The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 61
CHAP. 61. Untruths and errors in the books called the Apocrypha.
THE ſtrongeſt inſtance for us in this matter, is, that theſe books are ſtuffed with fables, and forged tales, and doctrines contrary to that of the Canonical books. Could we be able to receive fables and groſly deviſed lyes for the word of God? In this acuſation we deſire not to be believed without evident proofs. I will produce ſome of them.
Of the book of Tobith.
In the 5. chap. v. 14. the Angel Raphael doth falſly call himſelf Azarias of the race of the great Ananias and of the brethren of Tobit, who was of the tribe of Nephtali. Wherefore alſo in chap. 7. v. 3. when Raguel asked the Angel and the ſon of Tobit whence they were, the ſon of Tobit anſwereth for both, We are of the children of Nephtali captives in Nineve.
To ſay that the Angel took the name of Azarias becauſe he was like ſome man of that name, doth not excuſe the lye; for he that reſembleth Azarias, is not Azarias. And as if that untruth were not enough, he ſaith that he is of Tobits brethren, endeavouring thereby to print a falſe perſwaſion in Tobits mind, which he effected, as Tobit himſelf expreſt it.
No more doth it ſerve to ſay that Ananias ſignifieth the grace or gift of God: and that the Angel meant that he was the ſon of the grace or gift of God: for he ſaid himſelf to be of the race of the great Ananias; Now it would have been falſly and abſurdly ſpoken to ſay that he was of the race of the great gift of God.
The book of Judith.
This book is manifeſtly fabulous. The hiſtory is related as happened after the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon; Which is expreſly ſaid in the fourth chapter, v. 2.(a)foreign. They were newly returned from the captivity. And ch. 5. v. 18. They were led captives into a land which was not theirs, and the Temple of their God was caſt to the ground, and their Cities were taken by their enemies. But now are they returned to their God, and are come up from the places where they were ſcattered; and have poſſeſſed Jeruſalem where their Sanctuary is, and are ſeated in the hill countrey which was deſolate.
There is in the Greek which is the orignal, foreign, which ſignifieth word by word, The Temple of their God was laid to the ground. Whence it appears that this hiſtory is given as happened ſince the captivity of Babylon, for that Temple was never pulled down, nor the people of the Jews tranſported, nor the countrey made deſolate before that captivity. Yet that hiſtory is related as happened in the time of King Nebucadnezzar, dead long before the return of that people from the captivity.
Our adverſaries think they may ſcape by ſaying that in their Latin verſion theſe words, and the temple of their God was laid to the ground are not found. As alſo in the ſame verſion by a notorious falſification, theſe words, they were newly returned from captivity, have been put out, and are found no more. But (beſides that we muſt alwayes rather ſtand to the original text then to a verſion, eſpecially to the worſt verſion of all) there is enough remaining in that Latin verſion, to verifie that this ſtory is related as happened ſince the return from that captivity, when the Jews were tranſported to Jeruſalem. For in chap. 5. v. 18. after many falſifications theſe words remain,(b)Plurimi eorum captivi abducti ſunt in terram non ſuam; Nuper. autem reverſi ad Dominum Deum ſuum ex diſperſione qua diſperſi fuerant, adunati ſunt, &c. & iterum poſſident Jeruſalem. Many of them were led captives into a land that was not theirs, but of late being returned unto the Lord their God, they were gathered again from the diſperſion wherewith they were ſcattered abroad, and poſſeſs Jeruſalem again. That hiſtory then is related as happened after that the people tranſported from Jeruſalem was returned thither, in which time Nebuchadnezzar was dead long before.
At that time alſo there was no more Ninive, which had been taken and deſtroyed by the Medes in the time of Cyaxares, if we believe Herodotus in his firſt book; or by Nebuchadnezzar, if we believe the laſt chapter of Tobit, long before the return from the captivity. Then alſo there was no more Kingdom of the Medes. Media was under the Perſians, and the Kingdom of Media had been aboliſht many years before. Nevertheleſs that hiſtory of Judith, given out as happened ſince the return from the captivity, in chap. 1.5. maketh Ninive to be the ſeat of Nebuchadnezzars kingdom, though he never kept his Court there, ſince he pulled it down(c)This is very expreſly affirmed in the end of Tobits book. when he had taken it. And ſpeaketh of a King Arphaxad, who never was.
It will not ſerve our Adverſaries to ſay that this hiſtory happened in the time of King Manaſſeh who was carried away captive into Babylon; and to ſeek in the time of King Manaſſeh, a Nebuchadnezzar which cannot be found; for he was not yet born when Manaſſeh died. They ſeek alſo in the time of Manaſſeh a tranſportation of the people of Jeruſalem, and a return of the people to Jeruſalem after the captivity, which is to be found in no ſtory. For 2 Chron. 33.11. it is ſaid only that the Captains of the hoſt of the King of Aſſyria took Manaſſeh among the thorns, and carried him to Babylon, but they took not Jeruſalem, and the people was not led away captive; Neither is there any trace of that captivity, nor of the return from the ſame, in any hiſtory. Only Manaſſeh releaſed out of priſon returned unto his Kingdom. Beſides, if this hiſtory of Judith happened in the time of Manaſſeh; the Temple alſo was ruined in his time, which is known to be falſe. They muſt alſo find in the ſame time a King Arphaxad of Media, who ſhall no more be found then King Nebuchadnezzar. In the time of Manaſſeh's impriſonment Phraortes ſon of Dejoces reigned in Media, of whom Herodotus ſpeaks much in his firſt book. Which Phraortes was never diſcomfited by Nebuchadnezzar no more then Dejoces his Father, as the firſt chapter of Judith relates of Arphaxad. Both father and ſon were more antient then Nebuchadnezzar, and were both dead before Nebuchadnezzar reigned. Then reigned in Babylon either Nabopolaſſar Father to Nebuchadnezzar, or rather he to whom Nabopolaſſar ſucceeded.
To this add that if Manaſſeh had been then reigning in Jeruſalem, he would not have ſuffered Joakim the Prieſt to take upon him to give the orders of war, as it is related, Judith 4.6. That would have been incroaching upon the Royal Office, and from a Prieſt turning a Captain; which was never done while there was a King; and they make Joakim contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, although he lived above a hundred years after that King.
Joſephus in the tenth book of Antiquities chap. 4. relates exactly the things hapned in Manaſſeh's time, but ſpeaks not of Judith, nor of Holofernes, nor of Bethulia, nor of the people of Jeruſalem led away captive, nor of the Temple pulled down and built up again, which the fabulous book of Judith mentioneth.
