: but as to plants, and some insects about them, in which Redi himself gives up the cause, Malpighius contradicts him, and so do Swammerdam and others; particularly Mr. Hook saith, He observed little eggs Microsva. - im the protuberances of plants, which became worms”: 189. STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. U BOOK I. Piso Hist. Nat. Brasil. bus, C2: Microgra. c. 43. Redi, p. 19. Ent. Apol. OT7. ps 379- 290 ORIGINES SACRA. with legs, which eat through the womb which inclosed them. And in all galls, he saith, there be either holes, where the worm hath eat out its passage, or a place where it had been. All which he attributes to the par- ticular design of Providence, in taking care for the con- veniences of the meanest animals. But there seems to be more difficulty in the apiarium marinum mentioned by Piso; for it is hard to understand how those blue worms came to the bottom of the sea, which coming up with a spongy sort of shrub growing upon the rocks, and being exposed to the heat, turned to little animals like bees. But this matter is not delivered distinctly enough to form any argument upon; as Mr. Hook hath well observed. I see no difficulty in the Ephemeron, or Hemerobion, as it is described by the authors at the end of Goedart, who give the best account of it; for it seems to be of the nature of other insects, and the only difficulty is, why so much pains for so short a life? for it is produced by such changes as other insects are. But it cannot be denied, that there have been among us two very learned men, who have asserted a kind of spontaneous generation of animals; I mean Dr. Harvey and his Apologist. For Dr. Harvey, Redi observes, That although he asserts every animal to come of an ege proper to its kind, yet he was of opinion that these egos are not always contained in the bodies of animals, but are dispersed up and down by the air, and after become animals in an equivocal manner: but he saith, — he hath not cleared the grounds of his opinion ; save only that it comes from the omnipotent hand of God. So that Dr. Harvey held a true spontaneous generation from mere matter and motion to have been impossible; as ap- pears by what is said of him before. And so his Apo- logist supposes a saline spirit to be dispersed in nature, which meeting with proper matter and a moderate heat, ORIGINES SACRA. 291 may produce insects, and such kind of animals: but crap. he was very far from thinking this could be done with- __. __ out a power far above matter and motion; which at first ordered the world, and all things in it. But he _ thinks such insects come nearer to the nature of plants. 245. than animals, and live chiefly by the heat of the sun; and therefore in the winter they are torpid and with- out motion, and are revived at spring, when the heat encreases. Supposing it to be granted that there were such an _ IV. equivocal generation of mice and frogs- on the bank of the Nile, how doth it from thence follow that mankind had the same kind of original? Itis a saying of Pliny, which hath been carried too far, Cum rerum natura Plin. N. B. nusquam magis, quam in minimis, tota sit; where he’ *"° ™ compares insects with the greater animals; and seems to admire the workmanship of one far beyond the other: his words are, Nusquam alibi spectatiore nature re- rum artificio. And so he falls into admiration of the perfections of some insects, as to the quickness of sense and motion; and of others as to their peculiar proper- ties. I think Aristotle was very much in the right arist, de when he held, ¢hey were to be blamed who despised the \*" 3" least things in nature; for in all of them Beori t1 bav- pacrov, there is something which deserves admiration. And particularly in insects, the contexture of their parts, the manner of their transformations, the difference of their kinds, the. variety of their food, and their time of taking it, have something in them, which cannot be accounted for by mere matter and motion:. but yet there is a great difference in the inward make of these creatures from more perfect animals. For Redi affirms, Redi de that Steno and he opening some insects together, they geet’). a8, could find no other inward parts, but one long channel through the whole body, about which there were fila- Ue 292 ORIGINES SACRA. nook ments in a confused series, which they thought might | __ be instead of veins and arteries. When all their in- ward parts were taken out, and the head taken off, they still lived and moved, as other insects do, and lad Plin.1. xi. their eggs. And Pliny observes, Nehil intus, nist ad- Arist. Hist. modum paucis intestinum implicatum. By which we Anim-1.3%- 66 what a vast difference there is between the prin- ciples of life in mankind from those in these admirable ee insects. Jul. Scaliger extremely despises Cardan’s way 193. of reasoning; Mus e putredine potest nasct, ergo et homo potest: and saith, That the woman in Esop’s Fables, who was asked by her husband how the child came without him, and she answered, Out of the snow, might have made a better answer from Cardan’s phi- losophy, viz. Out of the mud. And it is wittily said by Exercit, Scaliger of him in another place, They who stick in the 180, 182. dint while they lift up one foot to get out, set the other _ faster ; and therefore it is best to keep out of it alto- gether. But Cardan seemed to be so little concerned to get out of it, that he asserts, Zhat every putrefac- tion produces some animal or other ; and that all ant- mals come out.of it ; which, saith Scaliger, is a wicked exert, and profane speech. And yet Andr. Cesalpinus un- 10°. 193: dertakes to defend Cardan, chiefly from the generation atten of insects, without regarding the difference between ly.c 1 them and more perfect animals, if his supposition had been true. Aristotle, who had all possible advantages for writing his Books of Animals, by the bounty of Philip or Alexander, or both, coming to speak of such De Parti. as had no blood, (among which are all insects,) he saith, Eee BOORLMEY, have no veins, nor bladder, nor respiration ; but something that serves instead of a heart, without which they could have no life; but they have the parts which serve for nutrition: and therefore their life differs little, according to Pliny himself, from that of plants and ORIGINES SACRA. 293 fruits; but he would have them spirare sine visceribus, CHAP. breathe without lungs; and he grants they have neither them, nor heart, nor liver. And although there be some higher degree of life in such animals as Diodorus Siculus speaks of, yet those fall so far short of mankind, that it is a wonder men of sense could imagine the production of one could be an argument for the other. For if we go no farther than nutrition, mice and frogs are easily provided for; but how should mankind live that were produced out of slime and mud ? But nothing can be more absurd and ridiculous than the accounts given of the several ways of producing mankind by a spontaneous generation ; as will appear by a particular examination of them. Franc. Redi hath reckoned up the several hypotheses Redi de to our hands. The first is that of Democritus, That sect a 14. mankind came into the world like worms, which by de- grees grew up to the figure and shape of men. I wish we had more of Democritus’s own writings left, that we might better judge what his true opinion was; but by what remains, it doth not appear that herein he dif- fered from Epicurus. It is certain he did as to the first principles of all things being made of atoms; but whether he did as to the immediate production of ani- “mals, is not so clear. For they did not imagine that ani- mals were formed immediately by atoms; which was too general and indefinite a principle; but that the atoms first came together in one form, and then another, till they came to the perfection of animals. And so it is said that Democritus held mankind to have appear- ed first in the fashion of worms. Petronius Arbiter saith, that Democritus spent his days in making ex- periments; etatem inter experimenta consumpsit; and Columella particularly takes notice of his experi- Columel. . Pais : |. xii. ad fin. ments about insects; and it is not improbable, that, U 3 BOOK Plutarch. adv. Col. De Placit. Philos. 1. i. pay Sext. Emp. ps 163: ed, Steph. P. 164. 294 ORIGINES SACRA. from his observations about their transformations, he — might form his hypothesis about mankind. His origi- nal notion was, as appears by Plutarch, That there were infinite atoms dispersed in a void space, which had no kind of qualities inherent in them ; but, as they casually hit upon each other, they produced water, and Jire, and planis, and men; which were nothing but a congeries of atoms ; which, saith Plutarch, he called Ideas. And it appears, by another place in him, that Democritus only held bulk and figure in his atoms; but Epicurus added gravity ; without which he found his atoms could not move. And although Epicurus derived the main of his principles from Democritus, yet it is plain by Plutarch, that his followers set them- selves to lessen the credit of Democritus, as one that overthrew the certainty of our senses, and resolved all into reason. ‘To which purpose there are several pas- sages in Sextus Empiricus, of Democritus himself; wherein he affirms, That the things we call qualities are only names imposed upon opinions, (which he calls law ;) and so bitter and sweet, and hot and cold, are only fancies, and no realities; and that there as nothing real but what is not seen, but only apprehended by the mind, as atoms and vacuity; and in several other places, that there is no certain knowledge, but only opin- ton by our senses. And he quotes Democritus’s own words, to prove that the knowledge we have by our senses is dark and obscure ; but that which is genuine depends only upon reason. The Epicureans, who fol- lowed their master as to the certainty of sense, could by no means brook this doctrine of Democritus, who saw far beyond Epicurus, and knew what blunders he must fall into by the judgment of sense, as about the bigness of the sun; which he positively said was no greater than appeared to our senses, i.e. two feet over, ORIGINES SACRA, 295 saith Cicero, or a little more or less; which was so cHaP. notorious a blunder, that Democritus, he saith, C5 a: a not fall into, being skilled in geometry ; but Epicurus ae vo not only despised it, but persuaded Polyenus tt was ee false. And his late great defender hath little to say for him, but that Socrates understood as little geometry Acad. Qu. as he; but Socrates was far enough from asserting "'” “ 3% such stupid paradoxes, and making geometry nothing but a piece of sophistry, as Epicurus did, and made a mathematician think so too; which shewed his autho- rity swayed more than his reason. But the Epicurean in Plutarch rejects Democritus’s doctrine, for that which Plutarch saith, doth as well follow from that of Epicurus; for if there be nothing but atoms, then qualities are only appearances; and when we judge by our senses, we cannot judge truly of things, but of what they appear to us. But if nothing, saith he, can be produced out of nothing, and no generation can be of that which already is, how can indivisible atoms, which cannot be changed, produce plants or animals ? Either therefore Democritus should not have asserted such immutable principles, or he should not have over- looked the consequence, i. e. that there can be no genera- tion. But Epicurus impudently holds the same principles, and yet would deny the consequence, and assert true generation ; just as he denied Providence, and yet as- serted piety; held friendship to be only for pleasure, and yet that a man must undergo any hardship for his friends ; made an infinite space, and yet placed an up- per and lower region in it. But he declares he can by no means understand how bodies endued with qualities should be produced by atoms that have none. There can be no generation without heat ; how comes there to be heat, when the atoms themselves have no heat in them, nor become hot when they are joined together ? For if | U 4 BOOK ep Arist. Hist Anim. |. y. Cc. 19. Scalige r Exercit. 194. 5. Aug. Clut. io. Job.de Mey Append. ad Goedart. 26 ORIGINES SACRA. they are capable of heat, then they are not impassible, nor without qualities. So that, according to the ge- neral principles of Democritus and Epicurus, there can be no such thing as a generation of animals. But Democritus observed strange alterations in the bodies of insects, from worms to flying animals; and why might not mankind have come into the world after the same manner ? If this were his opinion, it is one of the wildest and most extravagant opinions that could have entered into the head of such a man; and would make one think that the people of Abdera were not out in their judgment of him, if those epistles about him were genuine between Hippocrates and them. There are wonderful alterations in the bodies of in- sects, as appears beyond all contradiction by the many experiments of those who have applied themselves for many years to observe them. But what then? Do not all these insects come out of eggs, which have been laid by other insects before them ? And therefore mankind could not be worms first, but there must have been eggs before. And how should these eggs be transformed into the worms? What force was there in nature to make so strange a transformation as is continually ob- served in them? And the very same persons who have observed their transformations, have as well observed the incredible number of eggs that are laid by them, and the great and sudden increase of them from those eggs. Even in the Ephemeron, which was so great a ra- rity taken notice of by Aristotle, upon the river Hypanis, (but is so frequent upon some rivers in France and the Low Countries, as is observed by Scaliger, Auger, Clu- tius, and others,) it is agreed, That they come out of such a transformation as other insects do, with four de Hemero- y,,7 , . Me wings and six feet ; and are very careful where they lay their eggs, to keep them from the water ; in which ORIGINES SACRA, 297 they die, after they have spent their short life in flying cuar. in great numbers together at sun-setting, saith one from — his own observation. Scaliger saith, those he observed jy ow began to live at night, and died by morning. ee Ephem. But there are some things which deserve a particular 2p"4 observation about insects, which plainly shew that they inc Sop were not formed by a casual coalition of atoms, but by a wise Providence. As, that those that have wings have them stronger or weaker, more or less, according to their business and occasion for using them; those that have feet have an equal number on both sides, although the numbers differ so much according to their kinds; those which have neither wings nor feet have reposito- ries made for them, with proper food in the leaves of trees or plants. Concerning which there are several things very observable. 1. Their great niceness as to their food. Goedart, who made it his business to observe them forty years, (as Aristomachus Solensis did bees for fifty-eight years, saith Pliny,) found it very difficult Plin. N. H. sometimes to find the proper food for them; for they Serer et would eat no other, and expressed their joy when they Neca had it. Dr. Lister adds, That insects would rather die “ister. than eat any thing else, not from want of organs, but Jrom a natural accuracy of taste. And he ingeniously observes, that from hence may be found the best way ,. 13, 33, of keeping ships from worms, by finding out that sort of wood which those worms will not touch. 2. The different sorts of food in their different states. While they are mere eruce, they eat a hard sort of food, as the leaves of plants; but when they come to have their wings, and to fly abroad, they live only on honey and liquid things: which is very different from such ani- mals as have blood; for when they are embryos, they live on liquids; but as they grow up, they like harder food. 3. That those which feed on leaves of plantsn. 14. BOOK i. 298 ORIGINES SACRA. growing, will not touch them when they are taken off or decaying; which Goedart saith he observed both as to garden-herbs, and grass. 4. That those flying in- sects which have very short feet, take their food out of flowers by the help of their tongues as they fly. 5. That those which are most afraid of birds eat only in the night, when they are most secure from them; which argued a wonderful care of their own safety. There are many other observations to be made use of concern- ing the manner of their transformations; the change made by them in the very bodies of these insects; and the different times of continuance under them; and the ways to secure themselves from injuries of the weather in cold seasons: but these are sufficient to my purpose, which was to shew that Democritus made a very ill choice of worms, as the instance of a fortuitous produc- tion. But if they had been so, it was a very extrava- gant fancy, to think that mankind should undergo such transformations as worms do, before they come to their perfection. For these changes are evident to sense, to all that observe no more than silkworms ; but mankind continue in one uniform state from an embryo to a per- fect man; and, while he is an embryo, hath one sort of nourishment from the mother, which is wholly differ- ent from what all sorts of worms do live upon; and the parts of mankind are extremely remote from the shape, number, and use of all sorts of worms. Inso- much that Democritus might much better have fancied that mankind were at first a sort of trees set with their roots upwards: for the head to man is what the root is to the tree; and trees come from an embryo in the seed, and are preserved in the womb of the earth, and are fed with a dew from above, and have passages like lympheeducts in their several parts; only they happen to want the instruments of sense and motion, which ORIGINES SACRA. 299 are needless to them, since their food is brought home cHap. to them, and they grow up in the same uniform man- i ner, without transformations, as mankind do. The next hypothesis was that of Anaximander; and he makes them ¢o be bred up as embryos in the bowels of other creatures: of which Plutarch gives the fullest rintarch.de account. In one place he only saith, That the Sirst 8" Se animals were produced in moisture, covered over with a certain bark, like the rind of a chestnut, saith Redi; and when it grew dry, it cracked, and the animals started out, but lived not long. Was not this a hope- ful beginning in the early days of philosophy ? For Anaximander succeeded Thales, who was the first phi- losopher of Greece; and a much wiser man than his scholar, as will afterwards appear. But we must now pursue Anaximander. And Plutarch in another place ptutarch. tells us, Lhat he was of opinion that mankind were }°°?* 5 Jirst bred in the bellies of fishes ; and when they were: Xyisnd. strong enough to help themselves, they very fairly cast them upon dry ground, and left them to shift for them- selves. Is not this a very good philosophical account of this matter? And he was in the right, when upon this ground he dissuaded men from eating of fish, lest they should be like cannibals. It is a known saying, hat there is nothing so absurd, but it was said by one philosopher or other. I think Anaximander may put in for the first, who broached his own dreams and idle fancies under the name of Philosophy. And yet Em- pedocles in this matter rather outwent him. For he saith, Animals were not entire at first, but came into Pitarch.de ° Placit. 1. v. the world by pieces; and so arms and legs, and alle. 19. other parts happening to join together, made up one perfect animal. Hee non sunt philosophorum judicia, sed delirantium somnia, may be much better applied . . e . . e Ci d here, than it is by the Epicurean in Cicero to their Nat. Deor, Li. BOOK I. 300 ORIGINES SACRA. opinions of the gods. But I rather think Empedocles’ opinion is misrepresented, since the author of the book De Mundo (which is very ancient, if not Aristotle’s) gives another account of him, and saith, He derived the forming of animals from God ; and his verses, as they are in Simplicius, do not deny it, but only shew that all things, except God, came from different prin- ciples. But we are not deceived in the third hypothesis of Epicurus and his followers; which, as Redi represents it, is, That mankind and other animals were inclosed in certain coats and membranes in the womb of the earth, which being broken in due time, they were all exposed naked, without any sense of heat or cold, and sucked the earth for nourishment ; but the earth grew too old for such births, and therefore was contented ever since to bring forth nothing but insects. ‘This is so well known to be the Epicurean hypothesis, from Lucretius, Censorinus, &c. that there needs no farther proof of it. But whether it can be thought reasonable, is the thing now to be considered. And herein these two things are supposed. 1. That there was a fit dis- position of the earth to produce them, and a capacity in it to form wombs and bags to preserve them till they were able to take nourishment; and that the earth did afford a sort of milk to support them. 2. That the use of all the parts of human bodies came only by chance, and were not formed with any design; both which are very unreasonable suppositions. How can they make it appear that there ever was any such disposition of the heavens and earth to pro- duce animals, more than there is still? When they were told, that if the earth could at first produce animals, why not still? their answer was, The sea- sons are changed, the heavens were more benign, ORIGINES SACRA. 301 and the earth more fruitful, than they have been CHAR. since. At novitas mundi nec frigora dura ciebat, Lucret. v. Nec nimios estus, nec magnis viribus auras ; BG: Omnia enim pariter crescunt, et robora sumunt. And Lactantius sets down their opinion more distinctly, Lactant. That certain motions of the heavens are necessary to wit (eee this production of animals, as well as the freshness of the earth; and that then there was no winter nor sum- mer, but a perpetual spring. But how came such a proper’ season for this purpose at that time, and never since? Animals, say they, can never since propagate themselves. But what is this to the season? Do the seasons alter as there is occasion? Then there is a su- perior Mind to direct them. If there be a natural course of the heavens, which caused the earth to be then prolifical, that must return and put a new vigour into the earth, and make it young again. And this our modern atheistical philosophers in Italy, such as Car- dan, Pomponatius, and others, saw very well; and therefore asserted, that, upon certain conjunctions of the heavens, the same effects would follow. So Beri-Berigara. gardus; who saith, that Cardan and Pomponatius laid x oe much weight on this story in Diodorus Siculus, about?’ animals produced by the Nile; and he adds another, very ridiculous, as he pretends out of Camerarius, of several parts of human bodies which are seen to ap- pear every year rising out of the earth about Grand Cairo: and he thinks they were like the Egyptian mice, part earth and part animals. What will not such men be inclined to believe, rather than the truth! As when he adds, of the two green boys in England, which came out of a wolf’s den 500 years since ; and the blue and red men out of the mountains of Armenia: which are such incredible fictions, that it is a wonder ~ 302 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK any one that pretends to common sense could repeat them. But as to the Egyptian story in Camerarius, it relates not at all to the first making of bodies, but to the resurrection from the dead. Camerarius neither pretends to have seen it himself, nor that his friend did ; but that his friend heard one that had been a great a _traveller say, That in a certain place not Jar from the cis. Cent..i. Pyramids, at a certain time of the year, a great mul- “13 titude met to see the resurrection of the dead, as they called it; and then he said some part of the body seemed to come out of the earth; sometimes the head, sometimes the feet, and sometimes the greater part of the body ; which were afterwards hid under the earth again. And another friend of his shewed him an old Itinerary to the same purpose; and that the place was two miles from the Nile, in an old burying-place; and that tt lasted three days, and then no more were seen that year. But he added, that they were not seen ris- mg up or walking ; and he saith, that he saw it not himself. But Camerarius himself censures it as a su- Martin. 3 perstittous folly. Martinus a Baumgarten saith, That Peas at Cairo tt was believed, in his time, that at a certain Lic 18 mosque near the Nile, the bodies of the dead do arise out of their graves at the time of prayers, and there stand, and disappear when they are over; which he calls a diabolical illusion. But when our ingenious Sandys's Mr. Sandys was in Egypt, the story was changed ; for a oo.” then it was affirmed, That not Jar from the Nilus, upon Good-Friday, the arms and legs of a number of men did appear stretched forth of the earth, to the as- tonishment of the multitude. Which he not improba- bly conjectures to have been taken out of the mummies, not far off, by the watermen, (who gain very much by it,) and placed conveniently in the sand to be seen, as they thought would raise the greatest admiration. ORIGINES SACRA. 303 Since his time Mons. Thevenot, who was upon the cHap. place, saith, That at Grand Cairo it is generally be- > lieved that on three days in Passion-Week some Part yerces z of the dead bodies le out of the graves, and then re- a turn into the earth. He had the curiosity to go and’h. 1. see, and there found some skulls and bones, aie they say confidently came out of the earth; but he looked on it as a contrivance of the Santons. But if this prove any thing, it is not what Berigardus brings it for, that mankind came first out of the earth, but that there shall be a resurrection of the dead: for he saith, at was in a place where many dead bodies did le bu- ried, and not far from the mummies; which was the most famous place for burials in all Egypt: an account whereof is given by Bellonius, Peter della Valle, Bura- Belton.1. i. tine in Thevenot’s Collection, Prince Radzivil, and se- pic” deta veral others. Prince Radzivil observed, that there were \2lvol vast numbers of skulls and bones scattered up andse-8. Thevenot, down, where the flesh had been taken off; and sold Relat. pari n. away for mummy. But besides these mummies, (aS Peregrin. : Principis they are called,) there was continued a place of solemn pya,ivil, burial near to Grand Cairo by the Turks; so that there ?: 187- were always bodies ready, that were not proper mum- mies, to make this annual shew with, to deceive the simple. But Berigardus is aware of the difficulty of assigning the manner how animals come out of the earth; and therefore he thinks it sufficient to shew that the earth can produce them one way or other, and afford them nourishment when they are produced, This he thinks absolutely necessary: and he suspects that Lucretius’s Folliculi will not do the business; because it is impossible for children to subsist, if they did break the bags they were inclosed in, which were Jastened to the ede But if there were such a milky substance in the earth for new-born children to suck, 304 ORIGINES SACR#. Book is that all that is necessary for their support, when ''__ they are so unable to help themselves? Of all things, one would not expect to find milk in the breasts of the earth; and it must be some very happy conjunction of the planets to make the earth to give suck. How much would those, who are friends to religion, have been de- spised and laughed at, if they had made such absurd and ridiculous hypotheses as these? If such a thing did arise from natural and necessary causes, it must continue; and since we are certain it hath never been since, we have no reason to think it ever was. If it were by chance, what hinders the same effect, unless chance were tied up to one certain time ? And by what laws can chance be bounded? If it were by particular design at that time for the support of new-born ani- mals, then there must be a Providence owned ; and yet all this was invented on purpose to exclude Providence: which shews how weak and inconsistent this hypothe- SiS 1S. We account it a wonderful work of Providence, that, at the same time the child is formed in the womb of its mother, there should be so ample and suitable pro- vision made for its nourishment in the mother’s breasts against its coming into the world. Whether it be by turning the blood into milk, as was generally thought, or by a passage of the chyle from the ventricle thither, as some of late think, it cannot but be looked on as a work of design to turn the nourishment another way, on purpose to serve the necessities of the new-born child. But this is not all; but continual care and watchfulness of the nurse is necessary to preserve it other ways, as well as by feeding it. But these unad- vised and fanciful makers of mankind think they have done their business, if they can but imagine the earth to afford some milky substance, to support the poor ORIGINES SACRA. 305 helpless infants to a little suck from the earth. Why did they not as easily find out all other conveniencies for them ? But there is so much absurdity in the whole supposition, that Berigardus concludes, that mankind must come full grown out of the earth, and able to shift Jor themselves; or else that some other animals must come out before them, to afford milk for them, as the wolf did to Romulus and Remus. Such miserable shifts must those run into, who will not allow a wise Providence to have brought mankind into the world. But how came mankind, if they came into the world so by chance, to be so admirably provided in all parts of their bodies of such instruments of sense and motion, that look as like a design as any thing can possibly do ? The bodies of men are not like mere lumps of dirt and water put together; for there is not the least part about them but is made up of such a wonderful mechanism, that there cannot be a discomposure in it, without a disorder in the whole. But, suppose the fleshly and bony parts could be made by the mixing and tempering several particles of matter together, yet what can be imagined as to the muscles, and nerves, and fibres, which are so conveniently dispersed over the body ? The heart itself is found to be a very strong muscle, consisting of abundance of nerves, and all kind of fibres complicated within each other, and a strong tendon at the basis of it; by virtue whereof it is able to contract itself, and so makes the blood to pass into the arteries, which convey it to all parts of the body. Now let any one think with himself how it is possible for a mere lump of earth, made in such a form as the heart is, to have such a force and power to contract it- self to such a degree as to send out so much blood con- tinually, and to receive it in again by the relaxation of itself. How comes this motion to begin in such a piece STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. x CHAP. i BOOK Yr; Lower de Corde,p.85. 306 ORIGINES SACRA. of clay, made with a basis and a cone? How came the inward cavities to be formed, and kept so distinct from each other? For if there were any stop of the passage, life is at an end. How comes such a motion to continue so long and so uniform? Those who have most nar- rowly searched into it, have found that no other ac- count can be given of it, but that the wise Creator that formed the heart doth both give and continue its mo- tion. And as to all the other muscles of the body, if we consider their number, their position, the contexture of their parts, and their continual usefulness, we can never imagine that all these things could be the result of heat and mud, or a casual conflux of the dull parti- cles of matter. Every muscle hath its proper fibres laid upon one another, and its opposite tendons, with an inward cavity, and the artery, veins, and nerves belong- ing to it, and a membrane to cover all; and all parts capable of motion have several muscles peculiar to them- selves, for distinct uses and different sort of motions $ as may be seen at large in all that treat of these mat- ters: who tell us generally, that the eyes have six, the nose four pair, the cheeks two pair, the lips four muscles, the nether mandible five, the ears six, the tongue seven, &c. I need go no further ; and although there be some difference in the way of numbering them, yet they all agree there are so many as are impossible to be made out by heat and mud, or any force of the sun or earth. And what is it which makes all these muscles so serviceable to mankind, that, upon the least command, they move the parts they serve in what man- ner we direct them? The reason of muscular motion is a thing as much out of our reach as that of the heart. Some talk of elastic spirits ; others of the weight of the blood; others of a nervous liquor distending the car- nous fibres; others of a succus nutritius from the ORIGINES SACRA. 307 nerves meeting with the animal spirits, and Jermenting CHAP. together, which being thrust into the carnous Jjibres swells and dilates them, so as to make them contract themselves ; from whence, they say, local motion pro- ceeds. But all these are but mere conjectures, and hardly answer to the most common appearances of muscular motion. And the mechanism of our own bodies, both as to sense and motion, baffles all the at- tempts of the most ingenious and subtle philosophers ; who may easier teach us the way to talk about it, than to understand it. But there is one thing yet farther fit to be observed in this place concerning the muscles; which is the different figure of them, according to the use they serve for; as the muscle called deltotdes on the shoulder, the circular muscles, where their use is to open and shut: if such things do not argue con- trivance and design, it is not easy to imagine what doth. What can those who follow Diodorus Siculus make of the whole system of nerves which are in the body of man? Did these come out of slime with the heat o the sun? How came the different rise of the nerves, some within and others without the brain? What rea- son is there in the bulk, and figure, and texture of that same substance, that it comes to be so divided, so as part of it to continue within the brain, and the other to be continued down to the lowest part of the back, by several distinct vertebrae? How came matter of itself toform such a passage down from the brain, and to secure it in such a manner ; and to compact the several parts together so firmly as if they were but one bone, and yet so flexibly as to serve best for motion? What made the perforation for the spinal marrow to pass in the middle and on the sides, for the several nerves to go from thence to the several parts of the body ? Whence came that ligament, which joins the vertebrae x 2 - BOOK a Willis de Cerebro, C. 29. Arist. de Partib. Anim. 1. i. Cals 308 ORIGINES SACRA. of the back together, and covers the other membranes of the spina dorsi? There is a wonderful curiosity ob- served by our greatest anatomists, in the order and placing of the nerves, the arteries, the veins, and the hollow places belonging to it; which they found by opening the vertebrae in embryos, and taking out the spinal marrow, and injecting liquors into the several vessels. And still the farther any have gone in these searches, the more reason they have seen to admire the wisdom of Providence: and so it hath been in other parts. Aristotle mentions a strange saying of Empe- docles, That the reason why the backbone appears as if it were made up of several pieces, was that ut was at first broken, and then put together ; and ever since it hath so continued. But how came the vertebre then to be so well fastened together, and to be so much more convenient for motion than an entire bone would Arist. de Partib. Anim. l. iv. Colo: Hermet. Sapient. Vindic. C. 10. P- 245, 272, have been? Besides in an embryo, that which is pro- perly the spina doth not then appear, as being incon- venient for its posture in the womb; which shews both the intention of Nature, and the design of Provi- dence. How came the vertebrae to be in other animals as well as mankind? And even Aristotle himself was therein mistaken; for he affirms, that a lion hath no vertebre in his neck-bone, but that it is all one contt- nucd bone. But Borrichius, in his anatomy of one, de- clares, that he found the several vertebre in the neck plain and distinct. And the same learned person ob- serves, that in a crocodile, which he dissected, he found in four feet length of the back, siaty vertebre, which were of a spongy nature, fit to receive nourishment ; and from the different formation of some parts of them, he concludes it most probable that they grow so much longer than other animals. But Aristotle’s mistakes, about the lion’s having no vertebre in his neck, had ORIGINES SACRA. 309 been discovered by Scaliger, and confirmed by several cuap. dissections since; so that the vertebre are of the ori- ginal design of nature. But to proceed. What made aae the several passages out of the skull, for the nerves which serve for the several senses of smelling, seeing, hearing, and tasting ? How come the several branches of the par vagum to be so dispersed, and to make such knots with the ¢ntercostal nerves? These, and many more such questions might be asked relating to the wonderful system of nerves; but these are sufficient to my purpose, to shew that these wonderful contrivances for sense and motion could not come from mere fortui- tous and unthinking causes. But let us look now upon the most obvious parts of the body, which lie to the view of all men; the eye, the ear, the mouth, and the hand: one would think it hardly possible for any men pretend- ing to reason, to think these to be the result of chance. - Let us well consider the structure of the eye, and we may well think Lucretius had no lucid interval when he wrote, Illud in his rebus vitium vehementer et istum Lueret. iv. Al . ° 821. Effugere errorem, vitareque preemeditator, Lumina ne facias oculorum clara creata, Prospicere ut possimus. That we must have a great care to avoid the mistake of those that say, that eyes were made for seemg. For could any man in his right senses think the eye could be formed for any other use but to see with? But the use is after the thing is formed. What then? May it not be designed for such a use by him that formed it? But that which is formed for a particular use, must be later than that for whose use it is formed; as a bed for a man to sleep on, a cup to drink out of, armour to defend himself; but a man might sleep, and drink, and defend himself, before those things were found out. What is the meaning of all this? No one is so sense- x 3 BOOK I. Lucret. iv. 832. 310 ORIGINES SACRE. less to question, whether men be not before they find some conveniencies for their particular uses; but the question here is, whether, when a thing is so formed as to serve only for such a use, it be not reasonable to conclude that it was made on purpose for that use ? But saith Lucretius, Nil ideo quoniam natum ’st in corpore, ut uti Possemus, sed, quod natum ’st, id procreat usum. Nothing is made in the body that we might use it, but when it 1s made, we find out the use of it. As though it had been possible for mankind to have found such an use of the eye, unless it had been purposely made for it. The act of seeing is, no doubt, subsequent to the making of the eye; for we cannot see without eyes; but if we could make no other use of eyes but to see with, is not this a plain evidence they were made for us to that end? This is not like a use we make of things which we alter the fashion of for our conveni- encies. or we do not make our own eyes; they are very early formed in the body, and therefore were within the primary intention of nature; and as soon as we come into the world, we do not deliberate whether we should use eyes or not, for we presently see with them. And how can the eye being made teach us the use of it, when we presently make use of our eyes without any previous deliberation? We.may hinder the use of them if we please, by blinding ourselves ; but we cannot turn: them to any other use. If Lucre- tius, in the extravagancy of his imagination, might fancy the use was arbitrary, then men might have heard with their eyes, or have seen with their ears, or have tasted with their noses, or smelt with their tongues : but this I suppose none can think that he meant. What was it then? that men could not use them till they were made? We grant it. But doth it follow ORIGINES SACRA. 31] thence, that they were not made designedly for such a use ? How can we judge of that, but by examining the several parts? And if they were fitted for such a use and no other, we have reason to conclude they were so intended. Now what could the muscles, and tunicles, and several humours of the eye be made for, but for sight ? How came that cavity to be formed in the fore- head in which the eyes are placed? What motion of the particles of matter made two such hollow places in the skull? How came one not to be sufficient? How come the eyelids to be so placed? Could they be designed for any other use? How come the glands to be fixed in the corners of the eyes, and with the lymphatic vessels belonging to them? Could they have served for other uses? How comes the optic nerve to be continued to the three tunicles of the eyes; and that which partakes most of the substance of the brain to be the chief organ of sight, as fittest to transmit the images to the brain? What was the crystalline humour designed for, but to receive the impressions of outward. objects? How comes the optic nerve to be so inserted into the eye, not directly behind, but on one side, but only for the more entire transmitting the images re- ceived by the eye? Can now any one think that the - eye could be ever made for any other use but for sight ? And we do not ‘therefore use it, because we find it ready prepared; but it was therefore so prepared, that we might use it to such a purpose. And as to his general saying, That nothing in the body is made for use, but that the use follows the making of tt, let us apply it to other animals, and it will appear ridiculous. What could any man answer seriously to one that should say, that four-footed animals had not feet given them to go with; but that finding so many feet, they did go with them? And so for the wings of birds, and the fins of x 4 CHAP. i BOOK I. Rorrich, Hermet. Sap p. 259. Act. Dan. 1. ii. Obs. 127. Lucret. iv. 838. 312 ORIGINES SACRA, fishes; and the particular shapes of some animals for their particular use: as the long neck of the swan, for going deeper in the water for his food; will any one say, that the swan, finding his neck so long, used it for that purpose? Or that shell-fish, finding their hard shells ready made as a defence against the rocks, crept into them for that end? Whereas all the muscles they move by are covered over with a hard bony substance; and so they are the necessary parts belonging to them. What can be said to the thick horny substance of an eagle’s eye, which makes it bear the strongest beams of the sun? Was this only used for that purpose, but not intended by nature? Whence came that outward cover- ing of the eye, not only in eagles, but in other greater birds, which they can draw over it as they please, and is so strong a defence against light, that anato- mists tell us, by the help of it put to their open eyes, they could look on the sun without trouble, as Borri- chius informs us? Steno, upon the observation of the wonderful mechanism of the eye both m mankind, and beasts, and birds, saith, That of a man first under- stands mechanics, and then curiously examines the Sa- bric of animals, he must either put off his reason, or he must admire the wisdom and contrivance of Provi- dence. And he understood the frame of these things far beyond what either Lucretius or Epicurus did. And so for the ear; that was made, saith Lucretius, long before any sound was heard. Multoque createe sunt prius aures, Quam sonus est atiditus. No doubt of it. For how should we hear without ears? But can any man imagine they could be made for any other use but to hear with? How came they to be placed in the head, and not in any other part of the body ? Were there any formed before with ears in other ORIGINES SACRA. ; 313 parts, which did not do so well? In other cases they say, Mature was put to try divers experiments, be- cause the imperfect animals could not subsist. But this cannot hold here; for mankind might have lived without ears in other places, but the head is certainly the best for sounds being received and transmitted to the brain. How comes the outward part of the ear to be so framed as it is, but for the better gathering and more distinct conveyance of the sounds, as appears by the confused noise which those have who have lost that part? What made the inward passage so winding, and such an exquisite membrane at the end of it, and a cord behind it, but for the advantage of the sound ? How come the three cavities behind; the first with little bones of an extraordinary figure, whereof one triangular, the better to give passage to the air; the second called the labyrinth, and the third with spiral windings and an internal air, and all particularly serv- ing the purpose of hearing, by the sound passing from one to another ? Whence came all these subtle and in. tricate passages, if our bodies were made by chance ? And yet, if any of them be not in their due order, our sense of hearing is prejudiced; which shews that this contrivance was necessary in order to it. And which is again observable, the greater discoveries have been made in these matters, the more reason we have to ad- mire the contrivance of them. As in this sense of hear- ing, the latest discoveries about the small bones of the first cavity, called the hammer, the anvil, and the stir- rup, and another in the joining the two last, acquaint us with more than what the ancients knew; since there are two things remarkable about them. 1. That they do move each other; the drum moves the ham- mer, the hammer the anvil, that the stirrup, which opens the passage into the second cavity. 2. That BOOK I. 314 ORIGINES SACRA. these bones are as big in an infunt as in grown per- sons. Now how comes this to pass in a way of me- chanism ? How come these bones not to increase as the other parts of the body do, since the most solid of them, the hammrer and anvil, as well as the stirrup, have manifest pores in them to receive nourishment? But not only these, but the other small bones in the inner cavities, the semicircular passages and the cochlea only receive a greater firmness and hardness by age. These things I can only mention, and refer the reader to Mr. Du Verney and others, who have treated most exactly of them. The frame of the mouth as it is, is necessary for re- spiration, and nourishment, and speech. For respira- tion, the mouth opened affords a passage to the air, and there are inward vessels fitted to convey it to the lungs ; and without breathing it is impossible to live. But how came the two different passages for the air and food? How came the valve to secure the passage to the lungs from such things which may prejudice it, and pass the other way? As to nourishment, the mouth not only takes in the food, but the teeth are conveni- ently placed for the preparing it for its farther pas- sage and alteration in the stomach, in order to nutri- tion; for which end there are vessels prepared with wonderful variety and contrivance. How come those channels into those hard bones in the mouth, which we eall teeth, by which an artery, a vein, and a nerve spread themselves in branches to each particular tooth? How come the figures of them to vary according to their use, and to have stronger roots where the work is harder ? And because speech is one of the peculiar ex- cellencies of mankind, there is an instrument framed on purpose for it in the mouth, (which serves for tasting likewise ;) and without this, all the communication of ORIGINES SACRA. 315 mankind with each other by words had been lost. And cuap. I cannot see how mere matter and motion could help mankind either to frame words, or to utter them to others, without a tongue; nor how it could be framed by it. The hand is so provided with joints, muscles, and tendons, for the great variety of necessary uses it serves mankind for, that he that can think it could be so contrived by chance, doth thereby shew that some can think only by chance without any reason; and it is a vain thing to hope to convince them. I shall not need to insist on the curiosity of the contrivance of all the muscles of the hands; but it is impossible for any man to give an account of the perforation of those muscles which serve for the use of some of the fingers and toes, from mere matter and motion; nor the ligaments Riolan. about the tendons of those muscles, for the greater} "“°™ l. y. ¢. 28. easiness of their motion. Aristotle hath a discourse Aristot. de about the great use of a hand to mankind. Anaxago- Spee: ras, he saith, said that man was the wisest animal, because he alone had hands; but, saith he, therefore man had hands, because he was the wisest; being best able to make use of such an excellent instrument. For that is the wisdom of nature to do as a wise man would do, i. e. to give the best instruments to the best work- man. Now, saith he, the hand is the most useful in- strument to him that is capable of making a good use of it. And therefore he blames those that said, Man was the worst provided for of any animals; for they have but one help afforded them by nature; but the hand is instead of all, for it can make use of all. And for that reason he shews how very con- venient the make and fashion of the hand is, and the division of it into five parts; on which he insists at large. So that Aristotle was fully satisfied that the production of mankind was no casual or sponta- BOOK I, 316 ORIGINES SACRA. neous thing, but the effect of wisdom and under- standing. These things I have here laid together at first, be- cause this hypothesis of Diodorus Siculus hath been thought by some in our age to be the natural sense of mankind without revelation: whereas in truth it is the foundation of irreligion, and the reproach of mankind; but not the sense of the wisest part of them. And to make out this more effectually, I shall now proceed to consider and compare the sense of the most ancient philosophers on both sides, as to this point, whether the world was the effect of chance, or of a wise Provi-. dence. For if the world were made by a wise and in- telligent Being, it can never be suspected that religion is an imposture, or a contrivance of politicians; for then it will appear to be built upon the truest rea- son. And I shall the more carefully inquire into the opinions of the eldest philosophers ; because they were neither priests nor politicians, having no interest to carry on by the practice of religion. And some of them were born in a very good condition, and quitted their estates, or neglected other business, the more freely to attend on their philosophical inquiries. And therefore we have the more reason to search into their opinions, so far as relates to these matters. It cannot be denied, that, after men began to be in- quisitive into the philosophical reasons of things, there were some who set up for material causes only, with- out an efficient. And there were two different sorts of these; and the other schemes may be well reduced to them. The first was of those who were the immediate suc- cessors of Thales. For I see no reason to put him in the head of them, if what Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, and Plutarch report of him be true. For it is said in - ORIGINES SACRAE. 317 Cicero, that Thales made God to be the mind that cHap. Jormed all things. And to what purpose should Vel- BOR nine leius say this, if this had not been then known to have yp... been his opinion? For it had been better for his design! © '°. to have made so great a man as Thales was esteemed, to have excluded God and Providence. Diogenes La- ertius saith, That he not only made God an eternal Being, but that the world was of his making. And he was no more partial in this case, than the Epicurean in Tully. It is observable, that when Plutarch blames Plutarch. de Anaximander and Anaximenes for leaving out the ofviive ai ficient cause, he takes no notice of Thales on that ac- count; which he ought to have done, as being the head of that sect of philosophers called the Ionic, as him- self acknowledges in that place. And Stobzeus saith, Be That Thales owned a Divine Power, which passed ”” ~*~ through and gave motion to the fluid matier, out of which he supposed all things to be made. The great objection against this is, that several of the ancient. writers say, that Anaxagoras was the first philosopher who attributed the making of the world to an Infinite Mind; and that Plutarch himself, in the Life of Peri- cles, saith the same. But the true answer to this is, that Anaxagoras was the first who owned this in writ- ing; whose words are produced by so many; but Thales wrote nothing about it that appeared, and therefore his scholars going another way, there might be some presumption against him. For it is too evident that Anaximander, his disciple, did never mention a God in the making of the world; but he mentions se- veral gods made out of the world, dit nativi, a sort of Pheenician gods, which rose out of matter; and such as the poets had possessed the people with among the Greeks. I have already observed from Plato, that the old Greeks worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, &e. BOO r félian. Ea tae een a Strab. l.xiv. 318 ORIGINES SACRA. as other barbarous nations did: now herein lay the artifice of Anaximander, that he took care to assert the popular deities, and so avoided the imputation of athe- ism among the people; who looked no farther than whether men owned the religion in vogue. But whether there were an Infinite Mind superior to those gods they worshipped, they looked on as a speculation tdo deep for them, and therefore they let those alone who spake nothing against the ‘gods they solemnly wor- shipped. And this was the true reason of the different usage of Anaximander and Anaxagoras. The former asserted the beginning of all things to have been from infinite matter, without an efficient cause; the latter said this was impossible : but there must be an Eternal Mind to give motion to matter, and to direct it. Now one would have thought that Anaxagoras should have been in favour with the people, who hated atheism, and Anaximander punished; but, on the contrary, Anaximander kept up his interest among the people where he lived, at Miletus in Asia, and at last carried a colony along with him to Apollonia. The reason was, the people of Miletus had a wonderful veneration for the sun and moon, under the names of Apollo and Diana; and as long as Anaximander complied with them as to these di nativi, they let him alone in his philosophy. But Anaxagoras coming to Athens, and being there in favour with Pericles, a leading man in the city, but opposed violently by a different faction of Thucydides Milesius, who took all advantages they could against Pericles’s party: they finding that An- axagoras had shewed too much of his philosophy, when he called the sun a mass of fire, this set them all in a _ flame, and made such a disturbance about it, that An- axagoras was accused of atheism; and Pericles, with all his interest and eloquence, could not save him from ORIGINES SACRA. — 819 banishment, in which he died, as appears by Laertius cHap. and Ailian. Anaxagoras was very clear as to the main : point of atheism; for he asserted an Eternal Mind which made the world: this Anaximander denied, but he asserted the common deities: and although the Epicurean in Tully argues well against Anaximander’s opinion, Sed nos Deum nisi sempiternum intelligere qui possumus ? we can have no true notion of God not eternal: yet such philosophical reasons signified little; he allowed the same worship which they prac- tised, and this was enough to satisfy them. I am not ignorant that some have gone about to ex- cuse Anaximander, as though he were so intent upon the material causes, that through incogitancy only he left out the efficient. A strange piece of incogitancy in a philosopher to leave out the main point. For the just fault which Anaxagoras found, was that he went about to make a world without an Eternal Mind before matter ; and he knew very well what the sense of An- aximander and his scholar Anaximenes were, by whom he was instructed. And why should Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, &c. look on it as so extraordi- nary a thing in Anaxagoras to assert an Eternal Mind as the first cause, if his predecessors meant the same thing? But there is a passage in Aristotle, which seems most to favour Anaximander, viz. that he owned an infinite first Principle, which did contain and go- vern all things, and was immortal and incorruptible. And this Aug. Steuchus Eugubinus, in his learned book de Perenni Philosophia, insists much upon; a De Perenni book written with so good a design, and, bating somes. supposititious authorities, so well managed, that the elder Scaliger, as his son tells us, commended it parti- Tou. Seals cularly to a great friend of his, too inclinable to atheism, scatigeri, (as was too much the fashion then, as well as since,” a BOOK i Clem. Alex. Protrept. DeiAg. C8: ed. Oxon. Arist. Nat. Aus. 1]. iii. Cra. 320 ORIGINES SACRAS. among some who would seem to have more wit than others;) and it had so great success therein, that he utterly renounced all principles tending that way. The passage which he produces is certainly in Aristotle; and it seems so capable of a good meaning, that Cle- mens Alexandrinus joined him with Anaxagoras in supposing an Infinite Being above the elements; and it cannot be denied that the author of the book de Mundo (who, as I before observed, was very ancient, if not Aristotle) doth use the same expression concern- ing God, that he doth contain and govern all things: but yet, laying the passages in Aristotle together, there is too great reason to suspect that Anaximander did not assert an Eternal Mind, as Anaxagoras did. He is there giving an account of the different notions philoso- phers had concerning the first Principle. Some as- serted it to be infinite, as Anaxagoras and Democritus. The former held things to be made out of one another, and that there was one first Principle of all, which he called Mind. The latter held no generation of things out of another ; but that one common matter or body was the only principle of all things; and that the parts differed only by bulk and figure. Thus far Aristotle is clear. Then he goes on to shew, that the first Prin- ciple must be ingenite and incorruptible ; and then it must contain and govern all things; as all do hold: who do not assert other causes, as mind (as Anaxagoras) or friendship (as Empedocles). And this is the 76 Ociov, the Divine Being, which is immortal and incor- ruptible, as was asserted by Anaximander, and the most of those he calls physiologists, i. e. who went no farther than the bare nature of things. Now here it is plain that he doth distinguish Anaximander and his followers from Anaxagoras, who asserted an Eternal Mind: and he distinguishes his opinion both from that ORIGINES SACRA. 