great antiquity we shall produce their words and shew the contrary before we have done A strange thing it is to observe how apprehensive some were none of the meanest neither but men learned and reputed wise and sober in common estimation of men in this kinde so apprehensive that they durst not acknowledge their own though but ordinary welfare without an excuse left they might seem to boast â—lin Epist lib. v. Ep. 6. and so provoke envy We may observe it in Pliny the latter plainly In a place commending the wholesome situation of one of his Country houses Mei quoque saith he nusquam salubriùs degunt usque adhuc certè neminem ex its quos eduxeram mecum venia sit dicto ibi amisi So in the VIII Book and the eleventh Epistle having spoken of his wives miscarying of a child and her great danger upon it Fuit alioquin saith he in summo discrimine impunè dixisse liceat fuit He durst not acknowledge her to be past danger to which purpose the word fuit is very emphaticall without some such qualification to deprecate envy impunè dixisse liceat as before venia sit dicto being both to one effect Many such passages occurre in ancient Authours where Interpreters and Commentators not aware of this so generally received opinion are much put to it as it seems Dio Cassius was though within lesse then two ages after about that fact of Augustus his yearly begging which out of Suetonius we have spoken of But besides this that which sometimes breeds no small obscurity is the variety of tearms used by Authours in this argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like we shall say somewhat of the chiefest of them at the end of this Treatise that we be not too long upon words before we come to the matter it selfe Now when they thus complained of the envy or malignity of superiour powers that some of them understood such powers as they worshipped for gods is not to be doubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is all one that is God or the Deity being the word often used in this argument not by Herodotus onely but divers other Greek Authors as Deus is by Latin Authors not a few But because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daemon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the more usuall word upoÌ„ this occasion whether God or the Devill or somewhat equivalent to what we call the Devill was by them that used the word intended is a question not very easie to be resolved if well sifted and throughly canvassed Ancient Grammarians and some others observe of it that by Homer and other Ancients it is promiscuously used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God which I thinke no man will make a question of that hath ever but looked into any of them The same Grammarians or some of them doe also observe that the word is otherwise used by Hesiod for an inferiour kind once men and afterwards immortalized and deified to a certain degree of Deity different from the first kinde which will not concern us but whether of old originally or if not originally when then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be used in that worst sense we now spake of either by some sometimes or commonly and generally by most is a question both among ancient and later Writers and it will concern us much to know the truth of it if by any means it can be known I shall therefore endeavour to say what may be said of it upon good and satisfactory grounds First then it must be granted that soone after Christ the word daemon in question began generally not among Christians only but even Heathens in common use to be taken in the worst sense This we learn from Tertullian whose words in his Apologetick are Tertul. Apologet ca. 22. Sciunt daemonas Philosophi c. Etiam vulgus indoctum in usum maledicti frequentat Nam Satanam principem hujus mali generis proinde de propriâ conscientiâ anima eadem ex sacramenti voce pronuntiat So I find the words set forth in the last Paris edition of the yeare 1635. which pretendeth to follow Rigaltius his Text per omnia but doth not here I am sure The common exposition of the words grounded upon that false reading is much contrary to Tertullian his aim and intention which was to tell us not what Christians thought or were taught in their Sacraments concerning daemons but what even Heathens themselves that worshipped them did in their ordinary language unwittingly and against their wils as it were acknowledge of them as is more fully declared by S. Augustine long after Tertullian whose words will give much light to those of Tertullians S. Augustine then in his De Civit. August in De Civiâ— Det l. IX ca. 19. Dei having first spoken of the acception or use of the word in holy Scriptures and among Christians goes on in these words Et hanc loquendi consuetudinem in tantum populi usquequaque secuti sunt ut eorum etiam qui Pagani appellantur Deos multos ac daemones colendos esse contendunt nullus ferè sit tam literatus dâ—ctus Tertullian goes no further then vulgus indoctum but now as Christianisme prevailed the word grew more infamous every day qui audeat in laude vel servo suo dicere Daemonium habes sed quilibet hoc dicere voluerit non se aliter accipi quam maledicere voluisse non dubitare non possit So elsewhere why Apuleius did entitle his booke De Deo Socratis and not De Daemonio rather whereas in that very book he disputes at large and maintains it to have been a Daemon not a Devill but one of those subordinate powers to the Deity in Hesiod's acception and not a God the same Augustine gives this reason Ita enim per sanam doctrinam c. because through the Gospel of Christ the word daemon was become so generally odious and abominable that whoever had read the title De daemone Socratis before he had read the book it selfe wherein the daemon is commended as one of the better kind would have thought Socrates by that title to have been possessed and out of his wits Hierocles also a Heathen Philosopher upon Pythagoras so commonly called his Golden verses acknowledges almost as much in effect but so obscurely that without S. Austins help I should hardly have understood him This Hierocles when he lived I know not certainly this we are sure enough of that he lived since Christ a good while and before S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those verses which in former times would have passed currant enough for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often occurring in ancient Inscriptions in Latin Dii Stygii called he expounds of men eminent in knowledge and vertue taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the common use
