1. Chapter I
Chapter I T heology corrupted by degrees, restored by degrees — Theology in the abstract is divine doctrine — The degrees of revelation — The origin of supernatural theology — The first degree in the promise of the seed of the woman — In that promise a new covenant is given, entered into, and established — The force of the word ְּבִרית [covenant] — The nature of the covenant between God and man, Gen. 3:15, explained — Christ promised as mediator — The Lamb slain — The chief heads of the new theology —
What the Targumists adduce at Gen. 3:15, and Paul, Heb. 2:14 — Who are the last days — Christ the seed of the woman — The malice of the more recent Jews — The ἀθεολογία [godlessness] of the Socinians — The notorious blunder of the Vulgate translator — The blasphemy of certain commentators — The madness of Fabricius Boderianus — The repentance and thanksgiving of Adam — The precepts of the new theology, what and of what kind — The institution of sacrifices — On this origin, the triflings of the papists, the Socinians, and Episcopius — The opinion of Smalcius
refuted — That of Porphyry examined — The sum of the Adamic theology after the fall.
I. What pertains to the general notions of theology we set out in the preceding book. We also showed the origin, use, and ἀφανισμόν [abolition] of ἔμφυτος [innate] or original theology. We must now go on to treat of the institution of another theology as a substitute taking its place. For the rest, since neither did that corrupt natural theology perish altogether ἀολλήδην καὶ μονοειδῶς [all at once and in one single form], 1 nor did this new one which we are approaching attain its perfection in the same manner, but the former suffered its corruption πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως [in many parts and in many ways] and the latter obtained its perfection in the same way, I have judged it worthwhile briefly to set out the more notable degrees of each.
II. We taught above that theology can be taken either in the abstract — as they say — for divine doctrine, or in the concrete for the habit of mind in theologians, or for the ἕξει πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ [settled disposition for discerning good and evil], Heb. 5:14. So Aristotle on astrology: "Astrology is called both the science concerning heavenly things and the skill of sailors concerning those same matters." For ἀστρολόγος
[astrologer] was in antiquity the same as ἀστρονόμος [astronomer]; he who predicts I know not what influences of the stars is now so named. But all post-lapsarian theology of any true denomination is of the same kind — renewed objectively only by various degrees of revelation. The habit of mind therefore by which that doctrine is comprehended and perceived is altogether the same in all theologians of all ages. But since we shall have much to say of it in the consideration of properly so-called Christian theology, we have judged that all the doctrine of it is to be reserved for that
place. Concerning the various degrees and progress of supernatural revelation, or of the new theology, we shall first speak briefly. The apostle alludes to all of this doctrine at Heb. 1:1. And since the primordial theology received degrees of corruption almost equal to those of this theology, they also must be set out.
III. After the entrance of sin, and the ἀνωφελίαν [unprofitableness] and ἀφανισμόν [abolition] of natural theology thence following, from the infinite abyss of divine grace, wisdom, and φιλανθρωπίας [love toward man], the Adamic antediluvian theology came forth — or the πάμπρωτον
[very first] evangelical promise. Here supernatural theology planted its first footprint; here was its origin and first degree. This revelation therefore of the mind and grace of God is to be narrated first; and then how the corruption of theologians overtook its progress, and thereafter the catholic ἀποστασία [apostasy] and the dreadful πανωλεθρία [utter destruction]. We showed above that all true theology rests upon some divine covenant. Now although ְּבִרית [covenant] sometimes signifies a bare promise, and is so employed first in the Scriptures — Gen. 6:18, Exod. 34:10, Isa. 59:21 — yet since a promise of this kind sets forth some good which requires a counter-stipulation of duties, or συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν
[the answer of a good conscience toward God], Jer. 31, v. 33, we can pronounce that every divine covenant has its precepts and promises. When therefore we say that God entered into a new covenant with fallen Adam, we mean a new prescription of obedience fortified with gracious promises.
