321

NOTES, &c.

NOTE (a) p. 100. Cutting and lancing were funeral rites, as appears Lev. xxi. 5; xix. 28; Deut. xiv. 1; and Jer. xvi. 6; xlviii. 37; and, therefore, retained in this funeral worship of those that were deified after death. Quære. Did not God forbid his people this rite, as abused to demon-idolatry? Yet did some transgress it, Jer. xli. 5. Moses' body was therefore hidden. I may add that for this cause, Scripture calls those false gods g'atsabim, which signifies coì dupμévot, such as had been mourned for, being dead. The word is used of David's mourning for Absalom. Quære. Whether g'atsabim signifies so properly the images, as the supposed gods themselves? See Psalm cvi. 36, 37, where g'atsabim is explained to be shedim, devils. See Isaiah xlviii. 5, where g'atsab is distinguished from graven and molten images. Where the word seems otherwise, it may be a metonymy. Hence Hosea xiii. 2, may be interpreted, They have made molten images of their silver, which in their opinion, are g'atsabim, inspired, as they supposed, with those mourned-for

ones.

That these Baalim were the deified souls of the dead, is manifest from divers places of Scripture. Numbers xxv. 2, 3, The Midianites called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people did eat. And Israel joined himself to Baal-peor. But Psalm cvi. 28, it is said, they joined themselves to Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead. Whence Apollinarius calls it, νερτερίαν ἑκατόμβην. In the prophetical song of Israel's apostasy, Deut. xxxii. 15, They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not; to new gods that came lately up, which their fathers feared not.

The Seventy, dapovíois, Hebrew, leshedim. See Isaiah lxv. 8, idolaters in tombs, and viii. 19, for the living to the dead. The Targum renders, Is not this the way of the people that worship idols? Every nation inquires of its idol, the living of the dead. The Seventy thus, οὐκ ἔθνος πρὸς θεὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκζητήσουσι; τί ἐκζητήσουσι TEρì тWV (wvтWV_TOÙS VEKρOús; In Isaiah lxv. 3, 4, the Targum thus, In hortis sacrificant idolis, et adolent aromata super lateres: qui habitant in domibus quæ ædificantur de pulvere sepulcrorum, et cum cadaveribus filiorum hominum morantur. The Seventy, αὐτοὶ θυσιάζουσιν ἐν τοῖς κήποις, καὶ θυμιῶσιν ἐπὶ ταῖς πλίνθοις τοῖς Δαιμονίοις ἃ οὐκ ἔστι. Ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις κοιμῶνται δι' ἐνύπνια. See Targum on Isaiah xxvi. 14. Many texts might be adduced about the Rephaim whom Moses mentions. Also Jerome on that text of Isaiah, by other Lords, understands idols and false gods; by the giants and dead, verse 14, the images and the demons who are present with them.

(b) p. 106. Jerome on Ez. xxiii. "The idol Baal or Bel, is the worship of the Assyrians, consecrated by Ninus the son of Bel, in honour of his father." The same on Hos. ii. "Ninus came to such honour, that he promoted his father Belus to a god, who is called in Hebrew, Bel, both in many of the prophets, and in Daniel; and according to Theodotion, along with the idol of Babylon, he is called by this name. The Sidonians and Phenicians call him Baal."

(c) p. 106. Eusebii Chron., Chronic. Alex., or Fasti Siculi. Jerome, after the place just cited. Didicimus exordium dæmonis, imo, homines in dæmonium consecrati. On Is. xlvi. "Quem Græci Belum, Latini Saturnum dicunt; cujus tanta fuit apud veteres religio, ut ei non solum humanas hostias captivorum ignobiliumque mortalium, sed etiam suos liberos immolarent."-Cyrill. adv. Julian. Book iii. near the end. “ Primus regnavit in Assyriorum terra, ἀνὴρ αλάζων καὶ

υπεροφρυς ἄρα Βῆλος, qui et primus hominum dicitur a subditis nomen Deitatis accepisse." Here the interpreter falsely renders Arbelus; and presently, ιτα Βήλου γέγονεν ὁ Νῖνος—the interpreter, Arbeli, &c. Lactantius de Fals. Rel. c. 23, refers the origin of idolatry to Belus.

(d) p. 109. The soul-gods were called Dii animales; of whom Labeo had written books; in which "aiebat (Serv. Aen. 1. 3,) esse quædam sacra quibus animæ vertantur in Deos, qui appellantur Animales, quod de animabus fiant." See Lex. Martin. under Lar, and

his extracts from Varro.

