A discourse concerning the authority, stile, and perfection of the books of the Old and New-Testament with a continued illustration of several difficult texts of scripture throughout the whole work / by John Edwards.

OF THE Truth and Authority OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

CHAP. I.

The Internal Testimonies or Arguments to evince the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, viz. 1. The Mat∣ter of them, that is, the Sublime Verities, the Holy Rules, the Accomplish'd Prophecies con∣tain'd in them: Vnder which last Topick several particular Predictions, chiefly in the Book of Daniel, are explain'd, and shew'd to be fulfilled. Further, 'tis demonstrated that the foretelling of future Con∣tingences of that nature, especially so long before they come to pass, could be from God only. 2. The Man∣ner of these Writings, which is peculiar as to their Simplicity, Majesty, and their being immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost. 3. Their Harmony. 4. The particular Illumination of the Spirit.

I HAVE chosen a very Noble and Important Subject to exercise my Pen, and to enter∣tain both my own and the Reader's Thoughts and Contemplations with; for no Book under Heaven can possibly be the Rival of the Holy

Bible, none in the World can pretend to the tran∣scendent Worth and Excellency of these Sacred Writings. Here not only all Natural or Mor•••• Religion, but that also which is Supernatural, is ful••ly and amply contain'd. Here is the Decalog•••• written by God himself, and transcrib'd out of the Law of Nature; besides that there are frequentl•• interspersed in these Writings other choice Rul•••• and Precepts of Morality. But Supernatural Rel••∣gion being the chief, this is the main Subject of th•••• Sacred Volume: and this you will find partly de••livered by the Inspired Prophets of the Old Testa∣ment; and partly by Christ Iesus himself in per••son, and by the Evangelists and Apostles in the New Testament. Of these Holy Scriptures I am t•• treat, which are the Standard of Truth, the in∣fallible Rule of Faith and Holiness, and the Ground work of all Divinity: for this being the Doctrin•• which is according to the Word of God deliver'•• in Sacred Writ, we must necessarily be acquainted with This, and know in the ••irst place that it i•• True, and make it evident that it is so. If a•••• Estate be given a Person by Will, he must fir•••• prove that Instrument to be True and Authentic•••• before he can challenge any Right to what is demi∣sed him in it. So it is here, God bequeaths us a•• Inheritance, (i. e. Life and Salvation, and Eterna•• Happiness) and the Scriptures are as it were▪ the Will and Testament wherein this is plainly exprest and whereby it is conveyed to us. Especially th•• Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles deserv•• that Name, and thence are stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Greek word, which in its Original Import signifies a disposing of something, is most commo••••ly applied to such a Disposal as is either by Coven•••• or Testament. Hence it is sometimes rendred 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Covenant, and sometimes a Testament: especially among the Lawyers the latter Sense prevails; and accordingly you will find that a Last Will and Te∣stament is express'd by this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Imperial Institutions, and other Law-Books transla∣ted into Greek. We may here join both Senses to∣gether; for what God hath agreed to by Covenant with Man, that Christ bequeaths and gives by Te∣stament. Now we must prove both these, i. e. we must make it evident that the Covenant and Testa∣ment are True, before we can receive any Advan∣tage and Benefit from them. There is a Necessity of evidencing the Truth of the Scriptures, which are this Covenant, and this Testament; otherwise we can build nothing upon them.

Here then,

• I. I will evince the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, which is the great Basis of all Theology.
• II. After I have largely insisted on this, I will proceed to give you an account of the Na∣ture of the Stile and Phrase of these Holy Books.
• III. I will advance yet farther, and demonstrate the Excellency and Perfection of them.

The Subject of our present Undertaking is the first of these: in handling of which I shall but briefly and concisely make use of those Arguments which are commonly insisted upon by Learned Wri∣ters, till I come to fix upon a Topick, which is not commonly, yea, which is very rarely and by the by used in this Cause; and this I will pursue very

largely and fully, I hope with some Satisfaction to the Reader. There are many Arguments to de∣monstrate the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and shew that they are worthy to be believed and imbraced by us as the very Word of God. Some of these Arguments which are to prove the Truth of these Writings, are in com∣mon with those that prove the Truth of the Christian Religion, on which I shall have occasion to insist at another time: but my Design at present is to pro∣pound those which are more peculiarly and properly fitted to evince the Truth of the Scriptures. And these are either Internal or External. The Internal ones I call those which are either in the Scriptures themselves, or in Vs. The Characters of Divinity which the Scriptures have in Themselves, are either their Matter, or the Manner of the writing them.

I begin with the first, the Matter of them: and here I will mention only these three Particulars.

1. The Sublime Doctrines and Verities which are in Holy Writ. In reading this Book we meet with such things as cannot reasonably be thought to come from any but God himself. In other Writings which are most applauded, the choicest things which entertain our Minds, are the excel∣lent Moral Notions and Precepts which they offer to us, which are all the Result of Improved Reason and Natural Religion. But here are (besides these) Notices of a peculiar Nature, and such as are above our natural Capacity and Invention, as the Crea∣tion of the World (in that Manner as is represent∣ed to us in these Writings), the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Decrees, the Incarnation of Christ the Son of God, the Redemption of the World by his Blood, the whole Method of Man's

Salvation, the stupendous Providence of God over his Church in all Ages, the Coming of Christ to Judgment, and (in order to that) the raising of all Men out of their Ashes. These and several o∣ther Doctrines deliver'd in the Sacred Writings, cannot be imagined to come from any but God; they carry with them the Character of Divinity, as being no common and obvious Matters, but such as are towring and lofty, hidden and abstruse, and not likely to be the Product of Humane Wisdom. A God is plainly discovered in them, for the most Improved Creatures could never have reach'd to this pitch. Any serious and thinking Man cannot but discern the peculiar Turn and singular Con∣trivance of these Mysterious Doctrines, which ar∣gue them to be Divine. We may therefore believe the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles to be the Word of God, because of the wonderful Height and Sublimity of those Truths which are contained in them.

2. The Exact Purity and Holiness both of Body and Soul, of Heart and Life, which are enjoin'd in these Writings, are another Testimony of their being Divinely Inspired. For though some other Books dictate Religion and Piety, yet this is cer∣tain, that all the true and just Measures of them were taken originally from this one Exact Stan∣dard, which was prior to them all, as I shall shew afterwards. Besides, the Love and Charity, the Humility, Meekness, and all other Vertues which the Scriptures describe to us, far exceed the most advantageous Representations, the most exalted Ideas which the Heathen Moralists give of them. These therefore are emphatically and eminently called by St. Paul, the Holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15. because they breath the most consummate

Goodness and Piety, and that antecedently to all Writings whatsoever: because every thing in them advanceth Holiness, and that in Thought, Word and Actions. The End and Scope of them are to promote* 1.1 Sanctity of Life, to make us every way better, and even to render us * like God himself. The Holy Scripture was intended to set forth the Divine Perfections, to display the Heavenly Puri∣ty, and thereby to commend the Excellency of a holy Life. And it is certain, that if with sincere and humble Minds we peruse this Book of God, we shall find this blessed Result of it, it will marvel∣lously instruct us in the Knowledg of the Divine Attributes, especially of God's Unspotted Holi∣ness; it will tincture our Minds with Religion, it will pervade all our Faculties with a Spirit of God∣liness, and it will thorowly cleanse and sanctify both our Hearts and Lives, which proves it to be from God. But because I shall have occasion to say more of this, when I treat of the Perfection of the Scriptures, I will now dismiss it.

3. To the Matter of Scripture we must refer the Prophecios and Predictions which are contained in it. These I reckon another Internal Argument, because they are drawn from what is comprehend∣ed in the very Scripture it self. What a vast number is there of Prophecies of the Old and New Testament, which we find fulfilled, and accord∣ingly are Testimonies of the Truth of these Scrip∣tures? Here I will a little enlarge: and first I will beg••n with that ancient Prophecy of Noah,† 1.2 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the Tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his Servant: Where

are foretold things that happened above two thou∣sand Years afterward; for the Posterity of Ia∣pheth, viz. the Europeans, especially the Greeks and Romans, among other Conquests gain'd the possession of Iudea, and other Eastern Countries, which were the Portion of Shem. Again, it was fulfilled thus; by Christ's coming and preaching the Gospel, and by his Apostles propagating it, the Gentiles, who were of the Race of Iapheth, were admitted into the Church of God, which at first indeed consisted of those of the Posterity of Shem.* 1.3 Moses foretold the besieging of Ierusalem by the Assyrian Armies, and the Calamities and Miseries which attended it, which were very near a thousand Years after Moses's time. The Delive∣rance of the Israelites from the Oppression and Sla∣very which they underwent in Egypt, was promi∣sed to Abraham above four hundred Years before it happened.† 1.4 King Iosias was expresly named three hundred Years before his Birth; and conse∣quently it was a longer time before he could de∣molish the Altars, and destroy Idolatry at Bethel, which was also particularly foretold by a Man of God. Cyrus, who first united the Kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and was the first Emperour of the Second Chief Monarchy, viz. the Persian, was honourably named and foretold by Isaiah to be the Deliverer of the Jews out of their Captivi∣ty, and the Restorer of their Temple, almost two hundred Years before he was born, and before that Deliverance was accomplished; Isa. 44. 28. and 45. 1—-5. This is that Cyrus who conquered Astyages the last King of the Medes, and translated the Empire to the Persians, and brought Asia and

all the East under his Power. This is that Cyrus whose Life Xenophon wrote, saith Sir W. Raleigh: and from some things there related, especially his last Oration at his Death, we may probably gather that he received the Knowledg of the True God from Daniel when he govern'd Susa in Persia, and that he had read Isaiah's Prophecy wherein he was expresly named. And indeed* 1.5 Iosephus tells us that he had so; and that when the Jews shewed Cyrus that Place of Scripture which foretold his Wars and Victory, and likewise his Beneficence to the Jews, he admired the Divinity of the Book; and to make good what he read, he conferr'd ma∣ny great Kindnesses on that People. It is no won∣der therefore, saith a† 1.6 Judicious Writer, that the History of Cyrus's Life wrote by the foresaid Historian, is thought by some to be a Fiction, he being so Extraordinary a Person, designed by God, and signally foretold before-hand. An extraordi∣nary Spirit and Vigor actuated him, which makes that Historical Account of him look like a Ro∣mance. But notwithstanding what these Learned Men say, I am doubtful whether this famous Cyrus whom I am now speaking of, was he that this Hi∣storian gives us an account of; for that Cyrus whom he describes, died a Natural Death, and expired peaceably on his Bed, and among his Friends; but this Cyrus that set up the Persian Mo∣narchy, died in the Wars, and was overcome by Tomyris Queen of the Scythians. Therefore 'tis thought by others, that the Life of Cyrus the Se∣cond is described by Xenophon. To proceed, the taking of Babylon, and its being brought under the Power of the Medes and Persians, were predicted

by Isaiah many Years before they came to pass, Isa. 47. 1, &c. And this Noble Prophet hath de∣servedly gain'd the Title of Evangelical, because he so exactly sets down what happened several hun∣dred Years afterwards upon the Arrival of Christ, and the Dispensation of the Gospel. Ieremiah (another noted Prophet) prefixed the seventy Years of the Babylonian Captivity: And in other Prophets, who were Pen-men of the Old Testa∣ment, there are very plain Predictions of future Events; and the Accomplishment of them hath proved them to be True. But the Spirit of Pro∣phecy is most eminent and wonderful in Daniel, who hath foretold the State of the World from the time of the Captivity, wherein he lived, till the Coming of Christ in the Flesh, which was about five hundred Years after. The Succession of the most famous Empires or Monarchies of the World, is prophetically represented by him in his Inter∣pretation of* 1.7 Nebuchadnezzar's Dream. There (as St. Ierom saith) he shews that he† 1.8 had know∣ledg of all Times, and was fore-acquainted with the various History of the whole World. There you will see the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman Monarchies decipher'd by the four known Metals, Gold, Silver, Brass, and Iron. The Head of Gold is the Assyrian or Babylonian Empire, which was the First and Richest Monarchy, and was the Beginning and Head of the rest which were to follow. The Breast and Arms of Silver are the Medo-Persian Empire; which because it con∣sisted of two People, it is therefore fitly set forth by two Arms. Belly and Thighs of Brass are the

Greek Empire; which because it was chiefly divi∣ded into two Kingdoms of the Lagidae and Sel••••∣cidae, it is well express'd by two Thighs. Legs of Iron are the Roman Empire; which being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into Eastern and Western, by occasion of Cons••••••∣tine's tine's removing his Seat from Rome to Byzantium, is not unfitly set forth by two Legs. Its Feet are said to be partly Iron and partly Clay, because being divided, it was not all of a piece, but was of a different Nature: they could no more unite and cement, than Iron and Clay. Then you read of a Stone cut out without Hands, i. e. the Lord Christ, not born after the ordinary and humane way. This Stone was first visible in the Days of those Kings, ver. 44. i. e. the Kings that make up the Roman Em∣pire: for then Christ was born, then Christianity was first set up. This Stone shall become a great Mountain, and fill the whole Earth, ver. 35. and de∣stroy the Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron, i. e. put an end to these Empires. Christ and his Church shall constitute another, viz. a Fifth Empire, much more Glorious and Renowned than the former ones. This famous Prophecy, of above two thou∣sand Years date, was in a signal manner verified at the Coming of Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; and it shall have a further Com∣pletion when the Christian Religion shall be pro∣pagated anew in the remote Parts of the World, and at last shall become the Religion of the whole World, and a Glorious Church shall be establish'd on the Earth.

In the seventh Chapter of this Prophecy you have the Vision of the Four Beasts, which foretells the very same which was represented by the Four Metals, but more particularly and largely. First there is the Lion, i. e. the Assyrian Monarchy,

which hath two Wings, which denote the two part of that Empire, Babylon and Assyria. They are said to be plucked, i. e. shattered and destroyed, as we read they were by Darius and Cyrus. This Lion is the same with the Golden Head in Nebuchad∣nezzar's Dream. Next comes the Bear, which is the Persian Monarchy set up by Cyrus, (as the for∣mer by Ninus) and expired in Darius, whom Alex∣ander the Great slew in Battel. The three Ribs in its Mouth, are the three Chief Emperours or Kings of this Monarchy, namely, Cyrus, Darius, Arta∣xerxes, who devoured much Flesh, i. e. added many Nations to their Monarchy. Or the three Ribs may signify the Persian Kingdom, which had united to it the Medes, and the Babylonian Power and People, and so was composed of three. This is the same with the Breast and Arms of Silver in the foregoing Dream. The next thing in the Vision is a Panther or Leopard, with four Wings and Heads; which sig∣nifies the Greek Empire, with the principal King∣doms or Satrapies which after Alexander's Death arose out of that Monarchy, viz. those of Seleucus King of Syria, Antigonus King of the Lesser Asia, Cassander King of Greece, and Ptolomy King of E∣gypt. The four Wings also signify the Swiftness of Alexander's Conquests, and also the speedy Divi∣sion of his Empire into four Kingdoms. This is the same with the Brazen Belly in the preceding Dream. Lastly there appears a Beast with ten Horns, which is the Roman Empire; though I know some interpret this Fourth Beast of the Asiatick Monarchy, called by Historians the Regnum Seleu∣darum, or those several lesser Kingdoms which set up upon the breaking of Alexander's Monarchy. The ten Horns are ten Kings, as is plain from the express Words in the 24th Verse; and these (say

they) are Seleucus Nicanor, Antiochus Soter, Antio∣chus Theos, another Seleucus, Ptolomaeus Euergetes, a third Seleucus, Antiochus, Ptolomaeus Philopator, Seleucus Philopator, Antiochus Epiphanes. And the little Horn mentioned ver. 8. is, say they, the last of these ten. Others are of opinion that the little Horn that came up among the ten Horns, is the Mahometan or Turkish Empire, which grew out of the Roman Monarchy, or those Territories which were possessed by the Romans: and the three Horns it hath seized on, are three Parts of the Monar∣chy, viz. Asia, Egypt, Greece. But to unprejudi∣ced Minds it will rather appear, that this part of the Vision which speaks of the Fourth Beast, and the Little Horn, belongs to the Roman Empire: for this Vision is but an enlarging on the Dream of the four Metals before spoken of. And yet I will grant that this Prophetick Vision may be taken with some Latitude, as many of the Prophecies of the Old and New Testament (as I shall shew after∣wards) are to be taken: and so Antiochus Epipha∣nes and Mahomet (the one the Scourge of the Jew∣ish Church, the other of the Christian) may not be excluded here, but after a Prophetick manner implied; yet so as the Roman Empire, and what was to happen in the World in those Dominions, are chiefly and principally here meant. This is the Beast with ten Horns, which are the ten Mem∣bers or Kingdoms belonging heretofore to the Ro∣man Empire, viz. Asia, Africa, Syria, Egypt, Ita∣ly, Spain, Greece, Gallia, Germany, Britain. This Fourth Beast is the same with the Legs of Iron and Clay, spoken of before. It is easy and obvious to apply the Character of this last Beast to the Roman Empire. It was dreadful and terrible, and strong ex∣ceedingly: it had great Iron Teeth; it devoured and

brake in pieces, and stamped the Residue with the Feet of it; and it was diverse from all the Beasts that were before it, as you read in ver. 7. And again, ver. 23. The fourth Beast shall be the fourth Kingdom upon Earth, which shall be diverse from all Kingdoms, and shall devour the whole Earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. This is a most Graphical De∣lineation of the Secular Power of Rome, and of the Slaughter and Ravage it hath made on the Earth. It is farther added, that there came up among the Horns another little Horn, ver. 8. that is, a Power distinct from those ten Powers or Kingdoms before mentioned. Here then perhaps is meant the Church or Hierarchy of Rome distinct from the Se∣cular Power or ten Kings. This is Popery in the most proper Sense, the Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Dominion of Rome, as it is distinguish'd from the Civil or Temporal one: and it is the same with the False Prophet in Rev. 19. 20. How naturally the Character of this Horn is appliable to this Pur∣pose, may be seen in the following ver••es.

The eighth Chapter reacheth not so far, but yet contains a very notable Prophecy, couched in the Vision of a Ram and a He-Goat. The* 1.9 Ram with two Horns is (as is afterwards interpreted in express Words) the† 1.10 Kingdom of Media and Per∣sia. The He-Goat is the Greek Empire: the‖ 1.11 no∣table Horn between his Eyes, is Alexander the Great, the first Greek Monarch, as you find it expresly expounded in ver. 21. The rough Goat is the King (or Kingdom) of Greece; and the great Horn that is between his Eyes, is the first King. It is said,* 1.12 he touched not the Ground, i. e. he went on swiftly; for in twelve Years he did all his Work, and in

three Battels he vanquish'd Darius, and succeeded in his Monarchy. Thus he smote the Ram, and brake his two Horns, and cast him to the Ground, ver. 7. It was above two hundred Years before this was accomplished that Daniel here foretold, and therefore it is a very considerable Prophecy, and a very remarkable Proof of the Authority of this Book. Hence it was that when Alexander the Great was on his march towards Ierusalem to de∣stroy it, Iaddus the High Priest went out to meet him with the Book of Daniel in his Hand, which he opened and shewed to that great Monarch, and let him see this Place wherein his mighty Atchieve∣ments and Glory were foretold: Which very thing diverted him from doing that Harm to the Jews which he intended, and also made him confi∣dent in his Enterprizes against Persia, the Conquest of which this Prophecy foretold. When this great Horn was broken, ••our other notable ones came up in its stead, v. 8. that is, on the Death of Alexander there sprang up these four Kingdoms, namely Macedo∣nia, Asia, Syria, Egypt: These stood up, but not in his Power, ver. 22. i. e. Alexander's; they were much weaker and feebler, being divided. Out of one of these Horns came forth a little one, ver. 9. who is af∣terwards called a King of fierce Countenance, ver. 23. This is Antiochus Epiphanes, who came out of the Syrian Horn: by him the daily Sacrifice was ta∣ken away, and the Place of the Sanctuary was cast down, ver. 11. He destroyed wonderfully, and pros∣pered and practised, and destroyed the mighty and the holy People, ver. 24. This and much more which you read in this Chapter, can agree to no Person so well as to that Antiochus, who plagued and em∣barass'd all Syria, and miserably shock'd the Holy Land, and with unspeakable Rage and Fury per∣secuted

the People of it, and deprived them of their Sacrifices, and defiled their Altars, and spoiled their Temple the celebrated Place of their Worship, and cruelly and barbarously put many to death that refused to violate the Law of Moses. At last it is said, he shall be broken without Hands; which plainly signifies the sudden and unexpected Catastrophe of him and his Army, which the Jew∣ish History will particularly inform you of.

I will not particularly insist on the eleventh Chap∣ter of the same Prophet, in the beginning of which it is foretold concerning Xerxes, that by his Strength through his Riches he should stir up all against the Realm of Greece, ver. 2. which we read was punctually fulfilled, for he entred Greece with an Army that consisted of a Million of Men. And what is said concerning Alexander the Great, viz. that his King∣dom should be broken, and divided towards the four Winds of Heaven, and not to his Posterity, &c. ver. 4. we know was really accomplish'd. The rest of the Chapter is a Prophetical History of the Ex∣ploits of those several lesser Kings, among whom the Grecian Monarchy after Alexander's Death was divided, especially of Antiochus the Great, and of Antiochus Epiphanes. Here, as in the former Chap∣ters, you may see many things foretold a long time before they were fulfill'd; which is a certain and undeniable Argument of the Prophetick Spirit in the Scriptures.

We might proceed to the Predictions and Pro∣phecies of the New Testament, which we see also are performed in great measure. Here was fore∣told the wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, the Rejection of it by the Jews, the Receiving of it by the Gentiles, the Destruction of Ierusalem, and all the Calamities of that Nation. These Pre∣dictions

we know are accomplished. Besides, in the Writings of the New Testament we read that Christ foretold many things concerning himself and his Followers, as the Scandal which his Disci∣ples, especially Peter, would give, Mat. 26. 31. Peter's triple Denial of him, Luke 22. 31. and yet at the same time he foretold that it should not be accompanied with a final falling away, ver. 32. He foretold that he should be betrayed, and that he should be mock'd and scourg'd, and at last cru∣cisied; and that the third Day he should rise again, Mat. 20. 17, 18, 19. And as he predicted his own Death, the Place, Time and Kind of it, with the time of his Resurrection, (and I might have added also, of his Ascension, and of his sending the Ho∣ly Ghost;) so he did the same as to the manner of * 1.13 Peter's Death: and he foretold† 1.14 Iohn the Evan∣gelist's long Life. He told his Disciples what should befal them after his Departure, what Cala∣mities and Sufferings they should meet with for their professing the Gospel, and owning his Cause. He acquainted them that the Gospel should be preach'd throughout the whole World, that Scan∣dals and Heresies should come into the Church, that many should apostatize from the Faith, and desert Christianity, Mat. 24. And the Evange∣lists and Apostles, as well as our Saviour, from that Spirit of Prophecy which was in them, foretold sundry things which we see since are fulfilled. In their Writings are Predictions concerning the Calling of the Gentiles, the Conversion of the Jews, the State of the Christian Church, the Rise of Antichrist, his Character, his Progress, and his dreadful Downfal, a great part of which is already

fulfill'd. Much of the Fate of the World, which they foretold, God hath brought to pass; which gives us assurance that the rest will be accomplish'd in due time. Yea, there are at this day Prophe∣cies fulfill'd every hour, as that of the Blessed Vir∣gin in her Magnificat, From henceforth all Generati∣ons shall call me Blessed, Luke 1. 48. The Memory of this holy Woman is daily celebrated in the Christian Church, and her Name is blessed through∣out all the Assemblies of the Saints. They with one accord rejoice, that of her was born the Holy JESUS, who is Blessed for evermore. And so like∣wise what Simeon and Anna foretold of Christ, are every day accomplished: some part of their Pro∣phecies is at this very instant made good. That is another Prophecy which is now fulfilling, 2 Tim. 3. 1. In the last Days perillous Times shall come, for &c. with several others that might be named, the Accomplishment of which no unprejudiced Man, and of common Ingenuity, will refuse to acknow∣ledg. Now this wonderful Prophetick Spirit in Scripture, is a strong Argument that these Wri∣tings were inspired by God, and that the Matter of them is Divine. For the foreknowing or fore∣telling of things to come, is one Character of the True God, as you read in Isa. 41. 22, 23. From thence it is evident that none can predict them, unless he be immediately enlightned and taugh•• of God. The certain and infallible Knowledg of future Contingences, which depend on free Cau∣ses, is from Him alone. Wherefore when we see (as in our present Case) that things were expresly foretold several hundreds of Years before they came to pass, and when we see that the Events ex∣actly answer'd to the Predictions, we cannot but acknowledg that these Predictions were from God,

and could not be from any else.

If it be objected, That other Writings beside•• the Bible have Predictions in them, and that Men of Skill and Sagacity do sometimes foretel Futuri∣ties; yea, that those who have the least Converse with God, those who deal with Evil Spirits, have predicted things to come; and therefore this Ar∣gument is of no force. I answer, first, It is true that Natural Skill, especially improved by Art, by Reason and Philosophy, and the knowledg of the Laws of Nature, will give Men Insight into some Futurities. For God hath impress'd a particular Quality on Natural Bodies, and they keep a con∣stant Course. He hath fixed a way for his Crea∣tures to act in, and they never go out of it of them∣selves. The Operations and Effects of Fire and Water, of Gravity and Levity in Bodies; the Mo∣tion of the Sun and Moon, and the Eclipses of ei∣ther, and the several Aspects of the Heavens, may certainly be foretold: for they continually and unerringly keep their Progress, unless God plea∣seth sometimes to cross their usual Course, as when the Waters of the Red-Sea stood up on a heap whilst the Israelites passed over; The Fire in Nebu∣chadnezzar's Furnace was restrain'd from doing any harm to those that were cast into it; the Sun stood still in Ioshua's time, and was retrograde in King 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And so there are monstrous and misha∣pen Creatures born into the World, which deviate from the common Procedure of Nature. But sup∣posing that God suffers his Creatures to act accor∣ding to the Laws of Nature, it is easy to make a Judgment of them, and to foretel what shall hap∣pen. But the things we are speaking of, and which are foretold in the Holy Writings, are of another kind; they are not fixed and determined by Na∣ture:

and therefore 'tis not in Man's power to pre∣dict their Events. Again, Physicians have their Prognosticks whereby they foretel what will become of the Patient, whether the Disease will be hard∣ly cured, or easily, or not at all. But because these Prognosticks are founded on a great many Symptoms, and these are uncertain and dubious, it follows that those are so likewise: though 'tis cer∣tain an experienc'd Artist will see very far here. Then as to future Occurrences in Bodies Politick, a wise Man may by careful Observation and Remarks on the Affairs of the World, gain some Insight in∣to these; by being long exercis'd in Business, by a large Experience of things, and by seeing what hath been heretofore, he may gather what shall be hereafter. A skilful Historian, who hath diligent∣ly perused the Transactions of former Ages, and digested the Methods of Government, and scann'd the Manners and Customs of Countries, can do this. But this Foresight of things to come is Con∣jecture rather than Knowledg: for we can have no certain Foreknowledg of what depends on the Freewill of Man. Or if we will pretend to any Measure of it, we must deal only in Generals: as for Particular and Personal Events, they are far beyond our reach. And as for the particular Ti∣ming of them, especially if they be far off, there is no Prospect at all of it. Or where the Causes and Effects are Extraordinary and Preternatural, there we must confess our utter Blindness and Ig∣norance: they are no more to be discerned by us, than the Antartick Pole is to be seen by us in our Hemisphere. We know not what such Events will be; we are not able to foretel them of our selves, they can be discovered by Revelation only. And that is the Case which is now before us: the

Predictions which we read in Scripture, are con∣cerning those things which no humane Understand∣ing or Foresight could possibly attain to. To fore∣know and foretel things that should happen to the Jewish and Christian Church, two or three thou∣sand Years before they came to pass; to predict the Deliverance of the Israelites from their Slave∣ry in Egypt, four hundred Years before it happen∣ed; to mention Iasias and his Religious Acts three hundred Years before he was born; to describe the future Monarchies of the World, and some of the most remarkable Passages belonging to them; to foretel almost two hundred Years before-hand, that there shall be such an Emperour as Cyrus, and to particularize his Actions; these are such things as no Wise Philosopher, no Learned Physician, no Pr••••dent Statesman, no Prying Historian is able to foresee and discover: for they are not general, bu•• particular and personal Events; they were at a vast distance, and not near at hand: and the pun∣ctual Time of some of them was exactly assigned. If we respect second Causes, they were such Oc∣currences as depended on the free Agency of Man: and if we respect God, they were the mere Results of his Arbitrary Will and Pleasure; they were preternatural and unusual Events, and therefore it was not within the compass of Man's Apprehension to discover these things, the knowledg of them could not be had without Divine Assistance. To this alone then we must attribute the Prediction of them. The omniscient Eye of Heaven only could dive into these Secrets which were so far off; and thence it is that the Scriptures (which are by imme∣diate Revelation) have recorded them.

