THat there were certain Foeminae Fati­dicae, Women that foretold future Events, I shall not go about to prove: the Records of all History making it mani­fest. Pausanias tells you, speaking of Del­phos. That one Daphne was ap­pointed by the Earth her self the President of the Oracles in that place. [...]. Pausanias in Phocicis, pag. 320. lin. 29. Edit. Francos. an. 1583. And a little after intimates, That the gift of Ora­cles belonged only to wo­men according to the sence of those that recorded events. [...]. pag. 321. l. 6. in Phoci­cis. Nei­ther shall I spend much pains to examine from whence they had their Name; whether, as Lactantius, Lactant. li. 1. de fals. Relig. p. 31. Edit. Hackii 1660. Montac. excer 4. p. 126. in analect.Baroni­us, and others, from [...] which signifies [...] in the Aeolick Dialect, and [...] or [...] which signifies Counsel, as if they were Counsellers of God: Which I should not so [Page 162]well like, whilst it remains questionable by what Spirit they were inspired; and that Phrase, so far as I remember, not used to any other except to him whose name was Won­derful Counseller, the Mighty God. Our Industrious and Learned Countrey-man Mr William Howell in his Institution Historical (a piece well worth the perusal of every man) seems to derive them from the genitive case of [...], Howell, p. 171. calling them such to whom the Coun­sel of Jupiter was imparted: Or whether the word Sibylla were not the proper name of the first, Hom. Iliad. [...]. pag. 351 Edit. Rom. [...]. or Princess of them, as Eustathi­us (the learned Bishop, and Christian) in his Notes upon Homer would have it; or lastly, as Suidas, who saith it is a meer Latine word, signifying a Prophetess; any of which the Reader may make choice of, as it shall most agree with his own judgment.

But how many in number they were, in what ages of the world they lived, and how inspired, will admit of a larger debate.

Cornelius Tacitus speaking of them, Tac. an. lib. 6. pag. 149. Edit. Antw. 1627. and their Verses, hath these words, Ʋna seu plu­ves fuere, leaving it doubtful whether there were one or more. Martianus Capella reckons only two, Erophile the Trojan daughter of Marmesus, Mart. Capel. in nuptiis Philo­log. lib. 2. Sibylla, vel Eri­threa quaeque Cumana est, vel Phrygia: Quas non decem, ut asserunt, sed duas fuisse non nescis, id est, Erophilam Tro­janam Marmesi filiam, & Symmachiam Hippotensis fili­am; qua Erithrea progenita Cumis quoque est vaticinata. which he thinks to be the same with Phrygia, and Cumaea; and Sym­machia born at Erithre, who likewise gave out Oracles at Cumes; and saith particularly, [Page 163]they were not ten, as was af­firmed, but only two, Erophi­la and Symmachia. Pliny speaks of the statues of three seen at Rome near the pleading Pulpits, Equidem & Sibyllae statues juxta rostra esse non miror, tres fint licèt: Una quam Sextus Pacuvius Taurus aedilis plebis restituit; duae quas Marcus Messala. Plin. nat. hist. lib. 34. cap. 5. one of which Sextus Pacuvius Taurus restored, being Aedile of the common people; the o­ther two Marcus Messala. These Solinus tells you, cap. 7. Polyhi­stor. were Delphica, Erithrea, and Cumana. With him agrees the Scholiast of Aristopha­nes, in his Comedy of Birds. There were three Sibylls, [...]. Schol. Ari­stoph. in avibus. of which one, as her Verses tell you, was the Sister of Apollo, the second Erithrea, the third Sardiana. Aelianus tells you of four, Erithrea, Samia, [...].Ae­gyptia, and Sardiana; to whom (saith he) others have added six, so that in all they are ten, amongst which Cumaea, and Judaea are reckoned. Lactan­tius out of Varro, with whom agree Isidore, Lact. pag. 33. Isid. l 8. cap. 8. Suidas in ver­bo Antim. in Praefat. ad Si­byl. Orac. p. 144. Sixt. Sen Bi­bliot. pag. 108. Edit. Lugd.Suidas, Antimachus, and most others count ten in this order. 1. The Persian. 2. The Lybian. 3. The Delphick. 4. The Cu­maean. 5. The Erithrean. 6. The Sami­an. 7. Cumana. 8. The Hellespontick. 9. The Prygian. 10. The Tiburtine.

Onuphrius addes more, as you may see in his Book de Sibyllis, put out before the Ora­cles, [Page 164]in the Paris. Edit. 1599. In his account of them I observe this difference; he ac­counts the Sibylla Delphica in the first place, and Persica in the eighth, I think errone­ously; for certainly she was much ancienter then Cumana, if her name was Amalthea, as I shall shew anon.

The age of the world in which they lived severally, is uncertain, but undoubtedly the first of them very ancient, and sundry of them before the Trojan War. Onup. de Sibyll. pag. 7. Onuphrius tells you that Sibylla Delphica lived long be­fore those times, and quotes Bocchus, or Boethus for it, that she was born at Delphos, that Ho­mer took some of his Verses from her, which our Learned Doctor Simpson in his Chron. Simp. Chro. Cat. A.M. 28 29.Ca­thol. takes to be those, among others, by him remembred upon the year of the world 2829. But Pausanias goes much higher, and tells you, speaking of Delphos, that it was the place where Oracles were delivered from the beginning of the earth. They say, from the beginning of the earth there was a place of Oracles, [...], &c. Pausan. in Phocicis, p. 320. 29 Ed. Frank. 1583. and that Daphne was by the earth her self appointed President there—That prophecying was in common between Neptune and the Earth; that the Earth gave Oracles with her own mouth: That Neptune had for his Minister for that office one Dircon. And not many lines after hath these words.

I have heard that some Shep­herds happened upon the place where the Oracle was, [...]. p. 320. 38. Pho. and be­came inspired by the vapour of the earth it self, and prophesied by the power of Apollo. Which thing might very well occasion the building of a Temple to Apollo in that place wherein Oracles had formerly been gi­ven. Nay I find farther that the same Pau­sanias tells you of one Herophile that used to give Oracles where you find this. [...]— Pausa. Phoc. p. 327. 18. There is a stone rising up above the rest: Upon this the Delphians say that one Erophile used to stand and deliver Ora­cles; and that she first obtain­ed the name of a Sibyll: But I find her rather in the like man­ner more ancient, whom the Grecians call the daughter of Jupiter and Lamia, who was the daughter of Neptune, and that she first chanted out Ora­cles of any women, and by those of Libya was called a Sibyll. Herophile was not so ancient as she was, yet was she also before the Trojan Wars.—

When I consider and compare with these testimonies what the most Learned Bochartus saith in his Geographia Sacra, That Noah was Saturn, Cham Jupiter Hammon, Japhet [Page 166]Neptune, Boch p. 1. Noam esse Saturnum tom multa do­cent, ut vixsit dubitandi locus. See How. Inst. Hist. p. 4. and Sem Pluto; in whom you may farther see the concinness of the Story, and his reasons at large; as likewise that Tubal Cain was Vulcan. Boch. pag. 432. by a small change in the pronuntiation, their sounds being almost the same. It might well stand together, that in that time, when there was a promiscuous use of all beds, that Cham might marry his brother Japhets daughter; that is, according to Pausanias, Jupiter married the daughter of Neptune, who, as you heatd be­fore, was a Diviner, and all this before the flood; so that the story of one skill'd in that Art being shut up in the Ark with Noah, is not only probable but true; for we are cer­tain, Noahs three Sons with their wives were shut up there. Josep. li. 1. cap. 5. Lil. Giral. de Poet. Hist. pa. 79. Josephus, a Jewish Writer, and certainly no friend to Prophesies not owned by those of his Nation, tells you of one that spake of the building the Tower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues also, but without any mark of distrust put upon it, which probably he would have done, had he found any cause not to believe the truth of their Writings. Lilius Giraldus tells you, That Sibylla Persica, called Sambethe, the same with Chaldaica and Hebraea, lived before the flood, and was shut up in the Ark with Noah. I find her also called Lil. Giral. de Poet. Hist. pa. 79 Dial. 2. Suidas in verb. Collius l. 3. p. 2. p. 192. De ani­mabus Paganc­tuin. Sambethe Noe, which might as well be the daughter of No­ah, as to derive her name from Noe, a Town near the Red Sea, as Beirlin. in Verb. and our industrious Countryman Mr. Howel in his In­stit. [Page 167]Historical, incline, pag. 171. Georg. Ce­drenus tells you of one in Solomons time, it may be the same Pausan pag. 327. calls Saba, and to have succeeded Demo, said to be the daughter of Berosus and Erimanthe. The Queen of Sheba, who was also by the Grecians called a Si­byll, [...], &c. Glycas. Annal. p. 256. &c. Onuphrius in his Book de Sibyllis, will tell you of o­thers, that lived in other ages of the world, Pausan. in Pho­cic. p. 337. Onup. de Sibyl. and assuredly long before that Amalthea, who is said to have offered to sale nine books of Oracles to Tarquinius Priscus, others to Superbus; which story, because I shall make some use of it, I shall deliver at large, as I have literally rendred it out of Dionysius Harliearnassaeus, who lived about twenty six years before the birth of our Savi­our, as Helvicus hath it. Helv. Chron. in annot. in cat. vi­ror. illustrium. The story in Di­onysius Halicarnassaeus is thus, Another very admirable accident in the time of the Reign of Tarquinius, [...], &c. Lib. 4. fol 259. whether given by the good will of the Gods or Daemons, is re­lated to have fallen out in the City of Rome, which not only for a small time, but in all ages, and often hath saved it from great evils. A certain woman, not of that Country, came to the King, desirous to sell nine books fil­led with Sibylline Oracles; but the King not thinking fit to buy them at the price she asked, shewent from his presence and burnt three [Page 168]of them, and soon after returning, asked the same price for those that remained; but he thinking her some dotard, and to be derided, who asked for a fewer in number that price she could not obtain for them all, she again went away, and burnt half of them that were left; and bringing again the three that remained, demanded still the same quantity of gold: The King then wondring at this deliberate counsel in the woman, sent to the Augurs, [...]. and discoursing the matter with them, inquired what was fit to be done; they by certain signs having learnt that he had re­fused a blessing sent from God, and deeming it a great misfortune that he had not bought all the books, commanded the gold to be told out to her, and to receive the books that re­mained; but she giving the books, with a charge to keep them carefully, vanished out of their sight. Tarquin made choice of two of the Citizens of good rank; and joyning to them two other publique Ministers, gave unto them the custody of them; one of which was called Marcus Atylius, who be­cause it seemed he had done something inju­riously as to his trust, and being accused as a Parricide by one of the publick Ministers, [...]. was sewen into a sack of leather, and thrown in­to the Sea. But after the expulsion of the Kings, the City taking upon themselves the oversight of the Oracles, constituted for their keepers the most considerable men of their City, discharging them from all other [Page 169]employments both military, and civil, and appointed others of the people, without whom they permitted not these men to take a view of the Oracles. In short, let me tell you, The Romans kept no holy or sacred possession whatsoever, with that care they did the Sibylline Oracles: They made use of them according to the Vote of the Senate, when any sedition fell out in the City, or great misfortune in war, or that wonders, or great and portentous Apparitsons were seen amongst them, which things often fell out. These books of Oracles remained until the time of the so called Marsike War, being laid under ground in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and kept in a Coffer, or Box of stone, by the Decemvirs. But after the 173. Olympiade, the Temple being burnt, whe­ther on set purpose, as some think, or by chance, they were, together with other things consecrated to the Gods, destroyed by the fire. Those which now are; were fetch'd from sundry places; some out of the Cities of Italy, some out of Erithre in Asia, Messengers being sent by the Decree of the Senate to transcribe them; some were fetchd from o­ther Cities, transcribed by private hands, in which there are some things supposititious, or inserted among the Sibylline Writings; but they are discovered by those verses which are called Acrosticks. [...]. Thus far he. Others call this strange womans name Amalthea of Cumes. But from this story thus told, with [Page 170]which Varro Lactantius and others agree, give me leave to make these Observations.