For the establishing and confirming of a covenant between God and men, nothing further is required. But that covenant was one of grace, we say, because it was founded gratuitously in another — that is, in a mediator. For whatever covenant could have been entered into immediately with men,
even if it had exacted obedience κατ' ἐπιείκειαν [according to equity] and without strict rigour, would have been a covenant of works. This new covenant therefore was one of grace, because it was founded in another who was bound to perform all its conditions. And this new theology consisted in the promises and precepts of that covenant.
IV. Now the foundation and nature of this covenant may be contemplated in that most celebrated promise of the victorious seed. Gen. 3:15:
ְוֵאיָבה ָאִׁשית ֵּביְנָך ּוֵבין ָהִא ָּׁשה ּוֵבין ַזְרֲעָך ּוֵבין ַזְרָעּה הּוא ְיׁשּוְפָך ֹראׁש ְוַאָּתה ְּתׁשּוֶפּנּו ָעֵקב
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Here Christ was first promised; hence he was afterwards called ὁ λόγος [the Word] — that is, he concerning whom that saving word of God, or word of promise, was made. For "word" is very frequently used absolutely for "promise" — as in English we say "I will give you my word for it, and I will make good my word; that is my promise" — as observed by the most learned Cartwright in his Harmony of the Gospels. In this promise also, that Lamb was slain — slain indeed with respect to the real event in prospect, but slain with respect to its saving effect; that is, from the laying of the foundations of the world. This, I say, is the sum of the new theology. Here, moreover, that river of paradise (if I may so speak) divides into four branches; namely, justice — and by virtue of it, gracious acceptance — is here first revealed as something no longer to be sought at home and in obedience performed by native powers, but to be received freely from another who should ward off the peril of eternal death. Concerning death as the desert of sin, and the justification of sinners before God, a proceeding was now under way between God and the πρωτοπλάστους [first-formed parents]. God calls Adam to plead his cause at v. 9; at v. 11 he charges and
convicts him of sin; he pronounces death upon the guilty at v. 19 — for by that most solemn remonstrance "Have you eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you that you should not eat?" he shows that Adam had entirely voided the covenant of works, and thereby had taken from himself all communion with God. The renewal of that communion through another is therefore here being treated. For he had most clearly taught that the sinful man placed in himself had no hope. Then, that this deliverer — this other, through whom all manner of salvation was henceforth to be expected — was to be brought into the world through ἐνσάρκωσιν [incarnation], that is, to be made of a woman, Gal. 4:4. Hence he is here called the seed of the woman — which introduction the apostle calls εἰσαγωγὴν τοῦ πρωτοτόκου εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην [the bringing of the firstborn into the world], Heb. 1:6, and he is said εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον [to enter into the world], ch.
10:5. Accordingly, just as sin had entered the world through the woman at the suggestion and instigation of the serpent, God promises that the remedy would also come through her. Thirdly, that in order to be a perfect liberator, he must both suffer and conquer the serpent; for the bite of the heel by the serpent inflicts a deadly blow. He therefore foretells that the deliverer of the seed of the woman would taste death for sin and for sinners, Heb. 2:9. And since Satan wished to pursue and exercise the victory he had recently won over the human race unto the eternal destruction of all, God promises that that seed would not only wrest the victory from his hands and divide the spoils with that mighty one, Isa. 53:12 — but would also conquer Satan himself and overthrow his works, 1 John 3:8. Last of all, that this most excellent Saviour and supreme Victor, together with that eternal righteousness — ֶצֶדק ֹעָלִמים [everlasting righteousness], Dan. 9:24 — which he should bring back, was to be apprehended by faith. Both the nature of
the thing and the manner of revelation require this. For when the announcement is made to ruined and accursed sinners that all salvation is to be sought and expected from another, absolutely nothing further is required than that they trust in him, and placing all their hope in him while denying themselves, receive their share of that salvation. The manner of revelation consisted in a promise, which also demands faith; for it cannot be understood how anyone is to prepare himself to obtain a promised thing except by giving faith to the promise itself. Now that these heads contain — though more obscurely — the whole doctrine of the person and office of the mediator, of gratuitous justification, of repentance, of eternal death, of life and reward, and of the resurrection of the flesh, would be easy to demonstrate.
