themselves which were sent upon Aegypt and this the rather because I find that kind of expression to have been familiar to the Hebrewes of old So for example where Psalme 89.49 according to the Hebrew it is What man is he that liveth and shall not see death the Chaldee Paraphrase renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What man is he that liveth and shall not see the angel of death And Hab. III. v. 5. according to the Hebrew Before him went the Pestilence the Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from before him was sent the angel of death and so elsewhere These kind of expressions whether used the better to teach us that all things life death good evill that happen to men in this world are from God originally whose ministers these Angels called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirits in the New Test are or by a kind of figure called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby things insensible incorporeall are made to live vertues and vices which some Stoicks really beleeved represented as animals and the like I shall not here inquire fuâ—ther But it seasonably puts me in mind of an interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much to this purpose which I remember to have read in Dio Chrysostomus in a long Oration of Diogenes the Cynick to Alexander the Great It is a very considerable interpretation but not to our purpose here and therefore it shall serve to have mentioned it Hitherto we have found nothing that could induce us to beleeve that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of old as is affirmed by some and before Christ vox media taken sometimes even by Heathens in the worst sense much lesse that it originally signified a Devill or an evill spirit as is by others affirmed If Plutarch help us not I doubt no man will out of whom I finde two passages quoted to this purpose The first is out of his De I side O siride to which they might have added another passage of the same author in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he hath the same words againe where speaking of the opinion of many which it seems was Plutarchs opinion too as appears not by this only but by other Treatises and paslages of his concerning two contrary principia or creators the one good and the other evill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Of these two the better they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god the other they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daemon as Zoroaster the Magus c. Here first it must be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Plutarch's own words or interpretation for the words used by them he speaks of Zoroaster and others were as himself soon often tels us Oromazis Oromaides rather as it is in that other passage we told you but now of and Arimanius Secondly that Aristotle long before Plutarch writing of the same thing expresseth it otherwise and it is not unlikely that Plutarch though he kept not precisely to his Authors words might take it if not out of Aristotle yet of some other for divers are named by Dio. Laertius that write the same that related it as Aristotle doth Now Aristotle in his first De Philosophiâ they are Diog. Lâ—ertius his words in his Proem to the Philosophers lives writeth that the Magi were ancienter then the Aegyptians and that according to them there be two principles or authors the one a good and the other an evill daemon or God and that the first is called 〈◊〉 or Jupiter and Oromasdes and the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell and Arimanius which Hermippus Eudoxus and Theopompus c. From which words it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotles language is all one and that all we can inserre from Plutarch's words is but this which is no more in effect then hath already been granted and proved that in his dayes who was some 100. years after Christ and some 40. or 50. before Tertullian the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began in ordinary language to be taken in the worst part sometimes in the writings of learned men also The second passage out of Plutarch is out of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Table-talk of the seven wise men at a solemn Feast where to a question proposed by Amasis King of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is most profitable or beneficiall answer is made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What most pernicious in the world it is answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a daemon or the daemon But what is the censure even there upon this answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is a bold insolent unheard of answer and distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the word is used oftentimes upon such occasions or if you take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ordinarily that it is a bold Answer of dangerous consequence of dangerous consequence indeed as making Devils of those whoÌ„ they beleeved worshipped as Gods an answer then not grounded upon any publickly known and approved difference or different sense of the words but upon the conceit of one single man That this is the sense of the words may further appear by another passage of the same Plutarch in his tractat De defectu Oracul where at the mention of evill daemons one of the interlocutors is much scandalized as at a thing unknown and absurd And yet the question there was not whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it selfe or absolutely was ever taken in the worst sense which is our question here and must needs have offended much more but whether there were any such indeed as evill spirits or daemons Besides what may be suspected not without some ground that here also Plutarch might alter not of purpose but heedlesly the ancient words and fit them to the dialect of his times And this I must also answer if another place of the same Plutarch should be objected where speaking of Pythagoras his opinion concerning the first principles of all things he writeth that he the said Pythagoras called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the unity God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duitie daemon And indeed it is observable that speaking of the same thing in divers other places I doe not find that any where else but in this he tels us of this difference no not in his Treatise De Iside Osir where neverthelesse we find divers other names and appellations collected whereby the Pythagoreans extolled their said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as much vilified and reviled the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having therefore taken some pains to satisfie my selfe as not willing to passe by so notable an advantage to my cause if I might have sound grounds to convince me I must now desire to be excused and that I