FIrst, That in the judgment of Dionysius Halicarnassaeus 'twas uncertain by what Spirit they were inspired; for he relates as doubtful whether those books were given by God or the Divel. St Ambrose speaking of the spirit of Python, Amb. Com. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. hath these words; Hic est qui per Sibyllam locutus est, &c. St Augustine Cont. Manich. hath these words; Moreover, touching Sibyll or Sibylls, Or­pheus, Sibylla porro vel Sibyllae, & Orpheus & nescio quis, Home­rus, & si qui alii Vates, vel Theologi, vel Sapientes, vel Philosophi Gentium, de Filio Dei, aut de Patre Deo vera prae­dixisse, seu dixisso perhibentur, valet quidem aliquid ad illorum vanitatem revincendam, non tamen ad istorum authoritatem amp [...]cotendam, cum illum Deum colere ostendimus quem nec illi tacere potuerunt, qui suos con­gentiles populos Idola & Dae­ [...]na colenda partim docere au­si sunt, partim prohibere ausi non sunt. and I know not who, Ho­mer, and whatsoever other Pre­sagers, Divines, Wise men, or Philosophers of the Gentiles, who are reported to have told or foretold true things of the Son of God, or God the Fa­ther, 'tis indeed of some use to overthrow the vanity of the Gentiles, not to make us em­brace their Authority; since we make it appear that we wor­ship [Page 171]that God of whom they could not hold their peace, who partly taught their Country-men that Idols, and Daemons were to be worshipped, partly durst not hinder them in it. Perhaps he may mean this rather of the other Soothsay­ers and Diviners that were common in those times; not of the Sibylls, at least all of them; for if our Learned Prelate Richard Mounta­cute, sometimes L. Bishop of Norwich, Mount. Analect p. 159. quote him right, he speaks more favourably of Si­bylla Erithrea, saying, She had nothing a­mong all her Verses which ei­ther belonged to the worship­ping of false or feigned gods. Nihil habuit in toto carmine quod ad Deorum falsorum seu fictorum cultum pertineat. Isaac Casaubon, a man of great learning, and various reading, speaking of the use made of them by the Romans, hath these words; There was never any thing produced (he means by the Romans) out of those Books, Nihil enim unquam ex illis libris prolatum quo gentium error, & ille insanus Daemo­num cultus non confirmarctur, aut etiam nova accessione impi­etatis non augeretur. Cas. p. 81. ed Gen. exc. in Bar. by which the errour of the Gentiles, and that mad wor­ship of Daemons was not con­firmed or augmented by some new accession of impiety. I be­lieve what he saith to be true; for he that is conversant in any measure with the Romane story, will find with what superstition and impious facrifices they consulted those books, and commonly in such cases wherein the good only of their own Country, and the worship of their feigned Gods might be promoted; [Page 172]insomuch that whatever else was in these books that concerned the worship of the true God, being by them not understood, was wholly neglected; and therefore, in my judg­ment, Gasaubon deserves not the censure which I find he hath received in this particular, as if he had contradicted what St Augustine be­fore him had delivered. Blundelius, in his Book De les Sibylles, calls them frequently Rhapsodists, stale meat, like Nostredamus, &c. And truly, it is justly to be doubted, whether those persons were indued with the Spirit of God, in whose writings, among many truths, much that countenanced impiety was mixed. We know God sometimes forced the truth out of the mouths of false Prophets, Balaam, Caiaphas, and others; neither is it very mate­rial, to examine by what spirit they were in­spired, whether, as Arnobius, Lactantius, Ba­ronius, See Sixt. Sen. bib p. 108. Edit. Lugd. Mont. excer. 4. p. 186. in Anal. & alii. and others, that they were [...], filled with Gods Spirit, or spake only by his permission, as the Oracles did; so as the truth of what they foretold is for the generality made good; neither can I think it unreasona­ble to believe, with Cardinal Baronius, That the Counsel of God was such, Confilium Dei fuisse ut longe ante Christi adventum tantae rei sacramentum Judais atque Gentibus innotesceret, illis quidem per Prophetas, hisce vero per suos Vates, Hisdaspem praecipue, & Sibyllas. Mount. ia Anal. p. 127. that long before the coming of Christ some sign of so great a blessing should be made known to the Jews and Gentiles; to them by the Prophets, to these by their Vates, chiefly Hidaspes, and the Sibylls.

Secondly, Observ. 2 That this person that came to Tarquinius could not be of Cumes in Italy; for she is said to be a stranger, [...], not of that Nation; and that any of any other Nation should at that time inhabit in Cumes in Italy, and there deliver Oracles, and the Roman State not know of it, seems very impro­bable.

Thirdly, Observ. 3 It is manifest there were more genuine Books of that nature at that time; for we see she burnt six of nine filled with the same matter, or two of three, as others say, but all agree the greatest number was burnt, and so probably enough those afterward sought out in the time of the Consulate of Scribonius and Octavius in the 176 Olymp. Onup. de Sibyl. pag. 47. out of Fenest. Helv. Chron. pag. 81. Ed. Oxon. a­bout 15 years after the Capitol was burnt, which happened in the time of the War be­tween the Marsi and their Confederates, cal­led the Marsick, or Sociale War, might con­tain much of what was in the Books burnt by Amalthea, and which never were before in the Roman hands, and so perished not with the Capitol; and consequently that they were not necessarily supposititious, or spurious, because Dionysius Halicarnassaeus saith so, who being a Heathen, judged of the truth, or falshood of them, by their agree­ment with what he had learned was in the former Books; by which, according to the best examination the State could make, what they received from Erithre, and other Towns of Asia and Italy, were corrected.

Fourthly, Observ. 4 It is evident, the original Wri­tings of what the Romans received were still kept in those places from whence they had them; for it is expresly said, they caused them to be transcribed, which might be part­ly the reason of the multitude of Copies that were after extant of Books of that nature: Nor can I believe, that in 15 years no man should have the curiosity to seek out such ra­rities, till Scribonius, and Octavius motioned it in the Senate, though between that time and the Reign of Augustus, when the Pro­phetick Books were burnt, many more years, near 100, had elapsed.

Fifthly, Observ. 5 That it doth no way appear, that those Books sold by this strange woman were the product of her own brain, but might very well be the Writings of some other; nay, if there be any truth in that part of her story, that she vanished away, she must needs be an Angel or Devil, and so that opinion no way impugned which shall affirm, that what she sold to Tarquinius was the work of some other much ancienter then her self, perhaps hers that went by the name of Erithrea, and lived at Cumes in Asia, and Italy also, because the Ro­mans first sent to Erithre, undoubtedly from that reason, that they believ'd those books they had lost were likeliest to be found there; and beside, Montac. in ana­lect. pag. 150. Oaup. de Sibyl. Lactan. p. 33. I find this Amalthea counted the Sibyl­la Cumana, not Cumaea, as Onuphrius, Suidas, Lactantius, and others, have before taken no­tice of, though the similitude of their names [Page 175]made their persons sometimes confounded.

Sixthly, Observ. 6 That the Acrosticks in the Sibyl­line Books were a means by which the true Writings were distinguished or discovered.

YOu have heard before what care the Ro­mans took to repair their loss, by getting in again what they could of the Sibylline Books: Amongst those they obtained, Lactan­tius will tell you, they strictly laid up only those of Cumaea. His words are these. Harum omnium Sibyllarum car­mina & feruntur & habentur praeterquam Cumaeae; cujus li­bri à Romanis occuluntur, nec cos ab ullo nifi à quindecem vi­ris inspici fas est. Lact. de fals. Relig. lib. 1. pag. 35, 36. The Verses of all the Sibylls are abroad, and posses­sed, except those of Cumaea, whose Books are secretly laid up by the Romans; nor is it law­ful for any, except the Quinde­cem viri, to look into them.

The curiosity of men continually increa­sing from the time of the burning of the Ca­pitol [Page 176]unto the review made by Augustus, which was 60 years, or upward, there were got into private hands above 2000 Copies of Books of that nature, which produced that Decree made by Caesar, for the bringing them in to the Praetors hands; as Suetonius tells you. Quicquid fatidicorum libro­rum Graci Latinique generis, nullis, vel parum idoneis aucto­ribus vulgò ferebantur, supra duo millia contracta, undique cremavit, ac solos retinuit Sy­billinos, hos quoque delectu habito, condiditque duobus fo­rulis auratis sub Palatini A­pollinis basi. Suet. in vita Aug. pag. 152. Edit. Hackii. 1651. Whatsoever presaging or fate-telling Books either in Greek, or Latine, were com­monly vented abroad, either under none, or Authors names of little account, having ga­thered together of them above two thousand, he caused to be burnt, retaining only the Sibyl­line Books; of these also he took what he liked to make choice of, and hid them in two gilded hutches under the foot of a pillar in the Temple of Apollo Palatinus. In which re­lation 'tis observable, that the Sibylline Books were exempted from this Martyrdom; nay indeed none suffered but such as had no warrantable Author to secure them: What he liked in the Sibylline Books he laid up in the Temple; so we find here a new accession to those Books gathered together before by the Roman Embassadours sent abroad to that purpose: And I find farther, that after this, when Caninius Gallus, a Quindecemvir, would have done the like, he was reproved by Tiberius Caesar, for deviating from the cu­stome observed by the Romans, and put in [Page 177]mind what Augustus Caesar had before done. Tacit. Ann. lib. 6. p. 149. Edit. Antw. But I confess, upon the best search I have been able to make, I cannot find any Law or pub­lick Inhibition against the reading of such Books as were either not burnt, or not re­tained in the Capitol; neither indeed could there be; for what the Romans had being now but Transcripts, why might not any man have recourse to the Originals, as well as the Senate? and indeed how could Tully and Virgil make use of things out of their Books (which were never lookt into but up­on weighty and great occasions) except they had received them from some other Copies; See the Trea­tise p. the curiosity of the Romans extending only unto those in the custody of the Quindecem­viri, to which they only gave credit, and punished the divulging, not by any new Law, but by that of parricide, which they infli­cted upon Atilius before mentioned. This is made more evident, Harum omni­um Sibyllarum carmina & fe­runtur & ha­bentur, praeter­quam Cumeae. Lactan. lib. 1. p. 35. & 36. [...]. Xiph p. 230. 25. in Tiber. as well by the Testimo­ny of Lactantius, who tells you many of their Books were frequently had in his time, as by another, to wit, by Dio Nicaeus, as I find it in Xiphilinus. In the time of Tiberius there went abroad a Prophesie said to be in the Sibylline Books, in these words; That after 900 years a civil dissention should embroil the Romans, and a Sibaritick madness. This Tiberius endea­voured to make appear to be false, though he were much troubled at it; [Page 178]and Nero after his time finding the peoples troubles not allayed, he told them those Ver­ses were not to be found, but instead of them they used to recite this, [...]. The last that should reign of the Family of Aeneas should be the killer of his Mother: But in all this trouble, and endeavours to satisfie the people, I find no man questioned for reading, or divulging this matter, which undoubtedly would have been done had there been any general inhibi­tion, or that the Quindecemvirs had been found faulty in their trust: See the Trea­tise, pag. Neither durst Origen have avowed the reading and owning them against Celsus, whence the Christians were called Sibyllists: Nor yet Justin Mar­tyr himself, had there been a general Law upon pain of death not to read them: We cannot, must not believe Christians so pro­digal of their lives, or the Heathens so mer­ciful, not to have made use of it against them. The words of Justin Martyr are these, after he had upbraided them with their prohibi­tion to read the Books of Hidaspes, the Si­bylls, [...] In Apologet. and Prophets, he addes: We do not only possess them without fear, but as you see, offer them to your view. Which words must necessarily be refer­red to what is before said; for it is notori­ously known, that till Stilico burnt the Ca­pitol the second time, about the Reign of Honorius, which was about 395 years after [Page 179]Christ, the Sibylline Books were kept with the same care; and undoubtedly all breach of the Law would have been severely pu­nished, of which in truth there was none but that upon which Atilius was punished, which was that of a parricide in betraying his Countrey, and therefore could not ex­tend to others, in whom no trust was repo­sed. But because I find in this particular va­riety of opinions, Baronius contending the inhibition concerned only the Christians, with whom agrees Bishop Montacute in ana­lect. p. 154, 155. Isaac Casaubon, and the Au­thour of the foregoing Treatise think the prohibition concerned all promiscuously; I shall forbear any determination in this thing.

HAving gone thus far, and laid down these things as preliminary to what I shall farther say, I come now to consi­der the most material Objections that have been hitherto offered against their Writings; [Page 180]and in this Chapter insist chiefly upon those urged by Isaac Casaubon (as learned certainly as any adversary they have had) and not de­clined by others. But I desire first to inform the Reader, that I hold it no way incum­bent on me to justifie all things in those Books, as they are now extant with us, to be free from all corruption; (what perhaps will be hard to maintain of any Book very ancient) but will believe it fully sufficient for the matter I have in hand, if I shall shew that those places insisted on by the Fathers in their Disputations against the Heathens have no marks of calumny that can be justly laid upon them, and therefore very adequate to that end for which they were produced by the Author of the foregoing Treatise.

Yet shall I farther shew ex abundanti, that the most improbable things are so far from being demonstratively false, that they may be true, notwithstanding those many Obje­ctions that D. Blundel, and others, have heap­ed together to weaken them, and through their sides wound those holy men, who for nigh 500 years made use of their Testimony against the Enemies of Christianity. I wish I could not guess at the reason of it, and why D. Blundel hath been so curious to rake into the ashes of those holy departed Saints that now rest in glory, and enumerate their mi­stakes, in which I dare boldly affirm he is oftner deceived then they: Nor can I believe any judicious Reader will be led away with [Page 181]that Paralogisme in which he spends his whole second Chapter, See Blundel de les Sibylles, cap. 2. and much of his Book: The Fathers were deceived in other things, therefore in this. Some things are false in the Sibylline Writings, therefore nothing is true. Whereas he could not but see that the Argument lies as fair on the other side: The Fathers in many other things were not deceived, therefore not in this; especial­ly in a particular wherein for the space of a­bove 150 years (for it is so much, or neer it, from Justin Martyr to Constantine) they made it their business to examine the truth, where­as peradventure in some few other things through the fluency of their tongue, and ex­uberancy of Rhetorick, they might let fall that which makes us see they still retained the frailties of men, and had not the memo­ries of Angels. Nay D. Blundel himself, when it can any way be drawn to serve his turn, is not so hard hearted toward the an­cient Writers, that he will not allow the most suspected of them, Hermas, Papias, and others, a more candid and benigne suffrage, as 'tis well observed by the Learned D. Ham­mond in his defence of Ignatius.

If the Reader will be pleased to pardon this short, digression, I shall now come to an­swer the Objections. The first insisted upon by Casaubon, is the clearness of them: His words are, (having before made use of those Texts that call the Doctrine of Christianity a Mystery) These and the like Testimonies [Page 182]of the holy Scriptures, and the like, Haec sacrae Scripturae testimo­nia, & bis similia, quî stare possunt, si verum est, pleraque, & ea quidem praecipua doctri­nae Christianae mysteria, etiam ante Mosem gentibus fuisse pro­posita. Casaub. Excer. 1. ad ap­par. ann. Bar. fo. 67. Edit. Genev. 1655. how can they stand toge­ther, if it be true that these, and the chief Mysteries of Chri­stian Doctrine, were before Mo­ses propounded to the Gentiles.

