Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Idolatry of the Jews, and parti∣cularly of their worshipping the Golden Calf. Also of the Egyptian Symbol of Apis, as at that time not extant. And of the probable Reasons which set up Moses as the Original Apis. (Book 6)

PART 1. Of the Provisions made by God against Idolatry among the Jews.

THE Israelites by their Constitution were of all Nations a people the most averse to Idolatry. Their first Commandment prescribeth the Worship of one God. Their second forbiddeth external religious honour to graven Images; which by the exhibition of that honour, whatsoever they were before, become very Idols. Wherefore St. Cyprian a 1.1 thus renders the sense of the Command, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol. And the contention about the Translation of Pesel, by Graven thing, Idol, or Image, is with respect to the design of Moses, an unnecessary Grammar-War. This second Command against the Worship of Images, the Jews have esteemed the great Command of all. Their very Moneys have had on the Obvers the name of Moses inscribed; and on the Revers, that second precept or prohibition b 1.2. Their third Command, [Thou shalt not take, or bear in thy mouth c 1.3 the name of Jehovah thy God in vain,] may seem also to discoun∣tenance Idols, and to forbid all Oaths of promise made

by them in the name of God, by which they often called their false Deities. It may seem to forbid not so directly the breach of Neder, a Vow to the Lord, as Schefugnah, (according to the distinction of the Jews) a 1.4, a Vow by the Lord, or by his Name, when that Name was used in signifying some Idol. I say it may seem so to do; for that it does so, I rather guess than affirm. In this conjecture I am helped by Tertullian: That Father discoursing concerning the unlawfulness of naming the Gods of the Gentile-world b 1.5, maketh use of this distinction; he teacheth that the bare na∣ming of them is lawful, because it is necessary in Dis∣course, but he condemneth the naming of them in such manner as if they were really Gods. After this distinction he pursueth the Argument in this manner:

The Law saith c 1.6, You shall make no mention of the names of other gods, neither shall they be heard out of your mouths. This it comman∣ded, that we should not call them gods. For it saith in the first part [or Table] of it, Thou shalt not take up the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, in an Idol d 1.7. He therefore fell into Idolatry who ho∣nonred an Idol with the name of God. But if they must be called gods, I should add something by which it may appear that I do not own them to be Gods. For the Scripture it self calls them gods, but then it addeth [by way of discrimination] their gods, or the gods of the Nations. In such manner David called them gods, when he said the gods of the Nations were Devils—It is a customary wickedness to say, Mehercule.—And it proceeds from the ignorance of some who know not that they swear by Hercules. Now what is swearing by those whom [in Baptism] you have forsworn [or renounced] but a corrupting of the Faith with Idolatry? For who does not ho∣nour

those he swears by?

To this purpose are those words in Hosea a 1.8: Though thou Israel play the Harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Beth-aven, [or Bethel,] now become a house of iniquity, vanity, or Idolatry, b 1.9, nor swear the Lord liveth. That is, seeing they worship the Golden Calves, which are really Idols, though they give to them the name of Jehovah, as setting them up for his Symbol; yet use not you that word there, or the form of their oath by Jehovah; for thereby you will take up the name of God, and the name by which he is most eminently distinguished, in vain, or in an Idol. Idols are Elilim, or vanities: they are very lyes, at once to use the terms the Prophet gives them, and to allude to the Syriack Version of the third Command, [Thou shalt not take up the name of the Lord thy God with a lye.] He therefore who sweareth by them without distinction, calling them gods, or giving them any names which signifie Divine Power; He that sweareth, or voweth by Coelum or Coelus, that is, the Heavens; by Pluto, or the Earth: such a one does not only dishonour the * 1.10 name of the true God, but he doth also by interpreta∣tion forswear himself; for he sweareth by an Idol, lie, or vanity; vowing by its help to perform his Oath, which therefore he cannot by that means perform, be∣cause he trusteth to an helpless thing, though by his trust he honoureth it as a Divine Power.

Further, one great end of the fourth Command was the prevention of Idolatry. The seventh day was ob∣served as a Memorial of that one God the Creator of the World, and the God of Israel; and they who kept it holy, kept it holy to Jehovah, and made profession hereby that they were not Gentiles, who worshipped many Gods, but the seed of Abraham who served but one, the God of that Patriarch, and of Isaac, and Jacob.

This (saith Mr. Mede) was the end of the Sabbath a 1.11, that thereby, as by a Symbolum, or sign, that people might testifie and profess what God they wor∣shipped.

He ought, it may be, to have spoken this with limitation, and called it a great end: and that it was such, is evident from the Text of Moses, than whom, no man better understood the Levitical Oe∣conomy. To him God spake b 1.12 saying, Speak thou al∣so to the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you, throughout your Generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord who doth sanctifie you, [or set you apart as my Worshippers, distinct from those who worship Idols.]—Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their Generations, for a perpetual Co∣venant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever. For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day he rested [or ceased] and was refreshed, [or was pleased with that exceeding good and beautiful frame of things, which his Wisdom, Goodness and Power had made.]

A like end there was of the Levitical Sacrifices. God needed them not; the Sacrifice of a pure and humble mind was more agreeable to him who is an Intellectual Spirit. But the Israelites doted on such a gross manner of expressing their devotion. And seeing they must needs offer Sacrifice, it pleased God to give them a Law which might at once indulge them in their incli∣nation, and restrain them from sacrificing unto Idols; whilft it appropriated that service to God alone, and denied it to Angels and Men. To this purpose St. Cyril discourseth c 1.13, and this is the sense of the words of that Father.

God had no thirst which was to be quenched with blood. He required not of himself so gross and material a worship, but one more spiritual, per∣fected

by universal virtue. He required a life ho∣nesty and integrity, and such as shone honourably with good works; a right contemplation of the Deity, and a true and blameless knowledg, and practice of that which is really good. But because the feeble and earthly minds of the Israelites could not with∣out difficulty be brought off from the worship and ungodly manners, and detestable superstition of the Egyptians; therefore God by the Pedagogy of the Mosaic Law, gave them a spiritual command against many Gods, and yet permitted them, after the anci∣ent manner of the worship to which they had been accustomed, to offer Eucharistical and Expiatory Ob∣lations, duly and wisely appointed, and as types and shadows of good things to come.—For the begin∣nings a 1.14 of Sciences are imperfect, and by the gra∣dual additions of little and little, they arrive at their compleat stature.

Touching the whole Law of Moses as Mosaical, Mai∣monides saith of it b 1.15

That the principal design and intention of it was the removal of Idols.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Jews.

IT appeareth then that God gave the Jews sufficient antidotes against Idolatry; and it is as manifest that their folly rendred them very often ineffectual. They by their ritual inclination, by cohabitation, by com∣merce, by apish affectation of foreign modes, learned the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian Idolatries. Some of this leaven brake out in the Wilderness. There they began to lean towards the worship of false gods by ado∣ring the true one (as shall be shewed) in the unmeet Symbol of the Golden Calf. Hence God in his just Judg∣ment,

gave some of them up to the direct worship of false gods a 1.16, besides the true one, though not whol∣ly without him. They worshipped Moloch (as some think * 1.17 by the Tabernacle which the Priests took up, and Remphan by a Star, and the Host of Heaven. A∣mongst that Host of orderly Lights, some have placed the Prototype of Apis, and supposed him to be the Sun. But it seemeth absurd to say, that God permitted the people of the Jews to fall into the worship of the Sun afterwards, because they had worshipped him al∣ready.

At the entrance of the People into Canaan, that Ge∣neration who had seen the hand of God so remarkably upon their disobedient and Idolatrous Forefathers, and who by his Miraculous power and mercy were possessed of part of the good Land, did in pious manner adhere to him. And when Joshuah, under whose wise and suc∣cessful conduct they had been brought over Jordan, advised them at his death, to renounce the Idols of their Fathers, and of the Amorites b 1.18, they with pi∣ous earnestness cried out, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord to serve other Gods. And they ratified this holy resolution of theirs by a solemn Covenant be∣twixt them and Joshuah.

Joshuah being dead, and that pious Generation be∣ing gathered to their Fathers, There arose c 1.19 another Generation after them who knew not [or owned not] the Lord,—but served Baal and Ashtaroth. This Idola∣trous disposition continued in the people under their Judges d 1.20, insomuch that in the time of Eli (e) the Palladium of Israel, the Ark of the Covenant, was per∣mitted to fall into the hands of the Philistins. They were a very terrible enemy to the Israelites for many years: and in order to the removal of their yoke, and to the regaining the favour of God, Samuel f 1.21 spake

unto all the house of Israel, saying, If you do return unto the Lord with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods, and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistins. Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim [The Idols of the Sun a 1.22,] and Ashtaroth, [in the LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Idols in the Groves of Astarte, or the Earth] and ser∣ved the Lord only. Such Piety of Samuel their Judg, and of David their King, and of Solomon also in the former part of his Reign, together with Gods Pre∣sence in that Magnificent Temple built by him, did much promote the true Religion, and stop the growth of Idolatrous worship. But at length Solomon himself gave them an unhappy Example of it in his own person, being seduced to Idols by the charms and softnesses of his many Heathen Women b 1.23 So fatal an evil is Lust to the best Understandings, which whensoever it pos∣fesseth them, it perfectly besotteth, and reigneth over them with uncontrouled power. This Impiety was ma∣nifest in Solomon about the thirtieth year of his Reign, as Chronologers commonly account. But the more se∣cret beginning of his defection is by Josephus and other Jews dated from the Images of Oxen made at his com∣mand, as supporters of the Brazen Sea c 1.24. It is the common opinion of the Arabians, and particularly of Abulfarajus d 1.25, that Solomon died in his Sin without Repentance. Of that God is judg. It is more certain that before he died, he persisted in it notwithstanding a repeated appearance of Gods Shechinah e 1.26, and that God was highly displeased with him, and threatned to rend the Kingdom from him after his death. Of that Rent the Instrument was Jeroboam, by whose means one Kingdom became divided into two, rather Facti∣ons than Kingdoms, those of Judah and Israel. In the

latter Jeroboam set up two Golden Calves which the people worshipped at Dan and Bethel; he being jea∣lous a 1.27 that if they sacrificed at Jerusalem, they would return to their Allegiance due to the King of Judah. For this and other sins God suffered the Ten Tribes to be for ever led captive. Judah also polluted it self with Idolatry. It began under Rehoboam after his three good years of Government, and came to its height under Athaliah, Ahaz, and Manasseh b 1.28; and at length Ju∣dah likewise was carried into Captivity. After her re∣turn from Captivity under the favour of Cyrus, many of the Jews were more faithful to the true God, being sensible that for their serving of Idols he had cast them out of his most safe Protection; and the Statue of Mo∣ses on an Ass, found by Antiochus in the Holiest, is one of the Tales of Diodorus * 1.29. Yet after this great delive∣rance, divers of them relapsed, through that persecu∣tion against them, and that toleration of all Gentilism in Judea, of which Antiochus Epiphanes was the Au∣thor c 1.30. He set up the abomination of Desolation, the Idol of Jupiter Olympius, on the Altar of God; and Idol apt to move the pious Jews to forsake the City, and to leave it desolate. Many of the Israelites d 1.31 [either through fear, or vain inclination] consented to his Reli∣gion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as the Seventy) to his worship; and they sacrificed to Idols, and profaned the Sabbath. But some e 1.32 chose rather to sacrifice their own lives than to offer to Idols. The Samaritans of all others were under this Tyrant the most disloyal to God; they send Let∣ters of flattery to this impious Monster, of which Jo∣sephus in the Twelfth Book, and seventh Chapter of his Antiquities, hath given us a Copy. They inscribe them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Antiochus the illustrious God. They feign themselves to be the off-spring of the Si∣donians and Persians, that they may not be taken for