To multiply lyes, it is ſaid towards the end of the hiſtory, that Judith waxed old in her husbands houſe, being a hundred and five years old. And that there was none that made the children of Iſrael any more afraid in the dayes of Judith, nor a long time after her death. Let now our adverſaries buſie their brains to find thoſe hundred and five years, and many more after Judiths death, in which the people of the Jews enjoyed a conſtant reſt. Can any find, I ſay not a hundred and five years, but forty only of reſt in Judea, beginning at the return of Manaſſeh from his captivity? That King having reigned but few years after his releaſe, left the Kingdom to his ſon Amon, who brought Idolatry again into Judea, 2 Chron. 33.22. Where was Judith then, ſo much reſpected over all the countrey? Where was that peaceable time without trouble in Iſrael? To that King, killed after two years reign, ſucceeded the good King Joſiah; who after he had reigned thirty one years was killed in battle by Neco King of Aegypt. The end of his life was the beginning of the ruines and deſolations of the Jews, which never gave over, till all the Towns being taken by Nebuchadnezzar, the countrey pillaged, Jeruſalem and the Temple razed, the people were tranſported into Babylon; Where was then Judith? For they affirm that hiſtory to have hapened when ſhe was in her prime. And that after this paſſage, ſhe lived with his husband: And that her husband being dead, ſhe was ſtill of great beauty, and was woed by many lovers which ſhe refuſed, and dwelt a hundred and five years in her husbands houſe, in a time when there was neither people nor houſes in Judea, and when the countrey was a deſart. Was there ever a fable more groſly patcht up?
The laſt verſe of the book, acording to the Latin verſion, ſaith that the day of Judith's victory is received of the Hebrews among the Holy dayes, and is celebrated by the Jews unto this day; Which will be found falſe. For of that Feaſt of ſo great ſolemnity, no trace is ſound in all the Antiquity of the Jews; not in Joſephus, Seder Holam, hoc eſt, ordo ſeculi ſeu Chronicon.not in Philo, not in the other Joſephus ſon to Gorion, not in the Maccabees, not in Rabbi Nahaſſon who hath written Canons or rules of the Jewiſh Feaſts, not in Seder Holam, not in Munſter who hath written the Jews Calender.
In chap. 9. v. 2. Judith ſaith her ſelf to be daughter of Simeon Jacobs ſecond ſon. But in chap. 8. v. 1. her pedegree is fetcht from Salaſadai ſon of Jacobor Iſrael, which is an imaginary name; for Jacob had no ſuch ſon. And in the vulgar Latin verſion, which the Roman Church preferreth before the Greek original, the abſurdity is double; for in the ſame place it is ſaid that ſhe was daughter of Simeon ſon of Reuben: whereas every body knoweth that Simeon and Reuben were brothers.
Gen. 49. Jacob dying condemneth the maſſacre of the Sichemites committed by Simeon and Levi, ſo far as to ſay, Curſed be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruell. But Judith chap. 9. ver. 2. & 4. praiſeth and magnifieth that action, as if God had ſet them on to do it, ſaying O Lord God, of my Father Simeon, to whom thou gaveſt a ſword to take vengeance of the ſtrangers. And ſoon after, Thou haſt given all their ſpoil to be divided among thy dear children, as if the ranſacking of Sichem, and the robbery committed by the ſons of Jacob had been a bleſſing of God. In the ſame place ſpeaking of Simeon and Levi, ſhe ſaith, They were moved with thy zeal, and called upon thee for aid.
Alſo over all that hiſtory ſuch things are attributed to Judith as are ill beſeeming a holy and vertuous woman, as if that ſtory had been made pupoſely to defame her. She tricks up her ſelf curiouſly to provoke the unchaſte deſires of a Pagan Prince. In chap. 9. ver. 13. ſhe craveth of God the grace of deceiing with her lips. In chap. 10. ver. 12. being arreſted by the Aſſyrians, ſhe payeth them with lyes, ſaying that ſhe was fled from the Hebrews, and was come to declare words of truth unto their Captain, and ſhew him a way whereby he might conquer the countrey without the loſs of one man. And chap. 11. ver. 5. ſhe promiſeth Holefernes to tell him no lye, and interpoſeth the name of God to lye with more colour. She praiſeth the wiſdom, the policy, and the valour of Holofernes; Promiſeth him that he ſhall extermine the Nation of the Jews, becauſe they had offended God; that God had ſent her to work with him, to lead him through the midſt of Judea, and ſet his throne in the midſt of Jeruſalem. Falſly adding that God had revealed her theſe things; which was doing the part of a falſe Propheteſs, and faining a falſe revelation.
With little honeſty and no ſmall peril of her pudicity ſhe goeth out by night, having no body to attend her but her maid. She waſheth her ſelf in a fountain in the midſt of the camp of the enemies. Being called to come to Holofernes, to pleaſe him in his deſires, ſhe anſwereth, Who am I that I ſhould gainſay my Lord! chap. 12. ver. 13. All that very far from the purity and integrity of a holy woman.
The book called the Wiſdom of Solomon.
This book is placed among the Apocrypha by Hierom, Ruffin, and a great number of Fathers, eſpecially by the Council of Laodicea, as I will ſhew hereafter.
The title of the book is manifeſtly falſe; for it is none of Solomons works, who writ in Hebrew not in Greek: Now that book is extant in Greek only, and is not in the Hebrew Bible. Neither is it any thing like the ſtyle of Solomon.
Auſtin ſpeaks thus of it,(a)lib. de doctrina, Chriſtiana cap. 8. Hi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, & alius qui Eccleſiaſticus inſeribitur, de quadam ſimilitudine Solomonis eſſe dicuntur. Nam Jeſu filius Sirach eo; ſcripſiſſe conſtantiſſimè perhibetur. Theſe two books, the one entituled the Wiſdom, the other Eccleſiaſticus, are ſaid to be of Solomon, becauſe of ſome reſemblance. For that opinion is conſtantly received that Jeſus the ſon of Syrach did write them. It is true that Auſtin in the firſt book of the Retractations, doth retract himſelf in the fourth chapter for ſaying that thoſe books have been written by the ſon of Syrach. But he ſaith not for that, that they are Solomons. Only he ſaith that many call that book the Wiſdom of Solomon, ſpeaking of it doubtfully. But in the ſeventeenth book of the City of God, cap. 29. he ſaith that the learned hold for certain that this book and Eccleſiaſticus are not Solomons.
Hierom the moſt learned of the Fathers in ſuch matters, in his Preface upon the books of Solomon, ſaith that the inſcription of this book is falſe:(b)Alius pſeudepigraphus qui Sapientia Solomon is inſcribitur Another (ſaith he) whoſe title is falſe, being intituled the Wiſdom of Solomon. And a little after,(c)Nonnulli ſcriptorum veterum hanc eſſe Philonis Judaei affirmant. Some writers affirm that this book is of Philo the Jew. And in the ſame place he ſaith that the ſtyle favours the Greek eloquence.
(d)foreign.Baſil in the firſt book againſt Eunomius, towards the end, alledgeth the book of Wiſdom of Zorobabel; And in the ſame book(e)foreign. We acknowledge but three works of Solomon, even thoſe three that we have in the Hebrew Bible.