321 of Democritus and Anaximander. It may be said, that CHAP. ot is plain from hence that Anaximander did assert a —— Divine Being ; but at last it came to nothing but ¢n- Jinite matter ; which was the original and mother-god to his dit geniti, as he called them. In another place . he speaks yet more plainly, viz. that those philosophers ie an before Anaxagoras went no farther than matter, andes. |” made all things to come out of it, and to be dissolved ito it again; being itself one and immutable under . all the variety of changes. He saith, they differed about the first material principle: Thales, and one Hippon, called the Atheist, (the first of that order that we read of,) held it to be water ; but Aristotle bestows a very severe character upon him, viz. Aix ryy edréAeay avred tis Yavolac, that he did not deserve to be mention- ed for the meanness of his capacity. (It seems wit and atheism did not begin together.) Anaximander would go no farther than infinite matter in general; but An- aximenes was for air; and so was Diogenes A polloni- ates, who lived in the time of Anaxagoras; but it seems by Demetrius Phalereus’s apology for Socrates, (now lost,) that he fell into some danger at Athens, (possibly for being against the worship of fire, as An- axagoras was.) But upon the whole matter I do not see how Anaximander can be excused, although he left the popular gods, and bestowed the name of Divinity upon his infinite matter. But there was another succession of philosophers derived from Xenophanes, who lived in Sicily, saith Laertius, and was contemporary with Anaximander: and he was neither a follower of Thales nor of Pytha- goras ; but from a town near the sea in Italy, whence his chief followers came, it was called the Eleatic sect. He was a great enemy to the poetical fictions about the gods, as he had reason; for they strangely corrupted STILLINGFLEET, VOL, II. Y 322 ORIGINES SACRA. 800K the minds of the people, and took away all inward re- verence towards the Deity. And although Aristotle speaks with some contempt of him, yet others have shewed that he misunderstood him, and that he assert- Bessarion ed one Infinite and Eternal Mind; and the same cont. Ca- Simplicius saith of Parmenides and Melissus. but 2 Dean since the learned author of the Intellectual System of the Universe hath very well cleared that matter, I in- tend not to transcribe him, but to refer my reader to him, and proceed to those who changed the first notions of the Eleatic sect, and set up for the making a world without a Deity. And those were Leucippus and De- oe Eelog. moer itus; and yet Stobzus saith, that Leucippus wrote a book about mind; wherein he hath this saying, That nothing is done in vain, but all things are done from reason and necessity. How these two things came to be so put together, is hard for us now to conjecture, pee unless that book of his had been preserved. Plutarch los l.i.c.7.8aith, that Democritus held that God was an entellec- tual fire, and the soul of the world. But it appears by a, Cicero, that Democritus did not stick at making some very subtle effluvia of his atoms to be gods, both those without us, and those within us, viz. those which make up our intellectual faculties. It is very hard to say what his true notion of Divinity was, unless we could have seen his books about Mind and Providence, which Laertius saith that he wrote. But whatever he might write for the amusing the world, (as Epicurus did after- wards,) if he made the origin of all things to have been without mind or providence, no titles of books will be a sufficient excuse for him. And I confess it 1s all one to me, eer those vali framed the atheistical hypotheses proceeded in the way of forms and qualities, or of atoms and vacuity; because: I think the one way as impossible as the other. For ORIGINES SACRA. 323 as Aristotle hath well observed, the great difficulties as to the first principles lay in two things; the beginning of motion, and the order of the world: and in both these the different hypotheses of Anaximander and Democritus were equally defective. But whether the world were made by the circumvolution of infinite mat- ter, endued with contrary qualities, or by the motion of atoms, which had nothing but bulk and figure, sig- nifies nothing as to ths main point. I do not deny but one hypothesis may in some respects be more intelligi- ble than the other, and tend more to explain the differ- ence of body and mind: but there are still difficulties on both sides. Some things may be taken for real qualities, which are not; and the many experiments of this age have fully proved it: but then there are other things, especially relating to animals, which can never be explained in the mechanical way, to the satisfaction of any reasonable man. But although Anaximander and Democritus started these two different hypotheses about the origin of the world, yet those who asserted an Eternal Mind to be the first cause, had in common reason very much the advantage of either; since it was impossible for them to give an account how the motion of matter began, or how it fell into that order, and beauty, and usefulness, which we find in those parts which make up the visi- ble world. All that we can learn of Anaximander’s hy- AP. pothesis is, that the heavens and infinite worlds (for Plutarch. why should they stop, when they could make worlds so easily ?) were produced by an infinite circumvolution of all things ; that these. had in them very different qualities from each other, some hot, some cold, some dry, some moist, &c. that these being in continual mo- tion, a mixture of them happened, and according to the different mixtures of qualities, the several sorts of v2 apud Eus. Prep, Ev. I. i. c 8. BOOK I. Arist. Me- taphys. Lyoe.n2s B24 ORIGINES SACRA. things did arise. This, as far as I can apprehend, was his scheme of the production of things. There is little difference between the two hypotheses of Anaximander and Democritus, but only in the point of mixture; which one attributes to qualities, and the other to the bulk and figure of atoms. They both as- sert the production of things by the circumvolution of the parts of matter; both held infinite worlds; and that the things of this world came together of them- selves, without any superior cause. But were not all the philosophers of their mind ? No; so far from it, that the best and greatest of them utterly rejected this doctrine, as unsatisfactory to hu- man reason: of which we have an evident proof from Aristotle, who cannot be suspected of any partiality in this matter. In the beginning of his Metaphysics, he gives an account of the opinions of philosophers be- Sore him about the first principles of things. I know that he is hardly thought of by many for misrepresenting the opinions of those before him, and that he endeavoured to lessen their reputation to advance his own: but I can see no manner of reason for it in this case. It 1s pos- sible, as to the Pythagorean and Eleatic sect, he might not represent their opinions so fairly as they were ca- pable of: but as to these physiologists, as he calls them, he charges nothing upon them but what they owned ; only he makes Thales the head of them; for which I have offered reasons to the contrary. But in general he saith, That those who began first to philosophixe looked upon matter as the only principle out of which all things came, and to which they did return ; the substance re- maining the same, and the affections only changed: as Socrates is the same man, although his inward ha- bits were changed. But what this material principle was, they were not agreed. Thales, the first of them, ORIGINES SACRA. 325 thought wt to be water; Anaximenes and Diogenes, air; cHAap. Hippasus. and Heraclitus, fire; Empedocles to them — added earth. Hitherto, saith he, we find nothing but the material cause; but, saith he, mpotovrwy 0° ours avTd TO Tbia. Taya woomolnoey avtols Kat ouvyvaryKace Cyreiv’ When they had gone so far, the very nature of things carried them farther in their inquiries. For whatever change be made in generation and corruption, there must be some cause why it so happened. For mere matter doth not change itself. As wood doth not make itself into a bed, nor brass into a statue; but some artificer doth it. But the seeking this ts looking after another principle, which he calls the principle of motion. Which those who asserted from the beginning, ran themselves into difficulties, although they asserted matter to be one; but those who went no farther than matter, whether water, or fire, or earth, were never able to clear the pro- duction of things, and therefore were forced by truth itself (um avrgs ris adybeias) to seek for another principle. Where it is very considerable that Aristotle saith, that there were some from the beginning who asserted both principles; and that those who asserted only a material principle ran themselves into such difficulties, which they could never see their way through; but were forced at last, by the mere power of truth, to seek for another principle. Which not only shews his own opinion, but that others, upon consideration, were fain to set up a new hypothesis against these Materialists; not wholly new, as he shews, but new in opposition to them, who thought at first, by pretending to skill in philosophy, to have run down the ancient opinion of mankind, founded on such a tradition of which none could trace the original. Of which I have already produced the testimonies of Plato and Plutarch. But now the hu- mour of philosophizing coming among the Greeks, the x 3 BOOK 1 R 326 ORIGINES SACRA. first setters up of this were very apt to contemn any thing that was built on tradition; for that gaye no rea- son of things, which it was their busimess to do. In some things, then unknown as to the natural causes of them, they wonderfully surprised the common sort ; who thereupon admired them as men that could do any thing. Being thus puffed up with a vain opinion of their own skill, they attempted to give an account of the very beginning of the world; and finding out what they thought the main principle of which things were composed, they had no more to do but to suppose them all reduced.to a mass or chaos; and then they fancied, that, by the motion of these several parts of matter, things would fall into that state we now see them in the world. But as much as they pleased themselves with these speculations, those who came after them found them extremely defective, both in the beginning of this motion, and the order of it. For they found matter to be a dull inactive thing of itself, and that no matter could form itself without an agent; and there- fore they saw it necessary to add a supreme efficient Cause, which should both put the parts of matter, how- ever qualified, into motion, and direct and regulate the course of it. For otherwise it was impossible to conceive that there should be such distinct systems or bodies of matter as there are in the world. For how come the several vortices not to interfere with each other ? What made the centres of them to be distinct from one another, so as that the matter within such circumference should move about that alone? And without this it is impos- sible to conceive there should be such bodies as the sun, moon, and stars are; so great, and yet so distinct from each other. But what cause then was found so neces- sary to be superadded ? Aristotle saith, that the order, and fitness of things, which he calls ed cai xadd<, must ORIGINES SACRA. 327 proceed from an intelligent Cause; for these things CHAP. could never come either from mere material causes, as ¥ fire, earth, &c. or only by chance. And therefore he saith Anaxagoras wrote like a man in his senses, in comparison of those before him; which shews that he looked on the other speculations as dreams and idle fan- cies. And he will not allow Anaxagoras to have been the first that asserted this; but he did it pavepes, openly and plainly, in opposition to such as had set up another hy- pothesis. For before him, he saith, Hermotinus Clazome- nius had said the same thing as to a superior Cause: and so, no doubt, had many others; but he mentions him as a philosopher of the same city from whence Anaxa- goras came. But it seems the reputation of ‘Thales and his scholars had obtained so much in the Greek co- lonies where they inhabited, that they buried the name of others; although Clazomene were a city of Ionia too. But that Anaxagoras was a person of a just esteem, appears by the great value which Pericles set upon him, Plutarch. TOUTOV vmeppuws Tov avdpe. Bavpacas o TTepsxans, who not _ Be only had him for his counsellor, but ventured his in-°* *¥#""- terest to preserve him: and although he was overruled by the contrary faction as to his banishment, yet he took care of him in it. And as Plutarch saith, he ob- tained the name of Nats; he cannot tell whether it was for his opinion, or the reputation of his wisdom. And after he was buried at Lampsacus, a city of Asia Minor near the Hellespont, there were two inscriptions on the altar erected to his memory, which testified the very great esteem of him in two words; the one was Nos, and the other ’AAyjdea. And what can be said greater xian. of a philosopher, than that understanding and tonthy see belonged to him? Timon, who was not very civil to the memories of most philosophers, gives him a high character in Laertius: who saith likewise, That he Y 4 BOOK I. Sext. Em- pir. p. 153. Plato in Pheedr. Arist. Me- taph. 1. iv. Plutarch, in But therein he shewed that it was not for want of un- Pericle. Ibid. Leviathan, Che 12: Lucret. v. 1182, Id. i. 69. 328 ORIGINES SACRE. was born to a considerable estate ; but he had a mind above riches. And Sextus Empiricus saith, he was the most skilfulin natural philosophy ; and he was blamed both by Socrates and Aristotle for running too far into natural causes; as though he made use of his supreme Mind only to help him out, when nothing else would. derstanding natural causes, that he asserted an Hternal Mind, pure and unmixed, which was the first cause of things; but it was his true skill in philosophy, which brought him to it. For he fixed on the principle of gravitation as the main foundation of union and com- position; but the other hypotheses of vortices, or cir- cumlations without it, he looked on as weak and insuf- ficient. So vain is that saying of Lucretius, and a mo- dern philosopher, that zgnorance of causes inclined men to religion; especially as to the heavenly bodies: Preeterea coeli rationes ordine certo, Kt varia annorum cernebant tempora verti, Nec poterant quibus id fieret cognoscere causis ; Ergo perfugium sibi habebant omnia divis Tradere, et illorum nutu facere omnia flecti. For the truest and exactest searcher into natural causes, we see, was the most firm and steady assertor of a God. Lucretius magnifies his hero, that neither the common fame, nor the thunder and lightning had Srighted him into any sense of religion; but that he had gone beyond the clouds by the strength of his wit, and had settled all the bounds of nature. Quem nec fama Deum, nec fulmina, nec minitanti Murmure compressit coelum, &c. Which was all becoming the more than poetic fury of Lucretius to say. But Plutarch, in the Life of Pericles, saith, that Anaxagoras explained to him the natural causes of those meteors which are so apt to terrify mankind, and thereby took away an ignorant supersti- ORIGINES SACRA. 329 tion; but instead of that he settled in his mind ri dc- pary bev eAmidey aryabésy evcé Berar, A JSirm devotion, accom- panied with good hopes. And is not this far beyond the utmost Lucretius attributes to his hero? supposing he had such success, as he imagined, which we have only the poet’s word for. Quare relligio pedibus subjecta vicissim Obteritur, nos exeequat victoria ccelo. But we can find no such victory that he ever obtained over religion, by his foolish and precarious hypothesis, which the more learned pretenders to atheism in our age are ashamed of, because of its vanity and inconsist- ency ; and therefore there is now less need of insisting upon it. But what reason had Lucretius to make such extravagant boasting of Epicurus’s success against the principles of religion, when Cicero, of the same age and time, and a friend to Lucretius, had so very mean an opinion of it, and hath exposed it so much to contempt in more places than one? But possibly he may mean, CHAP. I. Lucret. i. 79. et had so at Athens: nothing like it. For it was ob-Plut. adv. served, that none were more forward to comply with the popular superstitions, none more reserved as to their real opinions about the Deity, than Epicurus and his followers. What need all this mean compliance, this caution and reserve, if they were such conquerors as he represents them? They never opposed the com- mon sentiments, as Anaxagoras did, and suffered for it; but, instead of it, they industriously laboured to persuade the people that they were, for piety and vene- ration of the gods; and Epicurus wrote about it: whether in earnest or not, I dispute not; but he was in earnest concerned for his own security. Are these the marks of a conqueror? And yet in his time the Sear of the Areopagus, after the time of Ephialtes, was in great measure removed. It is observed by Josephus, Colot. BOOK L Jos. cont. Apion. I. ii. Cag7. ed. Oxon. Plut. Vit. Demetrii. 330 ORIGINES SACRA. that by the laws of Athens it was death without mercy to speak against the established religion ; and we find with what difficulty Anaxagoras escaped. But in Epicurus’s time the government was sunk, and the Macedonian empire was continually growing upon them; and all people took greater liberty to speak their minds, and without any such opposition as the philosophers before him met with, when their laws were observed more strictly; as¢~vwhen Protagoras and Diagoras were forced to abscond for fear of their lives; and Aristotle, upon a suspicion of a profane hymn, to withdraw to Chalcis. But in the time of Epicurus the state of the city was altered, and the government was in the hands of Alexander’s successors; for Epicurus lived with his scholars in Athens, when it was so closely besieged by Demetrius, as Plutarch informs us, who soon after had the possession of it delivered to him. Now, in busy and disordered times, such as Epicurus might be far more secure than at another time; and yet even then he was afraid of giving any distaste, as to his opinions about religion; and still asserted his owning the anticipation of a Deity, although not con- sistent with his own grounds of certainty. But where was the victory the meanwhile over religion, which Lucretius boasts of 2? His defenders say, 2¢ was over the ill effects of superstition ; but we find nothing like that effected by him. The world was not made one jot the better, but a great deal the worse, for his principles ; for the very name of a philosopher went a great way with persons of bad inclinations: and they do not go- vern themselves by any reason; but when they can bring an authority of a person of any reputation, they inquire no farther, but go on with greater confidence in their former practices; and then they charge igno- rance and superstition on those that contradict them. ORIGINES SACRE. 331 I do not deny but some of the defenders of Epicurus in our age have been persons of wit and learning, and they have utterly disowned his irreligious principles : but yet the very undertaking to defend the author of so much impiety, hath done unspeakable mischief to the age we live in; and all the discoveries of natural philosophy can never make amends for it. We are now comparing the notions of Epicurus and Anaxagoras as to religion; and that method which Plutarch tells us Anaxagoras took, as to the freeing the mind of Pericles from superstition, was far better than that of Epicurus. For Anaxagoras satisfied him that there were natural causes of thunder and lightning; but these were the effects of a Divine Providence, which ordered the affairs of mankind for the best, as well as the meteors in the air; and therefore there was no reason why any wise and good man should not entertain a comfortable hope of Divine protection: but in the way of Epicurus there is a bare account of natural causes, which, whether true or false, can give no satisfaction to a thinking man. _ For the utmost comes to this; such and such effects do naturally follow such causes. And what then? Then if such things happen, we cannot help it. Aud what follows? Nothing more. And is this all the comfort of Epicurus’s inquiry into causes? To understand this better, I will put a case, which lately happened in the place where I live at present, to a man working in his garden, near a great river. While he was there busy, a violent shower of rain fell of a sudden; and the man thinking to divert it, the rain beat down a great heap of earth above him, and carried it through his garden, and took away the man with its force into a precipice hard by, and with great violence hurried him down into the river, which made him stupid and senseless : but it pleased God he was taken up, and recovered. « CHAP. 1. BOOK I. Plato in Apol. Socr. 332 ORIGINES SACRA. Now let us consider what would tend most to the sa- tisfaction of this man’s mind, when he was in that de- plorable state, if he had been then sensible of his case. What comfort would it have been to him to have been told, that, as things were, the earth above him falling down, and there being such a precipice below him, there was no help for him, and he must be contented to suf- fer? But would it not be far greater satisfaction to be told, there were those above who saw him fall, and pitied his case, and would be sure to help him out, and give him what was necessary for his relief and remedy ? Now this is the case of Necessity and Providence: the one gives only that heavy comfort, things must be so, and we cannot help it; the other still keeps up rea- sonable hope, and the expectation of something better. So that no one can deny, that, upon mere principles of natural reason, this is the more desirable hypothesis ; aud nothing but invincible arguments should remove mankind from it: but neither Democritus: nor Epi- curus could offer any thing but a very precarious hypo- thesis against it. From Anaxagoras I now come to Socrates, (for Ache- loiis pursued his principles at Athens, where Socrates was his disciple.) He was a person of great vogue at Athens, for the natural sharpness of his wit, and the free- dom he used in conversation with all sorts, without re- gard to his own interest. And for this he appealed to his judges, and to the whole city, that he was far from any design to enrich himself, as they all knew. He did not deny but that he had great presents offered him; but he took no more than to keep him from poverty, as in the cases of the king of Macedonia and Alcibia- des: and none could blame him for being refractory to their laws about religion; for he declared that to be his principle, Thai God ought to be worshipped | | ORIGINES SACRA. 333 according to the laws of the city where a man lived. CHAP, A And for this, Xenophon saith, he trusted to the 5 ena thian oracle; which was thought of good authority among them: however some in our time have repre- sented it as so gross an imposture, that it is hardly credible any men of common sense could be deceived by it, much less the Athenians; who, for all that we can perceive, had as good an opinion of it as the Boeo- tians themselves. This was a very hard point at that time among men of better understanding, and who had a true sense of God and Providence, how they should behave themselves with respect to the popular superstitions. There was _ ho difficulty as to such as had no religion. at all; for their principle was to keep fair, and to secure them- selves; and they looked on such as Protagoras and Di- agoras as persons who deserved to be punished for their folly. But for men who truly believed a wise God to govern the world, as Socrates and his two excellent scholars, Plato and Xenophon, did, the case was very Xenoph. Mem. lL. i. Gis Van Dalen Dissert. de Orac, Ethn. difficult : for if they did not comply, they were sure to - be prosecuted as guilty of impiety; if they did, this seemed to justify all their superstition. The way which Socrates took was this: He avoided giving any offence as to the contempt of their public worship. Nay, Xenophon saith, he was so far from any impiety that way, that he was rather more remark- able for his diligence therein; and that no man ever heard him say or do any thing that tended to the dis- honour of religion; so that from the whole course of his life he might be well concluded to be evceBéctares, a very devout man. Cicero had a very particular es- Cicero de teem of Socrates, not only propter ejus magnitudinem ingen, for the greatness of his wit, but Jor his wis- dom and goodness ; qui quum omnium sapientissimus Orit oG ie C. Bas 33.4 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK esset, sanctissimeque viaisset; and from him we learn L. _______ what the grounds were which such men went upon. Cicero de Dives. C. 72. They found the world horribly corrupted with super- stition, which was to be removed in the best way they could; but there was great danger, lest, under that pretence, all religion should be destroyed. And they saw an absolute necessity of keeping up that: [sse_ prestantem aliquam e@eternamque naturam, et eam suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi, pul- chritudo mundi, ordoque rerum coelestium cogit con- fiteri, since the beauty and order of the world was suf- ficient to convince mankind that there was an excellent and eternal Being, which was to be adored and wor- shipped by mankind. This was their fundamental principle; and they rather chose to comply with the follies of their superstitions, than not keep the so- lemn worship of the Deity. And, to satisfy themselves, they put such interpretations upon the public rites, as made them serve to some part or other of natural wor- ship, with respect to the benefits God bestows on the world; and thus even the Eleusinian mysteries were understood by them. But how then came Socrates to be so severely prose- cuted at Athens? It is true that his enemies charged him with impiety and atheism, as appears both by Plato and Xenophon. In Plato’s Apology we find that Melitus downright accused him, that he thought there were no gods. Socrates, being much surprised at this charge, asked him what ground he had for it? And all the proof he offered was, that he was of Anaxagoras’s opinion, that the sun and moon were not gods: which Socrates denied ; and said his charge was inconsistent, for he both accused him of bringing in new deities, and asserting that there were none at all. But in the conclusion of his Apology, he fully owned a Divine a a —— Ppa = wie es ORIGINES SACRA. 335 Providence taking care of good men living or dying ; but whether of the two were better for a man, he thought God alone knew. But to shew more plainly what Socrates’s judgment was as to the production of the world, Xenophon gives CHAP. i. this account. of it: "Edavuate ¥ ef wy dhaveody adtols €CTH, Xenovh, ie an P p / vf ~ b) (oe) b) Ns ¢€ ~ b) \ \ \ OTL TAUTA OV Ouvaroy E€OTLY avOowmers CUPELY. Eve KQL TOUS Ke ylotov ppovotvras emi TH wept TovTwy A€yew ov ravra doEdLery AAANAOLS aA ols poacevownevors bpolws SraKeiobas mos aAAnAaVS* That he looked on it as a great piece of folly in man- kind to attempt it Jrom material causes; and he won- dered that they did not find out that these things were above their reach. And he thinks those philosophers argued like madmen; neither agreeing with one an- other, nor with the nature of things: for some said that it consisted of one thing; others, of infinite: some said all things were in motion; others said there was no motion at all; some said that all things were generated and corrupted ; and others, that nothing at all was. Plato in his Pheedo let us know how he came to be unsatisfied even with Anaxagoras himself, al- though he mightily approved his fundamental notion of all things being produced by an Eternal Mind. When he was a young man, he saith, he was a great admirer of natural philosophy, and endeavoured to find out the causes of things; but at last he found they were too hard for him, and so fell into a kind of scep- ticism: but he had heard of a book of Anaxagoras, wherein he asserted, that Mind ordered all things. This pleased him well: but he expected that from hence he would have shewed how that Eternal Mind did frame every thing for the best, 1d éxdotw Béstiotov but finding him to falter there, and to run to mere natural causes as others had done, he gave over his pursuit of natural philosophy, and applied himself to Mem. I. i. Ete BOOK if Xenoph. 1.i. c. 1. ad fin. et c. 4. ad fin. Valer.Max. ASV C2. sect. 8. ed. Leid. Sext. Emp. p- 264. ed. Par. 1569. Poesis Phil. Pp. 75: 336 ORIGINES SACRA. matters of morality, as more certainly known, and of greater use to mankind. But as to Providence, Xenophon is very particular in it, That it extended to all things said or done, although in never so great silence; and that God was present in all places. To the same purpose Diogenes Laertius mentions a saying of Thales. Beimg asked whether a man could do an unjust action without God's knowing at; No, saith he, not if he only thinks to do it. Which, saith Valerius Maximus, was intended to keep men’s minds clean and pure, as well as their hands. But the atheistical club at Athens, in Socrates’s time, turned this another way. For they said, This was only a con- trivance of some cunning man, to keep mankind more in awe. And that this was their sense appears by the verses still preserved in Sextus Empiricus; and part in Plutarch and others; but by the former they are at- tributed to Critias, and by the latter to Euripides, both of Socrates’s time. But there seems to be far greater probability as to the former, because such a saying was very agreeable to the character of the man. For Critias was one of the thirty tyrants set up by Lysander at Athens; a man of wit, and addicted to poetry ; as Socrates himself owns in Plato’s Charmides, that he derived it from Solon. He and Alcibiades had been both under Socrates’s care, as Xenophon tells us ; but they both forsook him, and changed their manners upon it. Critias went into Thessaly, and there fell into lewd and debauched company; and from thence came to hate Socrates, whom he had admired before: and when he was one of the thirty tyrants, he and Chari- cles shewed a particular displeasure against him; for Socrates had spoken too freely against their government. He was the head of the number, as appeared by The- ramenes drinking a health to Critias, when he took off “pire, ORIGINES SACRA. 337 his poison; and when Thrasybulus came to deliver crap. Athens, upon his being killed, the whole faction sunk. Nothing can be more agreeable to the character of such a man, than to make him look on all religion as an imposture and contrivance of some crafty politician. But nothing of it agrees with that of Euripides, who was scholar to Anaxagoras, a friend to Socrates; and on all occasions wrote decently with respect to piety and virtue. But Plutarch saith, He wrote the verses P. Petit. in the name of Sisyphus, for fear of the Areopagus..°"'* It cannot be denied, that author (whether Plutarch or not, for some question it) doth say so. But if Plutarch had said it on good ground, how came Sextus, after him, so positively to give them to Critias ?. And which is more to the purpose, the same author had but a little before quoted a passage of Euripides, very agree- able to a scholar of Anaxagoras, that the heavens were Bouse Kaov moikidaa téxtovos copod, the beautiful workmanship jos. 1.5. c.6. of a wise architect ; and from thence we come to the notion of God. How different is this from the sense of those atheistical verses! But it is no easy matter to Judge what the true sense of a poet is, when it is his design to personate others. And so Euripides might introduce Sisyphus as speaking agreeable to his own character, who is represented as an ill man, and given to fraud; and therefore it is no wonder such a man should look on religion as such a contrivance. For ether Sisyphus or Critias might be well supposed to utter such things: but the question is, how far Euri- pides is to be charged with them; and whether he spoke his own sense under the name of Sisyphus, for fear of the Areopagus? This ought certainly to be proved some other way: and if not, it seems to be a very unjust imputation; especially since Socrates ex- pressed such an esteem for Euripides ; which he would STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Z BOOK 1p fBéiian. |. ii. €. a3 ed. Lugd. Xenoph. Mem. I. i. C. 4. Ibid. 338 ORIGINES SACRA. never have done, if he had suspected that, under the person of Sisyphus, he had overthrown the foundations of religion. | But what the true sense of Socrates was, may be seen by his discourse with Aristodemus; of which Xenophon hath preserved the remembrance. This Aristodemus was one of those that not only neglected religion himself, but despised and laughed at those that regarded it. Socrates finding what sort of man he was, takes him to task after his dry manner. And are there no persons, Aristodemus, said he, that you have any esteem of for being wiser than others? Yes, said he briskly, and like a man of wit, I admire Homer for an epic poem, _Melanippides in dithyrambics, Sophocles in tragedy, Polycletus in the art of making statues, and Pidics in painting. The man, we see, was a kind of virtuoso in other things, but without any sense of God or religion. Well! said Socrates, and would you not admire those more who make living and moving statues, than such only as have neither sense nor motion? No doubt the former, Aristodemus replied, if they are made by design, and not by chance. Of that, said Socrates, we may best judge by the use they are intended for: for those things which are for a manifest use, are most agreeable to design. As for in- stance, the senses of men are so plainly given them for particular uses, that we cannot reasonably think but that he that made mankind at first gave them them for that purpose; as he particularly instances in the fabric of the eye, and the care of nature to preserve it, (which he calls a work of Providence;) and so for the ears, nose, and mouth, which are so framed as to be apovoyts- Kd mexpayyeva, done by a wise design, and not by chance. And I cannot, saith Socrates, look upon them other- wise than as the workmanship codut rivos dymsoupyod Kas ane WH ORIGINES SACRA. 339 psrotwov, of a wise contriver, and a lover of his own cuap. workmanship. The same he shews in the propagation of animals, and the love and care of their young, &c. But as to mankind, he saith, there is ppovipov Th, a reach beyond other animals ; and they have not only a body made out of earth, but a mind which we perceive within ourselves. And can these great and wonderful things come to pass 0 adpoctvyy twx, without mind or understanding ? To which our virtuoso had nothing to say, but that he could not see the artificer here, as he did in other cases. Well! and do not you contrive and design things in your own mind? And yet you can no more see that, than the wise contriver of these things. All that Aristodemus had to say was, that he did not disown or despise a Divine Being, but he thought it too great to regard his service. Hold a little, said Socrates; for the greater he is, the more he ought to be honoured by mankind. Then he questioned whether there were such a thing as Providence, with respect to human affairs. For that, Socrates again bade him look to the frame of human nature, and the several parts of man’s body, and he could not but see a Providence in the contrivance of the several parts of the body; but especially the mind, which he hath inspired into men. Tyy Wuyny Kparioryy TO avIpwme evepuce: not blowing some subtle air into man, as some modern philosophers would translate it, or giving a mere vital motion. But Socrates was far from thinking an incorporeal sub- ia. stance within us to be a contradiction; nor that it was any absurdity to take a metaphor from air, to ex- press the infusion of an immaterial soul. And he shews the excellency of the human soul above others, because it alone apprehends the being of God, who made and contrived the greatest, best things, and alone is capa- ble of doing him service: besides, that it hath prudence Z 2 BOOK I. Xenoph. Mem. 1. i. C. 4. 340 ORIGINES SACRA. and memory above all others. So that mankind are as so many gods among inferior creatures. If a man had the body of an ox, and the mind of man together, he could not do what he would; nor if brutes had hands, and wanted minds, could they do much with them. But you, said he to Aristodemus, have both; and can you think there is no care of Providence about you ? Can you think, said he, that the gods (as he speaks) should plant in men’s minds an opinion that they are able both to reward and punish, if it were not so? and that mankind should be always deceived in this matter, and not be sensible of it? Do not you see, saith Socra- tes, that the most ancient and wisest cities, and nations, and ages, have always shewed the greatest regard to religion? This is a very remarkable testimony of So- crates concerning the sense of former ages about the foundations of religion ; and that the atheistical temper some were then fallen into was a late innovation, and in probability occasioned by that smattering in philo- sophy which was crept in among the Greeks, from the principles of Anaximander and Democritus. But So- crates assures us, the best and wisest ages had a very different sense of these matters. And this Xenophon tells us he had from Socrates’s own mouth; and that he heard this discourse between them. And what now is to be said to such a testimony as this, concerning the sense of mankind about religion ? Have we any reason to mistrust such a testimony as that of Socrates, who was so much valued for his in- tegrity, and lost his life because he could not flatter nor dissemble? For any one that will carefully ex- amine the circumstances of his trial will find, the true reason of his prosecution was, that he had disobliged so many sorts of people by his plain dealing. For, as he told his judges, his way was, when he heard any ORIGINES SACRA. 341 man had a great opinion for his own wisdom and skil] CHAP. above other men, to talk with him, on purpose ‘to 'seé ——— whether there were any sufficient ground for such an Apolog. opinion: which was one of the most disobliging courses aa in the world, considering how fond men are apt to be of themselves, and to think themselves wiser than others, at least in that which they most pretend to. By which means he disobliged the politicians, who hate any man that would pretend to find them out; the sophists, whom on all occasions he exposed, and in the most public manner : and the men of wit and the poets were enraged against him, because he slighted their way, as tending only to entertain the fancy, and not to make men wiser; and in their happiest strains there was only a natural enthusiasm; and although they said many fine things, yet they were not one jot the wiser men. The artificers he found had many pretty knacks; but, because of their skill in such little things, they presumed wonderfully at Athens upon their understandings, and would never bear long any great men among them, when things went by major- ity of votes: as Socrates found, when sentence came to be passed ; for although he had many good friends, yet, when it came to the numbering of votes, he was cast by a great majority. But as the people of Athens were so opinionated of themselves, that they could not bear any man whose reputation lessened theirs; so when they had done such things which made them ill spoken of abroad, then they were for redeeming their own honour, either by recalling them from banishment, if living; or, if dead, by punishing the instruments made use of in the prosecution. So it happened in the case of Socrates: when they found his death brought an odium upon the city, one of his accusers was put to death, another banished: and Plutarch saith, some of Z3 342 ORIGINES SACRA. nook the rest were so weary of their lives, that they put an end to them by hanging themselves. And, to shew hey me their great esteem of him, they caused a statue, made ne by Lysippus, to be set up in a public place in the city, as a perpetual monument of his wisdom, and their own folly. And his carriage at his death was with so much courage, and constancy, and evenness of mind, that they were all satisfied as to his integrity, and freedom from any ill design. What reason can there be then to sus- pect his testimony in this point of religion, when there was not the least constraint or bias upon him; and this attested by so unexceptionable a witness as Xeno- phon; a person of great honour and judgment; and whose writings are such as could hardly be counterfeited by any since him, by reason of their unaffected sweet- ness; for which the ancient critics so much admired Cicero de him; even Cicero, as well as Dionysius Halicarnasseus ey and Quintilian ? Halican. — _—Fyom Socrates I go on to Plato, who, in Cicero's ad Pomp. Quint. X. opinion, (and he was a very good judge,) was princeps Quint nt ingenii et doctrine, the top of ancient wit and learning; and to the same purpose Quintilian, whom Valla es- teemed above all other critics. But I need not go about to set up the reputation of Plato. He was descended from Solon by his mother, and by his father from Co- drus; he was nearly related to Critias, the first of the thirty tyrants, and head of the atheistical club at Athens; and therefore it will be worth our while to find out his true sense and opinion about these matters. To which I shall confine my discourse concerning him. And in his tenth book of Laws he gives an account of three opinions then in vogue among the looser sort of people at Athens. One was, that there was no God at all; the second, that though there was a God, yet there was no Providence ; ae third, that if both were allowed ORIGINES SACRAE. 343 yet that God would accept of gifts and sacrifices, as a compensation for their faults. As to the atheistical hypothesis, it is observable, what character he gives of the persons who were for it, that they were the looser and more dissolute sort of men among them; and especially in the heat of their youth. And that he never knew any man who continued an it from his youth to his old age; and he calls it the plague of young men. The hypothesis, as he lays it down, is much the same with Anaximander’s, viz. that nature and chance produced all things out of a strange chaos, wherein were all sorts of qualities, jumbled and confounded together, and at last, by mixture, came to that we call the world. But that religion, and the differences of just and unjust, depended upon human laws and contrivances, for the better government of mankind. This is the substance of their hypothesis, which Plato, in a long discourse, sets himself to refute, by shewing that these things could not come together by mere na- ture and chance; but were, according to right reason, the product of a superior Mind. And whatever they pretended, as to skill in natural causes, this opinion did proceed from great ignorance about them, and that their reasonings were both impious and incoherent : that their fundamental mistake lay in supposing such motion and mixtures in matter, before any principle to begin or to direct it. For the first motion must be from that which hath a power to move itself, as well as other things; and therefore there must be a mind an- tecedent to matter, in order to the production of things. This is the force of his reasoning. Then he shews how unreasonable it is to suppose a God without Providence, because it must argue either weakness or neglect ; which were both inconsistent with the Divine perfec- Z 4 CHAP. TP BOOK [. Epinom. ae fod ee ed. Ficin. Cel. Rhod. }. xvii. C. 34. Arist. Polit. Piveve-enre ed. Par. Euseb. Prep. Ev. I, xv. ¢. ed. Par. Lactant. de 'ra_ Dei, BAA ORIGINES SACRA. tions: and so he proves was the last opinion, and that it tended to overthrow the practice of virtue. In his Epinomis (which I see no reason to mistrust) he undertakes to prove religion to be the truest wisdom of mankind ; the first principle whereof is, that there as an Eelernal Mind before all matter ; and then saith, that there 1s no greater virtue belonging to mankind than piety, or a due regard to the Divine Beimg. So far was he from looking on religion as an imposture, or trick put upon mankind in order to their better govern- ment. , But Aristotle may be more suspected for this, who wanted no wit, but is generally thought to have been of no religion; and he was by no means fond of Plato’s notions, especially those he took from the Pythagoric school: but yet I hope to shew, that in the main foun- dation of all, as to the being of God, and the happiness of mankind, he agreed with him at last: I do not mean at his death, according to the story in Celius Rhodi- ginus, that then he said, Causa causarum miserere met ; and which Suarez quotes Laertius for; but there is nothing like it in him; and Celius had it out of a trifling book de Pomo: but I go upon the principles delivered by him in his best considered books. In his Politics, indeed, he recommends religion to a prince, an order to his esteem among the people, that they may look on him as under the particular care of Providence. Now this Aristotle is charged to have utterly denied himself; and Atticus the Platonist in Eusebius makes . him worse than Epicurus, because he put his gods quite out of the world, which Aristotle did not; but, said he, he overthrew all religion by denying Provi- dence. And Lactantius is very sharp upon him, and makes him a contemner of God and religion: but to do him right, he saith at other times, That he placed ORIGINES SACRA. 345 one mind over the world; and that Aristotle and his cuap. JSollowers were of the same mind with Antisthenes, that there was but one God in nature, and many po- Sper pular gods. But was not Aristotle charged with im- Maher prety at Athens, and Jorced on that account to with- Jaen draw to Chalcis, where he died, or, as some say, was poisoned? So Eumelus, and the anonymous author of his Life, published by Menagius. It cannot be denied that there was a prosecution against him by Eurymedon and Demophilus ; but so there was against Anaxagoras and Socrates; but the pretence against Aristotle was not for impiety in his doctrine, but for a profane hymn, which he was said to have made on his friend Hermias; such as were wont to be made to Apollo. This Athenzeus denies; and Aristotle sent an Athen.l. xv. apology for himself to Athens; but it was not received. cna The truth was, Aristotle found it was time for him to Sn be gone, lest, as he told his friends, that city should offend twice against philosophy: for, as he said in his lian. ii. letter to Antipater, he found the city abounded with ** sycophants ; and he was fallen under Alexander’s dis- pleasure, on the account of Callisthenes his kinsman; and in a letter of his to Antipater he had said, he would be revenged on the sophister ; and he publicly affronted him by the great present he sent to Xenocra- tes, and none to him: which was sufficient intimation to his enemies, which he never wanted, saith Aristocles, because of the interest he had in princes. And if Pliny’s story be true (which Plutarch and Appian inti- oe N. H. mate too) as to Antipater’s design, Alexander Ligditis bo \'e cause for his displeasure. But Aristocles saith, Phat Enseb. a Apellicon (to whom his books came) wrote so full ai. xv. c. 2. vindication of him, that those who read that, need no more. But they are his principles which we inquire after, and not his practices. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 346 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK who is thought to have understood Aristotle’s mind as eS avellins any commentator, owns, that Aristotle, without Sok ik doubt, asserted, that there was one Eternal Mind Phsie which gave the first motion to matter ; and that there- by things were put into such an order, not by chance, but from the first Mover, so as to produce the variety of species in the world, and to make them useful to each other, and for the good of the whole; and such - an universal Providence, he saith, Aristotle did hold. So much then is confessed by one who was thought his most judicious interpreter. But let us see whether Aristotle may not be reasonably presumed to go beyond Aristot. this: for, 1. he blamed Anaxagoras for making xo more awe * use of his Eternal Mind, than merely to set things in order at first. ‘Then it follows, that, according to him, » Dg God must be more than a mere first Mover. 2. He makes this famous conclusion of his Metaphysics, that things are best governed by one head; which signified no- P.Rami thing, if there be no Providence. Clausulam hanc tam Schol.Me- . taphys. ensignem amplector et laudo, said one of his most bit- l-xiv.c: 1046. enemies; and it cannot be denied, that he there compares the government of the world with that of an army or family, wherein there are several ranks and orders of men for different purposes; which must sup- Aristot.Eth. pose a particular inspection and care. 3. He makes ase the complete happiness of mankind to be éeiey 71, a di- vine thing; and must suppose Providence, as I shall Ibid. 1.x. now make it to appear. He affirms, that a man’s com- aie plete happiness depends upon something divine in him, an the exercise whereof his happiness consists. And therefore he advises those that study to be happy aza- bavarigey, to draw themselves off from mortal things, and to live according to that which is the best thing in us, viz. our minds ; which although they do not so ap- pear in bulk, yet in reality are far greater, and of PES 0 OR Ra kg ORIGINES SACRA, © 347 more value than other things. By which he plainly cuavp. owns such a principle in mankind as is capable of a“ greater happiness than the things of this world can give him; because his mind is of a higher nature than they. But then the question arises, whether mankind can make themselves happy by this Divine principle within them? He gfants in one place, that if there be any aristot.E. gift from God, it ts most reasonable it should be that“ '° whichis best for them; but he avoids the dispute there, because his business was to put men upon using their own endeavours to be happy: but in his last book, where he speaks of this divine wlan he saith, ‘O d¢ Karta vouv evepryov Kal TOUTOY wien Kal DiaKelprevos o plot A, Kal ‘insane ColKev €lvak’ el yep et splat E TOY ae arivey vio Ocav yiverat, @omeD OOKEl, Kau ely ay evAoryov naulpery TE AUTOS TH AploTH Kal cuyyevertatw” TovTe 0 ay ein 6 v0ds, That he that acts according to his mind, and is dis- eth.1. x. posed to do the best things, is the most likely to be be-“? loved of God: for if there be any care above of human affairs, as there seems to be, it is most reasonable to suppose that the gods love what is best and nearest to them; which is our mind. But doth he not seem to speak very doubtfully in this matter? It is observed by his Commentator, that his manner of expression is such as he uses when there is no manner of doubt. But we must take Aristotle as a philosopher, and consider on what grounds he went. He had no revelation to di- rect him, and so was to judge according to what he thought most reasonable; and this he declares he took to be so. And in his following words he saith, Kai TOvS ayanivras PAALTTA TOUTS Kal TLAOYTASs AVTEVTOLELY” Wo TOY pirwy avTols CTL Le NOpLEVOUS® KOs op bis TE Ki KAAOS MPUTTOVTAS, That those who did most esteem and value their own minds, the gods did regard as their friends, and such as did the best actions. That word avrevraeiy is * 348 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK very emphatical in this case; for it implies a retribu- tion of a reward for doing good. So that here we have the complacency which God takes in those that. are good, and do good ; and the reasonableness of expecting a recompense for it. Aristotle was no fool, but was especially admired by very great men; particularly by Tuse. 1-i. Cicero, and Quintilian, and Pliny, for the greatness of 4>5 10. . e e e e e Acad.1.i.4. hts wit and subtlety: Aristoteles vir summo engenio, D Di Ne i e ls ° e e e e e ry 2s. scientie copia. Singulari vir ngenio Aristoteles, et Din Nn pene divino: and such a person would never have been Mk guilty of so great impertinency to set down such ex- pressions as these, if he had not thought them fit to be believed; but he would have set some mark upon them, that they were the opinions of other men, and not his own: and in this case he had more particular reason to have done it; for any one that compares these expres- Platode Sions with those in Plato, de Rep. would think that eee ts Aristotle had taken them from thence. For Plato there “en saith the same thing; That a good man is Oeopirys, one in favour with God; and whosoever is so, shall recewe the best things from him. And we cannot sup- pose that he that designs to be good, and minds the practice of virtue, will be neglected above, when he makes it his business to be as like God as he can. And Plato, who was far from being uncertain as to Provi- Ibid. dence, makes use of the same kind of expression. Elxés y épy tov ToLodToy py apereiobas vad rov ouoiovr. It ts not probable that he should be neglected of one so like him. ee : And Aristotle in the foregoing chapter saith, "Ed écov RreN |: Opnolepnce TL TNS ToLAUTYS evepryelas Umrdpy et, The gods are in a state of perpetual bliss, and mankind are capable of happiness, as they come nearer to a resemblance of them Can any expressions come nearer than these do? We find Aristotle, on other occasions, not very shy of expressing his dissent from Plato, even in these ORIGINES SACRA. 349 books of morals. How warmly doth he dispute against cHap. Plato’s notion of ideas! He saith, there are three kinds __\__ of men pretend to happiness; the sensual and volup= niet tuous ; which, he saith, ts the happiness of slaves and 3 +4- brutes: the busy and active men place it in honour ; which is not in their power. But besides these, there are those who place it in contemplation ; which is most agreeable to the most perfect Saculty we have. But then he saith, Some friends of his had introduced ideas to this purpose ; however he was resolved to prefer truth before them. Here we see he sticks not at con- tradicting Plato, as to his ideas; but is so far from | doing it in the present case, that he takes his very ex- pressions as his own; which he would never have done, if he had not thought them agreeable to truth and rea- son. He did not like Plato’s ideas, nor his poetical fictions about a future State; which made him more reserved in discoursing about it; but he was satisfied in these three things. 1. That the mind of man was capable of a real happiness distinct from the body. 2. That this happiness lies in a similitude to God, as the most perfect Being. 3. That it was reason- able to suppose God should make the best to be most happy. In his Great Morals, he declares it not to be cou- ta. Mag. rage, but madness, not to be afraid of the gods, And“! 5: if there be no Providence, what reason can there be for fear? In the conclusion of his Eudemian Morals, he makes meres it the best end of a man to contemplate God ; and said, that it argues a very ill mind to hinder his wor- ship and service, and the best temper of mind to be little affected with sensual inclinations ; and this, saith he, ts the great end of virtue and goodness. These are not the expressions of a man that despised BOOK i Discuss. Peripatet. tom. 1.1. iii. Paraphr. Ethic. 1. x. c. 10. 350 ORIGINES SACRA. God and Providence; and we are as certain these were his, as we are that we have any books of his. For even Fr. Patritius himself makes very slight objections against them; and the author of the ancient Paraphrase upon his Ethics ad Nicomachum (supposed to be An- dronicus Rhodius) is a far better evidence for them ; who is said to have paraphrased upon Aristotle’s writ- ings, and not upon any other man’s. And he puts this matter out of doubt; for he thus paraphrases his words: If God doth take care of mankind, xobomep witot Coxei kat etn ye, as it seems to all, and is true. And not only Plutarch in the Life of Sylla, but Porphyry in that of Plotinus, say, that Andronicus Rhodius took great care in digesting and explaining Aristolles works. Let us now compare these sayings with the objec- tions taken out of him against Providence. Alex. Aphro- disiensis is of opinion that Aristotle meant no more by Providence, but an universal care to preserve the spe- cies of things, and the order of the world; but he doth not deny, that so far it extends even to sublunary things. But if he did allow such an universal Providence as to the good of the world, I ask then, whether God did know and intend this good and order that is in the world? If he did, then his great argument against particular Providence is taken off; which was, that it was below the Divine perfections to take notice of such mean things. For if it were not below it at first to appoint and order these things, then it cannot be below it to mind or regard them. And since they cannot deny such an universal Providence, they cannot for this reason reject a particular; for it is no more unbecoming God to regard the good of his creatures, than it was at first to make them. But Aristotle utterly rejects their opinion, that attributed the making of things, or the order that appears in them, to blind necessity or chance ; ORIGINES SACRA. 