V. The older Jews acknowledged that this promise had regard to the Messiah; the more recent deny it. Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel: "They shall apply a remedy to the heel ְּביֹוֵמי ַמְלָּכא ְמ ִׁשיָחא [in the days of King Messiah]."
The Jerusalem Targum: "Let them administer safety to the heel ְּבסֹוף ָעֵקב יֹוַמָּיא ְּביֹומֹוי ְּדַמְלָּכא ְמ ִׁשיָחא [at the end of the extremity/heel of days, in the days of King Messiah]." And it says: "It shall be remembered against you" — or, of you — which is the voice of one threatening; as in English we say
"Remember this," by which we threaten retaliation. That the wound inflicted by the serpent would be incurable, both paraphrasers teach. In the same sense Paul, dealing with the Jews from their common faith of that time, narrates this promise at Heb. 2:14: Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ' ἔστι τὸν διάβολον [Since therefore the children have shared in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same, that through death he might destroy
him who has the power of death, that is, the devil]; v. 15, καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας
[and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery]. What other meaning do these words have than that a medicine or remedy has been prepared for the bite of the serpent through the Messiah?
But this was to take place ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν [in the last days] — that is, ְּבסֹוף ָעֵקב יֹוַמָּיא [at the end of the extremity of days]. That the days of the Messiah are the last days, the apostle also asserts elsewhere — namely, ch. 1:2.
Furthermore, that no remedy was prepared for the serpent — which both Targums expressly affirm — the same apostle teaches at ch. 2:16: Οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται
[For surely it is not angels that he helps, but the seed of Abraham]. So also in the Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 1: ַה ֹּכל ִמ ְת ַרְּפִאים ְלעֹוָלם ַהָּבא חּוץ ִמן ַהָּנָחׁש [All are healed in the world to come except the serpent]. That Paul argues in the Epistle to the Hebrews from principles once conceded among the Jews, we shall show — σὺν Θεῷ [God willing] — in our commentary on that epistle.
The more recent Jews, from hatred of Christ, are of another opinion. Fagius rightly says: "Hence we see that there was greater sincerity among the ancient Hebrews in the interpretation of the Scriptures than there is today among the more recent Jewish writers, who often deliberately corrupt the clearest and most important passages of Scripture, and maliciously twist them to their own meaning." Josephus of old stuck to the bark of the words,
Antiquities, Bk. I, ch. 3. Philo invents I know not what allegories. The Socinians deny that any promise of Christ is here contained. "If we deny that there is here a promise but rather a curse — and that, like all the others, a temporal one, signifying the enmity between men and serpents, where
none existed before — what, pray, will Carolus bring forward to confirm that λόγον [the Word] is promised here?" — Johann Sommer, Against Peter
Carolus, Bk. II, ch. 3, fol. 73.
Hence, in setting out the degrees of the revelation of the divine will, Volkel, On True Religion, Bk. II, ch. 8, pp. 13, 14, and in his footsteps
Simon Episcopius, Institutes of Theology, Bk. II, ch. 11, pass over this passage in perpetual silence. Valentinus Smalcius is explicit, Refutation of the Theses of Frantz, disputation IV, p. 94: "That the gospel took its first beginnings immediately in paradise — these are the words of Frantz — is confirmed by no authority of sacred letters, by no reason. If he says that those words, 'The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,' can be understood of Christ and the victory which he won over Satan — which is the only thing urged by all, and which can be elicited from those words — I reply that this has nothing to do with the matter in hand. For many sayings exist in the sacred letters concerning other matters, which under the new covenant can afterwards be referred to Christ and to the things pertaining to the new covenant. But to take those words for prophecies and promises belongs to those who have nothing from which to prove their opinions plainly. And certainly if the beginnings of the gospel had commenced in paradise, it seems scarcely credible that it could have come about that no one of the sacred writers of the New Covenant would have at least once cited that prophecy — yet that this has never been done is clearer than light itself." We have seen what is this man's opinion concerning this evangelical prophecy and promise. He denies that it directly pertains to Christ — and this boldly — or that any mention of it is made in the New Testament. But not all are of the same opinion. Christ, "that seed of the woman promised by God in paradise to fallen men, who should crush
the head of the infernal serpent," Jeremias Felbenger calls him, Evangelical Demonstration, p. 17.