Secondly, It is said in the Objection, that Evil Spirits help some to the knowledg of future Events,

and therefore we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scriptures from the Prophecies which are there, and which are since fulfilled. I grant indeed that the Devil help'd his Followers, or pretended to help them to the knowledg of some future things. This commenced into an Art among the old Greek and Roman Pagans: Divination (which, as Tully de∣fines it, is a* 1.15 Fore-sense and foretelling of fortui∣tous Events) was a Science among them: and that Men were very eager of knowing before-hand what should happen, appears from the several ways of Divining which they used. Their way of foretelling was by observing the flight and chat∣tering, the sitting and feeding of Birds, by Inspe∣ction into the Entrails of these and other Animals that were sacrificed. Some from the Aspects of Stars pretended to presage what should happen: and the Professors of this Art were in great Esteem and Veneration. Dreams also were observ'd, and strange Remarks made upon them. Some con∣sulted the Dead, calling up the departed Spirits, and asking them concerning future Affairs. The Oracles were another way of Divining, and were the most celebrated of all. And many other kinds of Divination and Soothsaying were in use with the Pagan World: for they being mightily desi∣rous to be acquainted with things to come, and to look into Futurities, ransack'd both Heaven and Earth, and made use of all things above and below to inform themselves about them. But all the In∣formation they received by these different ways of Divining, was either Uncertain, or Casual, or directly Diabolical. It was Uncertain, because it

was grounded on unsound Principles, on foolish and precarious Observances, and consequently the knowledg of Events was conjectural and fallible. Wherefore the wisest and soberest Men among the Pagans look'd upon it as no other: and parti∣cularly 'tis worth our notice that Tully, who is full of Arguments for Divination in his first Book on that Subject, hath as many against it in his se∣cond. This Uncertainty was especially observa∣ble in their Oracles, which were the most famous way of Divining among the Gentiles: the Priests were forced to speak in ambiguous Terms, think∣ing to salve their Credit by that Obscurity and Ambiguity. But we find no such thing in the Sa∣cred Oracles and Predictions of the Old and New Testament; these are plain and intelligible, clear and open: Or if some few of them may seem not to be so, yet there are great numbers of others that we cannot but acknowledg to be most evident and perspicuous; and in respect of the Issue and Event of them, we know and are assured that they are Certain and Infallible. Or secondly, their knowledg of future Events by those foresaid ways of Divining, was by mere Accident. Their Sooth∣sayers by Chance told Truth, as Liars sometimes do: which appears from this, that they very rare∣ly hit upon an Event that came to pass. Where∣fore we may infer, that when they did, it was not by Skill, but Chance. But this cannot be said of the Predictions I have been treating of, for there is not one of them that hath failed; and I could have produced hundreds of Prophecies more, and shew'd the plain Accomplishment of them. Or thirdly, their knowledg of future Things was Di∣abolical, by which I mean this, that it was gain'd by that Communion and Correspondence which

they held with Daemons or Evil Spirits. But here it will be demanded, How can these Spirits know future Events? And if they do know them, how is our former Assertion true, that the knowing and predicting of these things is from God alone? I answer briefly, That it is possible for the Infernal Spirits, and for Men by their Assistance, to attain to the knowledg of some future Occurrences: but those which we read are foretold in Scripture, are none of that number, but are of another and high∣er Kind. First then, we grant that these Daemons (as that very Name imports) are Knowing and In∣telligent Creatures, and have a great Insight into the Nature of things, and are endued with a more than ordinary knowledg of Physical Causes and Effects: whence we may easily infer the possibility of their diving into some future Transactions which depend wholly on Natural Agents. In the next place, those Spirits have had long Experi∣ence of things, and are thereby grown very saga∣cious and cunning, and on that account are able to guess of things that are to come: for by obser∣ving what hath a long time happened in such and such Circumstances, they may not unsuccessfully sometimes conjecture what will be for the future. Moreover, those Nimble Intelligences travelling up and down the World, ranging and flying a∣bout, and visiting the remotest Regions of the Earth, and that with unspeakable Expedition, must needs inform themselves concerning the diverse Occurrences abroad, and make very great Disco∣veries as to what shall be afterwards, from the Consults and Actions which they behold in the World. The Devil appearing in Samuel's Shape, told King Saul he should be with him the day fol∣lowing; for he might partly know the Event of

the Battel, by what he knew concerning the Ene∣mies Strength, and the Anger of God against that forsaken Prince, &c.* 1.16 Diodorus the Sicilian re∣lates, that the Chaldean Priests foretold the Death of Alexander the Great, and the dividing of the Empire among his Captains: which they might venture to do (and it seems their Prediction suc∣ceeded) by the Information they had from those Daemons they convers'd with, who 'tis likely not only saw the debauched Life of that King, but the great Mischief which it did to his Body, and from thence the probability of his being dispatched by a violent Fever, (of which we read he died;) and they were not ignorant of the Ambition and Con∣tentions of his Captains; nay, perhaps they were conscious to some Cabals which promoted those Events; and then 'tis not to be wondred that they could foretel them. But there was another way too of foreknowing these things, for they might be found predicted in Daniel's Prophecies, (of which we have spoken) which the Chaldean Priests had without doubt some knowledg of. There they found it written in express words, chap. 8. 8. The great Horn (which, as the preceding Verses will inform you, is meant of Alexander the Great) was broken, (i. e. in plain terms, he died) and for it came up four notable ones, (i. e. his four chief Com∣manders succeeded him in the Empire.) And this you will find repeated almost in the same words, in chap. 11. 4. that there might be no mistake about the Prophecy. But truly I am enclined to think that there is yet another Account to be given of this Passage in Diodorus, for (as I shall hereafter make it more evident) there are a great many Re∣ferences

in the Pagan Historians to what is record∣ed in the Old Testament, though they are gene∣rally done with some Obscurity or Mistake. And I take this to be of that nature; for the Historian refers here not only to the Book of Daniel▪ (which questionless was very famous in those days) and particularly to those Prophetick Words before ci∣ted, but to Daniel himself: He was that Chaldean Priest; for though he was an Hebrew by Birth, yet Chaldea was the Country he lived in, and he was in high esteem with the Chaldean Kings. But when the Historian speaks in the Plural of Chaldean Priests, it is a pardonable Oversight, and such as is frequent in Writers. And he calls them Priests, because among the Chaldeans their Priests were the most knowing Men, and the Magi and these were Terms convertible sometimes. Or to call Daniel a Priest instead of a Prophet, is a Mistake both easy and excusable: wherefore notwithstand∣ing this small Slip, there is reason to believe that the Historian refers to the Prophet Daniel, who once and again in very intelligible, though Pro∣phetick Terms, foretels the Death of that Great Monarch, and the Division of his Kingdoms a∣mongst his Captains. I might add likewise, that Evil Spirits are considerable Actors in the Affairs on Earth; and therefore 'tis no wonder that they are able to foretel what they themselves are de∣signing to bring to pass. They could easily inform Spurina of Iulius Caesar's Fate, when they had been present at the Consults of the Senate, and were Instigators to take away his Life. St. Austin speaks of one that knew and could tell the Thoughts of Men, as when one thought of a Verse in Virgil, or the like. But* 1.17 Luther said well, the Devil had

before possessed his Thoughts with that Verse, and then it was not difficult to foretel what he did himself. Thus you see how far, and in what man∣ner, Devils and wicked Men by their Means may foreknow Futurities. But now if we consider the things foretold in the Old and New Testament, we cannot apply any thing of all this to them: for the foreknowing that K. Iosias, Cyrus and Alex∣ander should appear in the World so many Years afterwards, the predicting of the Succession of the three Great Monarchies, (for one of them was past) the erecting of the Kingdom of Christ, the wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, the Con∣version of Jews and Gentiles, and the like, could not possibly be from the sagacious Insight into the Nature of things, which the Evil Spirits may attain to, nor from their Observation and Experience, which are only of things past or present; nor from any Acquaintance with the Af∣fairs of the World, as being Actors in them: for some of these Events which we have mentioned out of the Sacred Writings, had no dependance on Common and Natural Causes, and therefore could not be penetrated into by the most subtile Enquirers into Nature, as we suppose Evil Angels to be: and besides, they were at so vast a distance in respect of Time, that it is impossible to imagine that these Spiritual Agents could have any Part then to act in them. No Man of Sense can prevail with himself to credit any such thing, but on the contrary he must be forc'd to acknowledg that it is wholly against the Nature of those Events, to be foreseen and discover'd by any Diabolick Skill so long a time before they actually happened. Wherefore I conclude, that the foreknowing, and consequently the foretelling of them, was by par∣••icular

Revelation from God. He was pleased by ••ecret Inspiration to inform his Servants, and to give them a discovery of those things which no ••reated Understanding could discern. Lastly, This may suffice in answer to those who suppose that some Persons who converse with Diabolick Spi∣rits, may have some Foresight of future Contin∣gencies; this (I say) may suffice, that the Case we speak of, is far different: here can be nothing of the Devil, because these Prophecies, and all the other Writings to the Old and New Testament, tend to the promoting of Holiness and Godliness, and the destroying the Works of the Devil. Their main Design is to weaken, and even demolish Sa∣tan's Kingdom, and to set up that of Christ Jesus both in the Consciences and Lives of Men. It is ridiculous therefore to say, that these Prophecies are from the Devil. No Man of ordinary S••ns•• can digest such a Proposition; it is impossible it should gain the Assent of any intelligent and sober Person. When we consider the Nature of these Prophecies, and what they aim at, we must needs own them to be from Him to whom all Future Things are Present, and who is the Cause as well as the Foreseer of them. And therefore when we observe that the things which the Writers of Ho∣ly Scripture have delivered, are actually come to pass, we may with reason conclude, that their Writings are not Forgeries; but on the contrary, that the Penmen of them were Inspired Persons; that they had the Gift of Prophecy, which is an in∣fallible Testimony of their Authority. These things being thus foretold so long before, and be∣ing exactly verified since, it undeniably follows, that the Books which contain these Predictions, and are founded on them, are True and Certain.

These Predictions coming from God, are an a•• red Proof that these Writings were endited him, they being so great a part of them. Thi•• that which an antient Father long since deliver••▪ * 1.18 The foretelling of future things, saith he, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Characteristick Note of the Divine Authority 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Scriptures; for this is a thing that is abo•••• humane Nature, and the Powers of it, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only ••e effected by the Virtue of the Divine ••••••∣rit. We may rely upon it, as an impregna•• Maxim, that the Spirit of Prophecy, and the F•• filling of Prophecies, are a Divine Proof of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Truth of the Scriptures, and are a sufficient Grou•• to us of believing them to be the Word of Go•• Thus from the Matter of the Holy Scriptures, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have undeniable Evidence of the Authority a•• Truth of them.

Again, the Manner of these Writings is anothe•• Proof of the Divine Authority of them. The•• are not writ as others are wont to be: the Penme•• of these Sacred Books do not speak after the ra•••••• of other Writers. How admirable is the Simpl•• city and Ingenuity of these Men all along? The•• do not hide their own or others Failings, yea eve•• when they are very gross and scandalous: thu•• Moses recorded not only Noah's Drunkenness and Lot's Incest, but his own rash Anger and Unbelie••▪ and David registers in the 51st Psalm, his own Murder and Adultery: Ieremiah relates his own unbecoming Fears, Discontents and Murmurings, chap. 20. 7, 8, 14. The Writers of the New Te∣stament conceal not the Infirmities and Defects,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 the gross Miscarriages of themselves, and of ••heir Brethren; as their cowardly leaving of Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Passion, Iohn's falling at the Feet of an An∣••el to worship him, Thomas his Infidelity, Iohn ••nd Iames (the Sons of Zebedee) their unseasona∣••le Ambition, Peter's denying of Christ even with ••erjury. This free and plain dealing of the Wri∣••ers of the Old and New Testament, shews that ••hey are not the Writings of Men. A Man may ••ee that there is no worldly and sinister Design ••••rried on in them, but that the Glory of God is ••holly intended by their impartial discovery of ••he Truth. Which was long since taken notice of ••y* 1.19 Arnobius in answer to that Cavil of the Pagans, hat the History of the Gospel was writ by poor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 People, and in a simple Manner: Therefore, ••aith he, it is the more to be credited, because they write so indifferently and impartially, and out of Simplicity. This Impartiality and Since∣rity of theirs are an irrefragable Argument of the Truth of their Writings.

And here also you will find an excellent and ad∣mirable Composition of Simplicity and Majesty to∣gether. Though the Strain be High and Lofty, yet you may observe that at the same time it is Humble and Condescending. To which purpose a Learned Father saith well,

† 1.20 The Language of Divine Wisdom in the Scripture is Low, but the Sense is Sublime and Heavenly: whereas on the contrary, the Phrase of Heathen Writers is Splendid, but the things couched in them are Poor and Mean.

The Scripture-Writers make

it not their work to set off and commend th•• Writings, by being Elaborate and Exact. H•• are no set Discourses, no pointed Arguments, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 affected Strains of Logick.

* 1.21 The Writers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Bible, saith another antient Father, did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make their Writings in a way of Demonstration these unquestionable Witnesses of the Truth be∣ing above all Demonstration.

Nor shall y•••• find here that the Writers strain for Eleganci•• and florid Expressions, as other Authors are won•• here is no quaint and curious Method, no form•• Transitions, no courting of the Readers, no unne∣cessary Pageantry of Rhetorick to gain Admira∣tion and Attention. Especially the Stile of the Evangelists and Apostles is not tumid and affected but plain and simple, and scorns the Ornamen•• and Embellishments of Fancy: for, as an† 1.22 o•• Christian said rightly, Truth needs no Fucus an•• Artifice; and therefore the Sense, not Words, are minded in Scripture. All good Men ought to be pleased with this Simplicity and Plainness of the Holy Stile: of which there is a memorable In∣stance in an‖ 1.23 Ecclesiastical Historian, who tells us that Spiridion, a notable Confessor for the Christi∣an Faith, reproved one Tryphilius an Eloquent Man and converted by him to Christianity some time before, because, speaking one time in the famous Council of Nice, he did, instead of those Word•• of Christ,‖‖ 1.24 Tolle grabatum tuum, say, Tolle lectum tuum humilem; he reproved him, (I say) and that very sharply, for disdaining to use the word which

the Scripture it self useth. It is true, the Words of Scripture seem sometimes to be common and rude, and altogether ungraceful, (sometimes I say, for I shall shew afterwards that Scripture is not destitute of its Graces of Speech;) but that seem∣ing Commonness and Rudeness are great Tokens of the peculiar Excellency of the Stile of Scrip∣ture. Gregory the Great excusing the Plainness and Rudeness of his Stile in his Comments on Iob, professeth, that* 1.25 he thought it unworthy of, and unbecoming the Heavenly Oracles, to restrain them to the nice Rules of Grammar. Surely the Writers of the Bible might say so with more rea∣son; it became them not to stand upon those Ni∣ceties and Formalities of Speech which are so fre∣quent in other Authors: for it is fitting there should be a difference between Humane Writings and Divine. I agree with a late Ingenious Au∣thor, who declares, that† 1.26 it fits not the Majesty of God, whose Book this is, to observe the humane Laws of Method, and Niceness of Art. Inspired Writings must not be like those of Men. The singular Grace of these is, that they are not Artificial and Stu∣died, but Simple, Plain and Careless; and that their whole Frame and Contexture are not such as ours. An artificial Method is below the Majesty of that Spirit which dictated them. This would debase the Scriptures, and equal them with the Writings of Men. Wherefore the oftner I look into that Sacred Volume, and the more I observe it, the more I am convinced that the Pens of the Writers were wholly directed by a Divine Hand.

For take any of the Books either Doctrinal or Hi∣storical, and you'l presently find that the way o•• Expression in them is different from what the Au∣thors of themselves would have used. If they had been left to their own Genius, they would have delivered things in another Method and Manner than you see them in. The Stile of them there∣fore shews the Author. In short, had the Scrip∣tures been written in the common way of other Writers, this would have disparaged them, and we should have had no reason to think that they were Divinely inspired, which is the thing I am now proving.

Nay, I will adjoin this, that the very Words and Phrases of Scripture were dictated by the Spi∣rit; the very particular Expressions and Modes of Speech were under the particular Guidance and Direction of the Holy Ghost. I know there are many of a contrary Judgment, among whom the worthy Writer whom I last quoted, is not the least confident, and positively asserts that the Stile and Language of Scripture were not dictated by the Holy Ghost, but the Matter only. The Words, saith he, were left to the Writers themselves, who as Men of Sense could express their Minds in fit Terms. And to prove that the Words were not dictated by the Spirit, he urgeth this, that Christ and his Apostles quote Places out of the Old Te∣stament as they are translated by the Seventy, which is not verbatim. Now, saith he, they would have cited the Passages in the very original Phrases and Words, if these had been from Divine Inspirati∣on. It is evident therefore that they are not, be∣cause the Apostles use other Words and Terms, far different from those in the Hebrew. But this is no valid Argument, if you rightly consider it:

for though the Apostles thought fit (for some Rea∣sons which I shall have occasion afterwards to offer to you) to make use of the Septuagint Version, which is but a Paraphrase in many places on the Original Text, yet it doth not follow hence that the very Words of the Original were not dictated by the Holy Ghost. Neither our Saviour, nor the Evangelists and Apostles, do hereby declare that the Hebrew Text was not inspired, and that even as to the Phrase and Words: but all that we ga∣ther from their using of the Greek Translation, is this, that they found it convenient at that time (for Reasons which shall afterwards be alledged) to quote some Places as they are rendred by those Translators, and not exactly according to the O∣riginal. This doth not necessarily imply, much less prove that the Penmen of the Old Testament were not assisted by the Spirit in the very Words which they used. But the contrary is grounded on very good Reason, for these Sacred Writings being of a more excellent and transcendent Nature than all others in the World besides, it was meet that they should surpass them all in This, viz. the Divinity of the very Stile. If you grant not this, you acknowledg these Writings, in one respect at least, and that no inconsiderable one, to be no better than the common Writings of other Men: which certainly cannot but be look'd upon as a great vilifying of the Bible. Christ promised his Disciples, that when they should be brought be∣fore Governours and Kings for his Sake, it should be given them what they should speak: for (as he adds) it is not they that speak, but the Spirit of their Father that speaketh in them, Mat. 10. 19, 20. And is it not most reasonable to think that the same Spirit taught the Writers of the Old and New Te∣stament

what they should speak, and commit to wri∣ting, and gave them Words to that purpose? Espe∣cially if you consider that this was a Book which was to last to all Generations in the Church, an•• was designed for the use of the Faithful, and for the confuting of their Adversaries to the World'•• End; and accordingly was to be produced upon all Occasions, and therefore was to be of an extra∣ordinary Composure, and every Word and Sylla∣ble was to be from God, and the Direction of his Holy Spirit. St. Peter assures us, that the Writer•• of the Old Testament* 1.27 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost: their Speaking, and consequently their Writing (because this was according to that) was by the special Motion and Influence of the In∣fallible Spirit; therefore their very Words (for those are necessarily included in speaking) were dictated and directed by the same Spirit. And the other Great Apostle tells us indefinitely and absolutely, and without any restriction, that† 1.28 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture is given by Inspiration of God: Now if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Scripture be by Divine Inspiration, it follows that the very Words of it are; for the Words and Expressions and manner of Speech are a part of the Scripture: wherefore if we grant that the Whole is by Inspiration, we must necessarily grant like∣wise that the Parts of it are, for the Parts consti∣tute the Whole. We have reason therefore to as∣sert that every Word in Scripture is endited by God, and that every Letter and Syllable of it is exact, and that there is nothing wanting, nothing superfluous, no Fault nor Blemish in the Stile and Phraseology of it. I cannot but here take notice of the fond Presumption of some of the Iewi••••

Rabbies and Masorites, who alter some Words and Expressions in Scripture, and put others into their place. They forsooth in a more modest way (as they pretend) read, instead of Vrine, (in 2 Kings 18. 27. Isa. 36. 12.) the Water of the Feet; instead of Shagal they read Shacab in all Texts; for Gna∣pholim, Deut. 28. 27. 1 Sam. 5. 6. they read Te∣chorim: so in other places where they think some Words are obscene, they substitute others in their room. These Men would be more modest than the Scripture, and more chaste than the Holy Ghost; and yet they herein contradict themselves, for some of them have said the Hebrew Tongue is called Holy, because it hath nothing obscence in it, nothing of that nature can be utter'd and express'd in it. This we are certain of, that there cannot be better and fitter Words than what the Scrip∣ture hath, for the Spirit endited them all; and therefore the Practice of the conceited Rabbies is to be exploded.* 1.29 There is not one Iota, or the least Apex in Scripture, which is put there to no purpose: And the same Father as truly saith in another place, † 1.30 It speaks nothing in vain, nothing by chance. And the reason is, because All of it (Words no less than Matter) is dictated and delivered from above by an unerring Spirit.

Yet I speak not this as if the Sacred Writers of the Bible were so tied up by the Spirit, that they cannot, or do not make use of their own natural or acquired Skill. Though the Words be dictated by the Spirit, yet the Penmen might write and speak according to the Improvements they had made in Speech. I do not by what I have said,

exclude the peculiar Eloquence or Strain of the Writers, or their using the Helps of their Educa∣tion, or their conforming to the Dialect of their Countrey: for these are consistent with That. Isaiah being a Courtier, and a Person of Quality, hath a neat and elegant Stile; and yet so as he knows how to vary it according to the Matter he treats of: But generally he is Lofty and Eloquent, his Stile being raised by his Education, which was sutable to his Noble Extraction, for he was of the Blood Royal. Ieremiah and Amos being used to the Countrey, are mean and homely in their Lan∣guage; the latter especially discovers his Conditi∣on and way of Life in his low and rural Strain. So in the New Testament, St. Luke, who had im∣proved himself by Art and Study, is very obser∣vant of the Greek Elegancy, and avoids all im∣proper and exotick Terms in his Gospel and in the Acts. Indeed the Stile of the Sacred Penmen is very different, and that Difference is an Excellen∣cy in this Book of God. But that which I say is this, the Writers leave not off their peculiar Stile, though they were moved by the Spirit. As this furnished them with new Expressions, so it let them make use of their own usual ones, but immediate∣ly directed and assisted them in the applying of them. So that at the same time when they used their Natural Stile, they were Divinely help'd to make it ••erviceable to that purpose which the Ho∣ly Ghost intended. Hence I conclude, that the Stile, and Words, and Composure of the Sacred Writings are such as ought to be reckoned Divine. For this is one difference between this Book and others, that every thing of it is Divine. And therefore those Persons who dream of Solecis•••• in Holy Scripture, are the greatest Solecisers them∣selves;

but especially those who assert there are Mistakes and literal Falsities in the Holy Book, are utterly to be condemned. Such is* 1.31 Episcopius, who dares affirm,

That the Spirit left the Wri∣ters of the Holy Scripture to their own humane Frailty in delivering such things as belonged to Circumstances of a Fact. Their Knowledg and Memory were deficient and fallible. The Spirit did not tell St. Iohn how many Furlongs Christ's Disciples went, chap. 6. 19. The same is to be asserted (he saith) as to some Names, and other Circumstances of Time and Place, which are not of the substance of the thing.

And before this you are told by† 1.32 ••••o others, that the Pen∣men of Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in some light things; not that they would fal••••ty, but that they might for∣get some Passages. Melchior Canus is of the opi∣nion, that there are some considerable Slips in Scripture from the weakness of the Evangelists and Apostles Memories. Yea, among the antient Fa∣thers there was‖ 1.33 one who more grosly held, that the Writers of the New Testament sometimes a∣bused the Testimonies of the Prophets of the Old Testament; and that they applied them to their present purpose, although they were nothing to it.

Thus St. Paul, he saith, quoteth the Old Testa∣ment in his Epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, only to serve his turn, and to confute the Jews his Adversaries. Read, saith he, these Epistles, wherein the Apostle is wholly on the Polemick part, and‖‖ 1.34 you will see how prudently

and dissemblingly he acts in those Texts which he citeth out of the Old Testament.

And at other times this bold Man is not afraid to say that some of the Matters and Things in Scripture are set down wrong. This is no less than Profane and Blasphemous Doctrine: wherefore that Father is to be read with great Caution in such places as these. We on the contrary assert, that God was not only the Author of the Matter and Contents of Holy Writ, but also of the Words and Expres∣sions; yea, even when those Writers express their Sense in their own Terms, i. e. according to the Way and Dialect which they were Masters of, and which was most familiar to them, even then they were immediately assisted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Spirit. Which was absolutely necessary, that this Book might have no Errors and Failings in it of any kind, but that it might transcend all other Writings what∣soever. If you do not hold this, you make no considerable difference between the Holy Scrip∣tures and other Writings. Therefore I am tho∣rowly convinced that this is a Truth, and ought to be maintained, viz. that the Holy Spirit endi∣ted the very Stile of Scripture, that even this was by the immediate Inspiration of Heaven.

To the Manner of its writing I may well annex its Harmony, and thence also prove it to be Di∣vine. Though there are several seeming Repug∣nancies, (of which I shall treat afterwards in a Discourse of the Stile of Scripture, and endeavour to clear them up to the Satisfaction of every sober and considerate Person) yet it cannot but be ac∣knowledged that all the Parts of this Book do en∣tirely agree, and are consistent with one another. This in other Books, which are composed and written by one Author, is not so admirable, (tho

in those Pieces we oftentimes meet with very pal∣pable Disagreements and Contradictions;) but here we are able to remember, that notwithstand∣ing these Books were written by different Persons, and those many in number, and disagreeing in Quality, and extremely distant as to Time and Place, yet their Writings contradict not one ano∣ther, but there is an excellent Harmony in all their Parts, there is a perfect Concord and Consent a∣mong them all, such as is not to be found in any other Authors in the World, though of the same Sect and Party. Excellently to this purpose a very Wise and Judicious* 1.35 Man thus speaks:

When several Men in several Ages, not brought up under the same Education, write, it is not possible to find Unity in their Tenents or Posi∣tions, because their Spirits, Judgments and Fancies are different: but where so many seve∣ral Authors, speaking and writing at several times, agree not only in Matters Dogmatical, of sublime and difficult Natures, but also in Predictions of future and contingent Events, whereof it is impossible for humane Understand∣ing to make a Discovery, without a superiour Discovery made to it, I must needs conclude one and the same Divine Spirit declared the same Truths to these several Men.

And as to the seeming Contrarieties of some Places of Scrip∣ture, this should not at all trouble us; for this is rather an Argument of the Truth and Authority of it: it is a sign the Writers did not combine together to cheat and delude us. If they had designed any such thing, we should not have met with any Dif∣ficult and seemingly Repugnant Places in these

Writings. But seeing we do so, this (among o∣ther things) may confirm us in this Belief, that the Scriptures were not contrived by Men who had a design to impose upon us; for if they had had such a Design, they would have so ordered it, that not the least appearance of Contradiction and Dif∣ference should have been found. But truly there is no necessity of proceeding thus in this Discourse; for to an unprejudiced and industrious Enquirer, there is nothing in Scripture that looks like Incon∣sistent and Contradictory. Upon a diligent Search we shall discern a mutual Correspondence in the Stile, Matter, and Design of these Writings; we shall find a happy Concurrence of Circumstances, and an admirable Consistency in the Doctrines and Discourses, in so much that we shall be forced to acknowledg, that upon this single Consideration it is reasonable to believe that these Writings were endited by the Holy Spirit. This Harmony then of the Scriptures I may justly reckon among the Inward Notes of the Truth of Scripture, because it is adjoined to the Matter of it, which is of the ve∣ry Intrinsick Nature of it. What Iustinian pro∣fesses and promises concerning his Digests in his Preface to them, that there is nothing Clashing and Contradictory in them, but that they are all of a piece, is true only of the Sacred Laws, of the Evangelical Pandects, which contain in them no∣thing Dissonant and Repugnant. The Old and New Testament, the Prophets and Apostles are consonant to themselves, and to one another; which is a great Argument of the Truth of them. There is nothing in one Place of Scripture oppo∣site to the true Meaning which the Holy Ghost hath revealed and asserted in another. The Con∣tents of the whole Book, whether you look into

the Doctrinal or Historical Part of it, have no∣thing contradictory in them: All the Authors of it agree in their Testimonies, and assert the same thing, and consent among themselves. It is the Nature of Lies and Forgeries, that they hang not together, as* 1.36 Lactantius on the like Occasion hath observed. Especially if you search very inquisi∣tively and narrowly into them, you will perceive that they are† 1.37 thin and slight, and may easily be seen through. But the Contents of these Wri∣tings have been diligently inquired into, and with great Care and Industry examined by all sorts of Persons; and yet they are found to be every ways Consistent with themselves, and the Testimony of the Writers is known to be Concurrent and Agree∣ing. All wise and curious Observers must needs grant, that there is no Book under Heaven that parallels the Scriptures as to this: Which shews that they are more than Humane Writings, yea that they were Divinely inspired and dictated. And this I take to be the Sense of St. Peter, who assures us, that‖ 1.38 no Prophecy of the Scripture is of private Interpretation. He speaks of the first Rise of those Prophecies which are in Scripture: they are from God, they are not of private Interpretation; they are not from Man's Invention, they are not of his own Brain and Fancy, but they are to be esteem'd to be (as they are) Divine and Heavenly Oracles. Thus‖ 1.39 the Word of God is Witness to it self, and stands in need of no others. The Scripture is sufficiently proved by what is in it, and

is to be believed for its own sake. Which made an antient Writer say,

* 1.40 We have compleat Demonstrations out of the Scriptures them∣selves, and accordingly we are demonstratively assured by Faith concerning the Truth of the things therein delivered.

Which cannot be said of any humane Writings in the World: for they carry no such Native Marks with them. But the very Inward Notes of the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, create in us a certain and unsha∣ken Belief. They may be known from all other Writings whatsoever, by the Excellent, Tran∣scendent, and Divine Matter contained in them, and by the peculiar Manner of delivering and pub∣lishing it. These I call Internal Proofs, because they are taken from the Books themselves, because they are something that we find there. These as∣sure us that they were written not by Man, but by God.