Jews, whom he hated. They consecrate a Temple on Mount Gerazim, to the Jupiter of Grece, and by such vile arts they insinuate themselves into the favour of Antiochus, who commandeth that they be esteemed, and used as Grecians. And yet a while after under Ptolomaeus Philometor, they abhor Idols, and contend with the Jews themselves about the sanctity of their Temple, which they preferred before that of Jerusa∣lem it self. The Jews by this means, and by former commerce with Grecians, in divers of their Cities and Colonies, and particularly in their own Jerusalem, [which Alexander himself is said to have visited;] and in Alexandria, [where the Ptolomies had advanced the Worship of Grece, and in which Philo in his time num∣bered exceeding many Jews a 1.33;] became leavened with the Grecian Demonology b 1.34. This Thales learnt in Egypt, and he enlarged and propagated it in the Re∣gions of Grece. I cannot accuse the Jews of erecting Statues, or of offering solemn Prayers, or Sacrifices to them. Yet all who mark that Translation of the Seven∣ty which is commonly in mens hands, may charge at least the Hellenistick Jews, with a false and dangerous estimation of Daemons; with an estimation of them as Presidents and Tutelar Spirits, who under God did go∣vern the World. He that runs may read thus much in their Version of the eighth verse of the thirty-second of Deuteronomy: When the most High divided the Nati∣ons c 1.35, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the People [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] according to the number [not of the Children of Israel, as the He∣brew Copy readeth it, but according to the number] of the Angels of God; who (they say) were seventy, and whom they call the Sanedrim above. Such Angels ma∣ny Jews imagined to have their Thrones in several Stars, whilst their footstools, or inferior places of Go∣vernment

were in several parts of the Earth. Hence Aben Ezra saith a 1.36, that it appeared by Experiments [he meaneth sure miraculous effects succeeding the worship of Patrons of Places,] that every Nation and every City hath its particular Planet to which it is sub∣ject. But he excepteth the people of Israel, who being subject only to the Government of God, had it seems no Planet for their Superintendent. Also with allusion to the Government of the Nations by Angels in Stars and Constellations, and not by immediate Providence, the Jews b 1.37 in their Liturgy give to God the name of the King of the Kings of Kings; that is, the King of those Angelical Powers who rule over the Potentates on Earth. This belief of the Hellenists containeth in it a twofold error: That of the Lieutenancy of Angels, and that of the Innocency of those Spirits which Chri∣stianity calleth Daemons, in the most infamous signifi∣cation of that name. This double error is found in one passage of Josephus, who recordeth it as one of the Precepts of Moses, [of Thales, he might have said more truly,]

That one Citizen ought not to blas∣pheme those Heavenly Powers c 1.38 which other Ci∣ties have in esteem as Gods.

The Jews after the coming of the Messiah, had be∣sides the motives of their Religion, Political Reasons against Images or Idols. For they have been forced by a just vengeance pursuing such bloody murtherers, to live dispersedly under both Christian and Mahometan Power. And in Dominions of both kinds the Worship of Graven Idols, (besides that their zeal against them, and for their Sabbath was instrumental, as the char∣racter of a Party, to keep them still in some sort of body), would have much obstructed their Toleration. The Mahometans would have been, from the other ex∣treme, averse to them; their Law forbidding all Sta∣tues

and graven or painted Images. In pursuance of this Law, their zeal defaced the Grecian and Roman Coins, which had upon them the Image of their Empe∣rours. It did so formerly, but since that time it is so much cool'd, that they do not believe the Coin pro∣faned by the Superscription. Nay, they prefer the Vene∣tian Ducats which have Images upon them, before their own Sultanies which have none, but are stamped according to the will of their Prophet a 1.39. But so it is often seen, that the principle of Avarice becomes much stronger than that of false Religion.

In the days of Julian the Jews were noted amongst the Gentiles as the Worshippers of one God; and, what∣soever their opinion was concerning Angels, they were not observed for any external worship with which they honoured them. That Apostate maketh this dif∣ference betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles of his Age; that the Gentiles b 1.40 worshipped many Gods [or Dae∣mons,] but the Jews one God only. And those unbe∣lievers pretend, at this day, to the strictest observance of the second Command.

It may be here taken a little notice of, how the Jews have been often accused by the Gentiles, and amongst them by Juvenal, Petronius, and Strabo, as Worshippers of the Clouds. If this reproach had been cast upon that Religion whilst the Ark remained in the most holy place, I should have thought it occasioned by that mi∣raculous Cloud which shadowed the Mercy-seat, and towards which the high-Priest did make his obeisance. But the scandal cannot be traced (so far as my know∣ledg leads me) beyond the days of Augustus. Mr. Selden c 1.41 once guessed that this reproach might arise from a mistake of the Idiom of the Jews, who called the Ma∣jesty of God, Heaven d 1.42. This Idiom Christ useth, whilst he demandeth concerning the Baptism of John,

Whether it was of Heaven or of Men; of Divine or Hu∣mane Authority. Afterwards he was induced to think that the Slanderers of the Jews mistook them for the Gnosticks, who made so much noise about their Hea∣vens and AEons. At last he rejected the accusation with scorn, and placed it amongst such groundless and ex∣travagant forgeries as that of their worshipping an Ass, with which malicious ignorance had traduced them.

But it is not my purpose to write an entire History of the Jewish Worship, or to tell how often they served one God, and how often they worshipped many. I will only insist on one Instance, That Peccatum Maxi∣mum (as the Vulgar a 1.43 Latine calls it) their greatest sin; to wit, their Idolatry committed with the Golden Calf. It is an instance which themselves take especial notice of, thinking that in every Judgment sent to them by God b 1.44, there is, as they speak, an ounce of that Idol; and it is a subject which hath occasioned a Controversie betwixt the Papists and the Reformed.

PART 3. Of the Worship of the Golden Calf.

THE Golden Calf was, either the ultimate Object of the peoples Worship, or a Symbol of some Deity which they finally honoured. Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentary on Exodus, supposeth the former, and thinketh them to speak properly in that form which they used, These are thy Gods [or this c 1.45 is thy God] who brought thee out of the land of Egypt. As if those Worshippers, though sufficiently brutish, were as stu∣pid as the very Idol it self: As if they could believe that their deliverance was miraculously wrought for them, by a Statue which they saw formed after the time that they were delivered. Wherefore Cardinal

Bellarmine contendeth, that the speech hath a Figure in it, and that the Calf was a Symbol of a Deity, yet not of the true God, but of the Idol Apis which they had seen honoured with singular reverence in Egypt. That it was not the ultimate Object, but a Symbol or Image, is suggested by Tertullian a 1.46, who calleth it, Simulachrum Vituli, not a God, but the Image or Idol of the Calf. Neither ought it to be dissembled that Philo b 1.47, Lactantius c 1.48, and St. Hierom d 1.49, believe the Calf to have been the Statue of Apis.

To the great name of Bellarmine I oppose that of Tostatus, who e 1.50 affirmeth those words of the people, [These are thy gods,] to carry this sense with them:

O Israel, God who was without Body, and unseen, and who brought thee out of Egypt, and gave thee a passage through the Red Sea, is he whom thou now seest; that is, his Divine virtue resideth in that Golden body.

Nay, I may oppose to Bellarmine the greater Authority of the Council of Trent: the Cate∣chism set forth by order of that Council, doth teach (though not directly yet by consequence), that the Calf of Aaron was a Symbol of Jehovah, seeing it owneth the Calves of Dan and Bethel to have been worshipped as his Statues. Now this latter it acknow∣ledgeth, because it owneth them in Israel, who halted betwixt God and Baal (as also the Samaritans) to have been divided betwixt the true God and false Deities or Idols f 1.51. What Deities then were the extreams be∣twixt which these unstable and giddy Israelites did vi∣sibly stagger? Did not they stagger betwixt the new Religion of Baal g 1.52, learned from the Zidonians? and the more ancient and less corrupt, h 1.53 yet too much depraved one of the God of Israel, who (as ap∣peareth by his Name i 1.54 and Rites k 1.55 used there) was worshipped by those Symbols taken without Di∣vine

allowance, from the Cherubim on the Ark which were only Appendages of the Shechinah, and not in∣termediate Objects of the High Priests Reverence. If these Symbols had not been used as the Shechinah of the true God, Jeroboam would not have been so severely blamed for making the lowest of the people Priests of the high Places; for the vilest and meanest people, the lees and dreggs of the world had been the fittest instru∣ments in the servicc of Idols. Like Deity, like Wor∣shippers. Now to this Worship at Dan and Bethel Je∣roboam was moved by his Political interest, which made it necessary for him to continue the Schism, not by di∣viding the Israelites from their God, whom they would not wholly renounce, but by setting apart distinct places and Symbols of his especial presence. There were in Israel secret Worshippers of God, after a right negative man∣ner, no less than seven thousand, who served God on∣ly. But such as these were not visible to the Prophet who bemoaneth himself, as if the Church [the Church of Israel] was confined to his own person. He there∣fore meaneth not by his halters such as sometimes wor∣shipped the true God in holier manner than Jeroboam prescribed, and sometimes Baal, [a name common both to the new and old Idols a 1.56]: For them he could not openly upbraid of whom he had no knowledg. His meaning Jehu expoundeth when b 1.57 he opposeth the Priests of Baal to the servants of the Lord: For what other servants than the Priests of Jeroboam did then publickly officiate in Israel? For Ahab succeeded his Father Omri who had established the Vanities or Idols c 1.58 of the Calves, and sinned beyond Jeroboam him∣self d 1.59. And Ahab was so far from restoring Gods pure Worship, that he outwent his Father Omri in encou∣raging that which was false and degenerate. So proper∣ly may the AEtas Parentum in Horace, be here applied.

Against the Authorities of Philo, Lactantius, and S. Hierom before-cited, I put into the ballance the words of Aaron. Aaron called the Idolatrous Festival, a Feast to Jehovah, making use (as Micah a 1.60 did afterwards) of the most Revered name of God. I argue not here from the bare imposition of that word, for Idolaters did learn to give to Creatures that incommunicable Name b 1.61. But I argue from the reverence which is due to Aaron the se∣lect high Priest of the God of Israel. He offendeth ex∣tremely against charity and good manners, who think∣eth of such a person, that he would pacifie a clamorous people with so vile a condescension. He had a better design, howsoever the madness of the people perverted it. It cannot be thought that the God whom he served in so Sacred an Office, should be so soon forgotten by him, and so ungratefully and wretchedly dishonoured in a base Egyptian Idol, passing under the most separate name of Jehovah. It was ill enough that he set up a Symbol of Gods presence where he had not appointed him c 1.62. It was a crime sufficiently high that he had erected an undue Statue, or an arbitrarious external sign of Gods presence, though not an Image of him; for such the Cherubims were not. For I suppose he took his Pattern from part of what he saw in the Holy Mount, when the Shechinah of God came down upon it, attended with Angels. Of them some were Cheru∣bims, or Angels appearing with the Faces of Oxen; as I afterwards shew d 1.63. Now it was a great pre∣sumption to worship God in any other, than in his pro∣per and allowed Symbol, (as rightly e 1.64 Altisiodorus) though it happened to be a Cherub, and not Apis. The Sacrifices offered in the Worship of the Calf were not agreeable to any Egyptian Idol. For amongst them at that time the blood of a Bull was as great an abo∣mination as was the blood of a Swine to the Hebrews.