But that mention of this promise is made in the new covenant, Smalcius denies with altogether too much impudence. The serpent is the devil: 2 Cor.
11:3; Rev. 12:9, 14; 20:2. The wicked are γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν [offspring of vipers], Matt. 3:7; ἐκ πατρὸς διαβόλου [of their father the devil], John 8:44; who is ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἀπ' ἀρχῆς [a murderer from the beginning], ch.
8:44; and ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει [has sinned from the beginning], 1 John 3:8
— through the seduction of the common parents of men, by which he killed all. Then, the seed of the woman is Christ: Heb. 2:14; Gal. 3:16; 4:4. That he himself crushed the head of that serpent, the Socinians will not deny, I think. See John 12:31; 14:30; Luke 10:18; 1 Cor. 15:54; Heb. 2:14; 1 John
3:8 — but of these things elsewhere. The Vulgate translator has ipsa conteret [she shall crush]; and certain commentators babble I know not what blasphemy about the blessed Virgin derived from it, with a downright asinine stupidity. ֶזַרע [seed] is of the masculine gender; the pronoun הּוא [he] answers to it. Therefore, although the Septuagint renders ֶזַרע by σπέρμα
[seed] and not σπόρος [sowing], yet in place of הּוא they have αὐτόν [him], attending to the matter itself rather than the words — after the manner of the ancients. So the comic poet: "Where is the villain who has ruined me?"
— the same freedom of expression is not uncommon in the New Testament:
Μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς [Make disciples of all nations, baptising them], Matt. 28:19; and the converse form: "ὃ μὲν
[σπόρος] ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατέφαγεν αὐτό [Some (of the seed) fell by the wayside, and the birds of heaven devoured it]," Luke 8:5; and Πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν [Again I write to you a new commandment,
which is true in him and in you], 1 John 2:8; and Rev. 17:16: Καὶ τὰ δέκα κέρατα ἃ εἶδες ἐπὶ τὸ θηρίον οὗτοι μισήσουσι τὴν πόρνην [And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these shall hate the harlot] — why? because those κέρατα [horns] were in reality βασιλεῖς [kings], of the masculine gender. Jerome rejects that reading as contrary to the Hebrew truth, Hebrew Traditions on Genesis. The detestable audacity therefore of Guido Fabricius Boderianus — a learned man in other respects, but burdened with superstitions — is to be condemned, who in the interlinear edition of Plantin attempted to substitute ִהיא [she] for הּוא [he]. That there is not the least trace of a variant reading here is evident from the most acute investigator of such variants, Ludwig Cappel, Sacred Criticism, Bk. V, ch.
11, sect. 4. In place of הּוא [he], either through the care of printers that the crime of forgery should be made known, or through their carelessness, there crept in ָהָיה [was] — a form which is not a Hebrew word. Moreover, that Adam, upon receiving this promise, repented and was freed from sin, the author of the book whose title is the Wisdom of Solomon shows, ch. 10:1:
Αὕτη [she — that is, Wisdom] πρωτόπλαστον πατέρα κόσμου μόνον κτισθέντα διεφύλαξε, καὶ ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν ἐκ παραπτώματος ἰδίου [This one preserved the first-formed father of the world, who had been created alone, and delivered him from his own transgression]. And the Targum on the Song of Songs, ch. 1:1, affirms from Jewish tradition that Adam, after the remission of his sin, on the Sabbath day sang a hymn to God. Through this new revelation of grace, redemption, and remission of sins to be obtained through the death of the mediator, the whole nature of special theology for sinful men was utterly changed. The ultimate end common to all theology remained indeed — which is the eternal enjoyment of God. But that an
innovation was made not only in doctrines but also in principles and media, a fuller narration of evangelical theology will show.