to say it among heathens which though it might yet it doth not follow but that originally it might be from the Scriptures since that it may as probably be supposed whoever that first was by so many ages either neerer or farther from the spring that he had it from the Scriptures which all antiquity beleeved that Pherecydes Pythagoras Plato and divers others in their times by travelling into Egypt and other farre countries and there conversing with some of the Iewish nation had some knowledge of Neverthelesse to give the reader all satisfaction I can in this point I will as we promised before see what can be said about it There be two more it may be but two that I remember who seeme to make Herodotus the first Plutarch sufficiently knowne unto all men and Eustathius who hath commented or rather abbreviated and contracted the ancient innumerous Commentators upon Homer Plutarch among other many tractats in that part of his workes which is called his Morals hath one intitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the malignity of Herodotus and in that tractat among other things as well became him he takes notice of his malignity towards the Gods His words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the person of Solon he reproacheth the Gods in these words Dost thou ó Croesus consult me about humane affaires who know full well that all Deitie is of an envious and unpeaceable Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that takes pleasure to disturbe to create troubles we have spoken of the word before disposition For what himselfe conceited of the Gods in fathering it upon Solon he addes malignity to blasphemy This is all he saith of it and it is very observable he saith no more First that whereas Herodotus foure severall times at least upon severall occasions doth so blaspheme he should take notice but of one And secondly that he should say nothing copious enough if not exuberant upon most other particulars against the opinion it selfe by way of confutation and in vindication of his gods knowing well that if Herodotus were the first he was not the onely that had said it The truth is it is not likely that Plutarch did beleeve Herodotus to have been the first neither indeed doth he directly say it though his words might seeme to import as much But besides this Plutarch was conscious unto himselfe that himselfe had said as much or little lesse There be divers places to be found in him that might be pressed to this purpose I shall instance in one In his Consolation to Apollonius Philip King of Macedon saith he we had somewhat of this Philip before upon the hearing of three severall happy tydings all in one day lifting up his hands unto heaven he said O daemon unto these my good haps oppose I pray thee some tolerable misfortune Knowing that such is the nature of fortune to envy great successes So Plutarch who doth not indeed use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Herodotus doth but how common and ordinary it is to all sorts of writers professed Epicureans and Atheists excepted to use the word fortune in stead of God is not unknowne and hath been even by heathens observed We shall not long after quote a passage of Diod. Siculus where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fortune and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gods are apparently in one and the same sentence put for the same Perhaps the generality of the assertion that all Deity c. was it that Plutarch excepted against in Herodotus so he might be the onely perchance that so generally and peremptorily take them both together doth affirme it Certainely whosoever was the first that durst publickly so blaspheme so easily to entertaine and so often to inculcate the blasphemy as Herodotus doth even this was enough to evince his impiety and it was not I beleeve without some providence that his malignity in generall should be so sifted and as it were publickly in the eyes of all men and that by the heathens themselves cited arraigned and condemned as it is there in that accurate Invective or Indictment rather who had shewed so little ingenuity in the cause of God As Plutarch so Eustathius he also seemeth to make Herodotus the first author of this blasphemy but seemeth onely His words upon the last of the Iliads are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Poet making or setting out or bringing in the gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally as often hath been observed adscribes unto them such affections as men in such cases would probably be affected with Among which this is one that those who in other things are far eminent would not have those of a lower condition to be equall unto them in point of happinesse whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they spight them or as Herodotus would say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they envy or for some other cause I translate the words as they must be read not as they