There is yet another Internal Testimony. I call it so, because it is within Vs, though not in the Scriptures. As I have shewed you that the Holy Spirit speaks in the Scriptures, and bears Testi∣mony to the Truth of them, so now I add, that this Spirit speaks in Vs, and works in our Hearts a Perswasion that the Scriptures are the Word of God. By this Spirit we are enabled to discern the Voice of the same Spirit, and of Christ in those Writings. This witnessing Power of the Spirit in the Souls of Believers, is asserted in Acts 5. 32. & 15. 7, 8. and in 1 Iohn 5. 6. From these Places it is clear, that there is an Illumination of the Spirit

joining with our Consciences and Perswasions; and this Spirit powerfully convinces all Believers of the Truth of the Scriptures. This Testimony follows immediately on our setting before us the Inward Excellencies of the Scripture, as I have re∣presented them: for God makes use of those Evi∣dences and Arguments to beget a Belief in us of the Divine Authority of Scripture. The Spirit enlightens and convinces Mens Minds by those Means; but more especially he urges these Eviden∣ces on the Hearts of the Religious and Faithful, and thereby brings them to a firm Perswasion of the Scriptures being the Word of God. This is no Enthusiasm, because it is discovered to us by proper Means and Instruments; whereas that is without any, and is generally accompanied with the despising of them. But the Evidences and Notes in the Scripture are the Reasons and Mo∣tives of our Belief: only the Holy Spirit comes and prepares and sanctifies our Minds, and illumi∣nates our Consciences, and causes those Argu∣ments and Motives to make Impression upon us, and effectually to prevail with us, and to silence all Objections to the contrary. Thus the Truth of Scripture is attested by the Holy Spirit witnessing in us. But when I say the Testimony of the Spirit is a Proof of the Truth of the Scripture, I must adjoin this, that this Proof serves only for those that have this Spirit: it may establish them, but it cannot convince others. No other Man can be brought to be perswaded of the Truth of those Sacred Writings, by the Spirit's convincing me of the Truth of them. Besides, this Proof is not in all that really believe the Truth of these Books: some may be convinced of the Truth of them without this; but where this is, it is most Power∣ful

and Convictive, and surpasses all other degre•• of Perswasion whatsoever. There is no such c••∣tain knowledg of the Truth of these Holy W•• tings, as by the Testimony of the Sacred Spirit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Hearts of Men, produced there in a ration •• way, and in such a manner as is most sutable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Faculties.

CHAP. II.

External Proofs of the Truth of the Holy Scripture•• Viz. the wonderful Preservation of them, and Vni∣versal Tradition. Which latter is defended against the Objections of those that talk of a New Chara∣cter wherein the Old Testament is written. Th•• Iewish Masoreth attests the Authority of these Wri∣tings. The Hebrew Text is not corrupted. The Points or Vowels were coexistent with the Letters. F. Simon's Notion of Abbreviating the Historic•••• Books of the Old Testament, rejected. The New Te∣ment vouched by the unanimous Suffrage of the Pri∣mitive Church. The Reasons why the Apocryphal Writings are not received into the Canon of the Bi∣ble: with an Answer to the Objections made by the Romanists.

SEcondly, I proceed to the External Testimonies of the Truth of the Scriptures: which being added to those Arguments which proved them to be True in Themselves, will exceedingly corrobo∣rate our Belief of the Divine Authority of those Books. And here I might mention the Testimony given to them by God in the wonderful Preserva∣tion of them through all Ages since they were first written. In all the Changes of Affairs, and the

Overthrow of so many Cities and Kingdoms, that Incomparable Treasure hath not been lost. The Books of the Old Testament were kept untouched and inviolable at the sacking and burning of Ieru∣salem, and all the time of the Captivity in Babylon, and of the Dispersion of the Jews. And ever since that time the Scriptures have been Unaltered in Words and Sense, notwithstanding the frequent Endeavours of Satan's busy Agents to corrupt them, yea utterly to destroy them. And next to God's Providence in preserving these Books thrô all Times and Ages, we might add the marvellous Success which hath attended the Holy Faith and Doctrine contained in these Writings. They have prevail'd against the Power of Men and Devils, and to this very day they are maintained and up∣held maugre the Attempts of both of them to root them out of the World.

But I wave this, intending not to insist upon Di∣vine, but Humane Testimony in this place. By External Testimony then I mean here no other than this, that Scripture is attested by Vniversal Tradi∣tion; and this Tradition is both of Jews and Chri∣stians. And what would a Man desire more in a humane way for attesting the Truth of these Wri∣tings? From the joint Attestation of these Wit∣nesses I shall make it appear, that these Books which we now have, are the true Copies of the first Originals; that the same Books and Authors are faithfully delivered down to us, which were first of all delivered to the Jews, and to the Primitive Christians; and that there is nothing in these Wri∣tings, as we now have them, that is falsified or corrupted.

First, to begin with the Books of the Old Testa∣ment, the Names of which are as follow; Genesis,

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ioshu•• Iudges, Ruth, the 1st and 2d Books of Samuel, th•• 1st and 2d Books of Kings, tho 1st and 2d Books 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Iob, the Psalm•• Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, the fo•••• Greater Prophets, and the twelve Lesser. These and none but these, were admitted into the Can•• of the Holy Scriptures by the antient Church o•• the Iews, whose Testimony is very Authentic•• here; yea, indeed we cannot have a better. They acquaint us, that these were the Only Writing•• that were universally agreed by them to be extra∣ordinarily Inspired: and they further tell us, that these Books which were writ by different Persons▪ and at diverse Times, were first compiled and collected into One Body or Volume by Ezra, and the Assembly of Doctors for that purpose; and consequently that the Canon of Sacred Scripture of the Old Testament, (as it is at this time) was not constituted till Ezra's days by the Great Syna∣gogue, as they call it. Upon his Return from the Captivity he undertook this good Work; he ga∣thered together all those dispersed Books before. named; and after he had reviewed them, he pub∣lickly owned, and solemnly vouched the Autho∣rity of every one of them, that the Church for the future might not doubt of their being Authentick and True. But some add here, by way of Obje∣ction, that this holy Man caused these Books to be written over in a New Character, because the Jews had lost their knowledg of the former one, as well as of the Tongue; and consequently the Bi∣ble is not the same that it was at first. Eusebius and Ierom are alledged for this, especially the lat∣ter, who seems to say that the Samaritan Character was the Old Hebrew Character in which the Bible

was first writ, and that it was first changed by Ezrd after the Return from Babylon, he writing ••he Sacred Volume over in Assyrian or Chaldee Letters, and neglecting the Old Hebrew ones which were the same that the Samaritan are. And the reason of this was, they say, because the Jews were best acquainted with this Character at that time. And some* 1.41 Modern Writers are gain'd over to this Opinion, who talk much of the Change of the Character, and endeavour to perswade us that the first and old Letters of the Hebrew Text were Samaritan, but that those which we now have are Assyrian, and of quite another sort. But upon an impartial Enquiry, I find little or no Founda∣tion for this Opinion: It rather seems to me to be an Invention and Dream of those who design to disparage the Hebrew Bible. They would per∣swade us that the Authority of the Original is im∣paired, because we have it not now as it was at the beginning; for the Old Bible was in Samari∣tan Letters, these being the first and antientest Hebrew Characters. This is like the Story of the Hebrew Points being invented five hundred Years after Christ, (of which afterwards) which tends to the same End, namely to discredit the Hebrew Text which we now have, and wholly to take a∣way its Authority; for if the Letters were chan∣ged, it is probable some Words, and consequent∣ly the Sense of some Places are altered. But that this is groundless, and that the Hebrew Bible is written in the same Characters now that it was at first, you will find very largely and convincingly

proved by the famous* 1.42 Buxtorf from the Auth••∣rity of the Talmud, especially the Gemara, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cabala, from the Suffrage of the most Not•• Rabbins of old, and of the Learned Modern Je•••• as Aben Ezra, R. Solomon, R. Ben Maimon, &•• who without doubt are very competent Judges 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Case. To these may be added several of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian Perswasion, as Picus Mirandula, F. Iuni••▪ Skikkard, Postellus, with those three Eminent Per∣sons of our own Countrey, Nic. Fuller, Brought•••• Lightfoot. If you consult these, they will satisfy•• you that the Hebrew Letters which we have now in the Bible, were the Primitive ones, the very same that were of old. But to give you my Thoughts impartially in this Point, I do believ•• from what I find asserted by Writers on both sides, that there were two sorts of Characters used by the Jews, as there were two sorts of Cubits and She∣kels, the Sacred and Common: and I gather, that the Samaritan Letter was of the latter sort, that which was commonly used, and even sometimes in transcribing the Bible; but the Sacred Cha∣racter in use among the Jews was this which we now have, and in which the Bible is at this day. This is the true Original Hebrew Letter, and was used from the beginning by them. This I think may reconcile the Disputes among Wri∣ters; for so far as I can perceive, the Quarrels a∣rise from this, that there is frequent mention made in Jewish and other Authors, of the Bible's being written in an old Samaritan Character; whence it was inferr'd by some, that this was the Primitive Character wherein the Bible was written, and con∣sequently that this which we now have is not the

true Genuine Character. But I answer, this doth not follow; for this Samaritan Vulgar Character was not the first and antientest, though it was sometimes in use: but the Sacred Character, now called the Hebrew Character, is really such, and is the true and most antient Letter wherein this holy Book was written. This is the Authentick Letter which God himself graved the Law in, and thence had the Name of the Sacred Character: but the other called the Common and Vulgar, was not in that esteem, it being a Deviation from that Primitive one. And yet to speak freely, there was no great difference between these two Chara∣cters, the latter being only some Variation and Degeneracy from the former, which happened by length of Time. This is the real Truth of the Matter, and it solves the Controversy, and ends all the Disputes on both sides. And the Learned French Critick, who seem'd to be of another Opi∣nion, comes over at last to this, when* 1.43 he tells us,

That there is no reason for Criticks to dis∣pute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Chara∣cters: for if we attentively consider and com∣pare together the Samaritan and Hebrew Cha∣racters, we shall find that the difference between them is not so great, but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Origine.

And he grants also, that 'tis from the Succession of so many Ages, (which is wont to produce some Alteration) that there hath been this Variation from their first Figure. But this is inconsiderable, so that both Characters may be said to be the same. We have no ground then to think that Ezra chan∣ged the Character, but that he only amended the

Defects and Slips which he found in the Hebrew for by consulting and comparing the several Co∣pies, he purged them from the Errors and Mi••∣takes which were contracted in the time of th•• Captivity. And after he had caused the Books 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be fairly written out, he put them into that Orde•• in which now they are placed; and so he may b•• said to be the Composer of the Old Testament int•• that Model we see it now in.

And from his revising the Books, and mendin•• them by comparing of Copies, was the first be∣ginning of Keri and Chetib, as most of the Learne•• Jews assert: for where the Copies disagreed, o•• where two Readings were probable, there wer•• made Variae Lectiones; the one was put into th•• Margent, and is called* 1.44 Keri; the other into th•• Text, and is called† 1.45 Chetib. I know some ascrib•• these not to Ezra, but to the Doctors of Tiberias•• but here, as before, I am willing to compromis•• the Quarrel; and therefore we may ascribe the•• to both, they being begun by Ezra, and augment∣ed by the others afterwards. This was one wa•• to keep the Bible entire and uncorrupted; and b•• the Favour of Divine Providence it has been trans∣mitted so to us. At the same time also the Canon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture was digested into Partitions and Divisions▪ as now it is; and there was then laid the Foun∣dation of the Masorah or Masoreth, which becam•• afterwards part of the Jewish Cabala; which abou•• the Year of our Lord 494, was committed to wri∣ting by some skilful Grammarians, and hath bee•• very useful for preserving the Old Testament. There are three several Species of this Cabala, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they tell us: the first is Gematria, (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉)

a Mathematical Consideration of the Text of the Bible, the mystical numbring of the Letters, and an account of the Great and Little Letters in Words. The second is Notariaca, an Exposition of Scripture from certain Notes, Characters, Lines and Points belonging to the Hebrew Text. More particularly, Noteriekon (or Notaricon, or Notari∣aca, for I find that 'tis thus differently express d in Writers) is when one Letter stands for a whole Word. This way of Cabalizing gave the Name to Iudas Maccabaeus, who writ on his Standards and Ensigns 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the Abbreviature or first Letters of those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exod. 15. 11. and by putting Vowels to the Con∣sonants, they read it Maccabi. The third is Te∣murah, Mutatio, which is made by the transposi∣tion of the same Letters, whence another Word ariseth which explains the Word that is transpo∣sed. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is explain'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Terra, which contains the same Letters. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Noah is said to have found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Grace, or Favour, Gen. 6. 8. The Letters are the same, but transposed. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Exod. 23. 23.) is by Metathesis expounded by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Dan. 12. 1.) i. e. the Messias, say the Jewish Doctors. But the first and second way of Cabalizing, which obtain the Name of Masoreth, are the most considerable to our present Purpose. These Critical Observations on the Bible, made of old, and delivered from one to another, (whence they have their* 1.46 Denomination) treat of the My∣steries of Letters, why some Words are in Great∣er, others in Lesser Characters, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a Great Vau, Levit. 11. 42. So they observe there is an open Mem at the end of a Word in Neh. 2. 13.

and a close Mem in the middle in Isa. 9. 7. The Masorites likewise have taken notice of the Like∣ness and Difference of Words, by Similitude o•• Diversity of Letters and Points: they have mad•• Remarks on irregular and extraordinary Point∣ings; they have observed the Variety of Accent•• and so criticized on all these in the several Place•• of the Old Testament, that there cannot be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Change made in the Hebrew Copies, but it mu•••• be presently seen. In this Masoreth on the Hebre•• Text, they have reckoned which Verse in th•• Psalms is the middle one, and which Letter is th•• middle Letter in that whole Book, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in th•• word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Psal. 80. 13. Yea, they hav•• counted all the Verses and Words, all the Accent•••• Letters and Vowels that are in every single Book•• (from which critical Enumeration those Transcr••∣bers of the Bible were called by the Jews Sopheri•• i. e. Numberers) and at the bottom of every V••∣lume they have set down the exact Number of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these: and at last they reckon how many there a•• in the whole Bible of the Old Testament. Fath•••• Simon indeed saith, they mistake in their Accomp•••• but that is more than he proves; and I do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 think he ever took the pains (as great a Critic•••• on the Bible as he is) to cast them up. There 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good reason to believe that the Iewish Criticks 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Old Testament are more to be credited in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Particular, than the French one. However, fro•• what hath been said it appears that the Jews we•••• very careful and studious, very exact and curio•••• in Scripture; by which means it happens that the•• is an Impossibility of making any Alteration in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without being discovered. That is the only Re••∣son of my alledging here the Masoretick Notes: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I undertake not to defend the superstitious R••••marks

and Criticisms of the Masorites; I applaud not their laborious Niceties, their childish Trans∣mutations and shuflling of Letters and Syllables, their trifling Annotations on the Figure and Make of some Hebrew Letters. But I only take notice of God's Providence in making these Critical Men to be very serviceable towards the preserving the Bible of the Old Testament in its Purity. The Observations of these Masoretick Doctors, who were Persons of great Skill in the Language, and well acquainted with all the antient Copies and Manuscripts, and who above a thousand Years ago exactly numbred all the Verses, Words, Letters, and even the minutest parts of the Hebrew Text, have been a great Security and Preservative to it; they have kept it undepraved and uncorrupt, and have made the Reading of it certain and unaltera∣ble. This is the reason why that Excellent and Noble Personage, the Learned Picus Mirandula, so highly extols the Hebrew Cabala; without doubt he saw this Usefulness and Excellency in it. Nay, before these Doctors of Tiberias drew up their Masoretick Notes, there was (it is probable) extant something of this nature. They had be∣fore this time some Accompt not only of all the Letters of the Bible, but of all the Apices of them; for to this our Saviour alludes in Mat. 5. 18. Not one Iot, or one* 1.47 Tittle: which latter is meant of those little Horns, Pricks and Dots belonging to the Hebrew Letters. Not only the smallest Letters, as Iod, but the Cuttings of those Letters were di∣ligently observ'd by the Masoretick Jews. And this their nice, and almost fond Criticism was ser∣viceable to the keeping of the Hebrew Text en∣tire

and unchanged. Thus the Masoreth, as they express it, is a Hedg or Fence to the Law. The•• critical Notes and Remarks of the old Jews hav•• preserved the Text of the Bible from being cor∣rupted and abused. So that we may from hen•• gather, that we have in our hands the same He••brew Text which was at first given by God to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 People.

But some tell us, that the Old Testament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b••rnt at the same time when the Temple was, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Ezra after the Captivity dictated and writ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 over again, according to what we find record•••• in 2 Esdras 14. 21, 23, 24. So there was some Re∣covery of the Law; but the Original Book bein•• lost, it cannot be imagined but that there are ma∣ny ••aults and Mistakes in This which we have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 present. I answer, Either this Passage in the A••∣pocryphal Writer speaks of some other Book di∣stinct from that of the Mosaick Law, or it is to b•• reckoned as fabulous and supposititious, and so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Credit•• is to be given to it: for in Nehem. 8. 2, 3. there is mention of the Book of the Law being brough•• before the Congregation, and its being read before 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Men and the Women; but not a Syllable of the Ma••∣t••r mentioned in Esdras, is hero to be found. Yes, 'tis implied that the Book of the Law was still the same; for you may observe that there is a parti∣cular Account of what the Chaldeans destroyed, and burnt, and carried away at the taking of Ie∣rus••••em, but there is not a word of these holy Books; which most certainly would have been ta∣ken notice of, they being of so inestimable a Va∣••••••. Morcover, if we should suppose the Law was burnt in the Temple, yet there were many Copies of it among the Jews, which without doubt were preserved. We have no reason therefore to

suspect that the Hebrew Original of the Old Te∣stament is corrupted.

But some of the Antient Fathers in the Christi∣an Church, as well as some Learned Moderns, have asserted that the Hebrew is corrupted. I answer, first, as to the Fathers; it is granted that Iustin Martyr declares himself to be of this Opinion. In his Dialogue with Trypho he considently assirms, that the Jews erased many things out of the Bible; and he assigns particular Instances in the Psalms, Isaiah and Ieremiah. And this they did, saith he, because they hated Christ and his Religion, and thought some of those Places favoured the Chri∣stian Cause too much. (Here by the by you may take notice of that great Mistake and Oversight in Bishop Ward's* 1.48 Essays, where he peremptorily asserts, that [never any of the Antient Fathers have in their greatest heat of Zeal against the Iews, accu∣sed them of such Corruption] i. e. of the Scriptures.) But this is not the first time that Iustin Martyr hath suffer'd himself to be impos'd upon in matter of Historical Truth. This, among others, is questionless a gross Mistake of that good Man; and his strong Averseness to the Jews, and his be∣lief of their Willingness and Readiness to deprave the Scriptures for their own Ends, betrayed him to it. As for other Fathers, as Tertullian, Irenaecus, Origen, Eusebius, who, it is true, sometimes com∣plain that the Scripture is corrupted by the Jews, they speak of their adulterating the Text rather as to the Sense than as to the Words; they mean that the Translations which the Jews used were false, for they generally adhered to Aquila's and Theodotion's Version, and preferr'd it before that

of the Seventy. Whence their Interpretations of Scripture were unsound and erroneous, and there∣by they sometimes set up Judaism against Christia∣nity. But this was done without corrupting th•• Hebrew Copies of the Bible. And that the Jew•• had been guilty of no such thing, is expresly as∣serted and maintained by Ierom and* 1.49 Augustine, two Antient Fathers, of a great Fame for Lear∣ning and Piety as those before named. These worthy Persons refute that Suspicion and Rumour which it seems were then risen, namely, that th•• Jews had adulterated the Hebrew Text. Thes•• Fathers not only declare that they did no such thing, but they praise them for their Faithfulness in preserving the Bible pure and uncorrupt. Then as to some of the Moderns, who have asserted the Hebrew Copies to be faulty and depraved, it is ea∣sy to see what it was that prompted them to it. The Hebrew Text is corrupted, and so is that of the Septuagint, say the Romanists: but the old Vulgar Latin is uncorrupt and infallible, so deter∣mines the Tridentine Council.† 1.50 Several of that Communion have written against the Purity of the Hebrew Copies, and laboured to prove them cor∣rupt: but‖ 1.51 Morinus hath shewed himself more zealous than all of them in this Point; and he frankly confesseth this was his main Design in it, viz. to baffle the Protestants, who make the Scrip∣ture the Rule of their Faith and Manners. If the Originals of the Bible be lost, and the Transcripts be defective and erroneous, how can the Bible be a certain Rule? What will become then of the Religion of the Protestants, who found it solely on

Scripture? This being uncertain, that must needs be so too. Wherefore the best and only way is to have recourse to Tradition and to the Church; these are the only Rule of what we are to believe and practise. Thus you see what the Romish Wri∣ters, who cry down the Hebrew Text, aim at. But most of the learnedst Men of that Church have not prosecuted their Aims and Designs this way. It is well known they have generally held the Hebrew Text to be uncorrupted. And the same is defended by the generality of‖ 1.52 learned Protestants who hav•• handled this Subject. Isaac Vossius is the only Man of Note that holds the contrary, i. e. that the Hebrew Bible, as it is now, is corrupted by the Jews. But against him and all others (either An∣tient or Modern) who are of this Opinion, I of∣fer these following things to be considered. If the Jews corrupted the Hebrew Text, they did it ei∣ther before or after Christ's time. That they did it not before, is evident; because first our Saviour never takes notice of any such thing, which cer∣tainly he would not have omitted at such times as he reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for their known Faults and Offences, especially relating to the Law; as when he taxed them for making the Law of God of none effect by their Traditions. Cer∣tainly he would have rebuked them for so gross a Fault, when he corrected them for some that were lesser. Nay, the Jews are not only not reproved for corrupting the Canon of Scripture, but on the contrary, their Care and Faithfulness in preser∣ving it whole and entire, are particularly taken notice of, Luke 4. 16, 17. Acts 13. 27. & 15. 21.

and commended, Rom. 3. 2. Besides, Christ ••end•• his A••ditors to the Old Testament, to read it, and ••earch it, Iohn 5. 39. Whereas, if they had cor∣rupted it, he would without doubt have caution•••• them against it. Again, he and his Apo••tles con∣••tantly proved their Doctrine, and confuted the Jews out of those very Writings; which is an Argument that in our Saviour's time those Books were not corrupted: else he and the Apostles would not have so frequently quoted them, and ••••ed the Testimony of almost every particular Book as Authentical, and of Divine Inspiration. And that the Hebrew Text was not corrupted by the Jews after our Saviour's time, is as manifest, because the Testimonies cited out of the Old Te∣stament by those that succeeded Christ and hi•• Apostles, are found to be the same in those Wri∣tings now, without the least Alteration. Like∣wise, it cannot be shewed at what time after Chri•••• the Corruption or Alteration of the Text began: though the Younger Vossius is pleased to say it was presently after the Destruction of Ierusalem, which yet he hath no where proved. Farther, if you ob∣serve those Places in the Hebrew Text, which some alledg as corrupted by the Jews, you'll find that there was no Occasion or Ground for so cor∣rupting them. If they changed the Text, it was questionless for their own Ends, and to maintain some Error of theirs; the Alteration would espe∣cially have been in those Places which speak of Christ the true Messias, but you will not discover any such thing. If any object Psal. 22. 16. They pierced my Hands and my Feet, and say that the Jews have there purposely changed Caaru into Caari; I ask, why did the Masorites restore it to its right Reading? If it had been corrupted by the Circum∣cised

Doctors on purpose, it would not have been taken notice of here by Men of the same Perswa∣sion, but they would have let it remain without any Marginal Correction. But seeing they did not, it is a sign there was no Intention to corrupt the Text. This indeed they do, they add a Keri to the Ketib, i. e. instead of Carri sicut Leo in the Text, they write in the Margin Caaru foderunt, as much as to say that Caaru is the true and genuine Reading. This the Masoretick Note here testi∣fies. Besides, it is evident that the Seventy did read it so, and accordingly translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and thus 'tis rendred in the Syriack, Arabick, Ethi∣opick and Latin. But the Place was by chance cor∣rupted, because of the likeness of the two Vowels Iod and Vau, and not out of design; for then the Masorite Jews would not have supplied it in the Margin with that other word Caaru, they pierced; which agrees with the History of Christ's Suffer∣ings. Yea, this Word is in some antient Copies in the Text it self; which is not denied by the learned Father of the Oratory, who had it from Rabbi ben Hajim the great Restorer of the Masora; who acknowledgeth that in some of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible which he had seen, Caaru they pierced, or digged, was in the Text. Or, why may we not take in both the Words into the Text, and so reconcile the Textual and Marginal Read∣ing? This we find done by the Chaldee Version, which renders the Place thus, They did bite or pierce like a Lion; as if the Original ran thus, Caaru ca∣ari, foderunt sicut Leo. This in my opinion may be a safe way of composing the Difference about this Text. However, not only from this, but what hath been said before, I think it is manifest that the Jews did not adulterate this Text. And

among all those other Texts that are said to be chang'd and adulterated, you will scarcely find one that hath reference to that great Concern o•• the Jews: whence we may conclude that the Old Testament remains altogether unaltered. I might farther add, that the Multitude of Copies was great every-where both before and after Christ's time, so that it was impossible to corrupt them all. I know some have inferr'd the Corruption of the Original Hebrew from the great difference which is to be found between that and the Version of the Seventy: but I shall afterwards (when I come to speak of the Perfection of Scripture) give a large and full Account of the Reason of this Difference; whence I shall make it plain that this Difference proceeds not at all from the Depravation of the Original Hebrew. The short then is, that the Hebrew Bible is pure and uncorrupt; and after all the Disputes about the various Readings, it is un∣deniable, that there is no difference in the Hebrew Copies as to any thing considerable and of moment; it toucheth not any necessary Point of Religion, which we are bound to know and practise. In the several Copies the same Historical Passages are re∣lated, the same Miracles recorded, the same Pro∣phecies and Predictions, the same Doctrines, Laws and Precepts set down, and that without any va∣rying. So that we are certain of the Integrity of the Hebrew Bible. Notwithstanding what hath been suggested to the contrary, we are assured that we have the true Authentick Copies of the first Original Writings; and in a word, that the Hebrew Text is the same that it was, and is still in its original Purity.

But here it is objected, That the Hebrew Copies of the Bible might easily be corrupted and altered,

because they had no Points or Vowels at first. This could not but make the Reading very uncertain and doubtful, and almost arbitrary, especially in some Places: whence it is easy to imagine how great Alterations, and consequently great Cor∣ruptions, might creep into the Text. In answer to this you must know, that those only who are against the Purity of the Hebrew Bible, (as Mori∣nus, Vossius, Simon, &c.) hold that the Points were of late Invention. And this they have pick'd up out of Elias Levita, who lived about a hundred Years ago, and was of opinion that the Vowels were invented by the Jewish and Masoretick Do∣ctors of Tiberias, (a famous School for the Hebrew Tongue.) So that it was about ••ive hundred Years after Christ when the Hebrew Points were found out, and the Rabbins and Masorites of Tiberias were the first Authors of them. This is the Judg∣ment of Elias the Levite, and he is the only Iew of this Opinion. Nor is he followed by any Chri∣stians but those who have a design to vilify the He∣brew Bible, and to prefer and magnify the LXX, or some other Translation. Of this sort are the Writers before mentioned, who largely inveigh against the Authority of the Hebrew Edition. And to promote a Disesteem of it,* 1.53 one of them tells us, that the Masorites of Tiberias, who (as he saith) were the first Inventers of the Hebrew Vowels, Points and Tittles, borrowed them from the Turks: the Bible, according to him, had these from the Alcoran. And† 1.54 another tells us, that if Moses were alive, he would not know one Apex in the Jewish Books, for they have their Letters

from the Chaldees, and their Points from the M••••soreths. Nay, he ventures to say, that if Ki••••

David were alive again, and heard his Psal•••• read or sung in the Jews Synagogues, he woul•• ask what Tongue they used: for the right Sou•••• and Pronunciation of the Hebrew is quite lo•• and no Man understands it (unless it be th•••• Writer himself.)

All this is Romance, and s•••• on foot only to disparage the Bible, and to mak•• us believe that the Old Testament is not the same that it was. To which end also the Hebrew Points or Vowels are condemned for their Novelty, and are said to be invented by the Talmudick Docto•• and Masorites. Whereas there is mention made in several* 1.55 Jewish Writers, of the Points and Vowels long before the Doctors of Tiberias, which is said to be about the Year of our Lord 500. And from what we have observ'd already concerning the Masoretick Notes on the Bible, it is easy to prove that the Hebrew Vowels were before that time: for if the Masorites criticized on the Vow∣els, (as well as the other Letters and Accents, a•• was said before) then 'tis not probable in the least that they invented them. We find that they take notice of the Irregularity of these Points in seve∣ral places: whereas if they had made them them∣selves, they would have been all regular. It is Nonsense to think that they that made the one, viz. the Critical Notes, made the other, namely the Vowels and Points. Hear likewise what the Learned Pocock saith,† 1.56 It is an Argument that the Vowels were antienter than the Masoretick Notes, in regard that they seem thereby to be governed in judging of the Consonants. And in some other place in his

Commentary, he delivers his Judgment that the Vowels were not invented by the Masorites, but were long before them, yea were of the same An∣tiquity with the Letters or Consonants. It is well known that all the Jews (but him before named) hold the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points; yea, some of them carry them back as far as Adam, and vouch they were found out by him. Other Lear∣ned Men among them assert that these Vowels were given at the time of the delivering the Law on Mount Sinai; then it was that God writ the Decalogue with Points, and gave it to the Jews by the hands of Moses. And as to the rest of the Writings, and the whole Body of the Old Testa∣ment, the common Opinion of the Jews is, that Ezra was the Author of the Vowels which are an∣nexed to them; and that he and the great Syna∣gogue, of which he was President, first invented them after the Captivity. Thus whether they commenced from Adam, or from Moses, or Ezra, they all agree in this, that they were very antient, and in a manner coeval with the Letters and Words; and consequently that they are part of the Text, and of Divine Authority. This being so old and so recent an Opinion, it hath gain'd the Suffrage of the wisest and learnedst Christians in the World. You may particularly find it main∣tained in the Writings of Munster, Pagninus, Bux∣torf, Vsher, Cappellus, Broughton, Lightfoot, Walton, all of them singularly well skill'd in Jewish Anti∣quity, and therefore fit Judges in this Cause. They have proved by undeniable Arguments, that the Hebrew Bible had Vowels or Pricks from the be∣ginning, and that it was never without them. The Opinion then which the Objectors have espou∣sed, is justly to be exploded. It is against the

unanimous Testimony of the Jewish Church, th•• the Points are but Mens Invention. It is unsa•••• and dangerous to assert, that these Vowels wer•• added since the first writing of the Old Testa∣ment: for the Certainty of the Truth of thos•• Writings, (and consequently of the Writings o•• the New Testament, wherein those are so ofte•• alledged) is shaken hereby. For no Man of Sens•• can believe that the right reading of the Text could continue some thousands of Years wit••o•••• the Points: this is an incredible Fiction. And then it is as impossible that the genuine Sense o•• Scripture (which depends on the Words, as the•••• upon the Vowels, as well as the Consonants) could have been preserved, unless the Bible had bee•• Pointed. Whence it was said in the Jewish Ta••∣mud, that* 1.57 Letters without Points are like a Bo∣dy without a Soul. Hence was that Saying,† 1.58 H•••• that reads without Points, is like a Man that rides without a Bridle. We therefore firmly maintain, and that with the approbation of Antiquity, that the Words of the Hebrew Text had Points added to them at the beginning; and that these Points which we now have, are the same with them. To this purpose we here appeal to the Testimony of the Jews, who will bear witness that the Books of the Old Testament, which we now receive, an∣swer exactly to the Pointed Text which they hav•• received, and always did. Nay, we may end the Controversy without an Appeal, for our own Eyes and Ears will satisfy us. If we compare our Eng∣lish, or Latin, or other Bibles, with the Hebrew one which is used among the Jews, and is daily put forth by the present Rabbies in the several

parts of the World, we shall find that they agree; and we shall be convinced that they own the same Books with us.

