Origines sacræ, or, A rational account of the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by Edward Stillingfleet ...

CHAP. IV. The defect of the Graecian History.

That manifested by three evident arguments of it. 1. The fa∣bulousness of the Poëtical age of Greece. The Antiquity of Poetry. Of Orpheus and the antient Poets. Whence the Poëtical Fables borrowed. The advancement of Poetry and Idolatry together in Greece. The different censures of Strabo and Eratosthenes concerning the Poëtical age of Greece, and the reasons of them. 2. The eldest historians of Greece are of suspected credit. Of Damastes, Aristeus, and others; of most of their eldest Historians we have no∣thing left but their names, of others only the subjects they treated of, and some fragments. 3 Those that are extant either confess their Ignorance of eldest times, or plainly dis∣cover it. Of the first sort are Thucydides and Plutarch: seve∣ral evidences of the Graecians Ignorance of the true original of Nations. Of Herodotus and his mistakes, the Greeks ignorance in Geography discovered, and thence their insuffi∣ciency as to an account of antient history.

DEscend we now to the History of Greece; to see whe∣ther the Metropolis of Arts and Learning can afford us any account of antient times, that may be able to make us in the least question the account given of them in sacred Scriptures. We have already manifested the defect of Greece as to letters and antient records, but yet it may be pretended that her Historians by the excellency of their wits and searching abroad into other Nations, might find a more certain account of antient times, then other Nations could obtain. There is no body, who is any thing acquainted with the Graecian humour, but will say they were beholding to their wits for most of their Histories; they being some of the earlyest writers of Romances in the world, if all fabulous narrations may bear that name. But laying aside at present all their Poetick Mythology, as it concerns their gods, (which

we may have occasion to enquire into afterwards) we now examine only their credibility, where they pretend to be most historical. Yet how far they are from meriting belief even in these things, will appear to any that shall consider; First, That their most antient writers were Poetical and appa∣rently fabulous. Secondly, That their eldest Historians are of suspected credit even among themselves. Thirdly, That their best Historians either discover or confess abundance of ignorance as to the history of antient times. First, That their first writers were Poetical, and apparetnly fabulous: Strabo undertakes to prove that Prose is only an imitation of Poetry, and so Poetry must needs be first written. For, saith he, at first Poetry was only in request, afterwards in imitation of that, Cadmus, Pherecydes and Hecataeus writ their histories, ob∣serving all other laws of Poetry, but only the measures of it; but by degrees writers began to take greater liberty, and so brought it down from that lofty strain it was then in, to the form now in use: as the Comical strain is nothing else but a depressing the sublimer style of Tragidies. This he proves be∣cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did antiently signifie the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for Poems were only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lessons fit to be sung among them; thence, saith he, is the original of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For these were those Poëms which were sung 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when they held a branch of laurel in their hands, as Plutarch tells us they were wont to do Homers Iliads, there were sung to the Harp as Hesiods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: besides, saith Strabo, that Prose is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 argues that it is only a bringing down of the higher strain in use before. But however this were in general, as to the Graecians, it is evident that Poetry was first in use among them; for in their elder times when they first began to creep out of Barbarism, all the Philosophie and instruction they had, was from their Poets, and was all couched in verse; which Plutarch not on∣ly confirms, but particularly instanceth in Orpheus, He siod, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Empedocles and Thales; and hence Horace de arte Poetica of the antient Poets before Homer,

—fuit haec sapientia quondam Publica privatis secernere, sacra profanis:

Concubitu prohibere vago: dare jura marit is: Oppida moliri: leges incidere ligno. Sic honor & nomen divinis vatibus at que Carminibus venit.

From hence as Heinsius observes, the Poets were antiently called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the antient speeches of the Philoso∣phers containing matters of morality were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which many are mentioned in their lives by Dio∣genes Laertius; in the same sense were Carmena antiently used among the Latines for precepts of morality, as in that collection of them, which goes under the name of Cato, (which some think to be an antient piece, but with a false inscription, but Boxhornius thinks it to be of some Chri∣stians doing in the decay of the Roman Empire) Si Deus est ••nimus, nobis ut Carmina dicunt. Carmina, saith Heinsius, i. e. dicta Philosophorum; causa est, quia dictailla brevia, quibus sententias suas de Deo deque reliquis includebant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 diee∣bant, i. e. Carmina.