of that word For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self sounding then but ill in the ears of most men he knew well enough if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its ordinary acception for subterraneos or infernales were put to it it would be a hard thing to perswade men to take it in the better sense for any other then meer Devils Therefore not content with this bare interpretation he adds withall for further prevention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For God forbid that is any should conceive that the authour of these verses would bid us worship any evill kinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means or evill spirits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as some perchance might surmise according to the more vulgar use of that word Had learned Salmasius thought well of this and better considered of the text of Hierocles he would have been I beleeve of another opinion concerning the right meaning of these words then that he is of in his Preface to the Arabick Translation of Cebes his Table Now to return to Tertullians words which I must desire the Reader once more to look upon it hath been observed by some that exsecramenti in one word and not exsacramenti is the reading of some ancient Manuscripts and exsecramentum or rather execramentum in Tertullian his African Latin for execratio or maledictio is by some others well expounded also who so far saw the right meaning of the words but did not or could not sufficiently prove it which now I think no man will make any question of But whereas Tertullian both here and elsewhere in his book De Testimonio Animae doth seem to affirm which hath most troubled Expositors and made them to understand him of Christians that not only the word Daemon but that of Satan also was even by Heathens frequently used in detestation or by way of cursing whereof I know no vestigium in any other Author extant but much against it extant in divers I therefore conceive that the word pronuntiant which is the word in both places must be understood not of words expressed or uttered but of a sense or rather sentence and so the word pronuntio is very proper that may be inferred as implicitly contained in the common use of that other word daemon which was spoken of as if he said That whilest they commonly used the word daemon in detestation to expresse their aversnesse from a thing they did at the same time implicitly subscribe to the truth of the Scriptures which set out unto us Satan the Prince of daemons as the authour of all evill The very word proinde in the Text of Tertullian by which his denique in that other passage must be expounded doth imply some such thing that it is but by way of collection or inference that Satan is thus pronounced against Nam Satanam principem hujus mali generis proinde de propria conscientia anima eâdem exsecramenti voce pronuntiat as it was well before in some former editions And Rigaltius his edition varies but very little from this In stead of anima it hath animae which comes all to one but that he that reades Tertullian in De Testimon Animae cap. 2. will as I conceive judge that the righter But now for the sense of the words he that shall reade that learned man his Observations upon this and that other passage of Tertul. De Testimon Animae cap. 3. will I hope if he mark well Tertul. his words think the better of what hath here been said of them We take it then for granted that the word daemon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soon after Christ began to be taken in the worst sense of the time before is all the question not yet resolved There be who because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken sometimes in the worst and sometimes in the better sense for a happy sometimes and sometimes for a wretched unfortunate man infer upon it that therfore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise was originally vox media as they call them as properly signifying an evill as a good spirit But why not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken and used on both sides upon a supposition that all mans happinesse or unhappinesse as by divers Heathens is maintained is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according to some from God immediately according to others taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fortune as frequently from fortune and that the endevours of men in that kinde can but little or nothing Whence Eustathius upon a place of Homer The words saith he may also be understood of Jupiter who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Orpheus though not that ancient Orpheus often mentioned by Plato and by ancient Fathers yet an ancient Poet yea perantiquus as some very learned and judicious speak of him in his hymn or prayer intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authour as of happinesse to some so of misery to others There is as much ambiguity in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by Christians is usually taken in the worst sense for daemone corript vel agitari to be possessed but by heathen Authors for the most part in the better sense for numine afflari to be inspired and so it should be translated indeed in divers places wheâ—e Christian Interpreters impose unwittingly I beleeve their own sense upon heaâ—hen Authors wrongfully Again whereas ancient Heathens Historians and others speak often of hurts and mischiefes done or occasioned by daemons it is no good argument to inferre thereupon that therefore the word daemon of it selfe is sometimes taken in the worst sense it being as ordinary with them to ascribe such things to their best gods as is at large proved by Clemens Alexandrinus and some others and that in those very places sometimes where they tel us of either their evil daemons or evils done by their daemons they forbear not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but use it promiscuously calling the same sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I could shew by divers instances so that we can inferre no more upon this of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then may be inferred of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also The word Angel is a good word of it selâ—e alwayes taken in the better sense when absolutely used yet Psalme 78. ver 49. we are told of evill angels He cast upon them the fiercenesse of his anger wrath indignation and trouble by sending evil angels among them Some Expositors by these evill angels understand devils or evill spirits but others with no lesse probability good angels Good angels may be the instruments and ministers of temporall evill and in that respect called evill Angels But as for this place I for my part rather incline to them Rabbins and others who by evill angels understand the evils or plagues