351 and then God must have a power and will to make and CHAP. order these things as they are, and with a design for ___ the good of the whole. Then it follows, that a Provi- dence, that regards the good of the whole, is agreeable to the Divine Nature; and why not then a particular Providence for the same end? If the same power and wisdom can manage the whole for that end, with re- gard to particular events, why should that be rejected, and the other allowed ? All that is pleaded from Aristotle is this: That the Arist. Me- knowledge and care of particular things is troublesome ae 9. and uneasy; that the Eternal Being is happy in it- self; and it is better not to see and know some thing's, than to see and know them. But I urge from Aristotle 14. Ethic. himself, that he yields that the Divine happiness doth” * ° * not he in an unactive state, or such a perpetual sleep as they fancied of Endymion. And what can be more agreeable to Infinite Goodness, than such an activity as employs itself in the care of his creatures ? But, saith Aristotle, How can God understand Metaphys. any thing below himself? He is a perfect object, and’ *"" © * Jit for his own contemplation ; and all other things are infinitely below him. If any made the Divine hap- piness to consist in the knowledge of his creatures, they were extremely mistaken; but I do not find that Socrates or Plato, who were hearty assertors of Provi- dence, say any thing like it. All that they say is, that God, being infinitely good and wise, takes care of the good of the whole, and especially of those that are good ; and if he did not, it must be either from want of power or will; neither of which can be supposed in the Divine nature. And if he wants neither of these, why is it not done? It cannot be said, that Aristotle abso-1a. Rhet. ad lutely denied God’s knowledge of all things ; for in one ch fe place he saith, £¢2s the character of a bad man to sup- 352 ORIGINES SACRE. BooK pose any thing hidden from God; and in another, that __| we attribute to God the knowledge of all things. But ou Rok: i¢ ig possible he might be to seek as to the manner of God’s knowing all things; as who is not?. But if he could not comprehend it, it doth not therefore follow that he denied it. If God, saith he, understands no- thing, then he ts like one that sleeps ; which is not con- sistent with that veneration which we owe to God. If he doth understand, and the principal object be without himself, then he is not the best substance himself. But none ever thought, that if there were a God, the prin- cipal object of his understanding could be without himself. But what repugnancy is there for Infinite Knowledge to comprehend all things ? And so if there be things without himself, he must know them, or his knowledge cannot be infinite. Could Aristotle imagine that the world, and the order of it, were of his making and contriving, and yet he know nothing beyond him- self? Are the several species of things of his ordering and appointing, and yet he not know them? This is impossible. But Aristotle saith, That his essence, as most perfect, is the most proper object of Divine con- templation ; and his understanding is nothing but the understanding of himself: and so, as he expresses it, his understanding is the understanding of his under- Scaliger, standing. Wherein, as Scaliger saith, he did apprehend ae things supra humanum captum ; and I am apt to think so too. But our business is not to unfold the mystery of Divine knowledge with respect to itself, but to con- sider whether it be repugnant to it to know other things. If so, saith Aristotle, there must be a change and motion, but the Divine Essence ts always the same. As though an Infinite Mind could not comprehend all things without a change in itself, or such trouble as we find in our gradual perceptions of things; which arises ORIGINES SACRA. 353 from our weakness and imperfection. The objection from the meanness of things is very inconsiderable. For, if they were fit to make up a part of the order of the world, why are they below Divine knowledge and Providence? If God thought fit to make them, why not to preserve them ? Yes, say they, as to the species he doth, but not as to all the little accidents about them. The schoolmen distinguish in Providence the ratio ordinis from the executio ordinis: the first, they say, is wholly imme- diate, the other is by subordinate causes, which we call the course of nature, which is no more than the com- mon order which God hath appointed in the world; which generally obtains, but yet so as that there must be a due subordination to the first agent, if he sees cause for particular ends to order things otherwise. And I cannot see any kind of incongruity or repugnancy in such a supposition, because it answers the same ends which the original intention and design of universal Providence doth: as that in the ordinary course of na- ture, fire burns, i. e. dissolves that contexture of bodies which it meets with; and this it doth, by virtue of that order of causes and effects which is established by universal Providence. But suppose that there be a stop put to this method by an extraordinary act, for great and wise ends becoming the supreme Governor of the world; why should not this be as agreeable to the design of Providence, as the first appointment of things in the common order was? Why not as well to work miraculous cures at some times, as to leave things to the ordinary methods at other times? But we must still suppose the ends to be wise, and great, and good, for otherwise they do not reach the general de- sign of Providence; and we mean no other particu- lar Providence, but such as answers the same ge- STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Aa CH J XR BOOK 1. Arist. Mag. Moral. 354 ORIGINES SACRA. neral ends which an universal Providence is designed for. But, saith Aristotle, Jf we suppose a particular Providence with respect to mankind, then he must give to men here according to their deserts ; which cannot be, since bad men often meet with good fortune ; and therefore God, being Lord over these things, would deal unjustly as a judge, which is not becoming him to do. Were it cannot be denied that Aristotle doth ex- clude a judicial disposal of these things; for if it were such, his argument must hold: but we distinguish be- tween that and a providential management, in order to the real good of mankind. And I need no other than Aristotle’s own arguments in this case: for 1f a man’s real happiness lies in a similitude of the mind to God, how can that be inconsistent with Divine justice to ex- ercise good men here in such a manner as tends most to draw off their minds from these transitory and de- caying pleasures ? And if these things cannot make a man really happy without virtue, which is the great design of his Morals to prove, how is it inconsistent with his justice to let bad men meet with good for- tune? For these things can be no demonstrations of the favour or displeasure of God, which himself grants relates most to the inward temper of men’s minds. But the real difficulty in this case is a supposition that there is no future state. I confess that Plato clears this matter easily and plainly. A good man, saith he, if he be under poverty, diseases, or other difficulties here, will find these things end in good to him, living or dy- ing; and he makes no question of such a one’s happiness in another state. But Aristotle is upon a great reserve as to a future state; and although he asserts the pos- sibility of it sufficiently, from what he saith of the na- ture of the mind of man, as distinct from the principle ORIGINES SACRAL. 355 of life; yet I am afraid Plato’s giving too much way CHAP. to such poetical fictions as that of Herus Pamphilius, made Aristotle more cautious as to what he said con- cerning it, unless he could go upon surer grounds. He Aristot. de grants, that the mind is of a nature distinct JSrom the . ae body, and separable Jrom it; that it comes from with- ii — out; that a 7s capable of pleasures more divine than Ve Patt. nim. I. i, the body can enjoy or apprehend: but when he hadc.t. gone thus far, the mere light of reason would carry sri ii. him no further; and therefore he rather forbore to say bo pie any thing, than affirm what he could not prove. As sete rds Socrates said in the case of prayer, in the second Alei- Pt’: Be biades ; They must stay till they were better informed. Which is a mighty advantage in behalf of Divine reve- lation. But of that afterwards. Thus far I have considered the persons of greatest reputation in Greece, and compared their opinions, and the grounds they went upon; and I shall proceed no further there, because the following sects were derived from these, and they fell into quarrels and contentions with one another; which I have no occasion at present to consider. And therefore I shall now give an account of another set of philosophers, who settled in that part of Italy which lay towards Sicily, and was called Magna Grecia; and this was called the Pythagorean sect ; which I shall inquire into with respect to the present subject. Pythagoras was a man of wonderful esteem for his wisdom, not only in those parts, but at Rome too. For Pliny and Plutarch tell us, that the Roman senate Plin. N. H. XXXIV. erected a statue to him, as to the wisest man: but scat Pliny wonders that Socrates was not preferred before pen” him. But the Romans had a particular veneration for 8 Nv™- Pythagoras, from the tradition that Numa, the wisest of their kings, was instructed by him. It is true that this is contradicted by Cicero and Livy, (two great men;) Aa 2 356 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK but Plutarch thinks, that they had no certain measure _—___ of times to direct them to judge by, as he shews from Re 5 “6. Clodius’s Index. And there are other odd circumstances ohare tas to Numa, which favour the correspondence ; as his laws about worship and sacrifices, mentioned by Plu- tarch; and especially the Greek books found in his tomb, distinct from those of the Pontifical Rites; for Plin. N.H. Which Pliny produces unexceptionable authorities. Bet ae ”Wven Livy himself, who thought it a mistake about Ce 29 Pythagoras, yet confesses the books contained the wis- dom of the Greeks at that time. If Pythagoras was contemporary with Thales, (as we are told he took his advice about going into Egypt,) what wisdom of the Greeks was there before Thales? But Varro’s testimony is plain as well as the rest, that these books contained the Greek philosophy. And what Greek philosophy could come to Numa, but that of Pythagoras? And Ovid. Met. therefore Ovid makes no scruple of saying, that Numa did consult him. But if Pythagoras was in such esteem at Rome, how came these books to be so solemnly burnt by order of the senate, after they were discovered ? Livy saith, because they tended to dissolve their reli- Lact.i. 22. gon: which Lactantius carries too far, when he saith, that they tended to overthrow all religion. A most improbable story! That Numa should take such care that posterity should believe him to have been a noto-— rious impostor. Do men that deceive the world write books on purpose to let others see they have deceived mankind? No; they take all possible care to prevent any suspicion of that kind. But Numa could not think otherwise but these books would in time come to light. And it is a wonder that they were so long concealed: and so Pliny saith; for they lay there 535 years; Plutarch saith but about 400 years; which others say is a great mistake. However, it was a long time before Ger —— ORIGINES SACRA, 357 they were discovered; by a great shower, saith Plu- tarch; by ploughing, saith Pliny and others. But still, why were these books burnt? The true account I take to be this. Numa’s religion was very different from what then obtained among them. And Q. Petilius, the prator, having got a sight of them, saith Livy, from his kinsman L. Petilius, in whose ground they were found, very officiously informed the senate that they were books of dangerous consequence to their religion; and upon his oath they ordered the burning of them. Now Numa, as Plutarch saith, had expressly forbidden any images in Divine worship; which, he saith, continued for 160 years among the Romans; and the reason he gives was, that the first or supreme Being, according to Numa, was not sensible or visible, but was invisible, pure, and only to be ap- prehended by the mind; which, saith he, was very agreeable to the doctrine of Pythagoras; and the sa- crifices he appointed were unbloody ; of meal and wine, and other easy things. But these things were soon changed; for Plutarch saith that Tullus Hostilius, his immediate successor, changed the devotion which Numa had set up into great superstition; which daily in- creasing, it was no wonder that they should then order Numa’s books to be burnt, which upbraided them with their superstitious folly. But by this we see what Py- thagoras’s notion of God and his worship was. Ovid admires him for his shill in divinity and philosophy ; Jor his giving an account of the beginning and nature of things. Isque, licet coeli regione remotos, Mente Deos adit; et quae natura negabat Visibus humanis, oculis ea pectoris hausit. So that, if we may trust a poet, (and surely his authority is as good as that of Lucretius,) Pytha- ? Aaod Ovid. Met. xv. 62. 358 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK goras asserted the being of God, and the beginning of the world. Magni sii i mundi, Ovid. Met. xv. 67. Et rerum causas, et quid natura docebat ; Quid Deus, unde nives, quee fulminis esset origo. There is a large description of God extant in ae St. Cyril against Julian, according to Pythagoras ; wherein God is said to be intimately present i the world, the beginning oe all things, the mind, and soul, Cicero de and motion of the universe. And so Velleius in Cicero Lic. Saith, that, according to Pythagoras, God was a mind diffused through the world. Which is likewise ex- pressed by Virgil in his known verses, Mens agitat molem, &e. Philolaus, a noted scholar of Pythagoras, (whose books brought the Pythagorean learning into Philo de eSteem in Greece,) gives this description of God, Koti Eka en AP yal, “Hyepov Kas “Apyov amdyrov beds, els Gel @y, BOvI- ae }40S5 AKLVNTOS, AUTOS QUT® 61.0105, eTEpOS TOY Aw, That he is *” the eternal Governor and Ruler over all; being: one and the same always, and different from all others. Which we find in Philo, and have no reason to mistrust his testimony, considering what the other Pythago- reans said concerning the Divine nature. They made God to be one eternal, perfect Being, and that the happiness of mankind lay in a similitude to him, as appears by the Pythagorean fragments in Stobeeus, and elsewhere, which I need not repeat: but I shall only set down the passages of Zaleucus and Charondas, who were known Pythagoreans, as appears by Por- phyry, Iamblichus, Laertius, &c. in the excellent pre- Stob.Serm. faces to their laws. Zaleucus saith, That in the first *1 P- 279 place all persons ought to own and acknowledge the gods ; which, saith he, is manifest by seeing the hea- ven and the world, and the order that is therein; for these are not the work of fortune, or of men’s hands ; ORIGINES SACRA, 359 and they ought to be worshipped and honoured as the CHAP. Author of all good things to us. And to that end they ought to keep their souls pure from evil ; for God ws not honoured by bad men, nor by costly sacrifices, but by virtue, and the choice of good and just actions. Charondas saith, That men ought to begin their actions P. 289. with piety. For God is the cause of all; and they must abstain from evil actions, for the sake of their re- spect to God: for God hath no regard to wicked per- sons. These were men of great and just esteem in their cities ; and their memory is preserved by all that speak of them with great veneration. I might pursue this matter much further; but if this be not sufficient to my purpose, more will be less regarded: for mankind are better pleased with choice, than a;heap; and I have only pitched upon persons of great esteem in the world. Only Pythagoras did not go down well with some of the Greeks, because of his mystical and symbolical ways of instruction; which the Greeks were by no means fond of, as appears by Xenophon’s Epistle to Atschines, (if it be genuine, and I see little reason to question it ;) for he upbraids Plato with mixing the Pythagoric extravagancies with the plain doctrine of Socrates, which Xenophon kept strictly to. But as to Pythagoras himself, Cicero extols him Tuse.Liv.t. for his wisdom and quality ; and he saith, the Pytha- A wi goreans for a great while were accounted the only pn learned men. Pliny admires him for his sagacity ; pin. N.H. Apuleius for the greatness of his wit; and the people font Fie of Crotone and Metapontum, as more than a MUN. rh tee His greatest fault was, that he was too wise; for he '> locked up his secrets so close, that the greatest part of mankind were not much the better for them; only the cities of Magna Grecia were wonderfully reformed by his means, (if the Pythagoreans may be believed ;) but Aa 4 360 ORIGINES SACRA. Book at last the prevalent faction of Cylon, and his brutish party at Crotone, destroyed many of the disciples of Pythagoras, and dispersed the rest. And Pythagoras himself ended his days either by violence, or the dis- content he had to find his good designs disappointed in such a manner. The reputation of his school was for some time kept up by Archytas and Philolaus; and some that escaped the common danger, as Lysis, (who went to Epaminondas in Greece, and is supposed to have published the Golden Verses,) and several others, are mentioned by Porphyry and Iamblichus. But Por- phyry observes, that they only preserved some dark and obscure notions of the Pythagoric doctrine, and made wonderful secrets of them; which he thinks did not contain the true doctrine of Pythagoras, but only some sparks of it, which were far from being clear. And the decay of the Pythagorean doctrine he doth not only impute to the violence of the faction raised against the Pythagorean society in those cities of Italy where they flourished, but to their enigmatical way of ex- pressing their minds by numbers and figures; and to the Doric dialect, which was almost sacred among them: and after their books were come into Greece, he saith, Plato and others took out the best, and put it into smoother language, which made the rest be slighted. And he thinks some invented things on purpose, im their names, to expose them the more. So that it is no easy matter to judge now what was the genuine Py- thagorean doctrine, except what we find mixed with Plato; who had the best opportunities of understanding their doctrine by going among them himself, and after- wards getting the books of Philolaus into his hands. And Porphyry, in the Life of Plotinus, doth particu- larly commend him for joining the doctrines of Pytha- goras and Plato together, beyond any that had gone aah nee Ye —— ORIGINES SACRA. 361 before him. From whence it appears, that there was cHap. no difference between them as to the first cause and the __“ production of things. But what shall we say to Ocellus Lucanus, who is mentioned as a disciple of Pythagoras by Iamblichus ; and Archytas, in his Epistle to Plato, mentions a book of his of the Generation of Things; which hath been often published out of MSS. and doth plainly assert the world’s eternity, and being from itself; and so overthrows the Pythagorean doctrine, of God’s being the beginning of all. In answer. That there is something genuine of Ocellus extant, I do not question. For Stobzeus pro- Stobeus duces a fragment out of his Book of Law, written in phere of the Doric dialect, according to their custom, and the? °* precept of Pythagoras, wherein he doth positively as- sert, that God was the cause of the world, auras dé aitios 6 Oeés: but that is not all; for he saith, the world con- sists of two parts; of that which governs, and is the principle of motion ; and that which is called passive, and is governed. The first, he saith, is active and di- vine, having reason and understanding ; the other is made unreasonable, and liable to changes. How can this be reconciled to the principles of the other book ? And yet Vizzanius, who compared it with several MSS. and published it, hath printed this fragment at the end of the other. As to the different dialect, he supposes ?t was first written in Doric, but after turned into the Attic: but of this he offers no proof; only he saith, 7¢ was done as words are translated out of Por- tuguese into Castilian ; or, which answers more to the Dorie, out of Scotch into English. No one questions but such things have been done, and may be so again. But how doth it appear that the whole book was so? For there are some fragments of this very piece in Sto- BOOK B Stobzeus Eclog. Phys. c. 24. p- 44. ed. Canter. Ocell. Lu- can. ¢. I. sect. 8. ed. Bon. Phil. Oper. p. 946. Vol. ii. ed. Mangey. Acad. Qu. 1 iy. ¢,. 35. Cicer. de Nat. Deor. at. 6, 23, 362 ORIGINES SACRE. beeus, m the Doric dialect, which is the conclusion of the first chapter, and some parts of the second and third, which I suppose to have been genuine, and the groundwork of the rest; which some unknown philo- sopher built more upon, and turned these fragments into the Attic Greek, to make them all of a piece. The Pythagoreans did assert, that the world was in- corruptible, as appears by the fragments of Philolaus, and others, in Stobeeus; but that which is asserted in this piece is, that the world was self-originated, which was contrary to their doctrine, and of Ocellus Lucanus himself. There can be no dispute about the fragment of the Book of Law, where his opinion is plain and clear, that God is the cause of all, and that the first Cause is a wise and intelligent Being. Let us now compare this with the doctrine of this book, wherein he asserts, Ovtws civ Kai To Tols GAAOLS aitioy yive- pevov THS avToTEAElas, avto e& éavtov avtotedts, That the world is the cause of perfection to other things, and therefore ts perfect from itself. Vizzanius would have it believed that this was the Peripatetic doctrine. If he means that of Aristotle, I have already shewed how false it is; since he so plainly derives the being and perfection of the world from God, and not from itself. But that which will give the greatest light into this matter is, that Nogarola, who published Ocellus in Italy, with notes, observes, that Critolaus, the Peripa- tetic in Philo, used the same argument, that the world must be eternal, because wt ts the cause of its own being, and of other things in it. Now this Critolaus succeeded in the Peripatetic school at Athens, after the doctrine of it, about the beginning of things, had been altered by Strato Lampsacenus, who, as Cicero tells us, attributed all to nature, and nothing to God; supposing that na- ture had all causes within itself: And so Plutarch WAR ORIGINES SACRA. 363 saith, that Strato the Peripatetic supposed nature crap. alone to give a being to all things from itself. Here __* we have found the very principle of this book, which Git,"” goes under the name of Ocellus Lucanus, which is re- pugnant to what himself had expressly declared; but some one of these atheistic Peripatetics at Athens finding that Ocellus Lucanus had said something that might be turned to their purpose, takes what was ancient of Ocellus, and puts it out of the Doric into the Attie dialect, and makes a short System of the Universe; which they thought would better pass in the world under the name of ancient Pythagorean. And this seems to me the truest account of this matter. As for the arguments themselves, such as they are, I shall consider them im a more proper place. Thus I have gone through the opinions of the eldest philosophers of greatest esteem, about God and Provi- dence, and the production of the world. But, before I proceed further, it will be necessary to make some re- flections on the foregoing discourse, which may be very serviceable to my following designs. That those philosophers who asserted the being of = © God and Providence, were persons of the greatest re- putation for wisdom and knowledge, and did not hold these things merely from tradition, but from the strong- est evidence of reason; which appeared by this: that, after the atheistical hypotheses of Anaximander and Democritus were started, they were not in the least moved by them; but saw an absolute necessity, in point of reason, of holding a first Cause, which not only gave a beginning to the world, but continued to govern it: even Aristotle owning an universal Provi- dence from such reasons, as will hold much further. That these philosophers, who followed their natural 2, reason, were very far from looking on the universe as 364 ORIGINES SACRA. Book made up only of bodies, or that an incorporeal sub- '___ stance implied a contradiction. These were persons who understood very well what a contradiction meant ; and if there had been any such repugnancy in the no- tion of mind or spirit as distinct from body, they would have found it out. But Anaxagoras asserted a supe- rior Mind antecedent to matter or body; so did Socra- tes, and Plato, and Aristotle too; who expressly asserts Metaphys. God to be an essence without bulk and indivisible, or TENT yout any parts ; but this can never agree to a body, although never so fine and subtle. And Cicero tells Cie. Tuse. us, Nec vero Deus ipse, qui intelligitur a nobis, alio Be Te Ca2s . 2 ae es ° modo intelligt potest, nisi mens soluta quedam et li- bera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens et movens, tpsaque predita motu sempiterno : That they could have no other notion of God but as a Jree mind, remote from any composition, knowing and perceiving, and moving all things. Even the Stoics, who blundered most in this matter, yet yielded God spe Nate to be Numen prestantissime mentis, as Balbus in Laert. Vit. Tully calls him; and Zeno in Laertius describes God ek is ae be an immortal, rational, and most happy Being, uncapable of evil, and taking care of the world. Se- Sen. Con. neca saith, The world was framed by God, or by in- sol. ad Hel. : c. 8. corporeal Reason. If at other times they seem to con- tradict this, we are not here concerned to clear or vin- dicate them; because my inquiry is confined to those who were elder, and not so given to paradoxes and in- novation in terms, as the Stoics were. 3: That the true and complete happiness of mankind lay in a similitude to God: herein Socrates and Pytha- goras, and their scholars agreed, as abundantly appears in the Pythagorean Fragments; and that the way to be like God is to be virtuous, and good, and wise ; and that all other things, which mankind are apt to ORIGINES SACRA. 365 value so much, fall infinitely short of this. And I cuap. have shewed that Aristotle himself came to this at last ; : for which I have produced unquestionable authorities from his works. That religion and piety are very great and SUR. i.e mendable virtues in mankind. Plato said, the greatest. See Pythagoras gave very good rules about Divine worship; a pine that it should be performed seriously, and with great attention of mind ; and not by the bye, and by chance. That our minds were most affected with religion and prety in the due worship of God; that we should un- dertake nothing without prayer ; wherein Socrates and Pyth. Aur. Plato agree with him. And Aristotle looked on it as °2"™ 4 madness to despise God and religion. That good men are to bear the troubles of this world s. as well as they can, and to look for happiness in a fu- ture state. This appeared by the carriage of Socrates at his death, and his discourses then; and the courage and constancy of Pythagoras and his disciples, when they were so miserably handled by their inveterate enemies ; setting fire in the house where they met, banishing some, and famishing others, and dispersing the rest. That there was a common consent of mankind as to 6. the being of God, and immortality of souls. Which appears not only by express testimonies of philosophers, but by their appeals to the sense of former ages and distant nations about them. That, notwithstanding that light of reason which 7. they had, yet they found it so defective in many things, that they thought nothing more desirable than a clear revelation about such things which were of great im- portance to mankind, but they found to be out of their reach to recover; as appeared by the confession of So- crates, and the silence of Aristotle about a future state, BOO i. 366 ORIGINES SACRA. when his reason could only go to the possibility, and not to the undoubted certainty of it. For I have shew- ed that Aristotle hath asserted so much concerning the nature and properties of the soul, or rather the mind of man, that it cannot be destroyed by death; but yet he was so far to seek concerning a future state after death, by reason of the poetical fictions about it, that _he rather chose to say nothing, than what might be thought fabulous or uncertain. And now, I hope, I have sufficiently cleared:-the first thing which I undertook; which was to shew, that it was a most unreasonable prejudice against religion, that it was only a contrivance of priests and politicians for their own ends. I come now to consider, in the next place, what ac- count is given by such men of that impression of reli- gion, which hath been upon the minds of men in all ages. And the cause must be as general as the effect. Since then we find this effect of religion in all kinds of men, some universal and common reason must be as- signed for it: which is the thing I am now to consider. And since no person hath undertaken this matter in such a manner as Mr. Hobbes hath done, I shall parti- Leviathan, cularly examine what he hath said concerning it. See- eli, 12. ing there are no signs nor fruit of religion but in man only, there is no cause to doubt, but that the seed of religion is also only in man, and consisteth im some peculiar quality, or at least in some eminent degree thereof, not to be found in other living creatures. But what is this peculiar quality in mankind? For therein the difficulty lies. How come men of all sorts to be possessed with it? not merely the unthinking multitude, but men of the deepest sense and greatest capacity, and who have taken the most pains to inquire into these matters. ORIGINES SACRA. 367 And first, saith he, it is peculiar to the nature of CHAP. man to be inquisitive into causes of the events they see," some more, some less; but all men so much as to be curious in the search of the causes of their own good and evil fortune. To be inquisitive into the causes of events, is very proper for rational beings; but we do not mean such as relate merely to their own good or evil fortune, which is no commendable curiosity ; but. into the nature and reason of things which they see in the world; and this we say leads men to a first cause, which is God. This he mentions in the next words. Secondly, upon the sight of any thing that hath a beginning, to think also it had a cause to determine the same to begin when it did, rather than sooner or later. And was not this a very reasonable thought ? For what hath a beginning must certainly have a cause which produced it; which determined its being at that time. And if this be such a peculiar quality in man- kind, then there is something in reason which carries them to the owning a God, which gave a being to the world, and to the things in it. Thirdly, Man observeth how one event hath been produced by another, and remembereth in them ante- cedence and consequence; and if he cannot find out the true causes of things, he supposes causes of them rather from his own fancy, or authority of others whom he esteems. But how come mankind not to find out the true causes of things? For this is here very slily supposed, without giving the least reason for it; and withal, the things that men search for the causes of are supposed to be only such as relate to their good and evil for- tune, (which are said to be for the most part invisi- ble ;) but is it not possible for men to inquire into the BOOK I, 368 ORIGINES SACRA. causes of other things, which we plainly see? Do we not see our own bodies, and those of other animals, as well as the heavens and earth? And is it not as proper and reasonable for mankind to inquire into the causes of these, as well as into their good and evil fortune ? “What strange stuff is this, to suppose all mankind only to run after fortune-tellers, and never to concern them- selves about the causes of the visible world! Could any one, that in the least pretended to philosophy, ever think so meanly of the rest of mankind? But these are the causes which we search for; and we hope na- tural reason will conduct men in this inquiry to their satisfaction, so that they need not to have recourse to fancy or authority. But he goes on: The two first make anxiety, i. e. a man’s inguisitiveness into causes in general, and think- ing that what had a beginning must have a cause. For being assured that there be causes of all things, this fills him with soleitude for the time to come; and so his heart is gnawed on perpetually by fear of death, poverty, or other calamity; and hath no repose or pause of his anxiety but in sleep. What! Do men think of nothing but what calamities may befall them ? And must they needs perpetually perplex themselves with the fear of future evils? Those who were called philosophers in former times thought it possible for such who believed God and Providence not to live under such perpetual anxiety. But what follows? This perpetual fear always accompanying mankind in the ignorance of causes, as it were tn the dark, must needs have for object something ; and therefore when there 1s nothing to be seen, there is nothing to accuse, either of their good or evil fortune, but some power or agent invisible. Thence the poets said, that the gods were first created by human fear; which ORIGINES SACRA. 369 being spoken of the many gods of the Gentiles, is very true. But how come we from the qualities of human nature to fall upon the gods of the Gentiles ? The question was, what it is in mankind which inclines them to believe a God? The answer is, that fear made the gods of the Gentiles. What is that to all mankind ? Suppose there had been no such saying among the poets, nor such gods among the Gentiles, the question still remains, whence comes mankind to apprehend a Deity ? Doth it all come from a vain superstitious fear, such as men have in the dark, of they know not what ; and because they see nothing, they imagine some invi- sible power? Is this the true ground of the seed of religion in men’s minds ? If so, then there is no ground in reason to believe a God, but only an ignorant super- stitious fear. — Not so, saith Mr. Hobbes. But the acknowledg- ment of one God, eternal, infinite, and omnipotent, may more easily be derived from the desire men have to know the causes of natural bodies, and their several virtues and operations, than from the fear of what was to befall them in time to come. What is the meaning of this? Lhe acknowledgment of one God may be more easily derived, &c. If he had meant sincerely, he would not have said, that i¢ may be more easily derived, but that no tolerable account can be given of those things any other way. But we are to observe, that he makes ignorance and fear to be the general seeds of religion in mankind: so that this acm knowledgment of one God doth not come from the seed of religion, but only from men’s being puzzled about a series of causes. or, as he goes on, he that, from any effect he sees come to pass, should reason to the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plunge himself profoundly STILLINGFLEET, VOL, ITI. Bb CHAP. I. BOOK I 370 ORIGINES SACRA. in the pursuit of causes, shall at last come to this (even _____as the heathen philosophers confessed) one first Mover ; that ts, a first and an eternal Cause of all things, which ts that which men mean by the name of God. This seems a plain confession, that reason must carry men to the owning a first and an eternal Cause of all things. And is not reason a peculiar quality in man- kind? How then come the seeds of religion not to be placed therein, but 7 ignorance and fear? And he after saith, that the natural seed of religion hes im these four things; opinion of ghosts, ygnorance of second causes, devotion towards what men fear, and taking things casual for prognostics. How comes the . natural reason of mankind to be left out? If by that men may be convinced of a first and eternal Cause of things, doth not that dispose men to a fear and re- verence towards a Divine Majesty? And is not that religion ? Then the best and truest seed of religion lies in that which most disposeth the mind to fear God. What is the meaning then that the seed of religion is placed by him in things without reason? If men by reason are brought to own or acknowledge one God, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, doth not the same reason oblige them to pay him that reverence, and fear, and duty, which is owing to him? Therefore by this seed of religion, he really can mean nothing but an inclina- tion to superstition. And to this purpose he speaks in the conclusion of the foregoing chapter. And this fear of things invisible, is the natural seed of that which every one in himself calleth religion; and in them that fear or worship that power otherwise than they do, superstition. Here is a notable distinction found out between religion and superstition; the former is the good word a man gives to himself, the other the nickname he bestows on those who differ from him. , —_ = bp RR Pail SIs = ‘4 ORIGINES SACRA. 371 But, in general, religion and superstition are the same CHAP. thing to him; unless a difference be found out from __" the allowance of one, and not of the other. So he saith in another place: Fear of power invisible Seign- Leviathan, ed by the mind, or imagined from tales publicly allow-°"*"?*® ed, is religion; not allowed, superstition. So that what is feigned and allowed is religion; and what is not allowed is superstition. So that the worship of the heathen gods, being from tales publicly allowed, was religion, and not superstition; and the Christian worship under the persecution, was superstition and not religion. No, saith Mr. Hobbes. When the power imagined is such as we imagine, that is true reli- gion. How can it be true religion, if religion be a Sear of a power imagined by the mind, or Jrom tales publicly allowed? For if this be religion in general, true religion must be a true fiction; a real chimera, an allowed piece of nonsense. But when the power is such as we imagine it, then, saith he, it is true religion. But if it were a power imagined to be such as the law makes it, is not that true religion ? And if it contra- dicts what is so established, can this be according to Mr. Hobbes’s true religion ? Then it follows, that the distinction doth not arise from the public allowance or disallowance. For if it be possible for the civil power to disallow the worship of the true God, (as we know it hath too frequently happened,) is such worship, being disallowed, true religion ? If it be, then it is impossible the other should be true, that religion is taken from the public allowance, and superstition from the disal- lowance. But they who put in some expressions only for a disguise and concealment, know well enough that they contradict themselves ; and they know their friends will allow them in it, as long as the true meaning may be understood by them: and the safest way of instil- Bb BOOK 3 Lescaloper in Cic. de N. D.i. pe 127. ed. Par. Tract. The- olog. Polit. 372 ORIGINES SACRAL. ling atheism, is by writing contradictions, i. e. by seem- ing at some times to own a God, but by the whole se- ries of the discourse to overthrow his being; as a mere fancy of an invisible power raised by a predomi- nant fear. But hereby we see that fear prevails so much on such men, that they dare not speak consist- ently; which is very unbecoming philosophers. As the gross hypocrisy of Vaninus before his discovery, and the most servile flatteries and importunities of Theophile in France, did shew how much the power of fear may sway in those who have no religion, (which may be allowed in them.) But how comes fear to be made out to be the seed of religion in mankind? This a true disciple to the Leviathan, in the preface to his book, hath undertaken to make out more fully than Mr. Hobbes had done; and therefore ought to be con- sidered in this place. When men, saith he, are under any great distress, and see not the way out of i, their anxiety and fear makes them act like men distracted, and ask any one’s help, which at another time they would despise: so we find it as to religion ; when they are in great trouble, they run to their prayers ; and when they are over, their devotion. is soon cooled ; as he instances in Alexander, and might have done in many others. But what is all this to the proof of the main point? That men are too prone to superstition, especially under calamities, there is no question. But it is a most unreasonable supposition, that all religion is nothing else but superstition, which men take up only when they are at their wits end. but if there be a God and Providence, as we find both the best phi- losophers asserted, and the strongest reason prove it, then whatever men’s condition be as to this world, there is the same ground in reason for a due reverence and worship to be paid to him. But it is a very bad way ORIGINES SACRA. 373 of arguing against all religion, because of some men’s extravagant superstition. Some men have run mad with superstition. What follows? Therefore all reli- gion is madness? Where lies any colour in the argu- ment ? Some have been mad thr ough an excess of love; therefore all love is madness ? No; but we must inquire into the proper objects and eseens of love; whereof some are allowable, and some not. So hota in the passion of fear; there is a violent, foolish, ungovern- able fear; but may there not be a prudent, wise, and reasonable fear? It is madness and folly in great distresses to run to what cannot help us: but is it so to make our addresses to a Being infinitely wise and powerful, who alone can do it? Here lies the funda- mental mistake of these men: they would have it taken for granted that there is no God nor Providence, and then they cry out upon the foolish fear and superstition of mankind: but they cannot deny, that, if our founda- tions be true, religion is a wise and reasonable thing in mankind ; as it is an owning our Creator by a solemn submission to him, and invocation of his help, and de- pendence upon his providence. Let any man in his wits (let his condition as to this world be what it will) deny that it is reasonable for him to be governed by one in- finitely wiser and better than himself. If his condition be prosperous, he hath more reason to be thankful; if it be troublesome, he hath more reason to be patient ; because God knows best both how to support him under it, and to deliver him out of it. But if there be no God nor Providence, he hath nothing but the mi- serable comfort of necessity. But did not the multi- tude of gods in the Gentile world come from their ig- norant and superstitious fear, as Mr. Hobbes hath at large shewed? Truly he needed not to have taken so much pains to prove-a thing which nobody denies, BRb3 CHAP. I. 374 ORIGINES SACRA, Hoe K But what then? The Gentiles feigned a great many ———— gods from their superstitious fear; therefore there is no God but what is the effect of fear. Is this good arguing? But they fancied powers invisible, which were only in their own imaginations. Therefore there is no invisible power but what depends upon imagina- tion. Can such men pretend to reason, who talk at this rate? But those invisible powers they took to be spirits, and that they were incorporeal, or immaterial, which are words of a contradictory signification. "This is news, and ought to have been proved in some mea- sure, since the best philosophers, who understood con- tradictions, never thought so, as I have shewed already. But those who, by their meditation, arrive to the ac- knowledgment of one infinite, omnipotent, eternal God, chose rather to confess he is incomprehensible and above their understanding, than to define his nature by spirit incorporeal, and then confess their definition to be unintelligible. Do any, that believe God to be an immaterial substance, confess this to be unintel- ligible? I rather believe that they think a material God to be unintelligible, as being inconsistent with the Divine perfections. And although they acknowledge that what is infinite is so far incomprehensible, yet they may have clear and distinct conceptions of a first and eternal Cause, which is endued with infinite perfections. And this is not only attributed to him as a title of ho- nour with a pious intention; but from the true sense of their minds, as to such attributes which are proper to God. es When Mr. Hobbes was charged with introducing &c.p. 30. atheism, by denying immaterial or incorporeal sub- stances, he undertook to defend himself; not only be- _cause we say God is incomprehensible, but because the P.32. notton of an incorporeal substance came from Plato ies Se ene eine nates ORIGINES SACRA. 375 and Aristotle, who mistook those thin inhabitants of the brain they see in sleep for so many tncorporeal men ; and yet allow them motion, which is proper only to things corporeal. Before he seemed only to say, that the ignorant superstitious people entertained this notion of spirits or invisible powers being only crea- tures of the brain like the images in sleep: but now it seems Plato and Aristotle were no wiser, and that we receive it from them. But I have made it appear that the difference of mind and matter was before them : and that not by mere fancy, but by invincible reason ; because otherwise there could be no such thing as the motion and disposition of matter in such a manner as we see it in the world. And this was the ground which those philosophers went upon; who were as little given to be imposed upon by their dreams, as any before or since their time. And it is a strange confi- dence in any man to think to bear down the general sense of the most philosophical part of mankind, with bare saying, that an immaterial substance implies a contradiction. But he offers to prove it after an ex- CHAP. I. traordinary manner; Mor, saith he, it ts in English p. 33. something that without a body stands under Stands under what? Will you say, under accidents? Ridi- culous ! Did Plato or Aristotle use the word substance ? And when it came to be used, the word signified the same with being; and so the jest is quite lost. Such pitiful things as these must pass for wit and philosophy with some men. But to proceed with Mr. Hobbes. After he hath reckoned up the many follies which the Gentiles fell into by their superstitious fear, he concludes in this manner. So easy are men to be drawn to believe any thing from such as have got credit with them, and can with gentleness and dexterity take hold of their igno- Bb 4 BOOK I. Cicero de Nat. Deor. Cicero de Leg. i. c. 8. Tusce. I. i. Gis. 40. De. Nat. Deor. 1. ii. G 2. Ibid. 376 ORIGINES SACR#. rance and fear. Still we meet with nothing but the result of ignorance and fear in the Gentile world. We do not deny that religion was exceedingly corrupted among them; but we affirm, that the true foundations of religion were kept up among men of understanding ; as fully appears by the discourses of Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Cicero, &c. Why are their rea- sons never so much as mentioned, and nothing thought worth insisting upon, but only the gross superstitions and follies of the people ? This doth not look like fair dealing with mankind; to represent only the meanest and most deformed parts, and to conceal what any ways tended to the honour of them, and of religion. Cicero dealt with mankind in this matter in a much more ingenuous and candid manner. He doth not con- ceal the follies either of the people or of the philosophers about their gods; but then he sets down all the argu- ments for God and Providence, and urges them with all his force. And in other places he owns the general consent of mankind, as to the esteem and worship of a Divine nature: which he is far from imputing to men’s ignorance and fear ; but he saith zt ts the voice of na- ture itself. Nay, he goes so far as to say, Quad enim potest esse tam apertum, tamque perspicuum, cum coelum suspeaimus, coelestiaque contemplati sumus, quam esse aliquod Numen prestantissime mentis quo hec regantur ? That there is nothing more evident to any one that looks up to the heavens, than that there is a most excellent Mind, by which these things are governed. Quod qui dubitet, haud sane intelligo, cur non idem, sol sit, an nullus sit, dubitare possit. Quid enim est hoc illo evidentius? And he questions whether it be more evident that the sun shines. At what another rate doth that excellent orator speak of human nature with respect to religion, than our mo- | >| ORIGINES SACRA. 377 dern pretenders to philosophy ? Nay, Sextus Empiricus cHap. himself sets down the arguments fairly which prove —~_— the being of God, viz. the consent of mankind ; 2 Nein eis order of the world; the absurdities of atheism, and >, 257 the weakness of the arguments for it. Which he doth largely insist upon; and distinguishes between the common errors of the people, and the natural argu- ments of mankind, with the consent of the wisest and sharpest men among them; as Pythagoras, Empe- docles, the Ionic philosophers, (from Anaxagoras,) So- crates; Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. 4nd, saith he, uf we inquired after an object of sight, we would rely most on those who saw best; or, after a sound, on those of the quickest hearing : so in matters of speculation, the opinion of philosophers ought most to be re- garded. Which he never answers when he sets down the arguments on the other side; which are chiefly those of Carneades against the Stoics, who laid them- selves open by some hypotheses of their own. But Mr. Hobbes tells us, that the first founders and legislators of commonwealths among the Gentiles took great care to keep the people in obedience and peace ; and to that end pretended to revelation for their laws ; and prescribed ceremonies, and supplications, and sa- crifices, &c. by which they were to believe the anger of the gods might be appeased. And thus the religion of the Gentiles was a part of their policy. Who goes about to deny this, or to justify the -vain pretences to revelation among some of the ancient legislators, be- sides Numa Pompilius, whom Diodorus Siculus takes care to preserve the memory of? as of Mneves, as he calls him, the first legislator in Egypt, who pretended to have his laws from the god Hermes: but this seems to have been a mistake for Menes, whose counsellor Hermes was. His others are, Minos of Crete, Lycur- BOOK if Diod. Sic, l,i. c. 59, et 93. 378 ORIGINES SACRA, gus at Sparta, Zathamustes (as he calls him) among _the Arimaspi, Zamolxis among the Getz; and among the rest he reckons Moses, who had his laws from the god Iao. No question Diodorus Siculus believed all alike; but I hope to shew the mighty difference be- tween Moses and the rest in the following discourses. But here I am only to consider the force of the argu- ment. These Gentile legislators did pretend revela- tion when they had it not, only with a design to deceive the people. Doth it hence follow, that there is no such thing as religion; but that it is only a trick made use of by cunning legislators, to draw the people the better to obedience? Now I think the argument holds the other way; for if the people were not before well per- suaded of the truth of religion in general, this argument would have no force at all upon them. For, let us suppose a people altogether unacquainted with religion, or uncertain of the truth of it, to be dealt with by some cunning legislator, and he comes and tells them he had brought them an excellent body of laws, which he had by revelation from God; what would this signify to a people that were possessed with Mr. Hobbes’s notion of invisible powers, that were only fancies, such as appear in a dream or a glass; would they be at all persuaded by such an argument to obedience? No; but they would rather look on him as an impostor, that went about to deceive them in the grossest manner; which would raise an invincible prejudice against them. But, saith Mr. Hobbes, they had the original seeds of reli- gion, viz. ignorance and fear; and upon these such legislators did work. But he can never make it out that ever there was a people possessed with such igno- rance and fear, but they had a notion of a Deity among them before such legislators’ appearing ; and all the ad- vantage they had was from such an antecedent belief ORIGINES SACRE. 379 of a God: then indeed it was no hard matter for such cHap. legislators to impose upon them; but without it the" supposition is unreasonable. But Mr. Hobbes saith, that men in the dark are afraid of invisible powers. As though there were no more to be said for the being of God and Providence, than for stories of hobgoblins ; and this lies at the bottom of all his discourse. Wherein he contradicts the common sense and reason of man- kind, who have agreed in the notion and belief of a Deity, and that as J have shewed from Socrates and Xenophon, as well as others in the eldest and best ages even of the Gentile world. But Mr. Hobbes saith, where he speaks his mind more freely, that there is ig he no argument from natural reason doth prove that the world had its beginning from God ; «and yet he saith, there is no argument to prove a Deity but from the creation. So that all proof of a God, in point of reason, must be destroyed by him. This he knew was objected against him; and the answer he gives is, That there ee: are no arguments from natural reason, except the p. 34. creation, that have not made it more doubtful to many than it was before ; and therefore his opinion is, that this matter is to be left to the law to determine. A very philosophical answer! But why doth not the ar- gument from the creation hold, when himself had said, that from the series of causes there must be one first Mover, i.e. a first and an eternal Cause of all things ? But that came in by the bye, to avoid odium in a book for all persons’ reading ; but in his Philosophical Dis- courses he doth not allow this argument to hold. For what reason? Because, saith he, it only proves that a man’s mind cannot go on in infinitum, but he must stop somewhere; and at last he grows weary, and knows not whether he should go on farther or not. And is this all the force of the argument from the creation ? BOOK ie 380 ORIGINES SACRA, What becomes now of the argument from the mechan- acal contrivance of the human body, which, he said, was so clear a proof of a wise Maker, that he must be said to be without a mind, that did not assert that it was made by one? And this is in one of his Philosophical Treatises, published after the other; but in his vindi- cation of himself, he justifies the former passage; only he saith, except the creation. So that he knew not well what to say in this matter; but only, to keep himself out of danger, he was resolved to submit to the law. But that is not our point: and why did he not go about to take off the argument from the wise contriv- ance of things, which ought to go along with the other ? But he knew it was far easier to darken an ar- gument, wherein eternity and infinity is concerned; and so from thence would infer, that in the series of causes mankind are only puzzled, and not convinced. But why, I pray, must a man’s mind give over in the search of causes, as not knowing whether he may go on or not? Can any thing be plainer in common reason, than that in the order of causes a man must go on till he arrive at a first Cause ? What should make a man to stop here? for he sees he must go on till he comes at a first. No, saith Mr. Hobbes, a first Cause is in- Jimte, and whatever is infinite is above our conception, and so we are lost. But that is running from the order of causes to the nature of the object, which is a thing of another consideration. But he saith yet farther, that the argument fran motion doth only prove an eternity of motion, and not an eternal first Mover ; because as nothing can be moved from itself, so whatsoever gives motion must be first moved. But all this depends upon the supposition that. there is nothing in the universe but body; and if that be granted, his argument holds: but if there be mind “ = ae = > al Seat : oe et = ORIGINES SACRA, 381 distinct from body, and can give motion to it, there is not so much as the colour of reason in this argument. And so much in answer to the second atheistical pre- tence. The third atheistical pretence to be considered, is, that there is no such common consent of mankind, as to God and Providence, as was asserted by the ancients, and 1s still by the defenders of religion ; for, upon the late discoveries, whole nations have been found without any sense of God or religion. This is a thing very fit to be inquired into, with more care than hath been yet used about it: for although we do not ground the truth of religion merely upon such a general consent, but upon those arguments which the wiser part of man- kind hath insisted upon, of which I have given some account in the foregoing discourse; yet such an uni- versal consent doth manifestly shew that there is no- thing repugnant to the common sense of mankind init ; nothing that looks like a trick or imposture, which could never so universally prevail as this hath done, especially among the more sensible and civilized part of mankind. But, for our better understanding this matter, it will be necessary to lay down some general observa- tions. That we have reason to distinguish the more brut- ish and savage people from the more tractable and reasonable ; because it is possible for mankind, by an affected and universal neglect of all kind of instruction, to degenerate almost to the nature of brutes. But surely such are not fit to be brought in for the instances of what naturally belongs to mankind ; which we ought to judge of by a due measure, i. e. by such as neither want natural capacity, nor are professed savages, nor have the improvements of the most civilized people. CHAP. He BOOK i Acosta of the Indies, Bie: O Voyage to Surat, Descript. Ind. Occid. iv. Ce 25. De Orig. Gent. Am. Pp. 27. Acosta of the West Indies, 1. Vid. "0543. Du Val Observa- tions sur le Voyage de Pirard, Pe T1338 De Laet ind. Occid. 1. hi. c. £2. 382 - ORIGINES SACRA. There are two sorts of brutish people in the world, whose sense in these matters is not much to be regarded. 1. Such as have very little of common humanity left among them; such as Acosta describes the Uros, who were such dull and brutish people, that they did not think themselves men; and such are the Caffres, or Hottentots, at the Cape of Good Hope, who, by the last account we have of them, remain as bestial and sordid as ever; insomuch that the author who was among them saith, That tf there be any medium between men and beasts, they lay in the fairest claim to that spe- cies. And such are the Caigua of Paraquaria, (of whom afterwards.) 2. Such as express open contempt and defiance of laws as well as religion, as the Chichi- mece in the northern part of America, who are said to have lived without any government as well as reli- gion (unless that they offer the first wild beast they catch to the sun:) and so Acosta describes some other savages among them, viz. without king, law, God, or reason. Those of Brazil are said to be wethout faith, without law, without a king; and the savages of Canada are described after the same manner. So that if any argument can be drawn from such against reli- gion, it will as well hold against law and civil govern- ment. We must not judge by light informations of mere strangers, and persons looked on as enemies; which is Diarium Schouten. Pp. 47. ed. Amst. Descript. Navig. Jac. Le Mair, 31 Maii. the case of the inhabitants of the Southern islands, which we have only from seamen who landed upon them, and were supposed to come with an ill design ; whose accounts must be very imperfect and partial. But in Le Mair’s account we only read, that they could observe no offices of religion among them: and Schou- ten to the same purpose of the inhabitants of Horn island, (as they call it,) not far from New Guinea; but OE eA ee ORIGINES SACRA. 