borrowed from Moses and the Prophets, they had so disguised and disfigured it, that they had almost spoiled it. I speak his sense, though not his very words. Next to Justin, follows his scholar Tatian, who expresses the same thought more distinctly, and is the best comment upon him. He observes ", that it were much more advisable for the Pagans to take Moses himself for their guide, than to follow the Greek philosophers so much younger, and who had drawn their best things from him, and not in the best manner, not like skilful men for that many of their sophists, led by vain curiosity, had come to Moses and other Jewish sages for instruction, but had laboured to adulterate it when they had done; either to make a show of saying something of their own, or else to cover up what they did not well understand, under a mist of words, sophisticating the truth with devised fables. To proceed. Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, about the year of our Lord 18o, takes notice that the Pagan poets and philosophers coming after the sacred Prophets had stolen the doctrine of eternal punishments from them, in order to give the more strength and weight to their own writings. In another place, he intimates, that they had derived the notion of the unity of God and of a future judgment from the same fountainy. The like he says afterwards in respect of the doctrine of the general conflagration, that the Heathen poets stole the notion from the Law and the Prophets z. * Τοῦ χάριν μνημονεῦσαι τούτων νυνὶ προήχθην, ὦ ἄνδρες Ελληνες, ἵνα γνῶτε τὴν ἀληθῆ θεοσέβειαν οὐ δυνατὸν παρὰ τούτων μανθάνειν τῶν μηδὲ ἐν οἷς ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐθαυμάσθησαν, ἴδιόν τι γράψαι δυνηθέντων, ἀλλὰ διά τινος ἐκείνης ἀλληγορίας ὑπὸ Μωσέως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητῶν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν συγγράμμασιν ἀπηγγελκότων. Just. Paren. cap. xxxν. p. 118. * Καὶ χρὴ τῷ πρεσβεύοντι κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν πιστεύειν, ἤπερ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἁρυσαμένοις Ἕλλησιν, οὐ κατ' ἐπίγνωσιν, τὰ ἐκείνου δόγματα. πολλοὶ γὰρ οἱ κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς σοφισταὶ κεχρημένοι περιεργίᾳ, τὰ ὅσα περὶ τῶν κατὰ Μωσέα, καὶ τῶν ὁμοίως αὐτῷ φιλοσοφούντων ἔγνωσαν, ἃ καὶ παραχαράττειν ἐπειράσθησαν. πρῶτον μὲν, ἵνα τὶ λέγειν ἴδιον νομίζωνται· δεύτερον δὲ, ὅπως τὰ ὅσα μὴ συνίεσαν, διὰ τινὸς ἐπιπλάστον ῥητολογίας παρακαλύπτοντες, ταῖς * Ὧν τιμωριῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ προφητῶν μεταγενέστεροι γενόμενοι οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι ἔκλεψαν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν, εἰς τὰ δόγματα αὐτῶν ἀξιόπιστα γενηθῆναι. Theoph. ad Antol. lib. i. c. 19. p. 62. edit. Hamb. * Πλὴν ἐνίοτέ τινες τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ αὐτῶν, εἶπον ἀκόλουθα τοῖς προφήταις, ὅπως εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς τε καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις περί τε Θεοῦ μοναρχίας καὶ κρίσεως, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὧν ἔφασαν. Theoph. lib. ii. c. II. p. 114. Conf. 262. 2 Καὶ περὶ ἐκπυρώσεως κόσμου, θέα λοντες, καὶ μὴ θέλοντες, ἀκόλουθα ἐξεῖπου τοῖς προφήταις, καίπερ μεταγενέστεροι γενόμενοι, καὶ κλέψαντες ταῦτα ἐκ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. lib. ii. c. 55. p. 260. Theoph. But of all the ancient Fathers and Apologists, there is none more copious upon this argument than Clemens of Alexandria. It is very frequent with him to call the Pagan philosophers and poets, thieves or plagiaries, for their stealing so plentifully from the Jewish Church, to adorn their own writings; at the same time not acknowledging the obligation a. He presses the charge home upon particular men by name, or bodies of men: upon Pythagoras chiefly and Plato, as the two principal men: but upon Numad also, and Thales, and Socrates, and Cleanthes 5, and Antisthenes h; upon Xenophon, and Aristotlek, and the whole sect of the Stoics. He makes the like charge upon the heathen poets in generalm; and particularly upon Orpheus", Linus, Musæus P, Homer 9, Hesiod, and Pindars. His proofs of the facts are not all of the same kind, nor of the same weight. What he urges from external confessions or testimonies of Pagans themselves, as from Megasthenes', Clearchus ", Numenius, and Plato himself, must be owned to be solid and convincing, so far as it reaches. As to the artificial arguments or presumptions drawn from the similitude of thoughts or expressions, taking in the superior antiquity