may not be thought to prevaricate if I dare not ground either upon S. Augustine his bare assertion who somewhere doth peremptorily determine that daemon was at the first taken in the worst sense for a Devil or evill spirit and doth acutely divise the reason both of the different with some and promiscuous use of the word with others not upon him I say nor upon Clemens Alexandrinus in his Admon ad G. not to name others his observation who because Homer cals some of their chiefest Deities among Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even among the Heathens of his time were taken ordinarily for evill spirits conversing about Tombes and Sepulchres c. therefore he conceits that of purpose he did did so call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dishonour and vilifie them In the Edition of Clemens it is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translated then which nothing could be more contrary to his meaning qui illos improbè honoravit whereas it must of necessity be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of purpose and not casually or unwittingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the very context well weighed and other considerations will enforce this correction yet to prevent all cavill and opposition I shall make Clemens to be his own Expositor whose words in this very book some 8. or 9. pages after are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is And not Menander only but Homer also and Euripides and divers other Poets freely reprove your Gods and make no scruple at all as freely to revile them Other such conceits of Homer and Plato's oblique reproofs of the superstition of their times other Fathers besides Clemens have which compared with this might adde further light unto it if it needed it which it doth not To return therefore to our word and to conclude somewhat Upon all that hath been said hitherto about it I conceive that from books now extant and remaining Clemens and S. Augustine perchance might see many in their dayes that are not now to be seen it cannot peremptorily be affirmed or made good that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or daemon used by the Latins before Christ and Christianity was taken in the worst sense being put absolutely and simply as Crammarians speak that is without any addition or limitation but either indifferently taken for the very same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the more ordinary use or if for an inferiour and subordinate kind even then for good and not evil spirits Which use of the word after Christ also remained among the learned Heathens as may appear by their writings very common even then though not altogether so common as before but among the vulgar it soon began to alter and in time quite lost its first use However nothing that hath hitherto been said doth hinder but that the word many years yea and ages perchance before Homer might be taken otherwise then in his time and afterwards and originally signifie a devill or evill spirit there being in all languages examples of divers words which in processe of time have lost their primitive use and signification and usurped another farre different yea sometimes contrary This may be supposed but supposed onely And here the eâ—ymology of the word if certainly known and agreed upon might happily stand us in some stead but neither are ancient Greek Grammarians and others that speak of it altogether of one opinion about it and among the learned of these later times since the knowledge of tongues hath flourished more then ever it is not agreed whether it be originally a Greek word or no some fetching it from the Hebrew and some from the Arabick so that in such variety of opinions and dissonancy of judgements I shall not take upon me peremptorily to determine so as to build upon it Neverthelesse what I thinke of the right Etymology of the word and upon what grounds which will require more words then I can think seasonable in this place shall have a place by it selfe at the end of this Treatise In the mean time what need we so much to stand upon words if the thing it selfe can be proved to wit that there was an old tradition among ancient Heathens of certain however called evill spirits who envied mankind and out of meer envy and malignity did what they could to mischiefe and annoy them Somewhat to this purpose we shall have occasion to say when we shall treat of the Etymology of the word what opinion the Ancients had concerning those they called heroes But without it or any thing else one single but very pregnant and pertinent testimony of Plutarch may serve to doe the deed I shall therefore first set down his words for their sakes that are not so well versed in the Greek tongue in English and then in Greek rather here then at the end of this Treatise with some others because they are words of so much consequence to us and not onely set them down in Greek but also with some Notes and illustrations make them plainer and clearer and more unquestionable then otherwise they would be to every Reader Plutarch then in the beginning of his Dio having spoken of some apparitions of spirits taken notice of some mens opinion that deny all such apparitions to be really what they are pretended but meerly to proceed from conceit and phancy incidentall to children and women and such onely who through sicknesse or any other distemper of the body are not well in their wits But on the other side saith he if such as Brutus and Dio grave men and learned in Philosophy not apt easily to be be moved or to be wrought upon by any passions were neverthelesse so affected with these apparitions that they did acknowledge it unto others we shall I doubt be enforced to allow of that very ancient opinion though it may seem to some no lesse ridiculous then it is ancient that there are certain wicked and envious daemons or spirits who envy good men and oppose their actions by sudden fears and troublesome phancies endevouring to supplant them in their vertuous courses and this of purpose lest if they should continue unshaken and untainted unto the end in the pursuit of that which is right and just they should after their lives attain to more happinesse then themselves have obtained Thus Plutarch in my English his own words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that have passions saith Aristotle somewhere in his Politicks cannot judg of the truth where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here also in Plutarch we must not onely understand those stronger affections as anger love hatred joy sorrow and the like but all disordinate appetites all vicious exorbitances from right reason as vain-glory covetousnes pride self-conceit and the like all which come under the notion