Though in answer to this I might tell you, that if some of the Sibylline Writings have that antiquity I have already touch'd, and shall have farther occasion to speak of; and that those of them that are so, have those clear revelations of the Mysteries of Christi­anity, it was before it had pleased God to separate the Jewish Nation as a peculiar peo­ple to himself, but that then all the world made but one Church, governed and instru­cted by the Precepts they had received from Noah; and so the same reason to propound those Mysteries to them before Moses, as there was after to the Jewish Nation alone: Yet I shall chuse to give you my answer in the words of Castalio in an Epistle of his to Mau­rus Musaeus, Anno 1546. as I find it related by Simson, in Disquisit. de Sibyllis.

There are some (saith he) to whom these (Sibylline) Wri­tings seem too open, Sunt nonnulli, inquit, quibus haec Oracula (Sibyllina) nimis aperta videantur, ideoque ficta putent ab aliquo Christiano ad pelliciendos Gentiles, & ad Christianis gratificandum.— Qui autem nimis aperta pu­tant faciunt arroganter, sanè qui Deo vaticinandi modum praescribant, quasi non ei libe­rum sit apertè, obscurè, apud Gentiles, apud Judaeos suo ar­bitratu praedicaere, aut quasi non extent in sacris quoque li­teris praedictiones quaedam cla­rissimae.—Sed fateamur sanè Sibyllina Oracula esse clariora: Nonne quae Gentilibus de Chri­sto praedicta sunt clariora esse oportuit, quòd Mose, & caete­ra disciplina carebant, quae [...]is ad Christi lumen praeluceret, ut quod hîc decrat id Oraculorum claritate compensaretur? — Quanquam non debemu [...] hae [...] Oracula ex eâ quae nunc est luce existimare: Nam quae nobis post res g [...]stas notissima sunt, ea cùm futura praedicerentur crant obscurissima. Si quis ea finixisset, profectò obscuriora de industria fecisset, ut ante rem gestam scripta, & his simi­lia viderentur quae sunt in sacrit literis. and there­fore think them feigned by some Christian to allure the Gentiles, and gratifie the Chri­stians.—But they which think them so deal too arrogantly, [Page 183]who prescribe unto God in what manner he must prophe­sie, as if it were not free to him according to his good plea­sure to foretell things to come clearly, obscurely, to the Gen­tiles, to the Jews; or as if some most cleer predictions were not extant in the Scriptures.— Yet should we grant that the Sibylline Oracles are more clear, ought not the revelati­ons to the Gentiles of Christ to be so, who were destitute both of Moses and the rest of the Jewish Discipline, which might to them have been as a light to lighten them to Christ, that so what was otherwise wanting might be recompensed to them by the perspicuity of the Ora­cles themselves?—Neither ought we to take estimate of them from that light that now shines amongst us: For what is to us most notable who live after the things fulfilled, might to them to whom they were foretold as future be most obscure. If any man had feigned them, certainly he would on purpose have made them more dark, that they might have seemed to have been written before the thing accomplished, and have more resembled those of the Holy Scriptures. Thus far he.

But I ask, Were they indeed so clear? What means Lactantius then, that tells you, They are confused and mingled so together, that though they were many, Et sunt singularum singuli libri, qui quia Sibyllae nomine in­scribuntur, unius esse creduntur, suntque confusi; nec discerni ac suum cuique assignari potest. Lact. lib. 1. fol. 36, 37. Ed. Hack. 1660. yet they seem the works of one body, and are so that every ones proper work cannot be assigned. And Pro­copius in his first book of the Gothick Wars saith, That they tell not all from the beginning, nor observe any harmony or or­der in their discourse; — [...]. — [...], &c. Proc. bel. Got. lib. 1.—and that for that reason 'tis impos­sible for any man whatsoever to understand them before the thing foretold is accomplished: To which may be added, that we are in all likelyhood be­holding to those that gathered together and set in order what we now have, for their plainness, who have joyned to the same time and place things that seemed to them of like nature, which might at several times, and perhaps by several persons distant enough in time, be delivered. Furthermore, things as clear have not been understood. That of Balaam, quoted by the Author of the foregoing Treatise. That of Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel; extreamly clear in the literal sence, and yet not understood by the Jews when foretold, nor believed, when ful­filled. [Page 185]If the Sibyll names her Name, the Prophet names his, and leaves out hers, and both name the Town Bethlehem, though the Scripture indeed do it in another place. Mr. Howel tells you of an Oracle that said, Howel Instit. Hist. p. 787. A Temple dedicated to Bacchus should stand donec Virgo peperit, till a Virgin should have brought forth; upon which the Heathen cal­led that Temple eternal, because they deem­ed it impossible for a Virgin to conceive; and the thing not understood, though true in the literal sence, and fulfilled at the preaching of our Saviour.

A second Objection insisted on by Isaac Casaubon, Object. 2 is drawn from the practise of the Primitive times, who, as he tells us, were wont to esteem it as a great atchievement among themselves, if they could, by their own figments and offi­cious lies help out the truth, Postremo illud me vehementur movet; quòd videam primis Ecclesiae temporibus quam plu­rimos extitisse, qui facinus pal­marium judicabant caelestem ve­ritatem figmentis suis ire ad­jutum: quo facilius nova illa doctrina a gentium sapientibus admitteretur: Officiosa haec mendacia vocabant bono finc excogitata. Casaub. excer. 1. ad app. ann. Bar. p. 67. Ed. Gen. and make the new Doctrine with more ease to be received hy the Gentiles; from which fountain he supposes have proceeded a great number of books under the Apostles, and other specious names, &c. I deny not but some spurious things have been anci­ently vented in the Church, as you may see in Eusebius, and others, to what end done I will not now dis­pute, which might by obscurely, and appear some years, perhaps ages after, when the cheat [Page 186]could not so easily be discerned: but that the Fathers should in their disputations against the heathens insist upon what they knew was false money, and make themselves guilty by pious frauds and officious lies, of putting so great an abuse upon the world, is a thing so far from the piety and simplicity of that age, that I wish I could as easily wipe out with a spunge this injury to their persons, as I can honour the Memory of that Learned Divine from whose pen they have unadvisedly dropt. Nay, Mont. Analect. Excer. 4. p. 130. I think I may, with my Lord Bishop of Norwich, challenge any man to produce one example of Apostle or Apostolick man guil­ty of such a falshood: It became not Chri­stian Piety to go about to deceive the world; and we find them upon all occasions ready to expose their persons to the fire, their necks to the Ax, rather than deny a truth, and there­fore ought not to believe this of them, espe­cially being supposed to have happened in that Age woen Miracles were not ceased, (as is well observed by the Author of the prece­ding Treatise) and so they could not be igno­rant Christianity would be supported by bet­ter means than their pious frauds or officious lies.

IN this Chapter I shall chiefly examine the Objections made by David Blundel against the authority of the Sibylline Wri­tings, in his second and third Chapter. Part of which is spent (after a short commendation of Justin Martyr) in enumerating his mistakes, that from them he might lay some colourable ground that he was likewise overseen in what he said of the Sibylls: He spares not to tell you, That 'twil be hard to find in all antiquity a more notable mistake than that of Justin, Il seroit malaise d'en trouver dans toute la suite des temps, un plus illustre que celuy du mesconte de S. Justin personage recommendable s'il en fait jam ais;—Tous ces avantages ont pu le relever par dessus le commun; mais ils ne l'ont pa empesche de se laisser abuser par de conteurs, &c. pag. 3. & 4. a person as worthy of commenda­tion as any other hath been: and after the interposition of fome few lines touching his learning and virtue, adds, That though these advantages have raised him above the ordinary rate of men, yet have not hin­dred him from permitting himself to be abu­sed by liars. I should have believed so much confidence would have produced so great [Page 186] [...] [Page 187] [...] [Page 188]Reasons, that what he laid down was true, that no indifferent Reader ought to have any just cause to doubt of it; but I find he urges nothing, or very little, for the confirmation of what he saith, more than his own conje­cture. The first mistake he alledgeth in the Father, is, That he takes the Statue of Semo Sangus, one of the idol Gods of the Sabines, to be that of Simon Magus, which he con­tends was erected at Rome; and that he doth this before the Heathens themselves, with so much confidence, that it is very clear he be­lieved what he wrote to be very true: That it is not so, David Blundell offers no reason at all, nor refers himself to any other book, wherein he might before have proved it; so that for this we have only his conjecture, for ought appears to me: and we have Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus agreeing with Justin Martyr, That he so far deceived the Ro­mans, [...]. Cyr. Catechesi sexta. Simson. Anno Christi, 67. that Claudius erected a Statue for him. That Nero was exceedingly, among all other Vices, adicted to that of Conjuration, and Magick, Dr. Simson will tell you out of Pliny; and there­fore not unlikely that Simon Magus might ob­tain high honours at Rome, till such time as pretending to fly, and being carried up into the air by the Divel, he was brought down head long by the Prayers of St Peter, and St Paul, who were then at Rome, as you may find in the place before alledged.

It is well observed by Mr. Howel, Howel Instit. Hist. fol. 91. that the Ancients had in great veneration such persons as were founders of their Kingdoms, and would give them the Names of Saturn, Jupi­ter, Apollo, and the like, to whom in the blind­ness of those times, they gave oftentimes di­vine honours. Lil. Giral. Synt. deor. p. 19. Lilius Giraldus will informe you, such as these, a kind of Semi-gods, like the tutelary Saints now adays, St George, St James, St Andrew, and the like, were called Semones, whom they held not worthy of heaven, for their want of merit, nor would allow them to be earthly, for the reverence they bare their Memory, in respect of the fa­vours received from them: such, I take it, were the ancient [...] Demons, or Heroes, and as Mr. Mead thinks, Mead, Apostacy of the latter times. in his Apostacy of the latter times; the [...] in­veighed against by St Paul, was that doctrine of giving honour to Daemons, or Semigods. That the Sabines had such a one called Semo Sangus, (whom some take to be Hercules) Lactantius, among others, who calls him San­cus, others Xanthus, others Sanctus, will tell you. Lil. Giral. Synt. p. 67. Dion. Halicar. p. 113. l. 2. You may see in the same Lilius Giral­dus, farther, that from him the word Sancire to enact, had its Original, from the agreement made between them and the Romans, after the rape of the Sabine women, which you may read of in Florus. That there was a Monument or Inscription of this Oath kept in the Temple of Jupiter Pistius, Dio [...] Halicar [...] [...] 4 p. 257. l. 7.Dionysius Ha­licarnassaeus will inform us. That there was [Page 191]likewise an ancient Inscription, Sancto Sanco Sermoni Deo Fidio Sacrum, the Annotator upon Lactantius will assure you out of Fulvius Ʋrsinus, Lact. fol. 82. which in all probability was super­scribed, and the form of the Oath mention­ed before out of Halicarnassaeus, underneath it: But that there ever was any Statue erected of him, kept at Rome, is more then I can any way discover; (as Ciril informs there was of Simon Magus) and much unlike, if any had been, that it should continue so long as from the time of the war of the Sabines, till Justin the Martyr.

The next is, concerning the remains of the Cells in Pharos, near Alexandria, where the 72 Translators of the Hebrew Bible, by the appointment of Ptolomey, was performed. This Fiction, he tells us, St Jerome derides, who had been himself upon the place; and therefore Justin the Martyr (who was likewise an eye witness of what he writes) must be deceived. But why we are bound rather to believe St Jerome's eyes than Justin Martyr's, with whom Irenaeus and many others agree, as David Blundel himself confesses, I see not; especially since both may be true, there being so many years between him and St Jerome, that there might be no tracts of that in St Jeromes time, which was visible enough in St Justin's. You may see at large in Mr Gre­gories Opuscula, Greg. Opus. dis. of the 70. inter. 19. pag. the opinion of St Jerome disproved; neither see I any reason to believe (nor doth Justin Martyr affirm it) any thing [Page 190]of that miraculous agreement without alte­ration of any word, as some have feigned in their translation: Notwithstanding it should be allowed that there were little Closets in which they made their Translations apart, which were afterward compared, and shew'd the King. Yet will Mr. Gregory tell you, Greg. Opus. of the 70 Inter. pag. 7. that the other miraculous way of the story may be taken upon the greatest trust of Antiqui­ty. But these hitherto have been but light velitations, or rather handsome insinuations by D. Blundel to gain the favourable attenti­on of his Readers; that, after he had thus weakened the authority of the Fathers in these light things, he might with more ease perswade his Readers they were to blame in preater. We shall now in the next place come to consider his more weighty Argu­ments, who hath brought together what I have ever found in any other Author to have been alledged against those Writings of the Sibylls, with much improvement of his own. In the examination of them I shall not strictly tye my self to his order, but con­sider them after my own method, that I may, as much as I can, avoid the repetition of the same things.

His first and main Objection is drawn from the inconsistency and contradiction of the Oracles themselves: Object. 1 Blondel, p. 5. &c. Opsopae. in prae­fat. For one of them vaunts her self to be the daughter in Law of Noah, to have been shut up in the Ark, to have been of his blood, guilty of fornication, adultery, [Page 192]nay, if Opsopaeus conjecture rightly, of incest with her Father, when as these Oracles, not extant but in Greek, which was not spoken till after the flood, manifestly discover the imposture: Nay she that pretends to have liv'd before the flood, by her own confession lived 1500 years after. The places referred to are these that follow. Speak­ing before of the flood, — [...], &c. Ora. lib. 1. p. 183. she ex­presses the great joy she had to have escaped so eminent dan­ger of death. The next place referred to is in the third Book, where after she had told you she had come out of Babylon in Assyria, lib. 3. p. 283. lib. 7. p. 360. in fine. that she ws to prophe­sie against Greece, and that they should ac­count her of another Countrey, to wit of Erithre, others the daughter of Circe and Gnostus, &c. She after the interposition of a few lines saith she was of the bloud, and daughter in Law of Noah; and in the se­venth Book, where the words are faulty, and very obscure, gives colour to Opsopaeus his conjecture of incest with her Father. lib. 3. p. 260. The third, and last place is in the third Book, where she tells you 'twas 1500 years since the beginning of the Graecian Monarchy; there­fore that Author must live after that time.