At that time I say, for after the Macedonian Conquest a 1.65, the Idol Apis it self had in the Suburbs beasts so∣lemnly offered in Sacrifice to it. Also before those times all the Egyptians sacrificed clean and male Bul∣locks, if Herodotus b 1.66 be an Author of credit. And it appeareth by the History of Elijah that Beasts were offered upon the Altars of the Zidonian c 1.67 Baal, or Sun, from whom they had expectation of an answer by fire. But he was either asleep at that time, with his eye closed by the air, then in disposition for clouds, or in his journey of Diurnal motion, and did not, or ra∣ther could not mind their Sacrifice. However in those early times, and with reference to Egypt d 1.68, the Sa∣crifices of Oxen which the people offered at the Gol∣den Calf, do prove it to be something else than the Symbol of Apis: unless a man would say that they honoured old Idols with their new Rites, as afterwards they did, worshipping Moloch e 1.69 with the Rites of the Tabernacle of Jehovah. They did not, as I think, dethrone God, but joined that false God with him, and corrupted true Religion with mixtures of Gentilism.

PART 4. Of the Idol Apis.

APis the living Ox, was an Idol of ancient stan∣ding; for the Grecians who lived before the times of Alexander f 1.70 make mention of it. Herodotus is one of them; and he recordeth the Slaughter of Apis by Cambyses, who was the second Monarch of Persia. He likewise introduceth the Egyptians alledging the Festivity of the Appearance of Apis as an ancient Holiday g 1.71. They professed it to be a custom, that they might appease that vehement passion which a mi∣stake had raised in him. For when he found them re∣joycing

at the Appearance of Apis, he imagined them triumphing at that defeat of his Forces which he had newly sustained. By this it is plain, that the Idol Apis was ancient, but to me it seemeth not to have existed at all as such before the death of Moses.

And this I here design to shew by reasons allowable in Philological matters, though I have not the vanity to call them infallible Proofs. If this can be done, the Controversie will of it self fall to the ground, seeing the very subject of it will be removed.

There are few stories more uncertain than the Anti∣quities of Chaldea and Egypt, of which Kingdoms the former seemeth to be the more ancient a 1.72 by about forty years: And all that is said of either of them be∣yond the days of Phaleg, is vanity and imposture. Their vain and ignorant Priests, and men not much unlike them, the Mythologers of Grece, have set the Accounts of time backward and forward, and given feigned Pe∣digrees both to their Gods and their Princes. And they have so confounded Fable and History, that both have been swallowed by many without distinction. This confusion hath hapned in nothing more than in their Historical Theology; and I think the story of the Idol Apis may serve as a considerable example of it. Herodotus, Pliny, Strabo, Ammianus Marcellinus, all make different descriptions of it: And the Image of that Idol in the Table of Isis does still differ from each Character in those Writers b 1.73. In all things I shall not be able at this distance of time, to separate falshood from Truth. But in the point of its Antiquity I do not despair of proving its common date to be ficti∣tious.

Before the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, Oxen were very sacred among the Egyptians c 1.74. But they were then, if I mistake not, no otherwise sacred than

many Creatures were afterward among the Pythagore∣ans a 1.75, and are at this day among the Brachmans of India. That is, they were not touched with violent hand, or weapon: They were not used for Food, or offered in Sacrifice. Hence Strabo speaking of Apis at Memphis b 1.76, and Mnevis at Heliopolis [in times much nigher to us], does say of those Idols that they were reputed Deities, whilst the Oxen in other places were held as sacred Creatures, but not as gods c 1.77. Whether they were esteemed sacred Animals in memory of Jo∣seph, or from their use in Tillage d 1.78, or for some deeper reason, I pretend not to tell: for, it seems, themselves could not agree about the original of their Superstitions e 1.79. Sacred then they were in some sense, before Moses became a Law-giver to Israel. But that there was any one Ox selected so early as an object of Religious worship, is an opinion taken up without ground from History. My eyes at least have not been able to espie so much as an imperfect footstep of it. Had such an Idol existed, and been imitated also by the Israelites in the Wilderness, St. Stephen in his Epitome of their History, and particularly in that part of it wherein he remembreth their Idolatry with the Calf, could as easily have upbraided them with the false Deity Apis, as he did with those f 1.80 of Moloch and Remphan.

The Learned Mr. Selden, who referreth the Golden Calf to the Egyptian Pattern, does two ways endea∣vour to obviate this Objection against the Antiquity of Apis g 1.81.

First, He contendeth that this Worship of Apis or Osiris is sufficiently ancient, because it terminateth in the Sun, which was reputed a Divine Power at the very birth of Idolatry. Now this reason, if it proveth any thing, it proveth too much; much more than Mr.

Selden himself will own as truth. For from hence it will follow, both that the Idolatry of Egypt was as ancient as that of Babylon, and that the whole almost of the Egyptian Idolatry, which was exceeding various, com∣menced at the same time. There was scarce any Idol set up there, but in one respect or other it was referred to that glorious body. It scarce shined upon any thing, which was not at some time or other consecrated to it. The Lion, the Hart, the Hare, the Eagle, the Hawk, the Crow, the Cock, the Goose, the Upupa; the Pine-Tree, the Nile; all these, and many others were sacred to the Sun, as may to those, who care not to turn the leaves of many Authors, appear compendiously in the Harpocrates of Cuperus a 1.82. Yet these Idols were erected upon divers occasions, and as the humor at di∣vers times possessed fanciful and superstitious men.

Secondly, Mr. Selden b 1.83 produceth in favour of the Antiquity of the Idol Apis, the Testimony of Eusebius. Eusebius (he says) affirmeth of Apis, that in the days of King Aseth, a Calf was deified and called by that name. And for King Aseth, Mr. Selden supposeth him to have reign'd in Egypt in the days of Isaac.

But he hath gained little strength to his Cause, by producing a witness who contradicteth himself. For Euseb. elsewhere c 1.84 relates that Apis and Mnevis were deified under Choos, who is said to have reigned in the 2d. Dynastie after the Flood. For this he citeth Manetho a Grecising Fabler, who disagreeth with Herodotus, and Diodorus, and fetcheth his Relation from pretended Pillars, uncertain both for the place, and the Inscripti∣ons of them. Little credit is given by the Judicious to his Dynasties. He maketh in them contemporary per∣sons to succeed each other; he maketh many Kings out of the several deputies of one. He maketh Egypt no an∣cient Monarchy, as the Scripture doth. For at the same

time that Menis reigned at Thebes, he setteth up Saïtes as a King over other parts of Egypt a 1.85. It must indeed be granted, that though Eusebius contradicteth himself in assigning the particular time; yet it serveth the pur∣pose of Mr. Selden, that in both instances he referreth to time ancient enough. He doth so in those Places. But in others which Mr. Selden hath not cited, he set∣teth a more modern date to the Apotheôsis of Apis. In his Book of Evangelical Preparation b 1.86, he ascribeth to Chenephren King of Egypt, both the Deification of their Ox, and the imposition of the name of Apis. He addeth, that thenceforth the people erected a Temple to that Idol. Now he maketh this King Kenephren Contemporary with Moses, and one who reverenced his person, and received from him the rite of Circum∣cision. All this Eusebius has taken from Artapanus in his History of the Jews. For Artapanus I cannot say much in confirmation of his fidelity. Yet I think him of weight enough to be put into the scale against Ma∣netho the Sebennite, a writer so absurdly confident in his Fictions, that he maketh Menis equal to Adam c 1.87. The same Eusebius in his Cronicon, sets down Epaphus, or Apis as born in the Reign of Chencres, that is, of the abovesaid Chenephren, as may be conjectured both from the affinity of the names, and the agreement of the time. For he reporteth of Chencres (called also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Rebel against Almighty God) that he perished in the Red Sea. He was therefore Contemporary with Moses, and no other than that Pharoah who bade defi∣ance to the God of Israel, and fell as a Sacrifice to his Omnipotent Justice. That he was born in the Reign of Chencres, if it respecteth the Natural birth of Moses, is a mistake, yet such a one as is common in ancient Chro∣nology, which is not exact to a day or a year; for he was about fourscore years old at his going forth from

Egypt: but the time of his Civil birth may be then ac∣counted when he began to head the Israelites, and to say to Pharoah, Let the people go that they may serve their God. Then God said to him in effect, Thou art my Son, a Prince and Lieutenant under me; this day have I begotten thee, or created thee a Ruler.

If then the person represented by an Ox was not more ancient than the deliverance by Moses, much less was the Golden Apis extant in Egypt at that time of his departure. Yet Mr. Selden will have this Golden Ox a 1.88 to be the Pattern of the Idolatrous Israelites, and not the living Beast. It is true, that Plutarch b 1.89 mentioneth a Golden Ox, and telleth how for four days together it was exposed with great solemnity, during the disappearance of Apis, or, as he expoundeth it, at the decrease of Osiris, or the Nile. And in Pliny we read of a Golden Cat c 1.90 worshipped by the Citizens of Rhadata in Egypt. I doubt not but that such a Golden Image was extant, many years before Plutarch wrote of Isis and Osiris. He is a grave Author, and a man of singular skill in the more modern affairs of Egypt. But it is not shewn by him, or by any other Historian, that such a Statue was framed at the beginning of the wor∣ship of that Idol. Of this Herodotus, the Father of Se∣cular History, taketh no notice, though he had just oc∣casion so to do in his Discourse of the disappearance of Apis, if any such thing had been then in being d 1.91. Also in his description of the Palace said to be built for Apis by Psammitichus e 1.92, he drops not a word concerning any such Golden Calf, though he mention∣eth divers Types [Hieroglyphical, or Ornamental Fi∣gures] with which that Palace abounded. Nay Lucian denieth that any Figures or Statues had place in the ancient Temples of Egypt f 1.93.

PART 5. Of the Originals of Apis and Serapis.

THE Objections of Mr. Selden being thus removed out of my way, I proceed in inquiring after the true and original Apis. Apis was not ultimately the living Ox, but some Deifi'd Person, of whom the Ox was the Symbol; or (as Diodorus (a) reporteth) the * 1.94 Receptacle into which his soul passed in its transmi∣gration. That he was a man all Writers agree, unless they be of the strain of Porphyry b 1.95. He was unwil∣ling to own so mean and dishonourable a thing of his Heathen Gods, as to acknowledg them to have been dead men; wherefore he would needs perswade the world that Apis was sacred to the Moon only. This he would infer from the white spot on the right side of Apis, in the form of the Moon. That Mark indeed is mentioned by Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus; but in more ancient times the Ox had no such Character on him. Herodotus is accurate in his description, and he omitteth not his minute marks, of which this of the Moon is none.