We need not stay to attend here to what a late Learned Writer (before named) hath with much Confidence, but slender Reason, suggested, viz. that the Bible of the Old Testament is an Abbre∣viated Collection from Antient Records, which were much more large. He confesseth that the Canon of Scripture is taken out of Authentick Re∣gisteries; but the Authors who collected it, added and diminished as they pleased: especially he as∣serts this concerning the Historical Books, that they are Abridgments of larger Records, and Sum∣maries of other larger Acts kept in the Jewish Archives: and these publick Scribes who writ them out, took the liberty to alter Words as they saw occasion. So that in short, according to this Critick, here are only some broken Pieces and Scraps taken out of the first Authentick Writings▪ A bold and daring Assertion, and founded on no other Bottom than F. Simon's Brain. Who would expect this from one that is a Man of great Sense and Reason, one that is a great Master of Critical Learning, and hath presented the World with ve∣ry choice Remarks on the History of the Bible? (for truly I am not of* 1.59 his Opinion, who saith he sees not any thing in this Author's Writings bu•• what is common.) It is to be lamented that a Per∣son, otherwise so Judicious and Observing, hath given himself up here to his own Fancy and Con∣ceit. He invents a new Office of publick Regi∣sters that were Divinely inspired: he makes Nota∣ries and Prophets the same. He gives no Proof

and Demonstration of that Adding and Diminish∣ing which the Scribes he talks of made: he hat•• not one tolerable Argument to evince any of th•• Books of Scripture to be Fragments of greater ones. Indeed I should mightily have wondred that so Ingenious, so Sagacious, so Learned a Man ha•• broach'd such groundless Notions, if I did no•• consider that this subtile Romanist designs here•••• (as most of that Church generally do) to deprecia•••••• the Bible, and to represent it as a Book of Frag∣ments and Shreds; that so, when our Esteem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Authority of Scripture is weakned, yea taken a∣way, we may wholly rest upon Tradition, an•• found our Religion, as well as the Scriptures, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that alone. This is that which he drives at in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Critical History both of the Old and New Testamen••▪ But all sober and considerate Persons will bewar•• of him, when they discover this Design. The•• will easily see through his plausible Stories, fo•••• Surmises, bold Conjectures, and seeming Arg••∣mentations; and they will have the greater Reve∣rence for the Bible; because he and others hav•• attacked it with so much Contempt and Rudenes•• and purposely bring its Authority into question▪ that they may set up something else above 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Notwithstanding then the Cavils and Objection of designing Men, we have reason to believe an•• avouch the Authority of the Old Testament, and to be thorowly perswaded that the Books are en∣tirely transmitted to us without any Corruption, and are the same that ever they were, without and Diminution or Addition. We have them as they were written by the first Authors; we have them entire and perfect, and not (as some fondly suggest) contracted, abbreviated, curtail'd. Un∣to the Iews, the antient People of God, were com∣mitted

his Oracles, as the Apostle speaks; and they shewed themselves conscientious and diligent Con∣servators of them. The Jewish Nation, saith St. Augustin, have been as 'twere* 1.60 the Chest-keepers for the Christians; they have faithfully preserv'd that Sacred Depositum for them, they have safely kept that Ark wherein the Law and the Prophets were Lock'd up. God would have the Jews to be Librarii Christianorum, saith† 1.61 Drusius, Keepers of those Sacred Volumes for us Christians: and it is certain they kept them with great Care, the like whereof is not to be found to have been taken in preserving any other sort of Writings under Hea∣ven. And seeing they have so carefully handed the Old Testament down to us, we are concern'd to receive it with a proportionable Thankfulness, and to reckon this their Delivering of those Wri∣tings down to us, as no mean Argument of their Truth and Certainty.

Secondly, The Authority of the New Testament is confirmed by External Testimony or Tradition, no less than that of the Old Testament. We have the Authentick Suffrage of the Primitive Church, the Unanimous Consent of the Christians of the first Ages, that this Book is of Divine Inspiration, and that it is Pure and Uncorrupted. Some of the Fathers and first Writers give us a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, and they are the very same with those which we have at this day. Athanasius particularly enumerating those Books, sets down all those which we now embrace as Canonical, and no others. And many of the Fathers of the first Ages after Christ, as Irenaeus,

Iustin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Ter∣tullian, &c. quote the Places in the New Testa∣ment as they are now. If it be objected, that in the Fathers sometimes the Text of Scripture is not exactly what we find it, and read it at this day▪ This must be remembred, that they sometimes quoted the Meaning, not the very Words. At other times their Memories fail'd them as to the Words, and thence they chang'd them into others; and instead of those in the Text, used some that were like them. So when they were in haste, and not at leisure to consult the Text, they made use of such Words and Expressions as they thought came nearest to it.* 1.62 Heinsius shews this in a vast many places. Sometimes they contract the Word▪ of the Text, and give only the brief Sense of it▪ at other times they enlarge it, and present us with a Comment upon it: yea, sometimes (as they see occasion, and as their Matter leads them to it) they invert the Words, and misplace the Parts of the Text. But no Man ought hence to infer, that the Scriptures of the New Testament then and now are not the same. And as for the Number of the Sacred Writers and their Books, it hat•• been always the same, i. e. the same Catalogue and Canon have been generally acknowledged and re∣ceived by the Christian Church. It is true, some Particular Books have been questioned, but by a few only, and for a time: but the Church was at last fully satisfied about them; the Generality o•• Christians agreed to own all those Books which are now owned by us. All the Eastern Churches held the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical, though the Latins (it is granted) were not so una∣nimous.

This Epistle, and that of St. Iames, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. Iohn, and the Epistle of St. Iude, and the Apo∣calypse, were questioned in the first Century, saith * 1.63 Eusebius; but he acquaints us withal, that they were afterwards by general Consent received into the Canon of Holy Scripture, for the Doubts were resolved upon mature Deliberation. So that the questioning of those Books is now a Con••••rmation of the Truth and Authority of them: they were once doubted of, that for the future they might be unquestionable. And to come down to latter Times; what if two or three Men of late, as Hem∣mingius, Baldwin, Eckard, think† 1.64 some of the Books of the New Testament Apocryphal? And what if Luther himself seem'd to say as much? What doth this signify in respect of the universal and concurrent Judgment of others? And as for the rest of the Books of the New Testament, they were never doubted of at all, but have the Appro∣bation of the whole Church.

And that the new Testament was first written in Greek, as we now receive it, is attested by the Universal Consent of the Antients, who made en∣quiry into these things. Only two Books are ex∣cepted by some: for though many of the‖ 1.65 Lear∣ned Moderns maintain that St. Matthew's Gospel was written originally in Greek, yet it is not to be denied that some of the* 1.66 Fathers hold it was written first in Hebrew, for the sake of the belie∣ving Jews: and if you will believe St.† 1.67 Ierom, the original Hebrew was extant in his time, and

he translated the Gospel into Latin from that Co∣py. Who turn'd it into Greek is not certain; but it was either by St. Matthew himself, or by some Apostolical Person, inspired by the Holy Ghost; so that the Greek we now have, is from the same Spirit, and of the same Authority with the other. The Fathers likewise generally say that St. Pa•••• writ the Epistle to the Hebrews in their own Tongue, and that St. Luke or St. Clement turn'd it into Greek. The contrary is held by some Moderns, particularly Cajetan among the Romanists, and by many of the Reformed-Way. But excepting (I say) these two Books, it is universally agreed that the whole New Testament was written in Greek; and one Reason might be, because so great a num∣ber of Jews lived among the Greeks, and used their Tongue; and therefore this part of the Bi∣ble was sitly writ in Greek, as the other was long before translated into that Tongue for the use of the Jews. For the sake of these dispersed Jews, (therefore called the dispersed among the Gentiles, or according to the Original, the Dispersion of the Greeks, John 7. 35.) who understood and spake the Greek Language, the New Testament was put forth in that Tongue. Moreover, this was the most generally received Language at that time, and therefore the fittest for the propagating the Gospel. This is a very good Argument: for tho I do not think the j••ws at Ierusalem spake no other than the Greek Tongue among themselves, as Isa∣ac Vossius confidently holds, and is therein rightly blamed and confuted by the late French Critick; yet I am satisfied that the Greek Tongue was univer∣sally und••rstood, and was with the Latin* 1.68 the Lan∣guage

of the Empire, and therefore was most pro∣per for the communicating the Christian Religion to the World.* 1.69 Tully acquaints us that in all the Roman Empire Greek was vulgarly understood. It is no wonder therefore that the New Testament was writ in that Tongue, and that St. Paul writes not only to the Galatians, &c. but to the Romans in Greek, for they all understood it. It was the Modish and Courtly way of Speech at Rome, as the French is now with us. Their very Women affected to learn and speak Greek, for which they are jeer'd by the Satyrist, who calls Rome the Greek City. In short, all the Eastern People spoke Greek, more or less, from the time that Alexander the Great and his Captains spread their Dominion in the East. The Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, and People of the Lesser Asia, were acquainted with that Language. The Jews of any considerable Quality understood Greek as well as their own Tongue: whence Iosephus, a Jewish Priest, (or of the Priestly Stock) writ his Books in Greek. The Evangelists and Apostles then might well write in the same Tongue, it being so common and every where understood. Especially it is no wonder on another account, that St. Paul writ in Greek; for it was his native Tongue, he being of Tarsus, which was a City of Greece. We may then very justly look upon the Greek Language as the Original Text of the New Testament.

And it is generally agreed that these Greek Co∣pies which we now have and use, are True and Authentick, though in some things they differ: and none are observed to oppose this but those who do it upon some Interest and Design, i. e. to

maintain some peculiar Opinion which they have taken up. The Variety of Readings should not pre∣judice us: much less ought we to alter the Read∣ings of the Copies, and to substitute new ones at our pleasure. Which is the Fault of Theodore Beza▪ though on other accounts an Excellent Person, and one that hath highly deserved of the Church of God: yet he is unsufferably bold in coining new Readings of the Text. When he cannot find the Sense of a Place, he presently questions the Truth of the Copy, and produceth a new Reading; which hath brought a great Scandal upon his An∣notations on the New Testament, which other∣wise are fraught with admirable Learning, and discover his profound Skill in Divine Criticism. It is certain that the Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he pretends to, are a Cheat: for questionless they would have been taken notice of in the first Ages of Christianity, if there had been any such thing. Therefore it is downright Imposture, and Beza was grosly deluded by it. Let us from his Miscarriage, learn to be cautious, and not to ven∣ture so boldly upon altering the Greek Copies. This is a very rash and unaccountable Underta∣king, especially in a single Person, and much more when it is very usual and frequent.

To speak next both of the Old and New Testament together. The Authority of them is established by considering this, that though Bellarmine and others of the Roman Communion (who are followed by Lewis Cappel, and some others that go under the Name of Protestants) cry out that the Bible is alte∣red and corrupted by the Negligence of the Tran∣scribers, and that the Text is uncertain by reason of the different Readings and Variety of Transla∣tions,

(which is done out of design, viz. to debase the Authority of the holy Writings, and to make Men fly to Traditions, and rest wholly in the Au∣thority of the Church, and (I wish I might not add) thereby to undermine some of the Foundati∣ons of Religion;) yet this is certain, that the va∣rious Readings of the Old and New Testament are not so many as are pretended; and all the various Copies in Hebrew and Greek, which are found in all Nations at this Day, do agree in all material Points; and the Scriptures being translated from those Copies into many Languages, concur in the same substantial things. Again, as to those vari∣ous Readings which are produced, we may justly alledg the Words of an* 1.70 Excellent Man; They are not Arguments, saith he, of the Scriptures Corrupti∣on, but of God's Providence, and of Human Industry to preserve Scripture from Corruption. We may ga∣ther from this Diversity of Readings, that Men have been very inquisitive and careful in their com∣paring of Copies; but we cannot thence argue, that the Text is adulterated; yea rather we may infer that it is not: for from this comparing and vying of Copies, we come to know and be ascer∣tain'd which is the True and Authentick one. And we may farther add, with the same excellent Author,

That it is morally impossible, since our Saviour's time, and indeed for many hun∣dred Years before that, that the Scriptures (particularly of the Old Testament) should have been corrupted: for the Multitude of Copies was then such, hath been since much more such, and so far dispersed, that neither one Man, nor one Body of Men could ever get them into their

hands to corrupt them; and if some few or m••••••ny Copies had been corrupted, but not all, th•••• sincere Number would have detected the cor∣rupt.

Again, let it be consider'd that the an∣tient Orthodox Writers of the Church do all ci•••• these Scriptures as we now have them, in every∣thing material: Yea, that most Hereticks have pleaded these same Scriptures, and denied them not to be genuine. To establish us yet further, we must remember that these Writings have been openly read to the People in all their solemn As∣semblies in the several Ages since Christianity be∣gan; and they being thus constantly used, could not possibly be altered and corrupted: Besides that, all private Christians were exhorted to read and use them in their Families; whereby they be∣came so known and familiar, that whenever any Alteration was made, they could presently ob∣serve it. Lastly, notwithstanding the Author of a * 1.71 late Tractate hath brought divers Objections a∣gainst the usual Tradition, that such and such Books of the Bible were wrote by the Authors whose Names they bear; and though Mr. Hobbs before him had done the same, yet neither of them have effected it with any Success. This is all they have done; they have only shewed that they are not so civil to the holy Writings as they are to the pro∣fane ones: for it is every whit as clear that the Books of the Holy Scripture were written by the Persons under whose Names they go, as that any other Writings were put out by those whose Names they bear. Nor can these Men vouchsafe to shew that Civility to these Sacred Books, which even Iews and Gentiles have done: for when both

••hese opposed these Books, you will not find that they ever questioned the Authors, but the Doctrine only. We are therefore to look upon these Men, and such as take part with them, as acting with higher Prejudice than either Jews or Heathens did; and accordingly we are to slight what they say, unless it be thus far, that from their impotent and malicious Cavils we may be further confirmed in this Perswasion, that these Books of the Old and New Testament were indeed written by those Authors, under whose Names they are now recei∣ved; that these Scriptures which we now have, are the same which the Primitive Church received from the Apostles; that the Copies we have of the Bible, are not corrupted; that God hath preser∣ved the Scriptures both of the Old and New Te∣stament, from all considerable Change and Depra∣vation, (his Providence not suffering any such thing;) that the Canon of Scripture which is now received, is the very same that it was at first; and (which is the Sum of all) that the Truth and Au∣thority of it are impregnable.

It may be expected I should speak of the Apo∣••ryphal Books, which I have not reckoned among the Inspired Writings. For doing this I have good reason; for I find them excluded from the Canon of Scripture by those that are the best Judges of it, I mean the Iews, who were the great Keepers of the Scripture. They never took these into the number of the Books of Holy Writ, and that for these two Reasons: First, because they were not writ by the Prophets. The Jews believed that the Spirit of Prophecy ceased among them as soon as Malachi had done prophesying. They owned no Divine Inspiration after his time, and accordingly received not the Apocryphal Books into the Canon

of Scripture, i. e. Books Divinely inspired. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was written after Malachi's time, who was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 last Prophet, was not Canonical, was not of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Authority, and therefore is not emphatical called Scripture. For, as St. Paul informs us, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ That is the Mark and Criterion of Scripture. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is back'd by St. Peter, 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy Men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those Writings which were not by Inspiration 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God, nor from the immediate Motion of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ghost, are not to be reckoned as Holy Scriptu•••• and such are the Apocryphal Writings; they wer•••• written after the cessation of Prophecy and Divi•••• Inspiration, and so they are not of Divine Auth••••rity, and cannot be esteemed Canonical Scripture••••▪ Secondly, the Jews received not the Apocrypha 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to their Canon, because it was written in Greek not in Hebrew, as all the Canonical Books are For God would not, they say, give them Scriptur•• in an Unknown Tongue: The Oracles of Go•• were to be committed to his People in the Authen∣tick Language, which is that of the Jews. The Apocryphal Writings being not such, are rejected by them, and not taken into the Canon of Sacre•• Writ.

And as they were not received by the Jewi•• Church, so not by the Christian one. You cannot but observe that Christ and the Apostles, who fre∣quently quote the Canonical Books, never quo•••• any of the Apocryphal ones: which gives us to understand that they were not reputed as Inspired Writings: otherwise it is most reasonable to think that our Saviour, or his Apostles and Evangelists, would at one time or other have cited some one Passage at least out of these Books; it being their

great Work (as you may see) to prove the Truth of what they delivered from the holy Scriptures, which were inspired by God in former Times. They embraced all Occasions of establishing Chri∣stianity upon the Writings of the Inspired Pro∣phets who went before: therefore if the Apocry∣phal Writers had been of that number, they would certainly have been quoted by them; and because they are not, it is an Argument that they are not Inspired Writers. Again, the Christian Church, which immediately succeeded that which was in the Days of Christ and the Apostles, received not these Writings as Divinely inspired, and therefore excluded them from the Canon of Scripture. Look into the Writings of the antient Fathers of the Church, (who without doubt made it their business to search into the Canon of Scripture, and to be satisfied which were the Divinely inspired Books) and there you will see that those of the Eastern Church received only the Jews Canon of Scripture as to the Old Testament. Thus* 1.72 Origen recites the Canonical Books of it as they are now reckon∣ed, viz. two and twenty, after the number of the Hebrew letters. And† 1.73 Cyril of Ierusalem hath these express Words:

Read these two and twenty Books, but have nothing to do with the Apocryphal ones. Study and meditate only on these Scriptures, which we con••idently read in the Church. The Apostles and first Bishops were true Guides, and were more wise and religious than thou art; and these were the Men that de∣livered these Scriptures to us. Thou then be∣ing a Son of the Church, do not go beyond her Bounds and Orders, but acknowledg and study

only the two and twenty Books of the Old ••••••stament.

And other Fathers of the Chur•••• as Melito Bishop of Sardis, Athanasius, Amphilo••••us, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, G••••gory the Great, Basil, Chrysostom, testify that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Books, and no others, of the Old Testam•••••• which we receive now, were the Canonical Boo•••• of old, and received so by the first Christi••••▪ Those eminent Lights of the Latin Church, R••t Ierom, Hilary, disown as Uncanonical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Books of Apocrypha. The two latter especially 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very positive:* 1.74 Ierom expresly tells us, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canonical Books of the Old Testament are but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and twenty, just the number of the Hebrew Al••phabet, and no more; and he enumerates the par∣ticular Books which constitute the whole. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith indeed, that some make them four and tw••••∣ty, but 'tis the same Account, for they reck•••• Ruth and Lamentations separately. But as for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 others, he saith they are not part of Inspired Scripture, and the Church doth not receive the•• among the Canonical Writings. So† 1.75 Hilary giv•• us the just Catalogue of the Books of the Old T••∣stament, and peremptorily affirms that there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but two and twenty Canonical Books of it in all▪ which are the same with the thirty nine according to the reckoning in our Bibles. To Fathers w•• might add Synods and Councils, as that antie•••• one of Laodicea, conven'd A. D. 364. which drew up a Catalogue of the Books of Scripture, and makes mention only of these which we now r••∣ceive, but leaves out the Apocryphal ones. This Canon was received afterwards, and confirmed by

the Council of Chalcedon, one of the first four Ge∣neral Councils. And the sixth General Council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 680. expresly ratified the Decrees of that old Laodicean Council, and particularly this, that the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were but two and twenty. There is another Reason also, besides the Universal Suf∣frage of the Christian Church, why the Apocry∣phal Books are ejected out of the Canon, viz. be∣cause some things in them are false, and contrary to the Canonical Scriptures, as in Ecclesiasticus 46. 20. 2 Esdras 6. 40. and some things are vitious, as in 2 Maccab. 14. 42.

After all this it is easy to answer what the Ro∣manists say on the other side. They quote the third Council of Carthage, which they tell us re∣ceived the Apocryphal Books into the Canon. And among the Fathers, St. Augustin, they say, owns them: besides that two Popes, viz. Innocent the First and Gelasius, took those Books, which we stile Apocryphal, into the Canon. As for the Council which they alledg, it was but a Provincial one, and therefore is not to be set against those more Authentick and General Councils which I produ∣ced. Nor must that one single Father whom they name, stand out against that great number of Greek and Latin Fathers whom I mentioned. The Popes bear a great Name among our Adversaries, but they are but two, and must not be compared with those Councils, and that multitude of Fathers who are on our side. Or, if they lay such great stress on a Pope, I can name them one, and he one of the most eminent they ever had, viz. Pope Gre∣gory the Great, who* 1.76 declares that the Book of

Maccabees (a main Piece of the Apocryphal Wr••••tings) is no part of the Canon of Scripture. W•• may set this One Pope (for he is Great enough) against the other Two. Besides, their own 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are against them: the Apocryphal Books are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 received as part of holy Inspired Scripture by I••••∣dorus, Damascen, Nicephorus, Rabanus Maurus, H••∣go, Lyranus, Cajetan, and others, who are of gre•••• Repute in the Church of Rome. We regard 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what the pack'd Council of Trent hath decreed viz.* 1.77 That besides the two and twenty Books 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Hebrew Canon, those also of Tobias, Iudit•• the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabe••••••▪ Baruch, are to be received as Canonical; and th•• they are of equal Authority with the Canon o•• the Old and New Testament. What is this to the general Suffrage of the Primitive Councils▪ Fathers and Writers, who have rejected the Apo∣cryphal Books, and received but twenty two into the Canon of Scripture belonging to the Old Te∣stament? You see what Ground we have, no other than the Vniversal Church. We reject some Books as Apocryphal, because they were generally rejected by the antient Primitive Church: and we receive the rest as Canonical, because they were believed and owned to be so by the universal Consent of the Church. See this admirably made good in Bisho•• Cousins's History of the Canon of Scripture. Yet a••∣ter all that hath been said, we count the Apocryph•• Writings worthy to be read and perused. The there be some things amiss in them, yet we give great Deference and Respect to them, as contain∣ing many Historical Truths, and furnishing us wit•• Matter of Jewish Antiquity; as likewise because

there are many Doctrinal and Moral Truths in them, especially in the Books of Wisdom and Ec∣••lesiasticus. For this Reason, I say, we bear great Respect to them, and rank them next to the Holy Canon, and prefer them before all Profane Au∣thors. This was done by the antient Fathers, who frequently alledg'd them in their Sermons and Discourses: which is one Reason (I question not) why these Apocryphal Books came to be made Canonical by some of the Church of Rome; name∣ly, because they were so often quoted by the Fa∣thers, and in some Churches read publickly. But this is no Proof of their being Canonical, but only lets us know that these Books were in their Kind useful and profitable, as indeed they are. There∣fore St.* 1.78 Ierom saith, the Church receives not these Books into the Canon of Scripture, though she allows them to be read. And concerning these Writings our Church saith well, (quoting St. Ierom for it) † 1.79 She doth read them for Example of Life, and In∣struction of Manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine. Which gives us an exact account of the Nature of these Books; namely, that they contain excellent Rules of Life, and are very serviceable to inform us of our Duty as to se∣veral weighty things: but they being not dictated by the Holy Ghost, as the other Books of Scrip∣ture are, they are not the infallible Standard of Divine Doctrine, and therefore are not to be ap∣plied and made use of to that purpose. This and the other Reasons before mentioned, may prevail with us to think that these Writings ought not to be numbred among the Books of Canonical Scrip∣ture.

And thus we have argued from the Tradition, and the Testimony of the Church. And if this be done as it ought to be done, it is valid: for the Truth of the Copies, the Canonicalness of the Books, and the like, are not decidable by Scrip∣ture it self, but in the Way that all other Contro∣versies of that nature are. As you would prove any other Book to be Authentick, so you must prove the Bible to be, viz. by sufficient and able Testimony. There is the same reason to believe the Sacred History, that there is to believe any other Historical Writings that are extant. Nay, the Testimonies on behalf of the Holy Scripture••, are more pregnant than any that are brought for other Writings. Besides all that can be said for the Sacred Volume of the Bible, which is wont to be said for other Writings, I have shewed you that there are some things peculiar to this above a•••• others. The main thing we have insisted upon is this, that the Books of the Old and New Testa∣ment have been faithfully conveyed to us; and that they are vouched by the constant and univer∣sal Tradition both of the Jewish and Christian Church; and that these Books, and no others, are of the Canon of Scripture: for to be of the Canon of Scripture, is no other than to be owned by the Universal Church for Divinely Inspired Writings▪ The Church witnesseth and confirmeth the Autho∣rity of the Canonical Scriptures; for she received them as Divine, and she delivers them to us as such Yet I do not say that the Church's Testifying these Books to be the Holy Scriptures, gives an Absolute and Entire Authority to them. A Clerk in the Parliament, or any other Court, writes down and testi••ies that such an Act, or Decree, or Order, was pass'd by the King, Magistrate or People;

and he witnesses that he hath faithfully kept these by him, and that they are the very same that at such a time were made by the foresaid Authority: but the Authority of this Act, Decree or Order, rests not in the Clerk, but wholly in the King, Ma∣gistrate or People. So the Church recordeth and keepeth the Sacred Writings of the Bible, and bears witness that they have been faithfully preser∣ved, and that they are the Genuine Writings of those Persons whose Names are presixed to them: b••t the Divine Authority of the Scriptures de∣pends not on the Church, but on the Books and Authors themselves, namely their being Inspired. And indeed this Authority of the Scriptures can∣not depend on the Church, because the Church it∣self depends on the Scriptures. These must be proved before the Church can pretend to be any such thing as a Church. We cannot know the Church but by the Scriptures; therefore the Scri∣ptures must be known before the Church. It fol∣lows then that the Papists are very unreasonable and absurd in making the Ultimate Resolution of Faith to be into the Testimony and Authority of the Church. This we disown as a great Falsity; but yet it is rational to hold that the Church's Te∣stimony is one good Argument and Proof of the Truth of the Sacred Scripture: according to that known Saying of St. Augustine, I should not believe the Gospel, if the Authority of the Church did not move me. Not that he founds the Gospel, i. e. the Do∣ctrine of Christianity, and the Truth of it, on the Testimony of the Church; as the Papists are wont to infer from these Words, and frequently quote them to this purpose. No: the Father's meaning is this, that by the Testimony and Consent of the Church he believed the Book of the Gospel to be

verily that Book which was written by the Evan∣gelists. This is the Sense of the Place, as is plain from the Scope of it; for he speaks there of the Copies or Writings, not the Doctrine contained in them. The good Father relies on this, that so great a number of knowing and honest Persons as the Church was made up of, did assert the Evan∣gelical Writings to be the Writings of such as were really inspired by the Holy Ghost; and that they were true and genuine, and not cor∣rupted. And the whole Body of Sacred Scripture is attested by the same universal Suffrage of the Church, i. e. the unanimous Consent of the Apo∣stles, and of the First Christians, and of those that immediately succeeded them; several of which laid down their Lives to vindicate the Truth of these Writings. This is the External Testimony given to the Holy Scriptures. It is the general Perswasion and Attestation of the Antient Church, that these are the Scriptures of Truth; that they were penn'd by holy Prophets and Apostles, im∣mediately directed by the Spirit, who therefore could not err. It was usual heretofore among the Pagan Lawgivers to attribute their Laws to some Deity, tho they were of their own Invention; in∣tending thereby to conciliate Reverence to them, and to commend them to the People. But here is no such Cheat put upon us: God himself is really the Author of the Holy Scriptures; these Sacred Laws come immediately from Him, they are of Divine Inspiration. There is no doubt to be made of the Divinity of the Scriptures, and consequently there is assurance of the Infallibility of them.

CHAP. III.

The Authority of the Bible manifested from the Testi∣monies of Enemies and Strangers, especially of Pagans. These confirm what the Old Testament saith concerning the Creation, the Production of Adam and Eve, their Fall, with the several Cir∣cumstances of it; Enoch's Translation, the Lon∣gevity of the Patriarchs, the Giants in those Times, the Universal Flood, the building of the Tower of Babel.