383 they seemed, he saith, to live like the birds of the air, cHap. without any care, upon the fruits of the earth. But __* no certainty can be grounded upon such observations : nor can we build any thing upon the want of religion in places not yet fully discovered ; as what is said by some of the people of Yedso or Jesso: for the first account given of it was from the Jesuit Fronius, who lived long Mag, Epist. in Japan ; and he describes it as a country of savages ; wb and he saith, that they have no other religion but the worship of the heavens. And so Diodorus Siculus Diod. Sic. saith, The sight of the heavens was that which brought’ hes men first to Divine worship ; and he doth not attribute it to ignorance and fear, but to admiration; and there- fore fixed on the sun and moon as their chief gods ; which was the most prevailing idolatry in the world. But from hence we are not to infer that they believed no God above them; but they thought he that was above them was above their service: but their visible worship they thought ought to be paid to these visible gods, as hath been already observed of the old Greeks ; and Diodorus Siculus saith the same of the Eeyptians. But as to these people of Yedso, we find the first ac- count of them was, that they were a very savage peo- ple, but had such kind of religion as most ancient idol- aters had: since that time there hath been no exact account given of them. The best we have is from the Dutch. Caron, who was resident in J apan, saith only, that this people are brutish; and that the Japonese could never make a full discovery of the country which ws parted from Japan by an arm of the sea, where it bounds on vast mountains and deserts, so that the com- mon passage is by ferrying over. If this be true, there isa passage by land beyond that arm of the sea, and so Japan is one continent with it, which extends in proba- bility to the northern parts of America: for in the ac- 384 ORIGINES SACRA. Book count of the Dutch embassy to Japan, A. D. 1641, we __| are told, that in the treaty between the Japonese agent Ambassace Svyoan and the Dutch, he produced a map of those bie &e parts agreeable to what Caron had said; and they ob- serve that Jesso was in tt of avast extent, and reached to North America, without any streight of Anian. Martin. At- Martinius makes no doubt that Japan was inhabited Aden from East Tartary, as well as by a colony from China, yer which he proves from their customs and language; but he thinks they came over the water, or at least over the ice; for he saith, there are severe winters fee At there. But he saith withal, that the Chinese do make Jesso a part of Tartary, and that it is joined with the pean province of Niulhan and Yupi. ¥. Couplet agrees Proem. ad With Martinius, that Japan was peopled from Tartary; eae ,,,and he saith they have a chronology of their kings for ea 660 years before Christ; and long before that the northern Tartars took possession of Japan: so that the people of Yesso and Japan are of the same original. In the Dutch account of Yedso, printed by Thevenot in the second part of his collections, (which was taken from a ship which went upon the coasts of that country and people,) we have a more favourable description both of the country and people; only it is said, that they do not love to take pains, have little government or religion ; but they observed some superstitious prac- tices aniong them. And what exact account could be expected from such, who went not thither to ac- quaint themselves either with the country or their religion, but to find a passage farther that way ? 3. That it is no certain rule that the people have no re- ligion, because strangers cannot find any set times and places of worship among them. For this was a prin- ciple among many nations, that the supreme God was to be worshipped only by acts of the mind; and that ORIGINES SACRA. 385 external worship was only for lesser deities. And Tri- cua P. gautius (or rather Riccius, who lived a long time —— China) gives this account of the religion of that ancient cea and famous kingdom: That at first they owned the rane! supreme God, Lord of heaven, but afterwards they eae came to worship inferior deities; and this, he saith, ~~ he took out of their most ancient annals and books of wisdom, which, he saith, did not, in respect to religion and morality, come short of the best philosophers of Greece. He affirms, that the sect of the learned, as he calls them, did still worship one God, because all in- JSerior things are preserved and governed by him; but that they gave an inferior worship to spirits under him. They are silent about the beginning of things, as out of their knowledge ; but there are some of no such reputation, that talk their own vain dreams, to which little regard is given. But Martinius hath given Martin. : Hist. Sinic. some account of these notions among them: Some ini would have all by chance, others held the eternity of the world. He saith, that their ancient books speak of the supreme Governor of heaven and earth; and al- though they have not @ proper name jor God, yet he confesses they have such as express his authority and Sovernment of the world. Bartoli saith they are ex- Peel oe tremely mistaken, who charge this learned sect with part. iii. atheism, because they have no temples, nor public ce." * ® 73: remonies of worship for him; because they apprehend that the supreme God is to be solemnly worshipped only by him that is supreme among them. And Ma- peealees gaillans, who was well acquainted with the court of dela Chine, China, and died there about twenty years since, gives yaa § this account of Divine worship: That at Pekin there ws a temple, called the Temple of Heaven, wherein there is a very large cupola supported by eighty-two pillars, wherein the emperor himself offers sacrifice, STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. cc 386 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK on the day of the winter solstice, with aah solemnity ‘___ and humility ; and another, wherein he doth the same at the summer solstice; before which, he saith, they observe a strict fast for three days. He inquired of one of their learned men, what they meant by this so- lemn worship of heaven; whether tt was directed to the material heaven? He answered, that they took heaven not only for the visible heaven, but for the Creator and Governor of all things; and that at the four seasons of the year their emperor did offer sa- crifice in temples on purpose, not to the creatures, but ee to the spiritual Heaven. ¥F. Couplet saith, That by am.ad the ancient custom of China the emperor only sacri- won ficed to the King of heaven, as often as there was LeCompte, great occasion for it; and that, if he were m a pro- part. il. lett. ii. gress, he did it upon the hills and mountains. And 1697. by the last account we have from China, we find the same custom is kept up at Pekin by the present em- perors, since the conquest of China. Now it were very unreasonable to infer, that there is no religion or 4 worship of the supreme Being in China, because it is j not commonly practised ; since, according to their no- i tion of ceremonies, wherein they are the nicest people in the world, they think none ought to perform wor- ship to the Supreme in heaven, but he who is their su- preme upon earth. 4. Another thing we are to observe in passing our judgment whether nations have any religion among them, is to have a care of trusting too much to the sayings of known and professed enemies; but as much as may be we ought to take the opinion of the most free and disinterested persons, who have conversed among them on the account of religion. This I in- tend chiefly with respect to the Spaniards’ accounts of the West Indies, when their design was to enslave the ORIGINES SACRA. 387 poor Indians; for then they made it their business to cHap. blacken them as much as possible, by representing them z as a people without any sense of God or religion, or any virtues belonging to human nature. But the con- trary appears from the first, the most impartial and the latest accounts we have of them, from such as have been conversant among them upon the account of reli- gion. In the first account we have of the discoveries of the West Indies, we find that when Columbus came to the Columbi islands of Hispaniola and Cuba, he soon found that. en they worshipped the sun and moon, and the heavens, 53" but could not then discover what other deities. they worshipped; which Peter Martyr Anglerius under- pet, Mart. stands both of the natives and of the Caribbians, who P& & © were Savages, and very troublesome to them: and he tells a remarkable story of one of the natives com- ing to Columbus at Cuba, being a man of eighty years of age, and desired to discourse with him by an inter- preter. The substance of it was, that he understood that he, with his ship, had given a great disturbance to the natives, and bade him to consider, that, after death, there were two passages for souls ; the one dark and dreadful, for those who were troublesome to man- kind ; the other pleasant and delightful, for those who promote the peace and welfare of people: and if he considered that every man was to receive according’ to his actions after death, he would give over being so uneasy to them. Columbus took the advice very well, and pretended that they only came to assist them against the savages and cannibals, and would hurt none of them; which the old man was so pleased with, that, as old as he was, he said he was ready to go with him in so good a design. Was there any thing that savoured of barbarism or irreligion in this dis- Cee. 2 BOOK Ler. Hist. Navig. in Brasil.c.12. 388 ORIGINES SACRA. course, or what would not -become a good Christian to say? Besides, the same author commends their way of living far beyond what the Spaniards brought among them, (as appeared by Columbus’s own suffering for checking their enormities.) They enjoyed the profits — of the earth in common, without any division or pro- perty, having enough for every family ; and none suf- Jered but such as injured others; and without laws and judges they did what was right. This was a great character from one who was particularly intrusted in the affairs and council of the Indies, and had all the accounts sent to him, out of which he framed his De- cades. They thought, as he saith, that contentment lay in a little compass ; and they had more than they knew what to do with. To the same purpose Lerius gives an account of a conference he had with # Bra- zilian old man, about trade. J pray, said he, why do your countrymen take so much pains to come hither ed.Francof. for our wood? Have they not enough for fuel? Yes, said Lerius; but your Brazil wood is of great advan- tage to them in trade; by which they grow very rich. Very well, saith he; and when they are so rich, do they not die as other men do? And whither then go all these riches? To their children or relations. Then, said the poor Brazilian, your countrymen are a com- pany of great fools, (insigniter fatui:) for why should they undergo so much toil and danger by sea and land, to get that which they must part with when they de ; and for the sake of those children, who might live as contentedly without those riches? Do not you think that we love our children as well as you? But we are contented that the same earth which nourished us will do as much for them. These barbarous Brazilians, saith Lerius, will rise up in judgment against too many Christians. 'To the same purpose, he saith, one ORIGINES SACRA. 389 of the natives of Peru discoursed the Spaniards, who crap. took so much pains to get their gold; and said, They __* were the froth of the sea, restless and uneasy; who might with far less trouble get a subsistence at home. These things I mention to shew that these people were far enough from wanting sense and capacity, when the Spaniards came among them, and seemed to have a much truer notion of the happiness of human life than they had. But to shew how far they were from being without religion at that time, we have an account by Benzo BenzoBist. (who lived a great while in the West Indies upon their RT first discovery) of an oracle among them, which fore-°. Frv- told the Spaniards a considerable time before. For the Cachiqui and Bohitii (i.e. their great men and priests) told Columbus, That in the time of the father of their present king, he and another king had a great mind to understand what would happen after their time ; and to that end resolved to apply themselves to their Zemes (the gods they worshipped) in an extraordinary manner, by fasting five days together in a most sad and mournful condition. And then they received that oracle: upon which they made a most doleful song, which they repeated at certain times; but now they found things happened to them just as they were fore- told. The same Benzo informs us, that, after Colum- cap. 17. bus discovered the continent, the islands were soon left by the Spaniards in hopes of greater gains; and find- : ing they could not manage the nations as they desired, they sent persons on purpose to make the worst repre- sentation possible of them, that they might have an edict to condemn them to perpetual slavery. And therein they charge them with all manner of vices; but as to religion, they only accuse them of idolatry: but if they had found any such thing as atheism and a CCS BOOK I. Descript. Ind. Occid. Lhd tCseL Os Benzo, |. 1. G25. Pet. Mart. Deer. c: 6. 390 ORIGINES SACRE. irreligion among them, they would have been sure not to have concealed that. Joh. de Laet, in his description of the isle of Cuba, saith, Dhat the inhabitants there had no temple, no sacrifices, no religion ; which I could not but wonder at, the account being so different from that of the first discoverers, who must certainly know best what reli- gion they had among them: but in probability he fol- lowed the later Spaniards, who give the worst accounts of them, to justify the most inhuman cruelties which were used against them. For Benzo saith, That of two millions of natives in Hispaniola, there were left not above 150 in his time; and the like desolation was made 7x Cuba, Jamaica, Porto Rico, and other places ; and de Laet confesses, that they were all long since destroyed. But if we take the account given of these people upon the first discovery, we shall find it was very different; for Peter Martyr, who was employed by the king of Spain, as himself tells us, to take the best intelligence he could meet with from the Indies, saith, That at first they could find no other worship among them but that of the sun, and moon, and the heavens ; but, upon further acquaintance with them, they found out a great deal more, which related to their religion ; which, he said, he received from one who was employed by Columbus himself in instructing them. They had little images, which they called Zemes ; which they supposed to be inhabited by spirits, which gave answers to them: but which is consider- able, he saith, That they looked on them only as a kind of messengers between them and the only eternal, om- nipotent, invisible God. This was extant long before de Laet wrote his pompous Description of the West Indies. Was Peter Martyr unknown to him? So far from it, that he mentions and commends him for his REMI gh Ba a re ena bs . ut f 7 iy ‘ yy ORIGINES SACRA. 391 diligence. How then comes he to differ so much from CHAP. him in his account of their religion? And he there - mentions the same oracle which Benzo had done; and adds, That the natives understood it at first of the Caribbians or Cannibals ; but at last found it too true of the Spaniards. In another place he gives an ac- count of Hispaniola, from Andreas Morales’s own mouth, who was employed by the governor to search out what he could find concerning the island and the natives. And he found that they came from another Vecad. ii. island, and built a house at the place of their landing,” ” which they after consecrated and enriched, and re- verenced to the time of the Spaniards’ coming: and he makes it to have been in as much esteem among them as Jerusalem to the Christians, Mecca to the Mahumetans, and Tyrena in the Grand Canaries ; which, he saith, was in such esteem among the natives, that persons would with singing leap off from that holy rock, in hopes their souls should be made happy by it. But although this were a great argument of superstitious folly in them, yet it shews the falseness of that saying, in the first relation of Columbus’s voyage, That there was no such thing as religion in Conn the Canaries. But those who pretend to give a morec. 2.” exact account say, That the natives did believe one Conquest God, who punished the evil, and rewarded the good. vies, yar. The next we are to consider, are the savages which" ? 7° disturbed the natives before the Spaniards; who were called the Caribbians, or the inhabitants of the Caribbee islands. These were a wild sort of people, and a great terror to their neighbours, whom they were wont to eat in triumph after they had taken them; which was not the general practice of the Indians, but only of the most brutish and savage people among them, as the Caribbians, and those of Brazil; but the other natives, Cc 4 BOOK Relation de la Riviere des Ama- ZONS, C, 52. Dampier’s Voyage, p- 485. Ler. Hist. Navig. in Brasil. c.14. Purchas’s Pilgr. part iv. p. 1188. 1207. Hist. de la Mission en VIsle de Maragnan, ch. 49. Barle Hist. Brasil. Piso Hist. Brasil. 392 ORIGINES SACRA. both of the islands and continent, abhorred it, as is found by the latest discoveries. This appears by Christ. d’Acunna, who was employed A. D. 1659. to discover the people about the river of Amazons; and there he found a considerable people called Aguze, (the Spaniards call them Omague;) and they were represented to be eaters of the flesh of their enemies: but he saith that it was very false, and only a malicious calumny of the Portuguese; and there he saith, Zt was a particular custom of the Caribbees, and not used by other Indians. And Dampier saith, That in all his adventures among the Indians, both East and West, he never met with any such people as eat man’s flesh, and that he knew some of the cannibal stories to be false. But, on the other side, it cannot be denied that there had been such a barbarous practice not only among the Caribbians, but the savages of Brazil and elsewhere, as appears by the particular accounts of such as lived among them, and saw their manner of doing it; as in Joh. Lerius, Pet. Carder, Ant. Knivet; but especially in Claud. d’Abbeville’s relation of Maragnan, who is most particular in it: and he saith that it arose from the hatred and revenge they express thereby to their great- est enemies; and he adds, that their stomachs cannot bear or digest it, but notwithstanding it had been con- tinued among them, because their enemies did so by them: but they confessed it to be cruel and barbarous ; but having been long used, they could not lay it aside without a general consent. Some say, that the Tapuiz eat the bodies of their friends: but those who have lived most among them say nothing about it; which they would not have omitted, and they are most to be relied upon. The Caribbee islands were discovered by Columbus in his second voyage: but the Caribbians would haye no communication with them, flying into ORIGINES SACRA. 393 their woods. De Laet saith only, that they are a very cuar. brutish sort of people, of no shame or fidelity. Not elaine = word of their religion; and it was not to be expected "17: among them, who had very little regard to any thing but the satisfying their brutish passions of cruelty and revenge; which were the only things they were then remarkable for. Since that time they have lived more quietly, being so much overpowered by the plantations upon the Caribbee islands; by which means they have been brought to some kind of humanity and conversa- tion. And there have been two understanding persons conversant, among them, who have given the best ac- count we have of them; and those are Mons. Rochefort ae : and I. Du Tertre; who both agree that they have Caribb. 1. some knowledge of one supreme God in heaven, who is” “ '* of infinite goodness, and hurts nobody; but as Du Tertre, who lived longer among them, saith, they ac- be tee count the service of him a needless thing, being so far aes Anti. above them; but they are mightily afraid of the Mabo-?""- - gas, or evil spirits, which they think design to do them mischief: and, to appease them, they have their Boyez, who are a kind of sorcerers among them. They both agree, that they believe the immortality of the soul; and that the principal soul, which is that in the heart, goes to heaven. And Rochefort from hence concludes the truth of Cicero’s saying, That the knowledge of a Divinity is planted in the hearts of men. But de Laet represents the northern Indians to have Lact Dese. been as much without religion as the natives of Cuba;,, 16.” and Hispaniola, and from no good grounds; although herein he did not rely upon the Spanish reports. So he saith of the natives of N ewfoundland, of New France, of the Souriquosii, and other people of Canada, and the parts thereabouts, and of Virginia, &c. But L- iii. 18. I shall make it appear that he took up with very slight BOOK iy LesVoyages du Sieur de Cham- plain, 1. iii. ch. 5. Purchas, tom. iy. l. x. ch. 5. Acosta Hist. of the Indies, I. v. che. 394 ORIGINES SACRA. informations in this matter; which are contradicted by those who lived longer among them, and understood their sense and language better. It is true, which I suppose gave occasion to the mistake, that the savages had no set and constant ways of devotion; but at cer- tain seasons of the year, or in time of war and ca- lamities, they had: or however, to persons that dis- coursed with them, they did by no means deny a God, but thought it was no great matter whether they served him or not in such a manner; so that their chief fault lay in a gross neglect of religion, and not in any settled principles of irreligion. So the Sieur de Champlain saith, he discoursed with the savages of Canada, and found they wanted no capacity ; and he asked one of them, why they did not pray to God? He answered, that every one was left to pray as he thought fit in his own mind. So, saith he, for want of a law for Divine worship, they lived like brutes; and he imputes a great deal to their savage way of living upon hunting; whereas if the land were cultivated, it might be much easier to reduce them to civility and religion. Mr. Winslow, one of the first planters in New-England, had some discourse with the Indian savages about re- ligion, and God’s being the author of all our blessings; which they agreed to, and said, that they owned God, and called him Kirtitan: upon which I observe, that he ingenuously retracts the accounts he had given be- fore of the natives, viz. That they had no religion or knowledge of God ; for, saith he, we find that they do own one supreme Being, who was Creator of heaven and earth; but they likewise owned many Divine powers under him. Therefore Acosta, speaking of the Indian savages, saith, I¢ is no hard matter to per- suade them of a supreme God, be they never so barba- rous and brutish. bas ae af ae ea ae ees REG nine Re ORIGINES SACRA. 395 But I must do that right to Joh. de Laet, as to shew, CHAP. that, after he had received better information, he did — speak more favourably of the religion of the Indians ae ORME for in his book against Grotius, ten years after the Gent-Ame- . rican. p- other, he hath an observation on purpose to clear this 187. matter. Father Sagard had published an account of Le Grand his voyage to the Hurons, a people of New France or Paes Canada, near the lake called Mare Dulce, where he Pee learnt their language, and so was better able to Judge of their opinions; and he saith, their general sense was, that there was one Creator, who made the world ; and that in their language he was called Ataouacan. Which is since confirmed by the account of the French missions into those parts; especially of Paulus Juve-bist. Ca- nexus, who spent a winter among them, to converse p73.” with them in their own language. And when he preached to them about God, they all asked him what he meant by it. He told them, he meant such a Being who had infinite power, and made heaven and earth. Upon which they looked upon one another, and cried out, Ataouacan. Sagard saith, They believe the im-?.87. mortality of the soul; and the later accounts say, That he was told that the Souriquosii did truly believe one God, that created all things. Which is very different from de Laet’s former account of them. But de Laet goes on, that he understood by Davis and Baffin, that the natives of those parts where they had been (i. e. about Fretum Davis and Groen-land) were idolaters, and worshipped the sun. Davis, in the account of Hacking his voyage, saith, That they were a very tractable p. 100. people, void of craft or double dealings, and easy to be brought to any civility or good order; but they judged them to be idolaters, and to worship the sun. This is quite another thing from being mere savages, and having no religion among them. Further, he owns 396 ORIGINES SACRA. Book Hariot’s account of the people of Virginia, that they believed many gods of different degrees, but one su- preme God, who was from eternity. But he had pub- lished to the world in his description, That their only religion was to worship every thing they were afraid of; as fire, water, thunder, guns, horses, &c. and the sh NR Devil, whom they called Okie. Hariot, who conversed _ parti.” among them, saith no such thing; but he saith expressly, That they owned that God made the world, and that souls are immortal; and that they shall receive in an- other world according to their actions in this. What a different account is this concerning the same people! eee And if Lederer may be believed, who went among the p.4 Indian natives not far from Virginia, he saith, Okee was the name of the Creator of all things among them; to him the high priest alone offers sacrifice: but their ordinary devotion is performed to lesser dei- ties, to whom they suppose sublunary affairs are com- Denton of mitted. Denton, who lived among the Indian savages Me Yorks about New York, saith, That their solemn worship was not above once or twice a year, unless upon extra- ordinary occasions, as making war, &e. I shall not need to pursue this matter any further, since he owns the religion that was practised not only in Peru and Mexico, but in other parts of the West Indies. Only as to Chili he saith, That we have no certainty, but only that they have solemn oaths by one G.Mare- they call Hnonamon. But Marcgravius, in the account Pane he gives of Chili, saith at first, That they know not God, Rees nor his worship, &c. But this must be understood of a clear and distinct knowledge of him; for he saith after- wards, That they have some knowledge of a supreme Being, by whom all earthly things and human affairs are governed ; whom they call Pillan. The only difficulty then remaining as to the West ORIGINES SACRA. 897 Indies, is as to the people of Paraquaria and Brazil; cHap. for it is affirmed, That there are whole nations there, ss who know nothing of God or religion. Which must be more strictly inquired into. As to Paraquaria, it is said, that Nicholas del Techo, im his letters from thence, saith, that the Caigue (a people of that country) had no name for God, or the soul of man; and no public worship, nor idols. But the same Nicholas del Techo hath published a full re- Hist. Prov. Paraquar. lation of all the proceedings in Paraquaria, and there- vu) Ni abouts, on the account of religion; and therein he hath mb acquainted the world with the several nations that in- cake habit those parts between Brazil and Peru, &c. which were scarce heard of before. Dhe Diaigrite, (who ra- ther belong to Tucumania, between Paraquaria and Chili,) he saith, were worshippers of the sun, after au. ii.c. 18. particular manner ; and they believed the immortality of souls, and that the souls of their great men went into the greater stars, and of ordinary people into the lesser. The Guaicurei worshipped the moon and..iv. c.16. Bootes. The Guarani were a very superstitious peo-.. v.c. 7. ple, but they could not tell what god they worshipped; but they were mightily addicted to sorcery. The Cal-cap. 23. chaquint worshipped the sun, and thunder, and light- ning. In the plains between Rio del Plata and Tucu- mania, he saith, are a very large people, who have. iii.c.12. litile regard to religion ; but they believe that, after death, Wein souls return to their Creator. In Chili, he saith, when one God the Creator was preached to. ii. . 26. them, one of their casiques (or great men) stood up and said, that they would not bear that the power of creating should belong to any but their god Pillan ; and that he placed the souls of their great men, after death, about the sun. After all these he mentions the x. ix. ¢, 24. Caiguee, as the smallest, and most inconsiderable, and 398 ORIGINES SACRA. Book brutish people among them. 'They were a most savage sort of creatures, that could hardly speak so as to be understood. He saith, They were much more lke to apes than men, and lived upon mice, and ants, and vi- pers, &e. Utrique sexui, saith he, tenuissimus ratio- nis usus est: they are harder to be tamed than wild beasts: and if they are put in chains, they starve themselves. And this is all the account he there gives of them, and saith not a word of their religion ; and it were very unreasonable to expect any from them. It is not improbable that others could not find a word for God or the soul among them; for they were not able to speak sense, at least so as to be understood by strangers. Hist, Navi. Come we now to the people of Brazil, who are said c.15,p. to be without any notion of God. But those who have *°3> 224 been best acquainted among them assure us, that they believe the immortality of souls, and rewards and pu- nishments after death. And from hence Lerius him- self argues against the atheistical persons of his time ; and that although they will not in words own God, yet he saith they shew the inward conviction they have of One Gs. him, especially when it thunders; which de Laet con- Americ. fesses they call Tupd cunanga, a noise made by the "9% supreme Excellence ; for Tupd, he saith, signifies so much in their language. And he adds, That they are very apprehensive of evil spirits ; that they do own a god of the mountains and of the highways; and al- though they differ in their idolatry and superstition, yet, he confesses, 2 generally prevails among them, and the other innumerable people who live on both Seti sides the vast river de la Plata. Marcgravius, a Reg. c.g. learned man, who lived in Brazil, and understood their language so far as to write a grammar of it, saith ex- pressly, That they call God Tupa and Tupana; and in . ORIGINES SACRA. 399 the short Dictionary of Emmanuel Moraes, Tupana is cHar. rendered Deus. But the great argument to Lerius z was, that they had no public exercise of religion ; which was the common case of the savages in all parts, who lived under no laws; not that they believed no God, but they would not be at the trouble to serve him. Ludolphus saith of the Gallani, a savage people who ae ge had almost overrun Abyssinia, that they had no public opiw, 1. i. worship ; but if any asked them about a supreme God, they would answer, Heaven. So Dellon saith of the aes inhabitants of Madagascar, That they did not question voyaseia a supreme Being that governs all; but with a strange’ ay obstinacy denied that there was any necessity of pray- ng to him. Francis Cauche, who sojourned a long SMa: time among them, saith, he could observe no public - exercise of religion among them; but they did not}, Patiasaser deny a God to ie the Creator of all, and asserted the emmortality of the soul, but good and bad went to heaven. Flacurt lived five years among them, and he agrees in the same, as to no public exercise of religion: Histoire de but he saith, they believe one God, of whom they speak asercean, with honour and respect. P. Gillet, in the account ofS. '7-, ,, his voyage to Goyane 1674, saith, that the Nouragues, 7 oueee and Acoquas, and Galibis, all agree in owning one Goyane, God in heaven ; but they give no Pain to him. mae Joh. dos Santos saith of some of the Caffres, (with Histoire de whom he conversed,) That they are the most brutish one and barbarous people in the world ; but they hold the ™ 7. P, emmortalite y of the soul, and have a confused knowledge gah that there is a great God from a natural instinct : but they pray not to him. But for those Caffres at the Cape of Good Hope, they may vie with any for brutish- ness; but by the last accounts given of them, by those who lived among them, and published by F. Tachard, Voyage de lam, I, ii. we find that os do worship one God, although they p. 84. BOO I. Thevenot, Roe, p. 2. Purchas, tom. i. 1. ili. c. 3. Sect.I. Plin. N. H. l.v.c. 8. Du Roy- aume de Siam, tom. li. p. ‘#32. Journal du Voyage de Siam, p. 78. 400 ORIGINES SACRE. have a confused knowledge of him; but they seem to have little regard to another life, but sacrifice for rain and good seasons. By which it appears, that the ac- count given of them in Thevenot’s Collections is not true, viz. That they have no knowledge of God; al- though it were not much to be wondered at, since the same author saith, they are the most barbarous people in the world. But that was a hasty observation by strangers, who could not understand one word they spake: for sir James Lancaster said, That im seven weeks time the sharpest wit among them could not learn one word of their language, their speech being uttered only in the throat, like the Caiguee in Paraqua- ria. And so Pliny mentions a people of Africa, who made a noise without any articulate pronunciation ; Stridorque non vox; adeo sermonis commercio carent ; who were surely the ancestors of those Hottentots, concerning whom it is hard to affirm any thing, unless they have learnt lately to express themselves better. As it seems they have done by Mons. de la Loubere’s account of them; for he saith, That they have some hind of worship at new and full moons ; and he thinks they own a good God, to whom they need not to pray ; but that there is a bad one, to whom they pray not to hurt them. And in the Journal of Mons. de Chaumont, we read, That they have no great regard to religion ; but when they want rain, they pray toa certain Being, whom they know not, but that lives above, and offer milk, the best thing they have; and that the Duich secretary had seen them at this sacrifice, with eyes lifted up to heaven, and in a profound silence. Thus I have gone through all the nations I have met with, who have been said to be without any notion of God or religion. There remains only one objection to be taken off, which relates to a sect in the East ORIGINES SACRE. 401 Indies, which is said to be atheistical in their principles, cHap. - having an external doctrine for the people, and an in-___" ternal, which they keep from them. To give the best account I can of this matter: All the late writers of China do agree, that, besides the original doctrine of the country, there was brought in long since (they generally say 65 years after Christ) a new sect from Indostan, which they call Yekiao. The author is supposed to be one Xekia, or Xaca, (as the Japonese call him,) who lived long before. Matt. Riccius (or Trigautius) saith, This sect was at first Trigaut. received with great applause, because it set forth the’ "~*~ ammortality of the soul, and the rewards and punish- ments of another life, but not eternal; because it introduced the doctrine of transmigration of souls. In order to the happiness after death, it required parti- cular devotions to idols, which by that means spread over all China and Japan, as well as other parts of the Indies; and abstinence from flesh, as well as from murder, stealing, &c. and austerities, celibate, retire- ment from the world, and great liberalities to the Ta- poins and Bonzes. Wherein Bertoli, Marini, and the rest agree. But there was a secret under all this, viz. That this was but an external doctrine for the people, but the internal doctrine was another thing ; that the supreme felicity lay in eternal nothing; or, as they rather called it, an eternal quiet; and that souls are to pass from body to body, saith Martinius, till they are Martin. At- 9 De Jit for it. EF. Couplet, who hath given the fullest ac- toe count of this matter, saith, That when Xaca came toy", ce, he sent for some of his choicest disciples, and told a "a them, that the doctrine he had hitherto declared tov. 28. them was only a show, and not the truth; and that all things came out of nothing, and would end in nothing, as the late author Le Compte expresses it; and that is STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. pd 402 ORIGINES SACRA, Book the abyss where all our hopes must end. But Couplet __* saith, That his disciples take great care that this rele come not among the people; and only those, he saith, par even among: the Bonxes and others are admitted to it, p-325- who are thought capable of such a secret. The eter- nal doctrine they look on, as he saith, as the wooden account which ts raised to support the other ; but they are by all means for keeping that up among the people. But it is not clear what they understand by returning ee to nothing; for Mons. de la Loubere saith, They do deSiam,ti.20t understand proper annihilation by it, but in a pe mystical sense; and two things are implied by it. 1. That such souls as arrive to it are past all fears of returning to the body. 2. That they live in perfect ease and quiet, without any kind of action. And so Couplet explains it by acting, understanding, and de- siring nothing ; so that this is the highest degree of ORE quietism; and so Mons. Gervaise, who was among Siam, part. those of Siam, and endeavoured to understand their ™P- 161 doctrine, saith, That annihilation is to be mystically understood, and not in a physical sense. As appears by what Couplet saith, That one of Xaca’s posterity spent nine years with his face to the wall thinking of nothing, and so became perfect. But from hence he sadly laments the spreading of atheism among the Chinese, who were willing to understand it in the grossest sense. And suppose it to be so taken, what imaginable ground can it be for men of sense (as the Chinese would be thought above others) to take this for granted, because such an impostor said it; concerning whom so many incredible things are said by them, that some have questioned whether there ever were such a person or not: and Loubere seems to think this story a fiction of the Chinese, for he can find nothing of him among ORIGINES SACRA. 403 the Talapoins of Siam, with whose traditions he was cHAp. very conversant. But what reason or demonstration —_" did he offer? What ground could they have to believe one, who had been an impostor all his days, should speak truth at last ? But all this signifies nothing to the consent of man- kind. or this was to be kept up as a secret, and only to be communicated to such as were thought ca- pable of it. If they thought this to be the truth, why was it not to be discovered ? Was it because the people were still to be kept up in the common persua- sion about religion ? And was this for the sake of the Bonzes ? of whom the wise people of China had a very mean opinion, as they all agree. Therefore it could not be for their sakes. But the people might grow more unruly, of this were known. If the Bonzes were so bad as they make them, they might rather think the people would be better without them; and the best service they could do, was to lay open the fraud and imposture of these men, as those who preached Christ- ianity in China and Japan, after they understood their languages, did very freely. And yet they did assert God and Providence, and the rewards and punish- ments of another life, against all the doctrines of Xaca, both as to the external and internal part. Matth. Riccius, having attained to good skill in the language of China, published an account of the Christian doc- trine at Pekin A. D. 1603, wherein he asserted the being of God, not only from natural reason, but from their own most ancient books; of which Couplet gives couplet a large account, and how the interpreters of latter pj" times had perverted the sense of them. We have in Kircher a summary of the Christian faith, as it was Kircher published in China; and therein we find on what Tomiie grounds they asserted the being of God, against the’: © : Dd2 BOOK I. 404 ORIGINES SACRA. atheistical sense of Xaca’s doctrine, that all things came out of nothing ; for, if nothing were first, how came things into being? Therefore to bring them into being, there must be a Creator before them; and this Creator is he whom we call God. This was plain and true reasoning, and impossible to be answered by the subtilest of those atheistical wits of China. For no- thing can produce nothing. So that if Xaca’s interior doctrine were true, that all things came out of nothing, it must necessarily follow, that there must be nothing before any thing; and what possible imagination can any man of sense have, how any thing should by itself come out of nothing? There is no repugnancy at all in conceiving that an infinite Power should give a being to that which had it not before; for although the dif- ference between not being and being be so great, yet where we suppose a Power infinite in the cause, that may command the terms of that distance, by giving a being to that which had it not before. To say that nothing can be produced out of nothing, implies that nothing can of itself result out of nothing, where there is no superior Cause; but to say that by no cause whatsoever any thing can be put into being which had it not before, is to take away all possibility of an in- finite Power without any reason, when the very being of things is an impregnable reason for it. For since we are certain things are, we must be certain that they came into being; and that must be either out of no- thing by themselves, which is impossible, or it must be from such a Power which can give being where it was not, which must be infinite. Thus far I have considered the general prejudices against religion, and the atheistical pretences of this age; and have shewed how very little they signify to any persons that will take the pains to examine them. a ae Mi oe oe ORIGINES SACRA. 405 DISCOURSE II. The modern atherstical Hypotheses examined, and the Unrea- sonableness of them shewed. . ] NOW come to consider the atheistical hypotheses of cHap. this age; which I shall rank under these two heads: “a 1. Such as have a tendency towards atheism. 2. Such as are plainly atheistical. As to the former, I shall insist upon these two: Such as weaken the known and generally received 1. proofs of God and Providence. Such as attribute too much to the mechanical powers 2. of matter and motion. I begin with those who have gone about to weaken the known and generally received arguments for God and Providence; which I have at large shewed were those taken from the manifest effects of wisdom and design in the parts of animals, and in the frame of the world. J am far from intending to lay the charge of atheism on any who have weakened some arguments to prove a God, when they have industriously set them- selves to do it from any other, although not so firm, nor so generally received. For I consider the fondness men have for their own inventions, and how apt there- fore they are to slight other arguments in comparison with them. And this I take to have been the case of a modern philosopher of great and deserved reputation : = pee for he, designing to do something beyond other men, Princip. thought he did nothing, unless he produced arguments pata : which he thought had not been pursued by others. To this end he set aside the argument from final causes, for two reasons. 1. Because in physical inquiries we Resp. ad ought to make use of none but the strongest reasons. * °° 2. Because all God’s ends are unsearchable by us, pd3 BOOK I, 406 ORIGINES SACRA. being kept close in the abyss of his infinite wisdom. But when he was smartly urged by his learned adver- sary, that although upon another occasion he might set aside final causes, yet he ought not when the honour of God, as the maker of the soul, is concerned; for by these means the argument from the light of nature, as to the wisdom, providence, power, and existence of God, would be cast off; which he looks on as the chief argu- ment, (which is taken from the parts of the visible world, the heavens, earth, plants, animals, and espe- cially mankind ;) he had no other answer to make, but that what was brought for a final cause, ought to be referred to the efficient, i.e. that from those things we ought to know and honour God as the maker, but not to guess for what end he made them. Which is a strange answer to be made by one of so much sagacity. For, as Gassendus well urges, how can we honour God for the excellent use of these things, and not know for what end they were made? Wherein lies the difference between the use and the end in this case? For he that adores God for the use, must do it for the end he de- signed those things for. Gut, saith Des Cartes, ix moral considerations, wherein it is a pious thing to make use of conjectures, we may consider God’s end; but not in physical spe- culations, wherein we must only make use of the strongest reasons. To which Gassendus very well answers, That if he takes away the final cause, he weakens the argument for the efficient: for that leads us to him. And it is not the bare sight of the visible world, which makes us own God to be the maker of it; because it is possible for men to think that these things were so from eter- nity, or came by chance: but when we observe the wisdom of God in the design and contrivance, then we ae ee ee ad ie ERE et ORIGINES SACRA. 407 come upon good grounds to own the efficient cause, and to adore him for the workmanship of his hands. As, saith he, if a man sees a passage for water between stones on each side with an arch over, that doth not presently convince him that it is a bridge; because pieces of rocks might happen so as to afford such a pas- sage: but when he comes to consider the order in which they are framed and hold together, and the con- veniency of mankind for passing over, he cannot then but acknowledge there was a skilful artificer who managed it, and that it could not be done by chance. To the other argument, that God’s ends are un- searchable, he answers, That it is not to be denied that God may have ends above our reach; but, on the other side, there are ends which lie open to our view ; as, saith he, particularly in the body of man, as the frame of the mouth for respiration and nourishment, and all other passages so exactly fitted for those ends; and so the bones, muscles, nerves, and other parts of the body: but there are three especially which strike him with admiration. 1. The umbilical vessels, the fitness of them for distribution of nourishment to the embryo, and the alteration after the child is born. 2. The valves of the heart, and the several vessels for receiving and distributing the blood. 3. The perfora- tion of the tendons, which serve to draw the fingers into the hollow of the hand.- These were close and pressing instances; of which Gassendus professeth, that neither himself nor any of his acquaintance, who had made it their business to search ito the causes of things, were able to give any other account of them, but from the wisdom and power of God. And he challenges Des Cartes to shew him what mechanical cause could produce such valves about the heart ; out of what matter, and in what manner they were made ; Dd 4 CHAP. II. 408 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK how they came to have such a temper, consistence, Jlexibility, bigness, figure, situation, &e. But I do not find that he ever undertook to give any answer to it; but, by a letter to Mersennus, it seems he was of opin- Epist. par. ion, that he could give an account of the formation of il. ep. go. ° . the several parts of animals in a mechanical way, sup- P posing God to have established those laws of me- chanism, which he supposes in the same manner as he had explained the grains of salt, and figures of snow in his meteors. But however he might please himself in his opinion, he hath given the world no manner of satisfaction about it; insomuch that his posthumous piece to that purpose is charged with great and funda- mental mistakes. However his disciples run on upon ae, the same ground, that final causes are to be considered pati. only ix morals; and they must overthrow the argu- Nittich. in : Meditat. ment to prove a Deity from the wisdom and contriv- Soap ‘ance in the works of creation; which, according to them, are only occasion of our meditation and praise. But how can men of sense satisfy themselves with this answer? For can we give thanks to God for the use of our senses, without knowing that God gave us eyes to see with, with such admirable contrivance for that pur- pose; and so for all the variety of organs for our hear- ing, unless we are satisfied that God did really give them for those ends? Otherwise all that we have to do, is to thank God for putting matter into motion, and for establishing those laws of mechanism from whence these organs resulted. With what devotion can we praise God for the bepefits we have from the influences of heaven and the fruits of the earth, if these things were not intended for our good; but it fell out by the laws of mechanism, that we have these advantages by them? So that all natural religion, according to this hypothesis, comes to no more than an acknowledgment ae ce ORIGINES SACRA, 409 of God to be the efficient Cause of the world, although we have no reason from his works to conclude him to be so. es, say they, from them as the effects of a Jjirst Cause, which put matter into motion, we may ; but not from the ends which God intended by them, which are above our capacity. But this falls short of Aristotle’s divinity ; for he asserted, that not only the first motion was from God, but the order of the uni- verse; and that God did design the mutual benefits which one part of %t hath from others: but, according to these laws of mechanism, God only put the matter into motion with such laws, and then every thing came into the order it is in, without any design of Provi- dence. Which takes away all life and spirit in religion, which depends upon God’s managing the affairs of the world; and without that men may own a first Mover, and yet live as without God in the world. What reason can we imagine why we ought to give God thanks for fruitful seasons, or to pray to him in time of drought and scarcity, if he hath left all these things to the na- tural course, which he hath established in the world ? But it is not denied by Des Cartes, that God may re- veal to us his own ends, and then we are to believe them, and to serve him accordingly ; but that without such revelation we cannot find them out. Now this, I say, 1s contrary to the general sense of mankind, where there hath been the most confused notion of a God. For I have already observed, that even the Caffres of Soldania (or at the Cape of Good Hope) do pray so- lemnly to God in their distresses for want of rain; and the savages of the northern parts of America do the same at some seasons of the year above others: so that if the consent of mankind signify any thing as to the being of God, it will do as much as to his providential care of the world; and if such a confused idea did carry along with it the notion of his providence, much more CHAP. Il. 410 ORIGINES SACRA: BOOK the clear and distinct idea of him. For Des Cartes - proves the being of God from the idea of him in our minds: now what is there in that idea, which doth not equally imply providence, as well as his exist- ence? For why should not a Being absolutely perfect as well regard the well-being, as the being of his crea- Medit. ii. tures? By the name of God in this idea, he saith he understands a certain Substance, infinite, independent, most intelligent, and most powerful, by which himself and all other things were created. *But this is not all; for he acknowledges soon after, and in other places, Princip. that, because there is no necessary connection between ney x1. the several moments of existence in a contingent being, we most evidently know our dependence on this su- pertor Being for our conservation ; which he therefore owns to be a continued creation. From hence I infer, that Des Cartes’s own idea of God doth imply a parti- cular Providence. For if we depend upon him for every moment of our subsistence, and conservation dif- fer only by an act of our mind from creation, as he af- firms, then there is as immediate an act of Providence in our daily subsistence, as in our first being. But how is this consistent with leaving all to the mechan- ical laws of motion? If it be said, That this is only a general act of Providence in preserving things in that state he hath put them into, I demand further, whether those very laws of motion be not the effect of a wise Providence ? and whether we cannot from them infer, that these laws were directed for very good ends? I do not think this can be denied. And if it cannot, then I am sure it certainly follows, that we may know some ends which God hath; whereas Des Cartes said, That all God’s ends are unknown to us, being kept secret im the abyss of his infinite wisdom. But the ends of appointing the laws of motion may be known; and if these, why not as well the particular ends of those BA se) r ORIGINES SACRA. * 411 works of his which we find so useful to mankind ? CHAP. especially when his Providence is implied in that very a idea from whence he infers his existence. I can by no means suspect that Des Cartes designed to take away the force of other arguments for a Deity, that he might secretly undermine the belief of a God, by introducing his argument from the idea, which he knew would not hold, (as some have suggested ;) for I am satisfied that he thought this argument beyond any other: for, in a letter to a friend, he saith, He had Ren. Des found out such an argument as gave him full satisfac- ae tion ; and by which he more certainly knew that there*® '°% was a God, than the truth of any geometrical propo- sition; but he doubted whether he could make others understand it so well as he himself did. To the same purpose he speaks in a letter to Mersennus. And in another letter to Mersennus he saith, That he thought kp. 104, himself bound in conscience to publish his arguments "ig a" to prove the eaistence of God. Which being written to his intimate friends, shew sufficiently his own appre- hension of the strength of them. But what opinion soever he had of it himself, they have not met with such a reception among thinking men, as a geometrical demonstration would have done; although he hath en- deavoured to put them into that form. For, after all, Bi Resp. they cannot conceive how an objective reality of an idea ;, ae p. aaa in the mind can prove the real existence of that object out of the mind. He grants, that it doth not hold in other ideas; but that there is something so peculiar to this idea, that the mind could not frame it, if it had not a real existence. Now here lies the main difficulty, what that is in this idea, distinct from all others, which so exceeds the capacity of human understanding, that we could not have such an idea, unless the object were in being. 412 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK The force of his argument, as himself hath put it in the mathematical way, prop. 2. lies here. The objective reality in our ideas must have some cause, in which it 1s either formally, or eminently: but we have such an idea within us, which is not within us either of those ways ; and therefore there must be some other cause of wt, which can be none but God; and therefore he is. Now here the difficulty returns, viz. to shew what necessary connection there is between the objective reality in the idea, and the real existence of the thing out of the idea. For that he saith, by axiom 5, That this is the true principle of knowledge; Jor, saith he, we do not know that there is such a thing as the visible heaven, barely because we see it; jor that goes no further than our sense: but our know- ledge is an act of the mind from the idea, which arises Jrom hence, that the objective reality of the idea in our minds doth come from the thing itself as the true cause; and the more of objective reality there ws, by axiom 6, in substance than accident, and in an infinite substance than a finite, so much more doth at prove the existence op the thing represented by the eclea. But the case still seems different between an idea raised in our minds from an object of sense, and that which the mind raises within itself about an infinite substance. For although it be impossible for the mind to make an objective reality, which is infinite, by its own power, yet it doth not appear but that it may frame an idea within itself, to which it sets no bounds, and so is infinite to it. And here lies the main ground of the mistake. If our idea were infinitely perfect, as God himself is, no doubt it were wholly out of our power to make it; but then it would follow, that idea, with its objective reality, must be God: if it be not ie a ee ee ORIGINES SACR&. 413 God, it must be finite; and if it be finite, it 1s within the power of our minds to frame it. For although our conceptions of God be not merely negative, yet whatso- ever conceptions we have, they are not adequate; and if not, they are imperfect, and so come within the reach of our capacities. When the learned Mons. Huet urged this argument CHAP. it against Des Cartes, That the idea in us must Ae Jinite, Censur. because it wants something to make it perfect, being Philosoph. 1 G ngs C. 4. not adequate, Mons. Regis, who undertook to defend } Roponata \ Des Cartes, answers, That if the idea be taken for- la Censure de Mons. mally, as it is in us, so it ts Jinite ; but of we take it Huet, P. 192. with wts objective reality, so it is infinite, and above our P. 108. power: and as to its not being adequate, he saith, tt doth not follow that it is finite objectively, but only formally ; because it represents an infinite object, and at is sufficient to make it infinite, because it represents as much as we can apprehend. I grant, that, if it reaches as far as our capacity will go, it may be said to be infinite in regard of its object, although it be finite as to our manner of apprehending it ; but still the main difficulty returns, viz. how a finite idea in us can prove the existence of an infinite object. For the question is not barely about our manner of conception of an infinite Being, which must be according to our capacities; but whether such a finite idea, as we are capable of, can prove an infinite Being: for our idea can represent to us an object to which we can set no bounds; but how doth it hence appear that it must be an infinite object really existing, and that such an idea must proceed from an infinite fe ? Although these things be not so clear as were to be wished, yet we must not dissemble the force of this argument so far as it goes, viz. that we cannot form an idea of nothing; and that we have no ideas in our minds, but what have BOOK 414 ORIGINES SACRA. a proper cause for them; either from without us by sense, or from within by the acts of our own minds. As if a man hath an idea of a rare piece of workman- ship, either he hath seen it, or else hath been told it, or was able to invent it. But here can be no evidence from sense, and no man can find within himself a power to frame such an object as God; therefore either he must have it from others, or else God himself hath im- printed it in our minds. Now if the idea of God had been alike in all, viz. of a Being infinitely wise, power- ful, and good, there might have been great reason to have believed it to have been planted in our minds; but the general idea of God among mankind was too dark and confused to form any argument from it; and it related chiefly to his power, and some kind of goodness; but not so as to exclude any other beings from being ho- noured as gods. So that the force of it cannot be taken from the consent of mankind in this idea: but if it be only said, That this is a true and just idea of him, and that there are other arguments to prove it from his works, so far it may and ought to be allowed. But the metaphysical subtlety of this argument, as it was managed by Des Cartes, was so great, that not merely persons of common capacities could not compre- hend it; but he complains himself, that the mathema- ticians would not be convinced of the demonstrative force of it. Upon which he makes a sharp reflection, Des Cartes, That the mathematics did rather hinder than further Epist. part. li. Ep. 33. men in metaphysical speculations. But my business is not to lay open the weakness of these arguments, but only to shew that there is no cause to lay aside those which have been always used, and approved by the most sincere and intelligent per- sons in all ages. And this I shall make appear from his second argument in his Meditations; but the first ORIGINES SACRA. 