When Poetry came first into request among the Graecians, is somewhat uncertain; but this is plain and evident that the intention of it was not meerly for instruction, but as Strabo expresseth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the more gently to draw the people on to Idolatry. For as he saith, it is impossible to perswade women and the promiscuous multitude to religion by meer dry reason or Philosophy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but for this, saith he, there is need of superstition, and this cannot be advanced without some fables and wonders. For, saith he, the Thunderbolt, Shields, Tridents, Serpents, Spears attributed to the gods are meer fables, and so is all the antient Theology; but the Governours of the Common-wealth made use of these things, the better to awe the silly multitude and to bring them into better order. I cannot tell how far this might be their end, since these things were not brought in so much by the several Magistrates, as by the endeavours of particular men, who thought to raise up their own esteem among the vul∣gar by such things, and were imployed by the great deceiver of the world as his grand instruments to advance Idolatry

in it. For which we are to consider, that although there were gross Ignorance, and consequently Superstition enough in Greece before the Poetick age of it, yet their Superstitions and Idolatrous worship was not so licked and brought into form, as about the time of Orpheus, from whom the Poetick age commenceth: who was as great an instrument of set∣ting up Idolatry, as Apollonius was afterwards of restoring it, being both persons of the highest esteem and veneration among the heathen. Much about the same time did those live in the world who were the first great promoters of Superstition and Poetry, as Melampus, Musaeus, Arion, Methymnaeus, Amphion of Thebes, and Eumolpus Thrax, none of whom were very far distant from the time of Orpheus. Of whom Clemens Alexandrinus thus speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These under a pretence of Musick and Poetry corrupting the lives of men, did by a kind of artificial Magick draw them on to the pra∣ctice of Idolatry. For the novelty and pleasingness of Mu∣sick and Poetry did presently insinuate its self into the minds of men, and thereby drew them to a venerable esteem both of the persons and practises of those who were the Authors of them. So Conon in Photius tells us that Orpheus was exceed∣ingly acceptable to the people for his skill in Musick, which the Thracians and Macedonians were much delighted with: From which arose the Fable of his drawing trees and wild beasts after him, because his Musick had so great an influ∣ence upon the civilizing that people, who were almost grown rude through Ignorance and Barbarism: and so Ho∣race explains it,

Sylvestres homines sacer, interpresque D••orum, Caedibus & victu foedo deterruit O••pheus, Dictus ob hoc lenire Tigres rapidosque Leones.

This Orpheus by Mythologists is usually called the son of Calliope, but may with better reason be called the father of the whole Chorus of the Muses, then the son of one of them, since Pindar calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Iohn Tz••••zes tells

us he was called the Son of Calliope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the inventer of Poetical elegancy, and the sacred hymns which were made to the gods. (Which the old Romans called Assamenta); and Iustin Martyr calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first teacher of Polytheism and Idolatry.

For this Orpheus having been in Aegypt, as Pausanias, Diodorus, and Artapanus in Eusebius all confess, he brought from thence most of the Magical rites and super∣stitious customs in use there, and set them up among the Graecians; so Diodorus acknowledgeth in the same place; and is likewise evident by what Aristophanes saith in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Orpheus first instructed them in the sacred mysteries, and to abstain from slaughter: which is to be understood of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the killing of beasts in sacrifice, which probably was in use among them before as a remainder of antient tradition, till Orpheus brought his Aegyptian doctrine into request among them. The mysteries of Osiris, saith Diodorus, were transplanted into Greece under the name of Dionyfius or Bacchus, and Isis under Ceres or Magna Mater, and the punishment and pleasures after this life from the rites of se∣pulture among them; Charons wasting of souls from the lake Acherusia in Aegypt, over which they were wont to send the dead bodies. Pausanias tells us that the Spartans derived the worship of Ceres Cthonia from Orpheus, and the Aeginatae the worship of Hecate. Besides which he insti∣tuted new rites and mysteries of his own, in which the in∣itiated were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and required a most so∣lemn oath from all of them never to divulge them, which was after observed in all those prophane mysteries which in imitation of these were set up among the Greeks. Strabo thinks the mysteries of Orpheus were in imitation of the old Cotyttian and Benedidian mysteries among the Thracians; but Herodotus with more probability parallels them and the