I Have propounded some of the chief Arguments which may induce us to believe the Truth and Certainty of the holy Writings of the Old and New Testament. I will now choose out another, for the sake chiefly of the Learned and Curious, which I purpose to inlarge upon; yea, to make the Subject of my whole ensuing Discourse. I consi∣der then that we have in this Matter not only the Testimony of Friends, but of Enemies and Stran∣gers: and it is a Maxim in the Civil Law, and vouched by all Men of Reason, that the Testimo∣ny of an Enemy is most considerable. The Iewish and Christian Church, as I have shewed already, give their Testimony to the Scriptures: but be∣sides these Witnesses there are Others, there is the Attestation of Foreigners and Adversaries. These fully testify the Truth of what is delivered in the Holy Bible: we have the Approbation of Heathen Writers to con••irm many of the things related in the Old Testament; and both Professed Heathens and Iews (for we must now look upon these latter as profess'd Enemies, when we are to speak of the

Christian Concern) attest sundry things of the New Testament, and vouch the Truth and Autho∣rity of them. Here then I will distinctly proceed, and first begin with the Old Testament, and let you see in several Particulars, that even the Pagan World gives Testimony to this Sacred Volume; that the Gentiles relate the very same things that this doth; that the Great Truths, and Notable Hi∣stories, Notions and Practices in the Books of the Old Testament, are to be met with in Profane Writings, but taken from these Sacred ones. The Heathens borrowed many of their Rites and Vsages from Traditions which were founded in the Holy Scriptures. They derived many things in their Religion and Manners from these Sacred Foun∣tains, though it is as true that they have laboured to pollute them. But I will make it clear and ma∣nifest that they fetch'd them thence; and I will abundantly prove that most of the chief things in the Old Testament have been attested both by the Fables, and the Serious History of the Pagans. There have been some High-fliers, I know, who have carried on this Notion to a ridiculous Extravagan∣cy. Thus* 1.80 Zimmeranus speaks of an odd† 1.81 Capu∣chin, who hath vented very wild things in prose∣cuting this Argument, viz. that the Gentile My∣steries were taken from the True God, and from the Scriptures inspired by him. And one Iacob•• Hugo (in his Historia Romana) is quoted by the same Person as very extravagant in this kind: for he holds that the Roman Story was a Narrative of the History of the Gospel. Pious Aeneas was St. Pe∣ter; and his sailing from Troy to Latium, was the Story of St. Peter's leaving the Chair at Antioch,

and going to Rome. Homer and Virgil's Heroick Poems are an account of St. Peter and the Church, and of the Shipwrack and Misfortunes which this latter meets with in the World. Ilium or Aelia is Ierusalem; that was the Name which Aelius A∣drianus gave it. The Acts of the Apostles, the Jewish War, and the Destruction of Ierusalem, are contain'd in Homer's Iliads; and so are the Life and Death of Christ, and the whole Gospel. He tells us that Romulus and Remus signify the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, the Founders of the Roman Church. And more extravagantly yet he goes on, telling us that Diana signi••ies the Holy Trini∣ty; Curtius on Horse-back swallowed up in the Lake, is the Virgin Mary, whose Temple is seen there in the Market-place at Rome with this Inscri∣ption, D. Virginis Templum à poenis inferni liberan∣tis. And a great deal more of such Stuff this Hugo hath, which no Man of Consideration and Sense is able to bear. Indeed such wild and far-fetch'd Conceits may be justly entertain'd with Laughter and Contempt. Nor do I look upon some things which some others (of more composed Thoughts) mention as any real Testimonies given to the Scriptures. They strangely fancy an Affinity be∣tween Scripture and Paganism, between what they read in the one, and what they meet with in the other, though there be no Cognation at all. Thus the Greek Fable of Minerva's being the Offspring of Iove's Brain, took its Rise from the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Eternal and Ineffable Ge∣neration of the Son of God, saith a* 1.82 Learned Man: and Isis the Egyptian Goddess, is (saith he) Ishah, Mulier, or Virgo, i. e. the Virgin Mary,

from a Tradition among them, that a Virgin shoul•• bring forth a Son who was to be the Redeemer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the World. And I could mention others who•••• Names are better known, who have been too e••∣travagant in this kind, carrying the Notion on to•• far, and strongly fancying every thing almo•••• which they meet with in Pagan Story, to hav•• some reference to, and be taken from the hol•• Scriptures. But I shall very industriously avo•••• this Vanity and Folly, and only represent to the curious and critical Reader those Passages in Pag•••• Writers, which with great Probability and Reaso•• we may conclude to have been taken from the Books of the Old Testament. I shall endeavo•••• to let you see the Sacred History of the Bible, eve•• through the Fables and feigned Stories of the Hea∣thens, and thereby confirm you in the belief of the Truth and Reality of that Sacred History whence they were taken.

1. To begin first where all things began, the Creation: this, as it is particularly described i•• the first Chapter of Genesis, is plainly to be found in Pagan Authors, who without doubt had it fro•• this first Entrance of the Scripture. For thoug•• a Man by the Light of Nature may know that the World had a Beginning, yet this particular way of its beginning, as 'tis there set down, could not be attained to but by Divine Revelation: where∣fore it is rationally to be asserted that the Paga•••• took this Notion from God's Revealed Will in Scripture; and at the same time they do hereby attest the Truth of that holy Book. The gen••r•••• Opinion of the antient Gentiles was, that the World was made out of a preceding Chaos, which they represent to be a rude, disordered, and indi∣gested

Mass of Matter, reduced to no Shape and Form. Sanconiathon, the Phoenician Historian, so much prais'd by Porphyrius, the Philosopher in * 1.83 Eusebius, makes mention of this Chaos, as the Source of all things, in his Fragments of Phoenician Theology. The antient Poet Orpheus held that this Chaos was the first Principle of all things. And † 1.84 Hesiod agrees with him, affirming that the Chaos was that out of which all Bodies were made.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

It is described by‖ 1.85 Ovid after this manner;

Ante mare & terras, & quod tegit omnia Coelum, Vnus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe, Quem dixere Chaos, &c.

Where in forty or ••ifty pair of good smooth Ver∣ses, he most excellently describes the Origine of all things, and makes the very Chaos beautiful. This is the same with Hyle, the first original Mat∣ter of all things, the Poets Demogorgon, which was borrowed from the shapeless Lump of the Chaos. And in the Phoenician Language we may find it in the very sound of the words Thoth and Bau, which are but a small Variation from Tohu and Bohu in the Hebrew Text, the same with Chaos among the Greeks and Latins. This is founded on those Words of Moses, Gen. 1. 2. The Earth was without form, and void; and Darkness was on the face of the Deep. This dark and formless Heap of Water and

Earth mingled together, contain'd in it the fi•• Elements of all things that were made afterward•• hence sprang the World as it is now shaped 〈◊〉〈◊〉 modelled. From this Account which Moses giv•• here of the Creation, the old Pagan Theologer i. e. the Pocts, made the Ocean to be the Origi•• of all Generation; which is no other than th•• (if you give the plain meaning of it) that th•• moist and fluid Matter gave beginning to all Bod•• that are. Orpheus own'd this Hypothesis, calli•••• the Ocean the Parent of all things, in one of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hymns: and out of some other Pieces of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Works, the same might be proved. Homer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the like, asserting the Ocean to be the Antiente of the Gods:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And again,—

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iliad.

On which Words the Scholiast gives this Reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Water was held to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first Element, and from that the other three sprang. Which Opinion is taken from the Scripture account of the first Principles of the World, viz. from Moses's making the dark Deep or Water to be the Production of the first Day, and consequently to be the Source of all things that were framed after∣wards. Hence it was that some of the Stoicks held the Chaos to be no other than Water, as Philo in∣forms us.* 1.86 They think (saith he) that Water and the Chaos being the same, this latter hath its

Deno∣mination from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signisres flowing •• pouring out. Hence* 1.87 Sene••a declares it to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Opinion of this Sect of Philosophers, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the first Principle of all things. The choliast upon Pindar, thinks that his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alludes to this antient Opinion; but I can't ••y any thing in defence of that.† 1.88 We are certain ••at the former Quotations are very plain and to ••he purpose: and now I will bring another as con∣derable as any, viz. of Thales, the Founder of ••he Ionick Philosophy, and one of the first that ••ade Disquisitions on Nature: he expresly main∣••ain'd that all things were produc'd of Water, as Diogenes Laertius, Tully, and others relate of ••im. Especially the Words of this latter con∣erning him are remarkable,‖ 1.89 Thales assirm'd saith he) that Water was the beginning of Things, ••nd that God was that Mind which made all things of Water. Which seems more particularly and sig∣••ally to refer to what Moses saith, speaking of the ••rst Original of the Universe, that the Spirit of God ••oved on the Face of the Waters, Gen. 1. 2. giving ••s to understand that Water and Slime were the Material Cause and First Principle of all things, ••nd that God was that Spirit or Mind who made ••he World out of those first Waters. And the Barbarick as well as Greek Philosophers held this, ••itness the Brachmans among the Indians; as Stra∣•• •• quoted by Philo saith. And the* 1.90 Egyptians ••hought so too, and therefore worshipp'd this E∣••ment, as that Learned Jew observeth. Helmont

(as well as Thales and other Philosophets of •• patronizes this Opinion, maintaining that all •• dies are from one Element; they are materi•• simple Water disguised into various Forms by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plastick Virtue of their Seeds. And an* 1.91 Ho•• rable Person of late hath amas'd several things •• gether for the maintaining this Hypothesis, and let the World see what may be said for it, tho•• he is not peremptory himself. This without do•• the Antients borrowed from the Mosaical His•• of the World, which acquaints us that at the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Creation† 1.92 all things were contain'd in Water and lay brooding there two days together; •• accordingly it makes Water to be the primiti•• Matter or Vehicle of the Universe.

To the Chaos and Water the Antients added an•• ther concurrent Principle, namely Night. Th•• the World had its Beginning from Night and •• os, was an universal Tradition of the Pagans, no only Poets, as‖ 1.93 Orpheus, Linus, Hesiod, Homer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 others, who frequently talk of Chaos and Nig•• or Erebus, and tell us that all things were begott•• by them; but Philosophers also, (if we must disti•• guish between these and the Poets, who were Phi∣losophers too) as Epicharmus, Thales, Plato, and •• the Greek Theologizers, who speak of those T•• as the Original of all things in the World.‖‖ 1.94 A•• stotle relates, that the Persons skill'd in antie•• Theology, believed all things were made of Nig•• Which questionless is of Mosaick Extraction, and sprang first from those words in Gen. 1. 2. Darkness was on the Face of the Deep. The Deep is their Chaos, and the Darkness is their Night or Erebus; for the

••nown and usual Signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Caligo, Darkness. Or perhaps this may be borrowed from [Ereb] Vespera, the Evening, mentioned in Gen. 1. ••. as the first Beginning of Time from the Crea∣tion: whence the old Notion of* 1.95 Aether and Day being begot by the Night. And hence the Pagans, who had seen something of these Writings, came to have this Sentiment, that Night and Darkness were the first Principles of the World. This is the same with what Moses here delivers, only 'tis express'd in different Terms.

And so as to what is said in the Mosaick History concerning† 1.96 God's orderly dividing, separating, and digesting of this confused Chaos and dark Mass, the Old Philosophers have agreed to this likewise. Anaxagoras is reckon'd commonly in the number of the antient Atheists, but he little deserved that Name; for (as Plutarch saith of him)‖ 1.97 he was the first that denied Fortune or Fate to be the Cause or Principle of the fair Order and Harmony of the Universe, and first set up a Pure and Immixt Spi∣rit or Mind, who separated the homogeneous Parts from the whole Mass and confused Mixture of things. And Diogenes Laertius gives these as his very Words,* 1.98 All things were in a heap and jum∣ble at first: afterwards came the Eternal Mind, and disposed and ordered them in an excellent Manner. This Aristotle meant, when he said, that† 1.99 in in∣finite Matter a Mind or Intelligence produced Motion, and separated the Parts: which Mind is called by

Simplicius on the Place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mind which made the World. So* 1.100 Tully 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that those Particles of infinite Matter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were alike in themselves, and were very small •• subtile, and at first very confused, were a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wards brought into Order by the Divine 〈◊〉〈◊〉 This was the Work of God in the Creation. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I ask, whence had they this Notion concer•••••••• the Origine of the World? It is not a Princip•••• in Philosophy; therefore they had it somewh•••• else, which is the thing I am proving. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Speculations and Theories concerning the Rise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the World, were not their own, but were Tra••••••tional Principles, i. e. they received them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Antients, and these had them conveyed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them from the Bible. Thei•• Philosophizing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Matter was from that Divine Penman Mos•••• the Sum of which was this, that God first of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 produced a Chaos, i. e. the rude Beginnings 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Earth, swallowed up and even overwhelmed wi•••• the Watry Abyss; out of which dark, confused an•• indigested Materials he made all things both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heaven and Earth as out of the first Matter, whic•• by a Divine Skill and Power he separated and divi∣ded, till it arose to this excellent and comple•••• Frame wherein it appears at this day. Thus the antient Philosophy of the Gentiles was borrowed from Moses's Description of the Creation; thus the Writings of the first Heathen Philosophers bear witness to the first and antientest Penmen of the Old Testament. And if you ask, how the Pagans came by this Information from the Holy

Writings? be pleased to stay but till we come to∣wards the Close of this Discourse, and then I hope 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shall give you a good and satisfactory Account of this Question, and let you see by what means the Pagan Writers arrived to a Knowledg (though ••ndeed dark and obscure) not only of these Parti∣culars already named, but of a great number more which I shall now proceed to add.

II. The Production of Adam and Eve is attested by the same Persons. That the First Man was made of the Earth, or the Clay of the Ground, is delivered by the most Authentick Authors among them. I will not insist upon the constant Opinion and Perswasion of the Athenians, who held they were sprung from the Ground they lived on, and were not descended from other Nations: Which perhaps arose, first, from the Tradition concern∣ing the making the first Man out of the Earth. Plato, and several good antient* 1.101 Authors, testify that this People of Greece held themselves to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. born of the Earth: and in memory of this they wore Golden Grashoppers, and were called from those Animals Tettigophori, because this sort of Creatures is thought and believed to have its Rise from the Earth. And there were said to be not only in Attica, but in Thessaly and Arcadia, some of these Autochthones, People that were begot out of the Soil. Yea, the old Britains, our Ancestors, were said to be such, as Diodorus the Sicilian and Caesar tell us, nay seem to believe. They were Aborigines, i. e. they had their Origi∣nal from the very Ground they lived on. Which

Notion, as I conceive, was either from the Gia•••• called Sons of the Earth, or from Adam and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who we are certain were formed out of the Ear•••• These were the true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the antient A••••rigines, born from their own Soil; the Earth w•• their Parent. This Terrestrial Extraction of t•• First Man is mentioned in* 1.102 several Places by Pl•• And Empedocles (as Censorinus tell us) and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eleates (as† 1.103 Laertius relates) held the sam•• There is a Passage in Cornelius Tacitus, which I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perswaded refers to this; for speaking of the Ori∣ginal of the Germans, he saith 'tis recorded •• their antient Annals and Monuments, which a•• in Verse, that‖ 1.104 the God Tuit, and his Son Mannus born of the Earth, were the Founders of that Nation, Tuit, or Thuet, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Mannus, or Man, is Adam the first Man, (for Man in the Ger∣man Language is Vir) who was the Son of God; and the reason is here given, because he was made by him out of the Earth; (for I conceive there is a Transposition in the Words, i. e. et should be placed before terrâ editum; which Words belong to the next, viz. filium Mannum.) Hence it ap∣pears that this Notion of Man's Original from the Earth was among the old Germans. who derived it first from the Mosaick Records. I will at pre∣sent omit several Quotations out of the Greek Poets▪ who were the first Divines and Philosophers among the Pagans, (as Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer) who te∣stify this very thing. From these the Latins bor∣rowed it, as Iuvenal, who speaking of the first

and antientest People of the World, describes their Original thus;

Compositi{que} luto, nullos habuere Parentes.

Which Words are a plain Reference to Adam's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made of Clay, or Earth. But Ovid, who was ••ell acquainted with all the antient Notions of the Ge••tiles, is more clear and open, and* 1.105 relates the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Passages in the Mosaick Story concerning the Original of the World, and that in Words coming ••s near to Moses as may be. In the close he tells how Man was made after the Creation of all other things:

Sanctius his animal, mentis{que} capacius altae, Deerat adhuc, & quod dominari in caetera posset; Natus homo est.

This is Moses exactly. Deerat adhue answers to Gen. 2. 5. [there was not a Man.] Quod dominari in caetera posset, is the same with what we read in Gen. 1. 26, 28. that Man was made to have Domi∣••on over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth on the Earth. Here are two of the chief things which ••re delivered in the beginning of that Sacred Hi∣story in Genesis, viz. that Man was made last of all, and to have Rule and Dominion over all the Creatures. Sanctius animal excellently expresses that Man was made for Religion; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as† 1.106 Plato calls him: or, he is stiled Holy, because made after God's Likeness; which follows presently after,

Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta Deorum.

The word finxit here is the proper Version of th•• Hebrew [Iitzer] which is used in Gen. 2. 7. T•• Lord God formed Man. Deorum answers to Elob•• in the plural Number; and so Moses introduce•• God speaking, Let Vs make Man, Vs in the pl•• ral. In effigiem Deorum, is the true Translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Image of God, in which Man is said to be created, Gen. 1. 27. So that there is another grand Truth which the Pag•• took from the Holy Writings, viz. that God cre∣ated Man after his Likeness, or in his own Image Gen. 1. 26, 27.

Thus you see this Interpreter of the antie•• Theology agrees with Moses: yea, it is evident without any fanciful straining, that he not only took the Things themselves, but the very Word and Expressions from the Divine Writings. O•• applies and attributes this Formation of Man •• Prometheus, the Name certainly of the Wise God: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Greeks (from whom •• borrowed this) is Sapiens, Providens, Sagax. A•• this Prometheus formed Men of Clay, which agree with the Formation of Adam recorded by the I•• spired Writer. Wherefore both* 1.107 Tertullian an•• † 1.108 Lactantius think it reasonable to believe that th•• first Formation and Origine of Man's Body, which the fabulous Poets speak of, was transmitted from the sacred and inspired Verity; and that the thing

is the same in both, though disguised by the Poets in other Words and Names. And when Ovid adds, that he took Fire from Heaven to animate his lumpish Clay, you must pardon this innocent Addi∣tion; for, as you shall observe all along, it is the way of these Men to put in something of their own, to disguise the Sacred Stories with their own Inven∣tions and Fables: though truly here we are no•• able to interpret this very appositely, and to ap∣plaud the Poet, who knew that dull and inert Matter could not actuate and enliven it self, but that there was need of some Heavenly and Divine Principle to set it on work, some active Ray of Life from above to inspire it: And what is this but the Breath of Life mentioned in Gen. 2. 7. by which Man's Body was enlivened and envigorated? for when it is said there, that God formed Man out of the Earth, it is immediately added, He breathed into his Nostrils the Breath of Life, and Man became a living Soul. From which manner of Expression, Nismath hajim, and that other in Gen. 7. 22. Nis∣math tuach hajim, the Breath of the Spirit of Life, the antient Sages among the Gentiles (who were no strangers to this and other Texts, as I shall shew afterwards) derived two Notions: the first whereof was this, that the Soul is Breath, and ac∣cordingly in Greek and Latin it hath its* 1.109 Names from breathing. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Spira∣tulum vitae, (as the Vulgar Latin renders it) by which Man's Body was inspired, was the occasion, I guess, of these Denominations of the Soul from Breath, Wind or Air: and that of the Poet, Di∣vina•• particula aurae, (which is spoken of the Soul)

seems to refer to this. Another Notion which they derived from this metaphorical Expression of Breathing or Asslation, was, that the Soul, the Ra∣tional Soul of Man, is a part of God: for as Breath is something that comes from within a Man, so Souls (that are set forth by Breath) are the Ema∣nations of God; they come from him, and are Parts of him. The Soul, say the Platonists,* 1.110 •• not only the Work of God, but a Portion of him. Which it is likely was Plato's meaning, when he said the† 1.111 Soul is a sharer of the Nature of God. But this was more especially the Stoicks apprehen∣sion of Humane Souls; they are (saith the Royal Philosopher)‖ 1.112 a Part, a Piece, an Effluvium of the Godhead. With whom Arianus agrees, telling, that* 1.113 our Souls are so linked to God, that they are Particles of him, and as 'twere pluck'd from him. But he is very extravagant when he adds, in pursuance of this, that as to our Souls, we are not inferiour to, or less than God himself.† 1.114 Epi∣ctetus himself, and‖ 1.115 Seneca, prononnce the Soul to be a Piece, a Part of the Divine Essence. Cicery speaks like one of this Sect, (as he frequently doth) when he saith,* 1.116 our Souls are taken out and pluck'd off from the Nature of God, and are cer∣tain Segments of the Divine Mind. And because it was hold by some Philosophers, that some of the

Inferiour Animals, as Bees, had Souls resembling those of Men, therefore they asserted that they likewise* 1.117 were parts of the Divinity. All this comes (if I mistake not) from that forenamed Passage in Moses's History concerning the Produ∣ction of Man, God breathed into him the Breath ••f Life: which was interpreted as if humane Souls were partial Effluxes or Aporrhae's of the Divine Essence it self.

The making of Eve out of Adam, was also ob∣scurely intimated in what Plato saith in his Sympo∣sium, namely, that the first Man was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mixture of both Sexes. Which Fable of his was from the Jewish Tradition, that the first Man was made an Hermaphrodite; that he had two Bodies join'd together, one of a Male, another of a Fe∣male; and that God afterwards split him into two distinct Bodies, whence arose Man and Woman. If the Jewish Rabbies (who were better acquaint∣ed with Scripture) talk'd after this doting rate, Plato may well be excused, who perhaps had it on∣ly on Tradition, and had not the Means to correct his Mistakes which they had. But this is plain, that this Fable is a Corruption of the Sacred Sto∣ry, which speaking of our First Parents, saith, † 1.118 God called their Name Adam; as if their having but One Name, signified they were but One Per∣son: and again in the same Verse, Male and Fe∣male created he them; as if the first Man, who is spoken of in the Verse immediately foregoing, consisted of a double Sex. But it is evident that the Words relate to both; and the reason why the Name Adam is given to both, is because they

were both of them from the Earth, one immedi∣ately, the other remotely: but afterwards we read that they had distinct Names, Adam being appropriated to the Man, and Eve to the Woman. And this ridiculous Fable which Plato had pick'd up, might be occasioned likewise from a misun∣derstanding of that Text,* 1.119 God took one of the Man's Ribs, and out of it made he a Woman. Be∣cause the Woman was formed out of the Man's Side, they inferr'd that Adam was at first both Man and Woman, and that the Woman at her first Make stuck to his Side. Which is a gross mistaking of the Text, but confirms the Truth and Antiquity of that Book of Moses, which as∣sures us of Eve's Formation out of Adam, which was the thing that gave rise to this erroneous Tra∣dition.

May we not think that Adam's Dominion over the Beasts, which was accompanied with his Calling them, and giving them Names, was the Foundation of what the Poets talk of Orpheus's drawing the Beasts after him, and making them Tame, and causing them to stand still, and as it were answer to their Names? Or else it was a Representation of the Beasts and all sorts of Animals coming in∣to the Ark at Noah's Call, which is a Confirmation of another known Passage in the Mosaick Wri∣tings. But I am not positive here, and in some such-like Passages which occur in the Poets: tho in others I shall heap up several plain and evident Circumstances, sufficient to convince the Reader that they have reference to something spoken of in Scripture. As to Adam's giving of Names to all things, mentioned Gen. 2. 19. it appears that Plato

was not a stranger to it; for in his* 1.120 Cratylus, where it is disputed whether Words signify by In∣stitution or from Nature, he first denies the Lan∣guage of his Grecians to have been the Original one, (as in† 1.121 another place he calls his Countrey∣men the Greeks, Youths and Striplings of yesterday, and consequently their Language was not the an∣tientest) and then he hints that Hebrew was the Original Tongue; which is meant by what is said, Gen. 11. 1. that the whole Earth was of one Lan∣guage, and of one Speech. And though he conceals the Name of the Iews or Hebrews, yet when he ex∣presly affirms in this Dialogue, that the right Do∣ctrine of Names, and their Interpretation, are to be fetch'd from the‖ 1.122 Barbarians, as the more anti∣ent, we are not to doubt that he means the Iews or Hebrews: for all agree that they were call'd Barba∣•••••••• by the Greeks (as these were so by them.) And hence I gather that Plato and other Heathens knew, and perhaps had read, that Adam gave Names, proper and significant Names, to all Crea∣tures; which Moses particularly makes mention of, and must be the very thing that is here meant by Plato, when he acknowledgeth that the true Ety∣mologies of Things, and the Interpretation of Names, are to be derived from the Barbarians.

The First and Innocent State of Man (and that with some of the Circumstances of it which could be known only from the Book of Moses) is spoken of by the antient Writers among the Heathens. Thus you will ••ind that* 1.123 Hesiod gives us an ad∣mirable Description of it. In Plato's Atlanticus, or Critias, are plainly to be seen the Footsteps of

the Old and Primeve State of Man, when the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as he saith) prevail'd, when the Diving 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heavenly Nature was not corrupted by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And in his Politicks (where he likewise speaks •• the Primitive and Pure State of Man) he tells •• that in those first Times Man got his Living with •• out Trouble and Labour, that he fed only on •• Fruits of the Earth, and that Nakedness was •• Attendant of that first and Golden Age of •• World, alluding to Gen. 2. 25. They were both •• ked, the Man and his Wife. So an* 1.124 Antient W•• ter acquaints us, that the Egyptians find in t•• old Writings, that the first Men and Women •• naked, which is according to what's read in t•• place. In the Sibylline Verses, which are borrow from the Scripture, tho same Allegories and D•• scriptions are used in setting forth the happy A•• of Man, that you find used in that holy Book. •• the Happiness of Paradise is obliquely described b•• † 1.125 Homer, and the Felicity of the First Age by‖ 1.126 Va∣gil. And without question the Blessed State •• Paradise is referr'd to by* 1.127 Ovid in his descript•• on of the Golden Age, or Saturn's Reign. The•• we may see represented the Simplicity and Inno∣cency of our First Parents, the Peace and Tras quillity, the Contentment and Satisfaction which were peculiar to the State of Integrity. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it self, the Seat of this Happiness, seems to have been known by the antient Pagans: for it is pro∣bable their Writers understand this, when they te•• us of the Elysian Fields; for Gardens (such as w•• Paradise) and pleasant Fields are the same with them. These you may see described by Plato ••

his Phaedo, where he tells us that they are blessed with a mild and gentle Air, pleasant Streams, a constant Spring, fragrant Flowers and Fruits ever growing. Of these Virgil speaks in his sixth Ae∣nead. And they are the same with the Fortunate Islands which the Greeks write of, a Place of ex∣traordinary Delight, and where none but Good and Vertuous Men inhabit. Or, if we must paral∣lel it with a Garden so expresly call'd, we have Al∣ciuous his Garden, or Orchard, in* 1.128 Homer; which was taken from the description of Paradise, saith Iustin Martyr in his Oration against the Gentiles. Or, the Garden of Adonis, which is so celebrated, may refer to that of Eden, and is easily derived from it. Or,† 1.129 the Garden of Iupiter, in Plato's Symposiacks, may aenigmatically refer (as tha•• Learned Father Origen deemeth) to that of Para∣dise. So likewise may the pleasant Orchards of the Hesperides, in which were Trees that bore Golden Apples: and it may be some confirmation of this Notion, that near the Fountain of the River Ti••∣gris (on which Paradise was seated) we read of a Place that bears the Name of Hispercitis and His∣peratis. It is not unlikely that these diverse Gar∣dins were transplanted from that in Eden. It is not unlikely that some or all of these Greek Fables were founded in Truth, and arose from what the Inspired Book tells us, that God placed Man in a Garden, the Garden of Eden, which signifies Plea∣sure or Delight: for it is added, that here grew eve∣ry Tree that is pleasant to the Sight, and good for Food, Gen. 2. 9. And as this Garden was the Platform of those before mentioned, so the Tree of Life in this Garden gave rise to the Poets Nectar and Am∣brosia,

brosia, which are no other than the Food and Re∣past of these Earthly Gods, these Divine Crea∣tures that inhabit here. The former of these (according to* 1.130 one Derivation of it) made the Drinkers of it ever youthful: and† 1.131 another Ety∣mology speaks this Drink to be such as suffers the•• not to Die. These were the very Blessings of the Tree of Life; it had a property to keep off Old Age, and to preserve Man's Life a long time, The latter, namely‖ 1.132 Ambrosia, had the same Vir∣tue; it was said to keep those that ate it, free from Mortality. This therefore, no less than the other, seems to refer to, and be borrowed from the Tree of Life, which should have made the Eaters of it Immortal, and secured them in a State of Blessed∣ness for ever. Thus the Production of Man, and sundry things referring to his Blessed State in In∣nocency, which are found in the Writings of the Heathens, were taken from the Sacred Fountains: and consequently the Writings of these Heathens do in some measure attest and confirm to us the Truth and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures.

