A treatise of the sibyls so highly celebrated, as well by the antient heathens, as the holy fathers of the church : giving an accompt of the names, and number of the sibyls, of their qualities, the form and matter of their verses : as also of the books now extant under their names, and the errours crept into Christian religion, from the impostures contained therein, particularly, concerning the state of the just, and unjust after death / written originally by David Blondel ; Englished by J.D.

CHAP. XXIX. That the Opinion of Anthonius Possevinus concerning the Sibyls, and their pretended Writings, is not more rational, then that of Cardinal Baronius.

ANthony Possevin, carried away with the Tortent of the common Opinion, makes (as the rest) no small Stir with the Sibyls; saying, That a 1.1 Plato, Iamblichus, Porphyrius, and the other Academicks, of whose Doctrine b 1.2 Petrus Crinitus hath written, have treated of the Sibyls. c 1.3 Cicero hath treated of them, and Pliny; and, before them, Varro in his Books Of Divine things, To Caesar; As also afterwards, Cornelius Ta∣citus, Solinus, Fenestella, Marcianus Capella, Virgil, Servius, and others; and of the Greeks, besides the Platonists, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Suidas, Aelian in his Books De varia Historia; nay, among the Christians, and antient Greek Fathers, Eusebius, Justin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Stratonicus Cumanus, Theophilus in his Books to Autolycus; and, among the Latines, Lactantius, Hierome, Augustine, &c. Now, many of the Fathers d 1.4 have affirmed; that these Sibyls had foretold things through the inspiration of God; and the Apostle St. Paul exhorted the Gentiles to read their Oracles, as Cle∣mens Alexandrinus hath left in writing, &c. Peter Garcias Galarza hath so Treated of all this whole matter; that, comparing the Verses of the ten Sibyls with the Prophecies of the Holy Scripture, he hath shewed the admirable Harmony between them.

But the Reader will be pleased once more to consider the inconsi∣derateness of this, otherwise learned, man; who cites, among the Authours, that have spoken of the Sibyls, Theophilus of Antioch, and, in his Apparatus, questions, whether he should be admitted into that number; saying, Theophilus of Antioch, in Case that Theophilus ever writ of the Sibyls. For

First, The Heathens knew not of any Sibyl, but the Idolatrous; as hath been already proved, and cite not any thing of what the Christians thought Sibylline: the Christians, on the contrary, made no account of what the Heathen esteemed, and confining themselves to the Rhapsody of the eight Books, which go under the Title of the Sibylline Oracles, were deceived, thinking them to be the antient Sibyls; and consequent∣ly the Testimony of neither Heathens, nor Christians, is not strong enough to authenticate them; in as much, as the former have charged them with Forgery; and the later, who made account of them, were circumvented; and their Design to bring them into credit proves inef∣fectual upon this account, that (according to the Civil e 1.5 Maxim) The consent of him, who is mistaken, is null.

Secondly, St. Paul neither was, nor could be, the Authour of the Re∣commendation attributed to him; but some Apocryphal Writer, who (impiously-bold) took his Name upon him, to deceive the World with more ease.

Thirdly, Eusebius does not so much, as name the Sibyls in the fifth Book of his History.

Fourthly, The Name of Stratonicus was never heard of, among the Fathers of the Church. Cumae is not found to have produced any Eccle∣siastical Writers: and Possevin, himself, grants as much; for that he does not allow his Stratonicus any place in his Apparatus Sacer.

Fifthly, It was no hard matter for Galarza to finde a Conformity be∣tween the Prophets and the Writings of the Counterfeit Sibyl, since she was (whatever she may seem to the contrary) a Christian by Prosession; and that she writ them one hundred, thirty, and eight years after the Birth of our Saviour: onely it is to be remembred; that this Confor∣mity is not such, as is imagined; and that the pretended Prophetess, to whom it is attributed, was full of Errours, and a corrupt Divine. If therefore we must (with Possevin) blame Opsopoeus the Printer of Basil; it should be, for having inserted this confused Medley into the Body of Orthodox Writers, and added thereto the Oracles of the false Gods; when nothing of it is Orthodox, or ought to finde place in the Christian Library. And, as to what is added by Possevin; That It had been more expedient to set apart some few things of many, and particularly what might be taken, as most certain, out of the Writings of the Fathers, with Notes, or a Paraphrase thereupon; such as Constantine the Great hath put before the Cumaean Sibyl cited by Virgil; or Lactantius before Firmia∣nus; or Augustine before the Acrostick produced by Cicero: it is an Er∣rour infinitely beyond what he was guilty of before. For it will never be expedient to propose to Christians, as a Direction, the Stumbling-Blocks, against which the Fathers fell, much less to raise them into an ad∣miration of Supposititious Pieces. Besides, it is inconsiderately done by some, to alledg either the Paraphrase of Constantine; who hath put Virgil, and his Poem so unmercifully to the Rack: or the Acrostick of the eighth Book of the Sibylline Oracles; which Cicero no more thought on, then he did on the Story of Apuleius's Ass.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Biblioth. lib. 2. cap. 71.
• b 1.2

  De Honesta Disciplina, lib. 7. cap. 1.
• c 1.3

  De Divin. lib. 1, & 2.
• d 1.4

  Hierom. lib. 1. contr•• Jovin. Euseb. lib. 5. Hist Eccles. Lactant. lib. 1. Divin. Instit. August. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 23. De Civ. Dei. Just. Martyr, lib. 4. Advers. Gentes.
• e 1.5

  Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 18. cap. 9. A. D. 305. Decemb. 8.