And all the Fathers whom we ſhall hear hereafter, that put the book of Wiſdom out of the rank of the Canonical Scriptures, deny by conſequent that it is Solomons: And there is great difference between books that treat of matters of ſalvation and of Gods ſervice, and books of plants and natural Philoſophy writby Solomon, which he did not write that they ſhould be taught in the Church.
Now all that deny the book of Wiſdom to be of Solomon, accuſe the Author of untruth; for he ſaith himſelf to be King Solomon, chap. 9. ver. 7, 8. ſpeaking thus unto God, Thou haſt choſen me to be a King of thy people. — Thou haſt commanded me to build a Temple upon thy holy mount. But in chap. 15. ver. 14. the Author forgetting that he had called himſelf King Solomon, ſpeaks as writing in a time when the Church was oppreſt(f)There in the Greek foreign, imperium exercentes. and kept under by her enemies; which cannot be applied to Solomons time. Had the Jeſuit(g)Salmeron Proleg. 9. Can. 3. Librum Sapientiae ab alio quam Salomone ſcribi non potuiſſe valde probabile eſt. Salmeron conſidered this, he would not have ſaid that probably this book could not have been written by any but Solomon.
We muſt not find it ſtrange that thoſe very Fathers that deny this book to be Canonical, will call it ſometimes the Wiſdom of Solomon; for they do but uſe the title of the book as cuſtom would have it, as both we and the Roman Church call the third and fourth book of Ezra, which cannot be of Ezra, and are not received as Canonical by the Council of Trent. This Auſtin ſaith lib. 17. de civitate Dei cap. 20.(h)Alii duo quorum unus Sapientia, alter Eccleſiaſticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnullam ſimilitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, obtinuit conſuetudo; Non autem eſſe ipus non dubitant doctiores. As for the books of Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus, cuſtome hath carried it, that they be ſaid to be Solomons; but the learned hold for certain that they are none of his.
It is evident that the book was written by a man verſed in the Grecian Philoſophy, in that he ſpeaks of the Solſtices, chap. 7. ver. 18. and of the four moral vertues, temperance, fortitude, juſtice, and prudence, ver. 7.
In chap. 7. ver. 25. Wiſdom is called a vapour or breath of the vertue of God; wherein he ſpeaks like an ignorant, whether he underſtand by the wiſdom of God the Perſon of the Eternal Son of God, or a vertue of God, which is eſſential to him, and his own ſubſtance. Take it either way, is the wiſdom of God a vapour? And ſince it is a vertue of God, how ſhould it be a vapour proceeding from his vertue? With the like abuſe in chap. 6. ver. 22. he ſpeaks of the beginning of the nativity of Wiſdom as though ſhe were born and had a beginning.
In the ſame book chap. 8. ver. 15. Solomon ſpeaks of himſelf as being valiant in war, of which nevertheleſs he never gave any proof, having never given any battel. And ver. 20. ſpeaking of his origine, he ſaith, that being good he came into a body undefiled. So then he was otherwiſe born and compoſed then David his Father, who Pſal. 51.7. ſaith Behold, I was ſhapen in iniquity, and in ſin did my mother conceive me.
He cannot be excuſed for calling Manna the Angels food, as if Angels did eat and had need to be fed with meat; Nor for ſaying (chap. 10.7.) that the land of the five Cities, meaning Sodom and the other Cities of that plain, was ſmoaking ſtill ever ſince they were conſumed by fire from heaven. It is falſe alſo that five Towns were burnt in that plain; for Moſes nameth but four, Sodom, Gomorrha, Adama, Deut. 29.24.and Tſeboim. The fifth which was Tſoar, was ſpared at the requeſt of Lot. Gen. 19.20.So the Author of that book ſaith untruly that the fire came down upon theſe five Towns. And it is likewiſe falſe that which he ſaith (chap. 12. ver. 5.) that the old inhabitants of the land of Canaan whom the Iſraelites expelled, were devourers of mans fleſh. Moſes often deſcribes the abominations of thoſe people, but never ſpeaks that they were man-eaters. Alſo in chap. 6. ver. 22. that falſe Solomon relates things that never hapned to the children of Iſrael, and coyneth hiſtories, ſaying that ſnow and ice endured the fire and melted not.
Of the book of Eccleſiaſticus.
This book is not found in the Hebrew Bible, the Bible of the Old Teſtament, which was read in the Synagogues. We ſhall alſo ſee hereafter that the Antient Chriſtian Church did not receive it as Canonical.
This book contains many good precepts, which made the reading of it recommended by many of the Antient, and by our own Church. But there are many profitable books, which ought not therefore to be ranked among the divine books, nor held for Canonical.
The Author of the book cannot be Solomon, ſeeing that in the forty ſeventh, forty eighth and the following chapters, he ſpeaks of the reigns of Roboam, Jeroboam, and of the Prophets Eliah, Eliſha, Iſaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many others who lived many ages after Solomon. Before the book there is a Preface where the Author Jeſus the ſon of Sirach ſaith that he came into Aegypt in the time of King Ptolomaeus Euergetes who died about ſeven hundred ſixty two years after Solomon.
In the ſame Preface Jeſus Grandfather to that Jeſus who compiled theſe ſentences, is compared unto Solomon, and equalled in wiſdom and doctrine: which is not without impiety.
In chap. 1. ver. 4. and in chap. 24. ver. 24. there is an error which our Adverſaries approve not, namely that the Wiſdom of God was created before all things, which is meer Arrianiſm. For Arius taught that Chriſt was a created God, made before other creatures. A ſentence which none but diſtracted brains will excuſe with ſaying that Chriſt was created in his humane nature; for Chriſt in his humane nature is not the Wiſdom of the Father; and ſo far was he from being created before all things, that he had not aſſumed humane fleſh when Jeſus the Son of Sirach writ his book.
In chap. 46. ver. 20. it is ſaid that Samuel prophecied after his death. So this Author makes the Prophet Samuel to ſay that which was ſaid by the Devil, and puts the ſouls of the Saints in the power of Satan. For that the Ghoſt that appeared unto Saul was not the Prophet Samuel, holy Scripture teſtifies it in the ſame chapter,2 Sam. 28.6. ver. 6. where it is ſaid that God would not anſwer Saul, neither by Ʋrim nor by Thummim which was the ordinary oracle, nor by the Prophets. Neither is it in a Witches power to fetch the ſouls of Saints out of the place of their reſt. The ſame appears by that Ghoſts ſaying to Saul in the nineteenth verſe, Thou and thy ſons ſhall be with me to morrow. For ſeeing that Saul is dead deſperate, killing himſelf with his own ſword, it is not credible that his ſoul after death was gathered with the Saints, nor that the ſoul of Saul and that of Jonathan were carried into the ſame place. Wherefore it muſt be granted that this Ghoſt was called Samuel, becauſe it was like Samuel, and counterfeited him, according to the cuſtom of the Scriptures to give unto ſigns and repreſentations the name of repreſented things.