Before I come to give a particular answer to each member of this Objection, Answ. I desire it may be first remembred, what I have touch'd before in the fourth Chapter, that it is no way reasonable to believe that we have [Page 193]every thing in that book now extant set down in that order, and time in which they were delivered by the true Authors, but ma­ny times confounded, and intermixed one with another; so that if it can be evidenced that some one of these Sibylls might have lived before the flood, it no way invalidates their authority, that some things may be put together by the composer, or gatherer of these Oracles as the works of one and the same person, which indeed were the predi­ctions of persons very different one from another both in age and time.

That there were predictions of the flood by many others beside Noab, Berosus will tell you, if we believe his authority, as in that I think we safely may; That many preached, prophesied, Beros. de tempor. ante diluv. lib. 1. p. 48. Edit. Antw. 1552. Tum multi praedicabant & vatici­nabantur, & lapidibus excide­bant de eâ quae ventura erat orbis perditione, &c. nay graved in stone the destru­ction that was to come upon the earth, though they were deri­ded, and not believed. Neither seems it to me improbable, that many pious, and holy men lived about that time, though they were by God brought un­to their rest before this general deluge of wa­ter happened, to which Noab and his Family only survived. The same Berosus tells you, that the Chaldeans kept Records of many things before the flood; tells you of Enos a Town of Gyants; with him agrees Martini­us the Jesuite in his History of China printed at Amsterdam, 1659. where he relates many [Page 194]things out of the Records of that Kingdom before the flood; and truly, that our prede­cessors were never Masters of some pieces of Antiquity, of which we have now no foot­steps left, is to believe them less careful to en­quire after knowledge then we are, or less curious to transmit it to posterity; for how is it possible that Noah himself, and those of his generation that succeeded him, should either not tell, or their children not enquire what was done in the old world, and also leave some memorials of it to succeeding times, till the Graecians (whose Language quickly grew almost universal) having robb'd the Phenicians, and Chaldeans of their Learning, robb'd us also of a great part of that knowledge we might otherwise have been partakers of, by clouding it under Mu­thological tales and fictions of their own, by which means they eclipsed Learning, which they made shew to promote, out of their pride to make the world beholding to them as the first Inventors of all knowledge in it, and not letting us know out of what foun­tain they drew it. From this and another artifice frequent in very ancient times, of calling by the names of Saturn, Apollo, Jupi­ter, and the like, persons whom for some de­sert they had a mind to honour with those appellations, came so great confusion in sto­ry: Where we shall find sometime that at­tributed to a later person which was true of some Predecessor of his of the same name. [Page 195]Something to this purpose you may see in Xenophon, and Bochartus; Zenop. de aequi­vocis in princi pio. Bochart. in prae­f [...]a. ad [...]b de S [...]rm. Phaent­cum Sar Walt. Raw: lib. Sect. 6. cap. 4. Bochar. cap. 12. pag. 432. Lil Gir. Synt. Deor. p. 39 [...]. 32. pag. 214 39. Onup. de Sibyl. neither were it hard to give many examples of it, were it proper in this place to do it.

The use I shall make of it is, that from hence I may induce you to believe it very pos­sible, that a Sibyl might be before the flood, and shut up with Noah; for if it be true, as Bochartus thinks, that Vulcan, and Tubal Cain were the same. Lilius Giraldus among others will tell you, that Apollo (who, as Onu­phrius saith, taught Sibylla Delphica the art of Divination; and that she liv'd long be­fore the Wars of Troy) was the Son of Vu­can or Tubal Cain; and so it might very well be that the Son of Tubal Cain might converse with a Daughter in Law of Noah, which might also live a good while after the Con­fusion of Tongues, especially since Sem is by some thought (I am sure might) to have li­ved in Abraham's time, Simp. Chron. p. 19. Anno M. 1988. who was born 18 years before the death of Noah, as Dr. Simp­son saith.

But we need not go so high; for if Noah were Saturn, his three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japhet, were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, as is proved in the second Chapter; as also out of Pausanias, that the ancientest Sibyll was the daughter of Jupiter and Lamiah, who was the daughter of Neptune, that is to say of Cham, by his Niece who was Japhets daughter; I see no reason why that art of Divination, which Pausanias tells you was in [Page 196]the daughter, might not be known both to her mother as well as father, who we are sure were shut up in the Ark with Noah, espe­cially since the same Pausanias tells you, that Oracles were delivered long before, as an­ciently as the earth it self, as you may see in the second Chapter of this Discourse. I shall farther out of the same Author shew, that Divination was common between Neptune (that is Japhet) and the earth; that before any Temple was made, the earth her self used to pronounce them: Nay the same Pau­sanias yet farther tells you of certain Verses mentioned by those of Delos, [...], &c. Pausan. in Pho­cicis, pag. 327. in which one of them names her self sometime Herophile, sometime the wife, sometime sister, sometime daughter of A­pollo. Possibly these Hymnes were the same with those called Eumolpia, written by one Mu­saeus, as you have it, pag. 320. of the same Author. Sometime you will find Daphne called the president of the Ora­cles, sometime Phemonoe, sometime of a tra­dition of a Temple built by Vulcan, and all this confessedly before the Trojan Wars, but no time when; which certainly was because by reason of its antiquity they could not: And I confess in the relation of Pausanias there is a little uncertainty, and obscurity; but I think I may with as much probability (upon what you have heard) affirm some of [Page 197]his sort of Diviners were before the flood, as D. Blundel can demonstrate the contrary; es­pecially since the foisting in this particular could not serve for any other end then to make the whole book be rejected, which not conducing to the interest of any party, either Christian or Heathen (who both allow­ed them) cannot well be supposed. Nay if Sir Walter Rawleigh be not mistaken, who saith, that very learned men were of that opinion, the names of Saturn, Jupiter, and the like, were in use from the very Creation; Adam being the first Saturn, Cain the first Jupiter, &c. Rawl. l. 1. c. 6. Sect. 4. And since Grand­children are oft called by the names of sons and daughters, no man can assuredly affirm that one of Cains posterity was not daughter in Law to Noah; so that although I allow that D. Blundel might have reason to suspect this place as spurious, yet all he saith amounts not to a demonstration that it is so; and therefore all the Books not to be rejected up­on the only account of this place. The con­fession that she was guilty of the knowledge of strange beds, rather makes for, then a­gainst the truth of them; for it is like e­nough she was polluted with the sins of the old world, having lived in it; the confession that she was so, argues rather her repentance then anothers falsifying that place. That they are extant only in Greek, which at the flood was not spoken, may receive a double answer, either that they were made so by the Graeci­ans [Page 198]after they came into their hands; or that the Author, as she well might, lived both before, and after the Confusion of Tongues. The last part of this Objection is, that she, whoever she be, mentions 1500 years to have passed of the Graecian Monarchy, which could not be true, had she lived at the time of the flood.

In the answer to this Objection, I must needs remember what I find runs through his whole Book, and I shall repeat no more; that whatever he finds in these Oracles that cannot agree with her that calls her self the daughter in Law of Noah, are therefore un­true; as if there never had been but one Si­byl, the contrary to which is proved in the second Chapter; so that it might be true that there was one in the time of Neah, and yet this the prediction of another. But let us a little more narrowly look into his reason, and we shall find it no way consequent, that because the word there used is in a Tense that signifies the time past, therefore the thing it self must be also past at the time of the delivery thereof; whereas nothing is more frequent in Prophesies, and Visions, then to use the time present, or past, for what is to come. Now the truth of the thing is no more then this. The Author of those Ver­ses, whoever she was, after a sharp reproof of the Graecians for their Idolatry, hath these words. [...] That the Graecians had reigned fifteen hundred [Page 199]years, [...], &c. lib. 3. p. 260. who first led men unto wickedness: And after tells them of the wrath of God, and that then upon the feeling of it they should begin to seek him: And lastly, speaks of the growth and flourishing of Christianity; in all which it will be evident many things are foretold which were not at that time past; and indeed they import no more then that 1500 years after the beginning of the Graeci­an Monarchy Christianity should flourish: Now whether this happened true in the e­vent is impossible to judge, since Historians cannot agree when to begin the Graecian Mo­narchy; nor is it to be known what period in Christianity is pointed at by these Verses.

Another Objection he insists upon not much unlike the former; Object. 2 to wit, that this (still the same Sibylla) that calls her self daughter in Law of Noah, is by Justin the Martyr called the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean History. The words are these. [...], &c. In Parenesi ad Gent. p. 30. Edit. Rob. Step. [...]. You may easily learn in part the right way of wor­shipping God from the ancient Sibylla. This Sibyll they say came out of Babylon, being the daughter of Berosus that wrote the Chaldean History, &c. And soon after hath these words in the same page. Of this Sibyll Plato (among many other Wri­ters of his time that mention [Page 200]her) speaks of in Phaedro; nay whom himself afterward calls the most ancient Sibyll. I re­ply to this Testimony: Though the words are indeed so in the Father, yet it carries so great a wound in its own breast, that we may easily suspect some foul play hath been used toward him, and this place corrupted; for how could Plato remember her that was daughter to Berosus that writ the Chaldean History, who dedicated his books to Antio­chus Soter (as D. Blundel himself confesseth out of Tatian) when as Plato dyed in the year of the world 3656, Armagh. ann. fol 198. and 344 of the En­glish Edit. and Antiochus Se­ter, who succeeded Seleucus his Father, and was the third King of Syria after the death of Alexander, began not his Reign till the year of the world 3724, in which year Seleucus dyed; so that there are 68 years between the death of Plato, and the first year of the Reign of Antiochus; therefore in the most modest account Berosus must be above 100 years old when Antiochus came to the Crown, or else Plato could not mention his daughter as a Sibyll; for we cannot reasonably believe she was inspired before twenty, or him mar­ried before the like age; so that at the death of Plato he must be 40 years old, and have lived to 108, and then have spirit, and quick­ness enough to write History; except we will suppose he kept it by him during the whole time of Alexander, (who we know was al­ways an encourager of Learning) and those [Page 201]that succeeded him to dedicate it to Antic­chus, a man not at all in repute to be com­pared with Alexander, which is very impro­bable. This mistake then must either be at­tributed to some inadvertency in the Father, or, which I rather think, some later Writer intending to explain the words, corrupted the sence by foisting in these words, [...], the Writer of the Chaldaean History; the words running very clear without that addition. The cause of this mistake I think proceeded from their not considering that there might be more then one Berosus. Pausan. p. 328. in Phocicis. Now Pausanias tells you that she that succeeded Demo was by the Jews called Sabba; that Sabba was the daughter of Berosus and Erimanthe according to some; others that this Sabba was called Sibylla Ba­bylonica; others Aegyptiaca: Much incertain­ty there is in what age to place her; proba­bly it hath come from that mistake in Justin Martyr, which I believe misled Onuphrius, who makes the same person mentioned by Justin Martyr (whom he calls Sambethe Noe) to be the eighth in number, but by Lactan­tius and others is reckoned the first; in my opinion with more reason; for she mention­ed by Justin is called the first and very anci­ent Sibyll, and must certainly point at one more ancient then the age of Alexander. But whoever she was, and when ever she lived, whether in Solomons time, as you have it in the end of the second Chapter out of Cedre­nus, [Page 202]but denyed by Collius, Collius de ani­mabus Pagan. pars 2. lib. 3. pa. 190, 191. or much anci­enter, certainly she could not be daughter to that Berosus who writ the Chaldaean History, for the reasons before alledged: And of the same opinion I since find was Montacute Lord Bishop of Norwich in his Excercitations upon Baronius. Montac. in ana­lect. p. 153.

A third Objection, Object. 3 is, That the name of Adam is, by the Author of the first book of the Sibylline works, D. Blund. p. 7. Il est pense que l'imposteur qui a voulu se signaler par. la feint d'une si grang antiquite s' est monstre fort neut 1. en derivant Adam de [...] comme si c'estoit un mot d'extraction Grecque. derived from the greek work [...], as if it were a word of Greek extraction, and also denoted from the Hebrew the four Quarters of the World, [...], East, Orac. Sibyl. lib. 2. pag. 216.West, North, and South, whereas his Name in the Hebrew and Chaldean Lan­guage consists only of three letters.

He that considers who it was (even God himself) that imposed the Name upon our first Father, Answ. and farther that the Name of Jew and Greek should divide the whole world, the Greek being a common name, comprehend­ing all the Gentiles, S. Paul. Romans cap. 1. v. 16. cap. 10. v. 12. as appears by the first and tenth of the Romans, with many other places. He (I say) that considers this, will not, I per­swade my self, believe it strange that the same appellation might be significant in more Lan­guages then one, though not then in being; that he that was not created a man only, but a King over all the Earth and the creatures thereon, should have a Name that reached [Page 203]over all the Quarters thereof, shews rather the providence of God, who by it would let us see, that not only Monarchical Govern­ment was the first, and therefore best, but by himself instated upon Adam, stamped and imprinted in his very name, in which the point under [...] supplieth the third letter, which he pretends is wanting.

But what can be answered to David Blun­dels inadvertency, if after all this the book, as to that part of the objection which con­cerns the derivation of the name of Adam from [...], warrant no such thing, but quite contrary; the words are these; Having first told you of the encreasing of mankind after that of their wars and wickedness, she tells you, that God took them away by death; That Hades received them; That indeed they called it H [...] ­des from Adam, [...]. [...], [...] [...] [...]. because he ha­ving tasted of death went thi­ther first; for which reason all men that are born of the earth are said to go down to the houses of Hades. What can be imagined more contrary than this to the affirmation of David Blundel; he tells you, Adam took his name from [...], when the book warrants, that the word [...] had its deriva­tion from Adam, not Adam from it. Of this opinion likewise is Mr. Sanford, in his book De descensu Christi ad inferos, published and [Page 204]perfected after his death by Robert Parker; he tells you, pag. 8. — luce clarius est, Ada­mah primum in Hadam deinde in Haden abi­isse; and pag. 39, & 40. disputes it, that who­ever go about to derive it from a Greek foun­tain are mistaken.