Plutarch_de Defect. Orac. in the person of Ammonius the philosopher, makes two sorts of demons, ai διακριθεῖσαι σώματος, ἢ μὴ μετασχοῦσαι τὸ παράπαν, ψυχαὶ, souls separated from bodies, or such as never dwelt in bodies at all. Though both sorts have the name of Demons given them in common, yet those which once were souls of men, for distinction, are called heroes; though some extend not this name in general to all; but only to such as are of inferior rank, or but novices, not yet promoted to the office of demons, as advocates not yet called to the bar.

(e) p. 110. See Athenag. Legat. pro Christo. “ Non desunt qui dicant, μὴ εἶναί τε ἕτερον τρόπον τοῖς θεοῖς ἢ τοῦτον προσελθεῖν, non alio modo (quam per simulacra) homines convenire deis posse.” Tertull. de Idol. c. 7, "artifices idolorum dæmoniis corpora conferre."

(g) p. 114. See Herod. Clio. c. 35, Πέρσας ἀγάλματα ή νηοὺς καὶ βωμοὺς οὐχ ἱδρύεσθαι ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρωποφυέας ἐνόμισαν τοὺς θεοὺς, κατάπερ οἱ Ἕλληνες, εἶναι.

Constantin. Or. ad Sanct. Coetum c. 4. τῷ γάρ τοι ληπτὸν, οὔτε μόρφην ἐπιποθεῖ δι' ἧς γνωρισθείη, οὔτε σχήματος ἀνέχεται, ὡς ἂν εἰκόνος ἢ τύπου· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα γίγνεται πρὸς χάριν τῶν κατευχομένων· ἄνθρωποι γὰρ ἦσαν ἥνικα ἔζων, σώματος μέτοχοι ὄντες.

"In mortuorum idolis dæmonia consistunt." Tert. de Spectaculis. See almost the whole of cc. 11, 12, 13.

(h.) p. 152. But it may be said, if idolatry and spiritual fornication be the charge, why should not this rather be laid on Paynims, and Turks, and Saracens, who acknowledge not Christ, rather than on Christians who do?

I answer, St. Paul and St. John prophesied of a thing to come, not of that which was in being when they prophesied. But ethnic and Payanism idolatry at that time overwhelmed the whole earth, yea and persecuted and made war with the saints; and no time hath yet been when this idolatry was not to be found.

Again, neither Saracen nor Turk, the greatest unChristian states since Christ, can be the Antichrist, we speak of; nor their blasphemy the mystery of iniquity foretold by prophets and apostles.

For there are two unquestionable characters of that mystery, which will neither of them, still less both of them, agree to Turk or Saracen; namely, first, that it should sit in that great city which in St. John's time reigned over the nations of the earth. Secondly, that it should be an apostasy from the Christian faith once embraced. But the Turk, whatsoever he be, is no apostate, being of a nation which never was Christian. Nor was the seat of the Saracen empire, while it stood, either in the old or new Rome, or near unto either. For I would seem to yield, from this time, that new Rome or Constantinople might serve the turn, though I am far enough from believing it. Nor will I allege that Mahomet himself and his nation were both Paynims, when they began their blasphemy, for you will tell me that Sergius the monk taught him to make the Koran. Nor will I question now whether the Christian or the Mahomeday be the greater idolater, though the doubt might soon be resolved, seeing it is well known that the Mahomedans worship no images. But I have alleged nothing but what is without ex

ception, that both these characters cannot be applied either to Turk or Saracen, though I believe that neither can be. When I spake of Paynims and Mahometans, I would have you remember that there were some blasphemous sects in the first ages of the Church, which are no more to be accounted of as Christians than Mahometans and Paynims are; nay, Mahometanism is nearer Christianity than many of them were. For amongst whom the Christian's Deity is not received nor worshipped, these, though they spring up in imitation of Christianity, I account but new Paynim blasphemies, and not Christian heresies. Such were the Cerinthians, Marcionites, Salumins, Valentinians, and Manichees; which neither professed the same deity nor acknowledged the Divine word which we Christians do. But the Mahometans worship the same God with Jews and Christians, God the Creator of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; howsoever they conceive otherwise of his nature and properties than Christians do.

[This last sentiment is at least doubtful, though the inquiry which it opens is one of great difficulty, as well as of deep interest. It is plain that different objects of worship may still have common attributes ascribed to them. Certainly 1 John ii. 23 seems at the first sight directly opposed to this last statement of Mede; and he seems half disposed to retract it himself, as appears from another remark.]

(k) p. 200. [Many have objected to the reckoning of the Greeks as one of the ten kingdoms. And certainly, as here loosely explained, "the Greeks in the residue of the Empire," the objection is forcible. But when the Greek exarchate in Italy is taken for one horn, the objection ceases to apply. That government was within the territory of the Western Empire, and practically almost independent of the Eastern Emperor, and seems to answer all the features of the emblem; certainly as well as Mohametanism, which began in Arabia, and

F F