Auſtin handleth this queſtion, and ſaith that though this image of Samuel ſaid unto Saul, Thou ſhalt be with me, he ſaid an untruth. Then he ſaith(i)Aug. l. 2. queſtionum ad Simplicianum qu. 3. Et forte hoc quod cum illa imago Samuelis Saulem praediceret moriturum, dixit etiam ſecum futurum, quod uti que falſum eſt. Et paulo ante. Imaginariam illuſionem Diaboli machinationibus factam propterea Scriptura nomine Samuelis appellat, quiae ſolent imagines rerum earum nominibus appellari; quarum imagines ſunt. Therefore Scripture calls with the name of Samuel an imaginary illuſion made by the machinations of the Devil…, becauſe images uſe to be called by the name of things whereof they are images. And finally after he hath canvaſſed that queſtion on both ſides, he concludeth, Let us think rather that ſuch a thing was done by the wicked miniſtery of the Pythoniſſa or witch, which we cannot find or expound any more. See the Canon Nec mirum. Cauſa 26. q. 5. where it is amply proved that it was not the true Samuel, but an illuſion of the Devil.
Alſo that book doth unworthily yea unjuſtly deal with the feminine ſex, ſaying that(k)This may bear a good ſenſe in the Engliſh verſion which goes thus, Better is the churliſhneſs of a man then a courteous woman. the wickedneſs of a man is better then the good that a woman doth, chap. 42. ver. 14.
The book of Suſanna.
This hiſtory hath no truth at all. For what likelihood or poſſibility is in this, that a handfull of Jews newly led captive into Babylon ſhould have, even in Babylon, Judges of their Nation, condemning to death without appeal? The Jews while they ſerved the Romans, might have in their countrey ſome Judges of their own, becauſe the Victors, after they had ſubdued them, had left them ſome kind of juriſdiction, as it is the cuſtom of Conquerors towards the people whom they have conquered and brought under their Empire. But it will not be found that after the ruine of Jeruſalem Jews led captive to Rome, had Judges of their Nation at Rome that could ſentence to death without appeal.
Eſpecially it is the height of abſurdity and far out of all road of likelihood that a young ſtranger child, being in no Office, ſhould make himſelf Judge of the ordinary Judges, and condemn them to death, with a Soveraign judgement without appeal: As if ſome ſtranger-child brought captive to London, ſhould command the Lord Chief Juſtice of England to appear before him, and then ſentence him to death, and ſend him to the Gallows.
Here obſerve the time: for Daniel was a child in the time of the firſt ſiege laid to Jeruſalem by Nebucadnezzar; Jehojakim being King in Jeruſalem who was carried away captive with part of the people, among which was Daniel, as one may ſee in the firſt chapter of Daniel. That happened eleven years before the ſecond ſiege, whereby Jeruſalem was razed, and the reſt of the people tranſported. That was the time of the extream depreſſion and bondage of the Jews in Babylon; who were ſo far from having Offices of Judicature and delicious gardens in Babylon (as it is ſaid in that book of Joakim Suſanna's husband) that they were uſed as bondmen in hard ſervitude. The Author was ſhort in his Chronology to raiſe Daniel to dignity at that time, as he was afterwards when he came to age.
It is known alſo that in Babylon the vulgar tongue was the Chaldean, not the Greek; Yet the hiſtory of Suſanna makes Daniel to ſpeak Greek in Babylon, ſitting in a judicial ſeat, examining Judges of capital cauſes. For this book makes him uſe Greek clinches and alluſions upon the words(l)foreign. of Maſtick tree, and Holme tree, which alluſions will not be found at all in the Chaldean language, or in any tongue but the Greek. And whoſo affirms the contrary, doth but ſet forth his own ignorance. Wherefore Porphyrius the great enemy of the Chriſtian name, having made this objection, Hierom in his Proem upon Daniel anſwers that the book of Suſanna is a fable,Can. Sanct… Romana. Diſt. 15. and hath no authority of holy Scripture. We will alledge his words upon the hiſtory of Bel. Pope Gelaſius is expreſs upon this, ſaying that the book of Suſanna is Apocrypha.
The Hiſtory of Bel and the Dragon.
This Hiſtory is of the ſame ſtuff. The very beginning is a lye, That preſently after the death of Aſtyages, Daniel was preferred to the table of Cyrus, honoured above all his friends. For when Cyrus diſpoſſeſt Aſtyages his Grandfather from the Kingdom of Media, Cyrus was not yet Maſter of Babylon, and Daniel living in Babylon, was none his ſubjects. Neither did Cyrus conquer Babylon but about two and twenty years after the end of the reign of Aſtyages, as one may ſee by the firſt book of Herodotus; by Beroſus alledged by Joſephus, by the Chronicles of Euſebius, and by the Canon of Ptolomaeus.
Hierom in his Preface upon Daniel, calls this book a Fable; and ſaith that it was left out by the Greek Doctors, as having no authority of holy Scripture. Theſe are his words.
(m)Cui & Euſebius & Apollinaris pari ſententia reſponderunt, Suſannae, Belis que ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico, &c. Unde & nos ante plurimos annos cum verteremus Danielem, has viſiones obelo praenotavimus, ſignificantos eas in Hebraico non haberi; & miror quoſdam foreign indignari mihi quaſi ego decurtaverim librum, cum Origenes, &c. & doctores Graeciae fateantur non haberi apud Hebraeos, nec ſe debere reſpondere P…rphyrio pro his quae nullam Scripturae authoritatem habent.Euſebius and Apollinaris have well anſwered Porphyrius, that the fables of Suſanna, Bell, and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew text; but that they are part of the propheſie of one Habuc ſon of Jeſu of the tribe of Levi, as it is put in the title of the ſame fable in the Septuagint, Where it is ſaid That there was a Prieſt named Daniel ſon of Abda that ate at the table of the King of Babylon; whereas Scripture teſtifieth that Daniel and the three young men were of the tribe of Judah. Wherefore we alſo tranſlating Daniel many years ago, gave a black mark to theſe viſions, to ſignifie that they were not found in the Hebrew. And I wonder how ſome peeviſh men are angry with me as if I had curtaled that book, ſeeing that Origenes, and Euſebius, and Apollinaris, and other Eccleſiaſtical perſons, and Greek Doctors acknowledge that theſe viſions are not found among the Hebrews; and that they are not bound to anſwer Porphyrius for theſe books which have no authority of holy Scripture.
Some pedants(n)Regourd in his Demonſtr. p. 337. give us a warning that ſometimes this word fable ſignifieth a ſtory, and with the ſame reaſon (likely) would ſuffer the Goſpel to be called a fable. But they diſſemble that Hierom ſaith, that theſe books have no authority of holy Scripture.
The reſt of the book of Eſther.