Dionysian with the Aegyptian, from which we have al∣ready seen that Orpheus derived his; who is conceived by Georgius Cedrenus and Timothaeus in Eusebius, to have lived about the time of Gideon the judge of Israel; but there is too great confusion concerning his age, to define any thing cer∣tainly about it. Which ariseth most from the several persons going under his name, of which besides this were in all pro∣bability two more; the one an Heroick Poet, called by Sui∣das Ciconaeus, or Arcas, who lived two Ages before Ho∣mer, and he that goes under the name of Orpheus, whose Hymns are still extant, but are truly ascribed to Onoma∣critus the Athenian, by Clemens Alexandrinus, Tatianus, Assyrius, Suidas, and others, who flourished in the times of the Pisistradidae at Athens. We are like then to have little relief for finding out of truth in the Poetick Age of Greece, when the main design of the Learning then used was only to insinuate the belief of Fables into the people, and by that to awe them into Idolatry.

If we come lower down to the succeeding Poets, we may find Fables increasing still in the times of Homer, He∣siod, and the rest, which made Eratosthenes, a person of great Iudgement and Learning (whence he was called al∣ter Plato, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because he carried, if not the first, yet the second place in all kind of Litera∣ture) condemn the ancient Poetry as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a company of old wives tales, which were invented for no∣thing but to please silly people, and had no real learning or truth at all in them. For this, though he be sharply censured by Strabo in his first Book, who undertakes to vindicate the Geography of Homer from the exceptions of Eratosthenes; yet himself cannot but confess that there is a ••very great mixture of Fables in all their Poets, which is, saith he, partly to delight the people, and partly to awe them. For the minds of men being always desirous of novel∣ties, such things do hugely please the natural humours of weak people, especially if there be something in them that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very strange and wonderful, it increas∣eth the delight in hearing it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which draws them on to a desire of hearing more of it. And

by this means, saith he. are children first brought on to learn∣ing, and all ignorant persons are kept in awe; nay, and the more learned themselves (partly for want of reason and judgement, and partly from the remainder of those im∣pressions which these things made upon them when they were children) cannot shake off that former credulity which they had as to these things. By which discourse of Strabo, though intended wholly by him in vindication of Poetick Fables, it is plain and evident what great disservice hath been done to truth by them, by reason they had no other Records to preserve their ancient history but these fabulous Writers, and therefore supposing a mixture of truth and falshood together, which Strabo contends for; yet what way should be taken to distinguish the true from the false, when they had no other certain Records? and besides, he himself acknowledgeth how hard a matter it is even for wise men to excuss those fabulous narrations out of their minds, which were insinuated into them by all the advan∣tages which prejudice, custome, and education could work upon them. Granting then there may be some truth at the bottom of their fabulous narrations;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Which may be gilded over with some pleasing tales, as him∣self compares it; yet how shall those come to know that it is only gilded, that never saw any pure mettal, and did always believe that it was what it seemed to be. Had there been any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or touchstone to have differenced between the one and the other, there might have been some way for a separation of them; but there being none such, we must conclude, that the fabulous Narrations of Poets in stead of making Truth more pleasant by their fictions, have so adulterated it, that we cannot find any credibility at all in their narrations of elder times, where the truth of the story hath had no other way of conveyance but through their fictions.

But though Poets may be allowed their liberty for re∣presenting things with the greatest advantage to the palats of their Readers, yet we may justly expect, when men

profess to be historical, they should deliver us nothing but what upon strictest examination may prove undoubted truth. Yet even this were the Greeks far from; for Strabo himself confesseth of their eldest Historians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their first Historians both of per∣sens and things were fabulous. Diodorus particularly in∣stanceth in their eldest Historians, as Cadmus, Milesius, Hecataeus, and Hellanicus, and condemns them for fabu∣lousness. Strabo condemns Damastes Sigeensis for vanity and falshood, and wonders at Eratosthenes for making use of him; yet this man is of great antiquity among them, and his testimony used by Authors of good credit, as Di∣onys. Halycarnassius, Plutarch, and others. Nay Pliny pro∣fesseth to follow him, and so he doth Aristeus Procennesius, in his Arimaspia, which may render the credit of his Hi∣story very suspicious; with whom it was a sufficient ground of credibility to any story, that he found it in some Greek Au∣thors. Strabo reckons Damastes with Euëmerus Messenius and Antiphanes Bergeus; which latter was so noted a lyar, that from him, as Stephanus tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used as a proverb for to speak never a word of truth. Aristeus Proconnesius lived in the time of Cyrus, and writ a History of the Arimaspi in three Books, who seems to have been the Sir Iohn Mari∣devil of Greece, from his Stories of the Arimaspi, with one eye in their foreheads, and their continual fighting with the Gryphens for gold; yet the story was taken upon trust by Herodotus, Pliny, and many others, though the expe∣rience of all who have visited those Northern Climats, do sufficiently refute these follies. Strabo saith of this Ari∣steus, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one inferiour to none for juggling, which cenfure was probably occasioned by the common story of him, that he could let his soul out of his body when he pleased, and bring it again; yet this Juggler did Celsus pitch on to confront with our blessed Sa∣viour, as Herocles did on Apollinus; so much have those been to seek for reason, who have fought to oppose the do∣ctrine of faith.