of Moses, and the certainty of the fact that many both poets and philosophers had been in Egypt, where they might have learned something at first or second hand from the Jews: these and the like considerations have their weight and credibility, but may sometimes easily be extended too far. The particular doctrines, notions, or principles, which Clemens supposes to have been thus borrowed by the Pagans from the Jews, or from sacred Writ, are such as I shall just briefly mention: first, the main substance or best part of their ethics or morality; next, their most considerable laws, either in Minos's, or Lycurgus's, or Zaleucus's, or Solon'sb; mercy towards brute beasts; then the Unity of Godd; the Trinity alsoe, ed. a Clem. Alex. p. 369, 377, 378, 429, 650, 663, 699, 700, 733, 737. Oxon. d Ibid. p. 358, 359. g Ibid. p. 60, 715. k Ibid. p. 358, 705. n Ibid. p. 659, 692. q Ibid. p. 659, 707, 709. y Ibid. p. 355, 358, 697. b Ib. p. 60, 355, 358, 477, 662, 663. c Ibid. p. 60, 176, 223, 224, 355, 358, 419, 662, 701, &c. 710. e Ibid. p. 704. 1 Ibid. p. 699, 708. u Ibid. p. 358. f Ibid. p. 701. i Ibid. p. 60. m Ibid. p. 658. P Ibid. p. 659. s Ibid. p. 295. x Ibid. p. 411. a Ibid. p. 422. d Ibid. p. 714, &c. and the sacredness of the seventh day; the omnipresence or overruling power of the Deitys; the doctrine also of the resurrection, and of future judgment1, and of the everlasting punishments in hell, with the blessedness of heaven1: add to these the notion of good and evil angelsm, and of the creation of the world", and of the general conflagration. Some obscure knowledge of all these doctrines, Clemens supposes to have been conveyed by Scripture, or hearsay, or tradition, from the Hebrews to the Gentile world; but that the Pagans had much depraved or disguised the doctrines so received. Tertullian, of the same century, prosecutes the same argument in few, but in strong words. He tells the Pagans, that they borrowed their laws, such as were of most value, from the older laws of Moses. In another place he asks, which of their poets and which of their sophists had not drank at the fountain of the Prophets? And he further says, that from thence it was that the philosophers had quenched their learned thirst: but he intimates withal, that they had corrupted and mangled what they had so taken, and had endeavoured to wrest and warp it to their own hypotheses', not sufficiently considering that a Divine writing is privileged from ill usage, and ought not to be so profaned. Minutius Felix expresses the same thought, observing, that the philosophers had taken several things from sacred Writ, but had adulterated what they took, and delivered it but by halvess. Origen discovers the same sentiments, in more places than one of his treatise against Celsus. He refers to Hermippus, Ibid. p. 700, 701. 1 Ibid. p. 722. Ibid. p. 722. m Ibid. p. 701. n Ibid. p. 701. o Ibid. p. 711, 712. » Dum tamen sciatis ipsas quoque leges vestras, quæ videntur ad innocentiam pergere, de divina lege ut antiquiore, formam mutuatas: diximus jam de Mosis ætate. Tertull. Apol. c. xlv. p. 372. edit. Haverc. Quis poetarum, quis sophistarum, qui non de prophetarum fonte potaverit? Inde igitur et philosophi sitim ingenii surrigaverunt. Tertull. Apol. c. xlvii. p. 396. Conf. ad Nation. 1. ii. c. 2. which Josephus had before done, as a voucher, that Pythagoras had borrowed his philosophy in part from the Jews. In another place he intimates that Plato probably might have learned some things from the Jews in Egypt, which he afterwards disguised for fear of giving offence to the Greeks". He elsewhere speaks more positively of Plato's borrowing some of his expressions or notions, either directly from Scripture, or at second hand from his converse with the Hebrews. And he takes notice also of Numenius (a Pythagorean of the second century) his speaking respectfully of the Jews, and of his borrowing several things from Moses and the Prophetsz. Our next author is Lactantius, who, though he agrees with the other Fathers and Apologists in the main thing, that the Pagans did borrow from the Hebrews several of their best notions, yet he seems to differ from them in some considerable circumstances. For his opinion appears to be, that they did not receive those doctrines at first hand, by reading the Scriptures themselves, neither yet at the second hand, by conversing with the Hebrews, but by a more remote and obscure channel of conveyance, by uncertain hearsay, or blind and very corrupt traditiona; so that the Pagan philosophers did not themselves deprave what they had so taken, but they