Finally, and to close the subject, the reader will readily forgive me for introducing the following citations from the "Warburton Lecture" of Dr. Edersheim, on Prophecy and History [1623] in Relation to the Messiah Discussing the pseudepigraphic writings (in Lecture Eleventh), he says as follows: [1624] --
"The Sibylline oracles, in Greek hexameters, consist, in their present form, of twelve books. They are full of interpolations, the really ancient portions forming part of the first two books and the largest part of book third (verses 97-807). These sections are deeply imbued with the Messianic spirit. [1625] They date from about the year 140 before our era, while another small portion of the same book is supposed to date from the year 32 b.c.
"As regards the promise of the Messiah, we turn in the first place, and with special interest, to the Sibylline Oracles. In the third book of these (such portions as I shall quote date from about 140 b.c.) the Messiah is described as the King sent from heaven, who would judge every man in blood and splendour of fire.' And the Vision of Messianic times opens with a reference to the King whom God will send from the Sun,' where we cannot fail to perceive a reference to the Seventy-second Psalm, [1626] especially as we remember that the Greek of the Seventy, which must have been present to the Hellenist Sibyl, fully adapted the Messianic application of the passage to a premundane Messiah. We also think of the picture drawn in the prophecies of Isaiah. According to the Sibylline books, King Messiah was not only to come, but He was to be specifically sent of God. He is supermundane, a King and a Judge [1627] of superhuman glory and splendour. And, indeed, that a superhuman kingdom, such as the Sibylline oracles paint, should have a superhuman king, seems only a natural and necessary inference....If, as certain modern critics contend, the book of Daniel is not authentic, [1628] but dates from Maccabean times, ...it may well be asked to what king the Sibylline oracles point, for they certainly date from that period; and what is the relationship between the (supposed Maccabean) prophecies of the book of Daniel and the certainly Messianic anticipations of the undoubted literature of that period?"
Dr. Edersheim gives us the reference in the margin, to which I would call attention, as directing to the whole pseudepigraphic literature. [1629] But who can wonder, after what we thus learn, that Constantine [1630] was so profoundly impressed with Virgil's Pollio? In spite of all that has been said, [1631] I cannot but see Isaiah in its entire spirit.
[1609] Dan. ii. 47, iii. 29, and iv.
[1610] Dan. vi. 25.
[1611] Ezra i. 2.
[1612] In his Discourse to Caligula
[1613] i.e., Livia, wife and empress of Augustus.
[1614] Vol. i. p. 391, [160]note 12, this series.
[1615] See vol. iii. Elucidation V. [161]p. 58.
[1616] P. 419.
[1617] Works, ed. London, 1788, vol. vii. p. 385.
[1618] Comp. 2 Pet. i. 18-21 with ii. 16.
[1619] P. 174, note 2, supra.
[1620] See p. 140, note 10, supra.
[1621] See p. 219, note 3.
[1622] Compare Cyprian (vol. v. [162]p. 502, this series), and note his judicious reference to the inspiration of Balaam by the extreme instance of the miraculous voice of a dumb beast. Also, see vol. ii. Elucidation XIII. [163]p. 346, this series.
[1623] Republished, New York, Randolph, 1885.
[1624] Pp. 339, 343.
[1625] Note, these are the "really ancient" portions.
[1626] Verses 5, 6, etc., to the end.
[1627] Ps. lxxii. 1, 2.
[1628] An absurdity pulverized by the faith and learning of Dr. Pusey.
[1629] Pseudepigrapha O. F. Fritzsche, Lips., 1871, Codex Pseudepigr. Vet. Test., ed. 1722.; J. A. Fabricius, Messias Judæorum, Hilgenfeld, Lips., 1869; also Drummond, The Jewish Messiah; and compare Jellinek, Bet-ha-Midrash, six parts, 1857-73.
[1630] See the Greek of Constantine's quotations in Heyne's Virgil, excursus i. tom. i. p. 164.
[1631] Heyne (Lips., 1788), vol. i. pp. 66-70.
lactantius anger_of_god anf07 lactantius-anger_of_god A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus /ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.iii.html
A Treatise on the Anger of God
Addressed to Donatus. [1632]
Chap. I.--Of Divine and Human Wisdom.
I have often observed, Donatus, that many persons hold this opinion, which some philosophers also have maintained, that God is not subject to anger; since the divine nature is either altogether beneficent, and that it is inconsistent with His surpassing and excellent power to do injury to any one; or, at any rate, He takes no notice of us at all, so that no advantage comes to us from His goodness, and no evil from His ill-will. But the error of these men, because it is very great, and tends to overthrow the condition of human life, must be refuted by us, lest you yourself also should be deceived, being incited by the authority of men who deem themselves wise. Nor, however, are we so arrogant as to boast that the truth is comprehended by our intellect; but we follow the teaching of God, who alone is able to know and to reveal secret things. But the philosophers, being destitute of this teaching, have imagined that the nature of things can be ascertained by conjecture. But this is impossible; because the mind of man, enclosed in the dark abode of the body, is far removed from the perception of truth: and in this the divine nature differs from the human, that ignorance is the property of the human, knowledge of the divine nature.