The reſt of the book of Eſther, contradicteth in many things the book of Eſther which is in the Hebrew Bible. The true Hebrew ſtory chap. 6. ver. 2. relates that Eſther was brought to King Aſſuerus to be Queen, in the ſeventh year of that King; and that ſhe being already Queen, Mordecai diſcovered a conſpiracy of two Eunuchs named Big than and Teres againſt the life of King Aſſuerus, of which he gave notice to Qeen Eſther, and ſhe to the King.
The ſame hiſtory is quite otherwiſe related in the Apocrypha book of the reſt of Eſther, in the firſt chapter. There it is ſaid that Mordecai had a dream in the ſecond year of King Artaxerxes, and diſcovered a conſpiracy of two Eunuchs, Gabatha and Thara. One of the books ſaith Aſſuerus, the other ſaith Artaxerxes. The one ſaith that it was in the ſeventh year of King Aſſuerus, the other, that it was in the ſecond year of Artaxerxes. And the names of the Eunuchs are different. How unlike is it that in the ſame book the ſame hiſtory ſhould be twice related by the ſame Author, and in a different way? In the ſixth chapter, ver. 10. of that Apocrypha, it is ſaid that Aman was a Macedonian, who in the true ſtory is ſad to be an Agagite, that is an Hamalekite. (o)Joſephus l. 11. c. 6. ſaith that he was an Hamalekite.See Numb. 24.7. And ſuch was the name of the Kings of Hamalec, 1 Sam. 15.20. M. du Perron anſwers that(p)Du Perron chap. 88. p. 628. & 629. Du Perron. p. Ibid. all the ſtrangers in Aſia were called Macedonians, which might be after Alexander in the reign of the Seleucides, but the hiſtory of Eſther is many ages before. Beſides Aman was no ſtranger in Aſia, as the Cardinal eſteemeth, for he was an Arabian. Now Arabia is in Aſia. All that ſwarms with ignorance.
With the like ignorance he ſaith that Aman is called Macedonian in the letters of Aſſuerus, (p) becauſe the writer followed the Syriack verſion.(d)Du Perron. p. ibid. But in the Syriack tranſlation theſe letters are not to be found, the Interpreter having interpreted only the Canonical book of Eſther.
But how abſurd is that which is ſaid in chap. 6. ver. 14. of the ſame book, that Haman would have tranſported the Empire of the Perſians to the Macedonians? For beſides that theſe words ſuppoſe that Haman was a Macedonian; whoſo is never ſo little verſed in Hiſtory, knoweth that the Kings of Macedon at that time were petty Kings, unknown in Perſia, and without any power; And that theſe words are no leſs ridiculous, then ſaying that ſuch a one hath undertaken to tranſport the Empire of the Turks to the Prince of Parma or to the King of Algiers.
About theſe reſts of Eſther let us hear the verdict of Sixtus Senenſis (q)Bibliothecae lib. 1.who hath few fellows in learning among our Adverſaries; The other ſix chapters, ſaith he, unto the end of the book, have been added out of ſeveral hiſtories, by I know not what Greek author; But eſpecially out of the eleventh book of the Antiquities of Joſephus. Then he addeth that Melito of Sardis, and Gregory Nazianzen have not reckoned that book among the ſacred books, and that Athanaſius hath by name rejected it as ſuppoſititious, and that it was received very late among the Chriſtians.
Of the books of Maccabees.
The books of Maccabees ſwarm with fables. In the beginning of the firſt book the author ſaith, that Alexander before his death divided his kingdom among his ſervants: Which is contradicted by a multitude of Hiſtorians that have written of Alexanders death(r)Diodor. Sicul. lib. 17. & 18. Juſtin lib. 12. & 13. Currius l. 10. Aemil. Prob. in vita Eumenis. Strabo l. 17. Pauſanias Atticis, Plutar. vit. Alex. Appian. de bello Syriaco. By Diodorus Siculus, by Juſtin the Epitomizer of Trogus, by Quintus Curtius, Aemilius Probus, Strabo, Pauſanias, Plutarchus, Appianus Alexandrinus, and many more. All relate that Alexander made no diviſion of his Kingdom before his death, but only gave his ring unto Perdiccas: whence aroſe a thouſand confuſions among his ſucceſſors.
In the firſt book of Maccabees, chap. 6. Antiochus Epiphanes ſtriving to get Elimais in Perſia, is beaten back by the inhabitants of the Town, then flieth to return into Babylon; and hearing the ill ſucceſs of the arms of Lyſias the General of his army againſt the Jews, falls ſick with ſorrow, and dieth in the one hundred forty ninth year of the reign of the Seleucides. But in the ninth chapter of the ſecond book, the death of that Antiochus is quite otherwiſe deſcribed. That being entred into the City of Perſepolis, he went about to hold the City. That being driven from thence, he came to Ecbatana, where having heard tydings of the defeat of Nicanor and Timotheus, and ſwelling with anger at it, he reſolved to extermine the Jews, and make of Jeruſalem a burying place. That in the way he fell from his chariot, and being ſore bruiſed, worms roſe out of his body, and that he dyed a ſtranger in the mountains. Can any two things be more diverſe then theſe two relations of the ſame thing? The one ſpeaks of the City of Ecbatana, the other of the City of Perſepolis. The one ſaith that he would enter into the Town, the other that he entred into it. The one that he fled to return into Babylon, the other that he came to Ecbatana, which are very different wayes. The one that he heard ill news of the defeat of Lyſias; the other puts Nicanor and Timotheus inſtead of Lyſias. The one ſaith that upon theſe ill news he fell ſick for ſorrow; the other that while he was threatning the Jews he felt a ſore pain in his bowels, and that by the way he fell from his charret, whereupon his fleſh rotted and bred worms. He that ſaid that he died in Perſia neer Ecbatana, knew not that Ecbatana was in Media, not in Perſia. It is now called Tauris.
In the firſt chapter of the ſecond of the Maccabees, ver. 12. the Jews give God thanks for driving away thoſe that had fought againſt the holy City in Perſia. Now in Perſia all the Cities were Pagan, and there was no holy City. The holy Scripture giveth that honourable name to none but Jeruſalem, although Judea had many other Cities where God was purely ſerved.
In the ſame chapter the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is related the third time in a far different manner. Namely that he was ſtoned in the Temple of Nannaea. Now that this Antiochus is the ſame that is called Epiphanes, it is evident, becauſe this is related in an Epiſtle where the Jews of Judea announce to the Jews of Aegypt the death of that King as a great deliverance, and ſignifie unto them the inſtitution of the Feaſt of the Purification of the Temple upon the twenty fifth day of the monethmonth Caſleu, which feaſt was inſtituted by Judas Maccabee a little after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is a great ignorance to think that in this Macc. 2. chap. 1. The death of Antiochus Eupator is related; For that Eupator was not killed in Perſia, and never made war there, and was killed by Demetrius ſon of Seleucus, who took from him both his kingdom and his life. He was not ſtoned in a Temple, and outlived but two years his Father Antiochus Epiphanes. Neither was it in conſequence of the death of Antiochus Eupator that the Faſt of the purification of the Temple was inſtituted.