415 in his Principles, where he briefly lays it down after crap. this manner: That among the several ideas of our 1 minds, we find one of a Being infinitely perfect in wis- eek 4 dom and power, which hath not a contingent, but a sect. 14. necessary existence ; which being contained in the idea, it follows that such a Being actually exists. Des Cartes, in his fifth Meditation, confesses, That at first appearance this looks like a piece of sophistry; but he saith, that, upon consideration, necessary existence doth as much belong to an infinite, perfect Being, as three angles do to a triangle. But he objects against his own argument, that our thoughts put no necessity upon things; as if I conceive a mountain, I must like- wise conceive a valley; but it doth not follow that there is a mountain existing. But, saith he, the dif- ference is, that in this case there is no necessity of a mountain’s existing, but only that a mountain and valley cannot be separated; but in the other, it is not our thought makes necessary existence to belong to God, but the nature of the thing makes that thought necessary. Tor, saith he, I can frame no other idea that hath necessary existence besides, nor can I make more than one God who hath it; which shews that it is no arbitrary or fictitious idea. But Gassendus and others say, that all this is a paralogism, because it sup- poses that which it should prove, viz. that God exists, which was the thing in question; and withal they say, it is a piece of sophistry to argue from the idea in the mind to the existence of the thing out of the mind. And this is the main thing which Mons. Huet insists upon; for he saith, This argument proves no more, than tet. Cen- that a most perfect Being must necessarily exist in pigeon that way in which it doth exist: if it relates to pape *5 the idea, then it necessarily exists only in the mind ; of it relates to the thing, then it really exists out 416 ORIGINES SACR#. BooK of the mind; but the argument doth not hold from —___ one to the other. To this Mons. Regis answers, ‘That ee those things which are said only to exist in the mind, xP: 733 have their foundation out of the mind; as a Syren, from the ideas of a fish and a woman joined together : and so other chimeras are formed from joining things in the mind, which nature hath not joined; for a man cannot have an idea of nothing. But in the idea of a perfect Being he cannot distinguish that which is in the mind, and that which is out of the mind. And that here is no taking that for granted which ought to be proved ; but it is only arguing from the nature of the thing; and not first supposing it to be, and thence proving that it is. For it is as much of the nature of a perfect Being to have necessary existence, as of the nature of a triangle to have three angles. And thus the matter stands as to this argument; so that whatsoever force there is in it, we plainly see that persons of great sagacity and judgment suspect that there is something in it of the nature of a paralogism. And therefore there can be no reason why we should quit the former arguments, which were plain and ob- vious to all capacities, for such a metaphysical demon- stration, which those who are most versed in demon- strations will not allow. Let the followers of Des Cartes magnify and defend this argument as well as they can; but let them not despise and reject all others, which have had the approbation of all ages, and the wisest persons in them; and that upon such frivolous pretences, that we cannot comprehend all the ends of Divine wisdom. Boyleof Fi. But Des Cartes, in an Epistle mentioned by Mr. 36. Boyle, saith, That it is a childish and absurd thing to affirm in metaphysics, that God, like a proud man, had no other end in building the world but to be ORIGINES SACRA. 417 praised by men; or in making the sun, which is so CHAP. I]. much bigger than the earth, but only to give light to mankind, who take up so small a part of it. Which is an expression not at all becoming the reverence due to the great Creator of the world, from any one that doth acknowledge him truly to be so. For the objec- tion, if it be any, lies against his making the world at all: since it may as well be said to be like a proud prince, only to shew the greatness of his power and wisdom. But what is it which such men would have? Can they imagine the world should be made without any ends at all? Is that becoming the wisdom of the Maker? Or would they not have these ends to be known? To what purpose are great and noble ends designed, if they are not to be understood? And by whom can they be understood, but by rational and in- telligent beings? It is a great presumption in mankind to pretend to know all the ends which the wise Creator had in the vast fabric of the universe ; for some of the great parts of it are almost wholly unknown to us; I mean as to the fixed stars, every one of which, of the first magnitude, is said to be above a hundred times in bigness beyond the globe of the earth; and yet how small do they appear to us! And in those other celes- tial bodies, which we can hardly discern without the help of glasses of a late invention: and we are told by skilful astronomers, that there are many stars not visi- ble even with the help of telescopes; and that they ra- ther lessen than add to the greatness of the fixed stars. But if they had given us a fuller view of them, we can- not imagine that God’s great ends could pens upon such way of discovery. If all his design’ had been to be admired by mankind for the greatness of his work, it would have been placed more within our reach, and the earth we live upon would have borne some bigger STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Ee BOOK I. 418 ORIGINES SACRA. proportion to the celestial bodies, which is concluded to be but a point in comparison of the starry heaven ; and the very orb of the sun is thought to be no more in respect of the whole firmament. So that the main parts of the universe cannot be said to be made for our view. We grant, therefore, that the infinitely wise and powerful Creator hath great and glorious ends, which are above our reach; but how doth it follow from hence, that he hath no ends which we can judge of? For even in those things which we discern at so great a distance, we see enough to admire the infinite Majesty of him that made them; and consequently to adore and fear him: and whatever other ends he may have which we cannot see into, yet this is the best and most proper end for us with respect to him. Other ends might satisfy our curiosity more; but this tends most to promote our true happiness. As I have shewed in the precedent discourse, that the wisest philosophers, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Pythagoreans, all agreed, upon principles of natural reason, that the true happiness of mankind lay in being made like to God, not in an affectation of greatness and power, but in goodness and true wisdom; which lay in the knowledge of God, and a temper of mind suitable to our apprehensions of him. Now if those ends be attainable by such dis- coveries, which God hath made of himself in the works of creation, it is to little purpose for any to pretend that we cannot know the particular ends which he had in making such a number of vast bodies of light in the heavens, nor why they are placed in such a manner, and at so great a distance from us; nor whether the space between be wholly void, or filled up with an ethereal matter; nor of what use those several bodies of the stars are with respect to themselves, or the rest of the universe. Supposing that we are to seek as to these, ORIGINES SACRA. 419 and many other things relating to the visible frame of Ce the world, must we therefore cease to admire and praise the great God, the Maker of all, lest we should seem to flatter him for his greatness and power? There is doubtless a just veneration due to an infinite Majesty, in what way soever he shews himself: but it is too mean a thing to imagine that these things were done by him only to be admired and praised by his own creatures: but if such an admiration tends to be- get in them a greater and deeper sense of his wisdom, power, and goodness, and that be the best and most ef- fectual means to bring mankind to a constant fear and love of him, and thereby to fit them for a future hap- piness, can any man of sense think this to be an end unbecoming the Creator of the world ? But these are said to be good moral ends; but not proper for physical speculations. I answer, That those are truly the most philosophical contemplations, which lead us to the best and most noble ends of our being; for this was of old looked on as the truest end of philosophy, and the first occasion of it. For it is agreed on all hands, that it had its name from Pytha- goras: and it is very well observed by St. Augustin, that the doctrine of the soul’s immortality gave the first ee occasion to the Greeks to apply themselves to philoso-tom. ii. phy: and from hence Pythagoras began it: who was?y‘v. instructed therein by his masters Thales and Pherecy- des; and after long travels into several countries for his own satisfaction, he at last fixed at Crotone in Italy, and there took upon him to instruct others in the way to immortality: but finding great reason to mistrust many who came to be his scholars, he set up a very severe discipline in his school, (which proved his ruin at last,) and would admit none but such as he had sufficiently tried. But when he was asked by one of Ee 2 BOO E 420 ORIGINES SACRA. the great men of those parts, what it was he professed, he said, nothing but philosophy, or a love of wisdom ; which he made to consist in two things, a search after truth, and a pursuit of virtue. But by truth he did not understand the physical causes of things, but ab- stracted and metaphysical speculations ; for his notion was, that there was no certainty to be had from mere sensible things, which rather perplexed and confounded men’s minds, which were apt to judge by the impressions of sense; (and his opinion was, that the sense only transmitted the objects, but 7¢ was the mind which saw and heard, &c.) therefore, to prevent false judgments, he thought it necessary to draw off their minds from sensible objects: to this end he bethought himself of the way of reasoning by figures and numbers, (as _be- fore observed,) which were so soon and so grossly mis- understood. He had learnt, saith Porphyry, from the Eastern Magi, that God was light and truth; and therefore he looked on a search after truth as one way of assimilation to God. But the main thing was in the practice of virtue; of which there is a short abstract in the Golden Verses; and Hierocles declares in the be- ginning, The design of them all was to bring mankind to a likeness to the Divine nature. And in this, saith Stob.Eclog. Hudorus in Stobzeus, Socrates and Plato agreed with ]. il. c. ed. Cant. Pythagoras, That this was the chief end of philosophy ; but Plato added, xara 1d duvarov, as far as mankind could attain to it. And so Alcinous expresses the sense Alcin.c.27.0f Plato: but he tells us, That Plato sometimes set tt ed. Oxon. Jorth by being wise, and just, and holy ; sometimes by following God; because, according to the ancient saying, God is the beginning and end of all things. Thas, saith Hierocles, ts the end of the Pythagorean philosophy, to give wings to our souls, that, when death comes, we may leave a mortal body behind us, and fly SE HTS > ORIGINES SACRE. 421 to the immortal mansions above, and partake of a Di- cuar. vine nature, as far as we are capable of it. And" _ Simplicius, in the beginning of his Commentaries on pada Aristotle, saith, The end of philosophy is to attain to” our most perfect happiness ; and if a man arrived to the top of philosophy, he might be a God and not a man. ‘hese things I mention to shew that philosophy, as it was understood by the ancients, was far from ex- cluding final causes, or moral considerations of things; since its great end was to bring men to a likeness to God. This being then the true original end of philosophy, to improve men’s minds in order to their happiness, how came the consideration of the great ends of God in the world to be thought unbecoming philosophical speculations? ‘The reason was, that the immortality of the soul hath been excluded too. For although, ac- cording to the doctrine of Des Cartes, its distinction from the body be asserted and proved, yet its immor- tality is passed over, under this pretence, that God may Jix tts duration by his will; and therefore, unless we know the will of God in it, we can determine nothing in philosophy about it. But the ancient philosophers made the immortality of the soul the foundation of all their inquiries, and therefore took in all such consider- ations as tended to improve, and refine, and purify the minds of men. For which end moral considerations are most proper: and therefore it cannot but seem strange to any thinking man, to observe these to be so industri- ously set aside, on pretence that we cannot find out the ends that God had in framing the world, and the several parts of it; and yet-at the same time they pretend to have found all the mechanical powers of matter, which is much more difficult to comprehend. But of that af- terwards : we now consider final causes. And have we Ee 3 BOOK a: 422 ORIGINES SACRA. not reason to conclude, from the present frame of the world with respect to mankind, that the Maker of it intended to dispose things for their advantage? Let men consider the faculties of their minds, together with the materials about them, and the organs God hath given them to make use of them; and can they think otherwise but that God hath abundantly made up to them what other creatures seem to exceed them in? Their understanding, and contrivance, and arti- ficial inventions, go far beyond the natural strength and sagacity of brutes, as to the comfortable way of subsistence. They can make the brutes to be very ser- viceable to them, as to diet, clothing, journeying, ha- bitations, &c. They can find out ways to communicate their thoughts to each other at a great distance, and entertain commerce in the remotest parts, by the help of their own inventions as to navigation. So that if one country be not sufficiently furnished, they can bring home the products of others. And so all the benefit of trading (which in these later ages is grown to so mighty a reputation above what it had in elder ages) is owing to the happy invention of the use of the magnet. But set aside these modern improvements, and consider mankind as mere natives of their several coun- tries, take all together, and the inhabitants of the earth have no cause to complain of Providence; which makes up what is wanting in one thing, by such advantages another way, that most nations are fond of their own countries, and would not change them. The ancient geographers indeed mention people who cursed the ris- ' ing and setting sun, because his heat was intolerable to them ; and the philosophers thought they had great reason to conclude the torrid zone uninhabitable. But the experience of these latter times has found it quite otherwise, and that the places there were fully peopled, ORIGINES SACRA. 423 and their condition tolerable enough, and in some re- cHap. spects pleasant to them; as to the fruitfulness of land, and numbers of rivers, and plenty of commodities. And as to heat, that is very much qualified by the con- stant breezes in the day-time, and coolness of the nights; and the particular situation of some places, which at a very little distance have winter and summer; which shews that the seasons do not merely depend upon the sun, but upon the motion of the air; for where that is stopt by the height of mountains, there is winter on one side, and summer on the other; as Is. Vossius observes on the coast of Malabar, and !s. Voss. de ilo, c. 12. about the mountains of Arabia, Congo, and Bengala, Ludolph. and other places: and Ludolphus confirms it concerning ad Hist. the mountains of Malabar; insomuch that, he saith,» pa the king there may keep a perpetual summer, only by *®"°° crossing the mountains. Others have given a more Philosoph. particular account of it, and tell us, that the Chetso-n tree nese, between the rivers of Indus and Ganges, is di- vided in the middle by a ridge of high hills, which they call the Gate: on the one side is Malabar, and on the other Coromandel; and that it is winter on one side from April to September, and summer on the other, and that not above twenty leagues distance in crossing the mountains. And the same is said to be at Cape Razalgate in Arabia, and in Jamaica; which is im- puted to the mountains stopping the current of vapours, wherein the particles of them are driven together, and fall down into drops of rain; and so the seasons depend upon the monsoons or fixed winds in those parts; the north-east blowing on one side from November to April, and the southerly on the other from April to November. Sir H. Middleton speaks of so great cold Purchas, ° A Pil. tom. i, on the mountains of Arabia, that he could not have y. 255. believed it, unless he had felt it himself; for he Ee 4 BOOK Acosta of the Indies, Lies 2313 L, iii. c. 8. 424 ORIGINES SACRA. despised their information at Mecca, who knew the country far better. But he thought he went according | to reason, as the ancients did; but experience hath plainly discovered their mistakes. For heat and cold are found not to depend merely upon the nearness or distance of the sun; for other things, we find, may not only qualify that heat, but produce cold where it was least expected. Acosta tells us, that the old phi- .losophers went upon primciples of common reason, when they supposed the torrid xone was uninhabitable ; but notwithstanding he found it so far from being so, that he thought it pleasant and agreeable, and saw it Jull of people: and he saith, that the air is clearest when the sun is farthest off, and fullest of clouds and rain when the sun is nearest: as he shews at large from the experience himself had in those parts. Some places of the torrid zone he observes to be temperate, as in Quito, and the plains of Peru; some very cold, as at Potosi; some very hot, as in some parts of A‘thiopia, Brazil, and the Moluccas. The temperateness of it he imputes to the rains, to the shortness of the days, the nearness to the ocean, the height of lands and moun- tains, but especially to the winds. For he saith, The providence of God hath so ordered it, that the fresh and cool winds do qualify the excessive heat of the sun. But he observes, That, besides the breezes from the sea by day, there are land winds by night, which serve very much to temper the heat of the arr. It looked like an objection against Providence, when men concluded, that, by the nearness of the sun within the tropics, so great a part of the earth as the torrid zone should be scorched by the sun, as not to be capa- ble of habitation by mankind: but when the contrary is now found most certainly true, and such reasons are given for it, which mankind could not have thought of, - ee ee ORIGINES SACRE. 425 have we not ground to infer, that Providence had cer- tainly such an end as the good of mankind to order things so, as by several means to make those habita- tions not only tolerable, but in many places delightful ? By this we see how vain those old arguments against Providence were, which were grounded on this suppo- sition, that so great a part of the earth was useless to mankind by the intolerable heat of the sun. Yet how confidently doth Lucretius argue upon this supposition; as though he could demonstrate against Providence from heaven and earth: Hoc tamen ex ipsis cceli rationibus ausim Confirmare, aliisque ex rebus reddere multis, Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum, tanta stat preedita culpa. Principio, quantum cceli tegit impetus ingens, Inde avidam partem monteis, sylvaeque ferarum Possedere, tenent rupes, vasteeque paludes, Et mare, quod late terrarum distinet oras. Inde duas porro prope parteis fervidus ardor, Assiduusque geli casus mortalibus aufert. So much room taken up by the heavens, so much by mountains, woods, rocks, marshes, and seas; and two parts of the earth useless for mankind by intolerable heat and cold; that he could never imagine this earth was framed with design for the good of mankind. And yet at the same time there were philosophers, who: thought the conveniences for mankind were so great in this world, that from thence they inferred that there was a Providence which had a particular regard to the advantages which they enjoy; and this without any revelation from God of those ends which he designed. The Stoics knew, as well as Epicurus, the compass of the heavens, the greatness of the mountains, woods, rocks, and seas; and they believed as much that some CHAP, IL. Lueret. v. 497. BOOK 1. Arist. Me- teor. }. 11. C8. Plin. I. 11. c. 68. ed. Har- duin. 426 ORIGINES SACRA. parts of the earth were not to be inhabited; and yet they concluded that there was a design of Providence in all with respect to mankind. For they took notice, not merely of the space which the heavens took up, but of the great beauty, and order, and usefulness of the celestial bodies; and particularly the convenient dis- tance of the sun to make the earth fruitful and pleasant, and to distinguish days and nights for works and rest; and that the mountains were large storehouses for me- tals and rivers, which could not otherwise be supplied ; and that the seas afforded plenty of fish, and large con- veniences for commerce; and the woods were furnish- ed with timber to make vessels out of, to pass over those seas, and so preserve a correspondence among mankind, at the greatest distance, for their mutual ad- vantage; and if there were uncultivated parts of the earth, that only shewed that God did not give these things to make mankind lazy and idle, but to exercise those abilities both of body and mind, which he had given them. But as to the two parts of the earth being wholly unserviceable to mankind, by reason of excessive heat or cold, that is found, by experience of later ages, to have been a great mistake. But Aristotle is positive in it, That the places near the sun have no waters nor pastures ; and that the remote northern parts are not to be inhabited for the cold. But both these assertions are found to be false: however his authority was fol- lowed, insomuch that Pliny saith, Of five xones two are useless by extremity of cold; and that there is no- thing but a perpetual mist and a shining frost; and that within the tropics all is burnt up by the heat of the sun, which is so intense, that, he saith, there is no pas- sage from one temperate zone to the other. 'This is a strange account to us now, and given by a man who ee ee en ee ae _— ~~ 4 1 = cue > ~ ee ee ORIGINES SACRA. 427 had read all authors then extant about these mat- CHAP. ters; and it is the stranger, because in the chapter oI before he saith, That Hanno passed from Cadix to the end of Arabia, (which is much doubted,) and that Eu- doxus came to Cadiz from the Arabian Gulph; and that another went from Spain to Ethiopia on the ac- count of trade; and that some Indians trading abroad were cast by storms on the northern coasts, who were presented to the proconsul of Gaul. How could these things be, and yet they such strangers to the torrid zone, through which they must pass? But he seemed Lame to take it for granted, that those regions were unpass-— able, and uninhabitable, although himself mentions several nations which lived within the torrid zone; as the negroes on both sides the river Niger, the Gara- mantes, Troglodyte, (whom Ludolphus makes to be the same with the Hottentots,) and several others. Now if all these countries were burnt up, how came so many people to be then known to live here ? and so they were from the time of Herodotus, who mentions Herodot. them. But how different are the best accounts we ee ee now have of these places, from what the ancients ima-¢¥ , we gined! The country of the negroes, through which °¢- Basil. the Niger runs (which is supposed to be of the same nature (if.not original) with the Nile, and overflows the country of the negroes in the same manner, and at the same time that the Nile doth Egypt,) is, according to a late author, a populous and fertile country ; who Voyage saith, That the natives endure the heat with ease, and * : ce s are healthful and vigorous. Another, who spent some time in that country, saith, That the heat 1s more sup- Relation de portable by the cool wind which blows ; and that for 1689, 7.85, six months it is as pleasant as France. Andrew Bat- fen tel, who lived about eighteen years in Angola and there- Ne Me abouts, speaks enough of the populousness of those BOOK I. Ludolph. Comment. ie Pa n. 36. 428 ORIGINES SACRA. parts; and Lopez, who was at Congo, commends the temperature of the air there. Ludolphus, in his ac- count of Ethiopia, which he had chiefly from a native, saith, That it 1s as temperate as Portugal. The same we have already produced from Acosta of Peru. Many more such instances might be produced ; but these are sufficient to shew what a wonderful mistake the an- cients were under as to the torrid zone, and how very weak Lucretius’s argument against Providence from thence is. But the argument for it is much stronger from these discoveries ; because, according to the ordi- nary effects of the heat of the sun, they reasoned truly: but there is a concurrence of several other things which temper the air, which they could not understand. HH is true, there are some things that abate the heat which arises from the sun’s nearness; as the equality of nights to days, and the abundance of rains which fall at that time; of which the most probable account is, that although in our parts the distance of the sun causes cold and rain, and the nearness heat and drought, yet it is quite otherwise there; for the sun raises up the vapours more there by rarefying the air, and that to a great height; which joiing together, and fall- ing down with greater force, doth thereby produce a wind as well as water, both which cool and refresh the air; and where the vapours do not produce rain, yet they make a dew, as in some parts of Peru, which falling on the ground makes it fruitful. But these things are not sufficient; for were all the country in the torrid zone a flat, with those advantages, it would not be habitable; and therefore the height of the mountains was necessary for this purpose. Which shews that these are so far from being botches or ruins, that they are great instances of Divine Provi- dence, if they can be made out to be serviceable to this: Se Se a “ye vs ORIGINES SACRA. 429 purpose. Scaliger saith, that those do pie delirare, CHAP. who impute the mountains to the fractures made in the ety earth by the flood; and that it is impossible that the ik te earth which fell in should ever make a surface equal with the height of the mountains: but he asserts them to be a work of Providence in the original frame of the world, and chiefly intended to be a receptacle for water : and he observes, that the highest mountains are Exere. 42. under the torrid zone; where they serve likewise for tempering the air. For Acosta gives that reason of Acosta, the temper of the air in the West Indies, that 7¢ zs the Tucks, high country, having many mountains, which afford a * ©‘? great refreshment to the neighbour-countries : and he observes, that the sea-coast in Peru and New Spain as very hot, being low and flat; but it is otherwise in the higher parts. Piso, a learned physician, who lived Pison. in Brazil, and hath given a natural history of that peeves country, imputes the healthfulness of the maritime" coasts there, which he thinks compares with Europe, Apvd Elz. to two things. 1. The constant breexe from the sea lying on the east of tt, which, he saith, very much de- Sends them from the excessive heat of the sun. 2. A ridge of mountains between that and Peru, which keep off the noisome vapours of the moorish grounds on the other side of them. In the night, he saith, the cold is so great, (even in the torrid zone,) that they are forced to keep fires to prevent the ill effects of it. Nichol. de Tecko, who was in Tucumania, saith, Taf Hist. Para- the part of it which ts within the torrid xone is very eee 5 cold, by reason of the mountains there ; which, he saith, ae evidently confutes the ancients’ opinion concerning it.\. vi. fe 3. Andrew Battel mentions the high mountains about * Angola, over which he marched, and found the air very cold. Ludolphus saith, The providence of God Eaaelble is much to be admired in the mountains of Ethiopia; : Bibiop. 430 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK for the height of their mountains makes that country Des Cartes Prin. par.2. he 2k. habitable, and their air more temperate; and affords them rivers, which the flats in the torrid zone do want; unless they be such as come out of the mountainous part. And which seems very strange, he afirms from Tellez, That the heats in some parts of Ethiopia are more tolerable than in Portugal, which hes so many degrees more to the north. The force of what I have said comes to this. It was supposed to be an argument against Providence, that so great a part of the earth was useless to mankind ; which is so far from being true, that undoubted expe- rience hath convinced the world that they have been fully inhabited ; and that to the comfortable subsistence of mankind there hath been concurrence of several things, which could not be the result of chance, or of the mechanical laws of the motion of matter: and there- fore we ought to conclude these things to be ordered by Divine Providence, for the use and benefit of man- kind. There is yet one thing to be observed, before I end this part of my discourse; which is to shew the per- nicious use that hath been made of Des Cartes’s laying aside the consideration of final causes. For there was lately a person too well known in the world, (and whom I intend to consider at large afterwards,) who at first professed himself a strict follower of Des Cartes’s notions in his Metaphysical Meditations. But he made use of the argument from the idea to prove the world to be God: and Des Cartes cannot be excused from giving too great advantage to Spinoza, by supposing the idea of extended matter to be infinite and neces- sary ; which overthrows the force of his own argument from the idea; for if it agrees to matter, it cannot prove the being of a substance distinct from matter, ORIGINES SACRA. 431 and gave occasion to the other to think that nothing but cHap. infinite matter was implied in this idea. And, to carry a on his design the better, he kept close to Des Cartes in excluding the consideration of final causes. For in his Mathematical Ethics (as he calls them) he hath an ap- pendix to his first part, where he doth purposely set himself to overthrow all final causes, as mere fictions B.D. Spi- of men’s brains. But the comfort is, that they are no Pe fe. late fictions, but the wisest men in all ages, as I have already shewed, did assert them; and it is not a mere mathematical appearance will fright men now out of the principles of reason. But let us examine what the grounds are on which final causes are thus peremptorily condemned. He saith, That they arise from the com- mon prejudice of mankind, who have so much fond- ness for themselves as to think that all things are done for their sakes: that God made all things for man, and mankind to serve him. But this is not a just and fair representation of the matter. We do not say, that God had no other end in the frame of the universe, but merely for the sake of the inhabitants of the earth ; for we do not pretend to give an account of the great ends which the Almighty had in those vast and numerous bodies of the fixed stars, which are so very remote from us: but that which we say, is, that God hath placed mankind in such a station here upon earth, that they cannot but look about them; and when they do so, they cannot but admire to find so great and so wise a Being order all things so, as to see not only the wis- dom but the goodness of their Maker. And how doth this appear to be a mere fiction of men’s brains? Are there not such just causes for our admiration? Are there not such conveniences for human life ? Do not all men see the wonderful contrivance and usefulness of the parts of their bodies ? And are there not great BOOK b 4G2 ORIGINES SACRA. discoveries of the like wisdom in plants and animals, and the earth and sea? Are all these mere phantasms and fictions of men’s brains ? Why are not the mistakes about these things discovered in a mathematical man- ner? This might have signified something: but to go about to confute mankind, by telling them that final causes are mere fictions of ther brains, is far from being a geometrical way of demonstration. Let us ex- amine, however, the method he takes to make it out. 1. In the first place, he undertakes to shew how man- kind came to think so much of final causes; and then, 2, how repugnant they are to the nature of things: 3, how men came to take up the notions of good and evil, and of rewards and punishments, from this opinion about final causes: all which I shall briefly consider. As to the first, he supposes that all men are born igno- rant of causes, and look after their own advantage, which they are conscious to themselves of: And what follows? Furst, that they suppose themselves free, be- cause they know their own desires. And why should they not, as well as know that they think; for they have the like inward perception as to both? But they are ignorant of the causes which determine their de- sires. How doth it appear that there are such causes, which they are thus ignorant of ? If any man under- takes to assign causes which mankind are not at all sensible of, he ought’ not to take it for granted that there are such causes, but to prove it in such a manner as to overbalance the evidence of their inward percep- tions. For mankind are conscious to themselves of no such causes: if therefore any one will prove that how- ever they are not free, certainly that evidence ought to be clearer than the argument from our own perception to the contrary. I think I move my eye freely to this or that object, and am fully satisfied from that inward ORIGINES SACRA. 433 perception I have of the voluntary motion of the mus- CHA?. cles belonging to the eye: now if any one goes about x to tell me that I am deceived herein, and that there were other causes which determined the motion of my eye, is it not reason I should have evidence greater than what I have from my own sensation? But here we have no causes at all assigned; therefore we must go on. Secondly, saith he, mankind do all things for some end, viz. for their own profit; and therefore de- sire only to know final causes ; and if they find these, they are satisfied. Is not this well said by a man that pretends to demonstration, and that in a geometrical manner ? Could no other ends be thought of but profit? I begin to be of Des Cartes’s mind, that geometry spoils men’s reasoning's in other matters. For, how was it possible for a man of common sense to argue in such a manner ; men aim at their own profit, therefore they desire only to know final causes? What profit was it which this author aimed at in making this work of his? He had, without doubt, some end in it; for I hardly think he could take so much pains for no end at all. Was it a good or a bad end? For mankind are still apt to be inquisitive into final causes. A good end, no doubt, his friends will say. What was this good end ? Was it mere profit ? No, certainly, they will say, his mind was above it; for he devoted himself wholly (as they tell us in the preface to his works) to philoso- phy ; and retired on purpose for the prosecution of his studies. Jt is then more than possible for a man to aim at some other end than mere profit. And what “was the end he proposed in philosophy ? Still we in- quire after the end, although profit be set aside; and we cannot have a better account of it than from him- self. He tells us, his mind was set upon finding out ivia. de In. the true good of mankind. This was a noble end in- ‘“"'™"* ' STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Ff 434 | ORIGINES SACRA. - BOOK deed, and fit for a person that designed to improve his : understanding. But was this true good nothing but profit ? So far from it, that he saith, He was soon sa- lisfied that what things mankind generally pursued, were a hinderance to the end he aimed at; and there- fore he saw tt necessary to give over the pursuit of riches, honours, and sensual pleasures, and to fix upon an eternal and infinite Good, which alone can give sa- tisfaction to the mind, and therefore ought to be pur- sued with all our might. 'This one would think were spoken like a true Christian philosopher: but his way is to use our expressions, and to couch his own mean- ing under very plausible terms: but he speaks his mind more afterwards, when he saith, This chief good of man is to understand the union between the mind and nature. What that is, will appear more afterwards; be P- but here he saith, That this is the end to which our ia studies and endeavours are to be directed. Which is sufficient to my present purpose. For here it is con- fessed, that they are only vulgar minds that aim at mere profit as their end; but that there is a higher and more certain and agreeable end for the minds of men to search after; and that their happiness lies in the attaining of that end. Which being allowed, if we suppose a wise and intelligent Being to have created mankind, there is no incongruity at all in man’s mak- ing that infinite and eternal Good to be his chief end, nor in pursuing after it with all his endeavours; nor can there be any in supposing that this God should order things in this world with that design, that they should be serviceable to him here as to his present sub- sistence, in order to his main end. For he allows his philosopher to do many things with that design to serve his end, viz. to speak as other men do, whatever he thinks ; to use sensual pleasures, as they serve for ORIGINES SACRA. 435 health ; to get as much wealth as will make his condi- cusv. tion easy. Thus far then we find that mankind may a propose ends to themselves ; and that there are things which have a tendency to them; and that it is very becoming in them to use those means in order to their ends. Why then may not the wise Creator of the world appoint proper ends and means to mankind, as to their conveniences and future happiness ? What repugnancy is there in this, more than in the former case? All that he can say is, That mankind finding something very iia. ethic. useful to them, as eyes for seeing, teeth for eating,’ °"°* herbs and animals for nourishment, the sun to give hight, the sea to breed fish, &c. and because they are so useful to them, conclude that there was a Being above them, which prepared all these things for them. And what absurdity is there in so doing? What geo- metrical demonstration is there that these things all came together so of themselves, without any intelligent Agent? All that he saith is, That they, considering them as means, could not believe that they made them- selves; but because they were wont to provide things Sor their own use, they supposed or believed some free Agent, which ordered all these things for them. And Jrom hence they, judging all by themselves, concluded that God ordered all these things for their use, to oblige mankind to him, that they might honour and serve him ; and so, under a pretence of doing honour to God, they fell into superstition, and were so bent upon final causes, till at last they made God no wiser _than themselves. Is not all this demonstration? They must think very meanly indeed of the understandings of men, that can think they will be satisfied with such accounts as these. We find he grants eyes fitted for sight, teeth for eating, &c. And why, I pray, may we not in reason conclude that they were designed for Ff? 436 ORIGINES SACRA. that use? He finds some things to cavil at, about uz- seasonable weather, earthquakes, diseases, &c. (which are consistent with the general ends of Providence ;) but he hath nothing to say, as to his former instances, why we should not believe we had eyes to see with, or ears to hear with, or teeth to eat with. But if these things were given for those uses and no other, doth not this prove particular ends of Providence with respect to mankind ? What, 7f men do provide means for ther ends, is it an argument of folly or wisdom so to do? If it be wisdom to act for an end, and folly to act for none, why may we not suppose an infinitely wise Being to act for ends agreeable to himself ? Not for mean, foolish, sordid ends, but such as become the great Cre- ator, and wise Governor, and bountiful Benefactor to mankind. And what is there unbecoming our idea of God in these relations ? Is it then unfit for a wise Cre- ator, and Governor, and Benefactor, to bestow on man- kind such things as tend to the use and good of his creatures, or to take care of their welfare, so as to fur- nish us with such organs of our senses, such faculties of our minds, as may make use of the many conveni- ences which we have about us for our comfortable sub- sistence, and our cheerful service of so great, and so good, and so liberal a Benefactor ? Can this be called superstition, to serve and adore him? Is this making God like to ourselves, when we acknowledge the infinite distance between him and us, and serve him with de- vout reverence and godly fear? Far be it from us to think so meanly of him, as to attribute the least degree of our passions and weaknesses to him. We know he could not be God, if he were not infinitely above our thoughts as well as our services; but if he please to be so kind to us, to give us so many reasons to love and serve him, is it fit for his creatures to despise his service, ORIGINES SACRA. 437 on pretence that he is above it ? Superstition is a fool- ish thing, because it comes from mean apprehensions of God ; but true religion is a wise and agreeable thing, because it flows from a due sense of a Divine Majesty, and a tender regard to his honour. And whatever men pretend as to philosophy and demonstration, there are none that really want sense and understanding so much, as those who despise religion under the name of super- stition. We cannot deny that there is too much of it in the world; but as God remains the same notwithstand- ing the follies of mankind, so religion is as just and reasonable a thing as ever, although superstition hath brought so much dishonour upon it. The next thing is to shew, that final causes are re- — pugnant to the nature of things. 'This is to the pur- pose indeed, if he can make it out. As to his argu- ment from the necessity of all things, that must be re- ferred to its due time; because it is not proved, but supposed. But here we are to consider how final causes do so lamentably pervert the order of nature. They make, saith he, the cause to be the effect, and the effect to be the cause; and that which was first in na- ture to be the last; and make the most perfect Being to be the most imperfect. These are sad consequences, if they hold. The two former he passes over, as he had reason, and fixes on the last, that they overthrow the Divine perfection; and he needs no more, if he can make this out. But how? If God works for an end, then he must want that which he works for. Is ~ this the demonstrating ethics in a geometrical way ? A father, out of kindness to his son, designs to advance him in the world, and furnishes him with all necessary means to that end. Doth this argue weakness and in- digency, or only kindness and good-will to his son? If there may be a design of doing good to others, with Ff3 CHAP. Ik. 438 ORIGINES SACRA, regard to their welfare, and many means used to that end, what want doth this argue? But rather it flows from abundant goodness; and the more perfect any being is, the greater is the beneficence and readiness to do good to others: and one would think men did not want geometry to know this. But, saith he, God did not do this for their sakes, but his own; his own glory is the end of all. But if the glory of God be most advanced by the good of his creatures, how can these two be separated from each other? Men may make a distinction by metaphysical speculation: but if his glory be advanced by their good, there can be no real dis- tinction between them ; for both are carried on by the same thing. After these faint attempts, our geometrician falls fo ignorance of causes, (of which I have said so much al- ready ;) and from thence, he saith, comes men’s admira- tion of the fabric of man’s body, because they know not the causes of it. And did our philosopher know the mechanical causes of all the parts of it ? What pity it is we had not seen them, instead of these loose and idle discourses; for I can call them no other, when there is so much blustering talk about geometry, and so very little appearance of true reason. But, saith he, very sensibly, The world looks upon a man as a very dangerous heretic, and impious person, if he gives an account of natural causes, and takes away their igno- rance. I see no such great danger from his knowledge, whatever there be from his impiety; for he hath shewed much more cause for us to wonder at one than at the other. But the impiety of his system must be consi- dered in its proper place. The last thing he saith as to causes is, That man- hind being persuaded that all things were made for them, they set an esteem upon such things as they ORIGINES SACRA. 439 found most useful, and measured the value of things cH AP. by their agreeableness to themselves. From hence —— came the difference of good and evil, orderly and con- Jused, hot and cold, beautiful and deformed ; and, be- cause they imagined themselves free, thence came praise and dishonour, fault and merit. And what tended to health or the worship of God, they called good, and the contrary evil; what suited to their oma- gination they called order; what did not, confusion. What was agreeable to their senses they called beau- tiful, sweet, pleasant ; and the contrary to what was not; and attributed their modes of sensation to the things themselves. And men judge of things by their different imaginations; and from thence come such great differences among mankind about good and evil, order and confusion ; all which come from men’s fol- lowing imagination, and not reason. This is the sub- stance of what he saith: which in short takes away all the real difference between good and evil, and makes good to be a mere effect of men’s imaginations, from respect to their own conveniency, or what they call the honour of God; and evil what is repugnant to them. But how comes this to follow from final causes? Yes, saith he, since all things are made for them, therefore good and evil are to be taken with respect to them. This is a very weak foundation to build this doctrine upon. For things are not therefore said to be morally good, because they are useful to mankind; but that implies only a natural fitness for such purposes, which is quite another thing from moral goodness ; and it 1s strange our philosophers should not discern the differ- ence. For is there no measure of good and evil among mankind with respect to one another? If the good and evil of things did depend upon final causes, with respect to mankind in general, then there could be no such thing in regard to each other; for these final BOO IF 440 ORIGINES SACRA. causes do not reach to one individual more than another, for they respect the whole kind. But we say upon good grounds, that there are things which are good and evil between man and man. Yes, it may be said, with respect to society, and the common good of the whole. If it be so, then it follows, that it doth not depend upon mere imagination, but that there is a true and just measure in things; for if human society can- not be preserved without justice, and keeping faith and obedience to government, conjugal fidelity, &c. then there is a real tendency in these things to that end, and a repugnancy in the contrary; and if so, then their being good or evil doth not depend upon men’s fancies or humours, any more than the taking away fuel doth for lessening a fire, or the adding it doth to the increase of it. For men’s indulging their own pas- sions against reason and a common interest, doth as much tend to a civil combustion, as the other to a na- tural; and men’s due government of themselves and actions doth as naturally tend to peace and tranquillity, as withdrawing fuel, or casting water, doth to quench the violence of fire. From whence it appears, that there are real ends as to mankind, which are the mea- sures of good and evil with respect to society. But, besides this, mankind cannot be supposed to subsist without the relations of parents and children: and can any man in his right senses imagine that the duties of these to each other depend only upon fancy ? Is there no natural regard due from children to parents ? no natural affection and tenderness in parents to children ? Is all this only the product of imagination? So as to the difference of sexes; chastity, modesty, and a decent regard to each other, are things founded in nature, and do not arise from custom or fancy. But in all these things, although there be a just regulation of them by laws, yet the foundation of them is laid in the nature ORIGINES SACRA, 441 and respects of things to one another. As to our own bodies, health is not the only measure of good and evil; for it is so uncertain, that those excesses do little pre- judice to some, which are mischievous to others: but there is a Just proportion of things to be observed with respect to their use; and so intemperance may be con- sistent with a healthful body. As to the condition of others, who, by reason of poverty or sickness, stand in need of our help, it is a thing in itself good to afford them our assistance; and so liberality, charity, and doing good, are so far from being good only from ima- gination, that no man can imagine them to be other- wise than good. But, besides all these, there are du- ties which are owing to that infinite Being from whom we derive all that we enjoy or hope for; and can it be any other than good for us to fear, and serve, and love, and honour him? He confesses, mankind allow that to be good which respects the honour of God; but he means, that it is because we suppose that he made all things for men. But although his goodness and pro- vidence be very great reasons for our serving him, yet, if he had been less bountiful to mankind, they had been bound to serve him as their Creator. And it is impossible to suppose that he should discharge his crea- tures from so necessary a duty, and to make the con- trary not to be a fault. For it would imply ingratitude and contempt of the best Being in the world not to be evil: and that he who is infinitely good, should require what is in itself evil. From all which it appears, that the nature of good and evil doth not depend upon the arbitrary fancies and opinions of men, but upon the na- ture of things, the reason of mankind, and the respects they stand in to one another. And it is a great confirmation of this, that our phi- losopher himself makes it the same case as to good and CHAP. ie BOOK A; 442 ORIGINES SACRA. evil, as it is with respect to order and confusion, and beauty and deformity, and harmony and discord. For although there may be a variety of fancies as to some degrees of these things, and that may please some. which doth not others, yet in the main they all agree in a real difference between them; and none can have so little judgment, as to think that there is nothing but fancy, which puts a difference between a well digested discourse and a confused heap of thoughts ; or between an exact beauty and the picture of deformity; or the most ravishing music and the noise of a pair of tongs. So that the extremes must be allowed to be really dif- ferent from one another, what difference soever there be in persons’ fancies as to what lies between; and yet as to them, when the idea of the thing itself is agreed upon, then the nearer any approach to it, the more it hath of the reality, and the farther off, it doth so much more depend upon fancy. But, saith he, in our objects of sense we imagine the qualities to be real things without us; whereas they are only the different impressions made upon our senses, and so conveyed to our imaginations. And is this an argument that there is no real difference be- tween bitter and sweet, savoury and unsavoury, or thet all sounds are alike? Or that because some have fancied the music of the spheres, therefore there is no such thing as harmony ? But such kind of arguing de- serves no farther consideration. I now come to the second hypothesis, which tends towards atheism; and that is of those who attribute too much to the mechanical powers of matter and mo- tion. It cannot be denied by any ingenuous man, that in our age a great improvement hath been made in na- tural and experimental philosophy. But there is a great difference to be made between those who have ORIGINES SACKAL. 4.43 proceeded in the way of experiments, which do great cHap. service as they go, and such as have formed mechanical theories of the system of the universe, and have under- taken to give an account how the world was framed, and what the immediate causes are of those things which appear in the world. I do not go about to dis- pute whether many things are not better resolved by the new than by the old philosophy; I am not con- cerned in the doctrines of antiperistasis, fuga vacut, occult qualities, intentional species, and such like: and I confess, that the particular histories and experiments relating to things of nature, as to the bodies of animals, the vegetation of plants, and particular qualities, tend much more to the true knowledge of nature, than the mere nice and dry general speculations about forms and qualities ; which have been handled in such a manner, that they have been like some of Aristotle’s books, se¢ Jorth, but not to be understood. If therefore several qualities of bodies be explained mechanically, i.e. by virtue of the known affections of matter, viz. size, Jigure, motion, &c. and that new ones can be produced by changing the texture or motion, or some other me- chanical affection of matter, it is far from my design to oppose them, or any such discourses, which tend only to give us more light into the occult nature (though not qualities) of things. For to say that things pro- ceed from occult qualities, is in other words to say that they come from we know not what; and none can take that for a good answer, from one that pretends to give the reason of a thing. But to proceed more distinctly, I make no difficulty of allowing these following principles, as to the nature II. and qualities of natural bodies; which are most insist- Mr. Boyle ed upon by a late excellent philosopher, and a truly gin of Christian virtuoso among us. 1. That there is one Forms and Qualities. of the Ori- BOOK Le 44.4. ORIGINES SACRE. universal matter of bodies; that 1s, a substance extend- ed, divisible, and impenetrable. 2. That there is a di- versity of motion in several parts of matter; so it be not said to be in matter from itself as essential to it; for then it must always move, and there could be no rest, and so no composition. 3. That by virtue of this motion matter is divided into greater and lesser parts, which have their determination, size, and figure. 4. That, besides these, their situation is to be con- sidered; that is, their posture and order with respect to one another: and when the several parts join to- gether to make up one body, that is called the texture of them. 5. That there is a different texture both in our organs of sense, and in the objects which make im- pressions upon them, with a different motion, figure, and size; from whence arise our different sensations, and our apprehensions of different sensible qualities in things. 6. That, by a coalition of the smaller particles of matter into one body, there are different substances in the world of distinct denominations ; but by a change of texture or motion, or other properties of matter, that compound body may be put into a different state, which may be called its alteration or corruption; and if the change be so made as to offend our senses, it is then called putrefaction. 7. That there may be an incom- prehensible variety in the coalition and texture of the minute particles of matter, which may be so different from each other, as to be thought to be endued with distinct qualities; as the twenty-four letters make up au inconceivable number of words, by the different placing of them. But when I have allowed these, I can by no means agree, 1, That there are no other qualities in bodies but what relate to our senses. It is true, we could not be sensible of heat and cold, but from the impressions ORIGINES SACRAE. © 445 made on our senses: but, supposing we were not sen- sible of the different agitation of particles without us, it doth not at all follow that there is not a real alter- ation in the objects themselves; as that the fire doth not burn, if we do not feel the heat of it; and why that disposition in matter, which is apt to produce such a sense in us, may not be called an inherent quality, is not so easy to apprehend. But if there be such a real difference in bodies, as that one will make such an im- pression on our senses, and another will not, we cannot in reason say that there is no quality in things, but that it wholly depends on our apprehension. It is granted, That snow hath a greater disposition to reflect light outwards, than a coal or soot, when the sun shines upon all three. Now why this disposition should be called a distinct quality from what is in the other two, seems to me a dispute of no consequence. So if.an echo be nothing but the cavity of a place, whereby it is disposed to reflect the sound back to the place from whence it came, although it must not be called the quality of the place which makes the echo, yet it cannot be denied to be the peculiar figure and disposition of the parts which make it. So that, if men will allow such inherent dispositions in things to produce what we call qualities in us, the difference will not be found worth the disputing. And I have won- dered persons of judgment and skill in these matters lay so much weight upon it; as though the quality must be said to be only in us, when it is confessed to arise from a different disposition in the parts without us, 2. That there are no other qualities in bodies, but such as an account may be given of by the foregoing principles: for 1 do not find it possible for any person, by virtue of these principles, to give an account either of the make or composition of the bodies of animals, or CHAP. AG BOOK Sydenham deHydrope, p. 160. ik Cart. Prin- cip. part. ii. Dn. 23 iB Ibid. n. 21. 