are printed in the Basil edition at lest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which no sense can be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply but one thing and it is likely some either Poet or prose author upon this very subject had the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the word and the onely as I take it often used by Herodotus upon this occasion it can be no wonder if Eustath or whoever some ancienter Commentator in him perchance having now occasion to use it himselfe name him thereby rather alluding to his word as I conceive then to his opinion as either proper to him or derived from him But may not Eustathius be thought to derive it here rather from Homer him selfe I think not for all that can be made of his words is not that Homer doth directly say so but this that the Poet doth adscribe such affections unto the Gods as may be thought to proceed from such a cause Homer's owne words in that place are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is How have the Gods appointed unto miserable men to live in grief Which is no more then the Scripture saith in divers places not of gods but of God and yet the cause neverthelesse according to the Scriptures not envy but justice and just judgement yea and mercy in some respect as heathens themselves upon this very subject acknowledge Besides it is well knowne that Homer elsewhere we shall have occasion to produce his words upon the passage of Aul. Gell. brings in Jupiter complaining of the iniquity of men who lay the cause of their miseries upon the Gods But were it so that Plutarch and Eustathius should directly say it either of Herodotus or Homer yet there would be other Ancients found of no lesse anthority then they to contradict them Simonides an ancient Greek Poet was since Homer indeed but before Herodotus one full century of yeares at least Now
first father and mother Adam and Eve to make them transgress and so to forfeit their first happiness And when some men by the very light of naturall humane reason that remained in them began to discerne the impiety and absurdity of this opinion they fell into another not altogether so impious but more absurd that God is not omnipotent and wanted not will but power to amend what they conceived to be amiss in the world or that there were two Authors and Creators of all things the one good and the other evill These were the first errors and extravagancies of men against the true doctrine of Gods Providence and administration of the world as it is taught by the holy Scriptures Most men that have written of and for Providence fall upon Epicurus and his opinions copiously enough as indeed it is a large and copious argument especially since that by so many it hath been beaten and troden But I know not of any that hath examined and refuted that more ancient error or scarce taken notice of it which neverthelesse is not lesse yea in some respect I may say more considerable For as it is more ancient so it may more clearely be derived from its first spring mistaken Scripture which affords us a good argument for the antiquity and authenticknes of the Scriptures themselves against atheists and infidels as good almost as any can be This is it therefore that in this ensuing Treatise I have proposed to my selfe and endeavoured I intend it I confesse but as a part of a greater worke concerning Divine Providence in generall which long agoe I have had in my thoughts But whatever becomes of the rest this either as a part if it shal please God to spare me life and other opportunities shall serve may begin or if otherwise stand by it selfe as a supplement to what hath already been written by others of that argument and either way give some satisfaction I hope in this maine point to His glory to whom whatsoever is not referred I never thought much considerable Errata Pag. 14. Lin. 33. Soon after p 16. l. 26. he did so p. 20. l. 25. in his XV. Iliad p. 22. l 6. heterogeneous p. 50. l. 2. Thou shalt know p. 61. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE ORIGINALL CAVSE OF TEMPORALL EVILS THat the life of man in this world is full of troubles miseries is so common a complaint in the mouths of all men of what ranke and quality soever they be and so obvious a subject in Writers of all Ages Nations and Professions as that it may well be reckoned among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or known Principles which common sense teacheth and Artists ground upon as indisputable truths Yet he that will see this common and beaten subject most exquisitely even in the judgement of humane reason setting aside the credit and authority of divine inspiration handled needeth but goe to Ecclesiastes the excellency of which discourse he shall best understand who judiciously compares it with the choicest and most approved peeces either old or late concerning that argument The truth is there hath been little said by others upon that Theme either for wit or wisdome much considerable which may not both be found here and probably be supposed originally to have proceeded hence I will give one instance What among the Ancients upon this subject of mans misery more famous then that old saying whereof they made one of their Sileni a degree above Philosophers among ancient Heathens to be the authour That it was the chiefest happinesse not to be born next to that quickly to die Divers expressions of this saying by severall Greek Poets if any shal desire to see them together compare them have been collected by Erasmus The matter is by Tully in his Tuscul briefly thus recorded Fertur de Sileno fabella quaedam c. There goes an old tale or story for so the word fabula sometimes is taken of a Silenus who being taken by Midas the King is said to have given him a ransome or reward for his dismission which was that he taught him how that it was a most happy thing not to be born but in the next place to die very soon And this long before any memory of any either Midas or Silenus Eccles 4. ver 1 2 3. was thus delivered by wise Solomon So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the Sunne and behold c. Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more then the living which are yet alive Yea better is he then both they which hath not yet been who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the Sun These words Better is he then both they c. misunderstood might probably occasion that opinion of the ancientest Philosophers of which we shall have occasion for to say more afterwards that the soules of men had a subsistence long before their incorporation and were thus driven into this lower world and confined into bodies as Cages or Prisons for some miscariages in their former and better condition Pliny the eldest who had studied the world as much as any man and hath written of the world his Naturall History I mean more then any who for his parts of nature wit and curiosity and other great advantages of fortune might be supposed to know as much as any other man his observation is that nullum frequentius votum no wish more frequent among men then the wish of death and thereupon his conclusion is that Natura nihil brevitate vitae praestitit melius and elsewhere he cals death pracipuum naturae bonum the greatest benefit of nature or the greatest blessing that heavens have vouchsafed unto mankind Yet all this notwithstanding if any judging of this life by what hath hitherto happened unto themselves and not much sensible of what they have known to happen unto others be of another mind and thinke better of the world then so I might tell them of Croesus and others who once thought themselves the happiest of men and afterwards became notorious examples of mans misery I might also tell them that among the miseries of this life those that are publique and extend unto many such as are the miseries of wars slaughters slaveries plagues famines and the like of which that of the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That both Sea and Land are full of miseries hath generally beene true and visible at all times are the chiefest and those which most affect a man that is a man indeed that is truly sociable and communicable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Philosophers expresse it this I say and much more to this purpose I might tel them but that not the consideration of our miseries be they more or lesse or what opinion men have of them is the subject by me here undertaken but the originall cause of our miseries what was the opinion of ancientest Heathens about it and
this vicissitude of fortunes to passe my life rather then without any alteration to prosper For I never yet could heare of any who having thus prospered long did not at the last end in an universall destruction Be thou therefore perswaded by me and take this course with thy prosperity Consider seriously with thy selfe what thing thou hast thou most esteemest and for the losse of which then wouldest be most grieved this whatever it be cast away that it may never be seen again And for the time to come likewise if thy successes shall not interchangeably be varied help thy selfe in the same manner that I have now shewed thee So Amasis to his friend Polycrates And Polycrates being before as is probable possessed with the same principles of the nature of the Deity as Amasis was was easily perswaded He threw a ring which of all his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or precious jewels he most valued into the Sea never likely as a man would have thought to see it more but his good luck or ill luck rather as they apprehended it was such that he could not find occasion of griefe though he sought it not when he sought it at least For his ring was soon after brought to him againe How this happened and other particulars of the story but especially the lamentable Catastrophe of his life according to his friend Amasis his praediction may be read in Herâ—dotus at large and more briefly in others as Strabo for one by name that had it from him This narration to some that know nothing but their own times may seem ridiculous I cannot peremptorily undertake for the truth of it but for the probability that one particular of the miraculous return of his ring excepted I can easily both from the opinion and practice of divers others in afterages Some write of Epaminondas a famous Theban some of Philippus King of Macedon that after high and unexpected victories they became in their outward cariage and deportment at least very sorrowfull more like mourners then triumphers for no other reason then through feare of some great eminent disaster which they by this provident sensiblenesse and voluntary humiliation hoped they should prevent Of this latter Niceph. Gregoras of the former Isid Pelusiota not to mention others bear record and commend them for it Christians both the one an Historian of later Greece the other Isidorus an ancient Father one of S. Chrysostomes Disciples Augustus that great Monarch in whose daies the Saviour of the world was born and took upon him the form of a servant stipem quotannis die certe emendicabat à populo saith Suetonius of him cavam manum asses porrigentibus prabens that is in plain English that once in the year he was wont to turn begger and cavâ manu that is in the most ignominious way of taking received almes of such of the common people as would give him Suetonius saith no more of it then so neither in those days needed he to be understood but learned men and well versed in antiquity that have writen upon him shew the reason He mistrusted