But further, what credit can we give to those Histori∣ans who have striven to confute each other, and lay open

one anothers falshood to the world. Where was there ever any such dissonancy in the sacred History of Scripture? doth the Writer of one Book discover the weakness of another? do not all the parts so exactly agree, that the most probable suspicion could ever fall into the heart of an In∣fidel is, that they were all written by the same person, which yet the series of times manifests to have been impossible. But now if we look into the ancient Greek Historians, we need no other testimony then themselves to take away their credibility. The Genealogies of Hesiod are corrected by Acusiddus, Acusiddus is condemned by Hellanicus, Hel∣lanicus accused of falshood by Ephorus, Ephorus by Timae∣us, Timaeus by such who followed him, as Iosephus fully shews. Where must we then fix our belief? upon all in common? that is the ready way to believe contradictions; for they condemn one another of falshood. Must we be∣lieve one, and reject the rest? but what evidence doth that one give why he should be credited more then the rest? And, which is a most irrefragable argument against the Graecian history, their eldest historians are ackowledged to be the most fabulous; for our only recourse for deciding the controversies among the younger historians, must be to the elder: And here we are further to seek then ever; for the first ages are confessed to be Poetical, and to have no certainty of truth in them. So that it is impossible to find out any undoubted certainty of ancient times among the Greek Historians; which will be yet more evident when we add this, that there are very few extant of those Hi∣storians, who did carry the greatest name for Anti∣quity.

The highest antiquity of the Greek Historians doth not much exceed the time of Cyrus and Cambyses, as Vossius hath fully demonstrated in his learned book De Histori••is Graecis, and therefore I shall spare particular enquiries into their several ages. Only these two things will further clear the insufficiency of the Greek History, as to an account of ancient times: first, that of many of these old historians we have no∣thing left but their meer names without any certainty of what they treated. Such are Sisyphus Cous, Corinnus, Eugeon

Samius, Deiochus Proconnesius, Eudemus Parius, Democles Phygaleus, Amelesagoras Chalcedonius, Xenomedes Chius, and several others whose names are recorded by several writers, and listed by Vossius among the Historians, but no evidence what subject of history was handled by them. Secondly, that of those whose not only memories are preserved, but some evidence of what they writ, we have nothing extant till the time of the Persian war. For all that was writ before, is now consumed by time, and swallowed up in that vast and all-devouring Gulf; in which yet their heads still ap∣pear above the waters, to tell us what once they informed the world of. It cannot be denyed, but if many of those antient histories were yet remaining, we might probably have some greater light into some matters of fact in the elder times of Greece, which now we are wholly to seek for, unless we think to quench our thirst in the muddy waters of some fabulous Poets. For what is now become of the antiquities of Ionia and the City Miletus written by Cadmus Miletius, supposed to be the first writer of History? where lye the Genealogies of Acusilaus Argivus? where is now extant the History of the Gods writter by Pherecydes Scyrus Pythagoras his Master? or the Chronica of Archilochus who flourished about the 20. Olympiad? or those of Theagenes Rheginus? Where may we hope to meet with Pherecydes Lerius his Attick antiquities, or his Catalogue of Cities and Nations? or Hecataeus his description of Asia, and some suppose of Libya and Europe too? or the Originals of Na∣tions and founders of Cities written by Hellanicus? How may we come by the Persick, Greek and Aegyptian History of Charon Lampsacenus, the Lydian History of Xanthus Lydius; the Samian antiquities of Simmias Rhodius; the Corinthian History of Eumelus Corinthius; Panyasis his Antiquities of Greece; the Scythian History of Anacharsis; the Phrygian of Diagoras; the Chaldaick and Persian of Democritus; the Sicilian and Italian of Hippys Rh••ginus; the Telchiniack History of Teleclides? All these are now buried with many more in the rubbish of time, and we have nothing but the meer sceletons of them left, to tell us that once such persons were, and thought themselves concerned

to give the world some account of their being in it. Where∣by may be likewise seen the remarkable providence of God concerning the sacred history, which though of far greater antiquity then any of these, hath survived them all, and is still preserved with as much purity and incorruption as a book passing through so many hands was capable of. But of that in its due place.

