The Samaritan Showing Healing, Section 7
SECT. VII.
BUT I ſhall argue the improbability of it, from Experience, as well as from its proper Cauſes. Do we not ſee great variety of judgments, and apprehenſions in all parts of Learning and Knowledge? Do not Grammarians differ in the ſenſe and meaning of words, and in the explication of the Idiotiſmes and peculiarities of the learned Languages? Do not our Mythologiſts differ in the account they give of the Fables of the Greek and Latine Poets? Do not ſome Learned Men think that they are (at leaſt many of them) corruptions of the true Hiſtory of things which we have in the Holy Bible? Hath not the Learned Bochartus among others given very probable reaſons for it? and hath not an Engliſh Doctor and Divine of our Church derided, and laughed at him for it?
Have not, and do not our Theological Criticks and Tranſlators differ in their Opinions, even concerning the Signification of words, as about the Original of them? Is there any agreement or concord among them, or do we need to go far for proofs of it? The firſt verſe in the Bible will furniſh us with enough. ברא שית In the beginning is tranſlated by the Jeruſalem Targum, בחוכמא in Wiſdom, By the Arabick foreign the firſt, and by Aquila foreign, Summatim. Nor are they agreed in the origination of the word שמים Some will have it compounded of the words מים and שם ibi ſunt aquae, there are waters: Others will have it derived from the Arabick word foreign altum eſſe. And as great variety may be obſerved in the Tranſlation of thoſe words, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, but ſuch varieties are endleſs. I will only mention the different opinions of Criticks, upon thoſe words, Pſal, 22.17. They pierced. The word כארי ſome think is derived from the Hebrew word כרה, and that the Aleph in the middle is Epenthetical, and the Jod in the end of the word is put for Vau, either by the negligence of Tranſcribers, or the fraud of the Jews out of ſpight to the Chriſtian Religion: Others think the radix of the word is כהר, and that Aleph is put for Ajn, by a permutation uſual in the Eaſtern Languages: Others think that the word is Syriack, and that the radix is foreign and that 'tis here the infinitive Mood with the affix of the firſt Perſon, which often admits the ſignification of the preter perfect Tenſe among the Hebrews. This opinion they think is favoured by the Septuagint, who Tranſlate the word foreign, which is of the ſame ſignification with foreign as Ferrarius informs us. Other diverſities of opinions there are concerning this word, thoſe that pleaſe may conſult De Dieu, Glaſſius, Hottinger, Amama, Pocock, in Porta Moſis, with many others.
Are there not great diverſity of opinions among Hiſtorians and Chronologers? do they give the ſame account of things? is there no diverſity in their narrations? Do the Greek and Roman Hiſtoriographers, report the ſame things of the Emperours, great Generals, and men of War, whoſe lives and actions they tranſcribe, and tranſmit to future Ages and Generations? Do they fix the ſame Epoches, and Periods to the beginning and end of the four famous Empires that have ſucceeded each other in the world? Are they agreed in what year of the Julian period to fix the Creation, or how long it hath been exiſtent? Longomontanus reckons it exiſtent. 3964. Kepplerus 3993 years before the birth of our Lord. Ricciolus ſays in his Almageſt that he hath proved in his Chronology that this duration of the world could not be extended farther than 4076, nor determined ſhorter than the year 3993, from the Nativity of our Lord; And the moſt probable year of the intermediate ſpace betwixt theſe two periods he thinks is the year 4063. See And Tacquet. Aſtron. lib. 1. p. 46. This is enough to prove the variety, and uncertainty of Chronology, to which many more might be added, if it were to any purpoſe.
When will our Learned Commentators agree in their expoſitions of the dark and obſcure parts of the Scripture? When will they give the ſame ſenſe of the Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations? Mr. Mede ſeems to have given the faireſt account of them, and yet the Learned Dr. More diſſents from him in many of his interpretations, as well as from Dr. Hammond, and his admired Hugo Grotius. And 'tis not only among Chriſtian Writers that this diverſity is found, but even among the Jewiſh Doctors: I ſhall only give one inſtance thereof amongſt numberleſs numbers that might be produced: and that ſhall be from their expoſitions of the 53 Chap. of Iſaiah. Abravanel in his enquiry concerning the Subject of that Prophecy tells us, that many of their Wiſe Men underſtand it על פשיח לעחיר לבא de Meſſiah venturo and thus Paehmanides underſtands it: Rabbi Saaidias underſtands it of Jeremy the Prophet, and ſo doth Aben Eſra and Rabbi Menachem, with whom Grotius aſſents, though not without ſome heſitation. Jarchi and both the Kimchi's (Father and Son) underſtand it of the Jewiſh Nation, which opinion he embraces and defends. Vide eum ſi placet in Commentariis fol 78. The like diverſity is found among the Mahumetans, as thoſe that pleaſe may find in Mr. Pococks ſpecimen Hiſtoriae Arabum, and his notes upon it, as alſo in Hottingers Hiſtoria Orientalis.
When will the diverſity of opinions concerning the Hebrew Points receive a determination? Capellus in his Arcanum punctationis aſſerts the novelty of them, ſo doth our Learned Walton. Buxtorfius Junior aſſerts them in his Anti Critica, Capellus, defends his opinion with acrimony and ſcorn enough towards his adverſary, as may be ſeen throughout his whole defence; Buxtorfius replies again, and the Controverſy is not yet ended, nor I think like to be. Theſe things Create no diſputes among Carpenters and Maſons, among Plough-men and Carters, and Perſons that live in an utter ignorance of them, but they are, and will be controverſies among the Learned, till Elias come.