And though we ſhould grant that this Antiochus is Antiochus Eupator, yet the untruth is evident, in that the letter which deſcribeth the death of this Antiochus, and ſignifieth to the Jews of Aegypt the inſtitution of the Feaſt of the purification of the Temple, is dated on the one hundred eighty eigth year of the reign of the Seleucides. But the death of Antiochus Epiphanes fell on the year one hundred forty nine, as it is related, 1 Macc. 6.16. By which account Antiochus Eupator had died thirty nine after his Fathers death, although he outlived him but two years.
It is no leſs againſt all reaſon to think that this Antiochus that was ſtoned to death was Antiochus Sidetes, dead in the one hundred ſeventy fourth year of the reign of the Seleucides. For the inſtitution of the Feaſt of the purification of the Temple beareth not that date but ſome thirty five years before. And Antiochus Sidetes was not ſtoned to death in a Temple of Perſia, and never made war in Perſia. For Juſtin, Appian, Oroſius, and(ſ)Euſeb. Chron. Arſaces Parthus Antiochum Sidetem interfecit. Euſebius witneſs that he died in battell againſt the Parthians, being forſaken by his men. Appian addeth that being thus forſaken, he ſlew himſelf. And it would be a ſtrange up-ſide-down Hiſtory in the ſecond of Maccabees, if the Author had begun his relation by Antiochus Sidetes to remount to Antiochus Epiphanes who came to the Kingdom about forty eight years before.
Obſerve alſo that Judas Maccabeus is one of them that writ the letter ſet down in the firſt chapter of the ſecond of Maccabees, which is dated the one hundred eighty eighth year of the reign of the Grecians, that is ſome thirty ſix years after his death. For that this Judas that writes theſe letters is Judas Maccabeus it is evident, becauſe it is he that inſtituted the purification of the Temple, of which he gives notice in theſe letters unto the Jews of Aegypt.
1 Maccab. 8. v. 6, 7, 8. it is ſaid that the Romans had taken Antiochus the great alive, and had given to Eumenes the countreyes of India and Media. All that is falſe.(t)See Hierom on Daniel. Zoſimus, Juſtin, Titus Livius l. 37. Appian in Syriacis. The Romans defeated Antiochus the Great in three battels, but they never took him priſoner. They never had any thing in India, and Media was none of theirs. Their greateſt Empire never went beyond Euphrates. In the time of this Antiochus the limit of the Roman Empire was Mount Taurus, which is the limit of Aſia minor on the Eaſt. Indeed ſome paſſages of(x)Virgil. 4. Georg. loquens de Nilo, Uſ que coloratis amnis devexus ab Indis. Latin Poets call Ethiopia India. But the abſurdity ſhould be greater yet to ſay, that the Romans had given to Eumenes Ethiopia, where they never poſſeſt any thing, and which was about a thouſand leagues diſtant from the habitation of Eumenes.
For excuſe they ſay that theſe things were related unto Judas, but that they were not true. That with the like untruth, Numb. 13. the ſpies ſent to diſcover the land of Canaan made a falſe relation. And that the Evangeliſts relate many blaſphemies and lies ſpoken againſt our Saviour. But all that is to no purpoſe; for the relation of the ſpies and the ſlanders againſt our Saviour are related in the Scripture as falſe, and are convinced of falſhood. But the relation about the Romans, (1 Mac. 8.) is related as true. And the Author will have Judas Maccabeus to believe things as ridiculous, as if he had believed that Virgil was Biſhop of Iſlington, and had ſent Embaſſadous to Rome about it. The moſt eminent man among the Jews, who had the conduct of their affairs, could he have been ignorant that Media and India belonged not to the Romans? And though he had been ignorant of that, could the Author of this book be ignorant of a thing ſo well known unto all if he had been enlightned by the Holy Ghoſt?
The like ſtuff he gives us in the ſecond and third verſes of the ſame chapter, Macc. 1.8. That the Romans had conquered the Galathians, and had done great feats of arms in Galatia, and had brought the gold and ſilver mettals of Spain under their power. If by the Galatians he meaneth the Gaules, the Romans did not conquer them but about an hundred years after the death of Judas Maccabeus. If by the Galatians he underſtands thoſe of Aſia Minor, Judas was not ſo ignorant but he knew that the Romans never gave any battell in Galatia. Thoſe mettals of gold and ſilver in Spain are fables. The Romans never made war in Spain for that end. The Poets ſay that the river Tago in Spain hath golden ſands, which is found now to be falſe. But though it were true, the Romans never got treaſures that way.
But how falſe is that which is affirmed in the fifteenth and ſixtenth verſes of the ſame chapter, that the Romans held every day a Councell of three hundred and twenty perſons, and that they committed their Government to one man every year? for little children know that they created two Conſuls, equall in ſoveraign power, every year; and that they had certain dayes which they called nefaſtos, upon which there was a ceſſation of all buſineſſes.(y)Dionyſ. Halicar. l. 2. & 3. Plut. in Gracchis. Florus Epit. Livian. l. 60. As for the number of the Senators, Romulus eſtabliſhed a hundred, Tarquinius Priſcus increaſed the number of them to three hundred, and that number was yet in the time of the Gracchi which were poſterior in time to Judas Maccabeus.
In the ſame place, ver. 14. it is obſerved, that none of the Romans was clad in purple to be magnified thereby. This Author knew not that the Roman Senators wore Gowns embroydered with broad flowers of purple, which they called latus clavus. And that the Knights wore ſmall purple flowers on their Gowns, called auguſtus clavus. The robe of the Antient Roman Kings, and that of the Augurs called trabea, and the triumphal habit which they called toga palmata, were of purple. And the Soveraign Prieſts(z)Ov. Faſt. 4. Illic purpurea canus cum veſte ſacordos. Minutius Felix. Sacerdotum honores & purpuras deſpiciunt. of Rome were clad in Purple. Which the Roman Emperors have imitated when they have taken the title of Pontifices. Whence is derived the purple robe which the Roman Popes wear now.
1 Macc. 12. An excellent obſervation is found in this chapter. An Epiſtle of Arius King of Sparta to Onias High Prieſt of the Jews, whereby the Lacedemonians ſay themſelves to be of the ſtock of Abraham; as right as if I ſaid that the Low Brittans in France are of the ſtock of Nicodemus. Doubtleſs it is from thence that the Lacedemonians were circumciſed and ſpake Hebrew. They that had ſo much docility as to believe that ſimple tale, as Euſebius, have been deceived by(a)Joſep. Antiq. l 13. c. 9. Euſeb. Ch…onol. Olymp. 141. Joſephus, who in theſe things is liberal of egregious lyes: ſo far as to(b)Joſep. Antiq. l. 1. c. 16. make Hercules, the great knocker of monſters, ſon-in-law to one of the daughters of Abraham.