of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passions and have been noted by best writers not Philosophers onely but Historians and others some more violently some more insensibly but as dangerously to corrupt reason and partially to sway the judgement even of the most rationall otherwise and quick-sighted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be also translated absurd incredible or strange and this may be referred partly to their opinion who laugh as he told us before and whereof you may reade more in Lucian's Dialogue inscribed Philopseudes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all apparitions as meer fables and fopperies and partly to what here follows of the envy wickednesse and opposition of some daemons As for apparitions it is a large subject and of great consequence I purpose to treat of it hereafter by it selfe God willing and shall endaevour to satisfie all that are not yet satisfied as about Apparitions so about Witches In the meane time I shall referre them to what learned M. Vossius my worthy friend hath written in his elaborate Commentations De Origine Idololatriae lib I. c. VI. But it is more probable that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be referred to that which follows of wicked spirits or daemons For evē since Christ Christianity far spread in the world there were eminent Philosophers that thought it much inconsistent with reason to beleeve any such Will you have some of their reasons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not easie to make these words runne as smoothly in the English as they doe in the Originall but the sense is this If any beleeve that there are any evill daemons or that the daemons are evill I aske if they have their power from the Gods how then evill If not from them then are not the Gods authors of all things If not authors then either because they would but cannot or because they can but will not neither of which is agreeable to the nature of God They are the words of Sallustius the Philosopher in his De Diis Mundo the XII Chapter Much to this purpose are the objections of Celsus against the Serpent that beguiled our first parents You may see if you please what answer is there made to him by Origen Or if he satisfie not there be store of others Fathers and Christian writers that will Our author here Plutarch in his Discourse Of the cessation of Oracles takes it upon him to prove that it was the opinion of divers Ancients besides Empedocles as Plato Xenocrates and others that there were evill daemons I wish he had set downe their owne words I make no question of the thing that divers ancients were of that opinion that there were evill spirits but what word they used because we have found Plutarch before to relate the opinions of ancients not in their owne but his words or words of his age rather I would gladly have knowne from themselves However even there Plutarch doth acknowledge that the opinion would seeme strange to most men and full the very word here used of absurditie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was an ancient tradition among heathens that certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insolent or rebellious Gods or daemons Angels indeed had been cast out of Heaven The Originall of which tradition some that understood not grounded it upon a passage of Homer from whom and from Hesiod they did ordinarily fetch all their Theologie in his XVI Iliad where Jupiter severely rebukes his wife Juno and bids her remember what she had formerly suffered Celsus in Origen out of ancient Commentators upon Homer as is likely doth produce a pregnant testimony out of Pherecydes one of the first Philosophers of whom there is any memory extant Pythagoras his Master concerning these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their punishment And it is his conceit or theirs rather that Pherccydes understood Homer as they did and grounded his words upon him But it is a ridiculous conceit as their allegoricall exposition of Homers words is also as ridiculous and impertinent as any I have met with in that kind Many men both later ancient have been deceived as is well observed by learned Holstenius in his Notes upon Porphyrius in the country of Pherecydes making him Syrum instead a vast difference of Syrium However Pherecydes though not an Assyrian yet he is one of them that are recorded by the Ancients Plutarch and Numenius to have conversed with the Hebrews and to have been instructed by them It is very likely that Plutarch here had respect to some passages as of others doubtlesse so of this Philosopher also But more of him or out of him rather upon the last words Of Empedocles there is no question at all to be made but that he had writen of these kind of daemons and of their fall and banishment from Heaven very plainly and copiously as may be collected out of divers places of Plutarch In his Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the inconveniencies and miseries of taking money upon use he mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certain daemons pursued by the divine vengeance and cast out of Heaven described by Empedocles part of whose verses he there produceth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch certainly doth here allude to Plato's words in his V. De Legibus where Plato would have all men earnestly exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to make this their chief study neither in time of adversity when crosse daemons arise against them nor in prosperity when their own good daemon such was their opinion in those days stands for them and prevaileth through immoderate either joy or sorrow to misbehave themselves but in all fortunes and conditions to cary themselves as becommeth men according to the rules of good order and decency His words are many but the chiefest to our purpose are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plutarch here opposit crosse daemons that is in Hebrew Satans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of these evill crosse daemons Porphyrius that arch-enemy of Christianity in his De Philosophiâ ex Oraculis quoted by Theodoret Therapeut III. where the Latin electorum for ex oraculis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be corrected and in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere hath pregnant passages but because he lived long after Christ when Heathens began in many things cunningly to temper their Philosophy with Christianity I meddle not with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that Plutarch had a respect to those words elsewhere by him excepted against as we shall see afterwards of Herodotus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it properly doth import here may best be learned as I conceive from Plutarch in his De Poëtis legendis where he expounds that old proverbiall speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is In the head of a Polypus there is that which is good and there is that which