Obj. 4. & 5. A fourth and fifth Objection he raiseth from the numbers of the names resulting from the name of GOD and of JESUS, 110n8 [...]200 [...]70 [...]400 [...]200 888 the one consisting of 1697. the other of 888. the number of 1697. not agreeing to any name of God, and the other only to the Greek [...]. Sibyl. Orac. pag. 184. in fine, & pag. 171.

Though for answer to that part of this Objection which concerns the ineffable name of God, Answ. I might refer you to the conjectures of several men; (Leo Suavius who contends it agrees to [...], of Morellus who saith it agrees to [...], Johannes Auratus who tells you [...] is understood; of Brenti­us who expounds it by the word [...]: All which you may see gathered together by Opsopaeus in his Notes upon the place; Opsop. p. 11, 12. and lastly to D. Blundels own conceit, which you may see pag. 7.) [...] Yet I rather chuse to acknow­ledge my own ignorance in not knowing whence to draw it, then to condemn the Book because I do not: Only let me observe, that he suspects the Book because the first Aenigme is obscure, and passeth the same censure upon it, because 'tis intelligible in the second.

I confess, I think the second Aenigme agree­ing to the name of Jesus, consisting of the number 888. may have much in it of myste­ry, since it is composed of the first number which constitutes the first cubical or solid fi­gure that doth complere locum, fill a place, as the Mathematicians will tell you, disposed per monadas, decadas, and hecatontadas, to shew that the foundation of our Salvation by Jesus is solid, that the Author and Fi­nisher thereof is in all things perfect and compleat; whereas the name 666 given in Scripture to Antichrist is not at all so. Much more to this purpose might be added, but this touch shall suffice.

Sixthly, He accuses them of falshood, Object. 6 be­cause they tell you that Rome should conti­nue but 948 years, which were deduced from the number contained in the Greek word [...].

I find by this Objection, Answ. that though Da­vid Blundel was a very good Grecian, as ap­pears by all his Books, yet he here rather chose to make use of the Latine Translation which serv'd his turn, whereas the Greek warrants no such thing. The words are, That Rome should fill up the num­ber of 948 years, [...] [...] [...]. Lib. 8. p. 375. at which time she having filled up the num­ber of her name, a sad por­tion or violent fate should ap­proach her: For that is the sence of the words, which war­rant [Page 206]no such thing as a final end of the City; and in truth in my judgment are not unlike those before quoted out of Xiphilinus the Epitomizer of Dion, that after 900 years a strange dissention and madness should di­vide and embroil them, which caused so much trouble in Tiberius his time, as you may see in the fourth Chapter foregoing: In­somuch that both he and Nero endeavoured to appease the fears of the people, who were much perplexed with the apprehension of it: So that you may see they harped much upon 900 years, as if some fatal accident should then happen: Upon which Opsopaeus thinks that these Verses were by some later Writer inserted in imitation of those former, because no sinister accident happened then to the Ci­ty: Which time fell out about the second or third year of Severus, as D. Blundel, and Op­sopaeus both agree, and is easily proved.

That no solid Argument can be raised al­ways out of the Numeral Letters of a word, to determine by it the fate or downfall of any City or Kingdom, I easily grant; but that nothing at all can at any time be gathered from thence, is to condemn all the Cabalisti­cal Learning of the Jews, and bring them upon our ears, who, as we all know, lay of­tentimes much weight upon such kind of ar­gumentations: But let us see if nothing no­table happened about that time. By that sad portion which should then happen to the Ci­ty might well be understood the growth of [Page 207]Christianity, which at last should bring a final ruine to Heathenisme, as indeed it did. Now we find at this very time Clemens Alex­andrinus and Tertullian, two Heathen Philo­sophers, and converted Christians, great Champions for the Faith as ever it had, flou­rished, and writ in the Defence of Christi­ans, and Christianity. About four years be­fore, Apollonius a most Learned Philosopher, and Christian, gave an account of his Faith before the Senate, and was beheaded for it, as Eusebius in his Chronology, and Helvicus both have it. These things then happening might well be as so many warning pieces pre­saging the downfall of Heathenisme, and un­doubtedly must of necessity produce much civil dissention, and partaking on all hands, and could not but be lookt upon as a sad and unfortunate accident to the City, which might well be called [...]. Beside, between the years 900 and 948 lived Justin Martyr, and suffered Martyrdome; Polycarp appeared at Rome about the difference of Ea­ster; Eleutherius and Victor Popes of Rome then flourished; Athenagoras writ an Apolo­gy for the Christians, as you may see in Hel­vicus his Chronology: All which had, if in nothing else, yet in their very sufferings, a kind of Victory over Paganisme, and a sha­king of Rome, which afterward fell in that sence, when the Emperour became Christian, about 300 years after the Birth of our Savi­our.

A seventh Objection is, Object. 7 That the Author of that part of the Sibylline Oracles makes Ararat, where the Ark rested, to be in Phry­gia: The words are in the first Book, p. 180.

And after the interposition of two Verses, follows

There is, saith she, upon the Continent of black Phrygia a long and arduous Mountain called Ararat, within which the Springs of the River Marsyas arise, upon whose high top, when the waters abated, the Ark rested.

By these words nothing more can be neces­sarily collected, Answ. then that Ararat is upon the same Continent with Phrygia; for so [...] signifies the Continent as it is distinguished from an Island. Phrygia is indeed in the les­ser Asia bounded with Cappadocia on the East part of the Mountain, Taurus on the South, Troas on the West, and Galatia on the North; and if Ararat be in Armenia, the West part of Armenia borders upon Cappadocia; so that, for ought appears to the contrary, if the Ark rested in Arm [...]nia, as some hold, the Springs of the River Marsvas that runs through Phrygia might well enough arise there, the Mountain Ararat extending very far in length. Sir Walter Rawleigh places Armenia the less in Natolia, or the lesser Asia, [Page 209]makes the Mountain Ararat, Rawleigh, cap. 7. Sect. 10 pag. 108. now called Tau­rus, extend very far, as you may see in the Map annexed to the seventh Chapter, Sect. 10.

But let us take it with David Blundel in the most rigid sense that the words of the Si­bylls do indeed import, that the Ark did rest in Phrygia near the Springs of the River Marsyas, is he so assured of the place of its rest, that he dares from this falsity conclude all the Oracles spurious. Bocbart. Geog. Sac. lib. 1. p. 15. & Seq. The Learned Bo­chartus in his Geograp. Sac. p. 18. tells you the common opinion is, that Ararat is Armenia, but leaves the place of its resting very doubt­ful, inclines to the Gordiaean Hills, which in­deed lye in Armenia the great, but no part of the Mountain Ararat, but a good way di­stant. Beros. p. 55. Edi. Antwerp. 1552. Annius the Fryar in his Notes upon Berosus labours much to prove it rested upon the Caspian Mountains, which separate Ar­menia from the upper Media, and do equally belong to both. Rawleigh, lib. 1. cap. 7. Sect. 10. p. 108. Sir Walter Rawleigh makes that long ridge of Mountains which extend from Phrygia to the Confines of Scythia intra Imaum, to be by Moses called Ararat, endea­vours by many, and weighty reasons to prove that the Ark rested upon that part of Ararat near Caucasus that borders upon Scythia intra Imaum, as you may see in the Map by him annexed of those parts, agreeing in that his opinion with Goropius Becanus, and our Dr. Heylin with them both. Heylin, Geog. p. 8, 9. &c. Whilst then we remain under so great an uncertainty touch­ing this matter, what can be reasonably con­cluded [Page 210]to the overthrow of the Sibylline Books from this medium? Some light we might have, did we certainly know that part of the world where it was built, whose fa­brick and bulk, with the great burthen of all the creatures, and provision for their nourish­ment for a years time at least kept within it, would not suffer to float very far, but only as the current of the waters and wind might drive it. But where ever it rested, the Scri­pture tells you they journeyed from the East to the plains of Shinaar, Genes. 11. v. 1. where they built the Tower of Babel, and the confusion of Tongues happened. This reason, among o­thers, induced Sir Walter Rawleigh, as dili­gent and judicious a Writer as any other, to place the resting of the Ark in that part he doth, and makes Nimrod to have a very long journey from thence, being the East part to the place where Babylon stood: Whereas o­therwise if you place it upon the Gordaean Hills, as Bochartus, or in Phrygia as Sibylla, Babylon lying South or South-East to both these places, they could not be said to jour­ney from, but toward the East, that travelled from those parts to Babylon. To solve this difficulty, Bochart. Geog. Sac p. 35. ca. 7. Bochartus tells you his own conje­cture, and seems to dislike others; that the Assyrians called all that part of their Empire which lay on the other side of the River Ty­gris, the Eastern part, all on this side the West; and so would make the Mountains of Ararat belong to the East, because they were [Page 211]in that Tract that lay on the other side of Ti­gris: Whereas if this division of the Assy­rian Empire were not as well his conjecture as the other part of it, and that in truth there was no such division in use among the Assy­rians in the time of Moses; yet is it no more then if one should say, that the Inhabitants of England travelling into Virginia could be said to come out of the West, because they were heretofore part of the Western Empire. Jacobus Capillus makes the Hebrew word [...] Kedem to signifie a Re­gion, and saith; Noae posteritas ab Armenia montibus progressa fuerat in cam regionem quae postea dicta est [...] Kedem à Kedma no­vissimo Ismaelis filio. Bochart. pag. 35. the posterity of Noah came from the Moun­tains of Ararat to that Region which was afterward called K [...] ­dem from Kedma the youngest Son of Ismael. Others will tell you, that Kedem signifies as well the begin­ning as the East, and that the same word is so used Habak. chap. 1. Habak. chap. 1. vers. 12. Gen. 2. v. 8. Art not thou [...] from everlasting, or from the beginning? So Gen. 2. the Chaldee Paraphrase renders the same word in that sense; so doth Theodosion, St. Jerome, and some others. And the Lord planted a garden of Paradise from the begin­ning. Psal. 68. we render the words so. Psal. 68.33. To him that rideth upon the Heaven of Heavens which were of old, or from the beginning. With this Translation agree Montanus his In­terlineary, and the Chaldee Paraphrase, as you may see in Bib. Polyglot. Bib. Polyglot. If this version may be allowed, as undoubtedly the words [Page 212]will bear it, then is that difficulty wholly ta­ken away, and the words import no more, then that after the Ark had rested, and the Inhabitants of the earth began to enlarge their bounds, the beginning of their pere­grination was toward the Land of Shinaar; and thus is the word rendered in this very place by the Chaldee Paraphrast, Bib. Poly. Gen. 11. v. 1. as you may see in Bib. Poly. But let us see if we may discover any farther light out of the Sibyl­line Writing it self. Admitting the words before quoted do necessarily imply, that Ara­rat, where the Ark rested, doth indeed, ac­cording to those Oracles, lye in Phrygia, then must it be in a place not far from the Springs of the River Marsyas: Now the River Mar­syas rises about Celaene neer the River Maean­der, as appears by Xenophon, lib. 1. Anabas. The Court of the great King is in Celaene, [...]. Xenoph. lib. 1. Anab. fortified near, or a­bout the Springs of the River Marsyas, beneath the Castle, which runs likewise through the City, and empties it self into Maeander. With whom a­gree Livy, Strabo, and others. Then probably there may be a mistake in the Transcriber, Liv. lib. 38. and the verse ought to run, [...] &c. the Letters χ and μ not being so very unlike, but that the same mistake hath been before made in that word, as Bochartus, and before him, Casaubon have observed. Now the same Bo­chartus [Page 213]will tell you, that Apamia, Bochart. Geog Sac. p. 16, 17. long af­ter built by Antiochus Soter, and whither the Inhabitants of Celaene transplanted them­selves, was called [...], which signifies an Ark, perhaps from the tradition that the Ark of Noah rested there, as likely as from any other reason, in which let the Reader be judge: Sure I am what I have said is e­nough in answer to D. Blundel, whose only exception is, that Ararat is made to lye in Phrygia, when himself, were he alive, could not determine neither what that Mountain is now called, nor where it lyes. But I must not dissemble what the learned Bochartus far­ther addes out of Plutarch, Bochart. p. 17. lib. 1. that the River Marsyas had its name from Marsyas the Son of Midas, which was many ages after the flood; and so that she that was with Noah could not remember it. To which I shall say, this seems to be only a conjecture of Plutarch, and the Son of Midas might as well receive his name from the River, as that from him; except you like better to believe this verse foisted in by some late Writer, who remembring that Celaene was called [...] from the tradition of the Arks resting there, thought by this means to explain the Oracle, but indeed corrupted it: A misfortune like to it I have before shewed you happened to the text of Justin Martyr: For if that verse be left out, the sense of the Oracle is no more, then that in the Continent of black Phrygia there is a long and arduous Mountain called [Page 214] Ararat, upon whose high top the Ark rested.

But D. Blond. cap. 3. p. 9Blundel will not thus give us over, but tells us, that this very person discovers her self to be a Christian, and that she compi­led this her Rapsodie between the years after Christ 138 and 151. that is between the time of the death of Adrian, and that part of the Reign of Antoninus, when Justin Martyr pre­sented his Apology. The words referred to are these. [...], &c.—Lib. 8. p. 403. We therefore that are sprung from the holy, and hea­venly generation of Christ, &c. By which words, saith he, she evidently manifests her self to have lived after Christ.