III. The Fall of Adam, and the several particu∣lar things relating to it, are to be found in these Pagan Records. First, the Forerunner of it, viz. the Degeneracy of the Angels, is plainly spoken of by that Antient Philosopher Empedocles, as * 1.133 Plutarch relates; for whom else could he mean by his Daemons, to whom he gives the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Heaven-fallen Creatures) than these Apostate Spirits, who were thrust down from the

Regions of Happiness above, and became Devils by their own voluntary opposing of God, and de∣clining his Government? Next, we have good Records among the Pagans of the Fall it self of Adam and Eve, especially of the latter, because she was first and most eminent in the Transgression, (as the Apostle speaks) and was the cause of the Man's defection from his Duty. She is represented by* 1.134 Homer's Ate, whom incensed Iupiter thrust down from Heaven, threatning that she should ne∣ver be restored to that Place again. Though some have thought that this might refer to the Apostate Angels (of whom before), because it is common with the Poets to imply Many when they mention but One Person; and so here, though One be said to be cast down from Heaven, yet it may intimate to us the Fall of all the cursed Crew of Wicked Angels. But it is more natural, I think, to apply this Story (it being of the Female Sex) to our Grandmother Eve: for what the Poets tell us of Ate, viz. that she was the first-born Daughter of Iupiter, and that she was that pernicious Woman that brought Mischief on the whole Race of Man, exactly agrees to her, so that there is no need of explaining it. It is not to be doubted that our first Parent Eve was also meant by Pandora, whom Hesiod and others of the Antients mention, ac∣quainting us, that out of her deadly Box which she gave to Epimetheus, flew all Evil into the World, and thereby she became the Original of all the mi∣serable Occurrences that happen to Humane Kind. Eve was this Pandora who gave that fatal Gift of the Fruit of the Tree unto her Husband, as it is ex∣press'd in Gen. 3. 6. and he himself afterwards

with unspeakable Regret, and too late an Insi•••••• into his Condition, (whence he justly merits 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Title of Epimetheus) repeats the same, She 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me of it, ver. 13. and with it imparted all Evil 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mankind. Wherefore from that Unhappy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and from her General Bestowing of all Evils on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 World, she had the Name of Pandora among 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first Greek Poets, who had arrived to some not〈…〉〈…〉 of this Unfortunate Woman's Miscarriage, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had from the Inspired Writings learn'd, that f•••••• her sprang all the Miseries and Calamities of t•••••• Life, and even Death it self.

As for Original Sin, the early Corruption 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Depravation of Man's Nature, which was t•••• Fruit of our first Parents Transgression, we c•••• not but observe that it is taken notice of by t•••• Gentiles of old; who call it the.* 1.135 Congenite S〈…〉〈…〉 the† 1.136 Domestick Evil of Mankind, the‖ 1.137 Nat〈…〉〈…〉 Repugnancy of Man's Temper to Reason: and fo•• Pythagoreans, quoted by Iamblicus, stile it a‖‖ 1.138 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Mortal kind of Life, a many-headed Be•••••• &c. The Moralists are full of such Notions, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 complain of the Infirmity of Nature, that it is ve∣ry much vitiated and hurt; that the Fountains a•••• polluted, the Springs defiled; and that Man is propense to all Evil, and averse to what is good and vertuous. The Greek and Roman Philoso∣phers do all complain of the low and degenerate Condition of Man: but this is chiefly done by the best of them, as the Stoicks and Platonists. sen•••••• (to mention no other of the first of these) f•••••• quently in his Epistles and other Discourses,

••nowledges, and sadly reflects upon the Lapse of Man's Nature. And as for the other Sect of Phi∣••o••ophers, they abundantly lament this degenerate ••tate of Man.* 1.139 Three of them especially talk most passionately and feelingly of the Defect of a former Innocency, of the Departure of Souls from God, of the strong Propensities of Humane Na∣ture to Evil, by a detrusion into terrestrial Bodies. I speak not this, as if I did not think they might partly have these Notions from the inward Sense they had of this Innate Evil; but from what I have suggested, (and shall afterwards) it seems probable to me that there was a Tradition among them concerning the First Cause and Author of this Evil.† 1.140 Plato himself speaks very sensibly of this Loss of the first State of Purity and Happiness, and relates the Defection of Man from his Primi∣tive Condition, from whence‖ 1.141 he saith flowed all Mischiefs into the World. And I propound it to be thought of, whether his Doctrine of Pre••xi∣stence was not a way used by him to disguise the Fall of Man. This Philosopher held that Mens Souls were created Happy, and that afterwards they Apostatized; for which they were ever after imprisoned in Bodies. Now this I say, that from Moses's Writings (with which he was acquainted) he might learn the Story of Man's Fall, and then wrapp'd it up in this obscure manner, which was a ••sual way with him, as his Writings shew. It was (as I conceive) his knowledg of the Apostacy of our first Parents, that gave rise to his Doctrine of the Preexistence of Souls: That is the thing which is couched in this Ingenious Hypothesis of his,

which afterwards so prevail'd among those of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sect. The meaning of his Opinion is, that M•••• kind was fallen, and their Souls were become d••••generate, and that they were punish'd for wh•••• Adam their Representative did long ago.

If we enquire further, we shall find that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gentile World was not ignorant of the seve•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Circumstances of Man's Fall; as first, that it was by the Devil's means. It was an antient Tradition among the Pagans, that a sort of Malignant Spi∣rits, Malicious Daemons, envied Mens Happines•• and did what they could to molest them, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hinder them of Felicity. The Pythagorean a•••• Platonick Philosophers speak often of these Envio 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Mischievous Spirits; the Original of which we can conceive to be no other than what Moses's History saith of the Devil's tempting our first Pa∣rents, Gen. 3. 1, &c. This is couched in another Opinion which prevail'd among some of the Pa∣gans, viz. the Notion of Two Principles, the one the Cause of all Good, the other of all Evil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were stiled by the Mani ••hees, who had it from Manes their Founder, a Persian; and he received this Opinion from his Countrey∣men the Persians, who were Gentiles. These two Opposite Principles, the one for conferring of Good, the other for procuring (as also the avert∣ing) of Evil, were called by that People Oromas∣des and Arimanius, and were both worshipp'd by them, as* 1.142 Diogenes Laertius and others assure us But this was not only the Persuasion and Practice of the Magi, who were the Philosophers of Per∣sia, but Plutarch shews the Antiquity, and almost Universality of this Opinion of Two Different Prin∣ciples,

among the rest of the Philosophick Tribe. It prevail'd among the antient Grecians, whose two distinct Principles were Iupiter Olympius and Hades. The Egyptians too had their Typho, the Evil Principle, and Isis, or Osir••••, the Good one. The Chaldeans had the same Notion of a Contrary Cause of Good and Evil, holding some Planets (which were their Gods) to be productive of all the Good, others of all the Evil among them. This antient Tradition of the Pagans so generally received, was, I suppose, derived from what is recorded in the first Entrance of the Bible, viz. that God was the bountiful Author of all Good to Man, not only creating him of nothing, and gi∣ving him his Being, but placing him in a State of Happiness, and conferring all Felicity upon him: but on the contrary, the Devil was the first Au∣thor of Evil, tempting our first Parents to Sin, whereby they lost all their Happiness, and fell un∣der a Curse, and were expell'd out of Paradise; and afterwards all Evils and Mischiefs came upon the World for their sake. Hence arose among the deluded Heathens that Twofold Principle God and Daemon, or rather Two Opposite Gods; for the true Tradition was corrupted into an absurd and irrational Opinion among the Gentiles of two Anti-Gods.

There was also this Circumstance of the History of Man's Fall among the Heathens, that the Devil appear'd in the likeness of a Serpent. Preparatory to which is that which Plato saith, (as he is quoted by* 1.143 Euscbius) that in Saturn's days the Folks could talk and hold discourse with Beasts as well as Men; which is an Allusion to the noted Colloquy between

Eve and the Serpent, and her Seduction by en••••••••taining Discourse with him. I should guess th•••• Eve is disguised under the Fable of Pro••erpina, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Daughter of Iupiter, whom Plato stole away ••••••ravished, or as others tell us, whom Iupiter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the form of a Serpent. The plain meaning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which is, that Satan in the likeness of a Serpe•••• deceived Eve. The Devil's taking the Shape 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Animal, and his circumve••ting thereby 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first Parents, is intimated by the Heathens in th•• obscure Writer Pherecydes, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is th•• Title of that Great one who opposed Saturn. Th•• Truth which lies at the bottom of that fabulo•• Story, is, that the Apostate Angels or Devils o••••posed God at the beginning of the World: t•••• Ring-leader of which Cursed Spirits was he th•••• in the shape of a Serpent assaulted our first Parents; this was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Demoniacal Serpen•• ▪ You will find* 1.144 Origen asserting that this was taken from Moses's relation concerning the Serpent i•• Paradise; and not this from that, as Celsus, mo•••• egregiously failing in Antiquity and Chronology, maintained.† 1.145 Eusebius also is of the same Opi∣nion, affirming that this Ophioneus refers to the Devil in the form of a Serpent; and adds (to make it probable) that Pherecydes was conversant with the Phoenicians, who worshipp'd their God under the form of a Serpent, the Devil affecting to be adored in that Shape which he first assumed. And not only in Phoenioia, but in other Countries, Dragons, or Serpents, or Snakes, (for these are pro∣miscuou••ly used for one another) were reckoned among the Secret Mysteries of the Gentiles. These had so great a Veneration for Serpents or Dragons,

that some of their Temples had their Denomi∣nation thence, and were stiled Draconian, saith * 1.146 Strabo. The Babylonians worshipp'd a Dragon, as the Apo••ryphal Writings relate. The Egypti∣ans worshipp'd Opbioneus, as† 1.147 Eusebius testifieth: and in their Hieroglyphicks they ••hewed that they were wonderful Admirers of Serpents: for the Heads of their Gods were incircled with Serpents and Basilisks, saith Horus; the Crowns and Dia∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their Kings were set with Asps and Suakes; Serpents being the Emblems of Dominion and Prin∣cipality, yea of Immortality and Divinity, faith the same Author. And, which is yet more to our purpose, Eusebius observes that the Egyptians, as well as the Phoenicians, used to call Serpents‖ 1.148 Good Daemons: which is a plain Relick of the Devil's assuming the Form of some goodly Serpent, and appearing like a good Daemon or Angel of Light, when he accosted our Mother Eve, and laid siege to her Integrity. And to pass from Egypt to Greece, there were here also some Remembrances of this notable thing: for the Images of Serpents were set over the Gates of Temples and Conse∣••rated Places; and generally they* 1.149 Painted ••erpents or Dragons in all Holy Places, as the Ge∣•••••••• of those Places: for they perswaded themselves that the Genius of the Place appeared in the shape of a Serpent. Among these Grecians the Devil was commonly worshipp'd in this Primitive Figure, ••ore especially at Delphos, whence (as a Learned ••ritick hath remarked) Apollo is called Pythius, and

Pytho, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Serpent. I might add wh•••• * 1.150 Clement of Alexandria reports, that the Heathe•• at their Feasts of Bacchus were crowned with Se••••pents, and used to carry a Serpent in Processio•• and cry with a loud Voice, Eva, Eva; for Hev•••• or Hivia (saith he) in the Hebrew signifies a S••••••pent. This latter was partly a Mistake of his, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is in the Chaldee that it signifies so, and is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Word used by the Chaldee Translators in Gen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and other places, for a Serpent; and so we are then•• informed what a Reverence was paid to Serpe•••• by the Antients. Or, what if I should offer t•••••• Conjecture, that Eva, or Evia, or Hevia, are plain Remembrance of our Mother Eve, or H•••••••• or, according to the Hebrew Termination, He•••••• or Havah? Which is the more probable, bec•••••••• the proclaiming of this Name is join'd with t•••• carrying of a Serpent, which we know that unh••••••py Woman was too well acquainted with. A•••• perhaps the word Evantes, which is used by† 1.151 V••••gil to signify those madding Frolicks, had its Or••••ginal hence. Thus there is a double Memorial i•• that Pagan Festival Solemnity, to wit, of a R••••markable Person, and as Remarkable a Thing r••••corded in Sacred Story. Now I ask, whence ca•• this Memorial of Serpents to be observ'd so ge••••••rally among the Pagans? Whence was it that t•••• Old Heathens were such Adorers of these Cr••••••tures? How came it to pass that the Devil 〈◊〉〈◊〉 worshipp'd by them under this Form? Whe•••• did this Custom prevail among the Phoenicians, ••••••bylonians, Egyptians and Grecians? Nay,‖ 1.152 S. ••••••gustin acquaints us, that some Heretick Christi••••

made it a great part of their Religion to worship a Serpent. And if we should leave the Antients, and come down to latter Ages, I might here al∣ledg what* 1.153 Luther ••aith he heard a Merchant af∣firm, namely, that in the Indies he had ••een Peo∣ple worship a Great Snake with the highest Reve∣rence and Honour imaginable. Of all this there cannot be a better Account given than that which I have already offered. It is questionless a remem∣brance of what happened in the beginning of the World, and is recorded in the Book of Genesis, that Satan, who had been a kind of God, a Glo∣rious Angel, (and therefore pass'd for such a one still among the Ignorant Heathens) appear'd in a Serpentine Figure to Adam and Eve in Paradise.

And this reminds me of another Circumstance of Man's Fall, viz. the Place, which was Paradise, or the Garden of Eden; which (as I said before) seems to be represented by the famous Gardon of the Hesperides. This I know hath been a commonly received Notion; this Poetical Passage hath been usually applied to this purpose: but ••et us not think it the less true, because of the Commonness of it•• If any Man seriously weigh what is reported of this Garden, he will think it not improbable that the Fall of Man is couched in this Poetick Fable▪ For this Garden yielded Golden Fruit, i. e. very choice and excellent Fruit, and such as was as ••empting as Gold was afterwards; which plainly points to the Forbidden Fruit in Paradise, which was so desirable and delightful, so tempting and charming. And this Fruit, these Golden Apples, were kept and watch'd by a Dragon or Serpent; which plainly refers to the Devil in the form of a

Serpent, who was always watching about the Tre•• not to keep the Man and Woman from eating •• it, but to sollicit and tempt them by all means 〈◊〉〈◊〉 do it. What they add of Hercules's staying 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dragon, is an addition of their own Fancies, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must always be expected in their representing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these Stories, (as I have intimated before:) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Issue was, that the Golden Fruit was stolen a•••••• that is, in plain Terms, our Parents did eat of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Forbidden Fruit. This was a downright Stea•••• or Robbery; for it was taking away that whi•••• was not their own, and which they were strict•••• commanded not to take away. Thus Paradise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 removed by the Poets out of Asia into Africa, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whatever Place it was where the He••perides 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Garden. This Fiction of theirs was ma•••• out of Genesis, which speaks of the Garden 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eden, of the Serpent, and of the Forbidden Fr•••••• which were the occasions of Man's being tempt•••• and deceived. Whence it is clear that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Poets, Philosophers and Sages among the Heath•••••• were not ignorant of the very things which Mo•••••• the In••pired Writer gives us an account of. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first Transgression of Man, and the Orig•••• of it; the Depravation of Mankind, and the ••••••serable Consequences and Effects of it, as the C••••sing of the Earth, and the Barrenness which e••s•••••• upon it, with the Infirmities and Diseases that M•••• Bodies were thereupon incident to, are to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 described in the Writings of those Pagans, esp••••••••ally of that* 1.154 Renowned Poet before mention•••• who was so thorowly skill'd in all the Pagan T••••••ology. And this proves what I designed, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most considerable Passages of the Sacred Hist••••

of the Bible are asserted by the Writers among the Gentiles.

IV. From the Fall of Man till after the Confusion and Dispersion at Babel, there are many considera∣ble things spoken of by Pagans, which they could not have any notice of but from the Old Testa∣ment. Enoch's being taken up by God (together with the Translation of Elias afterwards) gave occasion to the Stories of their H••roes being Tran∣slated; of Astrea and others leaving the World, and ascending to Heaven alive, and being turn'd into Stars and Celestial Signs: as also the Apothe∣osis among the Gentiles might be founded on this. Again, the Testimony of the Pagans concerning the Long Lives of the People of the first Age of the World, was plainly, without any Disguise, taken from the Sacred History.

All that have com∣mitted unto writing the Antiquities either of the Greeks or Barbarians, attest this Longevity of the Men before the Flood, saith* 1.155 Iosephus.

And immediately he subjoins:

Manetho the E∣gyptian Writer, Berosus the Chaldean, Mochus, Hestiaeus, Ierom the Egyptian, who have treated of the Egyptian Affairs, agree with us in this. Also Hesiod, with Hecat••us, Hellanicus and Acu∣silaus, Ephorus and Nicolas, tell us that those People of old lived a thousand Years.

Which is a Confirmation of the Truth of what we read so often in Moses's Account of the first People of the World, viz. that they commonly lived seven, eight, or nine hundred Years. The Greek and Latin Poets relate likewise that there were Giants in the first times of the World: which most pro∣bably

was borrowed from Gen. 6. 4. where Moses▪ speaking of the Times before the Flood, tells us that there were Nephilim, Giants in the Earth in th•••••• Days. And from what is said in the same Vers••▪ The Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Me•• and they bare Children to them, arose the Fiction 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Orpheus, Hesiod, and other Greek Poets, that the•••• Heroes were partly the Race of Gods; that t•••• Giants were the Sons of Heaven and Earth; that is, according to the plain and intelligible Language of Scripture, they sprang from the Sons of God an•• the Daughters of Men. This I verily think is the Foundation of what Poetick Writers tell us con∣cerning the old Heroes especially, viz. that they were the By-blows of the Gods; that they were begot by some Deity upon a Woman, or were the Product of some Goddess and a Man.

To proceed. Berosus the Chaldean Priest and Historian, relates how wicked and debauched the Old World was, how Noah told them of it, and of their approaching Ruine by the Vniversal Flood, which is the next thing to be spoken of. The Fame and Memory of this Deluge, and of Noah's Ar••, were among the Pagans every-where. Not only the fore••aid Berosus (quoted by* 1.156 Iosephus), but Nicolaus Damascenus (quoted by the same† 1.157 A••∣••hor), Abydenus the Assyrian (cited by‖ 1.158 Eusebius), Alexander Polyhistor, Melo, Hieronymus Egypti••••, Apollodorus, and all the Barbarian Historians, as Io∣sephus saith, i. e. according to his way of speaking, all the Pagan Historians have made mention of No∣ah's Flood. If the Credit of these Writers now named be called in question, (as I confess they are

by some) there is abundant mention of that Flood, and of several Circumstances belonging to it, in others, whose Writings are not suspected. In Lucian's Dea Syria are most of the Particulars which are recorded in the sixth and seventh Chap∣ters of Genesis concerning that Deluge: as first, the Natural Cause of it, the excessive Rain or Fall of Waters from Heaven, and the opening of the Fountains below: then the Moral Cause of it, the Corruption and Wickedness of the World. The People at that time kept not their Oaths, enter∣tained not Strangers, were hard-hearted to those who were in Distress; they were every ways viti∣ous and profligate, and thereby merited this great Judgment. Next, there is mentioned the Preser∣vation of Noah and his Family, with the Manner of their being preserved, namely by sheltering themselves in a Great Ark; and thus he and his Wife and Children were reserved for a Second Ge∣neration. This befel Noah because of his great Prudence and singular Piety, as this Author adds. With him entred into the Ark two of every sort of Animals; and being shut up in that safe Custo∣dy, they all sailed together without any Harm, nay with a great Friendship and Concord. Lastly, Noah's erecting an Altar after he came out of the Ark, is expresly taken notice of. These are the things, saith he, which the Greeks relate out of their Archives of the Flood. All which you will find to be like the Narrative of Moses, only Deu∣calion is put instead of Noah.* 1.159 Plutarch (another credible Writer) speaks of the sending of the Dove out of the Ark, as a sign of the abating of the Flood, or rather to discover whether the Waters

were decreased: and he adds, that it returned 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Ark again. But this Author, as well as t•••• former, disguiseth Noah under the Name of ••••••calion, it being the usual way of the Grec••ans 〈◊〉〈◊〉 affix new Names to Persons. From the Do•••• bringing an Olive-branch, we find in all Ages 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this hath been ever the Symbol of Peace and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cord, of Agreement and Friendship.* 1.160 Livy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 us it was so among the Carthaginians, and am•••• the Greeks.† 1.161 Polybius saith it was the same am•••• the most Barbarous Nations: for when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was passing the Alpes, those People came and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him with Olive-branches in their Hands;‖ 1.162 T•• (as he subjoins) being a Badg and Sign of Frie••••••ship among all those Barbarous People. Whe•• more probably was this derived than from the ••••∣story of the Flood, written by Moses? From th•• same Authentick Narrative we learn that ••••••sent forth a Raven (and that first of all indeed) out of the Ark; but it seems to be said that he re∣turned not again, Gen. 8. 7. to which the follow∣ing Fable of the ••aven or Crow seems to relat•••• * 1.163 Apollo was pleased once upon a time to emplo•• this Bird on an Errand, and send him out to fi•••• fresh Water, and fetch it to him; but he retu••••••ed not till after the time that Figs were ripe: an•• he staid, and sat on a certain Tree which he sp•••••• till they ripened.† 1.164 Ovid tells us it was an A••∣ple-Tree: and others (as Aelian reports) say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Messenger of Apollo made no ••aste, because he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Corn very fair, though not yet fit for Harve••••

and this tempted him to neglect his Master's Com∣••••nds, and not mind what he sent him about: for which Apollo turn'd him into such a Black Bird as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is. The Main of this Fable is the thing we are to look after, and that is, that the Crow was sent abroad to find and discover Water, and that he returned not again. This seems to be taken from the Sacred Story, even that of Noah's sending forth the Raven, or Crow, to discover the Fall or In∣crease of the Waters of the Deluge. To this pur∣pose perhaps is that which* 1.165 one saith is observ'd of the Crows by the Antients, that they are For∣getful Creatures, and oftentimes return not to their Nests. See this more fully illustrated and proved by a Learned Critick of this last Age, † 1.166 Monsieur Rochart. Thus there are both plain and obscure Passages in Heathen Writers, which keep up the Memory of the Flood, and of several remarkable things which attend it. Only they have corrupted the True History, and the Chro∣nology of it, by confounding the Names of Noah and Deucalion. Yea, they tell us of Ogyges's Flood (as well as that of Deucalion) which was in the time of Ogyges King of At••ica, when Inachus reign∣ed among the Argives, which was about the time of Abraham; and so they place it about five hun∣dred Years after Noah's Flood, A. M. 2140. but others ••ay it was six hundred Years after it. This Ogygian Flood drowned the Country about Athens and Achaia in Peloponnesus: whereas the latter, viz. Deucalion's Flood, (which was in Greece like∣wise) happened in Thessaly where Deucalion reign∣ed; and it drowned that Countrey, and some part of Italy; Deucation and his Wife Pyrrha securing

themselves at the same time in a Vessel, and at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 landed safely on Parnassus. This some tell us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about three hundred, others say four hundre•• Years after the Flood in Ogyges's time. But th•••• some have placed these Two Floods at such a di••stance from one another, and consequently hav•• made them two distinct ones, yet others confoun•• them together, and make them one and the same And it is most probable that they were so, an that both have reference to Noah's Flood: for no∣thing is more usual with the Fabulous Poets, tha•• to split one Story into two or more, and to con∣found the Truth with different and disguised Names. There is reason to believe that Ogyge•• and Deucalion were but feigned Names of Noah▪ and that the Flood which is said to have happened in their days, was but a Representation of the U∣niversal Deluge in Noah's time; and that Ararat, or Caucasus, is to be understood by Parnassus. They that know how common it is with the Greek Poets to alter the Names of Persons and Places, and to substitute others in their room, will not be backward to credit this. But it is easy to see thro their Poetical Fictions and Disguises, and particu∣larly here, that they had a notice of the History of the Flood, which the Holy Scripture hath given us a plain and true Account of. I might here ob∣serve what* 1.167 Ovid saith concerning Deucalion and his Wife, viz. that as soon as the Deluge ceased, they betook themselves to their Devotions, and solemnly worshipp'd the Gods: which questionless refers to what the Sacred Story relates, that† 1.168 Noah erected an Altar (the first that we read of) to sa∣crifice to God, and to praise him for his Delive∣rance

out of the raging Deluge. And I might observe here (in order to what I shall prove after∣wards) that Parnassus, the place on which Deuca∣•••••••• Ark rested, was a Mountain* 1.169 dedicated to Bacchus, where he had his Rites performed to him: whence by the by it may be gather'd, that Noah (who is the same with Deucalion) and Bacchus were the same Persons, which I shall make good in ano∣ther place.

It might be made appear from other Particulars, that the Tradition concerning Noah, the Flood, and the Ark, which was derived from the Holy Scriptures, hath been spread abroad among the Pagans.† 1.170 Kircher thinks that Nisroch, 2 Kings 19. 37. Isa. 37. 38. is as much as Numen Arcae, the Ark-Deity or Idol, and was the Image of No∣••••'s Ark, worshipp'd among the Assyrians. It may be it was an Idol in the shape of a Boat or Ship, and made perhaps of the Relicks of the Ark. I could mention that Ianus, said to be the most antient King of Italy, coined Money which had on it the Figure of a Ship: which it is very likely refers to the Matter in hand. The Impress of the Ship is a Memorial of the Ark, which was so noted among the Antients: and Ianus is Noah, as you shall hear afterwards. We may plainly discern likewise, in another Name given to Noah by the Poetick Writers, how there is preserved the remembrance of the chief and most notable things which are recorded of him. He was called Prometheus, (not but that this same Name may be applied to some others; for this too must be ob∣served, that the Greek Poets set forth different Persons by the same Name, as sometimes one Per∣son

by different Names, as you shall see in the quel of this Discourse;) he was, I say, called 〈◊〉〈◊〉 metheus by the Greek Poets: for according to th•• description of this Person you cannot but ackno••••ledg, that Noah was covertly meant by him. F•••• (1.) It is said the Flood was in Prometheus's ti•••• which none will deny agrees to Noah. (2.) P•••••• metheus is said to have repaired and restored M••••••∣kind: which is another plain Parallel, and nee•• not to be insisted upon. (3.) Prometheus is said 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be the Son of Iapetus, i. e. of Iapheth: and it i〈◊〉〈◊〉 no wonder that the Names of Father and Son an•• confounded by the Poets. That they have hit s•• near the Historical Truth, is a thing that is wor∣thy of our Consideration. (4.) Even where th•• Fiction runs higher, we still see some Footsteps 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Truth. They feign that Prometheus was by Iu••••∣ter's Order chain'd to Caucasus, where an Eagle, some say a Vulture, feeds upon his Entrails. Here is, according to the usual Mistake of the rambling Poets, one thing put for another: Mount Caucas•••• is put for Mount Ararat, or the Gordiaean Hills, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which Noah's Ark rested. And one Fowl is p•••• for another: they change the Raven and Dove into an Eagle or Vulture. And as to the being chain'd and fed upon, that is purely Poetick Invention, and is not to be regarded. (5.) Prometheus had his Name from his excellent Wisdom and Fore∣sight. This exactly agrees with Noah, he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. one that is wise before the Evil comes. Being warned of God, he foresaw the Ge∣neral Destruction which was approaching; and by preparing an Ark, he preserved himself and his Fa∣mily from it. Judg now whether Noah was not the Heathen Prometheus, and whether this and o∣ther such Fables among the Gentiles had not their

first rise from the History of the Bible. Berosus in his Chaldean Antiquities, speaks of Noah's three Sons; though it is true he adds others, as Tethys, Typhaeus, &c. Iapheth, one of his undoubted Sons, (whom only I shall mention at present) he is often mentioned among the Old Grecians; who refer their Original to Iapetus, or Iaphetus, making him the antientest Man: thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Suidas and Hesychius. Thus among the Pagans we find unquestionable Monu∣ments of the Truth of the Bible.

The next remarkable thing after the Flood, was the Attempting to build the Tower of Babel: and this is not omitted in Pagan Records. Bero∣sus's Chaldee History mentions it, but with such Additions as these, (if I may call them Additions, seeing they have some kind of ground in the Sa∣cred Story) That it was built by Giants, and those Giants were* 1.171 Terrae filii, out of the Earth; and that they waged War against the Gods, and were at last dispersed, and that the Building was quite beaten down by a great Wind. The Erecting of this Tower of Babel is mentioned by Hestiaeus, and by one of the Sibyls, saith Iosephus in his† 1.172 An∣tiquities; and by Abydenus and Eupolemus, as Euse∣bius testi••ieth in his Evangelical Preparation. It is likely that Belus's Tower, mention'd by Herodotus, is the Tower of Babel. That it was made of Brick and Slime, as you read in Gen. 11. 3. is attested by Iustin, Q. Curtius, Vitruvius, and others; for what these Writers say of the Walls of Babylon, is appli∣cable to that. And as for the Poets, the History

of the Babel-Builders is turn'd by them into t•••• Fable of the Titans, whom they feign to ha•••• heaped Mountain upon Mountain, to scale H••••••ven, and fight the Gods; and by name they m••••••tion * 1.173 Iapheth, one of Noah's Sons, as a dough•• Giant among them, (for they pick'd up any Na•••• that they had by Tradition, and clapp'd it in Homer tells us they cast up three Hills on one ••••nother, † 1.174 Ossa on Olympus, and shady Pelion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 O∣ssa, hoping thereby to make their way to t•••• Heavens: but this proved succesless, and the bo•••• Invaders were scatter'd and broken by Thunder from Iupiter. All this Grecian Fable of the Th••∣omachy of the Giants, was derived from what the History of Moses relates in Gen. 11. 3, &c. that Nimrod, a great Hunter, a Giant-like Man, with his sturdy Fellows, attempted to build a City and Tower, whose Top should reach up to Heaven; which the Pagans interpreted to be Defying of the Gods, and making War with them. And truly they did not come short of the true Meaning of their grand Design; which was to defy Heaven, and to exalt and magnify themselves: Though I grant it was Hyperbolically spoken when they said, Let 〈◊〉〈◊〉 build us a City and Tower to reach up to Heaven; for they could not dream of performing this in rea∣lity, because they knew the Height of the late Flood (which lifted up the Ark fifteen Cubits a∣bove the highest Mountains) was short of Heaven: besides, they would not have built on the Plain, (as they did) but on the highest Hills, if they had

had any such Project in their Heads. Nor was it to be a Refuge from the Waters of another Flood; for they had God's Word for it that no such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should ever be again, Gen. 9. 15. But their Design is plainly set down, chap. 11. ver. 4. Let us make us a Name, lest we be scatter'd abroad on the face of the whole Earth; i. e. Let us go about this Work, that we may have here a Place to six in; that by erecting this vast City and Tower, we may have room enough, and live together in one Body; and make our Lusts our only Law, and act as we please, without the Controul of others: and that after∣ward, when by reason of our great Numbers, and Increase, we must be forced to remove, we may by this famous Monument be known; and when we leave this World, we may hereby purchase a Name in future Ages, and even survive after Death. Thus their Intentions and Enterprizes were prophane and impious, and no less than an arrogant Contempt of God. But some of the Po∣ets interpreting the foresaid Words in a gross Manner, as if those daring Sinners did actually scale the Heavens, have presented us with their Conceits upon this remarkable Occurrence; but as to the main, it must be acknowledg'd that they confirm the Truth of the Sacred History. And even this last Particular, the making them a Name, seems to be transcribed into the Fable, when they tell us, that after the Giants, who were begot of the Earth, had fought the Gods, their Mother Earth (being incens'd at the Defeat of her Sons) brought forth Fame: This was the Giants last Si∣ster, according to that of the Poet;

Illam terra parens irâ irritata Deorum, Extremam (ut perhibent) Caeo Encelad••{que} sororem Progenuit.