446 ORIGINES SACRA. of the disposition and relation of the inward parts, or of the instruments of nature for preservation of the in- dividual or species; or of the diseases they are subject to, or of the proper methods of cure. And the more any person searches into all the mechanical attempts of this kind, the more unsatisfied he will find himself about them; and will see reason to conclude; as a learned physician hath done, That we may know enough for our general direction what to do; but that the secret causes are so hidden from us, as we have reason to admire the supreme Artificer in what we know, and to adore him in what we do not. These things being premised, I come to the main point; which is, whether matter, being put into motion, can in a mechanical manner produce that frame of the universe which we see, and the several things which are in the heavens, and in this globe of earth and sea. To make this matter as clear as we can, we must first consider the general principles, and then proceed to the account given of the several. phanomena, as they are commonly called. I begin with the general principles ; which are these: That the matter of the universe is one and the same extended substance; and that all the properties we clearly perceive in it, are, that it is divisible, and ca- pable of motion in its parts. That this matter is without bounds, and that the idea of extension is the same with that of corporeal substance. That it is capable of division into so many parts, as we cannot comprehend the utmost bounds of its divisibility. That God alone is the first and universal Cause of the motion of matter; which continues the same in the whole, although it vary in the several parts. ORIGINES SACRA. 447 That there are certain laws of motion, whereof these cap. are the chief: 1. That every part continues in the state it was in, . Y: unless moved by an external cause. 2. That all motion of itself is in a right line, but by N. 39. other bodies it becomes oblique; and all matter being in motion, it becomes circular. 3. That when two bodies meet, the weaker loses not. N. 40. its motion, but changes its tendency, and the stronger loses so much as it gives to the weaker. That the parts of matter were at first divided into Ceaee ei many parcels of an equal and indifferent size, aide a) ato: had among them all that motion which is now in the” world. That these particles of matter could not at first be a spherical, because then there must be a void space be- tween them; but by force of motion and natural attri- tion they became so. That those lesser particles, which came off from the a Merk angles of the bigger, fill up all the empty spaces be- tween them, and have a quicker motion. That, besides these, there are some particles which ee are larger and slower than the rest, being full of angles, and so more apt to stick to one another; which, by reason of their passage through the ébitaibruate spaces between the globular particles, become wreathed. And these are the three elements out of which he supposes all bodies to be made; and accordingly the ingenious author hath framed a system of the universe Par. ii. with great art and appearance of reason; but at some™ ‘* times he is content to let it pass as a bare hypothesis, agreeing with the phenomena of the world; but withal he saith, that he makes use of no principles but such as are most evident, and deduces nothing from them but by mathematical consequences. And in an Epistle 448 ORIGINES SACRAL. BOOK to Mersennus, to whom he opened his mind more freely, he saith, That he should think he knew nothing in physics, if he could only tell how things might be; if he could not demonstrate that they could be no other- wise. But to another person he calls it his romance Ep. tom. ii.9f the world; which he confesses he was very well En, 1o3. pleased with. " But so have not others been, who have taken great pains both in philosophy and mathematics; and al- though they cannot deny this hypothesis to be very consistent and well put together, yet they will by no means allow it to be a true and satisfactory account of the nature and formation of the world. But it is not my business to lay together the objections of others against the Cartesian hypothesis, but to shew the tendency of it to atheism in these two points. 1. In setting up a notion of matter, or corporeal substance, independent upon the power of God. 2. In undertaking to give an account of the pheno- mena of the universe from the mechanical laws of mo- tion, without a particular Providence. Cart. Priv. 4S to the former; his first principle is, That matter ee jas one and the same through the universe; and is every where known by its essential property, which is extension: and therein he places the essence of a corpo- real substance, (as will presently appear.) If then the very essence of matter be independent upon God’s power, so that he can neither create nor annihilate it, what becomes of the creation of the world, according to this hypothesis ? Du Hamel Some object against his notion of matter, and say, deConsensu vet.et nov, that he hath confounded mathematical and physical ——_—— N. 43, 44. fee oes bodies with one another. For, say they, the strength eae of his whole hypothesis depends upon the supposition Dissert. de that matter is nothing but extension, and therefore ORIGINES SACRA. 449 there can be no vacuity, because all space is extended, cMar. and therefore matter is infinite, or, as he calls it, inde- at Jinite ; but so, as he positively saith, that the idea bfeut bee space is the same with that of corporeal substance, chee and that we can conceive nothing in it but extension. eis he Which they say is true, if we speak of mathematical quantity, but not of real and physical. But, saith Princ. Phil. Des Cartes, men may pretend to distinguish corporeal oe substance from quantity ; but they utter that in words which they cannot comprehend in their minds ; for either they mean nothing by substance, or attribute a confused notion of an incorporeal substance to a cor- poreal, and leave the true idea of corporeal substance to extension. But this is very far from clearing this matter; for himself lays it down as a fundamental principle, That it is capable of division into parts, and was actually divided by God himself. Now I desire to know what that was which was so divided. It must be something: and that not an incorporeal, but a cor- poreal substance: not pure extension, but a body that was extended ; and of which the substantial parts of the universe are composed. Nay, his whole hypothesis depends upon the actual division of matter into parts Part. iii. that are equal, or very near it; without which his” Ki: three elements could not be made, which arise from the motion and mutual attrition of those particles; and yet he affirms, in the conclusion of the second part of his Principles, That he owns no other corporeal matter Pat. ii. but such as geometricians call quantity; and is the” * thing which their demonstrations are conversant about. But is there no difference between geometrical and physical quantity? It is true, that in mathematical quantity there is nothing but extension; but doth it therefore follow, that there is nothing more in a real and physical body? How can we imagine that God STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. ge BOOK br. De Con- sens. vet. ef nov, Philcsoph. betel C a0): n. 8. Part. ii. De 10s Nutt. 450 ORIGINES SACRA. should create mere extension in the world, and that out of that all the bodies in the universe are framed? Nay, upon Des Cartes’s principles it is impossible that mat- ter should either be created or annihilated; for, ac- cording to him, the idea of matter and extension are the same. But he saith positively, Tat the idea of extension and space are the same; therefore if space ean neither be created nor annihilated, neither can mat- ter. And it seemed strange to me, that a person so sa- gacious should not lay these things better together ; but his mathematical notions ran so much in his mind, that his endeavour to accommodate them to the nature of things, was that which led him into such inextricable. difficulties. It is well observed by Mons. Du Hamel, that the great mistakes in natural philosophy have risen from men’s applying their former notions to it. Thus, saith he, the common philosophers confounded natural things with metaphysical speculations. On the other side, Des Cartes, being a great mathemati- cian, endeavoured to reduce nature to geometry, and so considered nothing in body but extension. extension, saith he, which constitutes space, ts the same which constitutes bodies ; but we consider it more particularly in bodies and more generally in space, which is not changed, as the other is. But is there then nothing to make a body but mere extension ? I mean not a mathe- matical, but a real physical body. No, saith he, im the idea of a body we may cast off other qualities ; as hardness, colour, gravity, heat and cold, and yet a body remains ; to which then nothing belongs but ex- tension, which is common to body and space. ‘This is not so deep reasoning as might have been expected from so great a master of it. For although the particular qualities may be cast off, yet the capacity of them can no more than extension; as is plain in figure and size, ORIGINES SACRA. 451 as well as hardness, &e. any one particular figure and cap. size may be abstracted from body ; but it is impossible |" to conceive a body, but it must be capable of one or other. Besides, all this proves no more but that ex- tension is the znseparable property of body. And what then? Must the whole essence of a body consist in one inseparable property? But this is all the idea we have of body. Then, I say, our ideas of things are short and imperfect, and there is no forming worlds upon such ideas. And this was the fundamental mis- take of Des Cartes. He lays this down as his ground of certainty; or that we cannot take falsehood for Princip. truth, if we only give assent to such things as we™'™ + clearly and distinctly perceive. Then he goes on, That the things which fall under our perception aren. 4s. either things and their properties, or eternal truths. Of things, the most general are substance, duration, order, number, and such like, which extend to all kinds of things. And he saith, They may all be compre- hended under those two: Of intellectual or thinking substances ; or of material, i. e. of bodily and extended substances. Thus far all is clear and distinct. Then as to the notion of substance, he saith, By that we canN. 51. understand nothing but a thing which so exists, as to need nothing else to support tt. There is but one sub- stance in the world which needs no support, and that 7 God. All created substances need his support ;n. 52. and the notion of them is, that they are things which only stand in need of God's concourse to support them. Hitherto we find nothing to stick at. But how come we to have an idea of created substances? Not from thé bare existence, for that doth not affect us: but it must be from some properties, attributes, or qualities ; be- cause nothing can be attributed to nothing. From whence we conclude from any real attribute, that there Gg 2 452 ORIGINES SACRA. Book must be a thing or substance to which it belongs. All this appears very well still; only we must take notice, that all properties do assure us of a real substance un- der them: which is very true, relating to physical bo- dies. But it is possible he may from hence aim at proving, that there must be a corporeal substance im imaginary space, because there is an extension there, and nothing cannot be attributed to nothing ; therefore there must be a real body there. But I think it may be truly answered, that the extension is no more real than the space is, and implies no more but a capacity of having bodies which it had net; that is, that God might create bodies beyond this world; and if he did so, then there would be a real extension: but as we conceive it, the imaginary space is no more but a pos- sibility for bodies existing out of the compass of this universe. And therefore I deny this to be any real ex- tension ; and that it can be no real substance, because Des Cartes himself, but just before, owned that a creat- ed substance was that which stood in need of God to support it. Now is it possible to imagine that space needs a Divine concourse? Therefore he must dis- tinguish it from substance, or else he must affirm it to be an uncreated substance; which overthrows his dis- tinction here between created and uncreated sub- stances. As to his maxim, that nothing can have no properties, it certainly relates to substance, and not to a mere space; which, by the common sense of mankind, must be distinguished from bodily substance; and there can be no greater prejudice to philosophy than to ‘vo against that. Now let us proceed. rom every attribute a substance is known ; but there ts one chief property which constitutes the essence and nature, to which the rest are referred. So, saith he, extension makes the nature of a corporeal substance, and cogi- ORIGINES SACRA. 453 tation of a thinking substance. For every thing which crap. we attribute to body supposes extension, which is only the mode of the thing extended; as all things attri- buted to our minds are different modes of thinking. And thus we come to two clear and distinct notions or N. 54: ideas ; one of a thinking substance, and the other of a corporeal ; if we distinguish between the attributes of thinking and extension. After this he saith, That co-N.63. gitation and extension may be considered as consti- tuting the natures of a thinking and corporeal sub- stance; and so their clear ideas are, a substance which thinks, and a substance which is extended: but then these properties, he saith, may be considered like- wise only as modes belonging to those substances ; and. 64. so they make a distinct idea of themselves, not without the substances, but as modes belonging to them. Thus I have carefully laid down his own notions about these matters. And now arises the main diffi- culty, viz. how, upon these grounds, the idea of space and of corporeal substance, should be the same? All ae ii. that I can find is, that extension is really corporeal na- ee ture, although it be called an accident. But did not himself distinguish it as a mode of matter, and as a substance extended? And was not this looked on as such a property of matter, as thinking is of a mind ? But can any man say that thinking by itself is am in- tellectual substance ? How then can extension by itself be a corporeal substance? And yet if it be not, as I can see no reason from his own grounds why it should be, then his supposition of the infiniteness of matter, of the plenarty of the world, and the circular motion of his particles of matter, on which his whole hypothesis depends, comes to nothing. And what a strange foun- dation is Des Cartes’s world built upon ? I could hardly believe that so thinking a man should not discern the Gg3 45 4: ORIGINES SACRA. nook weakness of his own grounds: but instead of that, it 1. is plain that he laid great weight upon it; for when a learned man of our own, and then a great admirer of Epist. Des him, objected to him, that he extended the notion of sin ae. corporeal matter too far, but he thought it of no great consequence to the main of his principles, Des Cartes Ep.ss. takes him up smartly for it; for he saith, he looked on it as one of the chief and most certain principles of his philosophy. And in the fragment of his last answer, which he lived not to finish, he persisted in his opinion, Ep.93- That the empty space was a real body, because nothing can have no properties. But there is a difference be- tween real properties and imaginary: if there be any bodies in that space, there will be extension, distance, &c. but it is a very unconceivable thing that one of his judgment should so much contend to the last, That there was a difference of parts in such a space, where there was nothing but space; i.e. that there must be something where there is nothing. And_ therefore es Ha Bernier observes, That those who confound space and Gassend. body, run themselves into strange absurdities, by a em"P5" cornoreal substance to fill all possible space, or rather to be space itself; and that God cannot annihilate the least part of it. And he concludes it to be nether substance nor accident, but a mere capacity. And it A ey was not an improbable conjecture of that learned per- tom. ii. p. Son Who wrote to Des Cartes upon this argument, that ae this doctrine of his, as he explained it, Jaid the founda- tion of Spinoza’s opinion of the «finite extent and power of matter: but I cannot think that Des Cartes himself intended it so, however the other understood it. And it is great pity one of so clear a capacity in other things, should so stiffly adhere to so unreasonable an opinion. And yet we find his disciples go on to defend him in this matter. For when Mons. Huet had ob- ORIGINES SACRA. 455 jected, That Des Cartes had made extension, which car. ine ; il. was an accident, to be a substance, Mons. Regis an-_ swers, That he confounded extension which was of the -°°s" Cartes. |. v. essence of body, with the extension which belonged tor'. s . e . * = megis he- quantity ; whereof the one is considered in itself, and ponse dla Censure, the other with respect to magnitude. But let it be ch. 5. arti. considered how he pleases, it is still but a mode belong- *5* ing to a substance, and not the substance itself. How- ever, he refers us to his book of Physics for the clearing of this matter. And there we find, indeed, that he dis- tinguishes three sorts of bodies; physical, mechanical, and mathematical. A physical body is one composed La Physiq. of many insensible parts in its due order and figure Pas Jrom whence result the physical properties. A me- chanical body ts one composed of gross and sensible parts ; which by their figure and situation are proper Jor particular motions. A mathematical body is a body considered with its proper extension under a re- gular figure, as a cube or a cylinder. But this doth not shew that Des Cartes did not confound a mathe- matical and physical body: for it is an easy thing to find out distinctions to avoid a difficulty ; but then they ought to be agreeable to the general sense of those terms. But here a mathematical body is confined to regular figures; whereas the general notion of it is such a body as Des Cartes himself means, when he calls it geometrical quantity, such as is the object of mathe- matical demonstrations, i.e. of any kind of figures ab- stract from physical bodies; and this, he saith, ts that matter he treated of. And to such a body extension alone belongs, and to none else, either physical or me- chanical. Here then lies the difficulty as to Des Cartes’s prin- ciples: he considers matter geometrically, i. e. ab- stractedly, with respect to bare extension, and yet sup- G g 4 456 ORIGINES SACRE. BOOK poses the effects of physical bodies; such as division of ' parts of matter one from another, and a motion of those parts in order to the composition of things. But mathematical extension is capable of no division but in the mind; for no man imagines the earth really di- vided by the parallels and meridians, &ec. and the divi- sion of the parts of an empty space is nothing but a ma- thematical division, which implies nothing really in that space, but a mere act of the mind in conceiving the dis- tance between the several parts of it. _ Cart. Priu. But Des Cartes proves it impossible there should be Dhaai a vacuum in nature, because the extension of space and body are all one. But may not God annihilate that air which is between the sides of a vessel; and N.18 would there not be a vacuum between? No; he saith at 1s empossible to conceive such a cavity without exten- sion, or such an extension without matter ; and if the middle substance were annihilated, the sides must come together, because there would be nothing between. By which we see, that this notion of the identity of exten- sion and corporeal substance had sunk so deep into his mind, that he makes annihilation of the substance of matter impossible to Divine power; for there can be no such vacuity, but there must remain extension, and consequently a corporeal substance. This hath been objected to the followers of Des Cartes, and lately by Du Hamel, in his censure of Regis’s Cartesian philoso- phy; and it is worth the while to see what answer he ean makes to it. He saith, That his objection about the M. Du Ha. Qunthilation of the air between the heaven and earth, sty i can be of no force to prove a vacuum ; because if there be no space, they must touch one another ; and if they do not, there must be space, and consequently a cor- poreal substance. But, saith Du Hamel, may not God, by the same power by which he preserves the bodies ORIGINES SACRA. 457 between heaven and earth, destroy them, and then there cuap. must be a vacuum? He answers plainly, That an an-__'" nthilation of the substance of matter is impossible, even to the power of God, because his will is immutable. He grants that God may destroy the air, and all other bodies, as to their form or present modification ; but he cannot destroy their matter, i.e. their extension, which is a true substance, and substances are indefec- tible. Where we plainly see that the Cartesians assert the necessary existence of matter, and that it is not in the power of God to destroy it; and whatever they may talk of the will of God, they deny any power to exercise it with respect to matter. But Du Hamel proceeds. How can those bodies touch one another, when God can create another body between ? Vo, saith Regis, that still supposes a space between; and if there be a space, there must be a body; and so a vacuum is a repugnancy in itself: But this space, saith Du Hamel, is nothing but imaginary, a fic- tion of the mind ; and there is no arguing from thence to the nature of things. Regis replies, That their wdeas depend on the objective realities of things; and that the idea of space or extension is one of their pri- mitive ideas ; and that it represents substance, and all substance ws incorruptible. Still we see the necessary existence of matter is looked on by them as a funda- mental principle, and depending on primitive ideas. Mons. Bernier puts the case of air being annihilated abrege, between two walls; and he desires to know of the Car- aoe tesians, whether these two walls will come together or not ? They say, They must, if there be nothing between. True, saith he, there is nothing corporeal, or that touches our senses, no substance or accidents; but there is a true distance remaining. Suppose a chamber twenty feet long, fifteen feet broad, and ten feet high : BOOK qe Reg. Phys. part. i. ch. he ae Rohault, Tr. Phys. are. n. Q. OSE IN Sr 458 ORIGINES SACRA. and these dimensions to be measured, and one wall twenty feet distant from the other: it cannot be said that it is the air that makes the distance between them ; how then comes this distance to be quite lost, if the air be destroyed? They have no answer, he saith, but to say, it is an impossible supposition; and they will rather deny God’s omnipotency in annihilating the air, than let go their opinion. Mons. Regis, in his Physics, takes notice of Bernier’s doubts; and, in answer to them, he resolves it at last into this: That it ts impos- sible there should be an annihilation, so as to make a vacuum, because substances cannot cease ; not from the nature of things, but from the immutable will of God. And, after all possible objections, here they stick, and seem resolved to maintain, that extension and matter are the same. Even Mons. Rohault himself, although in some things he saw it necessary to leave Des Cartes, yet in this he persists, That the essence of matter consists im extension, and that space and matter are the same ; and therefore a vacuum ts impossible. And to the objection about the walls of a chamber standing, when the air is annihilated, he avoids answering as to God's omnipotency ; but, he saith, according to our under- standing the walls must come together. And to that about the walls’ distance not depending on the air, he answers, That the being of the walls does not depend upon the ar within, but the state or disposition of them doth upon the extension between them ; which he sup- poses impossible to be taken away, and that the sub- stance of matter hath a necessary existence. The substance of this argument comes to this. Des Cartes makes all the matter of the world to be one and the same; but he asserts the essence of matter to be extension, and that extension can neither be created ORIGINES SACRA. 459 nor annihilated; and therefore it is impossible, upon CHAP. his principles, to make out the dependence of matter upon an infinite Creator. If it be said, that Des Cartes expressly saith, That it seemed manifest to him that Cart. Priv. there is no other general cause which created matter with motion and rest but God; and that in the frag- p- ii. n. 36. ment of his last answer to Dr. H. M. he saith, That ia. Hye of matter were left to itself, it would not move, Ep. nie but that it was first moved by God; I answer, That according to his principles the substance of matter must be before, because there must be space; and space and matter are the same. And I can see no possible way of clearing him, but by saying, that he held two sorts of matter : one part is physical matter, which God gave mo- tion to at first when he created it, and out of which the world was framed; and the other mathematical, which consists in mere extension: but how to reconcile these two to his asserting one and the same matter in the world, is a thing above my understanding. The next thing to be considered is, Des Cartes’s un- dertaking to give an account of the phenomena of the universe from the mechanical laws of motion, without a particular Providence. We are told by some, who have been very conversant with the atheistical persons of our age, That they despise the Epicurean hi PO Ons thesis, of the world’s being made by a fortuitous con- ee course of atoms, as a ridiculous thing; and think'*- © * Moses’s account more probable than that, (which is a great favour indeed.) So that it is to little purpose now to spend time in shewing how precarious and unsatis- factory the principles of Epicurus were, who supposed motion in matter without the least ground for it; but Des Cartes was a man of too great sense and judgment to commit such blunders as Epicurus was guilty of Huet. Cens. (whom one of his sharpest adversaries allows to have pnil. Cart. c. 8. De 4s BOOK FE lt Cart. Princ. part. ii. L. 28. 460 ORIGINES SACRA. been of a great and searching wit, well skilled in geo- metry, to which he endeavoured to reduce natural phi- losophy, (although he failed in his attempt:) that he had a faculty of expressing his mind clearly in few words, above any either ancient or modern writer). Therefore it will be necessary to consider what Des Cartes yields, that we may not mistake or misrepresent his design. 1. He grants that God did at first create matter, which was capable of rest or motion. 2. That matter, left to itself, would be without any motion; and therefore the first motion was from God. 3. That God, by his ordinary providence, doth pre- serve as much motion in the world as was given at first. 4. That we have no reason to suppose any other al- teration in the ordinary course of things, according to the laws of motion, than what we are certain of by ex- perience or revelation. And now the main point is, whether matter, being thus put into motion, can produce the phenomena of the world, without any farther interposition of Provi- dence, than only to preserve the motion of matter? For which we must consider, that he doth not give a satis- . factory account, 1, of the nature and laws of motion, nor, 2, of the phenomena of the universe. As to the former, I shall inquire into his notion of motion, and then of the laws of it. 1. He asserts that motion, according to his princi- ples, is barely a mode of matter, without any inward principle of motion. For motion, he saith, is the change of the situation of bodies with respect to one another, or a removing a body from the vicinity of some bodies to the neighbourhood of others; and he places it in such a translation, on purpose that it may: ORIGINES SACRA. 461 be understood to be only a mode of the matter. moved, as figure is of a thing figured. But it is not so easy to understand that motion, which imports an action, should be only a mode of the matter moved, as it is that figure belongs only to the thing figured. For it is not possible for the figure to be any where else but in that body which hath it; but it is possible to apprehend motion to come either from an external agent or an in- ternal principle ; and so it is not a mere mode of the thing moved. But when the whole weight is laid upon the nature of motion in this case, some greater evidence ought to have been given how motion, being once given to matter as a mode of it, must always continue, when the resistance of bodies doth certainly weaken it so as to need a new force to repair it. For either all motion of matter must be by a violent impulse, without regard to the different force or magnitude of things, (which is to overthrow the due laws of motion,) or else there must be a proportion in the force of the mover to the resistance of the body moved: and if there be a regard to that proportion, (or else the smallest body might move the greatest,) then there must be a resistance in that body which is moved: but every resistance gives a check to the motion of that body which moved it, and every check lessens the impulse; and so from a gradual resistance there must come a gradual decay, till at last all motion must cease; as it is in all ma- chines whose motion depends upon external force. Des Cartes, indeed, saith, That whatever motion is lost by one body, 1s communicated to the next, and so the first motion 1s still preserved. But it is hardly possible to make it appear that motion is not so much weakened by resistance, but that it can preserve itself in a degree of motion proportionable to that which is not com- municated to another. For the frequency of impulse CHAP. II, 462 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK lessens the power of reflection ; and it appears in light, and sounds, and other things, that whatever is reflected grows weaker. So that resistance must gradually weaken motion. And in the motion of projected bodies, Id. part. ii. Des Cartes himself grants, That the motion continues 3° Hill it be hindered by the resistance it meets with ; and he saith, It 7s manifest that the motion ts retarded by the air, and other ambient fluids, and so it cannot con- tinue long. But is that an argument that bodies do continue motion till they be hindered, and that motion 7s only a mode of the body moved ? Whatever mode it is, it comes from the force of the immediate agent, and not from the motion at first given to matter; and here we see the resistance it meets with soon gives a stop to it. ‘Therefore it seems unconceivable that all the mo- tion in the world, considering the continual resistance of bodies, should be the same mode of matter which H. Mori Was at first given to it. And as to his definition of Meintiy; _ motion, some have undertaken to demonstrate it to be par.i.c. 7. false, by shewing how one body may come nearer to another, without changing the situation of the parts next adjoining to it; and that there is no such recipro- cal motion as he asserts, although there be a reciprocal change of situation, which is unavoidable. But Mons. Rohault, Rohault saith, That motion is to be taken with respect ir PhS: to the next, and not to any remote bodies. However Regis K Mons. Regis thought fit to quit that definition of Des ponse aux rae Cartes for another, which Du Hamel saith is not at all te . better; but he thought it necessary to take in the effi- cient cause of motion, which makes it not to be a mere mode of the matter moved. And but for the authority of mathematicians and philosophers, it would be thought ridiculous for a thing not to be said to be moved, be- cause it doth not change the situation as to the next bodies about it; as that the kernel of a nut is not ORIGINES SACRA, 463 moved, because it is thrown with the shell upon it; or C nae that the wine is not moved in a ship at sea, because it keeps within the vessel. So, if the earth be carried about with the force of the vortex wherein it is, it is as certainly moved as a pendulum is with the motion of the ship, although it hath a proper motion of its own. But Des Cartes undertakes to give an account of the Des Cartes proportion of the increase and lessening of motion, upon ee the meeting of two hard bodies, and he lays down seven rules to determine it; but it falls out very unhappily, that six of them are denied to be true, and that the Jirst doth not answer the end it was brought for. This was a bold charge on so great a mathematician; but all that Regis saith in answer to it is, That he did not Réponse, undertake to defend all Des Cartes’s rules of motion, nik ees because they did not appear to him exact enough. But if the particular rules of motion be no better fixed nor understood, how come they to be so certain that the same quantity of motion is still preserved in the world? For that Des Cartes hath recourse to the im-Cart. Prin. mutable will of God, which hath determined it. Noh 36." doubt if God hath determined it, so it must be. But from whence comes Des Cartes to know this to be the ommutable will of God? What antecedent reason is there to satisfy any man’s mind that God, by his im- mutable will, must keep up the same proportion of mo- tion in the world? Why may not God alter or suspend the laws of motion, as to the parts of matter, in what way or manner he thinks good ? What repugnancy is there to the Divine nature in so doing? So that these arguments @ priori (as they call them) have no kind of evidence as to such matters, which may be or not be, as God pleases. Besides, what necessity was there that motion must be only a mode of matter ; and that 4.64 ORIGINES SACRE, BOOK mode to be preserved by such laws of motion, which I. __are so very uncertain? A very skilful and ingenious Mr. Boy eat Meh philosopher of our own saith, That this rule, which he Veneration Mantetn. seetle is the most useful of all Des Cartes’s, is very tellect owes metaph ysical, and not very cogent to him. And he sect.20. doth not see how wt can be demonstrated ; and he ques- tions whether it be agreeable to experience. And he was a person very favourable to Des Cartes, as far as he could, as appears on all occasions in his writings ; but here we see he gives up his fundamental rule. Du Réponse F{amel saith, The argument from God’s immutability aux Re- flexions, as of no force, because it holds not as to eatrinsical c.13. actions. Regis, to defend this, runs into that absurdity to make God a necessary agent, because God’s will and his essence are the same; which overthrows all religion in the consequence of it. Prin. part, But Des Cartes himself excepts such mutations as in 30 are made in matter, by evident experience or Divine revelation. What is the meaning of this? Can that be an immutable will of God which is contradicted by evident experience and Divine revelation? Or were these words only put in to avoid censure? As the world was said to be indefinite, lest he should be charged with making the world infinite; and the definition of motion was altered, to avoid Galileo’s fate. But there is no dissembling in this matter: if it be contradicted by evident experience, it can be no fixed and immutable rule; if it can be altered in case of miracles, the argu- ment from God’s immutability signifies nothing. For, if it be no repugnancy to the Divine nature to alter or suspend the laws of motion as he sees cause, then we can have no assurance as to God’s will, any farther than himself hath declared it; and consequently they must prove that God hath manifested this to be his will. But, saith Rohault, 7¢ 7s unbecoming philosophers on a ORIGINES SACRA. 465 all occasions to run to miracles and Divine power. CHAP. Who puts them upon it? We may certainly allow an" ordinary course of Providence, as to causes and effects, ae without asserting these notions of Des Cartes; but this!" "3: is a pleasant way of taking it for granted that none but his principles are fit for philosophers. Come we now to examine his catholic laws of motion: 11. and of all things those ought to be very clear and cer- tain, because so much depends upon them; and yet I am afraid we shall hardly find one of them to be so. The first of them is, That every thing remains in the same state it was in, unless it be changed by ex- ternal causes. From whence he concludes, That which Cart. Prin- 7s moved always continues to be moved: and that no- eee x thing tends to rest which is contrary to the laws of nature, because rest is contrary to motion: and nothing tends to its contrary, for that would be to tend to its own destruction. The main thing intended by this, is to assert the continuance of motion in the parts of the universe, upon their being once put into it; so that rest is a state of violence to a body once moved, because rest and motion are contrary to each other. But this is a very weak foundation to build so much upon: for we are not to consider rest and motion abstractly, but physically, together with the bodies in which they are: and I think it will be very hard to persuade any body endued with sense and motion, that, after wearisome motion, he doth aim at his own destruction by seeking for rest. This is a sort of reasoning would not be ex- pected from philosophers; that because motion and rest are contrary motions, therefore no body in motion can tend to rest. But every thing continues in the state ut was in, till it be put out of it; therefore every thing in motion must continue to move. This is not clearly expressed : for if it be meant, that every thing STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Hh BOOK Cart. Prin- cip. part. ii. N. 39. Part. 111. . 55. 466 ORIGINES SACRE. from itself continues in its original state, then it is not true. For matter, he confesses, would rest, if God did not give motion to it ; and so it must continue to rest, and there could be no motion at all. If it be meant that every thing continues in the state God put it into, unless he appointed several causes to alter it, then it is true; but it doth not serve his purpose. For if God hath appointed both motion and rest for some bodies, it can never be said that such tend to their own de- struction, when they tend to that rest which God and nature appointed for them. If God hath appointed them for continual motion, as the great bodies of the universe, then they must continue in it; not by virtue of any inherent law of motion, but by the immutable will of God. Des Cartes saw it necessary for God to put matter into motion, but he would have the framing of the laws of this motion himself; whereas he had acted more respectfully towards his Maker, and more like a philosopher, i.e. more consonantly to his own principles, to have left God, that made the world, and gave motion to matter, to have settled those laws of motion, which were agreeable to his infinite wisdom. For these notions are unbecoming philosophers, to make motion a mere mode of matter; and this mode to be supported by Divine concourse; but so, that motion and rest being contraries, whatever is in motion must continue in it; because motion and rest being contra- ries, nothing can tend to its own destruction. Besides, I know not how to reconcile this with another law of nature, as he calls it, Tat all bodies n a circular motion endeavour what in them les to re- cede from the centre of their motion. Is not a body put into a circular motion, in a state belonging to it ? How comes it then not to continue in that state, but to endeavour all it can to get out of it? And yet all the ORIGINES SACRA, 467 phenomena of light depend upon this law: That the cuap. round particles of the second element endeavour to re- cede from their centres; not from any cogitation, (no doubt of it,) but because they are so placed and incited to that motion. Is that possible, and yet all bodies con- tinue in the state they are in, when they endeavour what they can to get out of it? Are not these more contrary than motion and rest ? I do not meddle with external hinderances, but the natural endeavours of bodies. But it may be said, That Des Cartes intends his rule only of primary and simple motions, and not of circular, which are violent and unnatural. So indeed his words seem to run at first, that this rule relates to simple and undivided bodies ; but then, I say, it is of no use as to the present phenomena; and he speaks of the laws of such motion as we may observe in bodies : which words signify nothing, unless his law reaches to the bodies now in being; and I see no reason for him to suppose circular motion to be any more repugnant to the nature of matter, than any other. Regis, to avoid this, saith, Z’hat circular motion is not unnatural, Réponse, but accidental; and the state of the body is to be taken aa aes a Srom what it would be if external causes were removed, i.e. wn a right line. But he doth not attend to the consequences of this; for then the circular motion of the heavens must be accidental, and not under the care of Providence, or the immutable will of God. For God's will, he saith, is, that every body be pre- served in its own state; now, saith he, the state of a body in motion is in a right line, and the endeavour of nature is to keep to that. Then, say I, whatever mo- tion is against the state wherein nature designs it, must be not only accidental but violent, because it is against the course of nature: and if it be violent, it cannot be supposed to be under God’s immutable will; but if it Hh 2 N. 56. 468 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK be not violent, then a body in circular motion must en- __—.deavour to preserve itself in that state, and not to recede from it, as Des Cartes supposes. Mons. Du Hamel objects against this law, that per- manent beings do indeed endeavour to preserve them- selves in the state they are in: but it doth not hold in beings that are successive; because the former are in their full state at first, but it is otherwise in suc- Réepouse cessive. But, saith Regis, this doth not hinder them aux Reflex. : ° . : part. ii. c. from not doing any thing to their destruction. So of that it is a plain case no body in motion can tend to rest, because motion and rest are contrary; and this is a fundamental law of nature, for this weighty reason. The second law is, That all motion, according to nature, is in a right line, and that oblique and circular motion arises from the motion and interposition of other bodies ; and whatever body is moved circularly, hath a perpetual tendency to recede from the centre of the circle it describes. Now, if this rule had that evidence which is neces- sary to make it a fundamental law of motion, it must be proved either from the nature of matter and motion, or from the immutable will of God. The latter is not pretended to be proved, but only from the immutability and simplicity of the operation whereby God doth pre- serve motion in matter ; which only regards that very moment, without regard to what was before. But how from hence it follows that motion, which extends to more moments, should be determined one way rather than another, I cannot apprehend. For if the motion be in a right line, it must be in more moments than one, as well as in a circle; and if it prove any thing, it is that God preserves motion only in a point: but Des Cartes owns, that tt cannot be conceived in an instant, ne ORIGINES SACRA. 469 although in a right line. How then comes motion in a right line to come from God’s immutability, and not in a circle? Because it is determined in every instant towards a right line. This ought to have been made more evident than from the instance of the sling: for the falling down of the stone to the earth is certainly from another cause, viz. from the principle of gravita- tion, and not from the inclination of matter to move in aright line. Neither can it be said to come from the nature of matter, or motion; for a circular motion hath as much the nature and definition of motion, ac- cording to Des Cartes, as the other: and matter is of itself indifferent which way it moves; and some have thought circular motion more perfect, because they ob- served the motion of the heavens to. be so. But if it arises from the impediments of other bodies, they must shew that matter was first put into motion in a straight line; and if God put all the parts of matter at first into motion in a right line, how came the impediments to make it circular ? For God preserves motion as he gave it: he first gave it in right lines, and his will 1s ommut- able, therefore it must always so continue; and so cir- cular motion will be impossible. But let us suppose circular motion, how comes it to be so evident as to be made a law of nature, that a body in that motion always endeavours to recede from the centre ? How is this consistent with the principle of gravitation and attraction, which depends upon mathe- matical demonstrations ? Can it be in the nature of bodies to tend to the centre, and to recede from it at the same time? And it is a very improbable thing that gravity should be nothing else, but some particles being not so quick in their motion from the centre as others are, these being left in the lurch, and pressed by the motion of the other, do sink under them, and so come Hh 3 CHAP. II. 470 ORIGINES SACRA. BOOK nearer to the centre; which is all that Des Cartes means _____ by gravity. But of this afterwards. N. 40. The last fundamental law of motion is, That when a body meets another, if it hath not a greater power to proceed in a right line than the other hath to hinder it, then it turns aside, but loseth not its motion ; if it hath a greater force than the other, then it communicates its motion to the other, and loseth itself as much as tt gives. The reason given of this is, because it is the immutable will of God, that the same quantity of motion shall be always preserved: of which I have spoken already. And as to the whole matter of these laws of motion, asl Mr. Boyle saith, That they have been recewed by tion, &e. learned men, rather upon the authority of so famous sec 22° a mathematician, than upon any convictive evidence which accompanies the rules themselves. The next thing we are to do is, to see whether, from these laws of motion, he gives a satisfactory account of the making of the universe. And here we must consider the elements out of which he supposeth it made, and the account of the things made out of them. As to the elements, this, in short, is his account of Cart. Prin- them. Zhe particles of matter into which it was first vt fi ah divided, could not at first be round, because then there must be a vacuum between them; but they must by succession of time become round, because they had va- rious circular motions, (although the natural motion be in a right line, and God’s immutable will.be that every thing should be preserved in its natural state.) N.49. But that force which put them into these motions was great enough to wear off their angles, and so they be- come round: which being joined together, must leave some intervals, which were filled up by the filings off Srom the angles; which were very small, and of a a ee ORIGINES SACRE. AT] Figure fit to fill up all interstices, and were carried cuar. about with avery quick motion. So that here we have __™ two elements ; one of the round particles, and another of the subtle ethereal matter, which came by the attri- tion of the first particles. But besides these, there areN. 52. others more gross and unapt for motion by their figure, and which make the third element; and out of these all the bodies of the visible world are composed; the sun and fixed stars out of the first ; the heavens out of the second; and the earth, with comets and planets, out of the last. The main thing which makes this hypothesis unsatis- factory to me is, that it is as precarious and groundless as the Epicurean, and they differ only as to the begin- ning of motion; which the Epicureans suppose to be- long to matter: and Des Cartes saith, it comes from an infinite agent distinct from it; because he supposes that it would not move of itself, unless it were put into mo- tion. Which being set aside, there is no more of the wisdom or providence of God to be found in his making of the world than the others, nor any more evidence as to the production of his elements: for he first supposes that there can be no vacuum in nature, which he proves only from his mathematical notion of body consisting only in extension; and from hence he undertakes to give an account, not of God’s creating the matter of the world at once, nor of his production of things within six days, but how, in process of time, particles of mat- ter being divided, would come to make up his several elements. And for this he makes use of several sup- positions, without any ground of reason why it must be so, and no otherwise; which was the thing which he undertook to Mersennus to do. For what reason doth he give that matter must be divided at first, in order to the production of the elements? When there Hh 4 BOOK Part. ili. n. 46. Tract. Phy- sic. C. 21. n. 6. AT2 ORIGINES SACRA. can be no division, but there must be intervals between the parts; and if all matter be one and the same, and the space of the intervals be necessarily filled up with extended matter, what division of parts could there be? And how can that extension be divided into solid bodies? Des Cartes grants, That by reason we cannot find out how big the parts of matter were at first, how quick their motion, nor what kind of circles they described, then it is impossible to find out by reason how the world was made. or if God, as he confesses, might use innumerable ways of doing it, and we cannot tell which he pitched upon, what a vain thing is it in any man to undertake to give an account how the world came to be formed ? And therefore Rohault, with great judgment, pretends not to give an account how matter was formed by God at the first creation, but only to shew a possibility how it might be framed, so as to solve the appearances of the world. But neither he nor Des Cartes can reconcile this primitive division of matter into parts with their original notion of matter; which is nothing but extension. But if matter be so divided, as Des Cartes supposes, may we not reasonably conclude that there were three such elements as he speaks of? The question is not, whether there be not a distinction of the particles of matter answerable to these three ele- ments, viz. a more subtle and ethereal substance, as in fire; a less subtle and globular, asin air; a grosser, as in earth; which are most made according to these principles out of such different particles : but the point is, whether these elements can be produced in such a manner by the mere motion of matter ? And Des Cartes will by no means allow them to be made round, for fear of his vacuum, which would spoil all, but that by length of time they would become round; nay, they must become round; Eas non potuisse successu tem- ORIGINES SACRA. 473 poris non fieri rotundas, are his words. Now here lies CHAP. the difficulty, to shew how these must become round by his own laws of motion, i. e. by a motion in a right line; for he saith, I¢ 7s done by various circular motions. But how comes the original matter of itself to deviate from the fundamental law of motion ? That is, from whence came these circular motions, without which the elements could not be formed ? And if the first particles were so solid as is supposed, how came the angles to be worn off? For, when two solid bodies meet, according to his own laws of motion, the one communicates mo- tion to the other, and loses of its own; which implies nothing but a mutual contact and rebounding upon the collision; but this doth by no means shew how these bodies come to wear off each other’s angles: and there- fore this is only a product of fancy, but very necessary to his purpose. But let us suppose, that by frequent collisions some alterations would be made in the figure of these bodies, what a long time must it be before they become spherical! Too long to be consistent with such a thing as creation; which at the same time is pre- tended to be believed. But the only agreeable suppo- sition to this is, the existence of matter from eternity, which having, we know not how many ages since, been put into motion then by a casual concourse, (for it was not by the laws of motion,) these particles justling one against another, at last rubbed off the uneven particles, so as to make them round. But what quantity was there of such particles, in proportion to what was left ? For it may easily be too great, and so the first element Enchirid. be too powerful for the second, as some have under- he wi taken to demonstrate that it must be, upon Des Cartes’s Pree c” own grounds. And the answer given is insufficient ; “**"es- ¢-° because the proportion of the first element will still be too great, notwithstanding all the uses found out for it; ATA ORIGINES SACRA. BoOK and therefore Rohault more wisely avoided these at- “tempts of forming the world out of the first chaos of Revs ky, confused matter, which he found could give no satisfac- 6. art.2- ti0n. Let us now, in the last place, come to the account he gives of the phenomena of the universe, according to these principles. And because it would be too large a task to run through all, I shall confine myself to these following: 1. The formation of the sun and stars. 2. The motion of the air. 3. The placing of the earth. 4. The mechanism of animals. L As to the formation of the sun and stars; which meets Des Cartes saith was in this manner: That the matter n. 54 of the first element increased by the attrition of the particles of the second ; and there being greater quan- tity of it than was necessary to fill up the interstices between the round particles of the second element, the remainder went to the centres of the several vortices. N. 88. But here arises a difficulty, which takes away any ap- pearance of satisfaction in this matter; which is, that Des Cartes owns, that in this matter of the first element there are some parcels which are less divided and slower moved, having many angles, and therefore unfit Jor motion. Now why should not these take up the centre of the vortex, and not those which have a quicker motion, and endeavour to recede from it ? For we must observe, that Des Cartes supposes that these bigger Jragments are mixed with the lesser, and that they transfer their motion to them: according to the laws of nature (which serve his turn as he pleases) greater bodies do easier transfer their motion to lesser, than receive motion from them. So that here we have these bigger fragments of the first element mixed with the lesser, and communicating their motion tothem. Now who could expect any other than that these should have ORIGINES SACRA. AT5 fixed in the centre of the vortex? But if this be sup- cHap. posed, his whole hypothesis is lost; for then the sun and stars must be opaque, and not luminous bodies. But Des Cartes hath found out a notable invention to send them far enough from the centre; which is, Thatn. 80. they move in the way between the poles towards the mid- dle of the heaven in a right line, and there are gathered ento little masses ; some from the north, and others from the south. But when they are in the body of the sunN. 91. or a star, then they make those spots which hinder ?* their light, and are thrown off like a thick scum from heated liquors. But when he assigns the reason of gravity, he saith, [¢ comes from hence, that those par- a. Princip. ticles which have a quicker motion press down those}. .." which are not so fit for it, and by that means they get nearer to the centre. How comes it then to be so much otherwise in these parts of the third element? Hown. 25. come they not to be pressed down in the same vortex towards the centre? Especially when himself there saith, That the particles of the first element have more power to depress the earthy particles than of the se- cond, because they have more agitation; and here he speaks of the motion within the vortex: so that, ac- cording to his principles, the matter of the third ele- ment ought to subside and be near the centre, being least apt for motion. But this would overthrow his whole theory about the sun and stars, and about light, and the spots of the sun, and of magnetic particles, &c. so that these particles of the third element must be dis- posed of as he thinks fit, lest they put all out of order. And it is strange he should parallel the scum made by the fermenting of liquors, with the natural motion of the matter of his elements. And if this principle were true, that the matter of the third element might get above, and leave the thinner and more subtle matter BOOK ie 476 ORIGINES SACRA. nearest the centre, I do not see how the earth could be ———— habitable; for then we could breathe nothing but thin Acosta of the Indies, J. iil. c. 9. Boyle’s Ex- perimeuts of Air, p. 182, Cart. Prin- cip. part. iv. D. 45. and ethereal air, which we could not bear: as appears by the famous instance of Acosta, who speaks by his own sad experience, as well as of others, that he was in great danger of his life, by going over one of the highest mountains of Peru. From whence it is ob- served, that the most subtle air is too thin for respira- tion. But how comes it to pass, according to these principles, that the heavier part of the air is most to- wards the centre, and the lighter ascends highest ? For air, according to Des Cartes, is a congeries of the par- ticles of the third element, very thin and disjoined; and yet we find this come nearer the centre, according to its gravity, and the lighter air goes higher, and hath very different effects on men’s bodies, though the mo- tion of it be not strong nor violent. For Acosta saith, That air which is so fatal to passengers on those moun- tains of Peru, (which are so high, that he saith, the Alps and Pyrenees were but as ordinary houses to lofty towers,) is so still, that it is but as a small breath, neither strong nor violent, and yet it pierces so, that it often kills men without feeling, and makes their hands and toes drop off; as he affirms from his own knowledge. From whence it appears to be a mere fetch in Des Cartes, to keep these particles of his third element from being nearer to the centre, although they are more weighty and indisposed to motion than others are. But his whole hypothesis is overturned concerning the celestial bodies, if there be a principle of gravitation in matter, which makes a natural tendency towards the centre, according to the quantity and distance of it. The opinion of Des Cartes’s great skill in geometry hath gone much farther towards persuading the world ORIGINES SACRA. 