Though I might accommodate many an­swers to this place, and tell you, that all per­sons whatsoever that have been saved were regenerated by Christ, whether exhibited or to be exhibited, and that future things are often declared as past: Yet since it is not my task to justifie all things in those eight Books to be as ancient as the flood, but only to shew 'tis possible some things therein might, I shall not contend with him about it; so as on his part it might be as equally conceded, that there were more Sibylls then one, which I find him very hard to be induced to, as you may see in his seventeenth Chapter at the end, Blond cap. 17. p. 78. where he saith, all the eight Books which we have were written by one and the same hand; I confess very pertinently to his pur­pose, had he proved it, but contrary to the [Page 215]sence of all the world before him; except by writing he understand composing, and set­ting in order the works of many persons, which probably might be the labour of one and the same person, according to the cu­stome of the Eastern Countries at this day (as I am informed by a Learned Divine that hath travelled in those parts) where their manner is to gather together the wise sayings of their Progenitors, who ever they were, without any order, or consideration of time, or other circumstance, and so transmit them to po­sterity, indeed as a Rapsody, or disjointed things that have no necessary connexion or dependance one upon another, and yet all, or much of them very true. That these Writings of the Sibylls may have had their share in this fate, as to some particulars therein, I think probable enough, but that will not serve to impugne the authority of them all.

Object. 8 Another Objection urged by D. Blundel against these Books is taken from their direct contradiction of the Holy Scripture; Genes. 7.11. Genes. 8.14. for whereas Moses tells you that Noah continued in the Ark from the 17th day of the second moneth to the 27th day of the second moneth following, [...] [...] [...]. Sibyl. Orac. lib. 1. p. 183. the Authour of this work plainly saith, that Noah went out of the Ark the eighth person, after he had fulfilled forty and one days in the waters, according to the will of God.

If this learned man had as much endea­voured to have gathered Arguments for the asserting the truth of the Sibylline Predicti­ctions, Answ. as he was curious and diligent to heap up all imaginable matter that could be found out any way to impugne their autho­rity, he might from this place have found out as well reason to believe them true, as by it conclude their falshood; for he could not but see that the History of the flood is told almost directly like to that related by Moses in Genesis: [...] [...]. [...], [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...], &c. Sibyl. Orac. lib. 1. pag. 179. The opening the flood-gates and cataracts of Heaven, of his opening the roof of the Ark, of his great fear, of the endless extent of the wa­ters, of the earths being cover­ed and drowned by them ma­ny days, and of the terrible face of the Heavens during that time. She then tells you the sto­ry of the first sending out of the Dove, her return; then the sending her out the second time, her return with an Olive branch in her mouth: After this the sending forth the Ra­ven, who returned not: And before the first sending forth the Dove, tells you of some remis­sion in the air after the earth had been watered with the rain many days: And after this and [Page 217]the first return of the Dove, his remaining in the Ark more days: And much more to that purpose, all which could not probably be performed in the space of 40 or 41 days, in which time 'tis scarce imaginable either how or from whence so great a bulk of water could come, as was sufficient to cover the whole globe of the earth so high, as to be e­nough above the highest mountain upon the face of it, that all the Inhabitants might be drowned, had not the immediate hand, and power of God intervened to effect it. Inso­much that no Impostor whatsoever, except he had been more foolish then false, would have transcribed a story out of Moses with circumstances comprehending some length of time in their performance, and at last con­tradict his own relation in a matter which lay directly before his eyes, and impossible not to be detected. We may therefore with more reason believe this relation not to have been taken out of Moses, but rather to have pro­ceeded out of the mouth of her that was in the Ark with Noah, which being no way prophetical but historical, may admit of a greater latitude, and lead us to conclude the Writer, whoever she was, pitched upon some considerable, or notable period of 41 days, in which they were in the greatest danger. Let us therefore see if we can any way dis­cover when this was. Moses saith, Genes. 7. Gen. 7. v. 11. [Page 218]That on the seventeenth day of the second moneth, when Noah and all his Family with the creatures were in the Ark, and that the Lord had shut up the door upon them, that the fountains of the deep were broken up, and the cataracts of Heaven opened, and that it rained upon the earth by the space of forty days and forty nights. This certainly was the period aimed at by the Sibyll (who might well call it 41 days, reckoning the day they all, or some of them, entered into the Ark before the rain fell, for one, and Moses only reckoning the time whilst the rain was falling) during which time they might well be said to be shut up by the Lord, as well for their defence against the impetuosity of the weather and waves, which shook the ribs of their wooden habitation, as the violence might have been offered to it both by men and beasts, before the waters had force e­nough to raise it out of their reach, or depth enough to drown them: All which time, if we believe the Eastern Traditions, Noah and his Sons kept a solemn Fast, taking meat but once a day, as I find it in Gregories Opuscula, p. Catena veterum praecipuè Ori­entalium in Pentateuchum. Arabicè M.S. in orchivis Bi­bliot. Bodl. 28. out of the Catena Arabica: And Noah was the first who made the 40 days holy, or instituted the Quadragesimal Fast in the Ark. The words thus explained are fully conso­nant with what is recorded in Scripture; the many days mentioned by the Sibyll compre­hending all that time definitively set down by Moses till their going out; the 41 contain­ing [Page 219]only those in which they fasted, and were in continual horror and fear of death, which they might truly say to have fulfilled in the water, being environed with it both above their head, and beneath the soles of their feet. So that this Argument is so far from standing D. Blundel in any stead, that it much serves to confirm, not weaken their authority.

In the ninth place he urges, Object. 9 that they coun­tenance the fable of the Titans, as if it were true; the opinion of the Chiliasts as to the re-building of Jerusalem.

That much concerning the Titans or Gi­ants, as their story is related by Poets, Answ. may be sabulous, I shall easily grant; but that what is urged by the Sibylls concerning them is also so, D. Blundel hath not proved. They are mentioned in several places in the Sibyl­line Writings: First in the first Book.

From all which places there is no more im­ported, then that God would at last execut judgment upon those Titans or Giants whom the flood had devoured, who were a wicked generation. Prov. 21.16. The man that wan­dereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the Congregation of the dead, as we render it, in the Congregation of the Re­phaim in the Original, See Mead in Diatrib. upon Prov. 21.16. which word by the Septuagint is always rendred Giants, Titans, or the like: So that I see nothing to be ex­cepted against in their Writings, or to ac­cuse them as fabulous for calling the Inhabi­tants of the old world Titans.

That which he calls the Haeresie of the Chiliasts he could not be ignorant had recei­ved learned Supporters both in ancient and modern times: Whether what ever hath been hitherto urged in their defence be con­futed, remains yet sub judice; certainly those which believe the Jews shall yet once more be graffed into their own Olive-tree, will not think it unreasonable that Jerusalem may be again as famous in the profession of Chri­stianity, as it hath formerly been of Juda­isme.

D. Object. 10 Blundel farther objects, That those Books make Adrian the Roman Emperour that succeeded Trajan, by whom he was a­dopted, as some say, to have strangled him­self, which was in no sort true.

Adrian was not indeed strangled, Answ. , as the words in the Sibylline Oracles import, which are as follow.

The sence of them is, that when fifteen Kings had subjected the world to themselves from the East to the West, one should arise wear­ing a white helmet, having a name almost of the Sea, overlooking the world with his polluted feet, that gathered and spent much money, skilful, or making use of all the My­steries of Magick, &c. After the interposi­tion of two or three verses, she saith, then shall be a lamentable time, because he perish­ed by a halter.

This person, though no body is particu­larly named, is commonly taken to be Adri­an, both because he is the fifteenth from Ju­lius Caesar, his name seems to resemble the Adriatick Sea, and that he made use of Ma­gick spells for the curing his disease, of which Xiphilinus tells you he was once by the help of Magick recovered, Xiphil. Epit. Dion. p. 360. lin. 29. but after fell again into the same, whereof he miserably dyed, after he had in vain implored death from the hands of his servants, but could find none to af­ford it him.

The difficulty of this place is easily recon­ciled, by admitting an easie mistake in the [Page 222]Transcriber, by putting an [n] in the place of a [b]; for if we read the Verse thus, [...], 'tis then true according to the story, that a drop­sie should destroy him; for [...] signifies a drop of water or a tear, and in poesie may, especially in aenignatical or prophetical speeches, denote a dropsie.

Some other Objections D. Blundel hath gathered together touching some Geogra­phical mistakes, some doubts concerning Gog and Magog, concerning Antichrist, and such like, to which satisfaction might be ea­fily given; but I rather forbear, being per­swaded that no man that is in some measure satisfied with the answers given already to the most material Objections, of which I have pretermitted none, but will easily satis­fie himself as to the rest in that Chapter.

But having gone thus far, and seen the strength of D. Blundel as an opposer, we shall in the next Chapter consider him as an answerer, and see if in that he succeeds any better.

THis Learned Divine, and great Reader of Authors both Christian and Heathen, having left no stone unmoved which could any way serve his turn to the overthrow of these Writings; yet at last could not but see the Authorities of so many Writers of great Antiquity, and for many hundred years together which had decurrently made use of the Testimonies of the Sibylls for the confu­tation of their Adversaries, would still re­main like so many thorns in his feet, he thought it very necessary to say something in reply to what had been urged by them. The first he takes into consideration is Clemens Alenandrinus, a person, he knew, of variety of Learning, insomuch that some part of his Books were called [...], from the va­riety [Page 224]of the subjects they handled, and of great antiquity in the Church, having flou­rished (and written, as 'tis thought) within 160 years, Heloic. Chro­nol. pa. 91. or thereabout, after the death of our blessed Saviour; and finding that he had in sundry places mentioned the Sibylls, and their Books, particularly in his first Book Strom. Clem. Alexand. Strom. lib. 1. p. 323 B. Edit. Paris. 1629. & p. 304. in which he mentions many of them, and among others Phemonoe, whom he affirms to have lived twenty seven years before Or­pheus, who was one of the Captains in the expedition of the Argonauts against Jason for the golden Fleece, about the year from the Creation, according to D. Simpson, 2743. (according to Helvicus not so much) who by the way tells you, Simpson in an. that what before was read 27, ought to be 107, as the same Author had before noted in the same Book; who had also before mentioned another ancienter then this Phemonoe, another later, namely Si­bylla Erythre [...], with others, whereas D. Blun­del contends there was but one and the same person Author of all the Sibylline Books now extant much after Christ: Nay farther, that he was not ignorant that Pausanias mentions the daughter of Jupiter and Lamia long be­fore the building of Delphos, in which place Phemonoe was perhaps one of the first that gave out Oracles, though long after the first Sibyll: And had farther observed, that ma­ny verses now extant in the Books we have, and other passages therein, were mentioned in Heathen as well as Christian Authors: That [Page 225] Constantine who was not only a Christian, and so by his profession bound to speak truth; but an Emperour, and so in a capacity by his power to examine all Records, and other means by which the truth might be discover­ed, had not only asserted their authority, but made it evident that both Virgil and Tully had seen and made use of some passages now in those Books we have: He had great rea­son to believe, that some of his Readers would lay more weight upon the judgment of so many grave Writers, then to be led a­way by his bare suspition.

The passage he first lays hold on is in Cle­mens Alexandrinus, in his sixth Book, in these words. [...]. Lib. 6. Strom. p. 636. Over and above the preaching of S. Peter, Paul the Apostle saith, Take unto your selves the Graecian Wri­ters; read Sibylla how she ma­nifestly declares one God, and the things that are to come.

That which he replies to this place is very fit to be set down in his own words, though they are somewhat long. They shall give me pardon (by their leave) if I say they accu­mulate one ill upon another; Mais il me pardonneront (s'il leur plaist) si je dis que ils ac­cumulent mal sur mal; car s'il ya de la faute a souscrire (com­me S. Justin) a une faussete que l'on n'a peu recognoistre, combien doit estre odicux le crime de ce faux tesmoign qui (pour tromper Clement Alex­andrin & les autres Chresti­ens) a voulu soustenir la sup­position des escrits Sibyllins, par une pire imposture, & fein­dre que S Paul luy mesme leur avoit concilié de l'authorité par sa recommendation? Si les bonnes ames ont de la pe ne a souffrir que l'on donne en leur presence les eloges de la pudici­te a de louues de bordel, qui d'entre les vrais Chrestiens pour­ra supporter que l'on egale aux prophetes de dieu des hypocon­driaques. & a leurs oracles coe­lestes, des resveries embaras­sées, & que l'inventeur d'une si indigne fourbe, ose pour la maintenir, produtre l'Apostre comme complice de son audace sacrilege? On veut n [...]ant moins que de ce vaisseau d'ele­ction soient sorties les paroles rapportées par Clement, & pour ce que rien de tel ne se trouve en ses epistres on se figure qu'il les a prononcees en ses sermons populairs, come s'il avoit este possible a celuy qui a sacrific sa vie par un glorieux martyre l'an 65 de nostre Seigaeur, de donner son approbation a une piece pleine de fautes, & forge de puis l'an 137, &c. Blond. des Sibylles, cap. 5. p. 15. & 16. for if it were a fault to give consent (with S. Justin) to an untruth which he could not know, how odious ought the fault to be of this false witness, [Page 226]who (to the end he might de­ceive Clemens Alexandrinus and the rest of the Christians) hath shew'd himself willing to main­tain the supposition of the Si­bylline Writings by a worse imposture, & feigns that S. Paul himself had given them autho­rity by his recommendation? If those good souls would be un­willing that one in their pre­sence should commend for cha­stity the persons hired in un­clean houses, what true Chri­stian could endure to hear e­qualled to the Prophets of God and their Prophesies the em­broiled fancies of Hypochon­driacks, and that the Inventor of this so unworthy cheat should dare for the maintenance of it to produce the Apostle as a Partner of his sacrilegious boldness? Notwithstanding all this there are that would have these words quoted by Clemens to have proceeded out of the mouth of this Vessel of Electi­on; and because no such thing is found in his Epistles, they feign to themselves that he spake them in his Sermons to the people, as if it were possible for him who sacrificed his life by so glorious [Page 227]a Martyrdome 65 years after our Saviour, could give approbation to a piece full of faults, and forged 137 years after.