But yet if the Greek historians that are yet extant, were of more undoubted credit then those that are lost, we might easily bear with our losing some old stories, if we gained some authentick history by it accomplished in all its parts: but even this we are far from in the Greek history; for the historians themselves do either confess their own ignorance of antient times, or do most palpably discover it, which was the third and last consideration touching the credibility of the Graecian history. That most grave and accurate historian Thucydides, then whom scarce ever any Grecian discovered more an inpartial love to the truth in what he writ, doth not only confess but largely prove the impossibility of an exact account to be given of the times preceding the Pelop∣ponesian war, in the very entrance into his history: For saith he, the matter preceding that time, cannot now through the length of time be accurately discovered or sound out by us. All that he could find in the ancient state of Greece was a great deal of Confusion, unquiet stations, frequent removals, continual pyracyes and no setled form of Commonwealth. What certain account can be then expected of those times, when a most judicious writer, even of Athens its self, acknow∣ledgeth such a Chaos in their antient history! And Plutarch a later author indeed, but scarce behind any of them, if we believe Taurus in A. Gellius for learning and prudence, dares not we see venture any further back then the time of Theseus; for before that time, as he compares it, as Geogra∣phers in their maps when they have gone as far as they can, fill up the empty space with some unpassable mountains, or frozen seas, or devouring sands; so those who give an account of elder times are fain to insert 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some wonderfull and Tragical stories which as he saith, have neither any truth nor certainty in them. Thus we see those who were best able to

judge of the Greek antiquities, can find no sure footing to stand on in them; and what basis can we finde for our faith where they could finde so little for their knowledge? And those who have been more daring and venturous then these persons mentioned, what a Labyrinth have they run them∣selves into, how many confusions and contradictions have they involved themselves in? sometimes writing the passages of other Countries for those of Greece, and at other times so confounding times, persons and places, that one might think they had only a design upon the understandings of their readers, to make them play at Blind-mans-buff in searching for the Kings of Greece.

But as they are so confused in their own history, so they are as Ignorant and fabulous when they dare venture over their own thresholds and look abroad into other Countries; we certainly owe a great part of the lamentable ignorance of the true original of most Nations to the pittiful account the Greek authors have given of them; which have had the fortune to be entertained in the world with so much esteem and veneration, that it hath been thought learning enough to be acquainted with the account which they give of Na∣tions. Which I doubt not hath been the great reason so many fabulous relations not only of Nations but persons and several animals never existing in the world, have met with so much entertainment from the less inquisitive world. The Greek writers it is evident, took up things upon trust as much as any people in the world did, being a very weak and in∣considerable Nation at first, and afterwards the knowledge they had was generally borrowed from other Nations which the wise men only suited to the temper of the Greeks, and so made it more fabulous then it was before. As it was certainly the great defect of the natural philosophy of the Greeks, (as it hath been ever since in the world) that they were so ready to form Theoryes upon some principles or hypotheses which they only received by Tradition from others, without fetching their knowledge from the experi∣ments of nature; and to these they suited all the phenomena of nature; and what was not suitable was rejected as monstrous and Anomalous: so it was in their history wherein they had