VI. The precepts pertaining to this new theology were of two kinds. For first, all the moral precepts which for the greater part constituted the ἔμφυτος [innate] theology were transferred to the use of this new one. That natural light directing moral operations — which God implanted in the mind of the first man at his very creation — we demonstrated above at greater length to have remained, by God's gracious οἰκονομίᾳ
[dispensation], in all his posterity even after the fall, though corrupted and weakened, ἐκ μέρους [in part]. But God did not cease daily to foster that light in those who embraced this new revelation by faith through his Spirit.
Hence although those precepts were not yet ratified by the προφορικῷ [expressed] word, they nevertheless turned out to be a perfect rule of obedience — faith supplying them with new use, and theologians with new light.
VII. No other precepts were given to Adam as a rule of life, besides the relics of the natural light distinguishing the honourable from the base.
Those relics, aroused and directed by faith, sufficed for that end. And very many examples of obedience performed according to this law by the antediluvians exist: Gen. 4:4, 6, 7; 7:1, 2. Concerning the seven precepts which some say were given to Adam, others to Noah, more is to be said later. This much is most certain: that all human duty rests upon the precepts of God.
VIII. And indeed that ἔμφυτον [innate] light, or ἐνδιάθετος [internal] theology, extends itself to all the precepts of the Decalogue. Now just as it seemed good to God to explain and confirm the second commandment — by which his will concerning the manner of all worship is established for
ever — in the very state of integrity, through the arbitrary command concerning not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, adapted to that state: so also after the entrance of sin and the promise of the restoration of sinners through the seed of the woman, it pleased him to establish the same commandment through a new command adapted to that state — through the obedience to which, and through faith exhibited toward the promise, they might also express the new use of the ἔμφυτος
[innate] law. This was the institution of sacrifices, which completes the whole Adamic theology after the fall.
IX. Now the papists assign the origin of sacrifices to the natural light, and contend that this rite of worshipping God would have had its place and use in the state of innocence: Gregory of Valencia, On the Sacrifice of the Mass,
Bk. I, ch. 4; Bellarmine, Bk. I, On the Mass, ch. 24; Lessius, On Justice and Law, Bk. I; Suarez, On the Third Part of Thomas, dist. 71, sect. 8. This fiction, along with very many others, is what the mass is in need of — that thing itself being the most portentous of fictions. The Socinians suspect that this rite took its origin from right reason, by which a man concludes that he ought to worship God with the best things in his possession. And the Arminian Episcopius: "Abel," he says, "by faith alone, led by no divine precept — that is, by the sole instinct of right reason alone — judged that God was to be worshipped with the best things which he had in his possession, that is, with sacrifices of the firstlings of his flocks and of their fat," Institutes of Theology, Bk. I, ch. 8, sect. 3. Nonsense! As if anyone could act from faith without being led by any divine precept? Or as if acting from faith and acting from right reason without any precept were the same thing? Or as if there could be any faith that did not look both to a precept and a promise? Or as if God had granted his creatures the latitude to invent
new manners of his worship at their own discretion? Or as if this were the whole rationale of Abel's sacrifice — that he determined that God was to be worshipped with the best things which he had in his possession? All of which are plainly ἀθεόλογα [contrary to theology].
