celebrated treatise of Evangelical Preparation, takes in almost every thing that others had said before him, relating to our present topic. His tenth book in particular is very diffuse and copious, in showing that Plato and other philosophers had borrowed much the greatest and best part of their theology and ethics from the holy Scriptures. His eleventh book is taken up in specifying the particulars wherein Plato's doctrine agrees with sacred Writ; and his twelfth and thirteenth books carry on the comparison.

I pass over Athanasius and Philastrius, whom I shall have occasion again to mention: I omit Ambrose f also, and Austin ¤, and Cyrilh, who have some things to our purpose, that I may come the sooner to Theodoret, who has treated this argument as closely, as learnedly, and as judiciously as any of the ancients, in his Therapeuticks. He observes, that the most celebrated Pagan sages, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Thales, Solon, and Plato, had all travelled, in their times, into Egypt, and had there been instructed about the true God and true religion; not by the Egyptians only at second hand, but at first hand also by the Hebrews themselves. And for proof thereof, he appeals to the testimonies or confessions of Pagans, such as Plutarch, Porphyry, and Numenius i. He makes mention also of Pythagoras's having been circumcised during his stay in Egypt, a rite which the Egyptians (he says) must have taken from the Hebrews. As to Plato in particular, Theodoret frequently takes notice, how much that philosopher had improved his own sentiments and enriched his works by what he had learned of the Jews 1. And he sometimes hints the like of Anaxagoras also, and So

f Ambros. Serm. ii. in Psalm. 118. Epist. 1. 1. Ep. 6.

Austin. de Doctr. Christian. lib. ii. cap. 43. Retract. lib. ii. cap. 4. De Civit. Dei, lib. viii. cap. 11.

h Cyrill. Alexand. contr. Jul. lib. i. p. 29–34. Lib. ii. p. 47. edit. Lips.

i Theodoret. Therapeut. Serm. i. p. 466, 467. edit. Paris.

* Theodor. ibid. p. 467. Conf. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. c. 15. p. 354.

1 Theod. ibid. p. 489, 490, 495, 498, 505, 506, 567.

crates, and Orpheus m. He takes notice farther, that the philosophers which lived after Christ, namely, Plutarch, Numenius, Plotinus, Amelius, and Atticus, had not only been instructed by the Old Testament, (as Plato before them had been,) but by the New Testament also, improving their philosophy with what they had stolen from both ". So much for Theodoret.

I need not descend lower, to writers of the sixth, seventh, or later centuries. Enough has been produced from the earliest Apologists, (Jews and Christians,) to give us a just idea of the argument, and of what they intended by it. It is now proper I should come to perform what I have promised; namely, to examine strictly what real truth or force there is in it.

This inquiry is the more necessary, because there may be an extreme either way, either by extending the argument too far, laying more stress upon it than it can justly bear; or not allowing enough to it, but throwing a kind of slight and contempt upon it. Two very considerable writers, Sir John Marshams and Dr. Spencer P, appear to have slighted it too much. They have not only called in question the prevailing opinion of the ancient Apologists, but they have run directly counter to it; pretending that the Pagans did not borrow from the Jews, but that the Jews rather copied after the Egyptians or other Pagans, in such instances as both agree in a strange way of turning the tables, confounding history, and inverting the real order of things. But their pleas and pretences have been distinctly and solidly confuted by the learned Witsius 9. The celebrated Le Clerc has in a great measure fallen in with the two gentlemen before

m Theodoret. Therapeut. Serm. i. p. 490, 491, 492, 495.

n Theodoret. ibid. p. 499, 500, 505, 573, &c.

• Marsham. Can. Chron. sect. ix. p. 152.

» Spencer de Leg. Hebr. p. 285, 650. edit. Cant. 1727.

a Witsii Ægyptiaca, p. 277, &c. Conf. Carpzov. Introd. ad Libr. Bibl. par. i. p. 45, 105, &c. 483.