And are there not as many controverſies, varieties, and uncertainties in natural Philoſophy, as in what I have already mentioned? are not all things variouſly argued there, and are not mens Judgments in thoſe matters as multifarious as their Perſons in them? Have not DesChartes, and ſome other Philoſophers of late overturned the whole Syſteme of the Ariſtotelian Philoſophy, and may not others do the like by what they have eſtabliſhed, and are there not as great objections lying againſt their Novel Syſtemes, as againſt thoſe that they have rejected? Or are the minds of ingenious, and inquiſitive men any more ſatisfied in the one, than in the other?
Are Phyſicians agreed in the nature of Simples, Drugs, and Minerals? have they any fixed Method for the Cure of Diſeaſes? are they agreed in the Nature and Cauſes of them? Can they tell what cauſeth Convulſions, and Epilepſies? Are they agreed, or ſatisfied in what Dr. Willis hath diſcourſed concerning them? Do they know what cauſes an Ague, or in what part of the body, and in what veſſels thereof that Fomes lies, which at ſtated times ferments, and produces thoſe various Symptomes? Are they agreed in their judgments about theſe things, or are they ever like to be? Do we not find new methods of Curing Diſeaſes propounded every day, which after they have had their turn upon the Stage, they go off, and others ſucceed them.
As the varieties in natural Philoſophy are many, and the differences among thoſe that converſe therein innumerable, ſo are there the like among the Writers and Students in Metaphyſicks. What is there in that Science that is not variouſly argued and diſputed? When will they be agreed about the Principle of Individuals, about the nature & number of Cauſes, about Quantity, Habits, Relations, and other things paſt count and number? When will they with one conſent tell us the difference between the Decrees and Eſſence of God, whether it be real virtual, relative, or by extrinſick denomination?
To theſe varieties and differences in Science, add thoſe that are found among Mathematicians in Aſtronomy, and other parts of Mathematical Learning. When will they be agreed about the Diameter and Circumference of the Earth, when will they tell us how many miles we muſt move Northward, ere the pole be elevated one degree higher than 'tis in the place of our preſent abode and habitation? When will they determine the quantity of the paralacktical Angle of the Sun? Is it two degrees, or three degrees, and ſome prime minutes, as Albategnius will have it; or is it only 14 or 15, ſeconds as Vendeline determines it; or at the moſt but 30 ſeconds even when the Sun is neareſt the Earth as Tacquet reſolves it? Aſtron lib. 3. p. 131. 132. When will they fix the diſtance of the Sun and Moon from the Earth, and from each other? when will they determine the nunber of the Earths Semidiameters, by which theſe diſtances may be meaſured? when will they agree in the height and extenſion of the Atmosphere, and how much the Diameter thereof exceeds that of the Earth, in its length and extenſion? when will they conſent in the proportion that the ſeveral planetary Orbs have to each other, with many other queſtions of like nature and uncertainty, too many to mention?
If the variety of mens Judgments in matters of Humane Learning and Philoſophy be ſo great, it cannot reaſonably be expected, that they ſhould be one and the ſame in the Doctrins of Religion. There are as great depths, and as many unfathomleſsabyſſes in Religion, as in any part of Learning or Philoſophy; and indeed thoſe very things that are difficulties in Religion, at leaſt ſome of them, are not peculiar to Chriſtianity, but were the ſame before it was known in the world, and are indeed difficulties in Philoſophy, as much as in Religion. Such are the difficulty of reconciling the Divine Preſcience and Decrees with Liberty & Contingence, or the Liberty of mans will with the Infallibility of Gods; Such is the original of Evil, and many things about the nature and acts of God, and therefore whil'ſt there are controverſies and obſcurities in the one, there will be in the other. The things themſelves being mixed and blended, the obſcurities that attend them muſt be mingled and confounded alſo.
In brief; There is nothing but a profound Ignorance that can make Men of one Judgment (pardon the expreſſion, for 'tis Catachreſtical and improper) in the obſcure, dark, and unneceſſary Doctrines of Religion. This is obvious among the Papiſts themſelves; for though the common People, which are kept in Ignorance, and not permitted to read the Bible, manage no Controverſies concerning Points of Religion, nor are divided in their Judgments about them; yet their Learned Men are at as great Differences, and there are as great Feuds among them, as among Proteſtants, unleſs it be in ſuch things where their Intereſt unies them. This is ſufficiently known by all Learned men, what everlaſting Quarrels there are between the Jeſuites and Dominicans, the Janſeniſts and Moliniſts, and many other Orders among them; inſomuch that his infallible Holineſs himſelf durſt not determine them, for fear of diſobliging the one or the other Party of them.
Ignorance indeed keeps men quiet, and free from raiſing Controverſies, and running into variety of Judgments. Plough-men & Carters, do not uſe to differ about the ſignification of words in the Greek, Hebrew, and Oriental Languages, but Linguiſts do, and will everlaſtingly differ about them. Tradeſmen and Farmers have no Debates about the paſſing of things out of a State of Poſſibility into a State of Futurity; or whether there needs a Decree of God for the effecting of it. The Mercers and Haberdaſhers are not divided in their Opinions about the variation of the Sun's fartheſt declination, the mutation of his Excentricity, or the unequal Motion of his Apoge. Theſe are things they pretend no knowledge in, and therefore they entertain no diverſity of Sentiments concerning them: But Aſtronomers have been of different Judgments in all theſe things, as may be ſeen in the Author lately quoted, pag. 45. 37.