The Bullock (saith he) called Apis c 1.96 hath these signs: In its body it is all black, [for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text of Herodotus is mistaken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] on its Forehead it hath a white spot of a four-square figure; on its back it hath the Image of an Eagle; on its tongue a Scarabee, and two hairs on its Tail.

The Superstition of after-times encreased his Hiero∣glyphical Marks. To the Sun or Moon this Ox might be sacred, and also to some departed Hero, or Heroess, for so were the Idols of Osiris and Isis. But Historians are not agreed about the Hero called Apis. Each of them almost has a several conjecture.

Suidas [in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] supposeth him to have

been a King of Egypt, bearing that name of Apis, and to have obtained after death Divine honour, for his Liberality to the Citizens of Alexandria, whom he supplied with Corn in time of Famine. The like con∣fusion of Apis and Serapis is found in Ruffinus a 1.97. He mentioneth the Famine at Alexandria, and the supply by Apis. But concerning him he knows not whether he were a King of Egypt, or a Father of a lesser Family at Memphis. Of this Apis, whoever he was, he repor∣teth further out of an uncertain Gentile Historian, that he had a Temple at Memphis built in honour of him: Also that within the Temple an Ox (the Symbol of a good Husbandman) was preserved, and honoured di∣vinely by the name of Apis. The name of Serapis join∣ed with that of Apis in Suidas, and that City of Alex∣andria mentioned by both of them, do plainly shew whence this Fable came, from modern Grece, not from ancient Egypt. Herodotus and Diodorus knew no such King of Egypt as Apis; neither is there any such Roy∣al name before the days of Moyses, in the Chronology of Eratosthenes, or Manetho; though the latter had set it down, time enough, for the name of an Idol. It is true, that in Syncellus the seventh King of the Infe∣riour Egypt is called Serapis. But the Judicious Reader of Syncellus will have little regard to him in this point; both because he findeth the third King in his Cata∣logue set down by the late, and plainly Greek name of Aristarchus; and because he cannot but know that Serapis came very late out of Grece to Alexandria. As he was originally a Grecian Deity he was no other than Pluto, of whom the three-headed Cerberus was the Emblem; he having dominion (an Empire given him by their fancy) over the Water, gross Air, and Earth, though principally over the latter of them b 1.98. In Egypt he was received with great devotion, as if

he had been a kind of husband to their Isis, when she signified the Earth; and a god proper for their Nilus, and their fertile soil. To this invention they soon added, and sometimes they confounded him with their Apis and Osiris; and sometimes they honoured him as the Sun, or Nature, or the Soul of the World. In the Temple of Alexandria his mighty Image reached one side of it with its right hand, and the other with its left; and it was made of all woods and metals; and by an artificial window (as has been said already) it admitted the Sun-beams. In some of its Statues he re∣presented Jupiter in the Head, Neptune in the Belly, as also Pluto, and other Stygian Deities; in the Ears, Mercury, and Apollo in the Eyes a 1.99. Thus it fared with this Idol, which when Superstition had dressed it, was the least part of its former self.

There is something in the name AEsculapius which soundeth like Apis, and on him some have fixed. He in∣deed is of sufficient Antiquity, if he be (what a lear∣ned man b 1.100 thinks him) King Tosorthrus the successor of Menis. But I meet with no reason offered for the proof of these matters. The sound of the name in La∣tine and Greek I allow not as a reason: the ancient Egyptian name was neither AEsculapius, nor (which is further removed) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these being apparently of other Countrys. Add to this, that the Greeks in the Stromata of Clemens c 1.101, oppose Apis to AEsculapius, and make the first the Inventor, the second the Improver of Physick. Somewhat like to this is said by St. Cyril, who following the chase of Pagan Mythologers, doth make Apis the Inventor of Physick, and the Teacher of it to AEsculapius d 1.102; who thenceforth it seems left Egypt, and travelled the World for the gaining of Riches by this useful Art, which in after-times was said Prover∣bially to give them. And to this Tale belongs another

of Serapis and AEsculapius, as both meant by Pluto a 1.103, who is conversant amongst Metals, Stones, Roots, Plants, Subterraneous Treasure, and whatsoever conduceth to the health and life of man. You see towards what Na∣tion, and what times, this AEsculapius, Apis, or Serapis inclines, and that Moses never knew him.

There is still as little certainty in their opinion who confound the Egyptian Apis, with Apis the Argive, the Son of Phoroneus; which Apis, Gerard Vossius b 1.104 sup∣poseth to be that Jupiter who was incestuously fami∣liar with Niobe. Of the number of them who make the Egyptian Apis the same with the Argive, Hecataeus is one c 1.105. And he being himself an Argive, is tempted to a vain Fable in honour of his Country. Arnobius, out of mistake, rather than pride, confoundeth Times and Persons d 1.106, whilst he saith of Apis, that he was born in Peloponnesus, and called in Egypt, Serapis. They had spoken righter who called Serapis the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the] Coffin, or Grave of Apis; if they had meant this of Pluto as the God of the Earth, who as 'twere swallow∣ed up the Worship of Apis in his own at Alexandria. Herodotus himself [though he never nameth the name of Serapis, it being not then invented,] is yet in a great error e 1.107 when he maketh Epaphus and Apis to be the same. For Epaphus, Great Grandfather to Cad∣mus, was (as AElian f 1.108 noteth) some Ages after him. But we owe it to the Pride of Grece, that her Accounts are so antedated and corrupted. Little truth in the present Argument may we expect from Aristippus a Grecian Mythologer, in his Arcadian story; or from Aristeas the Argive g 1.109. Of them the first maketh Apis the Son of Phoroneus the Founder of Memphis; the other affirmeth him to be that very Serapis whom the Egyptians worshipped.

In the mean time Pausanias h 1.110 blotteth the very

name of Apis out of the line of the Argives; and AEs∣chylus will not allow him the place of a King a 1.111. Apollodorus, who owneth him in that quality b 1.112, is so far from transporting him into Egypt, and honour∣ing of him as the builder of Memphis, (a City built by Menis c 1.113, whose memory it retains in the very name of it;) that he finds both his Cradle and Grave in his Fathers Country. His Father left him too deep∣ly engaged in a quarrel with Telxion and the Telchines d 1.114, to become a Conquerour in Egypt: and it was by their Stratagems e 1.115 that he died so immaturely and without issue in Apia or Peloponnesus. But if it were granted that the Argive were also the Egyptian Apis, I see not the advantage which it could give to them who make his Symbol the Pattern of the Golden Calf. For both Asricanus and Tatianus f 1.116 prove it of Moses that he was equal with Inachus, whom Phoroneus the Fa∣ther of Apis is said to succeed. The truth is, we are here fallen amongst dark and uncertain times, and can scarce tread with assurance in any path of Grecian sto∣ry, till we are come to the times of Theseus. And so much Plutarch with singular honesty and truth hath openly acknowledged. For Inachus himself, some think him a Fiction, some a Man, others a River; and a∣mongst these latter is Pausanias.

The Original Apis adored in Egypt, was no doubt a man; but who he was, it is hard to discover; so great is the perplexity which the blending as it were of his Worship with that of Serapis, after the Mace∣donian Conquest, has occasioned in this Argument. Bacchus, AEsculapius, and Serapis, each of them g 1.117 in Coins, Marbles, and Books, have the form sometimes of a bearded or aged man, and sometimes of a child. And this variety of form teacheth us that there was a more ancient and more modern Bacchus, AEsculapius,

Apis, or Serapis, though under other names. For the Grecian Serapis, whatsoever his Age was in Grece, his Worship was esteemed modern in Egypt. The Egyp∣tians (saith Horus a 1.118, meaning all the people of that Nation) received not either Saturn, or Serapis, into their Temples, till after the death of Alexander the Great. In his time they were admitted in his City of Alexandria, of which Pausanias saith, that it was fa∣mous for the Temple of Serapis, but could not with colour of reason pretend to the Antiquity of that in Memphis. Of the Naucratitae in Egypt, Celsus b 1.119 himself confesseth, that it was not long since they received the Deity of Serapis. Tacitus gives intimation of the uni∣on as it were of Apis and Serapis into one Idol, where he speaketh of a Temple built in Rhacotis [the place it may be taking its name from the Shrine] to the modern Serapis, in the very place where one had been anciently consecrated to Serapis and Isis. [That is, as he ought to have written it, of Apis or Osiris to∣gether with Isis.] After the death of Alexander, the Ptolomies advancing the Power of Grece, the Super∣stitions of Serapis were not confined to Alexandria, but were imposed on all Egypt. In this matter I find a very pertinent place in St. Cyril c 1.120; and I will here insert it.

In the 124 Olympiad, Ptolomeus Philadelphus ru∣ling in Egypt, they report of Serapis, that he was translated from Sinope to Alexandria; that he was the same, with Pluto; that they built a Shrine to his Image called by the Egyptians in their native tongue Racotis, by which word they meant nothing but Pluto; and that they erected a Temple nigh to these Monuments. But here the Greeks are at odds; some thinking him to be Osiris rather than Pluto, and others Apis. A mighty feud arising from hence, they com∣posed the difference by giving to the Statue the

name of Osirapis, both parties having a share in the name. In process of time Osi was disused in pronun∣ciation, and Sarapis became the common name.

Thus were Egyptian and Grecian matters then confounded, as the Roman were afterwards, of which we have a fit embleme in those ancient Coins a 1.121, one side of which exhibited the Head of Augustus, and M. Agrippa; the other a Crocodile. It is then no wonder if those who have written in succeeding times, have not well distin∣guished betwixt the Egyptian Apis, and the Alexandri∣an Serapis, whilst they found their Rites and Titles so interwoven. It is plain from the Epistle of Julian to the Citizens of Alexandria b 1.122, That he mistook both Deities for one. For he speaks to the Alexandrians, as to men whom he supposed to be originally Grecians c 1.123: And he magnifieth their great God Serapis d 1.124, and ascribeth to him the Gift of his Empire. And this I imagin to be the reason why Serapis or Pluto, above all the other gods of Grece, was set up in Egypt. For the Empire of it was the thing principally valued by Alexander; and Pluto being the god of this World in their opinion, and the deity that extended the Mace∣donian Power to Egypt; did therefore obtain the prin∣cipal Return of the Gratitude of the Conquerour. Pluto (I say) or Serapis was by Heathen estimation, the god of this World: not the Prince of all Daemons, but the Prince of Terrestrial spirits inhabiting the Earth, and the gross Atmosphere that belongs to it. He was the Beelzebub, the god of durt or earth; the ruler of the Terrene Daemons, as they called them, and of Sub∣coelestial places. They who will not assent to this con∣jecture, may consult Porphyry e 1.125, who maketh Sera∣pis and Pluto the same Deity; confineth not his Power to the Earth, but extendeth it to the air about it, (whieh it seems was vehemently beaten by his order,

for the driving away of Daemons, and the introduction of his presence); and setteth him over [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] evil spirits, or Daemons, who with gross Vehicles were hovering about the Earth.

PART 6. Of the Egyptian Apis; Whether he were Moses?