some fabulous hypotheses they took for granted without en∣quiring into the truth and certainty of them, and to these they suit whatever light they gained in after times of the state of forreign Nations, which hath made Truth and An∣tiquity wrestle so much with the corruptions which eat into them through the pride and ignorance of the Greeks. Hence they have alwayes suited the History of other Nations with the account they give of their own; and where nothing could serve out of their own History to give an account of the original of other Nations, they (who were never back∣ward at fictions) have made a founder of them suitable to their own language. The truth is, there is nothing in the world useful or beneficial to mankind, but they have made shift to finde the Author of it among themselves. If we enquire after the original of agriculture, we are told of Ceres and Triptolemus; if of pasturage, we are told of an Arcadian Pan; if of wine, we presently hear of a Liber Pater; if of Iron instruments, then who but Vulcan? if of Musick, none like to Apollo. If we press them then with the History of other Nations, they are as well provided here: if we enquire an account of Europe, Asia or Lybia; for the first we are told a fine story of Cadmus his sister, for the second of Prometh••∣us his Mother of that name, and for the third of a daughter of Epaphus. If we are yet so curious as to know the origi∣nal of particular Countries; then Italia must finde its name from a Calfe of Hercules, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek will signifie some such thing; Sardinia and Africa must be from Sardos and Afer two sons of Hercules; but yet if these will not serve, Hercules shall not want for children to people the world; for we hear of Scythes, Galatas, Lydus, some other sons of his, that gave names to Scythia, Lydia, Galatia; with the same probability that Media had its name from Medea, and Spain and Lusitania from Pan and Lusus two companione of Bacchus. If Persia want a founder, they have one Perseus an Argive ready for it; if Syria, Baby∣lonia and Arabia want reasons of their names, the prodigal Greeks will give Apollo three sons, Syrus, Babylon and Arabs rather then they shall be heretical Acephalists. This vanity of theirs was universal, not confined to any place or

age, but as any Nation or people came into their know∣ledge, their Gods were not so decrepit, but they might Fa∣ther one son more upon them rather then any Nation should be filia populi, and want a Father. Only the grave Athenians thought scorn to have any Father assigned them; their only ambition was to be accounted Aborigines & genuini terrae to be the eldest sons of their Teeming mother the earth, and to have been born by the same aequivocal generation that mice and frogs are from the impregnated slime of the earth. Are we not like to have a wonderfull account of antient times from those who could arrogate to themselves so much knowledge from such slender and thin accounts of the originals of people which they gave, and would have the world to entertain with the greatest venera∣tion upon their naked words? Have we not indeed great reason to hearken to those who did so frequently discover their affection to Fables, and manifest their ignorance when ever they venture upon the History of other Nations.

The truth is, Herodotus himself (whom Tully calls the Fa∣ther of History, which title he deserves at least in regard of antiquity, being the eldest of the extant Greek Historians) hath stood in need of his Compurgators, who yet have not been able to acquit him of fabulousness, but have sought to make good his credit by recrimination, or by making it ap∣pear that Herodotus did not fully believe the stories he tells, but took them upon trust himself and so delivers them to the world. Some impute it to the ingenuity of Herodotus, that he calls his books of History by the name of the Muses on purpose to tell his readers they must not look for meer History in him, but a mixture of such relations which though not true, might yet please and entertain his readers. Though others think they were not so inscribed by himself, but the names were given to them by the Greeks from the admirati∣on his History had among them. However this were, this we are certain, that Herodotus was not first suspected of falshood in these latter ages of the world, but even among the Greeks themselves there have been found some that would undertake to make good that charge against him. For so Suidas tells us of one Harpocration Aelius, who writ

a book on purpose to discover the falshood of Herodotus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plutarch his books are well known of the spight or malignity of Herodotus, but the occasion of that is sufficiently known likewise, because Herodotus had given no very favourable character of Plutarchs Country. Strabo likewise seems to accuse Hero∣dotus much of nugacity and mixing prodigious fables with his History, but I confess observing the grounds on which Plutarch insists against Herodotus, I am very prone to think that the ground of the great pique in some of the Greek writers against Herodotus, was, that he told too many tales out of School, and had discovered too much of the Infancy of Greece, and how much the Grecians borrowed of the Aegyptian superstitions: which Plutarch expresly speaks of, that Herodotus was too much led aside, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Although therefore Herodotus may not be much too blame in the things which the Graecians most charge him with, yet those who favour him most cannot excuse his palpable mistakes in some things, and ignorance in others. Iosephus thinks he was deceived by the Aegyptian Priests in things relating to the state of their affairs; of which Ios. Scaliger gives many accounts; either, saith he, the persons who gave him his intelligence were ignorant themselves; or else like true Egyptians they were cunning enough, but imposed upon Herodotus being a stranger and unacquainted with their artifices; or else he did not understand his Interpreter, or was deceived by him; or lastly, Herodotus might have so much of a Grecian in him, as to adulterate the true History with some fables of his own; wherefore he rather adheres to Manetho then Herodotus as to the Aegyptian History: who yet else∣where (I will not say with what constancy to himself) vouchsafes him this high elogium, that he is Scrinium origi∣num Graecarum & Barbararum, auctor à doctis nunquam de∣ponendus.