477 of the truth of his theory, than any evidences that ap- cy ,p. peared in his principles themselves; for men who are__| not deeply skilled in those matters, are very apt to be swayed by the authority of those that are. But, as it falls out in this case, we have this theory of gravitation fully demonstrated by a very learned and judicious Is. Newton mathematician of our own, to whom I refer the reader, Se who hath given a mathematical account of the celestial jy'vci?'* bodies, not only of the sun and stars, but of comets, and the moon, from the principle of gravitation ; not inherent and essential to matter, but by a force given and directed by Divine power and wisdom: which being granted, we have no reason to be displeased with the clearest account which can be given, in a mathe- matical manner, of the chief phanomena of the uni- verse. And the same person saith, He hath many Pretat. reasons to suspect that the rest may depend upon some secret powers, by which the particles of matter do either cohere or fly from each other ; for want of the knowledge. whereof, philosophers have hitherto blun- dered in natural philosophy. But we proceed in Des Cartes’s account of his celestial vortices. END OF ORIGINES SACRE. aedaianc ; ating’ i) eloriyerie 9 9 sins? il oh case ni, Fes dideetnaly ites ces . Ee ‘i suiphipe re ens ia eo 9 i vA 3: yew 5 eve? OM, ‘abon ee dices mo Co Pate teat al : yA een 2 : 0 Sa ahipw Sigg alee Has. San Agee gente “Oy hw xd sae hana soba A LETTER TO A DEIST IN ANSWER TO SEVERAL OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TRUTH AND AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. tal pul! F ky we! ae j boa ate. te Ay , bey iy wets Paedher' SO og: ‘ PR UN Ri by) WE a CR NS Ot he Uh u) > ¥ ‘ ; , ; ae WE i ie) 4 i ; ‘J ne a) ae be a 3 . fil » ie CARIES vate | ee ‘ : : 4 ie a + had bs ag ee i shes ie Mey hae any, Ve a) aiey Prog thay Ay v¢e *y) ant Ce a THE PREFACE. ‘THs following Discourse was written for the satis- faction of a particular person, who owned the Being and Providence of God, but expressed a mean esteem of the Scriptures and the Christian religion: which is become so common a theme among the Sceptics of this age, that the Author of this Discourse thought it worth his time and care to consider the force of the objections | that were made against them ; especially being written | in a grave and serious manner, and not with that rail- lery and buffoonery which the rude persons of this age commonly bestow upon religion. It might be justly expected from such who pretend to breeding and civility that they would at least shew more respect to a thing, which hath prevailed so much among men of the best un- derstanding and education, and who have had no interest to carry on by it. For it is against the ordinary rules Tractat. of conversation, to affront that which others think they have great reason to esteem and love; and they would : not endure that scorn and contempt of their meanest . servant, which they too often shew towards religion, and the things belonging to it. If they are not in earnest when they scoff and mock at sacred things, their own consciences will tell them it is an horrible impiety: if they are in earnest, let them debate these things calmly and seriously, and let the stronger reason prevail. Men may speak sharply and wittily against the clearest things in the world, as the Sceptics of old STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Il litic. Theol. Po- 482 PREFACE. did against all certainty of sense and reason: but we should think that man out of his senses, that would now dispute the being of the sun, or the colour of the snow. We do not say, the matters of religion are ca- pable of the same evidence with that of sense ; but it is a great part of judgment and understanding, to know the proportion and fitness of evidence to the nature of the thing to be proved. They would not have the eye to judge of tastes, nor the nose of metaphysics; and yet these would be as proper, as to have the senses judge of immaterial beings. If we do not give as good reason for the principles of our religion, as, the nature of religion considered, can be given for it, let us then be blamed for our weakness in defending it; but let not religion suffer, till they are sure nothing more can be said for it. There is a late Author, I hear, mightily in vogue among many, who cry up any thing on the atheistical side, though never so weak and trifling. It were no difficult task to lay open the false reasonings and in- consistent hypotheses of his book; which hath been sufficiently done already in that language wherein it was written. But if, for the advancement of irreligion among us, that book be, as it is talked, translated into our tongue, there will not, I hope, want those who will be as ready to defend religion and morality, as others are to decry and despise them. A LETTER OF RESOLUTION TO A PERSON UNSATISFIED ABOUT THE TRUTH AND AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. SIR, ALTHOUGH I do not pretend to any skill in the depths of theology, yet I am heartily concerned for the truth and honour of the Christian religion, which it is the design of your papers to undermine. When I first looked them over, I could not think them so consider- able as to deserve a particular answer, especially from one in my circumstances, who have so much other business lying upon me, and so little leisure and health to perform it: but I found at the conclusion of your papers so earnest and vehement a desire expressed by you that I would return an answer, in order to the settlement of your mind, that I could not refuse an ~ office of so great charity, as you represent it to be. I confess, when J considered the nature of your objections, and the manner of managing them, I could hardly believe that they proceeded from a doubtful mind, that was desirous of any satisfaction: but since you tell me so, I will first shew my charity in believing it, and then in endeavouring to give you my poor assistance, and impartial advice, in order to your satisfaction. And in truth I think impartial advice will contribute more to that end, than spending time and paper in running through all the difficulties which it is possible for a ca- 1i2 484 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE villing mind to raise against the plainest truths in the world. For there is nothing so clear and evident, but a sophistical wit will always find something to say against it; and if you be the person I take you for, you very well know that there have been some, who wanted neither wit nor eloquence, who have gone about to prove, That there was nothing in the world; and that if there were any thing, it could not be understood by men ; that f it were understood by one man, it could not be expressed to another. And besides such extra- vagant undertakers as these, how many have there been, who, with plausible and subtle arguments, have endea- voured to overthrow all manner of certainty, either by sense or reason! Must we therefore quit all pretences to certainty, because we cannot, it may be, answer all the subtleties of the Sceptics? And therefore I am by no means satisfied with your manner of proceeding, desiring all particular difficulties to be answered, be- fore we consider the main evidences of the Christian faith. For the only reasonable way of proceeding in this matter, is to consider, first, whether there be suf- ficient motives to persuade you to embrace the Chris- tian faith, and then to weigh the difficulties, and to compare them with the reasons and arguments for be- lieving; and if those do not appear great enough to overthrow the force of the other, you may rest satisfied in the Christian faith, although you cannot answer every difficulty that may be raised against the books wherein our religion is contained. I pray, Sir, consider with yourself; do not you think it possible for any man to have faith enough to save him, unless he can solve all the difficulties in chronology that are in the Bible, unless he can give an account of every particular law and custom among the Jews, unless he can make out all the prophetic schemes, and can tell what the SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 485 number of the beast in the Apocalypse means? If a man may believe and be saved without these things, to what purpose are they objected for the overthrow of the Christian faith ?. Do you think a man hath not rea- son enough to believe there is extended matter in the world, unless he can solve all the difficulties that arise from the extension or divisibility of matter ? Or that he hath a soul, unless he can make it clear how an im- material and material substance can be so united as our soul and body are? Or that the sun shines, unless he can demonstrate whether the sun or the earth moves ? Or that we have any certainty of things, unless he can assign the undoubted criterion of truth and falsehood in all things ?- These things I mention, on purpose to let you see that the most certain things have difficulties about them, which no one thinks it necessary for him to answer in order to his assurance of the truth of the things; but as long as the evidence for them is much more considerable than the objections against them, we may safely acquiesce in our assent to them, and leave the unfolding these difficulties to the disputers of this world, or the knowledge of another. Is it not far more reasonable for us to think, that, in books of so great antiquity as those of Moses are, written in a lan- guage whose idiotisms are so different from ours, there may be some difficulty in the phrases, or computation of times or customs of the people, that we cannot well understand, than that all the miracles wrought by Moses should have been impostures; and that law which was preserved so constantly, maintained with that resolution by the wisest of the people of the Jews, who chose to die rather than disown it, should be all a cheat ? Is it not more reasonable for us to suspect our own understandings, as to the speeches and actions of some of the prophets, than to think that men ‘who de- Ria 486 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE signed so much the advancing virtue, and discouraging vice, should be a pack of hypocrites and deceivers ? Can any man of common sense suspect the Christian reli- gion to be a fourb or an imposture, because he cannot understand the number of the beast, or interpret the Apocalyptic visions ? I could hardly have believed any man, pretending to reason, could object these things, unless I saw them, and were called upon to answer them. . Therefore, Sir, my serious and impartial advice to you is, in the first place, to consider’ and debate the main point, i.e. the proofs of the Christian doctrine, and not to hunt up and down the Scriptures for every thing that seems a difficulty to you, and then, by heap- ing all these together, to make the Scriptures seem a confused heap of indigested stuff; which being taken in pieces, and considered with that modesty, diligence, and care, that doth become us, will appear to contain nothing unbecoming that sacred and venerable name which the Scriptures do bear among us. If, therefore, you design not cavilling, but satisfac- tion, you will join issue with me upon the most ma- terial point, viz. Whether the Christian religion were Jrom God, or from men? For if this be proved to have been from God, all the other things will easily fall off of themselves, or be removed with a little industry. In the debate of this, I shall consider, first, what things are agreed upon between us, and then, wherein the difference lies. | 1. You grant an absolutely perfect and independent Being, whom we call God. 2. That the world was at first created, and is still governed by him. 3. That he is so holy as to be the author of no sin, although he doth not hinder men from sinning. SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 487 4. That this God is to receive from us all worship proper to him, of prayers, praises, &c. 5. That itis the will of this God that we should lead holy, peaceable, and innocent lives. 6. That God will accept men’s sincere repentance, and hearty endeavours to do his will, although they do not perfectly obey tt. 7. That there is a state of rewards and punishments in another world, according to the course of men’s lives here. 8. That there are many excellent precepts in the writings of the New Testament, inducing to humility and self-denial, and to the honour of God, and civil duty and honesty of life; and these in a more plentiful manner than is to be found in any other profession of religion publicly known. The questions then remaining are, 1. Whether the matters of fact are true, which are reported in the writings of the New Testament? 2. Supposing them true, Whether they do sufficiently prove the doctrine to have been from God? 1. Whether the matters of fact were true or no? And as to this point, I wish you had set down the rea- sons of your doubting more clearly and distinctly than you have done. What I can pick up, amounts to these things. 1. That there can be no certainty of a matier done at such a distance of time, there having been many fictitious histories in the world. 2. That tt is probable that these things might be written when there was no one living to detect the falsehood of them; and thus you say, the Grecians, Romans, Egyptians, and other nations, were at first imposed upon by some men, who pretended to deliver to them the history of their gods and heroes, and the wonders wrought by them. 3. That these things might more easily be done before 114 488 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE printing was used ; and that there is reason to suspect the more, because of the pious frauds of the primitive Christians, and the legends of the Papists. 4. That there may have been many more deceptions and im- postures in the way of propagating false revelations and miracles, than we can now discover. 5. That we ought not to take the testimony of Scripture, or the Christian writers in this case, because they may be suspected of partiality ; and that the testimony of Jo- sephus is suspected by divers learned men to be Jraud- ulently put in by Christians. 6. That there are suffi- cient grounds from the story itself, and the objections of enemies, to suspect the truth of it; because of the contradiction and inconsistency of the parts of tt; the want of accomplishment of the promises and prophe- cies of it; the obscurity and unintellioibleness of other parts; the defects of the persons mentioned therein; St. Paul’s ostentation ; the jars between Peter and Paul, and Paul and Barnabas. 7. That Jrom these things you have just cause to doubt the A po- stles’ sincerity, and you think they might have indirect ~ ends in divulging the miracles recorded in Scripture ; and that men might be contented to suffer, to make themselves heads of a new sect of religion, and to rule over the consciences of men; and that they had time enough to make a considerable interest before the per- secutions began. This is the force of all I can find out, in the several parts of your papers, towards the invalidating the tes- timony concerning the matters of fact reported in the writings of the New Testament. In answer to all these things, I shall shew, 1. That matters of fact, done at such a distance of time, may have sufficient evidence to oblige men to believe them. 2. That there is no reason to suspect the truth of co lB i SE ae hat ll te a el SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 489 those matters of fact which are contained in the history of the New Testament. 3. That the Apostles gave the greatest testimonies of their sincerity that could be expected from them; and that no matters of fact were ever better attested than those which are reported by them: from whence it will follow, that it is not reason, but unreasonable suspicion and scepticism, if not wilfulness and obstinacy, which makes men to continue to doubt after so great evidence. , 1. That we may have such evidence of matters of fact done at such a distance of time, as may oblige us to believe the truth of them. This we are first to make out, because several of your objections seem to imply that we can have no certainty of such things, because we cannot know what tricks may have been played in Sormer times, when it was fur more easy to deceive ; and that wt is confessed there have been several frauds of this kind, which have a long time prevailed in the world. But have not the very same arguments been used against all religion by Atheists? And if the cheats that have been in religion have no force against the being of God, why should they have any against the Christian religion ? And if the common consent of mankind signify any thing as to the acknowledgment of a Deity, why should not the testimony of the Christian church, so circumstantiated as it is, be of sufficient strength to receive the matters of fact deli- vered by it? Which is all I at present desire. Do we question any of the stories delivered by the common con- sent of Greek or Latin historians, although we have only the bare testimony of those historians for them ? And yet your objections would lie against every one of them. How do we know the great prevalency of the Ro- man empire? Was it not delivered by those who belonged to it, and were concerned to make the best of it 2. What 490 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE know we but thousands of histories have been lost, that confuted all that we now have concerning the greatness of Rome? What know we but that Rome was destroyed by Carthage, or that Hannibal quite overthrew the Roman empire? or that Catiline was one of the best men in the world, because all our pre- sent histories were written by men of the other side ? How can we tell but that the Persians destroyed the Macedonians, because all our accounts of Alexander’s expedition are originally from the Greeks? And why might not we suspect greater partiality in all these cases, when the writers did not give a thousandth part of that evidence for their fidelity that the first Christians did? And yet what should we think of such a person, who should call in question the best histories of all nations, because they are written by those of the same country? By which, it seems, you will never allow any competent testimony at all; for if such things be written by enemies and strangers, we have reason to suspect both their knowledge and integrity ; if written by friends, then, though they might know the truth, yet they would write partially of their own side: so that upon this principle no history at all, an- cient or modern, is to be believed; for they are all re- ported either by friends or enemies; and so not only Divine, but all human faith will be destroyed. I am by no means a friend to unreasonable credulity ; but I am as little to unreasonable distrust and suspicion: if the one be folly, the other is madness. No prudent man believes any thing because it is possible to be true, nor rejects any thing merely because it is possible to be false: but it is the prudence of every man to weigh and consider all circumstances, and according to them _ to assent or dissent. We all know it is possible for men to deceive, or to be deceived; but we know there SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 491 is no necessity of either; and that there is such a thing as truth in the world; and though men may deceive, yet they do not always so; and that men may know they are not deceived. For else there could be no such thing as society among mankind; no friend- ship, or trust, or confidence in the word of another person. Because it is possible that the best friend I have may deceive me, and the world is full of dissimu- lation, must I therefore believe nobody ? This is the just consequence of this way of arguing, that we have reason to suspect the truth of these matters of fact, because there have been many frauds in the world, and might have been many more than we can now discover: for if this principle be pursued, it will de- stroy all society among men, which is built on the sup- position of mutual trust and confidence that men have in each other; and although it’ be possible for all men to deceive, because we cannot know one another’s hearts, yet there are such characters of honesty and fidelity in some persons, that others dare venture their lives and fortunes upon their words. And is any man thought a fool for doing so? Nay, have not the most prudent and sagacious men reposed a mighty confidence in the integrity of others? And without this no great affairs can be carried on in the world; for since the greatest persons need the help of others to manage their business, they must trust other men continually ; and every man puts his life into the hands of others, to whom he gives any freedom of access, and especially his servants. Must a man therefore live in continual suspicion and jealousy, because it is possible he may be deceived? But if this be thought unreasonable, then we gain thus much, that, notwithstanding the possi- bility of deception, men may be trusted in some cases, and their fidelity safely relied upon. This being 492 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE granted, we are to inquire what that assurance is which makes us trust any one; and wherever we find a concurrence of the same circumstances, or equal evi- dence of fidelity, we may repose the same trust or con- fidence in them. And we may soon find that it is not any one’s bare word that makes us trust him, but either the reputation of his integrity among discerning men, or our long experience and observation of him: this latter is only confined to our own trial; but the former is more general, and reaches beyond our own age, since we may have the testimony of discerning persons conveyed down to us in as certain a manner as we can know the mind of a-friend at a hundred miles distance, viz. by writing. And in this case we desire no more than to be satisfied that those things were written by them; and that they deserved to be believed in what they writ. Thus, if any one would be satisfied about the passages of the Peloponnesian war, and hath heard that Thucydides hath accurately written it, he hath no more to do than to inquire whether this Thu- cydides were capable of giving a good account of it, and for that he hears that he was a great and inquisitive per- son that lived in that age, and knew all the occurrences of it; and when he is satisfied of that, his next inquiry is, whether he may be trusted or no? And for this he can expect no better satisfaction, than that his his- tory hath been in great reputation for its integrity among the most knowing persons. But how shall he be sure this was the history written by Thucydides, since there have been many counterfeit writings ob- truded upon the world ? Besides the consent of learned men in all ages since, we may compare the testimo- nies cited out of it with the history we have, and the style with the character given of Thucydides, and the narrations with other credible histories of those times ; SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 493 and if all these agree, what reason can there be not to rely upon the history of Thucydides ? All learned men do acknowledge that there have been multitudes of fic- titious writings; but do they therefore question whether there are any genuine? Or whether we have not the true Herodotus, Strabo, or Pausanias, because there is a counterfeit Berosus, Manetho, and Philo, set forth by Annius of Viterbo? Do any suspect whether we have any of the genuine works of Cicero, because an Italian counterfeited a book, De Consolatione, in his name? Or whether Czsar’s Commentaries were his own, because it 1s uncertain who writ the Alexandrian War that is joined with them? By which we see, that we may not only be certain of the fidelity of persons we converse with, but of all things necessary to our belief of what was done at a great distance of time from the testimony of writers, notwithstanding the many supposititious writings that have been in the world. But it may be said, that all this only relates to mere matters of history, wherein a man is not much con- cerned whether they be true or false: but the things we are about are matters that men’s salvation or dam- nation are said to depend upon, and therefore greater evidence should be given of these, to oblige men to be- lieve them. To this I answer, 1. That my design herein was to prove, that, notwithstanding the possibility of deception, there may be sufficient ground for a prudent and firm assent to the truth of things done at as great a distance of time, and conveyed after the same manner, that the matters of fact reported in the New Testament are; and hereby those general prejudices are shewed to be unrea- sonable. And all that I desire from this discourse is, that you would give an assent of the same nature to the history of the Gospel, that you de to Cesar, or 494 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE Livy, or Tacitus, or any other ancient historian. 2. As to the greater obligation to assent, I say it depends upon the evidence of Divine revelation, which is given by the matters of fact which are delivered to us. And here give me leave to ask you, 1. Whether it be any ways repugnant to any conception you have of God, for him to make use of fallible men to make known his will to the world? 2. Whether those men, though supposed to be in themselves fallible, can either deceive or be deceived, when God makes known his mind to them? 3. Whether, on supposition that God hath made use of such persons for this end, those are not obliged to believe them, who do not live in the same age with them? If not, then God must either make no revelation at all, or he must make a new one every age: if they are, then the obligation lies as much on us now to believe, as if we had lived and conversed with those inspired persons. 2. That there is no reason to suspect the truth of those matters of fact which are reported in the New Testament; for since it is universally agreed among men, that human testimony is a sufficient ground for assent, where there is no positive ground for suspicion, because deceiving and being deceived is not the com- mon interest of mankind, therefore we are to consider what the general grounds of suspicion are, and whether any of them do reach the Apostles’ testimony, concern- ing the matters of fact reported by them. And the just grounds of suspicion are these: 1. If the persons be otherwise known to be men of artifice and cunning, full of tricks and dissimulation, and that make no con- science of speaking truth, so a lie tends to their great- est advantage ; which is too much the Papists’ case in their legends and stories of miracles. 2. If they tem- per and suit their story and doctrine to the humour SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 495 and genius of the people they hope to prevail upon, as Mahomet did, in encouraging war and lasciviousness. 3. If they lay the scene of their story at a mighty dis- tance from themselves, at such an age wherein it is im- possible to prove or disprove, which is the case of the Brachmans as to their Brahma and their Veda; and was of the heathens as to their fabulous deities. 4. If there be any thing contained in the story which is re- pugnant to the most authentic histories of those times; by which means the impostures of Annius have been discovered. 5. If there be evident contradiction in the story itself, or any thing repugnant to, or unbecoming the majesty, holiness, sincerity, and consistency of a Divine revelation; on which account we reject fanatic pretences to revelations. If there were any thing of this nature in the writings of the New Testament, we might then allow there were some ground to suspect the truth of what is contained therein: but I shall un- dertake, by the grace of God, to defend that there is not any foundation for suspicion as to any one of these. 1. As to the persons, such who go about to deceive others, must be men that are versed in business, and know how to deal with men; and that have some in- terest already that they have gained by other means, before they can carry on such a design as to abuse man- kind, by lies and impostures in religion. Therefore the Atheists lay the deceiving the world by religion to the charge of politicians and lawgivers, to men versed in the practice of fraud, such as Numa, or Lycurgus, or Xaca, or Mahomet, such as understood the ways of cajoling the people; or to subtle priests, that know how to suit the hopes and fears of the superstitious multitude; whence came the multitude of frauds in the heathen temples and oracles. But would any man in the world have pitched upon a few fishermen, and illi- 496 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE terate persons, to carry on such an intrigue as this? Men that were rude and unexperienced in the world, and uncapable of dealing in the way of artifice with one of the common citizens of Jerusalem. When was it ever heard that such men made such an alteration in the religion of the world, as the primitive Christians did, against the most violent persecutions ? And when they prevailed so much, the common charge still against them was, that they were a company of rude, mean, obscure, iwliterate, simple men; and yet, in spite of all the cunning, and malice, and learning, and strength of their adversaries, they gained ground upon them, and prevailed over the obstinacy of the Jews, and wisdom of the Greeks. If the Christian religion had been a mere design of the Apostles to make themselves heads of a new sect, what had this been but to have set the cunning of twelve or thirteen men, of no interest or reputation, against the wisdom and power of the whole world ? If they had any wisdom, they would never have undertaken such an impossible design as this must ap- pear to them at first view; and if they had none, how could they ever hope to manage it? If their aim were only at reputation, they might have thought of thousands of ways more probable and more advantageous than this. If we suppose men should be willing to hazard their lives for their reputations, we may suppose withal such men to have so much cunning.as not to do it till they cannot help it; but if they can have reputation and ease together, they had rather have it... I will therefore put the case concerning the only person that had the ad- vantage of a learned education among the Apostles, viz. St. Paul, and whom you seem to strike at more than the rest. Is it reasonable to believe, that, when he was in favour with the Sanhedrin, and was likely to advance himself by his opposition to Christianity, and had a SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 497 fair prospect of ease and honour together, he should quit all this, to join with such an inconsiderable and hated company as the Christians were, only to be one of the heads of a very small number of men, and to purchase it at so dear a rate as the loss of his friends and interest, and running on continual troubles and persecutions, to the hazard of his life? Is it possible for men that are deceived, and mean honestly, to do this ? But it is scarce supposable of a man in his senses, that should know and believe all this to be a cheat, and yet own and embrace it to so great disadvantage to himself, when he could not make himself so considerable by it as he might have been without-it. Men must love cheating the world at a strange rate, that will let go fair hopes of preferment and ease, and lead a life of perpetual trouble, and expose themselves to the utmost hazards, only for the sake of deluding others. If the Apostles knew all they said to be false, and made it so necessary for all men to believe what they said to be true, they were some of the greatest deceivers which the world had ever known. But men that take pleasure in deceiving make use of many artifices on purpose to catch the silly multitude. They have all the arts of insinuation and fawning speeches, fit to draw in the weakest, and such as love to be flattered. But what is there tending this way in all the Apostles’ writings? How sharply do they speak to the Jewish Sanhedrin upon the mur- der of Christ! With what plainness and simplicity do they go about to persuade men to be Christians! They barely tell the matters of fact concerning the resurrection of Christ, and say they were eye-witnesses of it; and upon the credit of this testimony of theirs, they preach faith and repentance to Jews and Gentiles. Was ever any thing farther from the appearance of artifice than this was? So that if they were deceivers, they were STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. Kk 498 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE some of the subtlest that ever were in the world, be- cause there seems to be so little ground for any suspicion of fraud; and we cannot easily imagine persons of their education capable of so profound dissimulation and so artificial a cheat. Besides all this, we are to consider how far such persons do allow the liberty of dissimula- tion and artificial jugglings, especially in religion. We see the Papists could not practise these things without - being forced to defend them, by shewing how conve- nient it is for the people to be told strange stories of saints, on purpose to nourish devotion m them: to which end, they say, it signifies not much whether they were true or no. And withal they assert the law/ful- ness of equivocations, and menial reservations, and doing things not otherwise justifiable, for the honour of their church and religion. And I shall freely con- fess to you, if I found any countenance to such things as these, from the doctrine or practice of the Apostles, it would give me too just a ground for suspicion as to what they delivered. For if they allowed equivocations or mental reservations, how could I possibly know what they meant by any thing they said? For that which was necessary to make the proposition true, lay without my reach in the mind of another; and while they so firmly attested that Christ was risen from the dead, they might understand it of a spiritual or mys- tical resurrection ; but if they should be found to allow lying or cheating for the cause of religion, their credit would be gone with me ; for how could I be any longer sure of the truth of one word they said? I should be so far from thinking them infallible, that I could not but suspect them to have a design to deceive me. The first thing therefore we are to look at in persons who require our belief, is the strictest veracity ; if they fal- ter in this, they expose tlfemselves to the suspicion of SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 499 all but credulous fools. But we nowhere find greater plainness and sincerity required, nowhere more strict and severe prohibitions of dissimulation in religion, nor more general precepts about speaking truth, than in the writings of the New Testament. But might not all this be done with the greater artifice, to prevent suspicion? Suspicion is a thing, which he that set bounds to the sea, can set no bounds to: if men will give way to it without reason, there can be no end of it; for the most effectual ways to prevent it will still afford new matter and occasion for it. If men do use the utmost means that are possible to assure others of their sincerity, and they will not believe them, but still suspect the design to be so much deeper laid, there is no way left possible to satisfy such men; their suspi- cion is a disease incurable by rational means, and such persons deserve to be given over as past all remedy. If men act like prudent men, they will judge according to the reason of things ; but if they entertain a jealousy of all mankind, and the most of those who give them the greatest assurance they have no intention to deceive them, it is to no purpose to go about to satisfy such. persons ; for that very undertaking makes them more suspicious. If the Apostles therefore gave as much ground as ever any persons did, or could do, that they had no design to impose upon the world, but proceeding with all the fairness and openness, with the greatest evidence of their sincerity, there can be no reason to fasten upon them the imputation of cunning men, who made it their business to deceive others. 2. This will more appear if we consider the matters delivered by them, and the nature of their doctrine. For if the Christian religion were only a contrivance of the first preachers of it, it must by the event be sup- posed that they were very subtle men, who in so little Kk 2 500 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE time, and against so great opposition, could prevail over both Jews and Gentiles: but if we reflect on the nature of their doctrine, we can never imagine that these men did proceed by the same methods that men of subtlety do make use of. If it were their own contrivance, it was in their power to have framed it as they — thought fit themselves, and in all probability they would have done it in a way most likely to be successful : but the Christian religion was so far from it, as though they had industriously designed to advance a religion against the genius and inclination of all mankind. For it neither gratifies the voluptuous in their pleasures, nor the ambitious in their desires of external pomp and greatness, nor the covetous in their thirst after riches, but lays a severe restraint on all those common and prevailing passions of mankind; which Mahomet well understood, when he suited his religion to them. Chris- tianity was neither accommodated to the temper and genius either of Jews or Gentiles. The Jews were in great expectation of a temporal prince at that time, to deliver them: from the Roman slavery; and every one that would have set up for such a Messias, might have had followers enough among them, as we find after- wards by the attempts of Barcochebas and others. But the Messias of the Christians was so directly contrary to their hopes and expectations, being a poor and suf- fering prince, that this set them the more against his fol- lowers, because they were hereby frustrated of their greatest hopes, and defeated in their most pleasing ex- pectations. But besides, if they would have taken in the Mosaic law, it might in probability have succeeded better; but this St. Paul would by no means hear of. But if they rejected Jews, methinks they should have been willing to have had some assistance from the Gentiles. No, they charged them with idolatry where- SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 501 ever they came, and would not join in any parts of their worship with them, nor so much as eat of the re- mainder of their sacrifices. But supposing they had a mind to set up wholly a new sect of their own, yet we should think they should have framed it after the most plausible manner, and left out all things that were most liable to reproach and infamy: but this they were so far from, that the most contemptible part of the Christian religion, viz. a crucified Saviour, they insist the most upon, and preach it on all occasions, and, in comparison of it, strangely despise all the wisdom and philosophy of the Greeks. What did these men mean, if Christianity had been only a contrivance of theirs? If they had but left out this one circumstance, in all human probability the excellent moral precepts in Christianity would have been highly magnified among all those who had been bred up under the instructions of philosophers. Nay, they would not make use of the most commendable methods of human wisdom, nor do as the Jesuits have done in China, make men have a better opinion of the religion they brought, for their skill in mathematics and astronomy; but as much as it was possible, to let the world see it was no contriv- ance of human wisdom, they shunned all the ways of shewing it in the manner of its propagation. Nay, when the people would have given the Apostles divine worship, never were vain men more concerned to have it, than they to oppose it. And do these things look like the actions of men that designed only to make themselves great, by being the heads of a new sect of religion ? 3. Men that made it their design to deceive the world, if they had thought it necessary to bring in any matter of story concerning the author of their religion, would have placed it at such a distance of time, that K k 3 502 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE it was not capable of being disproved: as it is apparent in the heathen mythology; for the stories were such, as no person could ever pretend to confute them, other- wise than by the inconsistency of them with the com- mon principles of religion. But if we suppose Chris- tianity to have been a mere device, would the Apostles have been so senseless to have laid the main proof of their religion on a thing which was but newly acted, and which they were very capable of inquiring into all the circumstances that related to it, viz. the resurrection of Christ from the dead. We may see, by the whole de- sign of the New Testament, the great stress of Chris- tianity was laid upon the truth of this. To this Christ himself appealed beforehand ; to this all the Apostles refer as the mighty confirmation of their religion ; and this they deliver as a thing which themselves had seen, and had conversed with him for forty days together, with all the demonstrations imaginable of a true and real body; and that not to one or two credulous per- sons, but so many of them who were hard to be satis- fied, and one not without the most sensible evidence: but besides these, they tell us of five hundred at once who saw him, whereof many were then living when those things were written. Now, I pray, tell me what religion in the world ever put itself upon so fair a trial as this? Of a plain matter of fact, as capable of being attested as any could be. Why did not Amida, or - Brahma, or Xaca, or any other of the authors of the present religions of the East Indies; why did not Orpheus, or Numa, or any other introducers of reli- gious customs among the Greeks or Romans; or Ma- homet, among the Arabians, put the issue of the truth of their religion on such a plain and easy trial as this? If you say, that Christ appeared only to his friends, who were ready to believe such things, and not among SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 503 his enemies; I answer, that though they were his friends, yet they were very hard to be persuaded of the truth of it at first; and afterwards gave larger testi- monies of their fidelity, than the testimony of the greatest enemies would have been; for we should have had only their bare words for it, (if they would have given that, which is very questionable, considering their dealing with the other miracles of Christ.) But the Apostles manifested their sincerity by all real proofs that could be thought sufficient to satisfy man- kind ; appealing to the very persons who were con- cerned the most in it, having a hand in the death of Christ, declaring their greatest readiness to suffer any thing rather than deny the truth of it, and laying down their lives at last for it. If alJ this had been a mere fiction, how unlikely is it, that, among so many as were conscious of it, no one person, by hopes or fears, by flatteries or threatenings, could ever be prevailed upon to deny the truth of it! If there had been any such thing, what triumphing had there been among the Jews! And no doubt his name had been recorded to posterity among the writers both of Jews and Gentiles, that were professed enemies of Christianity. But they are all wonderfully silent in this matter; and instead of saying enough to overthrow the truth of Christianity, as you seem to suggest, I do assure you I am mightily confirmed in the belief of the truth of it, by carefully observing the slightness of the objections that were made against it by its most professed enemies. But you seem to imply, that all this story concern- ing Christ was invented long after the pretended time of his being in the world. Why may not you as well suspect that Julius Cesar lived before Romulus, or that Augustus lived at the siege of Troy? For you might as well reject all history upon such grounds as those K k 4 504 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE you assign; and think Mahomet as right in his chro- nology as the Bible. It is time for us to burn all our books, if we have lived in such a cheat all this while. Methinks you might as well ask, whether Lucretia were not Pope Joan ? Or Alexander the Sixth one of the Ro- man emperors? Or whether Luther were not the emperor of Turkey? For there is no greater evidence of any history in the world, than there is that all the things reported in the New Testament were done at that time when they are pretended to be. 4. Therefore we offer this story of the New Testa- ment to be compared with all the circumstances of that age, delivered by any other historians, to try if any inconsistencies can be found therein; which is the most reasonable way that can be taken to disprove any history. If it could be proved that there could be no such taxation of the empire as is mentioned in the time of Augustus, that Herod did not live in that age, or that the Jews were not under the Roman government, or that there were no high priests at that time, nor the sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, or that there were any other remarkable characters of time set down in the history of the New Testament, which could be manifestly disproved, there were some pretence to call in question the truth of the story; but there is not the least foundation for any scruple on this account; all things agreeing so well with the truest accounts we have of that age, both from Josephus and the Roman history. I shall not insist on the particular testimony of Josephus concerning Christ, because we need it not; and if those who question it would proceed with the same severity against many other particular passages in good authors, they might as well call them in question as they do that; since it is confessed that all the ancient manuscripts have it in them: and supposing that it doth not come in well, SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 505 must we suppose it impossible for Josephus to write incoherently ? Yet this is the main argument that ever I have seen urged against this testimony of Josephus. But I say we need it not; all other things concurring in so high a degree to prove the truth of the history of Christ. Yet, since you seem to express so much doubt- fulness concerning it, as though it were framed when there was no one living capable of disproving it, give me leave to shew you the great absurdity of such a supposition. 1. Because we have the plain testimonies of the greatest enemies of Christianity, that there was such a person as Christ was, who suffered according to the Scripture story. For Tacitus not only mentions the Christians as suffering at Rome for their religion in the time of Nero, (Annal 15.) but saith, That the author of this religion was one Christ, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the tame of Tiberius ; which is an irrefragable testimony of the truth of the story concerning Christ, in an age when, if it had been false, nothing could have been more easily detected than such a fiction, by the number of Jews which were continually at Rome: and neither Julian, nor Celsus, nor Porphyry, nor Lucian, did ever question the truth of the story itself, but only upbraided the Christians for attributing too much to Christ. 2. If there were really such a person as Christ was, who suffered as Tacitus saith, then the whole story could not be a fiction, but only some part of it; and these ad- ditional parts must either be contrived by the Apostles, or after their time: not after their time, for then they must be added after Christianity was received in the world, for that, as appears by Tacitus, was spread in the Apostles’ times as far as Rome; and if these parts were not received with it, the cheat would presently have been discovered as soon as broached, by those who 506 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE had embraced Christianity before. And, besides, Ter- tullian in his time appeals to the authentic writings of the Apostles themselves, which were then extant, wherein the same things were contained that we now believe. If these things then were forged, it must be by the Apostles themselves; and I dare now appeal to you, whether ever any story was better capable of being disproved than this was, if it had not been true, since it was published in that very time and place where the persons were living, who were most concerned to dis- prove it: as appears by the hatred of the Jews to the Christians, both then and ever since; which is a very observable circumstance for proving the truth of the Christian religion: for the Jews and Christians agreed in the Divine revelations of old : the Christians believed, moreover, that Christ was the Messias promised ; this Christ lived and died among the Jews his enemies ; his Apostles preached, and wrought miracles among their most inveterate enemies, which men that go about to deceive never care to do; and to this day the Jews do not deny the matters of fact, but look on them as in- sufficient to prove Jesus of Nazareth to have been the Messias. Nay, Mahomet himself, who in all probability would have overthrown the whole story of the New Testament, if he could have done it with any colour, yet speaks very honourably of Christ, and of the great things which were said and done by him. 5. That there is nothing in the Christian religion unbecoming the majesty, or holiness, or truth of a Di- vine revelation. As to the precepts, you acknowledge their excellency ; and the promises chiefly refer either to Divine grace or future glory: and what is there herein unbecoming God? And as to what concerns the truth of it, we have as great characters of that throughout as it is possible for us to expect; there appearing so SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 507 much simplicity, sincerity, candour, and agreement in all the parts of it. Some men would have been better pleased, it may be, if it had been all written by one person, and digested into a more exact method, and set forth with all the lights and ornaments of speech. This would have better become an invention of men, but not a revelation of God. Plainness and simplicity have a natural greatness above art and subtlety ; and therefore God made choice of many to write, and at several times, that by comparing them we may see how far they were from contriving together, and yet how exactly they agree in all things which men are concerned to believe. But you say, we have many infirmities of the Apostles discovered therein, their heats and animosities one against another. But I pray consider, 1. How came you to know these things? Is it not by their own writings ? And if they had been such who minded only their applause, had it not been as easy to have con- cealed these things? And would they not as certainly have done it, if that had been their aim? If St. Paul seems to boast, doth he not do it with that constraint to himself, as a man that is forced to do it for his own vindication against malicious enemies ? And who ever denied a man of a generous mind the liberty of speaking for himself? 2. But suppose they had infirmities and heats among them, doth this prove that God could not make use of them as his instruments to declare his truth to the world ? Then it will follow, that God must never reveal his will by men, but by voices from heaven, or angels, or the assumption of the human nature by the Divine. But, if God be not denied the liberty of employing mere men, we cannot find so great evidences of piety and zeal, of humility and self-denial, of patience and magnanimity, of innocency and universal charity in any men, as were in the Apostles; and therefore did 508 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE appear with the most proper characters of embassadors from heaven. And IJ dare venture the comparison of them with the best philosophers, as to the greatest and most excellent virtues, for which they were the most admired, notwithstanding the mighty difference as to their education ; allowing but the same truth as to the story of the New Testament, which we yield to Xeno- phon, or Diogenes Laertius, or any other writers con- cerning them. But what is it then which you object against the writings of the New Testament, to make them incon- sistent with the wisdom of God ? I find but two things in the papers you sent me. 1. Want of the continuance of the power of miracles, which you say is promised, Mark xvi. 17. 2. The number of the beast in the Revelations. But, good Sir, consider what it is to call in question a Divine revelation for such objections as these are? Must there be no revelation, unless you un- derstand every prophecy, or the extent of every promise? Be not so injurious to your own soul, for the sake of such objections, to cast away the great assurance which the Christian religion gives us, as to the pardon of sin upon repentance here, and eternal happiness in another world. Would you reject all the writings of Plato, because you do no more understand some part of his Timeus than the number of 666? You must have a very nice faith that can bear with no difficulties at all, so that if there be but one or two hard things that you cannot digest, you must throw up all the best food you have taken; at this rate you must starve your body, as well as ruin your soul. But of these places after- wards. 3. I have hitherto removed the grounds of suspicion ; I now come to shew the positive testimonies of their sincerity which the Apostles shewed; which were SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 509 greater than were ever given to any other matter of fact in the world. I will then suppose the whole truth of the Christian doctrine to be reduced to this one mat- ter of fact, whether Christ did rise from the dead or no? For (as I have said already) it is plain the Apo- stles put the main force of all that they said upon the truth of this; and often declared that they were ap- pointed to be the witnesses of this thing. Now let us consider how it is possible for men to give the highest assurance of their sincerity to others; and that must be either by giving the utmost testimony that men can give, or by giving some testimony above that of men, which cannot deceive; which is the testimony of God. 1. They gave the utmost testimony that mere men could give of their fidelity. I know no better way we have for a full assurance as to any human testimony, than to consider what those circumstances are which are generally allowed to accompany truth; and if we have the concurrence of all these, we have as much as can be expected ; for nothing that depends on testimony can be proved by mathematical demonstration. But notwithstanding the want of this, either we may have sufficient ground to assent to truth upon testimony, or there can be no difference known between truth and falsehood by human testimony ; which overthrows all judicial proceedings among men: the justice whereof doth suppose not only the veracity of human testimony, but that it may be so discerned by others, that they may safely rely upon it. Now the main things to be regarded as to the truth of human testimony, are these. 1. If men testify nothing but what they saw. 2. If they testify it at no long distance of time from the thing done. 3. If they testify it plainly, and without doubtful expressions. 4. If a great number agree in the same testimony. 5. If they part with all that is 510 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE valuable to mankind, rather than deny the truth of what they have testified. And where all these concur, it is hardly possible to suppose greater evidence to be given of the truth of a thing; and now I shall shew that all these do exactly agree to the Apostles’ testimony con- cerning the resurrection of Christ. 1. They testified nothing but what they saw them- selves. Thelaws of nations do suppose that greater credit is to be given to eye-witnesses than to any others; thence the rule in the civil law, Testimonium de auditu regulariter non valet. Because, say the civilians and canonists, witnesses are to testify the truth, and not barely the possibility of things. 'That which men see, they can testify whether they are or not: that which men only hear, may be or not be; and their testimony is not of the fact, but is looked cn as more uncertain, and ought to have greater allowances given it; but the Apostles testified only what they saw and handled, and that after the most scrupulous inquiry into the truth of Christ’s body, and after many doubts and suspicions among themselves about it; so that they did not seem hastily and rashly to believe what they afterwards de- clared to the world. Now a body was a proper object of sense, and no trial could be greater or more accurate than theirs was, nor any satisfaction fuller than putting their fingers into the very wounds of the pierced side. 2. They did not stay till the circumstances might have slipt out of their memories, before they testified these things, but very soon after, while the impression of them was fresh upon them. If they had let these matters alone for any long time, the Jews would have asked them presently, If these things were true, why did we not hear of them as soon as they were done? Therefore we see the Apostles on the very day of Pen- tecost, a little after Christ’s ascension to heaven, SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 511 openly and boldly declare the truth of these things, not in private corners among a few friends, but in the most solemn meeting of their nation from all parts; which was the worst time that could have been chosen, if they had any intention to deceive. 3. They testify it in as plain a manner as is possible, on purpose to prevent all mistakes of their meaning. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are Acts ii. witnesses ; therefore let all the house of Israel know*” 3” assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Men that had a mind to deceive, would have used some more general and doubtful words than these were. 4. If this had been testified by one single witness, the world would have suspected the truth of his testi- mony; for, according to the rule in the civil law, in the case of testimony, Vox unius, vox nullius est: but this was testified by very many; not merely by the twelve Apostles, but by five hundred at once; among whom some might be supposed to have so much honesty, or at least capable of being persuaded to have discovered the imposture, if they had in the least suspected any. 5. But that which adds the greatest weight to all this is, that there was not one of all the Apostles, and scarce any one of the rest, but exposed themselves to the utmost hazards and dangers, rather than deny or retract the truth of what they had witnessed. If the people had been careless and indifferent about religion, it is possible men might have gone on in a lie so long, till they had gotten interest enough to maintain it; but no sooner did the Apostles appear, witnessing these things, but they met with an early and vigorous oppo- sition, and that from the chiefest men in power, who made it their business to suppress them. Now in this case they were put to this choice, if they would renounce 512 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE or conceal the truth of what they testified, they might presently enjoy ease, and, it may be, rewards too; but if they went on, they must look for nothing but the sharpest persecution ; and this they met with almost in all places: and is it conceivable that men should be so fond of a lie to forsake all and follow it, and at last to take up their cross for it? If credit and interest in the hearts of people might carry a man on a great way in the delusion, yet he would be loth to die for it; and yet there was never a one of the Apostles but ven- tured his life for the truth of this; and all but one, they tell us, did suffer martyrdom for it. I pray, Sir, con- sider, where you ever meet with any thing like this, that so many men should so resolutely die for what themselves at the same time knew to be a lie: and that they must certainly do, if it were all a contrivance of their own heads. 