We read that when these Builders were hot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Work, God on a sudden defeated their Pro∣jects by confounding their Language, v. 7. and there∣by scatter'd them abroad from thence upon the face 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the Earth, v. 8. Of which Confusion or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Languages, there is this Remembrance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Greek Tongue, That in it Men are call•••• * 1.175 〈◊〉〈◊〉: which Epithet was given them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 † 1.176 Eustathius, on the account of the Division 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tongues which the World suffer'd at Babel; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this (saith he) was the common Opinion of t•••• antient Christians. Then, as to the Division of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Earth among the Sons of Noah, set down in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapter of Genesis, it is not to be doubted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Fiction of dividing the World among 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Brethren, the Sons of Saturn, was taken from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 So that there are some Remainders and Foot〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Sacred Truth to be observ'd, which way 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ever you look. This I might further shew in t•••• Account which Moses's History gives of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plantations, upon the Division of the Earth among Noah's Sons, as in the Posterity of Iavan, whe•••••• were the Iavans, or Greeks, called 〈…〉〈…〉 But because I shall afterward have an occasion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speak of this, namely, when I treat of the P••••∣fection of Scripture, shewing it to be the most A••∣tient and Compleat History in the World, I wi•••• defer it till then, and at the same time let you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the Mosaick History gives us the best Account of those First Planters; and also that in several 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those Names, are to be read the Names of Co••••••tries and Nations, which we meet with in Pag•••• Authors.

CHAP. IV.

Several things relating to the Patriarch Abraham, the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Oppres∣sion of the Israelites in Egypt, the History of Jo∣seph, the Pass-over, the Conducting the Israelites through the Red-Sea, their Travels in the Wilder∣ness, the Brazen Serpent, attested by Heathens. An Enquiry into the rise of the Report concerning the Iews worshipping an Ass's Head, and also their worshipping of Clouds.

BEtween the Confusion of Tongues, and the Giving of the Law by Moses, there are many observable Passages in the Old Testament, which are also taken notice of, and attested (tho in an obscure and oblique Manner) by Pagan Wri••ers. The great Patriarch Abraham, is men∣tioned by Berosus, Heeataeus, Nicolas Damascenus, Eupolemus, Alex. Polyhistor, as Iosephus and Euse∣bius acquaint us in their Writings before named. The wise Men of Gr•••••••• asking their Gods whence the Knowledg of Arts came, received this An∣swer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; where by the Chaldean it is not unlikely was meant Abra∣ham, who was the great Father of Knowledg and Wisdom, and of whose Race were so many Wise and Learned Persons. In the name of this great Man, the Heathens used to perform their Conjurations and Magical Exploits: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, were words usually pronounced in their Charms and Spells, saith Origen. Nay,* 1.177 he tells us, that

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being so frequently repeated in the Old Testament, gave occasion to the Pagans to think Abraham was some God. I find also that the Pagan Writings make mention of the same, or the like Custom that this Patriarch used •• making of Covenants, viz. the cutting or dividing of one or more Animals into two parts, and pas∣sing between them. Thus in Gen. 15. 9. when God made a Covenant with him, he commanded him to divide a Heifer, a Goat, and a Ram into pieces, and to pass between them. Whence afterward this Ceremony was made use of when a League or Covenant was entred into between Man and Man: and the Parties did as it were declare by that Action, that they wished to be cut asunder in that manner as the Beasts were, if they brake the Covenant which they made. Of this Custo•• you likewise read in 1 Sam. 11. 7. Ier. 34. 18, 19. And to this perhaps belongs what is record∣ed in Gen. 21. 28. Abraham took Sheep and Ox••••, and gave them unto Abimelech, (viz. to be dissected and divided, according to the foresaid Usage, and that in order to Sacrifice) and both of them made •• Covenant. Which gave rise to the like Practice among the Pagans when they were to make so∣lemn Agreements and Covenants.* 1.178 Dictys Cre∣tensis relates this Custom used by the Grecian•• and Trojans in the time of the War between them. From† 1.179 Livy and‖ 1.180 Curtius we learn tha•• the People of Macedon and Baeotia did the like, cutting a Dog in pieces.* 1.181 Lucian hath some∣thing concerning the Scythians to this purpose: and Suidas tells us this was the Federal Usage of the Molo••si. Thus these Gentiles borrow'd their

Way of Covenanting from the old Patriarchs. It is not improbable that Abraham's Feasting the Angels, yea, the Son of God himself, (Gen. 18. 8.) gave occasion to the Poets to speak of the Gods be∣ing feasted by Mortals, as they tell us of Philemon and Baucis, their entertaining of Iupiter and Mer∣cury; which is but a corrupt Representation of Abraham and Sarah's Treating their Heavenly Guests. And here I might add, that from this and other Instances in the Old Testament, of the frequent and visible Appearing of God and An∣gels unto Men, as to Isaac, Iacob, Moses, Gideon, Manoah, and several others; and from their as∣suming of Bodies of Humane Shape in order to that, there arose a Notion among the Pagans, that their Gods forsooth vouchsafed sometimes to come down and visit them in the likeness of Mortals. Thence Homer and other Poets so commonly talk of the Apparition of the Gods in sensible Shapes, and bring them in after that manner. Thence it was that the People of Lystra, in the lesser Asia, cried out that the Gods were come down to them in the likeness of Men, (Acts 14. 12.) and upon this Apprehension, they were preparing to offer Sa∣crifice to them, and had got the Priests ready with their Oxen and Garlands for that end. Nay, thence it was that some of the Poets made those mad Fables of the strange Metamorphosis of their Gods: as how Apollo took on him the Shape of a Hawk, of a Lion, and of a Shepherd; how Bacchus appear'd like a Grape for Erigone's sake; how Neptune chang'd himself into a Flying Horse for Medusa's Love, and into a Steer, a Ram, a Dol∣phin for others: How Iupiter turn'd himself into a Showr of Gold (the most powerful Courtship) for Danae, into a Bull for Europa, into a Swan for

Leda, into an Eagle for Ganymede, into a Saty•• for Antiope, into a Flame for Aegina; besides o∣ther scandalous Transformations: yea, even 〈◊〉〈◊〉 len Saturn became a prancing Steed for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Daughter of Oceanus. All which wild and frolick Conceits of the Poetick Tribe concerning their Gods transfiguring themselves, and maki•••• themselves visible in several Shapes and Fashio•• had their first foundation in those forementio•••• Instances recorded in the Old Testament; wh•••••• without doubt were known to the Neighbour•••••• Nations, and were transmitted as wonder•••••• things to others that were next to them. We are not to attend to the extravagant Additio•• which the hot-head Poets made to the True Re∣lations: But we are to observe the main thing o•• which these fanciful Superstructures are built. They seem to me to be founded on the Holy Scripture; they seem to be borrowed from what we r•••••• there, viz. that Angels, those God-like Spirits, transformed themselves into Humane Likeness, and frequently visited and conversed with M•••• here on Earth. This Sacred Truth lies vail'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those Fabulous Histories; and though they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 added many things to it, viz. new and incredible Circumstances, yet we have no reason to di••••••••lieve the Substance of the History because of t•••••••• Additions.

Again, Sacrificing of Men, especially of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sons, which some Pagan Stories relate, might h•••••• its original from Abraham. It is recorded by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 phyrius, saith* 1.182 Eusebius, that Saturnus an anti•••••• King of Phoenicia, that he might appease the G•••••• and save his Kingdom from imminent Danger, 〈◊〉〈◊〉

divert Evil and Ruin from his Country, offer'd his * 1.183 Only Son on an Altar. This Saturn is the An∣tient Patriarch Abraham, and his only Son is Isa••••; and Phoenicia was mistaken for Palestine. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (saith Plutarch in his Life) was bid in a Vision to sacrifice a Virgin; but it so happen'd that a Mare-Colt came running through the Camp, whilst they were disputing whether the Vision should be obey'd, and by the advice of the Augur was taken and sacrificed instead of a Virgin. I on∣ly propound this; May we not conceive that this was done in imitation of what they had heard by Tradition, that when Isaac was to be offer'd, a Ram came in the way, and was sacrificed instead of the pious Youth destined to that Slaughter? And several other considerable Passages relating to the Patriarchs, might be collected out of the Writings and Practices of the Heathens of old: but I proceed to other Matter.

The History of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is expresly attested by Abydenus and Nic. Damascenus, (as you will find in† 1.184 Grotius, for that Learned Man disdains not their Testimo∣ny) and by more Authentick Authors, as Diodo∣••us Siculus, Strabo, Solinus, Tacitus, Pliny, who have preserved the Memory of this terrible Judgment of God on those Cities. All these Prophane Wri∣ters testify that those Places were destroyed by Fire. But Solinus and Tacitus say it was particu∣larly by Thunder and Lightning. And Strabo in∣sinuates they were swallowed up by Subterraneous Fires breaking forth, and causing an Earthquake at the same time. They might be destroy'd by ••oth these: for the latter is probable from this,

that Eruptions, both of Fire and of Water, ge∣nerally attend great Earthquakes: and we know that the Lake Asphalties was produced at th•••• time; which shews that the Earth opened her self whence gushed out an Inundation of Water, th•••• is here stagnated, and become a ••ilthy Lake. And we are sure they were destroyed by the former, because the Sacred Writ, whence those Autho•• took their Story, testifies as much: for I conce•••• that is denoted by the raining of Fire and Brimst•••• from the Lord out of Heaven, Gen. 19. 24. Sho••∣ers of Liquid Sulphur, (which by the by I guess came to have its Name at first among the Greeks from this so noted Accident; Sulphur was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, q••••òd à Deo sit, because it was from the Lord out of Heaven) continued Showers, I say, of this sul∣phureous Matter, accompanied the terrible Light∣nings and Thunder-claps: and by this means Lot's Wise beoame a Pillar of Salt, ver. 26. i. e. being thus struck with Thunder and Lightning, her Bo∣dy presently became Hard as a Statue. This some∣times is the Product of those dreadful Meteors: Thunder (say both Seneca and Cardan) makes the Bodies of those who are struck with it, Stiff and Immoveable. This was the surprizing Effect up∣on this poor Woman: She turn'd her Head to∣wards the smoking City, to see that strange Spe∣ctacle; and behold! she became a more wonder∣ful Sight her self.

—Stetit ipsa Sepulchrum, Ips••que Imago sibi.—

She became her own Monum••nt and Statue; she stands a Pillar of Salt, of lasting and durable Re∣membrance, not only in the Sense that we read of

a Covenant of Salt; Numb. 18. 9. i. e. firm and per∣petual, but in the most literal Sense, a Pillar of Real Salt, (into which her Body was turn'd by vir∣tue of the Sulphureous Vapours and Steams) which dissolves not, but is so hard that it may serve even for Building; of which* 1.185 Pliny speaks. There∣fore Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and the two antient Christian Poets Prudentius and Sedulius, deliver it as their Opinion, that this Unhappy Wo∣man was converted into a Mass or Solid Body of Hardned Salt, such as the Mineral one is. This being so remarkable a thing, it could not but be snatch'd up by the Inquisitive Poets among the Greeks; and accordingly they tell us of Niobe's being turn'd into a Stone for her refractory Con∣tempt of some Goddess's Commands. This Fable, as may be conjectured, was taken from Lot's Wife turn'd into a hard, and as 'twere stony Pillar, for her disbelieving the Threatnings of God to the Sodomites, and for despising the express Com∣mand of Angels, who bid her not look hehind her, ver. 17. And (now we are upon conjecturing) what think you of the Fable of Orpheus's Wife, his dear Euridice? To fetch her back again to Life, he went to Hell; here he perswaded Pluto to give him her again, but upon this condition, that he should not look back to her all the while she was coming. But it seems the kind Man turned to look on his Wife as she was following him: where∣upon she was remanded back to Hell. Here seems to be an Allusion to Lot's Wife, and to her looking back, and to the sad Effect of it. Orpheus is Lot, Euridice is his Wife, Sodom is Hell, and the Fire and Brimstone there are a sufficient reason of that Ap∣pellation.

But there is a changing of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Man's looking back instead of the Wo•••••••• and in adding a great deal of other Poetick S•••••• besides; which is either to fill up the Fable, or •• disguise the True Story, which is common am•••• the Pagans, as hath been observed before. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Wife turn'd into a Saline Pillar, was remaining •• * 1.186 Iosephus's time, if he may be credited: and •• do not know any reason to the contrary. T•••• we are certain of, upon the Faith even of Prof•• History, that the Sulphureous Lake of Asp••altites ••••••mained in Strabo's, and afterwards in Pliny and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 citus's time, a Monument of the Divine Vengea•••••• upon the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; God tur••••ing those fruitful and pleasant Places into a sti••••••ing and almost poisonous Lake: which is parti••••••larly taken notice of by those and other Histori∣ans, who mention how bad the Fruits are th•• grow about that Lake, and therein verify what •• referr'd to in Deut. 32. 32. Their Vine is of the V•• of Sodom, and of the Field of Gomorrah. Whi•••• is a further Proof to us of the Truth of the Holy Scripture, concerning the burning of Sodom and the neighbouring Cities.

I proceed. It is not unlikely that the Vailing of the Bride in use among the Pagans, was tak•••• from the antient Usage of the Patriarchs; for we read in Gen. 24. 65. that Rebekah was brought to Isaac covered with a Vail. Whence among the ••ews Marriage had the Name of Chupphah, from Chi••∣phah to cover. And hence this modest Practice pass'd into other Countries; and we are told by credible Authors, that among the Greeks and Ro∣mans the Wife was brought to the Husband Vail∣ed.

Some think that the Custom mentioned among •• Heathens, of erecting Stones and Pillars, came •• from Iacob's taking a Stone, and setting it up •• Pillar, Gen. 28. 18. and 35. 14. Yea, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lapides Boetulici, in use a∣••••••g them, had their Name from Bethel, the place where Iacob erected the Stone. Ioseph Sca∣•••• (that incomparable Critick) shews how they ••••••••mbled one another, these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being Con∣•••• Stones, erected by the Pagans for some Ho∣••••. Purpose and Religious Remembrances. They ••••ed to anoint these Stones: wherefore such a one 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is called by* 1.187 Arnobius, lubricatus Lapis, & ex∣•••• •• unguine irrigatus; and by† 1.188 Clemens Alexan∣••••••••us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which confirms the former No∣••••on, that these were borrowed from that at Be∣••••; for it is expresly said, that Iacob poured Oil upon the Top of it, Gen. 28. 18. Let it be queried whether the Gentile Custom of anointing Stones u∣sed for Landmarks, (of which Herodotus and others speak) was not grounded on the same Practice of the Patriarchs.

Some have thought the Sacred History's relating that Iacob's Sons came out of his Thigh, (for so it is according to the Hebrew in Gen. 46. 26.) gave oc∣casion to the Fable, that Bacchus was born of Iove's Thigh: for though, according to the Idiom of the Eastern Speech, that Phrase [to come out of his Thigh] signifies no more than to be born of him, or to be his Son; yet the Greeks not understanding the Oriental manner of speaking, mistook the Place, and made a Fable out of it. There are two very‖ 1.189 Learned Men who approve of this, and

therefore I thought good to mention it; but I •• confess I look upon it only as an ingenious Fa•••••• and therefore I am not ready to press this eq•••• with some of the other Particulars I have off•••• before.

It will not seem improbable, I suppose, that •• Practice among the Heathens of closing or shut•• the Eyes of the dying Person, and this by one •• was the most beloved of him, was derived 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gen. 46. 4. Joseph shall put his Hand upon thine E•••••• Accordingly we find this last Office of Friend•••• spoken of in Homer, and other antient Writ•• both Greek and Latin.

The Gentile Story of Busiris's sacrificing of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, hath a very solid Foundation; for we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 easily perceive that this arose from the true 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unquestionable History in Exodus, where we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a New King over Egypt, who set over the Is••••lites Task-masters, to afflict them with their Burd•••••• and who made their Lives bitter with hard Bond•••• Exod. 1. 11, 14. and this was He that made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Edict of drowning the Hebrew Children, ver. 22•• This great Oppressor of Israel was that Bus•••• whom the Gentiles speak of as a noted Tyrant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Egypt; and several agree that that was his t•••••• Name. The Israelites, who came out of Cana•• into Egypt, were the Strangers, and are truly cal∣led so. The sacrificing of them is the cruel a•••• bloody handling of them. That Egyptian Op∣pressor and Tyrant might rightly be said to sacri∣fice his Strangers, when he used the poor Hebr•••• so inhumanely.

Ioseph's Great Fortunes and Noble Acts in Egy•• are celebrated by professed Historians, as well as Poets, among the Pagans; and therefore I need not mention these latter. And of the former s••••••

is sufficient to name Iustin, who acquaints us that Ioseph was the youngest of his Brethren, and •• his excellent Wit and Parts were dreaded by 〈◊〉〈◊〉; which very thing moved them to sell him ••to Egypt, where in a short time he became a ••at Favourite of the King. He goes on and tells

That this Brave Man was very skilful in do∣ing Wonders, and was the first that found out the Meaning and Interpretation of Dreams. The Scarcity or Dearth which happened to E∣gypt, he foresaw many Years before it came. That Land had perished, if the King had not by his Advice laid up Corn in store. He was a kind of Divine Oracle, and consulted by the World, because of his infinite Sagacity, his transcendent Knowledg and Wisdom.

Any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that hath read the Sacred History, may see ••••at this Character was borrowed thence. And it ••s a very notable and illustrious Confirmation of the Truth of the Mosaick History, and in that of the whole Sacred Scripture.* 1.190

Next, I will mention this, that the Annual Cu∣stom of the Egyptians (which† 1.191 Epiphanius speaks of) of marking their Trees and their Flocks with something of a Red Colour, as a kind of Preserva∣tive against any Harm and Mischief that might be∣fal them, was from the Israelites Practice of old in Egypt, when they sprinkled the Lintels and Pos••s of the Doors with Blood, Exod. 12. 22. which pre∣served them from the last and worst Plague which befel the Egyptians. In remembrance of this, o•• rather in a superstitious Imitation of it, the People

of Egypt afterward set a red Mark on their Ho•••• and Goods: And that this Custom was borrow thence, will appear the more probable by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dering that this was done by them at the entr•• of the Vernal Equinox, as Epiphanius relates, w•••••••• was the very time (as we learn from Exod. 12. •• when the Israelites distinguish'd their Houses that Bloody Token. Again, I might offer it •• enquired into by the Learned, whether the •• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sacrifices for Passing, which we•••• use among the Grecians, especially the Laced•• nians, and are mention'd by Xenophon, Thucy•••• and Plutarch, be not an Imita••••on of, or an A〈◊〉〈◊〉 sion unto the famous Jewish Pesach, which is •• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, transitus, the Pass-over, viz. when the •• stroying Angel passed over the Israelites Ho•• and did the Inhabitants of them no harm. Mi•••••••• not this give occasion first to those Grecian •• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Passover-Sacrifices, especially consider•• that that Jewish Feast is call'd not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Philo, Cyril of Alexandria,•••• gory Nazianzen, and others?

The Conducting of the Children of Israel •• of Egypt, and their miraculous Passing through 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Red-Sea, and the overthrow of the Egyptians •• it, could not but be famous among the Pag•• though they endeavour'd to stifle, or at least•• mince it: whereof* 1.192 Iustin only tells us that t•••• King of Egypt followed the Jews when they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Egypt, but was forced to return back by reason •• a great Tempest which arose of a sudden. T•••• Fame of Moses's dividing the Red-Sea, was kept •• among the Gentiles; as† 1.193 D••odorus Siculus witn••••••∣seth:

There is, saith he, a Report spread a∣mong

the Ichthyophagi, a People inhabiting the Shore near the Arabian Gulph, (which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Name given to the Red-Sea among Geogra∣phers) namely, that all that Place where that Gulph is, was dried up, the Waters flying back: but after the Bottom had appear'd for some time, the Place, by a reflux of the Sea, was ••••rn'd into its former Condition.

So he. And ••••••••in he gives a most remarkable Testimony to •• Truth of those words in Exod. 14. 21. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 caused the Sea to go back, and made the Sea dry 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and the Waters were divided; and in v. 27, ••▪ The Sea returned to its Strength, and the Waters ••red the Host of Pharoah. It seems the Ichthyo∣•••• handed this Report to the Historian, not the Egyptians; though he had Converse with these a long time, and they had Correspondence with the ••yophagi: but the Egyptians were so cunning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to conceal their Disgrace and Misfortune: and hence it is that there is so little said among the Pa∣gans concerning this matter.

As to the Red-Sea it self, Mare Erythr••um, there is in that Name a Remembrance of a known Per∣son spoken of in the Old Testament, viz. Esau. For as to what hath been said by some, that this Sea had its Name from its Red Colour, proves an arrant Falshood. Coral at the bottom of it, which some talk of, is not red enough to give it such a Colour. And the Weed which grows in it, whence `tis call'd Iam Suph, Mare algosum, (as Iunius and Tremellius always render it) or Mare junci, (as others, as if it were the Rush or Reed-Sea) cannot give it the Denomination of Red, because (what∣ever some say of this weedy Stuff at the bottom of it) the Water of this Sea is of the same Colour with other Seas, as all Travellers attest. Yea,

though that be true which hath been lately 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gested by some inquisitive Persons, that this W•••••• call'd Suph is a kind of Saffron, of which when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 taken out of the Sea, is made a red Colour call•• Sufo by the Ethiopians, used for dying Cloth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 India and Ethiopia; yet seeing the Sea it self is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dyed with it, but retains the Colour of other S•••••• I cannot think it is called the Red merely beca•••• of that Weed or Sedg used by Dyers. Oth•• have said it hath this Epithet, because the Sto•••• Cliffs, Banks, and Sands of it, by Reflection a•• Repercussion of the Sun's Rays, give such a T•••• cture or Colour to the Waters: but this also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a mere Fancy, and hath been confuted by tho•••• who have purposely writ of this Particular S•••• (viz. that Part of the Ocean on the East whi•••• strikes in with a Bay into the Arabian Shores, a•••• parts Asia from Africa in those Places;) and •• those who have seen it, and tell us it differs not fro•• other Seas. In brief, all impartial Writers agr•••• that it can't be call'd so from its Red Colour, be∣cause it hath nothing of that to be seen in it. Why then did the Learned Seventy Elders of the Jew•• translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Red-Sea? The Reasons we may conceive to be these; because, first, the Hebrew word Suph gave some occasion for it, it being (as I said before) that kind of Sea-weed which was used in dying of Cloth with a red Colour, and so may be translated red; as murex is purple, because murex is that Shell-〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Liquor whereof Purple is made. But the chief, and indeed the only proper Reason (for the other was but an Occasion) of this Version of the Seventy, is this, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath reference to One that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Red, and this was no other than Edom or Esau; for in express words

the Scripture saith, Esau is Edom, Gen. 36. 1. ••ow Edom in Hebrew is the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is •• Greek; whence Philostratus saith, Mare Ery∣••aeum was call'd so from Erythras: with whom ••gree Strabo, Curtius, and other Historians, who relate that it was named so from Erythraeus, a King of that Country, or Coast, where this Sea is. This ••rythras, or Erythraeus, was Esau, who was called Edom, (it signifying the very same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉); ••••d that for these two Reasons, (both which are ••••••igned in Scripture, and therefore we cannot ••••••stion the Truth of them); First, Because he ••as ruddy at his Nativity, he came out red, Gen. 25. 25. whence you read in the same Verse that ••e had his Name. Secondly, Because he was an ••xcessive Admirer and Lover of Red Pottage: thus ••••is expresly said in the 30th verse, Therefore his Name was called Edom, because he was so eager 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be fed with that red Broth. This Edom gave De∣••omination to the Land where he was great and ••••led, and accordingly it was call'd the Land of Edom, Num. 21. 4. and is so in other places: and the Sea adjoining to this Land, received its Name from him too; therefore you find them both join'd together in this place in the Book of Numbers, They journied by the way of the Red-Sea to compass the Land of Edom. As we know Seas are denomina∣ted from the Persons and People they belong to; as the British, the German, the Indian, the Ethi∣opian Sea; so it is here, the Red-Sea hath its name from Edom, (who is Esau) i. e. Red; who by the Greeks was accordingly stiled Erythras or Erythrae∣••••, which signifies the same. Thus these Pagan Nomenclators have left us some Remains of Sacred History in this and other Names that they have im∣pos'd upon Persons and Things.

The coming forth of the Israelites from E•••• is attested by Berosus, Strabo, Numenius, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The last of these (whom we have quoted b•••• as a substantial Witness to the Verity of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saick History) tells us, that* 1.194 Moses, who led •• People out of Egypt, stole from the Natives of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Country some of their sacred things: which any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may see is founded upon what we read in E〈…〉〈…〉 31. 21. & 12. 25. They went not out empty, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 took with them Vessels of Gold and Silver, and G•••••• ments. It is expresly attested by the same P〈…〉〈…〉 Historian, that the Jews travell'd in the De•••••••• of Arabia, and that Moses came to Mount Si•••••• with other things relating to their Travels thro•••••• that Place. All which are Authentick Evide•••••• of the Truth of Scripture-History.

† 1.195 Herodotus's Relation of the fiery Flying-Serp•••••• in Arabia, is a Confirmation of what we meet wi•••• in Numb. 21. 6. where we are told that the Isr•••••• elites were stung and tormented with Fiery ••••••pents in their Passage through the Wilderne•••• As to the Brazen Serpent, mention'd in the sa•••• Chapter, whereby the Israelites were healed, is may be no far-fetch'd Imagination to think th•••• the Magical Images and Sculptures among th•• Heathens, especially the Egyptians, which t•••• Greeks call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Arabians (〈…〉〈…〉 ruptly from the Greek) Talisman, were Imitati| ons of this. They were certainly for the sa•••• purpose, viz. to avert Evil and Mischief from P••••••••sons: therefore Gaffarel thinks these Talisman we•••• the same with the Averrunci, among the old Ro∣mans: and some of the old Hebrew Doctors ha••••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 them the name of Scuta Davidis, on the same ••••ount. It is not improbable that the Images of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Mice, which the Philistian Magitians 〈◊〉〈◊〉 use of, were from the same Original, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first and earliest Emulations of the Ne∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 For as to what* 1.196 Leunclavius saith con∣••••••ning the later Invention of the Talismans, viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they were not till Apollonius Tyanaeus's time, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that he was the Inventer of them, is founded ••••olly on their being called† 1.197 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Iustin Martyr; which (supposing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wise the Author, out of whom he took it, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be spurious) imports only this, that they were ••••••pared and used by him, not that they were his ••vention. Some tell us that the Telesmatical ••gure of a Stork or Scorpion, made under a cer∣••ain Configuration of the Heavens, hath driven ••way Storks and Scorpions, just as the Figure and ••imilitude of a Serpent drove away the venomous ••iery Serpents, and cured those that were stung 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them. But I need not stay here to shew the ••ast Dissimilitude between the one and the other: ••••r the Brazen Serpent, set up by Moses, was not a ••elesme, i. e. a Statue or Figure that hath its ••ower and Efficacy from the Influence of the Stars, ••••d the Shape of the Thing it self. It cured not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Art or Nature, but by Divine Institution. It ••as erected by the immediate Appointment and Direction of God himself, and was moreover a Type and Representation of the Cruci••ied Jesus. ••••t the Telesmatical Images among the Pagans ••ere made on purpose to take the Influence of ••••e particular Stars, and operated (as they said) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 virtue of the Likeness of the Figures to the

Things themselves. We may more truly say they were acted by some Evil Daemons that desig•••••• both to amuse and deceive the World, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make these Telesmatical Preparations service•••••••• (as generally they were) to superstitious and ido∣latrous Ends. But that which I am chiefly to ••••••∣serve here, is this, that it is probable these T••••∣mans of the Pagans were derived at first from th•• Brazen Serpent. This is certain, that many of the•••• Magical Rites were founded on the Religious Pra∣ctices and Ceremonies which the Jews by God•• Order observed.