On which account we have need of some light to dispel the darkness by which the reflection of man is overspread, since, while we live in mortal flesh, we are unable to divine by our senses. But the light of the human mind is God, and he who has known and admitted Him into his breast will acknowledge the mystery of the truth with an enlightened heart; but when God and heavenly instruction are removed, all things are full of errors. And Socrates, though he was the most learned of all the philosophers, yet, that he might prove the ignorance of the others, who thought that they possessed something, rightly said that he knew nothing, except one thing--that he knew nothing. For he understood that that learning had nothing certain, nothing true in itself; nor, as some imagine, did he pretend [1633] to learning that he might refute others, but he saw the truth in some measure. And he testified even on his trial (as is related by Plato) that there was no human wisdom. He so despised, derided, and cast aside the learning in which the philosophers then boasted, that he professed that very thing as the greatest learning, that he had learnt that he knew nothing. If, therefore, there is no human wisdom, as Socrates taught, as Plato handed down, it is evident that the knowledge of the truth is divine, and belongs to no other than to God. Therefore God must be known, in whom alone is the truth. He is the Parent of the world, and the Framer of all things; who is not seen with the eyes, and is scarcely distinguished by the mind; whose religion is accustomed to be attacked in many ways by those who have neither been able to attain true wisdom, nor to comprehend the system of the great and heavenly secret.
[1633] Simulavit: others read "dissimulavit," concealed his knowledge.
Chap. II.--Of the Truth and Its Steps, and of God.
For since there are many steps by which the ascent is made to the abode of truth, it is not easy for any one to reach the summit. For when the eyes are darkened by the brightness of the truth, they who are unable to maintain a firm step fall back to the level ground. [1634] Now the first step is to understand false religions, and to throw aside the impious worship of gods which are made by the hand of man. But the second step is to perceive with the mind that there is but one Supreme God, whose power and providence made the world from the beginning, and afterwards continues to govern it. The third step is to know His Servant and Messenger, [1635] whom He sent as His ambassador to the earth, by whose teaching being freed from the error in which we were held entangled, and formed to the worship of the true God, we might learn righteousness. From all of these steps, as I have said, there is a rapid and easy gliding to a downfall, [1636] unless the feet are firmly planted with unshaken stedfastness.
We see those shaken off from the first step, who, though they understand things which are false, do not, however, discover that which is true; and though they despised earthly and frail images, do not betake themselves to the worship of God, of whom they are ignorant. But viewing with admiration the elements of the universe, they worship the heaven, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, and the other heavenly bodies.
But we have already reproved their ignorance in the second book of the Divine Institutes. [1637] But we say that those fall from the second step, who, though they understand that there is but one Supreme God, nevertheless, ensnared by the philosophers, and captivated by false arguments, entertain opinions concerning that excellent majesty far removed from the truth; who either deny that God has any figure, or think that He is moved by no affection, because every affection is a sign of weakness, which has no existence in God. But they are precipitated from the third step, who, though they know the Ambassador of God, who is also the Builder of the divine and immortal temple, [1638] either do not receive Him, or receive Him otherwise than faith demands; whom we have partly refuted in the fourth book of the above-named work. [1639] And we will hereafter refute more carefully, when we shall begin to reply to all the sects, which, while they dispute, [1640] have destroyed the truth.
But now we will argue against those who, falling from the second step, entertain wrong sentiments respecting the Supreme God. For some say that He neither does a kindness to any one, nor becomes angry, but in security and quietness enjoys the advantages of His own immortality. Others, indeed, take away anger, but leave to God kindness; for they think that a nature excelling in the greatest virtue, while it ought not to be malevolent, ought also to be benevolent. Thus all the philosophers are agreed on the subject of anger, but are at variance respecting kindness. But, that my speech may descend in order to the proposed subject, a division of this kind must be made and followed by me, since anger and kindness are different, and opposed to one another. Either anger must be attributed to God, and kindness taken from Him; or both alike must be taken from Him; or anger must be taken away, and kindness attributed to Him; or neither must be taken away. The nature of the case admits of nothing else besides these; so that the truth, which is sought for, must necessarily be found in some one of these. Let us consider them separately, that reason and arrangement may conduct us to the hiding-place of truth.
[1634] Revolvuntur in planum.
[1635] Thus our Lord Himself speaks, John xvii. 3: "This is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." [The Jehovah-Angel, vol. i. [164]pp. 223-226, this series, and sparsim.]
[1636] Ad ruinam.
[1637] Ch. v. and vi. pp. [165]47, 48.
[1638] The temple built of living stones, 1 Pet. ii. 5.
[1639] Ch. x., etc., [166]p. 108.
[1640] Dum disputant; other editions read, "dum dissipant."
Chap. III.--Of the Good and Evil Things in Human Affairs, and of Their Author.
First, no one ever said this respecting God, that He is only subject to anger, and is not influenced by kindness. For it is unsuitable to God, that He should be endowed with a power of this kind, by which He may injure and do harm, but be unable to profit and to do good. What means, therefore, what hope of safety, is proposed to men, if God is the author of evils only? For if this is so, that venerable majesty will now be drawn out, not to the power of the judge, to whom it is permitted to preserve and set at liberty, but to the office of the torturer and executioner. But whereas we see that there are not only evils in human affairs, but also goods, it is plain that if God is the author of evils, there must be another who does things contrary to God, and gives to us good things. If there is such a one, by what name must he be called? Why is he who injures us more known to us than He who benefits us? But if this can be nothing besides God, it is absurd and vain to suppose that the divine power, than which nothing is greater or better, is able to injure, but unable to benefit; and accordingly no one has ever existed who ventured to assert this, because it is neither reasonable nor in any way credible. And because this is agreed upon, let us pass on and seek after the truth elsewhere.