I ask first who was this false witness whose crime was so odious, who was the inventor of that so unworthy a cheat; and that durst make St Paul his partner in so sacrilegious a boldnes; and that deceived Clemens, and the rest of the Christians? I am sure there is nothing extant in their Writings, that tells you that St Paul made use of them; and I think he did not believe any body stood at Clemens his elbow to engage him to father that upon St Paul which he would not own; so that it must necessarily follow, that Clemens Alexandrinus himself must be the person guil­ty of this cheat, this sacrilegious boldnes, to deceive both himself and other Christians: Certainly D. Blundel had too much worth to intend any such calumny to this Writer, or to affix so ill language of him; and I observe it only to let you see how far that [...], the immoderate drawing of all things to the contrary part, to serve their ends, may mislead wise men, after they have espou­sed the defence of any cause, though never so unjust.

We will now examine what in this Allega­tion is Argumentative on David Blundels part: His design is to shew these eight Books of the Sibylline Writings, to be embroyled fancies, rapsodies proceeding from hypochon­driaques full of faults, and written 137. years [Page 228]after Christ. To do this he tells you Clemens Alexandrinus urges, That St Paul remitts the Gentiles to the Books of one of the Sibylls to prove the unity of the Godhead, and other things to come; but there is no such thing ex­tant in St Pauls Epistles, that we have; there­fore those Books are spurious, false, and I know not what else. Were he able to prove that St Paul never said or wrote any other thing than what we have in those sew Epistles of his, and that little that is related of him in the Acts, nothing more would follow than that Clemens misalledged him, nothing at all to the overthrow of the Books, which we know were in the world both in Tully's and Virgil's time, and therefore could not be unknown to St Paul, being sometime in the Court of Ne­ro, and bred up unto much learning. We know he did upon the like occasion remember them of the Poems of Aratus and Epimenides, and why not of the Sibylls? We have reason enough to believe Clemens might have some pieces of St Paul which are unknown unto us, the rather since we see new things are day­ly discovered; witness the first Epistle of Cle­mens Romanus (the genuineness of which few doubt, yet) not brought to light till our days; and why the like may not be supposed of St Paul, I see not: This is clear, he had a good esteem of those Writings, and that in his judgment St Paul might have made use of their authority in that point. Oh, but here is a great deal of clearness in these Oracles more [Page 229]than in the Scriptures; therefore St Paul could not be the Author of this Allegation. Touch­ing the clearness of these Writings in general, I have spoke at large in the fourth Chapter; as to their plainness for the proving the Unity of the Godhead, certainly nothing in the world can be more clear than the Scripture in many places; so that D. Blundel, as to this particular, hath not made his reply good a­gainst Clemens his Authority in any part. I wonder he did not as much find fault with his quotation of the Sermon of St Peter a lit­tle before, [...], &c. Lib. 6. Stromat. p. 635. where he tells you of the Unity, Incomprehensible­ness, Invisibility, of his filling all things, and standing need of nothing, of his making all things by the power of his Word, that is, his Son, and ma­ny more undoubted truths, but not delivered, at least not all of them, in those words, by St Pe­ter in any thing of his now extant. I cannot doubt but could that have been useful, he would have heaped it up also amongst Clemens his mistakes, with which he fills up his next Chapter; and, were they all true, would be very little to his purpose.

After this, from the beginning of the ele­venth Chapter to the end of the fifteenth, he spends his whole time, and as much paper as I have alloted my self to this whole discourse, in shewing you the more important mistakes [Page 230]in the Emperour Constantine, in his eleventh Chapter; then his mistakes of less importance in the fourteenth; the discovery and clearing the opinion of Cicero, in the twelfth, and of Virgil in the thirteenth Chapter; that Virgil did not disguise his opinion, is the subject of his fifteenth Chapter. Whereas after all this labour and pains, he wholy mistakes both the design and drift, not only of the Emperor, but of all other the Christians that have made use of the Sibylline Writings, whose aim was not to concern themselves what was the opinion either of Tully touching them, or what Vir­gil meant in his fourth Eclogue; but whether the words of one do not clearly import that there were Sibylls, and that in their Wri­tings were Acrostiques; and that the words of the other import that which is not appli­cable to any but our Saviour: Now that this is made good in every particular, is so clear, that the very recitation of the words are of themselves able to confute any man. The words of Tully, in his second Book of Divina­tion, are these. Speaking of the Sibylls. The Poem it self evidently shews, Non esse autem illud carmen furentis cum ipsum Poêma de­clarat (est enim magis artis, & dilig [...]tiae, quam iucitationis, & motus) tum vero ea quae [...] dicitur cum dein­c [...]ps exprimis versus literis ali­quid connectitur ut in quibus­dam Ennianis quae Ennius fe­cit. Cicer. de Divinat. lib 2. that the Verses are not a mad bodies, (for it savours more of Art and diligence, than of sud­den motion, or incitation) espe­cially that which is called an Acrostich, in which, from the first letters of every verse down­ward, something is framed or [Page 231]knit together, as it is in some of those which Ennius hath made. 'Tis clear enough from these words that there were Acrosticks, and such as Ennius made; but of what sort those were we cannot know, since of him we have nothing left that I know of, but certain frag­ments gathered together out of all Authors by Robert Stephen, and put out by Henry his brother: But if we may guess at them by those in the Arguments of most, if not all the Comoedies of Plautus, who was near, Helvic. Chron. act. ann. mun. 3712. if not of his time, (for between the birth of Ennius and death of Plautus are but 60. years, or thereabout, and both before Tully) we shall find them such as those quoted out of the eighth Book of the Sibylline Oracles, and repeated by Constantine; so that I look upon that in D. Blundel, pag. 55. as a fancy; who would have Acrosticks so made, that the number of the letters in the first Verse should contain the number of the verses in the whole Poem, and that the second of the first should be the first letter of the second verse, and so consecutively; of which sort he gives one on­ly verse, as an example, 705 years after Christ, and perhaps the only one ever made of that sort. Lil. Giral. de Poet. Hist. Dial. 2. p. 11. Lillius Giraldus tells you of Acrosticks, and Parasticks, but of none of this sort; so that we have little reason to believe those in the Sibylline Oracles were other than what we have. Dionysius Halicarnassae­us tells you, the true Sibylline Writings were discovered by the Acrosticks, enough to prove there were such.

Those of Virgil are in his fourth Eclogue too long to transcribe, and such, that Constan­tine, in his Oration Ad Sanctorum Caetum, spends his nineteenth and twentieth Chapters to shew they could not be understood of any other but our Saviour, and shews there, that those, as well Acrosticks as other Writings of the Sibylls, had been seen both by Cicero and Virgil, and the Acrosticks translated by Cicero, and all this made so manifest by those that had accurately computed the time, that their testimony is beyond exception. Of the same opinion is Lactantius, Lact. l. 5. de ver. sap. p. 400. who tells you, None that hath either read Cicero or Varro will be­lieve these Writings counterfeited by the Christians; out of which these testimonies had been produced by persons dead long be­fore the birth of our Saviour. But I had al­most forgotten that he offers some reason a­gainst the Acrostick mentioned in the Orati­on of Constantine, because in the Sibylline Books it is [...], consisting of one letter more than the name ought to have ac­cording to the true writing thereof; whereas D. Blundel, who makes this Objection, could not be ignorant that the ancient Graecians ac­counted the name of Christus octosyllabum, as Irenaeus tells him: Iron. li. 1. ca. 10. And Valesius in his Notes upon Eusebius, lately put out at Paris, 1659. hath these wrods; The ancient Graeci­ans accounted the Name of Christ to consist of eight syl­lables (taking sylable there for Sance veteres Graeci nomen Christi octofyllabum faciebant [...] [...] cum dip­th [...]r. [...] l. 1. c 10. [Page 233]a letter) writing Christ, Creist, with a dip­thong. I confess I find not that particular in Irenaeus, in the place quoted, nor remember it in any other; but of this I am sure to have observed in ancient Greek Inscriptions upon Statues and Pillars, Vid. Seldini Marmora Arundeliana. what we now write with a single I, expressed by a dipthong, and the like, which is evident in the writing of the word [...], Latinus.

DAvid Blundel having urged all the Ar­guments he could against the Sibylline [Page 234]Books, now at last employs many Chapters touching Enthusiasme, the consideration whereof I shal now take in hand, but think it not amiss in the first place to speak something of Predictions in general, and the several ways by which future events are foretold, and fre­quently come to pass. The first is of wise and Learned men, who from their Observations out of History, and comparing the times past and present, when they shall see the same things come again upon the stage of the world that have formerly been, and then con­sidering all circumstances of agreement, and difference, are able to give a probable con­jecture, which seldome fails, of what is like to come to pass, which sort of Predictions are not only lawful, but worthy of much com­mendation, and are very frequently conduci­ble to the good of Kingdoms, by preventing evils otherwise like to come upon them.

A second sort is Astrological Prediction, wherein the Artist undertakes from the posi­tion of the Heavens, and configurations of the Planets, at such a certain moment of time, to foretell future accidents: This Art I can­not say is unlawful, but I take it to be con­jectural, uncertain, and by ignorant people much abused: Strange things are, I confess, often foretold, and sometime prove true, when a skillful Artist hath the handling of the matter, but many times are otherwise; sometime from the ignorance of him that un­dertakes the judgment, other while from the [Page 235]influence of some of the fix'd stars, which being seldom taken notice of, may cross or hinder what would otherwise haply have come to pass; or thirdly, from the want of a sufficient treasure of Observations, by which judgment ought to be given; the same posture of the Heavens having never twice happened alike in every circumstance since the Creation; and by that means leaving the world destitute of stable means to judge up­on, since what can be rationally said in that kind must proceed from the comparing of e­vents which have happened under such and such Configurations, with what are like to be when the same fall out again; or, lastly, from the care of the party himself, who may by his own industry prevent what his destiny from the influence of the Stars would have been, which at most do not necessitate, but incline, and by the providence and over-ruling pow­er of God are sometimes diverted.

A third sort is a geomantical or terrestrial Divination, in which from certain voluntary points made by the hand at adventure, certain figures are raised; from the four first of them called Fathers, are produced other four called daughters; those eight bring forth four grand­children, from them come out two Witnes­ses, from those a Judge, in all twelve, answe­rable to the twelve Houses in Astrology, and the judgment upon this sort of Divination not much unlike that of Astrology. The ground of this Art and its foundation is laid [Page 236]upon a false supposition, that the soul of man knoweth things to come, but is hindred by the dulness of the Organs of the body; and there­sore in the practice of it a great sedateness of mind is required, a freedome from all noise that may disturb it, and such like circumstan­ces, which he that hath a mind to know may find in Cattan, Dr. Floud, and H. de Pisis, who have all written largely upon it. This kind of Divination I take to be idle, vain, and superstitious, as not built upon any stable foundation of Reason, or supported by any thing but fancy.

A fourth sort is by framing certain Figures of stone or metal, underneath such Constella­tions, and placing them either in some con­spicuous place of a Town, or sometime under ground, by which strange things are wrought; these are called Talismans, of which, as also the language of the Stars, with an Alphabe­tical Table, and how from that words are framed, which shall declare the event of things to come, according to the nature of the Question; Gaffarel, a Learned French­man, hath largely written in his Book called Ʋnheard of Curiosities; such they will prove to him that spends much time in the study of them. Other frivolous ways of sortiledge there are, which I shall purposely pass over.