Clerici Epist. Crit. vii. p. 216, &c.

mentioned, having a favourite hypothesis of his own to serve, as they also had theirs. But a learned Frenchmans took the pains to examine his reasonings, and to unravel his fallacies. The most specious and plausible pretence, which those three learned moderns have gone upon, is, that the Jews were a small and a contemptible people t, and that therefore it is much more likely that they should take rules from the other great and flourishing states, than the contrary. But it is not a fair account of the Jews, to call them a contemptible people, from the testimony only of a few prejudiced writers, their bitterest adversaries, and too much given to romancing; such as Tacitus, for instance, whom Tertullian wittily styles mendaciorum loquacissimus ", and justly too, so far as concerns our present argument. Josephus has well vindicated his nation (in his two books against Apion and elsewhere *) from such unworthy reproaches, and has abundantly shown how much the Jews were respected and honoured, even in the decline of their state, among the heathen countries of greatest figure and fame: and Scripture itself bears testimony to the times going before. Certainly God's design was, that that nation should be honoured above all nations in the sight of the heathen, for the excellency of their laws, and the dignity of their constitution. So thought Moses, when he said, "Behold, I have taught 66 you statutes and judgments;-keep therefore and do "them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding "in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these "statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and "understanding people y." If this be truth and fact, (and no one can question it that believes the holy Scriptures,) then undoubtedly the nations all around Judæa might be ambitious to learn from those, whose wisdom they should

so much admire: and it might be strongly argued from this single text, that the thing would be so of course. However, this and the other considerations before mentioned may at least be sufficient to take off the first and principal objection against the thing in general. There are other slighter objections, not so much affecting the main cause, as the management of it, or the excesses some have run into, which may all be avoided by proper cautions and distinctions, and a just stating of the case, which is what I am now coming to.

It may be admitted, that both ancients and moderns have sometimes extended the comparison between Scripture and Pagan philosophy too far, have imagined several parallelisms, where there really were none; as there is a great deal of room for fancy in such cases, and it is very easy to exceed.

It may be allowed also, that some moderns especially, otherwise great and learned men, have often strained a point too far, in endeavouring to deduce all the heathen mythology from Scripture history. Huetius, for instance, to name no more, has undoubtedly exceeded in that way, and has been justly censured for it by the more judi

cious z.

It may further be admitted, that such as have treated this argument (whether ancients or moderns) have not always been careful to distinguish the several channels by which revealed light was conveyed to the Gentile world ; or have not been content to rest in generals, when they might most safely and prudently have done it. That supernatural notices and revealed light were communicated, more or less, to the bulk of mankind, in every age, is most certain and uncontestable but whether directly by Scripture, or by other more oblique or more remote means, may often admit of a dispute. The Pagans might be instructed in divine things, either by reading the Scriptures, or by conversing with Jews, or by conversing with other nations

z See Fabricius, Biblioth. Antiquar. p. 29. Buddæus, Analecta, p. 12, 13, 57, 71.

that had been acquainted with Jews, or by means of public edicts of several great princes that had favoured the Jews; or lastly, by tradition handed down to them from Abraham, or from Noah, or from the first parents of mankind. Now since revealed light, more or less, might break out upon the Pagan world all these several ways; it is not necessary, in every case, to determine which way it came; much less can it be necessary to believe that every Pagan philosopher or poet had seen the holy Scripture, only because he had hit upon some things consonant to Scripture, and such as probably were not owing to mere natural light.

But to be a little more particular, give me leave to say something distinctly of the several channels of conveyance before mentioned.

I. The first of them is undoubtedly the best and surest, viz. the reading of the Scriptures. It is reasonable to believe, that such philosophers as lived after Christianity became generally known, did improve their philosophy, both religious and moral, from the Old and New Testament, or at least from what they had, some way or other, learned of Jews or Christians. Many of the junior Platonists, as Numenius, Apuleius, Maximus Tyrius, Plotinus, Amelius, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, thus refined and improved their theology from Christian principles, in order to combat Christianity the more successfully, turning against her her own artillerya. We may observe also, (as has been often observed,) that the Pagan morality was much improved after Christianity appeared; as may be seen by the writings of Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Marcus Antoninus: which may be justly attributed either to their having had a sight of the holy Scriptures, or to their having learned something of the principles and manners of Christians, by conversation with them, or from common fame. There is a remarkable letter of

a See Baltus, Defense des SS. Peres, 1. iv. c. 6. p. 475, &c. Gale's Court of the Gentiles, part ii. b. 3. c. 4.