The same Episcopius elsewhere also, investigating the origin of this rite, once again boldly restates this opinion: "Without danger," he says, "it can be believed that the rite of sacrificing was introduced from the very beginning of the world, from a certain great zeal and affection for propitiating and honouring God by that singular act and duty whereby the best, dearest, and most precious things were expended for the honour of God; and thus it was publicly demonstrated that all these things were owed to God by greater right than to men, in whose service, food, and indeed will they daily served. But God, even if that rite did not perhaps seem the best"
(for it is not credible that God delights in blood and the slaughter of innocent animals, which reason perhaps also suffices to make us believe that this rite was not commanded by God himself) "yet, since it proceeded from so religious a mind, wished to hold it acceptable, and by his goodness permitted it to be always used henceforth; and so at last eventually enjoined it also upon his most beloved people and prescribed it — nothing prevents this." Nothing prevents it, you say, O Episcopius? On the contrary, whatever can be known of God naturally, whatever he himself has revealed about himself or his will in the Scriptures, prevents us from giving credence to this most absurd fable. For what? Is it fair to make the wisdom and will of God so subservient to the wisdom and will of miserable sinners as to allow, receive, and even most severely enjoin under penalty of death and excision to be observed by his whole church for two thousand years, something which those sinners found out in his worship — though it was
neither the best that could have been found, nor even pleasing to him? Will τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ [what can be known of God] — which proclaims that nothing but what is supremely perfect is to be ascribed to God — permit us to believe this? Will Scripture permit it, where God himself so often rejects and condemns all human inventions in his worship? Was there nothing in the ancient sacrifices beyond the sentiment of expending the best and dearest things upon God? Had these no relation to Christ and to his sacrifice? Was there no specimen of divine wisdom and goodness in them
— except that he permitted mortals to follow their own ways, which he does only as a sign of the greatest curse? Was there no divine instruction in them, no prop for faith in the Messiah to come established in them? But it is a shame to linger over nonsense of this kind.
X. We know what the human race is, and what manner of men compose it; nor is it difficult to conjecture what would have become of divine worship had even the smallest part of it been conceded to human discretion. Nor is it lawful to judge that this solemn rite — through which it pleased God to set out the whole mystery of the death and merit of his only-begotten Son — took its origin from any other fountain than the proper counsel of his own will. The new covenant being entered into, remission of sins was accomplished. But that this χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας [cannot be without shedding of blood], the apostle teaches, Heb. 9:22. By sacrificial blood therefore — perhaps of the cattle from whose skins God fashioned coats for the first parents — that covenant was by God's institution sealed.
XI. Among the philosophers, Porphyry is the only one who undertook deliberately to investigate the beginnings of sacrifices. It is therefore our pleasure to narrate his opinion ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ [in passing] — especially since it contains certain things the knowledge of which can throw some
light upon certain passages of holy Scripture. In the second book On Abstinence from Animals, he takes up the subject. First therefore he ascribes the origin of all sacrifices to the thankful mind of men and to the purpose of worshipping God with the best things they had in their possession. Τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, he says, τὰς ἀμοιβὰς καὶ τὰς χάριτας ἄλλοις μὲν ἄλλως ἀποδοτέον κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν τῆς εὐποιΐας, τοῖς δὲ εἰς τὰ μέγιστα ἡμᾶς εὖ πεποιήκοσι, τὰς μεγίστας, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τιμιωτέρων· καὶ μάλιστα εἰ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τούτων πάροχοι. Κάλλιστα δὲ καὶ τιμιώτατα ὧν ἡμᾶς οἱ θεοὶ εὖ ποιοῦσιν οἱ καρποί· ὥστε ἀπὸ τούτων αὐτοὺς τιμητέον — "The returns and thanks for benefits are to be rendered to different persons differently, according to the worthiness of the benefit; and the greatest thanks, and from the most excellent things, to those who have most benefited us. And this especially if they themselves are the givers of those best things. But the most excellent and most precious things with which the gods benefit us are the fruits of the earth; with these therefore the gods are to be honoured."