any man about this matter the originall of the word in generall whether Greek or Hebrew but that it may be lawfull for any man to beleeve what himselfe shall thinke best about it Neverthelesse because it is generally agreed upon by the learned that are skilfull in the tongues whereof I shall have occasion to speake more at large in a Discourse that I intend shortly God willing to publish concerning languages that most ancient Greek words the sacred especially came originally from the Hebrew the Mother of all ancient Tongues and thence ought to be fetcht I doubt I should not give the learned Reader that satisfaction that he may perchance expect from me should I not take notice of what hath been said by others to this purpose concerning this word and also impart unto him what I can say my self I have read somewhere in Lilius Gyraldus as I remember that Steuchus Eugubinus a man well versed in this kinde of learning did fetch this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apheresis of the first syllable from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devils which must be upon a supposition that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the first was taken in the worst sense For otherwise if for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God he would rather upon the same grounds have said from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God often used in the Scriptures There be examples I know in all languages some of such apheresis or contractions of words and what other considerations Eugubinus might have besides to perswade him I know not because I have him not at this time nor indeed know certainly in which of his Books to seek it Hugo Grotius that incomparable man in his Annotations upon the New Testament is of opinion that the word is ex Arabicâ Origine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably which signifies to endure and continue a fit word to expresse Gods eternity then which nothing is more proper unto him and in that respect a plausible derivation But that any such word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse either God or a good Spirit which his words seem to import is used in that tongue is more then I can yet learne though I have done my best to satisfie my selfe Neither in Herodotus or any other ancient Author that mentions the Deities anciently worshipped by the Arabs doe I finde any thing that approacheth to it Ludovicus Vartomannus indeed cited by Mr. Vossius in his first De Origine Idolol cap. 8. in his Navigations relateth that the Calecutenses call the Devill Deumum which comes somewhat near but what affinity their tongue hath with the Arabick or of what antiquity that appellation with them is I know not Petrus Texera in his Relationes as he cals them of the Kings of Persia lib. l c. 5. witnesseth that the Persians besides other names call the Devill Diu which comes near and probably came from it to the Syriack not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some write it which signifies not Daemon but Daemoniacus but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Syriack Translation of the New Test it often doth occurre Somewhat here might be said of the Latin Deus and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also but I will keep me to my task the etymologie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for those reasons that have been intimated I would rather derive from the Hebrew then Arabick And because I cannot pitch upon any particular with any warrantable certainty I shall therefore propose to the Reader some variety that he may have some choice and please himself If then neither that of Eugubinus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor what we have intimated of the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be allowed I would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanguis taken into consideration because most of the Deities worshipped by ancient Heathens were observed a subject much insisted upon by ancient Fathers or at least beleeved generally to delight in the blood both of Men and Beasts or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem esse from whence come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chaldaik words signifying shapes figures images and the like And among these should I reckon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit honos auribus stercus c. the same reason might be given for it as is commonly and is as currently received for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idols from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt my Reader by this hath enough and perchance he thinks more then enough of this stuffe Yet I will crave leave that I may touch upon one etymon more because it will give us occasion to impart somewhat that is not vulgarly known nor impertinent to our maine subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew a very common word ordinarily signifies to keep silence from whence also proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a Sepulchre sometimes in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same word the name of a certain Angell of death as they call him in the Chaldy Dialect But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone as it signifies silere would excellently well fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Hesiod being often taken for the same an observation of Hesychius concerning the Heroes which is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The better or excelling So do they call the Heroes who seem to be a mischievous kinde Whence it is that those that passe by the Heroa or Temples consecrated to the Heroes or any Heroes use to keep silence lest they be hurt by them So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is are also the Gods called as by Aeschylus in his Aetna The same observation is in the Sholiast upon Aristophanes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a pregnant passage of Menander concerning the mischievousnesse of these Heroes besides Aristophanes his own words about it is there also In Eustathius also upon the second Iliad but more imperfectly it is to be found I will make no further application my selfe but having now done my part as I conceive concerning the etymon of this word leave all to the Reader as his own judgement or phancy shall incline him I remember somewhat concerning some other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was promised and referred to this place Of the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that I intended about it was my opinion only concerning the right etymon of it which because I hope to have another opportunity for it elsewhere and would not be overlong here upon that argument of Etymologies I shall now forbear As for the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have since found so much already observed of it by others as namely by Henry Stephen partly in his Thesaurus a Book well known to all that aspire to any perfection in the Greek tongue and partly in