WHO the Grecian Apis or Serapis was, I will no further inquire. But concerning the Apis of Egypt, I will for once personate an Adventurer in Phi∣lology, and see if any new discovery may be made, or rather be guessed at. For in these Arguments he that looks for Demonstration is in the ready way of having his hopes deluded. Men here judg by Verisimilitude; and they judg persons in story to be the same by a few likenesses; such as those of name and place: and they seldom consider the many particulars in which they differ, but attend to those few in which they agree. He that hath but one mark is sometimes taken for the person by the Philological Huy and Cry: And 'tis a wonder that some Smatterer or other who has read of the Idol Semis in a Promontory nigh Lapland, has not thence found out Sem and his Off-spring in the North. I shall not argue here from the mere likeness of Names, for I am about to find out Moses in Apis.

The Learned and diligent Gerard Vossius believed Joseph to be Apis a 1.126; and before him, Abenezra.

Jo∣seph (said he) spake to Pharaoh on this manner b 1.127, Set me over the Treasure of Egypt, for I will be a faithful Steward. And the King made him keeper of all the Repositories of the Land, and Joseph became in some sort a King over all the Country, and they called him Apis.

I know not whence he had this Tale, yet fure I am that it maketh not much for the honour of

Joseph's modesty. But it is not here my purpose to re∣fute the conceits of other men; it will be well if I can any way establish my own, and shew with probabili∣ty that Moses is Apis.

We have heard already from Eusebius, that Apis (miscalled Epaphus) was Contemporary with Chencres, and that Chencres was the Pharaoh that pursued Moses. And we may further observe, what is affirmed by Po∣lemo a 1.128 in his first Book of the Grecian Story,

That in the time of Apis, a part of the Egyptian Forces made defection, and going forth, seated themselves in Palestine, called Syria, in the Neighbourhood of Arabia.

Now it may seem probable that Moses was this Apis, and not Apis the Son of Phoroneus, as Polemo believed; if these three things be jointly considered:

First, That Moses was the ancient Egyptian or Ara∣bian Bacchus.

Secondly, That Bacchus was the Egyptian Osiris.

Thirdly, That the ancient Egyptian Bacchus and Osi∣ris was no other than Apis.

For the first, it may be argued with shew of proba∣bility, that Moses and Bacchus are the same persons under differing names, from the parallel circumstances of their Story. I speak still of the first Egyptian Bacchus; for concerning the Grecian Dionysius (or rather Diony∣sus), it is prov'd by Clemens of Alexandria, that he was not put into the Calendar of the gods till six hundred and four years b 1.129 after the times of Moses. Now the Parallel betwixt Moses and Bacchus was drawn long a∣go, by our Learned Countryman Mr. Hugh Sanford c 1.130, and after him by Gerard Vossius d 1.131, and after both by the Lord Herbert of Cherbury e 1.132.

Orpheus in his Hymn of Bacchus, celebrateth the Ho∣nour of Mises, whom he calleth Dionysius. He comes we see within a point, as it were, of the name of Moses.

Pausanias mentions an ancient Tradition concerning Bacchus, plucked in his Infancy out of the waters. So Moses we know escaped miraculously in his Ark of Rushes.

Bacchus is by the Poets called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Son of a double Mother. As such a one the holy History re∣presenteth Moses, to whom the second Mother was the daughter of Pharaoh.

Plutarch reporteth it from the Egyptians, that Isis was the Mother of Bacchus, (or, as Lactantius a 1.133 will have it of Osiris.) Also that Isis being dejected with sorrow, and drowned in tears, was carried to the Queen by some of her maid-servants, and kindly re∣ceived, and made Nurse to her Infant-son, whose name was Palestinus. And the story of Plutarch in his Isis and Osiris is the History in the Bible concerning Moses and his natural Mother, and the daughter of Pharaoh, in such little disguise, that the dullest eye (a man would think) might look thorough it.

Nothing is more common in the story of Bacchus, than his going into Arabia with a mixed multitude of Men and Women; his flight to the Red-Sea; his Wars in the Arabick India, (for by that name the ancient Europeans called those Regions which lay beyond the Midland-Sea); his fetching Water out of a Rock; a Miracle mentioned by Euripides; the Image of a Ser∣pent carried in Procession in his Worship, and spoken of by Nonnius. All which Particulars seem to have re∣lation to the Circumstances of Moses, to whom the an∣cient Bacchus would have appeared more like, if he had not been disfigured by the new strokes which the Mythological Painters of the Grecian Bacchus have touch'd him with.

These Particulars, together with many more, are named to my hand, by Sanford and Vossius. They insist

in especial manner on the Education of Bacchus in a Mount of Arabia called Nysa, and supposed to be but a kind of Anagram of Sina. Against this there lies an Argument which I must not conceal, though I remem∣ber not that either Mr. Sanford or Vossius have taken notice of it. This Argument is grounded on a passage in Curtius. That Historian telleth, how Alexander en∣tring India, came to Nysa, situate at the Root of the Mountain Meron, and that the Inhabitants of that place did pretend to be a people descended from Bac∣chus. Their Mountain (as he continueth his story) was all covered with Ivy and Vines a 1.134. To this Ob∣jection I would answer, that the India which Alexan∣der entred was not the Arabia or Arabick AEthiopia of the ancient Bacchus; and that his Nysa or Nyssa, was plainly another Town from that in Curtius, being called by Diodorus (both in his third and fourth Books of History) the Nyssa of Arabia; and by Herodotus b 1.135, the Nyssa of AEthiopia; and being said in Homer c 1.136, to be nigh the Waters of Egypt. It was therefore situate in Arabia Petraea, called by the Hebrews Chus, which is generally translated AEthiopia. The place men∣tioned by Curtius by its name of Nysa, and by the qua∣lity of its Mountain, might fairly pretend to Bacchus, as many Cities did to one Homer; and as some Parisi∣ans do to St. Dennis the Areopagite, though one youn∣ger by many years was more truly their Apostle. And their pretence to Bacchus, especially as dressed with his Vines and Ivy in the Grecian mode, might the more reconcile them to the favour of a Conquerour who came from Macedon.

This being said in answer to the Argument taken from Curtius, I will add only two Remarks to the ma∣ny of Mr. Sanford. The first, that Bacchus was nursed by the Hyades, the watry Constellation of Taurus d 1.137.

The second, that he was born (as Orpheus testifies in his Hymn on Mises) [—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] by the River, or Nilus, of Egypt.

Cuperus speaking in his Harpocrates a 1.138, of the dei∣ties of Egypt, does bid his Reader not expect any con∣cord in Fables. I pretend not to be a thorough-recon∣ciler, or to adjust all differences betwixt the Heathen Mythologers. Each City almost had different gods, and a different Scheme of Theology; and yet they used common names, and thereby perplexed both the pre∣sent and the succeeding Ages. Osiris is sometimes Pluto, Bacchus, Titan, Phoebus, Mithras, Serapis, Apis, Ocea∣nus, Sol, Sirius. Isis, is Minerva, Proserpina, Luna, Thetis, Diana, Venus, Ceres, Juno, Bellona, Hecate, Rhamnusia b 1.139. Yet in this parallel betwixt Bacchus and Moses, so much concord appeareth, that a Philo∣loger may be inclined to take them for the same, not∣withstanding the disparity which hath been occasioned by the intermixture of Grecian and Egyptian Super∣stitions.

Be it then supposed as probable in the first place that Bacchus is Moses. I proceed in the next place to shew the less learned Reader, that Osiris is Bacchus.

Osiris is a name big with ambiguity, and hath been applied to vary many of the Heathen gods; and emi∣nently c 1.140 to the Sun, (as also was Apis d 1.141 and e 1.142 Bacchus); and sometimes supereminently, as I may so speak, being used to signifie a superior god, whose eye the Sun was reputed f 1.143. Apis himself is referred by some, in Lucian g 1.144, to the Coelestial Bull, after the manner of the Modern Heathens, who being upbraided by the Fathers as Worshippers of dead and wicked men, reformed or disguised their ancient Theology, and explained their Superstitions by natural things. But the proper Egyptian Apis was a Prince. And so was

their Osiris, or as Orpheus calleth Bacchus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] a Legislator, and no other than Bacchus. This Hero∣dotus testifieth in express words a 1.145. Osiris (saith he in his Euterpe) is Dionysus, in the Appellation of the Greeks. Diodorus Siculus doth b 1.146 after the same manner give the name of Dionysus to Osiris; and he doth it upon the Authority of the ancient Greek Poets, Eumolpus and Orpheus. And he affirms a while after c 1.147 from an∣cient Tradition, that Osiris was Bacchus. And a man would guess as much, whilst he reads of the escape of Bacchus out of the Waters, and of his Education in the Arabian Nysa before remembred; and then compa∣reth with these particulars, the Ark in which Osiris was cast into the River, by the Tanitick d 1.148 mouth of Nilus; and the Education of Osiris in the same Nysa, according to Plutarch and Diodorus e 1.149. To these par∣ticulars a third may be added, of the Serpent in the Tables of Osiris and Bacchus f 1.150. Now these particu∣lars seem also to relate to the Ark, the Holy Mountain, the Rod of Moses.

It remaineth that I shew in the third place that as Moses is Bacchus, and g 1.151 Bacchus Osiris, so also that Osiris is Apis.

Apis hath been said to relate to the Sun, as did Osi∣ris, but both were a deity sometimes of another kind. And in Memphis it self h 1.152 there were Priests of Vul∣can, or the Sun, distinct from those of Apis. He was an Hero, and the same with Osiris. The Bull Apis is af∣firmed by Diodorus i 1.153 to be sacred to Osiris amongst the Egyptians. And again Strabo saith directly k 1.154, that Apis is Osiris. And to them we may add Plutarch, who asserteth, both that Osiris and Serapis are the same; and that the Bull Apis was worshipped as the animated Image of Osiris. And to this agreeth the story of the solemn mourning in Egypt at the disappearance, and

the solemn joy there at the reappearance both of Osiris and Apis a 1.155. It is further observable, that Bacchus is said b 1.156 to have appeared in the form of a Bull. That Mnevis the second Apis was called Bacis c 1.157. That Moses in Manetho d 1.158, cited by Josephus, hath the name Osarsyphus, which seems but a great depravation of Osiris, and scarce a greater one than that in Macrobi∣us e 1.159, of Neton for Mnevis. That in the Coins of Elagabalus and Gallienus, Serapis carries a measure a∣dorned with a Vine-leaf; and is therefore as Tristan concludeth, the same with Bacchus. Last of all, that Phylarchus in Plutarch f 1.160 reporteth of Bacchus, that he first brought out of India (or Arabia) two Bulls, the one called Apis, the other Osiris. In this last cita∣tion, some Goropius Becanus would confidently say, that the truth shineth so fairly through the Fable, that we may discern in it Moses, Bacchus, Osiris, Apis, to be one man under four several names. Other Particu∣lars might still be added in this Argument; as that some Heathens imagined Bacchus to have been wor∣shipped in the Temple of the Jews g 1.161, under the Em∣blem of the Vine; and that Osiris, as well as Harpo∣crates, is described h 1.162 with his finger upon his mouth, representing (as some would guess), the slow speech of Moses.

But enough (I think) has been said already to ren∣der it probable that Moses was Apis; the thing which by such proofs and reasons as Philology admitteth in other cases, was to be evinced.

PART 7. Why Moses might be Idolized among the Egyptians.

I Have been long already in this disquisition, but I am not yet at the end of it: For the curious may

further offer to me with pertinence, these following Questions.