Now what he affirms is true, and sufficiently congruent with Holy Scripture. See Prov. 3:9. He then undertakes at length in the same place to establish that this was the origin of the sacrificial rite. For he says, καθάπερ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω κἀκείνοις ἡγούμεθα δεῖν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπαρχάς — "Just as to good men, so also to those" (that is, to the gods) "we think it right to pay the first-fruits of our things, it is just." He teaches that the Egyptians had practised this custom from immemorial time; and elsewhere, that various others ἀπ' ἀρχῆς [from the beginning] did the same, sect. 5. And he affirms that this religious worship was demanded by right reason and by the due respect owed to the supreme benefactor derived from it — in accordance with which opinion certain Christians, as has been shown, hold the same view.
Furthermore, δουλεύων ὑποθέσει [being enslaved to the pretext] of not eating flesh, and drawn over to Cain's side, he contends that only the fruits of the earth are to be used in sacrifices. For he narrates that from the beginning of things and nations, sacrifices were made from herbs, grain, and flowers — not mixed with myrrh, cassia, or saffron of incense, but pure, just as the earth produced them; and that only many centuries later, as error by degrees grew heavier, were they offered from whatever other things. The most ancient nation, the Egyptian, he says, ἤρξατο πρῶτον ἀφ' ἑστίας τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς θύειν, οὐ σμύρνης οὐδὲ κασίας καὶ λιβανωτοῦ κρόκῳ μιχθέντων ἀπαρχάς, οὐ τούτων ἔθυον πρότερον· ἀλλὰ χλόης οἷον, εἴ τινα τῆς γονίμου φύσεως χνοῦν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀράμενοι [first began from the hearth to sacrifice to the heavenly gods — not with first-fruits of myrrh or of cassia and frankincense mixed with saffron; they did not sacrifice these at first; but with grass, as if lifting up in their hands some down of fruitful nature], sect. 5. And throughout the greater part of that book he narrates and confirms that opinion. But he contends that the offering of animals — or blood — in sacrifices was introduced into use only much later, when wickedness, impiety, and superstition had gained strength, and that too with oracles disapproving of that worship in very many instances and permitting it at last only with much caution. Ἐπισκόπῳ, he says, ὃς ἦν ἔκγονος θεοπρόπων βουληθέντι τῶν προβάτων ἀπάρξασθαι, ἐπιτρέψαι μέν φασι τὸ λόγιον, σὺν πολλῇ δ' εὐλαβείᾳ, ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως: Οὔ σε θέμις κτείνειν ὀΐων γένος ἐστὶ βιαίως Ἔγγονε θειοπρόπων· ὁ δ' ἐκούσιον ἂν κατανεύσῃ Χέρνιβ' ἐπιθύειν τὸ δ' ἐπίσκοπε, φημὶ δικαίως.
"To the overseer of sacred rites, who was of the family of soothsayers and wished to offer first-fruits from his sheep, the oracle granted permission, they say, but with much caution; for its words are these: 'By force to slay
the race of sheep it is not lawful for you, O offspring of soothsayers; but if one shall of its own will nod assent, to sacrifice it with hands washed before the sacred fire — that I declare to be just.'"
Now that caution is plainly contrary to the divine institutions, by which all things that had died of themselves were altogether impure. Furthermore, persisting in his purpose, he teaches that there is some supreme power which, being good and holy, does and can do nothing but what is good, pleasing, and useful to men. This he supposed to be natural to it — from which it is impossible for it to depart. Τούτους ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, he says, sect. 38, καὶ τὰς ὠφελείας ἐκπορίζειν, καὶ πάλιν ἂν βλάβης ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς αἰτίας γίγνεσθαι — "It is impossible for them" (the good gods, that is)
"both to supply advantages and again to become the authors of harm." To these he numbers the good genii or angels: Διαγγέλλοντας τὰ παρ' ἀνθρώπων θεοῖς, καὶ τὰ παρὰ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις, τὰς μὲν παρ' ἡμῶν εὐχὰς ὡς πρὸς δικαστὰς ἀναφέροντας τοὺς θεούς — "Intermediaries between gods and men, bearing our prayers to the gods as to judges." But he argues that the worship of the supremely good and greatest divine power — or of the good gods — is to be performed not by sacrifices, but by the laying aside of passions, the abstraction of the mind from bodily things, the contemplation of heavenly things and the love and pursuit of them, dictated by reason and not by imagination. He maintains moreover that there are evil and harmful spirits or daemons who, inhabiting the air nearest the earth, are the authors and causes of all evils — namely, sicknesses, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and wars. But he holds them to be liars and proud, desiring to occupy the place and position of the greatest God among the human race. Τὸ ψεῦδος, he says, τούτοις οἰκεῖον, βούλονται γὰρ εἶναι θεοί, καὶ ἡ προεστῶσα αὐτῶν δύναμις δοκεῖν θεὸς εἶναι ὁ μέγιστος — "Lying is
natural to them; for they all wish to be regarded as gods, and the power that presides over the rest would wish to be reckoned as the greatest God."