2. But although in these things they went as high as it was possible for human testimony to go, yet they had something beyond all this; which was a concur- rence of a Divine testimony, in the miraculous gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost. And this we assert to be the highest testimony that can be given in the world of the truth of any thing; because God will not em- ploy his power to deceive the world. And as all other truth hath a criterion proper to it, so this seems to be the proper criterion of a Divine testimony, that it hath the power of miracles going along with it. For if we do suppose God to make known his mind to the world, it is very reasonable to believe there should be some distinguishing note of what is immediately from God, and what comes only from the inventions of men; and what can be more proper to distinguish what comes from God, and what from men, than to see those things done which none but God can do? But against this SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 513 you object several things, which I shall easily and briefly answer. 1. You cannot tell what it is that miracles do attest; not all their doctrine, since Paul said, some was not Jrom the Lord. Ausw. Miracles do attest the veracity of the speaker, and by consequence the truth of the doctrine ; not that you should believe that to be from the Lord, which he said was not; but that which he said was from the Lord. But when he makes such a distinction himself, it is very unreasonable to urge that as an argument, that he had nothing from the Lord: it is much rather an argument of his candour and in- genuity, that he would not pretend to Divine revelation when he had it not. 2. You would have it signified what doctrine it is which ts attested by miracles, since the doctrines of Scripture lie in heaps and confusion. Answ. To what purpose should any doctrines be singled out to have the seal of miracles set to them, since it is their Divine commission to teach and declare the will of God, which is sealed by it ? And what they did so teach and declare, is easily known by their writings. 3. But why do not miracles still continue? Answ. Because there are no persons employed to teach any new doctrines ; and no promise of Scripture doth imply any more: for the signs which were to follow, them that believe, were such as tended to the first confirma- tion of the Christian faith; which being effected, their use ceased: and so to ask why God doth not continue a gift of miracles, to convince men that the former were true, is to the same purpose as to ask why God doth not make a new sun, to satisfy atheists that he made the old. 4. But doth not the Scriptures say, that wonders are not always to be taken as confirmations of the truth STILLINGFLEET, VOL. II. iu 1 514 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE - of doctrine, since false prophets may work wonders, Deut. xiii. 1. Answ. That signifies no more than that wonders are not to be believed against the principles of natural religion, or revealed religion already con- firmed by greater miracles; and that those who would value such a particular sign above all the series of mi- racles their religion was first established by, may be justly left to their own delusions. You might as well object the lying wonders of the man of Sin, against all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles. If God hath once done enough to convince men, he may afterwards justly leave them to the trial of their ingenuity; as a father that hath used great care to make his son under- stand true coin, may afterwards suffer false to be laid before him, to try whether he will mind his being cheated or no. 5. But you may yet farther demand, What the testi- mony of miracles doth signify to the writings of the New Testament? Answ.1.The miracles do sufficiently prove the authority of that doctrine which was deli- vered by those who wrought miracles, as Christ and his Apostles. 2. If there had been the least ground to question the truth and authority of these writings, they had never been so universally received in those ages, when so many were concerned to inquire into the truth of these things; for we see several of the books were a long time examined, and at last, when no sufficient rea- son could be brought against them, they were received by those churches which at first scrupled the receiving them. And I am so far from thinking the doubts of the first ages any argument against the authority of a book, that, by the objections of some against some of them, I am thereby assured that they did not presently receive any book, because it went under the name of an Apostolical Writing: as I am the more confirmed in SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 515 the belief of the resurrection of Christ, because some of the disciples were at first very doubtful about it. 6. You may yet ask, What doth all this signify to the writings of the Old Testament, which were written at a longer distance of time from us, and in a more wnorant age of the world? Answ. There cannot be a more evident proof of the Old Testament, than by the New; for if the New be true, the Old must be so, which was confirmed so plainly and evidently by it; our Saviour and his Apostles appealing to Moses and the Prophets on all occasions. So that the same mi- racles which prove their testimony true, do at the same time prove the Divine authority of the Old Testament; since it is so expressly said in the New, That holy men of God did speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But after all this, you urge, that you have discovered such things in these writings as could not come from God, as, 1. Contradictions in them. 2. Some things tncon- sistent with the wisdom of God. 3. Promises made that were never fulfilled. 4. Things so obscure as no one can tell the meaning of them. Under these four heads I shall examine the particular allegations you bring against the Scriptures. 1. Under the head of contradictions, you insist on the prophecy, Gen. xv. 13, 14, 15,16. made to Abraham, concerning his posterity, compared with the accomplish- ment mentioned Exod. xii. 40, 41. And the force of your argument lies in this, That the prophecy in Ge- nesis doth imply that the servitude of the children of Israel in Egypt was to be 40 years; or 430 saith Exod. but both these are repugnant to other places of Scripture, which make their abode in Egypt not to ex- ceed 215 years; or at the highest, by the number L12 516 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE of generations, could not exceed 350 years, stretching them to the utmost advantage. 'To this which you lay so much weight upon, I answer distinctly, 1. By your own confession, supposing the 430 years to begin from the covenant made with Abraham, the accomplishment, mentioned Exod. xii. 40, doth fall out exactly in the time of the children of Israel’s going out of Egypt; for you have proved from Scripture, that, from the covenant with Abraham to Jacob’s being in Egypt, were 215 years; to which you add, that Coath being supposed five years old at the going into Egypt; and that at'70 years he begat Amram, and that Amram at 70 begat Moses, to which Moses’s 80 years being added, makes up the other 215 years; whereby we have the full 430 years, by your own computation. Now, Sir, I pray consider what reason you have to charge the Scripture with contradiction, in a matter yourself acknowledges so exactly accomplished in this way of computation. 2. But you say, the words will not bear this; be- cause they speak of the 400 years to expire in their servitude in Egypt. Answ. For this we must consider the importance of the words both in Genesis and Exodus. There is not a word of Egypt mentioned in Genesis ; but only in general it is said, Thy seed shall be a stranger in the land that ts not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them 400 years: and it will conduce very much to the right understanding this prophecy, to consider the main scope and design of it; which was not to tell Abraham how long they should be in servitude to the Egyptians, but how long it would be before his seed would come to the possession of the promised land: and it seems Abraham, by the question, Gen. xv. 7, 8, did expect to have the inherit- ance of this land 7x his own time. To this therefore SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 517 God answers, by telling him he meant no such thing, but it was intended for his seed, and that not suddenly neither, for they were to tarry till the iniquity of the Amorites should be full, which would not be till the fourth generation ; and then his seed should, after 400 years, come to the possession of the promised land ; but in the mean time they were to sojourn in a land that was not theirs, and to meet with many hardships and difficulties. This is plainly the scope of this prophecy, and, by attending to it, the great objections presently appear without force; for the land of Canaan, notwith- standing the promise, was by the patriarchs themselves looked on as a land wherein they were strangers. So Abraham saith, Gen. xxiii. 4, Z am a stranger and a sqgourner with you ; and which is more remarkable in the blessing of Jacob by Isaac, to whom the promise was made, it is said, And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed, that thou mayest in- herit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham, Gen. xxviii. 4, Where the very same word is used concerning Jacob, that is expressed in the prophecy, Gen. xv. 13. So that the patriarchs looked on themselves as strangers in the land of Ca- naan, so long after the promise made, and after the in- crease of the seed of Abraham; and therefore the land of Canaan was called Terra Peregrinationum, the land wherein they were strangers, Gen. xxxvi.7. xxxvii. 1. And when God was calling the people of Israel to- gether out of Egypt, yet then the land of Canaan was called by the very same title, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers, Exod. vi. 4; and Ps.cv.9,10,11, 12,13.where we have a full account of the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning the inheritance of that land, it is said, that they were few, and strangers in it, when they went L13 518 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE JSrom one nation to another, from one kingdom to an- other people: which doth fully explain the meaning of the prophecy in Genesis, and that it is not to be re- strained to the servitude of the people of Israel in Egypt, but to be understood of their state of pilgrimage for 400 years, wherein they were to suffer great hard- ships before they. should come to the inheritance of Canaan. This is no forced or unnatural exposition of the words, as you seem to suggest; but, to my appre- hension, very plain and easy, if we attend to the main scope and design of them, which was to acquaint Abraham how long it would be before the prophecy were accomplished, and what the condition of his seed should be the mean time, viz. That they should have no land which they should call their own by inheritance alt that time, but they should be exposed to great hard- ships, yea even to servitude; but that nation, whom they should serve, should at last suffer for their ill usage of them, and they should come out of that cap- tivity with great substance; and all this to be done in the fourth generation of the Amorites, when their eniquaties should be arrived at the full height. All which particulars were so remarkably accomplished at such a distance of time, and under such improbable cir- cumstances, that this very prophecy were enough to convince an unprejudiced mind that it came from Divine Inspiration. For where do we meet with any thing like this in the histories of other nations, viz. a pro- phecy to be accomplished 400 years after, and the very manner foretold, which no human conjecture could reach to, since the manner of deliverance of the people of Israel out of their captivity in Egypt, was to all human appearance so impossible a thing, especially at such a time, when the spirits of the people were sunk and broken by so long a slavery: and not only the manner SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 519 foretold, but the accomplishment happened to a day, according to Exodus xii. 41: And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the selfsame day wt came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. But against this you object, that the sojourning is spoken of the children of Israel in Eeypt for 430 years; which cannot hold good any ways; since, to make it up, the times of Abruham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be taken in, who could not be called the children of Israel. Answ. For the 430 years, I grant, that, according to St. Paul, they did commence from the covenant made to Abraham, Gal. iii. 17. and that the 400 years began from Isaac’s being owned for the promised seed ; between which time the thirty years were passed: and all appearance of difh- culty is avoided, if we admit the reading of the best copies of the LXX. which is in these words: ‘H 0€ zap- olKNTIS TOY VIdY ‘Topana, ny TapoKy ay ey yn Alyumrtov, Kal ev vn Xavaay, avrot Kal ob mare pes avtiv eTy TETPAKOT LO TPLAKOVT Oy Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt and Canaan, they and their fathers, was 430 years. This is the reading of our Alexandrian copy, and the Complutensian, and that of Aldus, and of Eusebius in his Chronicon, and of St. Jerome in his translation of it; and of the church in St. Augustine’s time, and afterwards; and lest any should reject this as a late interpolation, or gloss, received into the text, besides these testimonies of the antiquity of it, we find the very same in the Samaritan copy, which the ene- mies of it do allow to be as ancient as our Saviour’s time. And that which very much confirms the truth of this reading is, that the Jews themselves follow the sense of it, who are the most eager contenders for the authority of the Hebrew copy ; who all agree, that the _beginning of the computation of the 430 years is to be L 14 520 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE taken before the children of Israel’s going into Kgypt ; aud Menasseh Ben Israel contends with many others, that the 430 years did begin from the promise made to Abraham, and the 400 from the time of Isaac, to which their most ancient books of chronology do agree: and to the same purpose speak both Philo Judzeus and Josephus; who although in one place he seems to make the Israelites’ affliction in Egypt to have been 400 years, yet, when he speaks more particularly of it, he makes the time of their abode in Egypt to have been only 215, and the 430 to begin from Abraham’s en- trance into Canaan. The Targum of Jonathan begins the 430 from the vision of Abraham, and the 400 from the birth of Isaac; all which I mention, to let you see that the Jews themselves do in sense concur with the Samaritan and Greek copy; and therefore we have more reason to suspect something left out in the pre- sent Hebrew, than any thing added in those copies. But doth not this take off from the authority of the Scripture ? Not at all: for the only question is about the true reading; and having the consent of the Sa. maritan, Alexandrian, and other copies of the LXX. and of the ancient church, and of the Jews themselves, as to the sense of it, we have reason to look on this as the truer reading; which is making no addition to the Scripture, either as to persons or places, but only pro- ducing the more authentic copy: much less is this add- ing or changing as we please; for if we did this with- out so much authority as we have for it, you might as easily reject it as we produce it. 3. After all this, I do not see the mighty force of your reason to charge the Scripture with contradiction, supposing the 400 years were to be spent in the servi- tude of the children of Israel in Egypt. I confess, when I found the Scripture so boldly, so frequently SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 521 charged with no less than contradiction, I expected something like demonstration in the case, especially in this place which you chose to put in the front of all: but I do not find any thing like such a proof of a con- tradiction, supposing we should allow the 400 years to be spent in Egypt. Yes, say you, Coath was five years old when he came down into Egypt; and when he had lived there sixty-five years, he begat Amram, and Amram, being seventy years old, begat Moses; to which Moses’s eighty years being added, we have only 215 years. But since the Scripture doth not as- sign the particular age of any of these when they be- gat their children, I see no impossibility or repugnancy in the supposition, that 400 years should pass from Levi's going into Egypt to the eightieth of Moses, any more than from Salmon’s entrance into Canaan to the time of David; for no more are reckoned in Scripture than Boaz, the son of Salmon by Raab, and Obed, and Jesse: so that by the same way this latter may be ex- plained, the former may be so too. If it be said, That either they begat their children at a great age, or that the Scripture in genealogies doth not set down all the intermediate parents, but only the most eminent, (as Caleb ts called the son of Esron, 1 Chron. ii. 9, 18. although there was at least one between them,) the very same answer will serve to clear this part of the chronology of Scripture from any appearance of contra- diction. These things you might have found more largely deduced, and fully handled, by those learned persons who have undertaken to clear the chronology of Scripture; who were men of more judgment, than from any difficulty of this nature to call in question the truth and authority of the sacred Scriptures. And al- though the opinions of chronologers are like the city clocks, which seldom agree, yet some come nearer the 522 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE time of the day than others do; and therefore you ought to examine and compare them, before you pro- nounce so peremptorily about contradictions in Scrip- ture, which you have no reason to do till you find that no one hypothesis among them will serve to free the Scripture from contradiction: for otherwise you do but blame the sun, because you cannot make the clocks agree. ; This is all I can find in your papers under the head of contradictions ; and I leave you now soberly to con- sider whether this place did afford you sufficient ground for so heavy a charge; but if you say, you have a great many more by you, but you sent me this only for a trial of my skill, before you send any more, I beseech you, Sir, to consider, 1. How easily things do appear to be contradictions to weak, or unstudied, or prejudiced minds, which after due consideration appear to be no such things. A deep prejudice finds a contradiction in every thing ; whereas in truth nothing but ill-will, and impatience of con- sidering, made any thing, it may be, which they quarrel at, appear to be so. If I had been of such a quarrel- some humour, I would have undertaken to have found out more contradictions in your papers than you ima- gine, and yet you might have been confident you had been guilty of none at all. When I consider the great pains, and learning, and judgment, which hath been shewn by the Christian writers in the explication of the Scriptures; and the raw, indigested objections which some love to make against them; if I were to judge of things barely by the fitness of persons to judge of them, the disproportion between these would appear out of all comparison. A modest man would, in any thing of this nature, say with himself, methinks if there were such contradictions in the Bible, as now seem to me, so SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 523 many persons of incomparable abilities, in the first and latter ages of the Christian church, who have made it their business to inquire into these things, would have discerned them before me: and yet they retained a mighty veneration for the Scriptures, as coming from _ God himself; and therefore it may be only weakness of judgment, want of learning, or some secret prejudice, may make me suspect these things; or else I must sus- pect the honesty of all those persons who have pre- tended such a devotion to the Scriptures, and yet have believed them full of contradictions. 2. Wherein the contradiction appears. Is it in the main and weighty parts of the religion revealed herein ? or is it only in some smaller circumstances as to time and place? The great thing you are to look after, are the matters those Scriptures tell you your salvation de- pends upon; and if there be a full consent and agree- ment therein, you find enough for you to believe and practise. And if some contradictions should still ap- pear to you in smaller matters, what follows from thence, but only that the same care was not taken about little as about great things ? And you ought to set that ap- pearance of contradiction in small matters together with the real consent in the things of the highest importance; and from thence rather to infer that this was no combi- nation or design to deceive others ; for such persons take the greatest care to prevent suspicion by their ex- actness in every minute circumstance; and sometimes the overmuch care to prevent suspicion doth raise it the more. 3. What ways have been used by men of judgment and learning, to clear those places from the charge of contradiction. For not one of the objections you can start now, but hath been considered over and over, and all the difficulties that belong to it examined: if you 524 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE will not take the pains to do this, it is plain you do not desire satisfaction, but only seek for a pretence to cavil; especially if you only search the weakest or most injudicious writers on the Scriptures, and endeavour to expose their opinions, without taking notice of what others have said, with more clear and evident reason. This shews either want of judgment in choosing such expositors, or want of candour and fair dealing, and a desire of taking any advantage against the Scrip- tures. 4. How hard a matter it is for us, at this distance, to understand exactly the grounds of chronology, or © the manner of computation of times used so long ago: and therefore in all difficulties of this nature, we ought to make the fairest allowances that may be, considering withal, that escapes and errors are nowhere more easily committed by transcribers, than in numbers: and that it is a very unreasonable thing that a book, otherwise deserving to be thought the best book in the world, should be scorned and rejected, because there appears some difference in the computation of times. We do not so exactly know the manner of the Hebrew chro- nology, nor the nature of their year, or intercalations, nor the customs of their genealogies, nor the allowance to be made for interregnums, so as to be able to define peremptorily in these things; but it is sufficient to shew that there is no improbability in the accounts that are given; and no sufficient reason can be drawn from thence to reject the authority of the Scriptures. 2. I come to consider the places you object, as con- taining things inconsistent with the wisdom or goodness of God, according to arational persuasion ; and those are either, 1. F’rom the laws of Moses. 2. From the express story of the Bible, or actions of the prophets. 1. From the laws of Moses: Your first objection is SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 525 from Exod. xxi. 7. where a man is supposed to sell his daughter; which, you say, it is incredible to believe that God should permit, because tt implies unnatural affec- tion and covetousness in the father. But, Sir, 1. You do not consider that this is barely a provisional law, and is not the permission of the thing, so much as the regulation of it, supposing it to be done, i. e. in case a man should part with his interest in his daughter to another person, upon an extraordinary case of necessity, as the Jews understand it ; yet then she was not to be in the condition of a servant, but to be either betrothed to the person who received her, or to his son; which was intended for the restraint of promiscuous buying and selling daughters, merely for the satisfaction of lust. The Jews, who certainly best understood their own ju- dicial laws, do say, that this was never to be done but where there was a presumption of such a betrothing ; for no man could sell his daughter to those to whom it was unlawful to marry by their law; so that this was looked on as a kind of espousals of a young girl, taken into wardship by another; but so, that if she were not betrothed, she was to remain her six years during her minority, as the Jews understand it, unless she were redeemed, or set free, or the jubilee came, or the master died, or the time of her minority expired. 2. The case of necessity being supposed, it hath been thought lawful for parents to make advantage by their children, not only by the Jews, but by other na- tions, who have been in the greatest esteem for wisdom. For, by the law of the Twelve Tables among the Ro- mans, the father had the liberty of selling his son three times for his own advantage, as Dionysius Halicarnas- seus relates ; and before that time it was not only in use among the Romans, but in such esteem among them, that, upon the review of their laws, the Decemviri /Blian. Var. Hist. Tae. ye 526 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE durst not leave it out: but, by one of the laws of Numa Pompilius, it was restrained to times before marriage ; for in case the son had the father’s consent to marry, he could not sell him afterwards, as the same author tells us. This law continued in force among them till Christianity prevailed in the Roman empire; for al- though there were a prohibition of Diocletian against it, yet that signified nothing, till Constantine took care that such indigent parents should be relieved out of the public charge. Cod. Theodos. 1. xi. tit. 27. 2. And yet after this the custom did continue, when the parents were in great want, as appears by a law of Theodosius, Cod. iii. tit. 3. Omnes quos parentum miseranda fortuna im servitium dum victum requirunt addixit, ingenuitat pristine reformentur. And it farther appears, that even in Constantine’s time, not- withstanding the law made by him, parents would still, when they thought themselves overcharged with child- ren, part with their interest in them to others for ad- vantage; but it was chiefly while they were sangui- nolenti, as the law expresses it, 1.e. new born. Cod. Theod. 1. v. tit. 8. By the laws of Athens, before So- lon’s time, parents might sell their children, as appears by Plutarch, in his Life; and the same Philostratus reports of the Phrygians, 1. iii. Vit. Apollon. Tyan. and the like custom doth obtain among the Chinese to this day, if persons do think themselves unable to bring up their children themselves. And there are two things to be said for it. 1. The natural obligation lying on children to provide for their parents in necessity, by any way they are able. 2. The probability of better education under more able persons; and therefore the Thebans had a law, That parents, in case of poverty, were to bring their children to the magistrate, as soon as they were born, who put them out to such as were SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 527 judged fit to bring them ups and to have their service Jor their reward. But however, you say, this place implies a toleration of having many wives; because tt is said, if he take him another wife, ver.10. Ido not deny that the Mo- saical law did suppose the practice of polygamy; but as it doth nowhere expressly allow it, neither doth it expressly condemn it. And although we say, the Christian law is far more excellent, which reduceth marriage to its first institution, yet you will find it a hard matter to prove such a permission of polygamy as this was, to be so repugnant to the law and princi- ples of nature, as from thence to infer, that this law of Moses could not be from God. You might have said the same about the matter of divorce, which was per- mitted them, Christ saith, for the hardness of their hearts: which shews that God doth not always require that from men which is best pleasing to himself; and that, as to his political government, he may not always punish that which is not so pleasing to him. The next law you quarrel at is that, Deut. xxii. 13, &e. about the trial of virginity; which you object against as immodest, and uncertain, and therefore un- becoming the wisdom of God. So, many customs of those elder times of the world, and of the Eastern parts, to this day seem very strange to us, that are not so well acquainted with the reasons of them. Methinks it better becomes our modesty, in such cases, to question our understanding those customs, than presently to cast so much disparagement on the author of them. If you had been offended at the literal sense of those words, many of the Jews themselves say, they are to be under- stood figuratively of the evidence that was to be brought and laid open before the judges on behalf of the de- famed person. And both Josephus and Philo omit the 528 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE laying open the cloth. But supposing it to be taken in the plainest literal sense, I have two things to say in vindication of this law. 1. That however uncertain some physicians have thought that way of trial to have been in these parts of the world; yet it is generally agreed to have held for the eastern parts, by the most skilful physicians among the Arabians: and a custom of the same nature is said by good authors to have been observed among the Egyptians, and other Africans, as well as the Arabians; so that this could not be thought so strange or immodest among the inhabitants of those parts: and it is very probable that some particulars, as to the practice of these laws, are not set down, which might very much tend to the certainty of them, as the age of the married persons, which was most likely then, as it is to this day in the eastern parts, very early ; the Jews say at twelve years old, which would make the trial more certain. 2. As to the modesty of it, you are to consider that the law was intended to keep persons from unjust defamations, and such a way of trial was therefore pitched upon to deter persons from such defamations; which men might otherwise have been more ready to, because of the liberty of di- vorce, and the advantage they had-in saving the dower, if they could prove the party vitiated be- fore marriage; therefore all the proof of that nature was to be passed soon after the consummation of marriage, which being agreed then by all the friends, there was to be no liberty left for defamation af- terwards; but in case any man should be guilty of it, the producing those evidences, which before they were agreed upon, should be sufficient to clear the innocency of the party accused. And therefore I look on this law, as the Jews do on that of the rebellious son, of which they say, that there is no instance of the practice SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 529 of it; the penalty threatened being so effectual to pre- vent the occasion of it. And such, in a great measure, I suppose the other law mentioned by you to have been, viz. of the water of jealousy, which you make so strange a matter of ; and think it savours too much of a design to gratify the jealous humour of the Jewish nation. But you might have put a fairer construction upon it, viz. that it was intended to prevent any occasion of suspicion being given to the husband, by too much familiarity with other persons; since the law allowed so severe a trial, in case the wife, after admonition, did not forbear such suspected familiarity : but if you had looked on the law asit is, Num. v. 12, 13, &c., you would have found that the design of it was to keep women from committing secret adultery, by so severe a penalty; yet withal, al- lowing so much to a reasonable suspicion, (for so the Jews understand it, with many cautions and limita- tions,) that, rather than married persons should live under perpetual jealousies, he appointed this extraordi- nary way of trial, whereby adultery was most severely punished, and the honour of innocency publicly vindi- cated ; which certainly are not ends at all unbecoming due conceptions of God. The last of the Jewish laws which you quarrel with, is, the prohibition of usury, in several places of Mo- sess law and the Psalms. And from hence you fall into a long discourse to prove the lawfulness of usury : but to what purpose I beseech you? For you were to prove that God could never forbid it; you might have spared your pity for men, as you think, blinded with superstition, and cheated with new and airy notions. For by all that I can see by these papers, some pre- tended enemies to superstition have no better eyes than their neighbours, and are as easily cheated with ground- STILLINGFLEET, VOL, II. Mm 530 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE less fancies and airy imaginations. The only thing to the business in that long discourse is this, that you cannot imagine that God should make a law so much to man’s inconvenience, and forbid him so nice and in- different a thing as moderate increase of profit by let- ting out of money, when it is allowed upon lands, houses, and trade, &c. To this I answer, That the prohibition of usury to the Jewish nation was upon political grounds peculiar to the constitution of that people; as appears by the words of the law, Deut. xxi. 19, 20. Thou shalt not lend to usury unto thy brother—unto a stranger thou mayest lend Upon Usury. But none of the laws which are founded upon common and moral reasons have such limitations as this; for God would never have said, Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy brother's wife, but with the wife of a stranger thou mayest. But there was this particular reason for the prohibition of usury to the Jewish nation. It pleased God to fix their habitation, not upon the sea-_ side, as Tyre and Sidon stood, but within land, where they had no conveniences of trading ; but the riches of the nation lay in agriculture and pasturage ; in which the returns of money are neither so quick nor so ad- vantageous to make sufficient compensation for the in- terest of the money in the time they have it: for the main thing valuable in money is the advantage the borrower makes of it; and where that is great, it seems reasonable that the person whose the money is, should have a proportionable share of the advantage made by it; but where persons borrow only for present occa- sions to supply their necessities, there it is only an act of kindness to lend, and it would be unreasonable to press upon, or take advantage by, another’s necessities. And this seems to have been the case among the Jews: they were only the poor that wanted money for present ne- SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 531 cessities ; the rich had no way to employ it in trading, unless that they lent to the Tyrian merchants, which it was lawful by their law to do. Now if they took usury of their own people, it must be of those whose urgent necessity, and not hopes of a mighty increase by it, made them borrow, and therefore it was a very Just and reasonable law to forbid usury among them ; which I believe he would never have done, if he had placed the Jews upon the coasts of Phoenicia, where trading was so much in request. ms These are all the laws which you have picked out of the whole body of the Jewish law, to represent it unbecoming the wisdom of God. And now I pray, sir, look back again upon them; see how few, how small, how weak your objections are, and compare them with the weight, and justice, and prudence, and piety, ex- pressed in all the rest, and I hope you will find cause to be ashamed of speaking so harshly of those laws, so well accommodated to those ages of the world, and the condition of that people for whom they were ap- pointed. 2. I now consider what you object against the story of the Bible. 1. That passage of Moses, Exod. xxxii. 32. Blot me out of thy book which thou hast written: where your design is to shew that Moses prayed to be damn- ed; and that this was a very irrational thing, and savouring more of passion than of the spirit of God. But what if Moses meant no such thing as damnation ? As there is not any word in the context relating that ways; but all the design of that chapter is about a temporal punishment, which was a present destruction of the people for their sins. And the book, out of which he prayed God to blot him, seems to me to be no other than the roll of God’s chosen people, who Mim 2 532 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE were to possess the land of Canaan: for so .5D pro- perly signifies a roll or register. Psalm lxix. 28. we meet with Ow pp the roll of the living, or the book of the living, we render it, because all ancient books were in the fashion of rolls. In that chapter Moses inter- cedes with God on behalf of the people, that he would make good his promise to them, of bringing them into the land of Canaan, ver. 13; and ver. 30. he goes up to make an atonement for the people, i. e. as to the cutting them off in the wilderness ; and therefore he desires, rather than the people should be destroyed, that God would strike him out of the roll, that he might die in the wilderness rather than the people. And God gives that answer to this purpose, ver. 33. Whoever hath sinned against me, will I blot out of my book: the sense of which is the same with those words of the Psalmist, He sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest, Psalm xcv.11. And according to this interpretation, which is most natural and easy, all your long discourse, against praying to be damned, comes to just nothing; there being no pretence for it, either in the text or context. 2. The story of Ruth doth not please you, as sa- vouring, in your opinion, of a great deal of immodesty : but you would have a better opinion of it, if you con- sider that the reason of her carriage towards Boaz, in such a manner, was upon Naomi’s telling her, that he was one to whom the right of redemption did belong, and by consequence, by their law, was to marry her. Ruth ii. 20. And this Ruth pleaded to Boaz, Ruth i. 9. By which it appears that she verily be- lieved that he was legally her husband; and Boaz, we see, speaks of her as one that was a virtuous woman, and known to be such in the whole city, ver.11. And he confesses he was her near kinsman ; only, he saith, SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 533 there was one nearer, ver.12. By which it seems, if there had not, Boaz had made no scruple of the matter : and the Jews say, in such marriages very little ceremo- ny was required, if the next of kin did not renounce his right, because the law had determined the marriage be- forehand. If you had but considered this one thing, you would have spared the many observations you make on this story. 8. You object against 2 Sam. xii. 8. as too much countenancing either incest or adultery ; because it is said, that God gave to David his master’s wives into his bosom. But, 1. It is very strange to bring this place as a countenance to adultery, which was pur- posely designed to upbraid David with the sin of adul- tery; and you will find it no easy matter, by the consti- tution of the Mosaical law, to prove polygamy to be adul- tery. 2. The Jews give a fair interpretation of this place; for they say, that the wife of a king could never marry after her husband’s decease, as the Gemara on the title Sanhedrim expressly saith; although some among them follow the opinion of R. Jehuda, that she might marry the succeeding king: but that is built chief- lyon this place; of which the rest give a better account, viz. that ow? doth not imply Saul’s wives, but the setden. maids of honour, or attendants on the court of Saul, nes which all fell into David’s power, and out of whom he Fuk might choose wives without danger of incest; and even ae a some of those who assert it lawful for one king to marry his predecessor’s wife, yet say in this case of David, that the word only implies that they were of Saul’s family; as Merab and Michal were, but not Saul’s wives. So that all the difficulty here arises only from the interpretation of an unusual word, in which we have much more reason to trust the Jews than other writers. 4. You are much offended at Hosea’s marrying an Mm 3 534 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE adulteress. But all the formidable difficulties of that place will presently vanish, if you allow the Propheti- cal Schemes, wherein those things are said to be done; which are intended only to represent in a more lively manner the things signified by them. And so you may see the Chaldee Paraphrase fully explains this place of Renae Hosea, and Maimonides purposely discourseth on the Vico ii. Prophetic Parables, and brings this as one of the in- stances of them; and with him the rest of the Jewish interpreters agree. But you object against such a way of teaching, as tending to the encouragement of vice ; which it is very far from, being designed to represent the odiousness of it: for the whole scope of the prophet is to let the people understand that their idolatry was as hateful to God as the sin of adultery, and that the con- sequences of it would be their misery and ruin. And yet that God expressed as much tenderness to them, as a man that was very fond of a woman would do, in being unwilling to put her away, although he knew she were false to his bed: the former is intended in the first chapter, and the latter in the third. And what is there tending to immorality in all this? May not God make use of one vice, whose evil is more no- torious, to represent another by, whose evil they are more hardly convinced of ? May not he set forth a de- generate people by the sons of an adulteress? and by the names given to them express his detestation of their wickedness ? especially when the parabolical terms are so clearly explained, as they are in the second chapter. But you will say, these things are related as plain matters of fact ; with the several circumstances belong- ing to them. It is true, they are so; but so parables use to be; so was Nathan’s to David; so is that of the rich man and Lazarus, in the New Testament: so is Jer. xiii. 4, Jeremy’s going to Euphrates to hide his girdle, (for it 5. SCRIPTURES ANSWERED. 535 is not very likely the prophet should be sent eighteen or twenty days’ journey into an enemy’s country for no other end ;) so is Ezekiel’s lying on one side for 390 Ee ee days, and shaving his head and beard, contrary to the ~ law, as Maimonides observes; and his digging in the Bene? walls of the temple at Jerusalem, while he was in aon Babylon; and many other things of a like nature, which are set forth with as punctual a narration of circumstances as this of Hosea; and yet they were only figurative expressions. We, that are accustomed to another way of learning, think these things strange; but this was a very common way in the elder times, and it is to this day much used in the eastern countries, to represent duties to some, under the parables of things as really done by others: as may be seen in Lockman and Perzoes; besides what Clemens Alexandrinus and others have said, concerning the antiquity and common use of this parabolical way of teaching. I now come to your objections against the New Tes- tament; but I find them so few, and those so slight and inconsiderable as to the end for which you produce them, that I may easily pass them over. To that about the continuance of miracles, I have already answered ; and I find not one word in the places mentioned by you, which implies the necessity of the continuance of them in all ages of the Christian church. That place, Mark x. 29, 30, speaks of no more but such a recom- pense in this life as ts consistent with persecution, and therefore must chiefly lie in inward contentment; which all wise men have valued above external accommodations: although withal, by the account St. Paul gives of himself and his brethren, God did abundantly provide for them 2 Cor. vi. one way or other. As having nothing, and yet enjoying og all things ; which amounts to a hundredfold in this life. But certainly you are the first man, who have ob- Mm 4 536 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. jected the obscurity of the book of Revelations against the authority of the scriptures ; which is just as if one should object the quadrature of the circle against ma- thematical certainty. If we grant that there are some things in that mystical book we do not yet well under- stand, what then? Must neither that book, nor any other of the Bible, be of Divine revelation? I will not pursue the unreasonableness of this way of arguing so far as I might; but I leave yourself to consider of it, and of all that I have written, in order to your satis- faction. If you think fit to return an answer, I pray do it clearly and shortly, and with that freedom from passion which becomes so weighty a matter. And I be- seech God to give you a right understanding in all things. I am, SIR, Your faithful servant. June 11, 1675. THE END. INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED IN THE ORIGINES SACR-. ABBEVILLE (Claude) ii. 392. Abravanel i. 202, 255. Abulensis 1. 185. Abydenus ii. 201. Acosta i. 484. ii. 382, ibid. 394, 424, 429, 470. Acuna Ii. 392. Ader (Gul.) i. 437. fBlianus il. 318, 327, 338, 345. ZEschylus 1. 26. Alcinous ii. 420. Alexander Aphrodisiensis li. 346. Alexander Polyhistor ii. 200. Alstedius i. 207. Ambassade Memorable ii. 384. B. Ambrosius 1. 385. Ammianus Marcellinus i. 54, 388. en, 200: Anaxagoras and Anaximenes ii. 320. Anaximander li. 320. Andreas Morales ii. 391. Anthologia Gr. ii. 57. Apollodorus ii. 199. Apollonius i. 26. Apuleius ii. 359. Aquinas (Thom.) ii. 77. Arabica Scripturarum Versio i. 183. Arias, vid. Montanus. Aristobulus Judzeus i. 59. Aristophanes i. 72. li. 184. Aristoteles Metaphys. i. 149, 482. li. 11, 320, 324, 325, 328, 340, 351. Magn. Mor. ii. 348, 352. Polit. 11. 344. Ethic. ii. 346, 348, ibid. 953.0355. co icts Anim. ii. 286, 291, 296. De Coplo, He. 45-144. . bys uibor es: Rhet. ii. 351. Meteor. ii. 426. De Part. Anim. i. 500. ii. 291, 292, 308, 315, 355. Nat. Aus. 1320. Arnobius i. 381, 384, 385, 388, 497, 435, 436. Arriani Hist. i. 86. Atheneus li. 345. B. Augustinus de Civ. Dei i. 94, 1144 800:.420.) dg h043 nO: Ad Volus. ii. 419. Doctr. Christ. 1276. De Ver. Relig. 1.4275 De Heres. ii. 92. Augustinus (Antonius) i. 120. B. Barleus ii. 392. Rartoli Hist. Asiat. ii. 385. Battel (Andrew) 11. 427. Baumgarten (Martinus) ii. 302. Bellonius ii. 303. Benzo ii. 389. Berigardus ii. 301. Bernier ii. 454, 457. Bessarion ii. 266, 322, 345. Bochartus 1. 24, 28, 33, 105, 122, DOT se LOO, LOT, 170. Coz. 155 210 7,.201,.2035.20%, 210, 211; 21k, IDid. 292: Bodini Method. Hist. ii. 195. 538 Borrichius ii. 308, 312. Boxhornius i. 70, 309. Boyle's Sceptical Chem. ii. ro. Experiments of Air ii. 476. Fluidity and Firmness ii. 47. Final Causes ii. 286, 416. Origin of Forms ii. 443. Ve- neration Man’s Intellect owes to God il. 464, 470. Brerewood li. 195. Busbequius ii. 197. Buteo de Arca Noe ii. 159. Buxtorfius ii. 197. C. Celius Rhodiginus i. 73, 149. ii. 116, 344. Cesar (Julius) li. 265. Cesalpinus (Andreas) li, 292. Callimachus ii. 212. Calvinus i. 183. ii. 194. Camerarius li. 302. Capelli (Jacob) Hist. Sacr. et EXO OT, O55, LOK. Cardan il. 292. Carder (Pet.) ii. 392. Caron ii. 383. Cartesius i. 491. ii. 46, 58, 60, 495, 4060, 407, 409, 430, 446, 452, OC. 494, Sec, Casaubonus (Isaac.) ad Athenaeum i. 58. Exercit. ad Baron. i. 64. In Strab. 1. 76, 151. Ad Theo.. phor. 11. 212. Casaubonus (Meric.) Orig. of temp. Evils ii. 113. de 4 Lin- guis il. 192. Diatrib. de Ling. Hebr. ii. 193. Cauche ii. 399. Censorinus i. 109. li. 56. Champlain ii. 394. Chaumont il. 400. Chalcidius in Timeeum ii. 8, 9, 26, 27, 29, 31, 95, 97. B. Chrysostomus i. 426. Cicero de Nat. Deor. i. 14, 40, 298, 384, 446, 447, 471, 473, 482, 493. Hi. 4, 15, 16, 24, 37, 30) C2 nOU Orel, 20a pao. 250; 255s 201.272, 205,200, 317, 322, 358, 362, 364, 376, ibid. De Oratore ii. 333, 342. INDEX OF AUTHORS. Tusc. Quest. ii, 267, ibid. 348, 356, 359, 3604, 376. Academ. Quest. ii. 295, 348, 362. De Finibus i. 43, 49, 67, 295. De Divinat. i. 49, 296, 312. ii. 43, 334, 348. De Legibus 1. 494. ll. 359, 365, 376. Ad Quint. ii. 342. De Fato ii. sr. Fragment. i. 294. Claudianus ii. 121. . Clemens Alexand. i. 4, 22, 27, 29, 71,151,153. ll. 199, 200, 260,' 3:20; Clutius ii. 296. Columbus ii. 387, 39:. Columella ii. 293. Le Compte ii. 386, 402. Concilium Toletan. i. 227. Conon apud Photium i. 25. Conquest de Canaries ii. 391. Conringius i. 111, 146. Couplet ii. 384, 386, gor, 403. Cuperus ii. 459. - S. Cyprianus 1. 323. By S. Cyrillus c. Jul. ii. 200, 388. YSIS, hee Van Dalen ii. 333. Dampier ii. 392. Dellon ii. 399. Democritus ii. 321. Denton ii. 396. Diodorus Siculus i. 49, 51, 72, Ol, 04, TOOMT TOS Tin eae. 127,146,149 151, 553. 11. 6; 208, 209, 214, 250,253,200, 262, 265, 271, 277, 287, 378, 383. Diogenes Laertius i. 59, 472. ii. 6, 8, 15, 39, 35> 55: 66, gl, 270, 304. Dionysius Tlepuny. 11. 169. Dionysius Halicarnass. i. 345. ii. 342. E. Edda Mythol. ii. 263. Elmenhorstius ii. 212. Empedocles Pythag. ii. 95. Ent. Apolog. ii, 282, 290. Epiphanius ii. 177. Epicharmus ii. 266. Estius i. 77. INDEX OF Etmullerus ii. 281, 289. Euripides ii. 88, 171, 214. Eusebii Prepar. Evang. i. 31, 59, OO57. 25.02 1815 3« Ue 80508455 54) 116, 2016.21 25525 1, 1252, O54, 257, 260, 279, 296,270, 323, 344 345- Chronic. i. 60, 623: 07.:i1.:1602, Alastadicelit. 61, 370;.391. uli nos. Except. Gem. Sanhedrin. i. 201. F. Fagius (Paulus) i. 183. _ Festus i, 26. Firmicus (Jul. Mar.) i. 324. Flacurt il. 399. Galen i. 396. ii. 26. Ganz (David) i. 419. Gassendus 1. 472, 497. ll. 39, 44, 481-62, 150; 15 3% Gelaldinus i. 105. Geminns de Spheris i. 110. Gervaise 11. 402. Gillet ii. 399. Goedart li. 297. Le Grand ii. 395. Grotius de Veritate i. 140, 263, 269. ll. g, 160, 161. Ann. in Evang. 1. 64, 433. 11.182. An- not../ins VorF. 4. f2o5 sub emi. De Jure Belli et Pacis 11. 176. H: Hackluit 11. 395. Du Hamel ii. 448, 450, 456, 462, 468. Hardecus, vid. Peieri Exercit. ii. 281. Hariot. 11. 396. Harvey de Generat. Anim. ii. 41, 270, 286. Heinsii Exercit. i. 70.. Exercit. Sacre in Aristarch. i. 188. Aristarch. ii. 117. in Clem. Alex. ii, 212. Heraldus i. 388, 392. 1. 212. Herodotus 1. 24, 25, 46, 73, 85, TOSHL AGL IST, LSS ie wae 3; 182,1250)'262)2655)422)\497. Hesiodus ii. 172. Hesychius ii. 169. Hierocles 11. 86, 109, 112. AUTHORS. 539 B. Hieronymus de Script. Eccl. ils B28 Hobbes i. 509. ii. 280, 366, 371, 373> 379: Holstenius de vie Porphyr. ii. 101. Homerus 1. 75, 114. il. ro, 118, 13.7, 15Op200p 07 231 Uke Hook’s Micography ii. 289. Horapollo i. 111. Horatius 1. 70, 72. Hornius Defens. Dissert. de Aitat. Mundi ii. 163. De Orig. Gent. Amer. ii. 188. Hostius de Arca Noe il. 159. Huetius ii. 413, 415, 449, 454, 459» 473- Jamblichus de Mysteriis i. 42. ii. 114. De Vit. Pyth. i. 152. ii 359. Jarchi (R. Salomon) i. 213. Ikkarim, vid. Maimonides. Josephus c. Appion i. 24, 55, 77, 85.00, 140,952,947 824 Ane tig. L.BAs Ne DSS eb2 de Bello Jud. 1. 191. Josephus de Albo i. 246, 259. Junius i. 188. i. 161. Justini Hist. 1. 60. Justini Martyris Paren. 1. 29, 72. ii. 20. Apolog. i. 117. Dial. c. Tryph. i. 370. Juvenzeus sisieg ae ll. 395. Kircher Cidip. a Ht. 1. 5, 62, 995 105.1 100,11 Os 9922 cIWwA, China illustrat. i. 403. Knivet eng 113:892% Lactantius 1. ts 299, 32:3, 38, ae 391, 404. ll. 301, 344, 350. Lattantioe seu Luctatius in Statii Thebaid. i. 26. Laet (Joh.) ll. 399; 393> 395- Lederer 1. 396. Lerius ii. 388, 392, 398. Lescaloper ii. 372. Libanius 1. 383. 160, 188, 382, 540 INDEX OF Lipsius i. 148, 484. ii. 30, 197. Lister ii. 289. Livius ii. 355. Longinus i. 140. Lopez ii. 428. Loubere ii. 400, 402. Lower ii. 306. Lucianus ii. 215, 250. Lucretius i. 446, 473, 496. ii. 35, 36, 49, 50, 56, 300, 309, 312, 323.425. Ludolphus _ ii. 429. 399, 423, 428, M. Machiavel i. 514. Macrobius i. go, 146, 147. Maffeius ii. 383. Magaillans ii, 385. Maimonides de Fund. Leg. i. 52, 192, 202, 211, 213, 240, 246, 251, 259, 262, 266, 267, 268, 410, th 33.9661” De Idolit: 2055/27 V: Mair (Jacobus) ii. 382. Mayer Prod. Chald. ii. 195. Phi- lol. Sacr. ii. 197, 208. Manasseh Ben Israel i. 190, 261. ii. 188. Manilius i. 513. Marcgravius li. 396, 308. Marmora Arundeliana ii. 273. Martinius ii. 160, 384, 385, gor. Martyr (Petrus) i. 183. Martyr (Pet. Anglerius) ii. 387, 390. Masius in Josh. i. 185. Maussacus in Harpocr. i, 28. Maximus Tyrius ii. 66, 98. Mela (Pomponius) ii. 263, 278, 422. Mercerus i. 5. Meursius i. 26. ii. 10. Mey (Johannes) ii. 296. Minutius Felix i. 322, 342, 384, BOR. it Molineus i. 238. Montanus (Arias) ii. 161, 169. Morus (Henricus) Antidote a- gainst Atheism i. 491. il. 56, 60. Mystery of Godliness i. 515. Oper Phil. il. 454, 462. AUTHORS. Immortality of the Soul ii. 60. Muretus in Senec. de Provid. ii. 36. N. Newton (Isaac) Phil. Nat. Prince. Math. ii. 477. Nicephorus i. 371. Nonnus ii. 214. Ocellus Lucanus ii. 15, 18, 362. Origenes cont. Celsum i. 16, 64, 18:35,260,/276, 3215932 4e0RR) 354, 358, 360, 396, 401, 402, 403, 407/417, 4B 20gSo namie: 118: 199%. NPhilocal: mn. 728, 34- Ovidius ii. 57, 278, 356, 357. Ouzelius ii. 212. Patricius (Fr.) ii. 350. Pausanias i. 26, 72, 73. il. 171, 216,965 «29a. ; Pearson (John) i. 97. Peieri et Hardeci Exercit. Med. li, 287. Persius ii. 117. Petavius in Epiphan.i. 61. Doctr. Temp. i. 110. i. 162, 164. Petit (Petrus) ii. 337, 448. Philo Alex. ii. 8. Philo Byblinus apud Euseb. i. 31, 39: Philo Judeus de Vita Mosis i. 152,189. De Mundi Opif. ii. 358, 362. Philostratus i. 27. Imag. ii. 172. Vit. Apollon. ii. 209. Photii Biblioth. i. 72, 196. ii. 287. Pindarus 1. 72. Pineda de Rebus Salomon i. 191. Piso Hist. Brasil. ii. 290, 392, 4209. Plato in Cratyl. i. 4. ii. 261. In Pheed. 1. 336. ii. 88, 328. In Tim. ii. 8. De Rep. ii. 348, 354. Sophist. ii. 13. In Epi- nom. il. 103, 344. De Legib. i. 273. In Apol. Socr. ii. 332; 341. INDEX OF Plinii N. Hist. i. 28, 34, 67, 154. li. 150, 260, 276, 284, 287, 291, 297, 345, 348, 355, 359, 400, 422, 426. Plinii Epist. i. 195, 389. Plutarchus de Iside et Osir. i. 9, 69; 109, 151. 48688; 95 tara, 250, 251, 2535720757270,4bin. De Odio et Invid. ii. 342. Numa ii. 355, 365. Vit. metr. 11. 330. In Pericle ii. 327. De Plac. Philosoph. ii. 8, 36, 267, 272, 275, 204, 299, 317, 322, 337. Adv. Colot. ii. 67, 294, 329, 303. In Aumilian. ii. 150. De Herod. i. 85. De Anim. Procreat. il. 28, 50, 96. De illis qui sero puniuntur ii. 7G, 1 22;k024, 5020; 131. In Alex. il. 91. Sympos, ii. 299. Poesis Philos. ii. 266, 336. Porphyrius de Vit. Pyth. 1 3h5 2: ii. 267, De Abstinent. ii. 109, 264. Proclus in Timeum Plat. i. 24, 42. Prudentius i. 353. Ptolemei Tetrab. i. 52. Purchas’s Pilgrim. ii. 392, 394, 399» 400, 423, 427, 429. Pythagoras ii. 365. Q Quintilianns, ii. 234, 348. iT Radzivil ii. 303. Ralegh (Sir Walter) ii. 166. ~ Rambam i. 419. Ramus ii. 346. Ray (John) ii. 285, 289. Redi de Gen. Insect. ii. 288, 290, 291, 203. Regis ii. 408, 413, 416,455, 458, 462, 467, 474. Relation de la Nigritie ii. 427. Rhodiginus, vid. Celius Rhodius (Andronicus) ii. 350. Riolanus ii. 315. Rochefort ii. 393. Rohault i. 458, 462, 465, 472. Rusticus Elpidius i. 320. 148, AUTHORS. 541 Ss: Sagard li. 395. Salmasius in Consecr. Templ. i. 29. De Anno Clin. i. 52. De Hellen. ii. 174, 176. Sandys il. 302. Sapient. secundum Aigypt. 1. 42. Santos (Joh.) ii. 399. Scaliger (Julius Cesar) in Cardan. li. 192, 292, ibid. 296, 6352, 429. Scaliger (Josephus) Not. in Euseb. i. 28, 35,44,60, 96. In Fragm. Grac.i. 33. 1c205; (21 ee1 2. De Emend. Temp. i. 56, 64, 66, 89, 108, ei rr7H)*De Vit. Jul. Seal. ii. 919. +Can. Isapnas Seyivoos) Ties Mika: Ep. ad Casaub. i. 52. Conject. in Varr. i. 195. Scholia in Aristophanem ii. 169. In Apollon. ii. 170. Schouten ii. 382. Selden de Diis Syris i. 52, 267. il. 205,212. De Jure Gent. i. 52. lil. 7, 140. De Anno Civ. Jud. i. 254. De Synedriis i. 205: Seneca 1.4512. 1. 30,798,127, T2419, 264s Servius in Virgil. i. 358. Sextus Empiricus ii. 272, 294, 328, 336, 377. Sherlogi Antiq. Hebr. i. 185. Simplicius in Epict. ii. 71, 77, 40, BO~ O24 42005 Tt Categ. Aristot. ii. 421. Smith of Prophecy i. 192. Sixtus Senensis i. 152. Solinus i. 94. ii. 427. Spinoza li. 431, 432, 433. Spizzel de Israel American. ii. 188. Stephanus Byzant. i. 76. ii. 169, 204, 2006. Steuchus (Eugub.) ii. 319. Stobeus li 30; .397,) 322; egn8, 361, 420. Pirapo 1.34, 525/07,.60, 717s. 76; BO, 106, 111,140, 340, 542 INDEX OF W51, 053; 196.0 170, 971, 181, ibid. 185, 265, 318. Suetonius i. 309, 392. Suidas ii. 345. Swammerdam li. 297. Sydenham ii. 446. Symmachi Epist. i. 383. fl Tachard ii. 399. Tacitus i. 392. li. 206. Tatianus i. 55. Techo (Nic.) ii. 397, 429. Du Tertre ii. 393. Tertullianus Apolog. i. 195, 310, 318, 339) 341, 342, 374, 387, 3905" 3925393.) 1. 103,” 206. Adv. Hermog. ii. 28, 33, 98, 99. Ad Scapulam i. 339. Ad Nationes i. 340, 383. De Spectac. ii. 182. De Prescr. adv. Heres. i. 423. ii. 104. De Anima ii. ro4. De Jejuniis i. 204. Theodoretus i. 122. Theophrastus ii. 319. Thevenot ii. 297, 303, ibid. 400. Thucydides i. 21. Torniellus 1. 197. Transactions (Philos.) ii. 423. Trigautius ii. 385, 401. Turnebus ii. 50. Tzetzes in Hesiod. i. 72. Du Val. ii. 382. AUTHORS. Della Valle (Pietro) ii. 303. Valerius Maximus ii. 336. Varenii Geogr. ii. 151. Varro 1. 26. Vettius Valens apud Seal. i. 47. Vaticana Append. i. 26. Virgilius ii. 138. Vives (Ludovicus) i. 325. Volkelius li. 25. Vorstius ad Maimon. i. 192, 213, 266. Not. in. Abrav. i. 255. Vossius (Jo. Ger.) i. 13, 27, 36, 43, 54, 61, 67, 76, 94, 102, 109, III, 140, 320, 484. ii. 7, 160, 182, 203, 206, 207, 210, PLEO21 4 ong: Vossius (Isaacus) de Aitate Mun- di 1. 44, 100, 102. Castig. adv. Horn. i. 163. De LXX In- terpret. 11. 165. De Nilo ii. 423. In Pompon. Melam. ii. 150. Ep. ad Colv. ii. 160. Voyage to Surat ii. 382, 427. Urcini Exercit. i. 37. Usseri Annales ii. 163. Sacr. ii. 164. W. Waltoni Prolegom. ad Bibl. Poly- glot. ii. 165. Willis de Cerebro ii. 308. Wormianum Museum ii. 289. Chron. Xenophon ii. 333, 335, 338, ibid. 340. e's ) Cor etter | ad +ih fi us we, Oye » fog aes [a wh Dep Pyee 7, a, Laue, aay Re en 1 1012 01007 4732 DATE DUE GAYLORD #3523PI Printed in USA wz ° Ves | y J y : = ph, Mews j i ) Rae Meehten toes: i rece ee ee Woany ht tt Vee He 38 Fi a ta 1g Cay Wy fit 4 u) fit A o instills 3 Halal ( Ay