Page images
PDF
EPUB

jan war nearly eight centuries; but this could not be the case, as Tyre, according to his account, was built not above ninety years before the destruction of Troy, and probably Sanchoniatho, agreeably to the opinion of Suidas, lived about that time*. Huet thinks that he was a contemporary of Gideon † Sanchoniatho is said to have collected his history from the records of towns and temples. It was contained in nine books, though Porphyry mentions only eight, probably not reckoning the first, which related to the Phoenician theology. The authenticity of Sanchoniatho's work was not questioned by Philo-Byblius, Porphyry, or Eusebius, but it has been disputed by Dodwell. Receiving what we possess, with that degree of consideration to which Bishop Cumberland esteems it to be entitled, as containing the fragments of a genuine history, we may examine its resemblance to the Mosaic account, which indeed furnished Porphyry

* Præp. Evan. lib, i. c. 9. p. 31. and lib. x. c. 9. p. 485. Edit. Paris, 1628.

+ Demon. Evan. Prop. 4. c. 2. § 2. pp. 42, 43. 57. Prop. 4. c. 3. § 2. p. 58. Prop. 4. c. 12. § 1. p. 131. Prop. 4. c. 2. § 54. p. 55. Prop. 4. § 6. p. 158. Edit. Paris, 1769, Selden de Diis. Syris. Bochart. Chanaan, lib. ii. c. 2, p. 788. lib. ii, c. 17. p. 85. Edit. 1646.

with ground for defending the authority of the work.

Upon a view of the statements of this historian, we discover, under vague and figurative representations, a description of the creation of the world. He speaks of a dark and windy air, and of a turbulent evening chaos, with some allusion it might seem to the spirit of God which moved on the face of the waters, and to the dark void and formless deep. He mentions also the two first mortals, whom he calls on and Protogonus, who gathered food from trees in a manner which seems to bear some reference to particulars recorded of Adam and Eve, and of their transgression. Cumberland also supposes, that, in the account of the line of Genus, whom he conceives to be Cain, Sanchoniatho preserved the history of the idolatrous line, as Moses did that of Seth. Porphyry affirms that Sanchoniatho received. information from Jerubbaal or Gideon. had not, however, any desire to confirm the Sacred Accounts, but rather wrote with an Atheistical design, following Thoth, a King of Egypt, into the foulest corruption of Heathenism, which is a neglect of the Sovereign and only true God, the Creator and Go

He

vernor of the world. "He missed, there"fore, the foundation of all true natural re

66

66

[ocr errors]

ligion, which is love and obedience to God

as the founder and supporter of our being, to be expressed not only in silent thoughts, "but in open solemn prayers and thanks

66

66

givings, joined with constant and public profession of his truth and worship, and uni"versal justice and charity to mankind*.

"

Sanchoniatho, being addicted to idolatry, omits all mention of the deluge and of other signal judgments of God. Instead of speaking of these, he prepared the ground for the vain and foolish religion of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, who worshipped the crea ture, rather than the Creator, God, blessed for evermore. Sketches from his cosmogony seem afterwards to have been borrowed by Orpheus, Hesiod, and others.

This writer affords some light, in other instances, into the origin of idolatry, and the foundation of many cities; and he gives an outline of several generations and families, in which some remnants of truth may be discovered, amidst many wild and extravagant relations; serving to illustrate, by a dark

Cumberland's Sanchoniatho, p. 11,

contrast, the advantage which we derive from that clear and interesting narrative of the creation and of past ages, which Moses has prefixed as an introduction to his law.

Sanchoniatho gives a very remarkable account of Cronus having offered up his son in sacrifice to his father, Ouranus *. Bochart supposes this to have been borrowed from the relation in Scripture of Abraham having prepared to immolate Isaac. Grotius, however, and Cumberland +, dispute this opinion the latter imagines Abraham's trial, in this instance, to have been designed to shew, that God requires his servants to love him above their nearest relations; but that he abhors the sacrifice of their children, and therefore sent his angel to interdict it. This design is not inconsistent with the conviction so generally and justly entertained, that the whole was intended, by a prophetic scene, to represent the future circumstances of the Sacrifice of Christ.

It is possible, that Satan, who seems to have perverted every religious rite to the utmost of his power, endeavoured to render

* Cumberland, Sanchon. Euseb. Præp. Evan. lib. iv. c. 14. + De Veritat. lib. i. Annot.

Remarks on Hist. Remark 3.

[ocr errors]

sacrificial appointments mischievous in their nature, and subservient to the exciting, of erroneous apprehensions, instead of Faith in the great Sacrifice to be offered up by Christ.

The Heathen nations certainly abused the Institution, by attaching an efficacy to the type, which belonged only to the atonement to be made by Christ; and they introduced the most cruel and abominable custom of human sacrifices, even that of immolating their own children.

The Canaanites were cast out for this among other offences, and laws were enacted against it by Moses *.

It is said by Sanchoniatho, that Cronus, who, by some writers, is supposed to have been Abraham, offered up his son, in agreement with an ancient practice of princes †. It is wonderful that so barbarous a custom existing thus early, should have continued so long as it appears to have done. Some have imagined that it was in conformity with the false persuasions which prevailed upon this subject, that Agamemnon designed to offer

* Levit. xviii. 21. Deut. xii. 31. See also Isaiah lvii. 5. Euseb. Præp. Evang, lib. i. c. 10. p. 38.

« PreviousContinue »