In the firſt chapter of the ſecond of Maccabees, ver. 19. & ſeq. a very ſtrange fable is related; that when the Jews were carried away captive into Perſia (he would ſay Chaldea or Babylon) The Prieſts hid the fire of the Altar in a deep well: and that Nehemiah ſent to Judea by the King of Perſia, ſent Prieſts to take and to bring that fire; But they found no fire in that well, but thick water; which being poured upon the wood of the Altar turned into fire, and burnt the wood. This fable is put(c)Book 1. chap. 2. pag. 777. by M. du Perron among the unwritten traditions neceſſary to ſalvation. Yet it is rejected by the univerſal conſent of the Rabbins, who ſay that this fire deſcended from heaven, was not in the ſecond Temple. We have the Hiſtory of Nehemiah written by himſelf, wherein he punctually relates all that he hath done in Jeruſalem for the good of the people of the Jews; but he makes no mention of that fire, nor of that thick water, nor of that burning of the wood laid upon the Altar. Before that Nehemiah was ſent by King Artaxerxes, they were ſacrificing in Jeruſalem, and the Altar was ſet up again, as it is related, Ezra 3.2, 3. Neither was Nehemiah come to reſtore the ſacrifices, but to build again the walls of Jeruſalem, as his hiſtory ſhews it. What need then of that miraculous thick water to kindle a fire which was already kindled?
In the ſecond chapter of the ſecond book of Maccabees, ver. 4, 5. it is ſaid that Jeremiah the Prophet commanded that the Tabernacle, and the Ark, and the Altar of incenſe ſhould be brought to him, and that he hid them in the mountain of Nebo in a pit, wherein a houſe was, ſaying to them that would mark that place, that the place ſhould be unknown untill God had gathered again the congregation of the people, and that when the Lord would ſhew thoſe things, the glory of the Lord ſhould appear, and the cloud alſo, as it was ſhewed unto Moſes. He that coyned that fable was not very learned; for who knoweth not that in Jeremiah's time there was no Tabernacle, and that inſtead of a Tabernacle Solomon had built a Temple, about four hundred years before Jeremiah prophecied?
The abſurdity and impoſſibility is not leſs in this 2 Mac. 2.4. that Jeremiah commanded the Tabernacle and the Ark to follow him, for ſo it is in the Greek.(d)foreign. How could a Tabernacle, which was not, follow Jeremiah? And to whom could Jeremiah have delivered this command? To the Jews that were ſlain by the Chaldeans? or to thoſe that were reſerved from the ſlaughter to be carried away ſlaves in a hard bondage? And when Jeruſalem had been taken and razed, and the Temple burnt, and the veſſels of the Temple, and the Ark by conſequent were partly carried away, partly burnt; how could Jeremiah who was a priſoner in chains command that the Ark ſhould be brought to him to march after him? The poor Prophet relates,Jer. 38.28. how being odious to the people of Jeruſalem, and to King Zedekiah, he was caſt into a deep pit full of myre, and being drawn from thence, he remained in the court of the priſon, and was a priſoner when the Town was taken, and both City and Temple burnt. But the victorious King of the Chaldeans fetcht Jeremiah out of priſon, and commited him to the keeping of Gedaliah whom he had ſet over the countrey, as it is related, Jer. 34.14. Yea after he was taken out of the priſon, he was bound with a chain, Jer, 40.1. and in that caſe carried to Rama, and thence ſent to Juda, where he ſtayed till he went into Aegypt with part of the people. In all that time, when and to whom could Jeremiah have commanded to bring him the Ark? Where was he, to be able to ſave Ark from the burning of the Temple? or to get it out of the hands of the Chaldeans to hide it in a hole, and in an under-ground houſe fifty leagues from that place? Even in time of peace, would the High Prieſt have ſuffered that a contemptible man, odious among the people, as Jeremiah, ſhould have taken the Ark from the Temple to tranſport it into an unknown place! And when he was priſoner upon a charge of treaſon, thoſe Prieſts againſt whom he had prophecied would no doubt have proſecuted him for ſtealing the Ark away and hiding it they knew not where.
We meet with the like or rather greater abſurdities and difficulties when it is queſtion of finding that Ark again after the peoples return from the captivity, to bring it again into the Temple rebuilt by Zorobabel, about ſeventy years after. The Author of the ſecond book of Maccabees ſaith not by whom, nor when it was found and brought to the Temple again, and of that no trace is found in any hiſtory. And no more of that which is promiſed, 2 Mac. 2.8. that after the finding the Ark and the Tabernacle, the cloud would cover them, and the glory of the Lord would manifeſt it ſelf over them, as in the dayes of Moſes. Such a miraculous manifeſtation would not have been omitted by Joſephus who hath moſt exactly written the hiſtory of the Jews of that time and of the following ages, untill the laſt deſtruction of Jeruſalem. So far is Rabbi Solomon Jark… from confirming this, that he directly contradicts it in his Comment on the firſt chapter of Haggai, ſaying that in the ſecond Temple there was no Ark. Which is confirmed by Cornelius Tacitus, who ſaith that Pompey having taken Jeruſalem entred into the Temple,Hiſtor. l. V. and having the curioſity to enter into the Sanctuary, he found vacuam ſedem & inania arcana, the place empty and nothing in the moſt ſecret place. Which ſhould be falſe, if he had found there an Ark bearing two Cherubims.
Jeremiah himſelf contradicts the relation of the Maccabees; for (Jer. 3.16.) ſpeaking of the happy and peaceable ſtate which God would give to the Jews after theſe deſolations, he ſaith, And it ſhall come to paſs when ye be multiplied and increaſed in the land, in thoſe dayes, ſaith the Lord, they ſhall ſay no more, The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord; neither ſhall it come to mind, neither ſhall they remember it, neither ſhall they viſit it; Neither ſhall that be done any more. Other verſions ſay, Neither ſhall it be any more. For although I willingly grant that Jeremiah in that place ſpeaks of the vocation of the Gentiles; yet it is the cuſtom of the Prophets, by the things happening to the Jews before the coming of Chriſt, ro prefigurate future ſpiritual things. Be ſure that if Titus having taken the Temple of Jeruſalem had found the Ark in it, he would not have omitted to cauſe it to be carried before him in triumph, with the other pieces of the ornaments of the Temple, the enumeration whereof is made by Joſephus in the ſeventh book of the Judaick war; where he ſaith that the golden table was carried among the pomps of the triumph, and the golden candleſtick, and the book of the Law; things far inferiour in magnificence to the Ark, and to the Cherubims made by Solomon.
(e)Lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 15. § Reſpondeo potuiſſe.Bellarmin ſeeing ſuch an evident truth, and finding no likelihood of truth in ſaying that the Ark had been found again, after the return from the captivity of Babylon, and brought again to the Temple, hath found out another ſhift. He ſaith that the Ark is not found yet, but that it will be found in the laſt dayes, the next unto the day of judgement; But the Jeſuite Regourd is of another mind. For indeed it were hard to ſay what good a guilded cheſt would do and an Altar of incenſe, and a Tabernacle of skins among the general burning of the world in the day of judgement.