his own long continued felicity though varied by many crosse chances and accidents whereof Pliny the elder hath made a whole Chapter in his History of the world and dreaded upon the same supposition as Amasis in Herodotus that so dreadfull in those days invidiam Numinis So Camillus a Romane Captaine having with marvellous successe delivered his Country from miserable thraldome he made it say ancient Historians his request unto God that if such hap and successe was too great to escape the stroaks of Heavens envy himself and not the Publique might be the object of those stroaks which they say befel to him according to his desire first a suddain light fall and afterwards persecution from those whom he had delivered To these I shall adde but one passage of Plutarch in his Paulus Aemilius that it may be compared with Herodotus because the one will not a little give both light and credit unto the other Herodotus according to the supputation of most accurate Chronologers and Historians publiquely as the manner was in those days recited his Histories about the year since the Creation 3504. Plutarch all know lived under Trajan so that the distance of time between Herodotus and Plutarch is of about 600. years Plutarch then having related the particulars of this Paul Aemil. his triumph according to the Roman fashion for his wonderfull successe against Perseus a Potent King the last of Macedonia and the last of Alexander the great his successors having in a very little time got both King and Kingdome into his own hands and now passing to the narration of those sad accidents that befell him about the same time to wit the suddain death of two of his childreÌ„ which he kept at home as dearest unto him the one wherof died five days before and the other four days after this publick triumphing In all this Aemilius saith he was admired by all men envied by none that were good and vertuous but that there is a certain Deity whose proper task it is to bring down lower 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by pumping all great and overswelling prosperities and so to mixe and temper every man's life that no man may be happy in this world without a rub or a stain So that according to Homer those are to be accounted most happy indeed to fare best whose fortunes are varied with a vicissitude of events in both kindes The place of Homer to which he refers are those noted verses in the last of his Iliads elsewhere cited by Plutarch at large 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where the Poet fains Jupiter to have two barrels or vessels by him the one of good the other of evill luck out of which he distributes unto every man his severall fortune Those men saith he to whom Jupiter deales out of both vessels they are happy but those unto whom he deals out of one onely they are most unfortunate It is not so expresly said by Homer that they are unhappy unto whom Jupiter deals out of either vessell without mixture but he is so interpreted by Plato whose words are not so clearly rendred by the Latin Interpreters as they might have been in his Books De Republica the 11. Book which exposition is here followed by Plutarch These few examples may serve to shew both their practice and their opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such is the nature of the Deity of some Deity at least to envy men It was a thing so frequent in their mouths upon all occasions that hardly shall you read any ancient Authour either Greek or Latin where you finde it not or some traces of it We shall meet with divers passages as we go on which I forbear here to avoid repetition There be some ancient Authors who seem to derive it from Herodotus as the first of that opinion others from Simonides a Poet of very
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
ancient Heathens as Pythagoras and others and Angels in the Scripture also we know are sometimes called Gods doth grow insolent or rebellious And so I have done with this place of Plutarch which together with that of Tully being unquestionable deserve to be much made of by them who had rather a little genuine truth though they labour for it then plenty of specious impostures The Sibyls and Mercurius Trismegistus we purposely decline to meddle with in this case yea and the Oracula Chaldaica too which though I doe not altogether reject yet I am very suspicious that there is in them more of Porphyrius then his bare as himselfe pretends collection All this that hath been said well pondered S. Austins assertion that we spake of before with little variation that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the very first long before Homer was taken in the worst sense for an evill spirit and afterwards when evill spirits began to be worshipped which how it happened Justin Martyr and others that have written against the Gentiles doe shew for a good spirit goodnesse and bountifulnesse as Tully well argues against Epicurus being if not the only yet the chiefest object of divine worship this assertion I say so qualified though we cannot for want of proofs and evidences of those times affirm it certainly true yet certainly it may be supposed and granted not improbable But however take the word in either sense for a God or for a Devill the opinion we have spoken of of the envy and malignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will equally but in different respects appear to have proceeded originally from the Scriptures And besides this that the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by Greek writers as the Latin Deus by the Latins is often used upon this occasion hath been observed before and must here be remembred The Text of the Scriptures that we must ground upon is that unhappy conference between our first mother Eve and the