First, How Moses came to obtain such Divine Vene∣ration among the Egyptians on whom he drew very grievous plagues, and from whom he removed a great Army of their necessary servants?

Secondly, Why Moses was honoured by an Ox?

Thirdly, Whence that Symbol received the name of Apis?

Fourthly, At what time this Idolatrous Worship of the Symbol of Moses commenced in Egypt?

Fifthly, When, and for what reason, it was divided into the Worship of Apis and Mnevis?

I shall return something in answer to each Query; but I do not sooth up my self with the vain hope of giving such an answer as shall fully satisfie others, or so much as my self.

This caution would have been the less necessary if all the other Queries had been as easie to be resolved as the first, concerning the Worship given in Egypt to the Symbol of Moses.

It is not my opinion alone that he was there ho∣noured after death, with Religious Veneration. Saint Cyril of Alexandria said the same many ages ago. And it was not his bare opinion, but he proved it by the Authority of Diodorus Siculus. The place of St. Cyril which I here refer to is this a 1.163:

Moses was well known to the Greek Historians.—For Polemon in his first Book of Grecian History, maketh mention of him. So do Ptolemaeus Mendesius, Hellanicus, Pholo∣chorus and Castor, and many others. Diodorus who inquired very curiously into the affairs of Egypt, says, he heard of him from their Wisemen; and of him he thus writeth: After the ancient way of li∣ving in Egypt, that (which they talk of) under their

Deities and Heroes; the people (as they report) were first brought to live by written Laws, by a man of a very great mind, and of a most memorable new way of life among the Jews; one Moses who was called a God a 1.164. For (as St. Cyril proceedeth to note on this place of Diodorus) when they saw Moses most accomplished with every virtue, they called him a God, and, as I think of some of the Egyptians, they gave him divine honour, being ignorant that the supreme God had said thus to him, Behold I have gi∣ven thee as a God to Pharaoh.

Here we have it asserted that Moses was highly ho∣noured in Egypt. And there were reasons enough for the honouring of him, and they might prove the oc∣casions of making him an Idol. For Idolatry is venera∣tion overmuch strained.

Moses was born and educated in Egypt; he was re∣puted the Son of Pharaoh's daughter; he was learned in all the Learning of the Egyptians; he shined in that Court as the Moon amongst the little and confused Lights of the Galaxie. He was the Instrument of God in doing mighty wonders; mighty beyond the power of Natural, Artificial, or Diabolical Magick. And these wonders God wrought by him in the eye of the Afri∣can World. The holy Scripture reporteth of him b 1.165 that He did marvellous things in the fields of Zoan, or Tanis, the Metropolis of the lower Egypt. Also, that c 1.166 that he was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaohs servants, and in the sight of the people. The Son of Syrach d 1.167 calleth him, The beloved of God and man; and sheweth the favour of God towards him, in making him glorious in the sight of Kings e 1.168. And though he fled out of Egypt, he was even then a benefactor, removing a people whom the Egyptians dismissed with gifts; and causing their Plagues when

himself disappeared to vanish away. And though he had no way proved a Benefactor, his very power of sending Plagues had been enough to deifie him with that people, who scarce distinguish'd as we do betwixt good and bad Angels; but looked on them that wrought temporal evil, as Ministers of Justice, and not as envi∣ous and malicious spirits. Power to do hurt was reve∣renced by them, and they worshipped Typhon as well as Osiris.

At the Red-sea he astonished Egypt with a Miracle too great and difficult for the united power of all their gods, who could neither oppose it, nor do any thing equal to it. And though hereby he conveighed Israel out of Egypt, yet that deliverance of them could not but represent him, to all that heard the fame of it, as a kind and compassionate man, who saved his own Nation from the tyranny of a Prince, whose rage swelled more than that of the waves in which he perished. Pharaoh certainly oppressed his own people as well as the Isra∣elites. For a proud and cruel Prince is like a Wolf, who has no kindness for any beast, though he be fiercest to∣wards the sheep. And the fall of a Tyrant makes an a∣greeable sound in the ears of all the slaves which he hath bored, whatsoever the hand be by which he is humbled.

Moses still grew in Eminence by his conversation with God, by his conduct, by his delivery of the Law, by the success of his arms (which Philo a 1.169 esteemeth very extraordinary, whilst he warred without money the nerve of War), and last of all by the power of his Miracles.

He was so eminent a person, that R. Josua the Son of Sohib b 1.170 hath exalted him, not only above the Patri∣archs, but even above all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, placing the very Angels at the feet of this

Prophet. Artapanus likewise relateth concerning him a 1.171, that he was in singular favour with the people, and obtained the name of Hermes, and honour equal to their Deities. From the same authority of Artapanus, Eusebius reporteth b 1.172, that in memory of the Rod of Moses, a Rod was preserved with veneration in every Egyptian Temple, and particularly in the Temple of Isis.

Egypt then never enjoying so great a person as Moses, (if I except the Messiah, carried thither in the days of his Infancy, and there obscured); It is not exceeding strange that a Nation so apt to multiply her gods, should Canonize him. Neither is it on the other hand to be admired that in latter Ages their Reverence should be abated. In the days of Diodorus Siculus the Egyptians reviled Moses, so far were they from adoring him as a god. The cause is manifest. They were a new and mixed generation who either preferred the new Serapis before the ancient Apis; or mistook both whilst they were blended in one. And in the time of Diodo∣rus Siculus, Ptolomaeus Auletes had less regard for Egypt than for Rome, a place where the Jews and their Legi∣slator were then sufficiently despised.

If now so fair an account could not have been given concerning the occasions which rendred Moses an Idol in Egypt; yet that had not been a wa•…•…antable reason for the denial of the thing it self. For Isis was worship∣ped amongst the Suevi; yet Tacitus professeth that he knew not the way by which that foreign Religion did travel thither.

PART 8. Why Moses might be honoured by the Symbol of an Ox.

FOR the second Question, why Moses was honour∣ed by the Symbol of an Ox; I must not dogma∣tize in the resolution of it. Idolatrous Priests were ex∣tremely fanciful, both in the names and in the Images of their Gods. And who can at this distance of time, and after so many revolutions, search every fold in their imagination? They described the Junior Bacchus with the face of a Bull a 1.173, having respect to the strength of Wine, of which he was said (though falsly) to be the inventer. And who knows whether the Egy∣ptians might not in such sort labour with their fancy, in bringing forth the Image of their more ancient Bac∣chus, whom we suspect to have been Moses. To him learn'd men have ascribed the Fable of the invention of Wine. And they think it might have occasion given to it by the clusters of Eschol, imperfectly understood. He that would indulge his fancy might still be fruitful in reasons: And he might say amongst other things, that the rays from the face of Moses might move them to the choice of this Symbol of the Ox. For they resem∣bled Horns of strength, which were common Ensigns of Kingly Power, both in Egypt and Phoenicia b 1.174.

Artapanus c 1.175 ascribeth to Moses the Invention of Tillage by the help of Oxen. And thence may again be offered a conjecture about the cause of this Symbol. And it is but a conjecture. For it is strange if from the time of Cain, till the days of Moses, so obvious and useful an invention should be unknown to the world. But if it was so long unknown, the discovery of it was of less advantage to Egypt than to most Countries of the World. For (to use the words of Monsieur

Vattier a 1.176, in the Months of July and August the Fields of Egypt are changed into so many Seas, and the Ci∣ties and Villages, into so many Islands, by a fortu∣nate Inundation, which spares the Inhabitants that trouble of Tilling and manuring them, which is else∣where necessary. For the Egyptians have no more to do but to sow the seeds, when the waters are fallen a∣way, and slightly to stir the slime which was spread on the Earth, that they might not lye uncovered. And this they did of old, [not by Oxen, but] as Herodotus relates, by herds of Swine driven after the sowers. And yet some Heathen Writers ascribe the invention of Tillage to Osiris b 1.177; and they make Isis c 1.178 to be Ceres; and the ancient Isis called Ceres, and said by Lactantius to be the mother of Osiris, seemeth no o∣ther than the Mother of Moses. If any thing of this nature be applicable to him, I should think it rather some way of getting the corn out of the ear by the help of Oxen, than the invention of Tillage it self by them; for to that use Oxen served in his time, and his Law forbiddeth the muzling of such serviceable Crea∣tures. It may be, not withstanding the aforesaid guesses, that the story of Moses sacrificing Oxen to his God, and of Aaron making the Golden Calf; and again of Mo∣ses conducting the Israelites towards Palestine, the then Granary of the World; being received in Egypt, or in some other place of Commerce, in a confused and im∣perfect narration, after the manner of reports at di∣stance of time and place, might give occasion to the worship of him in the form of a Bull.

But if I attribute this form to him, as the Embleme of his diligence and victorious strength, (for the Horn, as was just now said, served for such an Embleme;) I shall bring the nigher together, the reasons of his Sym∣bol, and of the name of it, about which latter I am to say something in answer to the third Question above propounded.

PART 9. Why Moses might be called Apis.

SOmething I would say concerning the name of Apis as relating to Moses; but what I have to produce is very little, and very uncertain. And nothing is more uncertain than the reason of the first imposition of names. It is at the pleasure of men, and they are often humoursome; and often a just occasion taken by them is worn out through time and new uses, which create new names. In an Egyptian word it is no wonder if men be at a loss, seeing the Language is perished. The Learned Gerard Vossius a 1.179 thinketh Joseph to be Apis, and deriveth the name from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] A B in the He∣brew Language, which was possibly, but a distinct Dia∣lect from the ancient Egyptian Tongue, as the Coptick, written from the left to the right hand, is but a Dia∣lect of the Greek. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not only signifie a Fa∣ther, Author, or Inventer; but is also attributed to Kings, Princes, and Lords, and is therefore a title not improper either for Joseph or Moses. My Conjecture fetcheth the name of Apis from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] Abir, which signifieth strong and valiant, and is used by Synech∣doche, for an Ox, a creature of strength b 1.180: Nay, it imports strength with such Emphasis, that it is ap∣plied to God himself c 1.181. Upon supposition that this were right, it ought to be added that the S in Apis, as in Mnevis, Memphis, Serapis, Osiris, Isis, is from the Greek, and not the Original Egyptian. But enough of a word concerning the derivation of which we are so much in the dark, and likely so to continue.

PART 10. VVhen the Worship of Apis commenced.

TOuching the subject of the fourth inquiry, the Commencement of the Worship of Moses or Apis, we must still be contented with conjecture.

Much of the fame of Moses could not well arrive at the land of Egypt till after his death, the very manner of which might contribute much to his Deification. Of that it appears they had some kind of notice, by the story of Osiris a 1.182, whose body was in vain sought for, after his soul had left it. The relation of this, and of many other particulars in the Wilderness, might come to Egypt, after the possession of Canaan, by the Mer∣chants at Tyre or Joppa, or some other such Coasts as were frequented by Egyptians. Their Priests having had before them, by some such way, the Memorials of this great man, though in a rude and confused draught, might thenceforth advance him to the degree of an Heavenly power, and on earth appoint a fit Symbol by which he might be most solemnly reverenced.