The next way of Divination I shall men­tion is Enthusiasme, or Illumination; and this is most to our purpose to treat of; Hesy­chius in his Glossary interprets it thus: An [Page 237]Enthusiastick is one that is mad or full of the Spirit. [...]. Enthusi­asme is a stupor or horror: Or, Enthusiasme is when the whole soul is enlightned by God. By which several interpretations of the word, it may easily be gathered, that En­thusiasm may be of several kinds; some natu­ral, or at least proceeding from some distem­per of the body, which arising from a natu­ral cause, it may be so called; others come by possession or inspiration of some spirit ei­ther good or bad, which may be well deem­ed supernatural. Much contest there is whe­ther all Enthusiasme be natural, and to that purpose the authority of Aristotle is produ­ced, who discoursing of the several passions arising from drink, love, and the like, or from some melancholy heat, tells you the story of one Maracus of Siracuse, a Poet, who never made so good verses as when he was made, and immediately before hath these words; Many because that heat is near the seat of the mind, [...], &c. Arist. Probl. 30. Quest. 1. are taken with sun­dry frantick and Enthusiastick diseases; from whence they all become Sibylls, Bakides, or inspired, whereas they become not so by any disease, but a na­tural temperament. From which words we may observe two things. First, That he doth not in this place point at any Sibyll in particular, [Page 238]of which many had been before his time, but takes Sibylls there for persons any way inspi­red, as the Bakides and [...] joyned with them, were supposed to be: And in the next place, That he must (not to contradict him­self) take disease in a different sence in the same place; for in the beginning of the sen­tence he tells you, They are taken with many frantick or Enthusiastick diseases, and soon after saith, They become so not from any dis­ease, but a natural crasis or temperaments; in the last place therefore he must take disease in that stricter notion, for such an affection as shakes and weakens the whole frame of the body; in the first, for such a distemper as drunkenness, love, poetical rapture, and the like, such as he calls natural Enthusiasme, which will either be its own cure, or vanish away with time, the constitution being sound, though the action be altered; but however it will from these words of Aristotle follow, that in his sence much of this kind of illu­mination proceeded from an exaltation of the mind by some ecstatick operation of the soul, and not from any possession or inspira­tion of it by either good or evil spirits: And undoubtedly great examples in all ages may be produced out of the Observations of seve­ral Physitians, to this purpose, some where of have been meer cheats, to gain credit to such as should cure or exorcise them; others true, or natural, where through some melancholy heat, or strong imagination, or lastly, through [Page 239]custom and use; See Montagnes Essays, Strange effects from the force of imagi­nation, in his Chapter upon that subject. Fienus de viri­bus imaginatio­nis. the persons affected have brought upon themselves such a habit of bo­dy, that their fancy prevailing over their judgment and understanding, they have re­ally believed themselves possessed with a spi­rit of Prophesie, and enlightning from God, whereas in truth there was no such thing. I my self have known two examples in Persons both of this Nation, of good Rank and Qua­lity; the one a man whom I have often seen, and sometimes heard discourse, but was then too young my self to converse with him, but am well assured he was otherwise a very sober person; but in that particular of explaining difficult prophesies, did think himself strange­ly indowed; insomuch that his confidence so far misled him, that he could no way be dri­ven out of that opinion, That the eleventh Chapter of the second Apocryphal Book of Esdras denoted King James, who was the Lion of the North, who plucked at the fea­thers of the Eagle, which he conceived to be the Emperour: Nay, his confidence in this fancy was so great, that after the death of the King, he believed he should rise again out of his grave to make good his conjecture. The other was a Lady of Noble Rank, who pre­tended much to this gift of Prophesie, and having unhappily foretold the death of a great person which by chance fell out true, she was mightily puft up with it, and follow­ed by some of the giddy multitude; she un­dertook to denounce the end of the world, [Page 240]writ upon the prophecy of Daniel, very idly, and at last lived to see her self deceived in all her vain extravagancies. These two might certainly be reckoned amongst the Enthusiasts of Aristotle, who laboured under some light disorder of the brain, which disturbed their judgment as to that particular, though in o­ther matters they were sober enough; and under the same notion must I look upon the false Prophets, Dreamers, and Quakers, where­of this Age hath been very fertile, who pre­tend themselves endued with an extraordi­nary measure of the Spirit of God; first dream dreams, then see visions, then expound them after their own imaginations, and would obtrude these upon the ignorant mul­titude as Revelations of God, which are in­deed no other than the effects of a disturbed brain, what they foretel rarely coming in any measure to pass, and themselves never able to confirm their mission by any miracle whatsoever, to induce men to believe them Prophets: Some of them are not unlike the Derevises or Torlaces in Turky; who by fre­quent using their bodies to turn round, can at their pleasure fall into extasies, in which they pretend to receive messages from God, and deceive those that give credit to them; though, to speak truth, the sad consequences that have followed from the doctrine of some of these pretenders to new Lights, may give us good cause to believe them to have been led away into these extravagancies by the [Page 241]spirit of errour and delusion, and not whol­ly by a natural disturbance of the brain: Un­less (as we have great reason to suspect) that many of them have been carried on by inte­rest and design, by such pretences to deceive others, thereby to compass their wicked de­signs, of which we have seen too sad effects. From this, and much more which might be materially added to this purpose, it will be evinced, that Aristotle had much of truth and reason in what he said; but because some were either cheats, or Hypochondriaque, that therefore all were, and among them the Sibylls, as D. Blundel would infer, I can no way be induced to believe; nor doth he pro­duce any reason that they were so, whereas the very great time between the predictions, and the fulfilling of them sufficiently evince, that they came from a higher cause then a melancholick heat: In which I have ever ob­served, that between the Prophesie and the time allotted for the adimpletion of it, sel­dom interceded more then a score of years, sometimes not so many moneths. Beside we find, that as well the Sibylline Predictions as all other Oracles ceased at, or soon after the preaching of our Saviour, whereas me­lancholick distempers continue still, which to me seems a strong argument that they were different in their causes. Neither ought the authority of Aristotle too much to sway us in this thing: I allow him to be one of the greatest Masters of reason that ever was, but [Page 242]withal must remember, that being contem­porary with Plato, and sometime his Scholar, but resolving to set up a new Philosophy dif­ferent from that of his Master, would not comply with him in that particular in which he deemed him faulty: For it is observable, that as Plato often speaks of Sibylls Prophe­sies and Revelations, Aristotle mentions none, or very ambiguously, resolving to go a quite contrary way, not medling with any thing of which he was not able to give a probable reason. And all others of the Ancients who have denyed the truth of all Oracles or Pre­dictions whatsoever, except natural, were still of the Sect of Epicurus, meer Atheists, and consequently bound by their Sect to be­lieve nothing in this kind but what they con­ceived to be so: For which Lucian a profess'd Atheist doth commend Democritus, Metrodo­rus, and Epicurus, for their constant adhesion to their own opinion, though never so much contrary to reason and authority: His words are these, speaking of one Alexander a cheat, as it seems, and an Impostor, he tells you he did so strange things, [...] Lucian. Pseudo­mantis, p. 481. Edit. Par. 1615. That in­deed the trick stood in need of some Democritus, nay of Epi­curus himself, or Metrodorus, or some other that had an ada­mantine opinion toward that or things of the like nature, as not to believe them, and cast about which way it might be, [Page 243]which if they could no way find, they resolved to conclude it a lye, and impossible to be done, though the manner of the cheat was hid from them. Amongst them Democritus hath endeavoured to give a rea­son why all Divination may be natural, be­cause, according to the opinion of the Stoick Philosophers, nothing did ever happen in the world but by an eternal concatenation of causes, which have such a dependance one upon another, that they render an aptitude in every thing to be foreseen in its causes, which being natural, Divination may be so too: And Democritus farther asserts, that out of all things that happened by natural causes, there proceed certain effluxes or ema­nations, not only in the things themselves when existent, but from their causes also; so that these causes being in any subject, may from the emanations proceeding from them give an aptitude to the subject to be disposed accordingly; and consequently, that the cause of Divination being in any man, the effluxes of it may render him a Diviner.

This speculation I confess is subtile, and high, if there be any sence in it, fitter for the mouth of an Atheist then a Christian; for admitting such emanations or species may come out of material bodies, how they can proceed out of causes that are sometimes in­existent, till they produce the effect, some­times immaterial, I understand not. Will [Page 244]any man say that love, which is a passion, and immaterial now in any man, upon the sight of an Object to be beloved was in him cau­sally either before his own existence, or the existence of the object; if there were such effluxes in that cause, why not in the cause of that cause, and so in infinitum. These subtile inventions to avoid manifest convicti­ons of their own consciences clearly shew there were among them undeniable testimo­nies of such predictions, of which no true reason could be given, which put them so to their shifts; because they were indeed super­natural: Such I take the Predictions of the Sibylls to be, but whether any or all of them were indued with the Holy Spirit of God (as I have before said) remains to me questiona­ble. This difference from them I observe to be in the true Prophets, that they were never during their Prophesie deprived of their wits or senses; if at any time they have been sur­prised with any consternation or astonish­ment upon the appearance of an Angel, or the like, they have been by the power of God soon restored to a temper fit to understand, and deliver the message intrusted to them: Nay they have been farther able to confirm by Miracle, that they were truly sent by God, when it stood with his glory to have it so, and the distrust of the people required it. Where­as these Sibylls are never reputed to have done any other Miracle save that of truly foretel­ling things to come. 'Tis made indeed the [Page 245]mark of a Prophet not sent by God, Deut. 18. ult. if the things foretold come not to pass; and this un­doubtedly is true; but it follows not conver­tibly, that where ever things foretold come to pass, that person is sent by God, except meant permissively; for we know the Oracles of the Heathen Gods gave often true answers, suf­fered so to do indeed by God, but inspired by the Devil. We know farther, that these Si­bylls were generally supposed in the delivery of their Oracles to be in a rapture and fury, that themselves understood not what they delivered, nor were able to make perfect what was imperfectly taken by the Writer: This we have upon the authority of Virgil, Tully, Virg. Aenei. 3. Cic. de Divin. li. 2. Ovid. Met. li. 14. and others: Nay, that Sibylla commonly called Erythrea, saith she is [...] surpri­sed by a rapture or fury. The consideration of these things makes me prone enough to be­lieve they had in their predictions [...] a powerful inspiration, as Justin Martyr twice calls it in his Admonitory to the Gentiles, but not true Prophetesses of God, & sanctified by his holy Spirit, at least not all, if any of them; yet do I very little doubt of their Antiquity, or suspect any great corrup­tion to have happened to their Books, for the genuineness of which we have as much to say, as for most ancient Writings left amongst us, all or most of the things quoted out of them by any ancient Writer being now extant in those we have, and as they now are from ancient Copies transmitted to us. I know [Page 246]some go yet higher than I do, and conceive them true prophetesses of God, as you may see in the beginning of this Discourse, of which opinion St Jerome seems to be. Jerom. lib. 1. ad­versus Jovini. longe post me­dium. Collius de Si­byll. c. 35. p. 226. Collius in a streight it seems what to determine, goes a middle way, and saith their Oracles are of two sorts, one that concerns Christ, his Birth, Worship, or the like, these he thinks pro­ceeded from divine inspiration; others which concerned Kingdoms, and their Idol worship, he believes came from the Devil. Such a mixture of God and the Devil in the same person may seem hard to some to be­lieve, yet will not this conjecture seem alto­gether void of probability, when the case of Balaam is fully considered, who though he were a Magician and wicked person, yet for ought appears to the contrary, was guided in his prophesie by the Spirit of God, and yet not allways so in the counsel he gave to Balak, as you may read Numbers 22. and 23. Chapters. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 9. c. 23. St Augustine in his Book of the City of God thinketh that she that goes un­der the name of Sibylla Erythrea (whom some think to be Sibylla Cumea) was a Citizen of the City of God, because she hath nothing in all her verses tending to Idolatry, but a­gainst the false Gods and their worship; men­tions there the Acrosticks conteining these words JESUS CHRIST SONNE OF GOD THE SAVIOUR; Which the Translator of that Book having turned into our tongue, I have thought fit to tran­scribe, [Page 247]for the English Readers sake, who per­haps will not have the Book by him.

These Verses and many others in the Si­bylline Books, carry in them a great shew of plainness and sincerity; so that I could wil­lingly subscribe to the opinion of St Augu­stine, That some of them were Citizens of the City of God, were I able to fix upon any per­son in particular, or to satisfie my self that any one of the Books, as they are now extant, were not a mixture of the Prophesies of dif­ferent persons. She upon whom St Augu­stine pitches, to wit, the Sibylla Erythrea, if there were truly any one of that Country, which to my understanding the words do not necessarily import, after she had told you she left Babylon in Assyria, she hath these words, which I should chuse thus to render; Men call me according to the Graecian manner of another Country (to wit) of Erythrea, [...], [...] [...], &c. S [...]b. Or. l. 3. p. 283. impudent, others the daughter of Circe and Gnostus. The interpunction of the words favour this constru­ction; for if they were thus to be understood, Men call me born indeed at Erythre, an impudent person, [Page 249]according to the Graecian manner of another Country: Lact. l. 1. de falsa Relig. pa. 37. —Nisi Ery­threae quae & nomen suum ve­rum carmini in­seruit, & Ery­thream se nomi­natam iri prae­locuta est cum esset orta Baby­loniae. There ought to have been a distin­ction at the first [...], to shew us that [...], ought to be read in a pa­renthesis, that the reference might truly be made; beside the Article [...] in the second verse will be impertinent, and no Country at all from whence she came is named. This I have inserted here, because I had in the preceding Discourse so rendred the words, without giving any reason; and I find some conclude out of this place, that one of the Sibylls ac­knowledges her self born at Erythrea; More­over that Sibylla Erythrea or Cumea, upon whom St Augustine pitches, was certainly that person whose books were kept in, and burnt with the Capitol, and from which the Romans fetch'd out all their superstitious fol­lies; besides, she seems by Virgil to be posses­sed in the delivery of her Prophesies with that kind of madness and fury usually obser­ved in the delivery of Oracles by Apollo; for which reasons, of all others of them, I should think Sibylla Cumea, if the same with Ery­threa, the most unlikely to be of the City of God, which is more likely to be true of her that came out of Babylon, and foretold she should be counted of Enythrea. Under so great an uncertainty therefore and variety of opinions, I think it safest to suspend my own judgment, and agree in this conclusian, That whether all or any of them were immediately guided by God, or what other spirit they [Page 250]spake by, yet were they by his power so over-ruled, that where in his wisedom he thought fit, they could not lye; so that the truth they delivered was indeed his, though the spirit by which they spake came not from him. How­ever this is clear, such persons there were, such predictions they left, which in their due time were accomplished, which was all I de­signed to prove in this discourse.

Thus Sir, have I gone through my intend­ed disquisition of the Sibylls, and in it have I hope made it appear, That the Arguments produced against them are not of that value to take from them the authority they have been allowed by the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophilus An­tiochensis,Tempor. Chron. An. mun. 610.Lactantius, who as Temporarius saith, was a Priest of the Capitol before his conversion, and so permitted to read these Books, and many others of the Ancients, with innumerable latter Writers, amongst whom I cannot forget two very learned Pre­lates of our own Church, Richard Montacute sometimes Lord Bishop of Norwich, who hath a particular Excercitation in the defence of them; and Lancelot Andrews late Lord Bi­shop of Winchester, who hath these words speaking of the truth of Christianity; For the credit of the History it self, we know that the Sibylls Oracles were in so great credit amongst the Heathen, that they were general­ly believed. Now if they be true, w^th we have of them, as there's no question but many of [Page 251]them are, (divers of which we refer to Christ, being mentioned in their own writers, Virgil, Cicero, and others) it will follow, that nothing can make more in their esteem for the credit and truth of the Nativity, Life, and Death of Christ, than their Oracles; for we may see almost every circumstance in them. Andrews Pat of Catechist. Doct. Introduct. c. 12. Sect. 3. And by reading these Verses divers of their Learned men were converted to Christianity, as Mar­cellinus, Secundanus, and others.

If after all this there remain yet some that had rather believe D. Blundel, and some o­thers but of yesterday, I shall only add, That the thing in controversie is not of faith; and that for the truth and certainty of our Chri­stian Religion, we have in the undeniable Word of God a more stable and un-erring Testimony.