Page images
PDF
EPUB

I.

Euseb. 1. x.

c. 9.

for his antiquity and veracity. What ground there is CHAP. for these pretences, may be examined afterwards: I am now only to consider the scheme of religion, which is produced with so much pomp: and yet the author of it, whoever he was, was neither divine, philosopher, nor politician; for it is one of the rankest and most insipid pieces of atheism that is to be found in antiquity. And Porphyry could not but detest it, unless he had produced it in spite to the Christians; for he doth on all occasions declare not only his belief of God and Providence, but that he was the maker of the world, as Holstenius hath made it appear in his life, cap. 9, and it is well known that he was a professed Platonist. But let us now see what an account we have from this Phoenician scheme, about the making of the world. "At first there was a dark, confused, restless chaos, Euseb. "which was agitated for a long time, and nothing 1. i. c. 10. Præp. Ev. came of it. At length a mixture happened, and this was the first principle of making the universe; but it was ignorant of its own making. From this mix"ture came Mót, or a slimy kind of substance, out of "which issued the generation of all things. There

66

66

66

were some animals which had no sense; out of which "came those which had understanding, and were called Zophasemin, i. e. beholders of the heavens; and

66

66

were made in the figure of an egg: and the Mốt "shined forth, and the sun and moon and great stars "appeared. But it seems those living creatures were "fast asleep, till they were awaked by dreadful thun“ders, and then they began to bestir themselves." This is the short account of this matter, which depends not, we are told, on Sanchoniathon's authority; but he took it out of the records of Taautus himself. And so we have the original of the world according to this ancient Hermes. And if this were his true doctrine, it

ed. Par.

1.

BOOK is one of the most absurd and senseless pieces of atheism, and tends directly to overthrow all religion in the world. For can any thing do it more effectually, than to suppose that there was nothing originally in the world but stupid matter, which by its own motion, without a God to give and direct it, should produce the heavens and earth, and all living creatures; and that senseless creatures should beget those that had understanding; and these not capable of acting till they were thoroughly awaked by cracks of thunder? Can we imagine this Taautus to have been any deep philosopher or politician, by setting down such extravagant and unreasonable suppositions as these? But let us see how it was possible for him to advance any thing like religion upon these grounds: he must be a politician indeed that could do it. The first men, he saith, consecrated the fruits of the earth, by which they lived, and worshipped them, and made oblations to them. This was a very notable beginning of religion, according to this admirable politician, for mankind to worship what they deCicero de Voured. But Cotta in Cicero thought no man could be 1. iii. c. 16. so mad to worship what he did eat. Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, credat Deum esse? But he saith, That these notions of worship were suitable to their weakness and pusillanimity. This doth not give any account how they came to have any notions of Divine worship at all. What was there in the plants, which made them give such reverence and devotion to them? They saw how they grew out of the earth, and had no power to help themselves, when they made use of them for food. And how was it possible then to give Divine worship to them, which must suppose power at least in what is worshipped? Or else it is a most ridiculous folly in mankind to stoop to things so much below them. Now this ori

Nat. Deor.

I.

ginal inclination to give Divine worship to something CHAP. or other, is that which argues that there is that which some call a natural seed of religion in human nature, and must come from some antecedent cause, since there could be nothing in these objects of worship which should move them to it, if it had been so, as Sanchoniathon represents it, from the ancient records of Ta

autus.

Præp.

The two first mortals, he saith, were on and Pro-Euseb. togonus; and their children were Genus and Genea, p. Er. who inhabited Phoenicia; and when they were scorched with the heat, they lift up their hands to the sun, whom they believed to be the Lord of heaven, and called him Beelsamen; the same, saith he, whom the Greeks call Zeus. But how came they to imagine any Lord of heaven, if they knew that the sun was made out of senseless matter, as well as themselves? It may be said, That they being weak and ignorant did not know it. But how then came their posterity to know it, if the very first race of mankind were ignorant of it? By what means came Taautus to be so well informed? Revelation cannot be pretended; for that supposes what they deny, viz. a Supreme Being, above matter, which hath understanding, and gives it to mankind. But here mankind come to be understanding creatures, by being born of animals that had no sense; which is a most unreasonable supposition. They could not have it by original tradition; for that fails in the fountain-head, if the first pair of mortals knew nothing of it. Then they must find it out by reason; and how was that possible, if there was no maker of the world, that there should be a Lord of heaven? It is a remarkable saying of Aristotle, observed by Cicero, (who saw several De Nat. of his pieces which we have not, after they were c. 37. brought to Rome by Sylla, and put into order by An

[blocks in formation]

Deor. 1. ii.

BOOK dronicus Rhodius,) that if there were men bred under
I. ground, and had there all conveniences of life, without

coming upon the surface of the earth, but should only
hear that there was a God and a Divine Power; and
afterwards these persons should come out of their caves,
and behold the earth, sea, and the heavens, the great-
ness of the clouds, the force of the wind, the bulk, and
beauty, and influence of the sun, with the orderly mo-
tions and courses of the heavenly bodies, they could
not but think not only that there was a Divine power,
but that these things were the effects of it.
And why
should there not have been the same thoughts in this
first race of mankind, unless we can suppose that they
had never heard of any such thing as God, or a Divine
Power in the world? But then I ask, how they should
come to think of worshipping this Beelsamen, or Lord
of the heavens? for so he confesses they did, and lift

What could the lifting up

up their hands to the sun.
their hands signify to a senseless mass of fire, which
lately happened to be united together by chance in
one body? If he had made mankind wholly devoid of
religion, till they had been instructed in it by some
crafty politician, it had been much more agreeable to
this hypothesis: but to suppose them to pray to the
heavenly bodies so early, and without any instructor,
must imply some natural apprehension of a Deity, al-
though they were so much mistaken in the object of
Divine worship. But it is not reasonable to believe
this should have been so early and so universal, but
that they presumed the sun, moon, and stars, to have
been the visible deities appointed to govern the visible
world, and that the supreme Mind was to be worship-
ped in a way suitable to his own excellency, by acts of
the mind; which was the opinion of many nations, and
some of the greatest philosophers.

I.

Then he proceeds to relate, how, after some of their CHAP. posterity had found out some useful inventions as to the conveniences of life, after their death their children erected statues and pillars to their memories, and worshipped and kept annual festivals at them; and that after the death of Uranus, and Cronus, and Dagon, and the rest, Taautus made symbolical images of them, being made king of Egypt by Cronus; and these things he saith, the Cabiri, by Taautus's own command, entered into records, from whence we are to believe that Sanchoniathon took them, and Philo Byblius translated them out of the Phoenician language. And Eusebius seems not to question the antiquity of them, but prefers this plain and simple story far before the inventions of poets, or the allegories of the philosophers. If these things were recorded by the Cabiri, the sons of Sydyc, brother to Misor, the father of Taautus, they do not seem to have consulted the honour of Taautus; for they make him not barely to be chief counsellor to Cronus, in the design against his father Uranus, but that he made use of magical arts against him, (but they do not tell us who invented them, nor upon what principles they could be founded, if there were nothing but matter in the world :) and besides this, he advised Cronus, having a suspicion of his brother, to bury him alive in the earth. And one would think so great a politician as Hermes would never have commanded the Cabiri to have preserved these stories of himself and his ancestors.

However, this is the account given by Philo Byblius, out of Sanchoniathon, about the first planting religion by Hermes, who was after worshipped himself as a god by the Egyptians. And now let any one consider whether this be a reasonable or tolerable account of the first sowing the seeds of religion among mankind. And

« PreviousContinue »