This Symbol for many years was but one, the Ox at Memphis: but afterwards it was doubled, at Mem∣phis the Ox Apis was worshipped, the Ox Mnevis at Heliopolis b 1.183. Macrobius c 1.184 speaks of a third Ox wor∣shipped at Hermuntis in the Temple of Apollo, and called Pacis. A name differing very little from Apis, it being its plain Anagram after the casting away of a single letter. But this Pacis is mistaken for Bacis, a name by which, as was said already, Mnevis was call∣ed; and it is no other than Bacchus more gently pro∣nounced. So that this third Ox is the same in effect with the first and second.

PART 11. Of the Idols Apis and Mnevis, and the Commencement of their Worship.

Now in answer to the last Query, I am to say something about the time of the division of this Symbol of the Ox. Egypt, as a learned a 1.185 man ob∣serveth, was of old divided into two parts, the upper and the lower, of which the first (he saith) had Mem∣phis, the other Heliopolis for its chief City. [Though Heliopolis be said by Pliny b 1.186, to have been built by the Arabians, and was therefore of no very ancient foundation, compared to Memphis. And Egypt was na∣turally divided into three parts, the upper, in which was Thebes; the middle, in which was Memphis; the lower in which was Heliopolis, and now Cairo, or Masre, nigh the place where Heliopolis once stood.]

Before the Invasion of the Pastors there was but one King over all Egypt, who would scarce have per∣mitted so open a faction, and so plain an emulation of the glory of his Imperial City. If now I had a mind to make the multiplication of this Idol almost equal with that of the division of the Kingdom (a thing no way proved) I would refer this to the times of Amosis, called Tethmosis corruptly by Josephus, and supposed to be the Contemporary of Shamgar. Amosis was that Prince who first recovered Heliopolis from the Pastors, imagined to be a sort of Arab-Egyptians. He is reputed a Theban, and from him Manetho begins his order of the Theban Kings. He set himself industriously to im∣prove Heliopolis, and he might grace it in the quality of a Rival of the ancient Memphis, which he had not such personal reason to be fond of. He might on this occasion set up Symbol after Symbol; for one part of

his care, and a very great one, is said to be Religion. He it was who purged Heliopolis of the barbarous cu∣stom of sacrificing men; in the room of which he sub∣stituted three Images of Wax, [the Symbols it may be of Apis, in the three places of Memphis, Hermuntis, and Heliopolis; which rendred him properly a three∣headed Pluto.] What I said of his purging Heliopolis, is by Porphyry a 1.187 related from Manetho, who, where he speaks of it, does mention Calves in the plural; for he says that men were offered to Juno, and proved after the manner of the selected, pure, and marked Calves of Egypt.

The truth is, there is little certainty in the story of Amosis, and least of all in the time of it. And I might say the like of that of the Pastors. And for the Bulls at Memphis and Heliopolis, I cannot but think them much later than the times of Jeroboam. If they had been ex∣tant long after; Herodotus who knew Egypt so well, and spake so often of Apis and of Heliopolis, whose Traditions he went to compare with those of Mem∣phis b 1.188, could as easily have mentioned Mnevis too, as Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch and Strabo, in after∣times.

PART 12. Whence the Original of Apis might be obscured.

IF now at length a new Question should be started, and I should be askt by any curious man, how this discovery of Apis as Moses has not been made before? how it should come to pass that a Symbol so known in Egypt, should at length every-where be mistaken? I would answer him thus: The Priests of Egypt were very reserv'd in the grounds of their Theology; and they had great opportunity of concealing their Myste∣ries,

whilst the Priesthood belonged only to some cer∣tain Families. Hence Herodotus a 1.189 is so sparing in his Relation of the state of Religion after inquiry made by him both at Memphis and Heliopolis. And we learn from Strabo how very shie the Egyptians were of com∣municating their Arts, much more of their Religion. And he telleth us b 1.190 that of the Thirteen years which Plato and Eudoxus spent at Heliopolis, much time was consumed, not so much in learning Astronomy, as in prevailing with the Priests to teach them something of their Mysteries.

Also they mixed the names and rites of their Deities; and when the Religion of Greece came in with its Arms they quite confounded them. Such confusion in part happened before, for Cambyses made alteration in their Rites. And time hath been so injurious to them, through the Invasion of Arabians, Persians and others; through the burning of the Ptolomean Library, and other such accidents, that the very names of their Prin∣ces, as well as their Gods, are either perfectly forgotten, or very imperfectly and indistinctly remembred. Their grand Tyrant is to few known by his name, but called Pharaoh, a title of Regal power common with him, to the rest of the Egyptian Princes. Of them who speak of his name, some call him Chenephren, and others, Chencres, Chencheres, or Cenchres; others Arenasis c 1.191; others, Bocchoris; others, Achernes; others, Petisonius; others, Tuthmosis, Philastrius Thammuz d 1.192.

But of this Argument enough, and too much it may be for the men of this Age; in some of which the love of ease, in others the pursuit of the appearances of na∣ture, hath prevented the cultivation of Philology; which howsoever it be now the most neglected, is not the most barren and fruitless part of the field of Learning.

If any learned Philologer shall think all this a device of fancy, he may please still to abound in his own sense. There is not a more unjust tyranny than the im∣position of Notions upon a free judgment. And for this notion of Apis as the same with Moses, I propose it only as my present conjecture, and not in the quali∣ty of my fixed perswasion. I will not contend about it, or immodestly contest it with any learned Oppo∣nent. I shall rather follow the advice of the Arabians in that Proverb of theirs a 1.193, which forbids me to shoot my soft Quills at a statue of Iron.

Notes

• a 1.1

  De Exhort. Martyr. c. 1. p. 378. Non fa∣cies tibi Ido∣lum.
• b 1.2

  Hottinger. in Cipp. Hebraic. p. 136.
• c 1.3

  Grot. in De∣cal. p. 50. In Hebraeo, non fe∣res, nempe in ore tuo, quod idem est cum illo, non sumes in os scilicet.
• a 1.4

  See Fagius on Numb. 30. 3. and see Deut. 20. 10.
• b 1.5

  Tertull. de Idololat. Sect. 20. p. 97, 98.
• c 1.6

  Exod. 23. 13.
• d 1.7

  Id. ib.—in van•…•…, id •…•…ft i•…•… Ido•…•… Aquilas 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 vers. Interlin. i•…•… vanum.
• a 1.8

  Hos. 4. 15.
• b 1.9

  So the vulg. Latine renders Aven in Hosea 6. 8. Galaad civitas opexa•…•…∣tium Idolum.
• * 1.10

  See Josh. 23. 7. Neither make mention os the name os their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow your selves unto them. See Jer. 5. 2, 7.
• a 1.11

  Mr. Mede's Discours. 15. of the Sab∣bath, p. 73.
• b 1.12

  Exod. 31. 12, 13, 16, 17.
• c 1.13

  S. Cyril. Alex. contr. Julian. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 126.
• a 1.14

  Id. ibid. p. 126, 127.
• b 1.15

  Maim. More Nevochim. par. 3. c. 29. p. 424.
• a 1.16

  Act. 7. 39, to 43. Amos 5. 25, 26.
• * 1.17

  See Thorndik. Epilogue, c. 25. p. 298.
• b 1.18

  Josh. 24. 14, to 29.
• c 1.19

  Judg. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• d 1.20

  Judg. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19. e 1 Sam. 4.
• f 1.21

  1 Sam. 7. 3, 4.
• a 1.22

  See Grotius on Judg. 2. 13. p. 2002. ap. Crit. maj.
• b 1.23

  1 King. 11. 1, to 8.
• c 1.24

  1 King. 7. 25.
• d 1.25

  Abulsarajus, p. 55. Mortuus est [Solomon] sine poenitentiâ.
• e 1.26

  1 King. 11. 9•…•… 10, 11, 12.
• a 1.27

  1 King. 12. 27.
• b 1.28

  2 Chron. 33. 3, to 7.
• * 1.29

  Diod. Sic. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1150. de Sta∣tuâ Mosis Asino insidentis. Undè Judaei (forte) dicti Asinarii.
• c 1.30

  See 1 Mac. 1.
• d 1.31

  1 Mach. 1. 43.
• e 1.32

  Vers. 60, 61, 62, 63.
• a 1.33

  Philo Jud. in Flaccum, p. 971, 972, &c.
• b 1.34

  See Diod. Sic. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1154. affir∣ming concer∣ning the Jews, that by reason of the Persian and Mac•…•…doni∣an Victories, they suffered many alterati∣ons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.35

  Deut. 32. 8. See R. Sal. Francu, p. 3.
• a 1.36

  See Menasseh Ben Israel, in Quaest. 2. in Deut. p. 222.
• b 1.37

  R. Sal. Fran∣ce, p. 2, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.39

  See Leon∣clav. Pand. Hist. Turcic. p. 139.
• b 1.40

  Julian. ap. Cyr. l. 9. 306.
• c 1.41

  Seld. de Diis Syris, Synt. 2. c. 17. p. 370, 371.
• d 1.42

  Rabbin. Prov. ap. H. Othon. Lex. c. Rabbin. in Judic. S. S. in Joh. 20. 4. Omnia ad Coe∣lum, i. e. Omnia ad Gloriam Dei.
• a 1.43

  Exod. 32. 21, •…•…0, 31.
• b 1.44

  See Moses Gerund. ap. Seld. Synt. de Diis Syris, C. de vit Aur. p. 155.
• c 1.45

  Nehem. 9. 18.
• a 1.46

  Tertull. de Idol. Sect. 3. p. 87.
• b 1.47

  Philo Jud. de vitâ Mosis. l. 3. p. 677. C.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• c 1.48

  Lactant. l. 4. C. 10. de Vera Sap. p. 376.
• d 1.49

  S. Hieron. in Hos. c. 4. v. 15. Tom. 6. p. 20. D.
• e 1.50

  Tostat. in Exod. c. 32. Quaest. 7.
• f 1.51

  Catech. Concil. Trident. in 1. Praec. Decal. p. 388.—Inter—He∣braeos, permulti fuerunt, quiz ut Helias iis obji•…•… ciebat, in duas partes claudi∣cabant: Quod & Samaritae fecerunt, qui Deum Israelis & DeosGentiunt colebant.
• g 1.52

  1 King. 16. 31, 32.
• h 1.53

  V. 30. Ahab did evil above all before him. V. 31. He out∣sin'd Jeroboam.
• i 1.54

  Hos. 4. 15.
• k 1.55

  Amo▪ 4. 4, 5•…•…
• a 1.56

  Hos. 13. 1, 2. Tobit. 1. 5. 1 King. 19. 18. compar. with Rom. 11. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, (as Mr. Thornd. in Epil. Part. 3. p. 299.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or, it may be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.57

  2 King. 10. 23.
• c 1.58

  1 King. 16. 26.
• d 1.59

  Vers. 25.
• a 1.60

  Judg. 17. 3.
• b 1.61

  Wisd. 14. 21. Men serving ei∣ther calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks, the In∣communicable name.
• c 1.62

  Deut. 12. 13. Take heed to thy self that thou offerest not thy burnt-offer∣ings in every place that thou seest.
• d 1.63

  In Chap. 14.
• e 1.64

  Altis. Sum. l. 1. c. 15. Non in quolibet sig∣no adorandus eft Deus, sed in proprio; sicut Movses adora∣vit Deum in Rubo in quo lo∣quebatur ei, &c. & Abraham in Angelo: undè non est adoran∣dus in lapide, esset enim Idolo∣latria, de non proprio signo Dei sacere pro∣prium.
• a 1.65