These things he drew from the sacred books, which no one among the ancient philosophers unrolled more diligently, or with a mind more occupied with malice. For τὸ ψεῦδος τούτοις οἰκεῖον [lying is proper to them] most plainly reproduces the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, John
8:44: ̔́́Οταν λαλῇ [when he speaks] — the devil, that is — τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of it]. The remaining things derived from the same source are diverted into Platonic swamps. But he teaches that sacrifices must necessarily be offered to those daemons — who are addicted to corporeal and earthly things, over which they have power, and who are devoted to corrupt passions. Ὡς γάρ φασιν οἱ θεολόγοι τοῖς δεομένοις ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκτός, καὶ μηδέπω κρατοῦσι τῶν παθῶν, ἀναγκαῖόν ἀποτρέπεσθαι καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν, εἰ δὲ μή γε πόνων οὐ λήξουσιν —
"For as the theologians say, for those who are in need of external things, and who cannot yet restrain their passions, it is necessary to avert the force or ill-will of these genii; otherwise they will never be free from troubles."
And he contends at length that it was to these — and to none other — that animal sacrifices were offered, and that they are fattened by their smoke and vapour, which of all things contained in animals comes nearest to incorporeal substance. Ὁ εὐσεβείας φροντίζων, ὡς θεοῖς μὲν οὐ θύεται ἔμψυχον οὐδέν, δαίμοσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις ἤτοι ἀγαθοῖς ἢ καὶ φαύλοις — that is, "He who is studious of piety knows that no living thing is sacrificed to the gods, but to daemons and other divine powers, whether good or bad."
Here we have the accused confessing: namely, that the nations worshipped not God but daemons by sacrifices — which wickedness the apostle Paul
had reproached to them before in almost the same words, 1 Cor. 10:20: Ἃ θύει, he says, τὰ ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει, καὶ οὐ Θεῷ [What the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God]. Accordingly, this testimony is employed against the nations by Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica, Bk. III; Augustine, City of God, Bk. X; Theodoret, On the Healing of Greek Diseases, sermon III. So much so that Lucas Holstenius has not undeservedly pronounced in his Life of Porphyry: "That no one of τῶν ἔξω [of those outside] had supplied more or stronger weapons to the teachers of the church, by which they might dispatch the manifold error of the pagans, than this same Porphyry." Such is the force of truth — ever consistent with itself and inserting its particles through all the windings of errors — that it often falls from the lips of men against their will.
XII. And this was the sum of the Adamic theology after the fall. All the theology of sinners consists of those three parts which we have set out.
What followed was only variation in the degrees. The foundation of the whole is placed in the promise, which — drawn out through various increments of light for the use of the church — the gospel at last exhibited and fully expounded. The Decalogue at the appointed time expressed the norm of obeying God, or the ἔμφυτος [innate] law — whose nature and use the prophets set out. The exemplar of external or ceremonial worship, and of the divine good pleasure, was confirmed in the institution of sacrifices; and was sacredly consecrated as a θεοπρόπιον [divine oracle] for all posterity: that no worship is acceptable to God unless instituted by himself.
1. Claude supplied the conjunction καὶ [and] in this sentence.