subtill Serpent which we therefore think fit to set down here at large as we find it recorded in the third Chapter of Genesis and the 1 2 3 4 5. verses of the Chapter The words according to our last English Translation are these Ver. 1. Now the Serpent was more subtill then any beast of the field Gen. III. which the Lord God had made and he said unto the woman Yea hath God said Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden 2. And the woman said unto the Serpent We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden 3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said Ye shall not cat of it neither shall ye touch it lest ye die 4. And the Serpent said unto the woman Ye shall not surely die 5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eies shall be opened and ye shall be as Gods knowing good and evill Let the words first in themselves and then compared with the event and other circumstances be well considered and these two inferences will of themselves as I conceive without the help of a comment offer themselves to any ordinary judgement First that the Devill doth object unto God their Maker envy and malignity towards men Secondly that it was meer envy and malignity towards mankind that moved the Devill thus to set upon the woman and to counsell her as he did As I will not therefore altogether decline them so neither will I trouble my selfe and my Reader with multiplicity of Commentators upon the place I think it will not need and I must confesse I have not at this time many by me to look upon We shall treat of those two inferences in the order they were but now set down Of all Ancients that have written upon Genesis I shall ever give the preeminence unto S. Chrysostome for the most literall and genuine Expositor Upon the 4. verse And the Serpent said c. he hath these words upon the fourth verse as I said but his words concerne the fifth rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Afterwards not content to have contradicted the words of God that he might the better make way for his imposture and by foiling the woman fulfill his own designes he doth traduce their maker as envious Of later Commentators Junius as most generally received among Protestants and learned Diodatus lately set out in English I wish more care had been taken both in the version and printing will suffice Junius upon the place Videtur enim ex multis rationibus c. Among other arguments which he the Devill used to perswade them that men were not so loved of God as they thought but hated rather and that happinesse was envied unto them he brings this as the chiefest because they were forbidden to eat of that fruit from which depended man's chiefest happinesse the knowledge of good evil Diodatus upon the fifth verse God doth know c. He doth wrest I make use of the translation set out into a wrong sense the name of that tree as if it had power to conferre divine knowledge and the understanding of every thing accusing God of envy and provoking the woman to pride and curiosity Before I proceed I will by the way impart unto my Reader a certain passage of Aristotle which I have often admired and doe still as often as I think of it The opinion being currant in his days that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or envious which by the vulgar who have little sense of any other happinesse but such as is to be found in the fruition of worldly goods was applyed accordingly Aristotle in his Metaphysicks takes notice of both both of the opinion and how applyed and as for the opinion he doth protest against it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible it should be so but secondly were it so indeed that such is the nature of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then in all probability saith he his envy doth especially consist in this that he doth not afford unto men the happinesse of perfect knowledge and contemplation He speaketh it of the Metaphysicks particularly as absolutely being the noblest of all sciences by himself therefore and by others often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinity His words are not many as his manner is to be short but contain fully the substance of all I have said we shal have them afterwards upon another occasion I think no man hath ever laboured to any purpose in the search of any truth either divine morall or naturall or ever observed with himselfe how prone men are generally and always have been upon all occasions both of themselves to mistake and to be misled by others who will not acknowledge Aristotle though hardly censured by divers as well deserving that glorious title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine as his so much admired master by ancient both Christians and Heathens
Aristotle in his Metaphysicks speaking obiter of this matter and in the very termes as Herodotus doth he quotes this Simonides and might be thought to make him the first author But he doth not he takes notice of the saying from Simonides the Poet indeed and because from none but him disapproving the saying he is content to say that Poets will lye That no body said it before him he doth not write neither will it follow Lastly how easily either Aristotle or any other in case they had spoken more peremptorily might be mistaken in this point since neither all bookes were extant in any age that have formerly been written be it the happiest age that ever was nor all that are extant likely to come to any one mans knowledge be he never so carefull and curious I leave it further to be considered Aristotles words in English those memorable words we mentioned before are these Therefore it may well be thought that the possession or purchase of this ingenuous noble science the Metaphysicks doth not belong unto men For the nature of man in many respects is slavish so that according to Simonides this blessednesse doth peculiarly belong unto God neither is it fit for man to seeke that science which is above him or which is not granted unto him Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as I conceive such trajections being very usuall to Aristotle especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if that of the Poet be true that God can envie I think it appliable to this especially Gr. It is probable that it so fals out in this especially whence it will follow that all men are unfortunate Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he alludes to those verses of Euripides as I take it cited by him in his Ethicks lib. VI. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is divinely confuted by him in the said Ethicks the 7. 8. Chapters of the X. Book who aspire to such excellency But neither is it a thing possible that God should envie but according to the Proverbe Poets will faine many things or often lye neither ought we though but men and not so capable of it as of other things that is to make more reckoning of any other science then of this These words of Aristotle may give light to an obscure passage of Clemens Alexandrinus who in his fifth Stromat having discoursed at large and to that end brought proofes out of the Scripture also That God had not revealed the truth unto men but in mysteries and allegories in dreams and symboles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is not out of envie since that to phansie God subject to passions so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here be rendred not as it is translated patibilis in which sense it is taken Acts XXVI v. 23. is impious but c. I have done with my main subject the originall of that opinion of ancient Heathens De invidia Daemonis I must now remember an observation of the same Ancients spoken of at the beginning concerning unusuall overswelling prosperity for which there being sufficient ground in ordinary construction upon daily experience the opinion de invidia Daemonis especially by them of remoter times from the beginning who were lesse acquainted with ancient traditions may be thought as well to be grounded upon the same experience This tradition de invidia Daemonis being once up and generally received among men though originally grounded as we have said and derived from the particulars of Adams fall yet afterwards when the revolution of many Ages had partly adulterated and partly altogether obliterated the truth of things it was applyed by men diversly according to the severall opinions men had of the Deity and as they stood differently affected some placing happinesse in knowledge some in greatnesse in pleasure some and some in some other thing to the things of this world But the most generall application of it being as we have said and partly shewed to all eminent worldly prosperity it will be requisite therefore and consequent to our first intention to shew what further probable grounds besides experience either from certain words of Scripture seemingly importing some such thing or from relations of Scripture Histories from which as ancient Fathers prove most of their fables were derived ancient Heathens might have for this observation Passages of Scripture which by them might easily be drawne to that sense are many the effect of all which is by Christ comprised in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever shall exalt himselfe shall be abased and he that shall humble himselfe shall be exalted Matth. XXIII v. 12. There was a saying among ancient Grecians attributed by them unto Aesope as Author of it but certainly whether by Aesope first or any other taken out of the Scriptures originally that it was the proper work of God and his chiefest occupation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To abase the things that are high and to exalt those that are low It is thus expressed by Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Euripid. in Troad I see the Gods or the wayes of the Gods those things which are low they exalt aloft Gr. they make to tower on high and those that are eminent or highly prised they cast down See if you please Iob V. 11. and XL. 10 11 12. Psal CXIII v. 6 7. I Sam. II. 3 4 5. c. all pregnant places to this purpose as I take it and many more may be found but of all I conceive that of Esay concerning Tyre to be most emphaticall Tyre that once renowned City whose Colonies pene toto orbe diffusae had spread themselves throughout the whole World almost as ancient Historians testifie Carthage the once Imperiall City of Africa that so long contested with Rome about the Monarchy of the World and divers other great Townes owing their originall unto it Of this Tyre the Prophet Esay Isay XXIII 8 9 among many others hath these words I must crave leave that I may set them down in their originall language because of the elegancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8 Who hath taken this counsell against Tyre the crowning City whose Merchants are Princes whose traffiquers are the honourable of the earth 9. The Lord of Hosts hath purposed it to staine the pride of all glory and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth Though Tyre were the occasion and principall object and well it might then be for the pride and statelinesse of it of the words yet the sentence I take to be generall extending to all as times so places equally I have no thought that ever Lucretius a notorious Epicurean had any knowledge of the holy Scriptures and his thoughts I dare say were farre enough from what the Prophet or the Holy Ghost by him aimed at in these words yet it cannot be denied that he is an excellent Poet and that his words come very near to