  Secundum Ho∣rum ap. Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 215.
• b 1.66

  Herod. Euter∣pt. p. 117, 118.
• c 1.67

  1 King. 18. 22, 23, &c.
• d 1.68

  Exod. 8. 25, 26.
• e 1.69

  Act. 7. 42, 43.
• f 1.70

  Herod. in Thal. p. 195, 196.
• g 1.71

  Herod. ibid.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.72

  See Is. Voss. de AEt. Mundi. p. 41.
• b 1.73

  See Pignor. de mens•…•… Isiac•…•…. p. 36, 37.
• c 1.74

  Exod. 8. 25, 26.
• a 1.75

  Hence the Symbol of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is inter∣preted of not killing or not sacrificing Animals.
• b 1.76

  Strabo l. 17. Geogr. p. 803.
• c 1.77

  See Vattier's Pref. to Mu∣ctadi's Prod. of Egypt, p. 25, 26.
• d 1.78

  Ovid. l. 4. Fast. Bos aret, ignavam sacri∣ficate suem.
• e 1.79

  Strab. l. 17. Geogr. p. 813.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.80

  Act. 7. 41, 43.
• g 1.81

  Seld. de Diis Syris. Synt. 1. c. 4. de vit. Aur. p. 150.
• a 1.82

  Cuperi Harp•…•…∣cr. p. 14, 16, 21, 27, 43, 44, 45, 55, 60, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95.
• b 1.83

  Seld. Ibid- de Aur. vit. p. 153:
• c 1.84

  Seld. Ibid. p. 154. Imò in Sec. post Cata∣clys. Dyn. sub Choo Rege, Api•…•… & Mnevin & Mendesium Ca∣prum, in Deos relatos, ex Ma∣nethone Sacer∣dote tradit [Eusebius].
• a 1.85

  Scalig. ap. Voss. l. 1. de Idol. c. 28. p. 109. Ex hâc Dyn. patet, di∣versos Reges, eod. temp. in AEg. divers. partib. Imperi∣um obtinuisse. Nam quando Saïtes primus Dyn. 15. ex La∣trunc. Pastor. circa Bucolia AEg. jam dec. Ann. regnabat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part. Theb. Regn. inivit Menes Theba∣•…•…us.
• b 1.86

  Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 9. ch. 27. p. 433.
• c 1.87

  See Is. Voss. de AEt. mundi. p. 36.
• a 1.88

  Seld. de vit. Aur•…•…o, in Synt. 1. c. 4. p. 141.
• b 1.89

  Plutarc. de Is. & Osyr. p. 366, D.
• c 1.90

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29. p. 144. 22.
• d 1.91

  Herod. in Thaliâ. p. 195.
• e 1.92

  Id. in Eu∣terpe. p. 169.
• f 1.93

  Lucian. de D•…•…â Syr. p. 1057.
• * 1.94

  g Diod. Sic. l. 1. Bibl. Histor. c. 85. p. 74.
• b 1.95

  Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 13. p. 117.
• c 1.96

  Herod. l. 3. p. 195. C. D.
• a 1.97

  Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.
• b 1.98

  See Kirch. Oed. Synt. 3. c. 5. p. 194.
• a 1.99

  Id. Ibid. p. 195.
• b 1.100

  D. Marsh. Chron. Canon. Secul. 1. p. 28, 39.
• c 1.101

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 307. A. & ap. Euseb. de Praep. Ev. l. 10. c. 6. p. 475.
• d 1.102

  S. Cyr. cont. Julian. l. 6. p. 200.
• a 1.103

  See Kirch. Oed. Synt. 3. c. 5. p. 195.
• b 1.104

  Ger. Voss. d•…•… Idol. l. 1. c. 14. p. 59.
• c 1.105

  Hecataeus ap: Clem. Alex. p. 322. See S. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 5. p. 1003.
• d 1.106

  Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 1. p. 20.
• e 1.107

  Herod. in Eu∣terpe. p. 169. & in Thalia. p. 195. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• f 1.108

  AElian. de A∣nimal. l. 11. c. 10.
• g 1.109

  Ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 10. c. 12. p. 499. ex Clem. Strom. prim.
• h 1.110

  See D. Marsh. Chron. Can. p. 83.
• a 1.111

  Suppl. v. 266.
• b 1.112

  Apoll. Bibl. l. 2. c. 1. p. 67, 68.
• c 1.113

  Herod. l. 2. p. 141.
• d 1.114

  Syncellus, p. 126. C.
• e 1.115

  Apollod. l. 2. c. 1. p. 68. com∣par'd with Syncellus.
• f 1.116

  Ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 10. c. 10. p. 490, &c. 11. p. 494.
• g 1.117

  See Cuperi Harpocr. p. 102, 103, 104.
• a 1.118

  Horus apud Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 7. p. 215.
• b 1.119

  Cels. ap. Orig. cont. Cels. l. 5. p. 254.
• c 1.120

  S. Cyril. A•…•… cont. Jul. l. 1. p. 13.
• a 1.121

  Ap. Thomasi∣um de Tesseris Hospital. c. 28. p. 202, 203.
• b 1.122

  Julian. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 3. p. 171, 172, 173.
• c 1.123

  Id. Ibid. p. 173.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.124

  Ib. p. 171.
• e 1.125

  Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evangel. l. 4. c. 22. &c. 23. p. 173, 174.
• a 1.126

  Voss. de Idol l. 1. c. 29. p. 110▪ 111, &c.
• b 1.127

  Abeneph. & Abenez. ap. Kirch. Oëd. Syn. 3. c. 5. p. 197.
• a 1.128

  See Euseb. de Praep. Ev. l. 10. c. 10. p. 490.
• b 1.129

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 321, 322.
• c 1.130

  Sanford. de descensu Christi adInf. l. 1. p. 28, 29, 30, 31, &c.
• d 1.131

  Ger. Voss. de Idol. l. 1. c. 30. p. 116, 117, &c.
• e 1.132

  Herb. de Relig. Gentil. in Bac∣cho. p. 137, 138, 139.
• a 1.133

  Lactant. l. 1. defals. Relig. Sect. 21. p. 117, 118, 119.
• a 1.134

  Quint. Curt. L8. p. 203.
• b 1.135

  Herod. l. 2. p: 165.
• c 1.136

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.137

  Ovid. l. 5. Fast Ora micant Tauri septem ra∣diantia flammis, Navita quas Hyadas Grajus ab imbrevocat. Pars Bacchum nutrisse pu∣tat.—
• a 1.138

  Cuperus in Harpocr. p. 72.
• b 1.139

  See Pignor. Mens. Isiac. p. 4, 5. & Kircheri Oëd. Synt. 3. c. 4. p. 189.
• c 1.140

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 11. p. 10. Macr. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 302, 303.
• d 1.141

  Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 305.
• e 1.142

  Serv. ad AEn. l. 3. Ipse enim est Sol, & Liber Pater.
• f 1.143

  Macr. Sat. Ib. p. 303.
• g 1.144

  Lucian. de Astrolog. pag. 540.
• a 1.145

  Herod. l. 2. p. 165.
• b 1.146

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 11. p. 10.
• c 1.147

  Id. ib. c. 13. p. 12.
• d 1.148

  Plutare. in Is. & Osir. p. 356. C.
• e 1.149

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 15. p. 13, 14.
• f 1.150

  Pignor. de Mens. Isia. p. 23.
• g 1.151

  Ogygia me. Bacchum vo∣cant, Osirin AE∣gyptus putat. Auson. See Plutarc. de Is. & Cuperi Harpocr. p. 70.
• h 1.152

  Herod. Euterp. p. 101.
• i 1.153

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 21. p. 18.
• k 1.154

  Strabo Geog. l. •…•…7. p. 807.
• a 1.155

  Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p 303. Annot. 4. Pon∣tani Satyr. &c. Exclamare libet populus quod clamat Osiri—Invento—Clamatum a•…•…tem uti invenio in Glossis vetustis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Ap. vide Herod. in Thal. p. 195, 196. de Osir. & Ap. vide Tibull. l. 1. Eleg. 8. p. 271. Te canit, at{que} su∣um, pubes, mira∣tur Osirim, Barbara, Mem∣phitem plangere docta bovem.
• b 1.156

  Anton. Libe∣ral. Meta. c. 10. p. 422.
• c 1.157

  See AElian. l. 12. c. 11. & Pignor. mens. Isiac. 48, 49.
• d 1.158

  See Marsh. Chron. Can. p. 196.
• e 1.159

  Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 305.
• f 1.160

  Plutar•…•…. de Is. & Osir. p. 362.
• g 1.161

  Seld. de Diis Syris Synt. 2. c. 17. p. 372.
• h 1.162

  Cuper. Har∣pocr. p. 33. Pignor. de men∣sâ Isiacâ. p. 4.
• a 1.163

  S. Cyr. Alex. contr. Julian. l. 1. p. 15, 16.
• a 1.164

  Diod. Sic. ap. S. Cyr. ibid. p. 15. E.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.165

  Psal. 78. 12.
• c 1.166

  Exod. 11. 3.
• d 1.167

  Ecclus. 45. 1.
• e 1.168

  Ver. 2.
• a 1.169

  Philo Jud. de Praem. & P•…•…n. p. 918. D.
• b 1.170

  R. Jos. ap. Com. in Main. de Fundam. Leg. p. 9.
• a 1.171

  Artap. ap. Eus. de Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 27. p. 432.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.172

  Id. ibid. p. 435.
• a 1.173

  De Bacch•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Iön. P—in A∣then. Deipn. l. 2. p. 35. & Ca∣saub. Not. p. 78.
• b 1.174

  See Pignor. de Mensâ Isia∣câ. p. 30.
• c 1.175

  Artap. ap. Eus. de Praep. Ev. l. 9. c. 27. p. 433.
• a 1.176

  M. Vatt. P•…•…∣to Prod. of Egypt, p. 7, 8.
• b 1.177

  See Natal. Com. p. 482.
• c 1.178

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 13. p. 12.
• a 1.179

  Voss. de Idol. l. 1. c. 29. p. 110, 111, &c.
• b 1.180

  Psal. 22. 13. Psal. 50. 13. LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.181

  Gen. 49. 24. Abir Jagnakob. In our Tran∣slation, the mighty God of Jacob.
• a 1.182

  Strab. Geogr. l. 17. p. 803.
• b 1.183

  Plutarch. d•…•… Is. & Osir. p. 364. C. See D. Marsh. Cron. Can. p 59. Diod. l. 1. c. 21. p. 18. Strab. l. 17. p. 805.
• c 1.184

  Macrob. l. 1. Sat. c. 21. p. 305.
• a 1.185

  D. Marsh. p. 59, 60, &c.
• b 1.186

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29. p. 144.
• a 1.187

  Porphyr. dt Abstin. l. 2. sect. 55. p. 94.
• b 1.188

  Herod. Enter. p. 101. c. & p. 103.
• a 1.189

  Herod. l. 2. p. 101. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• b 1.190

  Strab. in 1. 17. Geog. p. 806. C.
• c 1.191

  See Heylin. G•…•…og. in Egypt. p. 934.
• d 1.192

  See Seld. de Diis Syr. Synt. 2. c. 2. p. 338.
• a 1.193

  Erpen. Prov. Arab. p. 3.