received it depraved, and could not make it better than they found it. This appears to be Lactantius's real sense of the matter. Accordingly he denies that ever Pythagoras or Plato resorted directly to the Jews, or (as his argument seems to imply) that they conversed at all with them". t Λέγεται δὲ καὶ Ερμιππον ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ νομοθετῶν ἱστορηκέναι, Πυθαγόραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς Ελληνας ἀγαγεῖν. Origen. contr. Cels. 1. i. p. 13. u Origen. cont. Cels. 1. iv. p. 190. * Origen. cont. Cels. 1. vi. p. 288. conf. lib. vii. p. 351, 352. y Origen. ibid. 1. i. p. 13. z Origen. ibid. p. 198. a Nullas enim literas veritatis attigerant; sed quæ prophetarum vaticinio tradita in sacrario Dei continebantur, ea de fabulis et obscura opinione collecta, et depravata (ut veritas a vulgo solet variis sermonibus dissipata corrumpi, nullo non addente aliquid ad id quod audierant) carminibus suis comprehenderunt. Lactant. Instit. 1. ii. c. 10. p. 95. edit. Cant. Quia mysterium divini sacramenti nesciebant, et ad eos mentio resurrectionis futuræ obscurorum ore pervenerat, eam vero temere ac leviter auditam, in modum commentitiæ fabulæ prodiderunt. Et tamen iidem testati sunt, non auctorem se certum sequi; ut Maro qui ait: Sit mihi fas audita loqui. Quamvis igitur veritatis arcana, in parte, corruperint, tamen ipsa res eo verior invenitur, quod cum prophetis in parte consentiunt; quod nobis ad probationem rei satis est. Id. 1. vii. c. 22. p. 397; b Unde equidem soleo mirari, quod cum Pythagoras, et postea Plato, amore indagandæ veritatis accensi ad Egyptios, et Magos, et Persas usque penetrassent,-ad Judæos tamen non accesserint, penes quos tunc Some have gladly laid hold on this passage of Lactantius, disliking the hypothesis of the other Fathers, and looking upon this single opinion of Lactantius, as weighty in itself, and sufficient to counterbalance all the rest. Others, on the contrary, think that Lactantius has betrayed great ignorance in what he has said, and that his single opinion is of small weight against many more valuable writers. Some have endeavoured to excuse him in this affair, and to reconcile him with the other Fathers, by saying, that he might mean only that Pythagoras and Plato did not go into Judæa, however they might have conversed with Jews in Egypt or elsewhere. But Lactantius probably meant, that they never conversed with the Jews at all; and his argument seems to require that he should mean so. In short then, we must either give up Lactantius, as to those particular facts relating to Pythagoras and Plato, or else set aside a number of other more considerable authorities. But as to his main notion, that the Pagans, many of them, borrowed their best principles from revelation remotely, and by obscure tradition, rather than by reading of sacred Writ, or conversing directly with Jews; there appears to be both sense and truth in it; of which I shall say more when I come to pass a judgment upon the general argument. I may next mention the learned Eusebius, who, in his celebrated treatise of Evangelical Preparation, takes in almost every thing that others had said before him, relating to our present topic. His tenth book in particular is very diffuse and copious, in shewing that Plato and other philosophers had borrowed much the greatest and best part of their theology and ethics from the holy Scriptures. His eleventh book is taken up in specifying the particulars wherein Plato's doctrine agrees with sacred solos [religio] erat, et quo facilius ire potuissent. Sed aversos esse arbitror Divina providentia, quia nondum fas erat alienigenis hominibus religionem Dei veri, justitiamque cognoscere. Lactant. lib. iv. cap. 2. p. 176. c See Marsham Can. Chron. sect. xix. p. 152. Franeq. edit. Clerici Epist. Crit. vii. p. 228. Hodii Text. Bibl. lib. iv. p. 571. d Nec enim satis didicerat Lactantius sive Pythagoræ, sive Platonis res, cum eos minime Judæos accessisse scripsit. Id quod ex sequentibus fiet manifestum. Selden. de Jur. N. et Gent. lib. i. cap. 2. p. 14. Splendide ergo halucinatur Lactantius, cum mirari se ait, &c. Conceptis enim verbis tradit Porphyrius, in vita Pythagoræ, Ægyptios, Arabes, Chaldæos et Ebræos ipsum adiisse, &c. Huet. Dem. Evang. Prop. iv. p. 45. Splendide enim, quum id scriberet, erravisse Lactantium, non modo ea quæ produximus testimonia arguunt, sed et res ipsa loquitur, &c. Witsii Egyptiaca, lib. iii. cap. 13. p. 276. e See Baltus, Défense des SS. Peres accusés de Platonisme, 1. iv. p. 612, Nourrii Apparat. ad Bibl. Max. vol. i. p. 386, 387. |