(f)P. 538. & 540.This Jeſuite then in his fourth Demonſtration ſaith that it is more likely that the Ark was found again after the Captivity, and was in the Temple built by Zorobabel. And he proveth it by the ſecond book of Maccabees: Wherein common ſenſe faileth him; For our difference is whether that book be fabulous. As if one proved that the fables of Ovid's Metamorphoſis are true, becauſe they are in Ovid's Metamorphoſis.
2 Chron. 5.9. It is written that the barrs of the Ark remain there untill this day. An evident proof, that the Author writ the book when the Ark was yet in being, and that the part of the laſt chapter which ſpeaks of the taking and ruine of Jeruſalem, and the Temple, and of the deliverance granted by Cyrus, was added ſince by another author. In the ſame manner as the book of Deuteronomy, being written by Moſes, the laſt chapter where the death of Moſes is deſcribed hath been added ſince. The ſame is ſeen in the book of Joſhuah. For if from that text one would infer (as Regourd doth) that the Ark was yet in the Temple after the return from the captivity, he muſt ſay alſo that the Temple hath not been ruined by the Chaldeans, and that the Ark did not ſtir from it.
In the fourteenth chapter of the ſecond of the Maccabees, v. 41. & 42. Razias is praiſed for killing himſelf. He being ready to be taken on every ſide fell upon his ſword; Chooſing rather to dye manfully then to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abuſed otherwiſe then beſeemed his noble birth; Can one more expreſly commend ſelf-murther? Is that dying vertuouſly? Was it vertuouſly done of that man to regard more the nobility of his race then Gods commandment? That which follows is no better, that he caſt himſelf headlong from a high place, and tore his bowels with his own hands.
One hath need to be of an eaſie belief to believe that which is related, 2 Mac. 8.20. that eight thouſand Jews gave battell to the Galatians in Babylon, where they killed ſix ſcore thouſand Galatians. Such battells are not given in a Town. Joſephus or ſome other Author would have ſpoken of it. The whole countrey of Galatia together, which is a very little countrey, cannot afford ſo many ſouldiers. And much more impoſſible it is, that there ſhould be ſo many Galatian ſoulders in Babylon, which is about five hundred leagues from Galatia. This is no leſs abſurd then if one ſaid that ſix ſcore thouſand Engliſh Souldiers in Conſtantinople were killed in a battell given within the Town, by eight thouſand Spaniards. This could not be done unleſs the Galatians had taken Babylon before, which they never did.
2 Macc. 15.38.In the end of the book this Author acknowledgeth his weakneſs, as he may well; and with juſt reaſon doubteth whether he hath well ſaid. If (ſaith he) I have done well, and as it is fitting the ſtory, it is that which I deſired; but if ſlenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. The Spirit of God doubteth not whether he hath well ſaid, excuſeth not his ſtyle, and alledgeth not his want of power for excuſe. In the vulgar verſion, the only approved by the Councel of Trent, the Author craveth pardon for his faults.(g)Si minus digne, concedendum eſt mihi. And the French verſion approved by the Jeſuites of Lovain. Si je n'ay pas dit comme je devois, il me le faur pardonner. If (ſaith he) I have not ſaid as worthily as I ought, I muſt be pardoned. I ask then if it be convenient to the Spirit of God, who hath inſpired his Prophets to write, to doubt whether he hath ſpoken as he ought to do, and to crave pardon of men. And as for the lowneſs of the ſtyle, the Spirit of God doth not trouble himſelf to ſeek an eloquent ſtyle. His end is not to tickle the ears, but to inſtruct the conſciences. God knoweth what ſtyle is fit for his word, and ſimplicity is more powerfull and effectuall for his end.
M. du Perron anſwereth that St. Paul excuſeth himſelf in terms more expreſs of the ſtyle of his Epiſtles, when he ſaith 2 Cor. 11.6. Though I be ignorant in word, yet I am not ſo in knowledge: (for ſo the Cardinal tranſlates it) Wherein he commits three notable faults.
The firſt, that he makes St. Paul to excuſe himſelf for his ignorance, whereas he rather commends his learning, ſaying If I be rude in ſpeech, (or, If I ſpeak like one of the vulgar) yet I am not rude in knowledge. He doubts not whether he hath ſaid well; He ſaith not, If I have not ſaid as I ought. He craveth no pardon.
The ſecond fault of the Cardinal, is that he thinks that St. Paul in that text ſpeaks of the ſtyle of his Epiſtles, whereas he means his ordinary ſpeech when he taught by word of mouth.foreign. For as for his Epiſtles, they were ſo far from needing an excuſe of their rudeneſs and ſimplicity, that the Corinthians upbraided him, (2 Cor. 10.10.) that his letters were weighty and powerfull, but his bodily preſence was weak and his ſpeech contemptible.
The third fault is that he falſifieth the text of Paul, tranſlating foreign ignorant, whereas it ſignifies in this place rude and ſimple, like one of the common people. For although foreign ſignifie ſometimes ignorant, yet it cannot be ſo taken in this place. For learning and ignorance conſiſt not in words, but in things, in which St. Paul in the ſame place, affirmeth himſelf to be learned, ſaying, If I be rude in ſpeech, yet not in knowledge.
M. du Perron ſeeing himſelf beſieged about with ſo many difficulties, and perceiving ſo many abſurdities and untruths in the books of Maccabees, thought it his beſt courſe to leave all and abandon that cauſe, going over all thoſe rubs with ſilence. But to ſcape, he ſtriveth to find the like abſurdities in the Canonical books; as that Elijah, eight years after he was tranſported to heaven, writ to Joram. That Joram begot Ozias, ſaith Mathew, who puts only fourteen generations where there are ſeventeen. And that Luke diſſents from Joſephus. Of which pretended abſurdities, and the way to reſolve theſe objections I have ſpoken above, chap. 59.
The Reader may judge by what ſpirit this Cardinal was led, and what account he made of the holy Scripture, ſince he makes uſe of the teſtimony of Joſephus to ſhake the certainty of the words of the Evangeliſt St. Luke. Though there were a diſcord between the hiſtory of the Goſpel, and that of Joſephus, a Jew and no Chriſtian, can there be any difficulty in reſolving which of the two muſt rather be believed? Can that doubt fall into a Chriſtian ſoul that believeth the Gopſell?
We muſt not omit that the Cardinal, while he labours to ſhew himſelf an Hebrician, ſhews his ignorance, ſaying that Onias in Hebrew ſignifies the ſtrength of the people, whereas it ſignifieth God is my ſtrength; and putting Onias and Onian for two names ſignifying the ſame thing, whereas Onian ſignifies nothing. True it is that Oniam which comes neer Onian, ſignifieth the people is my ſtrength, but that name is not uſed among the Hebrews.