It cannot be denyed but a great deal of very useful hi∣story may be fetched out of him; yet who can excuse his Ignorance, when he not only denyes there is an Ocean com∣passing the Land, but condemns the Geographers for assert∣ing

it? Unless this might be any plea for his ignorance in Geography, that he had so many great names after him guilty of the same: Witness Aristotles suspition that the Indies should be joyned to Europe about the Straights, where they fained Hercules his pillars to be. And the Tberaeans igno∣rance where any such place as Libya was, when the Oracle bid them plant a Colony there. Would it not have been worth ones while to have heard the great noise the Sun used to make every night when he doused his head in the Ocean, as none of the most ignorant Greeks imagined? And to have seen the Sun about Hercules his pillars to be a hundred times bigger then he appeared to them, as they commonly fancy∣ed. Was not Alexander, think we, well tutored in Cosmo∣graphy by his Master Aristotle, when he writ word to his mother he had found out the head of Nilus in the East Indies? as Arrian relates the story. No wonder then his Souldiers should mistake the Mountain Paropamisus in the Indies, for Caucasus near Colchis, when even their learned men thought Colchis the utmost boundary of the world on that side, as Hercules his pillars on this. What a lamentable account then were they able to give of the most antient times, who were so ignorant of the state of the world in their own time, when Learning was in its height in Greece, and frequent discoveries daily made of the world, by the wars which were made abroad! Eratosthencs confesseth the Graecians were ignorant of a great part of Asia and the Nor∣thern parts of Europe before Alexanders expedition; and Strabo confesseth as much of the Western parts of Europe till the Roman expeditions thither. Palus Meot is and Colchis, faith he, were not fully known till the time of Mithridates, nor Hyrcania, Bactriana, and Scythia, till the Parthian wars. Eratosthenes mentions some who thought the Arabian Sea to be only a Lake, and it further argues their ignorance in Geography, that the later Geographers alwayes correct the errours of the elder, as Ptolomy doth Marinus, Erato∣sthenes those before him, Hipparchus Eratosthenes, and Strabo not only both them, but Eudoxus, Ephorus, Dicaear∣chus, Polybius, Posidonius, and almost all that had writ be∣fore him. I insist on these things, not that I would destroy

the credibility of any humane history, where the Authors are guilty of any mistakes (for that were to take away the credit of all humane history) but to shew how insufficient those histories are to give us a certain account of the original of Nations, who were so unacquainted with the state of those Nations which they pretended to give an account of. For where there is wanting divine revelation (which was not pretended by any Greek historians; and if it had, had been easily refuted) there must be supposed a full and exact knowledge of all things pertaining to that which they pre∣tend to give an account of; and if they discover apparent defect and insufficiency (which hath been largely manifested as to them, in the precedent discourse) we have ground to deny the credibility of those histories upon the account of such defect and insufficiency. So much then will abundant∣ly suffice for the making good the first argument against the credibility of prophane histories, as to the account which they give of antient times, different from the Word of God.

Notes

• Sect. 1.
• Geogr. l. 1.
• Sympos.
• De Pyth. Orac.
• Dissert. in Hes. ap 6.
• Quaest. Rom. cap. 14.
• Sect. 2.
• Geogr. l. 1. ••. 13
• Protreptic. p. 3.
• Thot. Bi∣blioth. Cod. 186. sect. 45.
• Ep. ad Piso••.
• Schol in Hesiod. p. 8.
• Paraenes. 1.
• Sect 3. Paus. E∣liac. 2.

  Diod. bibl. lib. 1. Euseb. Praep. l. 10.
• Act. 4. sc. 2.
• Laton. p. 95. Corinth. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

  V. C. Rhod. An•• Lect. l. ••5. p. 9
• Geogr. lib. 10.
• Enterp. p. 134. Ed. H. St.
• V. Suidam in Orphe.
• Sect. 4.
• Odyss. 3.
• Sect. 5
• Geogr. l. 1.
• V. Casaub. in Strab. l. 1.

  Voss. de hist. Graec. l. 4. c. 5.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Geogr. l. ••3.
• Sect. 6.
• Appion. l. 1.
• Sect. 7.
• Sect. 8.
• Sect. 9.
• Sect. 10.
• G••og. l. 17.
• De Herod. Mal. p. 857.
• ••. Appion. l. 1.

  Cano ••. Isa∣gog. l 3.
• Nol. ad num. Euseb. 157••.
• Sect. 11.
• Hist l. 2. c. 4
• Hist. A∣lexand. l. 6.
• Geog••. l. 1.