Some have thought that the Report among 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pagans (which Plutarch, Tacitus, Apion mention) of the Iews worshipping of Asses, had its Origin•••• from what we read in the Old Testament, an•• particularly from something which happened 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Wilderness, (which makes me mention it in th•••• place) viz. their worshipping a Calf, which is a sor∣ry vile Creature as well as an Ass; and so the•••• might be a Mistake of one for the other, as ha•••• been usual in Reports of this nature. And what is said by Tacitus concerning the Asses, may be ap∣plied to the Calf, viz.* 1.198 that a Herd of the•• shew'd the Israelites the Way to a Fountain, where they quenched their Thirst in the Wilderness▪ and thence the Effigies of the Animal, which mo•••• particularly did them that Favour, was worshipp'•• by them. Now this easily agrees to the Gol•••• Calf: for the holy Book acquaints us that the ••••∣raelites in the wide Wilderness were Wandere•••• and Thirsty; wherefore they desired a Guide •• lead them, and Water to quench their Thir••

Accordingly the Calf was designed by them to be t••••••r Conduct in their Journey: This would find ••••t Springs of Water, and lead them to it; this would be their Oracle, and standing Testimony of God's Presence with them. Hereupon therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 imagine the reproachful Imputation laid up∣on the Jews of adoring an Ass, had its Rise, there being only a Mistake of one Animal for another. And truly that is Mistake sufficient here, since we are able to give an account of this reproachful ••aunt, without substituting one Animal in the place of another. But before we do so, let us (seeing we are fallen into this Subject) take notice what other Opinions there are concerning this an∣tient Report of the Iews worshipping an Ass. There are (besides that which I have named) several Ap∣prehensions of the Learned about it. Some think that there being in Palestine a great many Asses, and those of very great account, for their very Princes rid on that sort of Animals, thence the Pagans, who hated that People, feigned that they worshipp'd their Asses. And a poor Fiction in∣deed it had been, if 'twere on that account: for if they had not rid upon them, but have kept them ••p, they might rather thence have gathered that they paid an Adoration to them. But I suppose few Readers will believe there is any Ground here, and therefore I let this pass.* 1.199 Another very bu∣sy Critick guesses this Report to have risen from Gen. 36. 24. This is that Anah that found the Mules ••he reads it eth hajamim, the Waters) in the Wilder∣••ss, as he fed the Asses of his Father Zibeon. Whence, ••••••th he, the Pagans tell us that Moses found out Waters by help of the Asses which he fed; and

thence Asses were honoured. But neither is the•••• here any Ground for such an Inference: for 〈◊〉〈◊〉, there is no probability that the Gentiles took no∣tice of such an obscure Place of Scripture as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2dly, Anah and Moses are here confounded: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 j••mim is put for jemim; And lastly, the wh•• Sense and Import of the Text are perverted: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Anah is mention'd in this place with Infamy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Words are to be understood thus, This is A∣nah who was the first that caused and provok•••• Horses to engender with She-Asses; whence a new Species against Nature is begot into the World•• this is that base Man, of an incestuous Fancy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Inventer of this unnatural Brood of Animals. This I take to be the meaning of those words, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is that Anah that found out the Mules in the Wilder∣ness. There is* 1.200 another Author who thinks th•••• Pagan Fable is founded on an Allusion to a Word, as thus, A Jewish Temple was built in Egypt (〈◊〉〈◊〉 imitation of that at Ierusalem) by Onias a High-Priest, as† 1.201 Iosephus relates: now, the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being akin to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Alexandrines and some merry Greeks, who hated the Jews, thought they were facetious, when they said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Ass, was worshipp'd in the Temple of the Jews. But here is contain'd nothing of the Circumstances (as the finding a Place of Water, and quenching their Th••••••, &c.) belonging to the Fable: besides that, a M•••••• and an Ass are unhappily confounded by this Au∣thor. Briefly, this is a mere Strain of Fancy, an•• can never find acceptance among Persons of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and composed Thoughts. There is yet another Opinion which I have met with somewhere, viz.

that the Gentiles thought the Jews worshipp'd an Ass because of that Law in Exod. 34. 20. concern∣ing the redeeming the first-born of an Ass. This A∣nimal being exempted from Sacrifice, when Calves and Lambs and Kids were not, it might seem to be some excellent thing, and therefore was wor∣shipp'd. But according to this way of inferring, the Pagans might have reported that the Jews worshipp'd a Dog, there being a particular Prohi∣bition against offering it in Sacrifice. Besides, this Account (like that before mentioned) hath not any of the Circumstances with which the Fable is clothed in Pagan Writers, as that it was an Ass's Head that was worshipp'd, and that by means of it a Spring of Water was found out, &c. which we ought particularly to consider when we are gi∣ving an account of this Pagan Taunt against the Jews.

Lastly then, to offer a Conjecture of my own, I am strongly inclined to think this Calumny of the Heathens against the Jews arose from the History of Samson, in which is particular mention of the Iaw-bone of an Ass, and of the strange things done by it, Iudg. 15. 15, 16. Samson (as you shall hear anon) was famous among the Pagans, his Actions were noted and celebrated among them. And this par∣ticular Action and Exploit of the Iaw-bone, where∣with he slew a thousand Men, being singular and wonderful, was well known to them; especially it came to be famous and talk'd of, when there was this surprizing Miracle added to it, that when Samson was exceedingly tormented with Thirst, and like to die for want of something to quench it, God clave a hollow Place that was in the Iaw, and there came Water thereout; and when he had drunk, his Spirit came again, and he revived, ver. 18, 19. Here

was the Iaw-bone of an Ass, which was a conside∣rable part of the Head of an Ass. The minding of this gave the first occasion to me to think that the Tradition among the Pagans was taken from this: for if you consult those Writers who make mention of it, you will find the Report was, that the Jews worshipp'd the Head of an Ass. So we read in a* 1.202 virulent Writer against the Jews, that that particular Part, and no other, was set up in the Temple of Ierusalem, and Religiously venera∣ted by that People; and that Antiochus took it down, and carried it away with him, (it being of Gold, as he would make us believe, and therefore worth the carrying) when he rifled the Temple▪ Minutius Felix takes notice of this particular Re∣proach of the Christians, (for you must know to a Heathen a Iew and a Christian were the same; for the first Christians being Jews by Birth, the same Calumny was fix'd on both) that they adored the † 1.203 Head of that most vile Beast. Which also Petro∣nius ‖ 1.204 Arbiter testifies in those words;

Iud••••us licèt & porcinum numen adoret, Et coeli sum••ias advocet auriculas.

From the first Verse it appears that the Gentiles thought the Jews worshipp'd Swine, perhaps be∣cause they abstain'd from eating their Flesh; for among the Gentiles, what they did not eat, was generally worshipp'd. And in the next Verse there is is a mistake of coeli for cilli, i. e. asini, (as some Criticks have well observ'd) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Dorick word for an Ass: so that as before the

Poet chargeth the Jews with worshipping of Swine, so here he alludes to that flying Story among the Pagans, that that Nation reverenced an Ass's Head; for auriculae is put here for caput, which could not stand in the Verse; the prominent and most con∣spicuous Parts of the Head are put for the Head it self. And if they worshipp'd the Ears, because a part of the Head, then they paid the same Ho∣nour to the Cheeks, to the Jaws, and to the Jaw∣bone, which is a more solid Part. None of the Authors of the foregoing Opinions have attended to this, that it was the Head of an Ass, (not an Ass in general) that was said to be worshipp'd by the Jews; and thence arose their Mistakes. Let it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be noted therefore, that this was the scurri∣lous Reflection of the Pagans on the Jews, that they gave Religious Honour to the Head of an Ass: and let it be observed at the same time, that it was an Ass's Head which Samson found, and so bravely managed, though it was one particular Part of it, viz. the Iaw-bone, with which he did execution on his Enemies. Wherefore I offer it as a probable Assertion, that the Report concerning the Jewish People reverencing of an Ass's Head, took its rise from that prodigious Exploit of Samson, that strange Execution which he did with the Iaw-bone of an Ass. This gave occasion to the Israelites to extol and magnify that marvellous Weapon, and at the same time the Providence of God in administring such an unexpected Engine to him, and enabling him to do such great things with it. The neighbouring Gentiles soon heard of this, and spread abroad this Rumour, that the Hebrews ce∣lebrated and worshipp'd the Ass's Head or Jaw; and it is likely they thought they really did so, be∣cause they themselves used to make any thing the

Object of their Adoration: or because an Ass 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a contemptible Creature, they said this as a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Jews, And then if you remember the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 son which is assigned by the foresaid Histori•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 why they worshipp'd an Ass, you will be furth•• confirmed in this Notion which I now tend•• The Reason, as you have heard, was because t•• Creature▪ (as they said) was instrumental in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out a Fountain of Water, whereby they all••y•• their Thirst in the Desart. They worshipp'd an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith* 1.205 Plutarch, because it directed them to a Sp•• of Water. Which excellently agrees with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Inspired History tells us, that there was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Place in the Iaw, whence Water came forth; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 therewith Samson quenched his Thirst. This 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Pagan Story parallel with this in the Book 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iudges, from whence it is most probable they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 borrowed it. And whereas 'tis said by some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the forecited Authors, that this was done in t•••• Wilderness, they may be well excused herein; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is only a mistake of the Place: (Yet by the by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is a Pagan Confirmation that the Israelites 〈◊〉〈◊〉 once in the Wilderness, according as the Scripture relateth: yea and what Tacitus adds further co••∣cerning the Jews at that time, viz.† 1.206 their want of Water in the Wilderness, one of the most remark-able things that happened to that People in their Travels, is yet a greater Proof and Confirmatio•• of the Reality of the Sacred History.) I could add, that this happened not long after this People had been come out of the Wilderness, and so the•• was no great mis-timing of the Story. Th••, whereas 'tis said by the Historian last named, 〈◊〉〈◊〉

th•• J••ws dedicated this Animal to their Temple, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is added perhaps of his own Head, which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••common Practice among the Gentiles, (as well Historians as Poets) when they are relating t••ings concerning those whom they have no Kind∣••••ss for. This is the best Account I am able to give of this Gentile Tradition, which was of so antient •• Date: for I question not but that the* 1.207 Jewish Writer was overseen, when he saith Appion the Grammarian of Alexandria, was the first that rai∣sed this Lie. And Monsieur Bochart talks as vain∣ly, when he tells us, that Appion had the occasion of this Fable from the mistake of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pi jao, (the Mouth, or Word of the Lord;) for 〈◊〉〈◊〉, asinus, in the Egyptian Tongue; for Appion, forsooth, was an Egyptian, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was antient∣ly read Iao. Supposing this latter to be true, yet ••e could not learn hence that an Ass's Head was placed in the Jewish Temple, and afterward re∣••oved by Antiochus. Wherefore I see no Depen∣dance or Connection between these things, and consequently this great Critick's Notion may be look'd upon as groundless, as any one that is con∣versant in that ingenious Man's Writings, knows there are many such. The short is; we must take this old Obloquy against the Jews as it is repre∣sented by the Pagan Writers (with whom we have to do at present) with its proper Circumstances: and if we do so, I conceive we cannot refer it to any Passage in the Old Testament so pertinently as to this which I have propounded. If I am not mistaken, this antient Calumny is derived from that part of the History of Samson which I have mentioned; which shews the Antiquity and Au∣thority

of the Sacred Writings, and that the scr••••pture-History is the Ground of the most of the ••••••bulous Passages and Reports in the Writings of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heathens.

I could mention here also, that the Jews we•• accused of Pagan Writers to have worshipp'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Clouds and the Heavens.

* 1.208 Nil praeter Nubes & Coeli numen adorant.

Which the Satyrist speaks of the Jews. A•• † 1.209 Strabo reports the same. Some have thoug•••• that the Coelicolae, the Heaven-worshippers, me••∣tioned in that Title of the‖ 1.210 Codex, De Iudaeis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Coelicolis, hath relation to this Matt••r: but I thin•• it is evident from the Title it self, that the Ie•• and Coelicolae were not the same, but two different sort of People; else it would not have been [Of the Iews and Coelicolae], but [of the Iews or Coeli∣colae.] Moreover, he that looks into the* 1.211 T••e∣odosian Code, from whence Iustinian took this, will be convinced that the Jews are not meant by Coeli∣colae; for there they are said to be an unheard••of Name, and a new Crime: whereas they had that Name in Augustus's time, according to Strabo. There have been different Opinions concerning the rise of this Pagan Contumely, viz. that the Iews adored the Heavens and the Clouds. Some think it commenced from the superstitious and idola∣trous Practice of that People in worshipping the Host of Heaven, as we read they did. But I can∣not assent to this, because 'tis unreasonable to ima∣gine that the Pagans would jeer the Jews for that

••hich they visibly practised themselves. Others ••ay this arose from the Devotion of the Jews, who ••sed to look up towards Heaven when they made their Prayers to God. But this was in common to them with the Pagan Worshippers, who naturally had this Posture of Devotion, and cast up their Eyes, and spread out their Hands to∣wards Heaven: therefore this could not be the occasion of this Imputation. But there is another Opinion which I find most applauded, and it is this, that this Obloquy of the Heathens proceeded from their mistaking the use of the word Shamajim, Heavens among the Hebrews, and even in the Scripture it self, where sometimes it signifies God ••imself. This is the Conjecture of the Learned * 1.212 Mr. Selden: hence, saith he, the Gentiles in∣ferr'd that the Jews made Heaven a Deity. But I apprehend this Inference could not be made by them, because Shamajim is used in this sense but in one place in the Old Testament, viz. in Dan. 4. 26. the Heavens do rule, where the Heavens import God himself. But I can't believe that the Pagans thought the Jews were Worshippers of the Heavens, be∣cause in this one single place, and no where else, God is call'd Heaven. And though I grant the Jewish Rabbies used the word Shamajim thus, ma∣king God and the Heavens Synonymous in some places of their Writings, yet they do it no where so as there might be occasion for this Mistake.

Having thus told you what I conceive did not give rise to this Pagan Accusation, I will acquaint you what I take to be the true and only occasion of it. Here then you must observe that that which is the chief thing in the Jeer, is, that the Clouds

were worshipp'd; Nil praeter Nubes, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adoring of these the Railery arises, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are but mention'd by the by, as being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Place where these Clouds are. This being pr••••sed, I offer it as a probable Assertion, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Piece of Pagan Railery was borrow'd from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we often read in Moses's History, that God led 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Israelites in their Journey from Egypt, and thro•• the Wilderness, by a* 1.213 Cloud that went be•• them. To this they often look'd up; the C••••duct of this they daily attended to with gr•• Reverence: the Report of which, occasion'd t•• Charge of the Pagans against the Jews, that the•• were Cloud-Worshippers. This is undeniable, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that miraculous Leading of that People by a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 could not but be very famous among the Neig••∣bouring Gentiles, who soon communicated 〈◊〉〈◊〉 news of it to others that were about them; and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Report came to be frequent in the Mouths 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most Pagans. And truly when they related th•• the Cloud was adored by the Jews, they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mistaken; for it was no other than the Symbol 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God's Presence: it was a secondary and remo•• Object of their Reverence and Devotion, as the Ark, and more especially the Mercy-Seat was. On∣ly here they shew'd their gross Ignorance in con∣cluding that if the Jews worshipp'd one Cloud, they might as well pay the same Respect to ano∣ther, yea to all: whence we are told by the Poet that they worshipp'd nothing else but Clouds. Though truly I am willing to take this Author i•• another Sense, and I will go yet further, and of∣fer this to be consider'd, viz. whether the wonder∣ful Fire, as well as the Cloud, which went before

the Israelites in their Travels, be not here men∣tion'd by this Poet, seeing Farnaby in his Notes, and others before him, acquaint us that this Verse in some Copies is read thus;

Nil praeter Nubes, & Coeli lumen adorant.

Where by Nubes we understand (as I have said be∣fore) the Pillar of the Cloud which was the Israelites Guide in the Day-time, and by Coeli lumen the Pillar of Fire or Light which conducted them in the Night. It is very likely that this latter reading of the Verse is the truest, and accordingly you have a plain and obvious Account of what we undertook to enquire into, viz. the Cloud which the Jews were said to worship, and of something more, namely, the Light of Heaven which this Writer saith they shew'd the same regard to; which is no other, I conceive, than that Fiery Pillar which con∣tinually appear'd to the Israelites in the Night, and directed them in their way: and 'tis most ap∣positely here call'd Coeli lumen, the Light of Hea∣ven, according to the very stile of the Old Testa∣ment, where 'tis stiled a Light of Fire, Psal. 7••. 14. and where we are informed it was set up in the Heavens on purpose by God to give them Light, Exod. 13. 21. This, I say, is the plain Account of this Poetick Passage, and I do not see any Ob∣jection that lies against it. Wherefore I take it to be as notable a Testimony as any we have ••rom the Pagan Writers of the Truth of the Mosaick History, and other Records of the Old Testa∣ment.

CHAP. V.

From the Writings and Practices of Strangers it is ••••vident that there were such Jewish Usages and C••••remonies as these, viz. The Observation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Seventh Day: Washings and Purifications: Pa••∣ing of First-fruits and Tithes: Abstaining from cer∣tain kinds of Food: Peculiar Garments for th•• Priests: Bearing the Tabernacle and Ark: T•• High-Priest's going once a Year into the Holy of H••∣lies: Sacrifices, with several things that belong'd to them: The Mercy-Seat and Oracle: The Urim a•••• Thummin: the Scape-Goat: the Water of Iealo••∣sy: the Feast of Tabernacles: Nazaritism: Vnle••∣vened Bread: Circumcision: the Law of Cherem: Lots: Cities of Refuge: New-Moons: Iubilee▪ Mysteries and Types. Ample Testimonies out of Profane Authors are added concerning Moses.

VI. THe Mosaick Ceremonies, and the prevailing of them (as very antient) are vouched by the very Practice of the Pagan World. To in∣stance in some, (for it would be too tedious to mention all) and first in the dividing of Time in∣to Weeks or Seven Days, and the observing a Se∣venth Day as sacred: thus Hesiod called it

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

the Seventh Holy Day, because among the Gentiles this was a Day of Solemn Worship, set apart for Religious Offices. It is observ'd by* 1.214 Lampridi••

of Severus the Emperor, that he used to go to the ••pitol, and frequent the Temples on this Day. Yea, the very word Sabbath was used by some of them: thus* 1.215 Suetonius saith, Diogenes the Gram∣••arian used to hold Disputations at Rhodes on the Sabbaths. And from† 1.216 Lucian, we learn that the Seventh Day was a Festival, and a Play-day for School-Boys. From these, and several other Instances which we may find in‖ 1.217 Clemens A∣lexandrinus and* 1.218 Eusebius, it might be proved that the more Solemn Services of Religion among the Gentiles, and their Cessations from Work, were on the Seventh Day of the Week. Now, no wise Man will assert that this Custom was founded on Nature; for no Light of Reason could dictate this Division of Days into just seven, and no more: therefore 'tis reasonable to think that the general Agreement of the World in this A∣rithmetick, was derived from the Jews, who were particularly signalized by their Observation of the Seventh-Day, which was enjoin'd them by God himself, as in Exod. 20. 9. Six Days shalt thou la∣bour, and do all thy Work; but the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: In it thou shalt not do any Work, &c. And in other places the Institution and Observation of this Particular Day are men∣tion'd. Or, I might have traced the Original of this yet higher, and found it dated from the very Creation, from the beginning of all things, when we read of God's resting on the Seventh Day, Gen. 2. 2. and his Blessing the Seventh Day, and Sanctifying it, v. 3. From whence, without doubt, the Custom among several Gentiles of observing some Seventh Day in the Week, had its first rise.

Again, the Gentiles took their several 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Lustrations, and Purifications from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of which the Books of Moses treat. When 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Contents of these Writings, or the Practice of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Jewish People came to be known to the Pa•• they presently set themselves to imitate them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most of the Washings and Purifyings used by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Jews, came to be part of their Religion. The Jew•• Priests washed their Hands and Feet before th•• went about their Sacred Office, before they sa••••ficed and touched Holy Things: and they had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Temple Lavers for that very purpose. Like••wise they used Aspersion toward others, and we•• enjoin'd to cleanse and purify them from th•• Defilements which they had contracted. In a wo•• every Thing and Person belonging to the Jew•• Service and Worship were hallow'd and cleans 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by certain ways of Purification prescribed by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Law. Hence we read of frequent Washings 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sprinklings among the Pagans:

* 1.219 Idem ter socios purâ circumtulit undâ, Spargens rore levi, & ramo felicis olivae, Lustravit{que} viros.

And† 1.220 Macrobius assures us that the Gentile De••∣tionists, when ever they addressed themselves 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Gods, whether Celestial or Infernal, prep••••red themselves before-hand by using of Wat•••• more or less. Hence it became a Maxim amo•• them, that‖ 1.221 all Sacred Things must be sprinkled wi•••• pure Water. And they had Vessels for this purpose▪

which contained that Consecrated Element. It might be proved from good Authors (as you may see in the Learned Dr. Spencer) that they for the most part sprinkled the Worshippers as they went into their Temples. The truth is, these Rites of Washing and Purifying, which were used both by Iews and Gentiles, are so like one another, that we cannot but conclude either the Gentiles took them from the Jews, or these from them. The latter is in no wise probable, because it is unworthy of God, and of the Religion which he instituted a∣mong the Jews, to imagine that he would take Example from the Pagans, and make their Religi∣on the Standard of that which he gave to his own People, (though it is true the Jews often imita∣ted the Pagans in their Customs and Rites, but ne∣••er by the Command and Order of God, but ab∣solutely against it:) therefore the former is most likely and reasonable, viz. that the Pagans in way of Imitation took their Ceremonies of Washing and Lustration from the Jews. The same Argu∣ment may be used in all the Particulars which we shall mention afterwards under this Head: by this we may prove that those Ceremonious Observan∣ces, commanded the Jews, were not originally from the Gentiles, but first of all were enjoin'd by the True God. But concerning these Purifications which we are now speaking of, see what was the ••udgment of Iustin Martyr of old; who producing the Prophet Isaiah's words, Wash ye, make ye ••••an, chap. 1. ver. 16. and commenting upon ••hem, adds this,* 1.222

When the Devils heard of this Washing, spoken of by the Prophet, they caus'd this to be the effect of it, namely, when∣ever

they go into their Temples, or approac•• near them, or are about to be employ'd in their Sacrifices and Offerings, they sprinkle Water 〈◊〉〈◊〉 themselves.

This Learned Father was clearly of the Opinion that this Rite of Aspersion whic•• the Gentiles used, was stolen from the Jewi•••• Church, and not that this stole them from the Heathens. With whom agrees a late Learned Antiquary, who, speaking of the particular Mo∣saick Lustrations, or Purgations used by the Jewi•••• Priests, viz. of Washing themselves before they entred into the Temple, saith thus,* 1.223

This kind of Purgation was taken from the Jews by the People of other Nations, who when they entre•• into their Temples, had their Lustrations and Rites of Washing in Imitation of the Jews.

Thirdly, The Gentile Custom of offering First••fruits and Tenths was borrow'd from the Jews, and the Old Testament. That it was a general Usage among the Pagan Worshippers to offer their First-fruits to some of their Deities, is amply testified by† 1.224 Censorinus. And that the Custom of paying Tithes was as general and antient, might be pro∣ved from the respective Histories which speak of this Matter. This was a considerable Part of the old Romans Religion, who (as Plutarch writes) were wont to bestow a tenth Part of the Fruits which the Earth yielded them, and of other Goods and Profits, on their Sacred Feasts, Sacrifices and Temples, in honour of the Gods: but this was not every Year, or by any compulsive Law, but free∣ly and out of Gratitude. He tells us that Camil•• faithfully pay'd to Apollo the Tenth of his Boot•• and Spoils taken from the Enemy; and that Lu∣cullu••

grew rich because he religiously practis'd that laudable Custom of paying Tithes to Hercules. That the Greeks also paid Tithes, appears from that Dictate of the Oracle to them,—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and from that Delphick In∣scription,

* 1.225〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

From whence Apollo was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A∣mong the Persians also this Custom prevail'd; for Cyrus (as Herodotus saith) offer'd Tithes to Iupiter after a Victory obtained. And this might easily be proved of other Nations: it was grown into an universal and fixed Custom to offer the Tenths to some God or Goddess, post rem bene gestam, as * 1.226 Servius speaks, after any considerable Success either at home or abroad. Insomuch, that at last it came to be an indispensible Part of the Gentile Religion; and thence (as Suidas observes) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks, was as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consecrare. Now this Sacred and Religious Rite of Dedicating just a tenth Part to their Gods, is no Law of Nature. Though this might put them up∣on offering part of their Increase to those from whom they thought they received the whole, yet this particular Quota is no Dictate of Nature. They were not bid by the Law of exact Reason to consecrate the Tithe of all to the Gods. It is as reasonable and accountable to give a ninth or e∣leventh Part to them as the Tenth: Therefore this must proceed from some positive Law and par∣ticular Institution. And hence I gather that the Pagans received this Rite and Custom from the

Iews, who were under a Law of Tithes by the special Command of God, as the Scripture informs us. And though a late* 1.227 Author of great Lear∣ning, reckons Tithes to have had their Rise from the Pagan World, yet he cannot but be sensible that the contrary is universally imbraced by the Learned. Selden particularly proves that the Phoe∣nicians and Egyptians, and others, who were near Neighbours to the Jews, received that Custom from the Jewish Nation; and that afterwards it was transmitted from those neighbouring Heathens to others farther off, as the Greeks, Romans, &c. Or, if it could be found that some Heathens before the Jewish Dispensation offered Tithes, we might reasonably assert that some of the Patriarchs before the Law gave occasion to the Heathens to do so. But this can no where be found; but on the con∣trary, the antientest Instance of giving Tithes is that of Abraham: we read that after a great Vi∣ctory he devoted the Tithes of all the Spoils to the Priest of the most High God. From this and the like Practice, the offering of Tithes among the Heathens took its beginning.

Fourthly, Abstaining from certain kinds of Fo•• among the Jews, caused (it is probable) the sam•• Custom among other Nations. The Distinction 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Clean and Vnclean Meats was derived from the Jews to the Egyptians: thus† 1.228 Herodotus and‖ 1.229 Plu∣tarch report that these eat no Swines Flesh; yea▪ if they do but touch it, they wash themselves. S•• it is related concerning the Phoenicians, Cretian•• and Syrians, that they abstain'd from this sort 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Flesh. These last also eat neither Fish nor Pigeons▪ Some of the Greek Philosophers observ'd this Dif∣ference

of Meats very strictly, as Diogenes, Pytha∣goras, Apollonius, Tyanaeus; as Laertius, Plutarch and Philostratus assure us. The Old Pythagoreans ab∣stain'd from several kinds of Food, especially they refrain'd from eating of Fish. What God tacitly forbad in Sacrifices, as the Brain and the Heart, (for neither of these are commanded to be sacri∣ficed unto God) those Philosophers openly forbad at their Tables. And they derived from the He∣brews their not eating things that died of them∣selves, or that had Blood in them. In many other Usages it might be shewed that the Pythagorean Way was an Imitation of Judaism.

Fifthly, The Heathen Priests Garments were in imitation of those which the Jewish Priests wore. The Pagan Pontiffs wore a Mitre on their Heads, as* 1.230 Philostratus testifies: and a White Vest, or Li∣nen Ephod, was the usual Apparel of their Priests in their Holy Service, as† 1.231 Valerius Maximus and others inform us. A worthy‖ 1.232 Writer before mentioned, asserts that the Priests Vestments of Linen were a Ceremony taken from the Egyptians, and quotes Authors to prove that the Egyptian Priests used such a sort of Vesture. But it is more probable that the Egyptians and other Nations had it from the Jews. I am not singular in this: it was the Sense of the Antients (as* 1.233] Photius inti∣mates) that the Worshippers of Idols, in imi∣tation of God's Priests, clothed theirs with a pe∣culiar sort of Garments, which were after the fashion of the Ephod. With which agrees the

Learned‖ 1.234 Bochart:

The Egyptians (saith he) being in many things followers of the Jews, permitted their Priests to wear no other Vest∣ments but Linen ones.

And again in the same Place he saith,

Plutarch doth greatly philoso∣phize concerning the Linen Garments which the Egyptians wore, but more subtilely th••n solidly, he being ignorant that many Rites and Usages of this nature were derived from the Jews to the Egyptians.

And† 1.235 Huetius is po••i∣tive in this Notion, saying,

The Priests of Is••, i. e. the Egyptian Priests, wore Linen, and therein imitated the Linen Garments of the Hebrew Priests.

Sixthly, The carrying of the Heathen Gods in little Tabernacles, Tents, or portable Temples, (as you read of the Tabernacle of Moloch, Amos 5. 25. and Acts 7. 43.) was taken from the Jews carrying the Ark, which was the Symbol of God's Presence. So‖ 1.236 Gas∣par Sanctius:

The Tabernacle (saith he) of Moloch was a certain Bier on which Moloch was carried about in solemn Pomp; whom the Jews, after the fashion of the Gentiles, carried with them, whithersoever they went, in a Religious Manner, and for Protection-sake, making him the Companion and Guide of their Travels: even as the Jews of old (observe that) carried the Ark, and in it the Divine Oracle, through the Wilderness. Thus Dr.* 1.237 Godwin:

The bearing or taking up of this Tabernacle ••ay seem to have its Original among the Heathens from an unwarrantable Imitation of Moses's Ta∣bernacle, which was nothing else but a portable ‖‖ 1.238

Temple, to be carried from place to place as need required: For (as he goes on) it cannot be denied that many Superstitions were derived unto the Heathen from the true Worship of God which he himself had prescribed unto his People.

But the worthy Author afore-cited is of another Opinion, telling us,

That the Ta∣bernacle of Moloch was the first Original of tho Tabernacle of God. God saw that the Pagans took up on their Shoulders the Tabernacle of Moloch, and thereupon made a Tabernacle for himself, and an Ark to be born upon Shoulders.

Thus he. And if you would see the Parallel be∣tween Moloch's Tabernacles and God's Tabernacle, take it from that Learned Pen thus:* 1.239 Moloch's Tabernacle was portable; therefore God's was so. Moloch's Tabernacle contained in it his Image: so the Tabernacle of Testimony had in it the Ark, and a pair of Images, viz. the Cherubims. In Moloch's Idolatrous Temple Moloch shewed him∣self present by his Image, and by giving Answers thence: Accordingly in the Jewish Tabernacle the True God inhabited, and exhibited frequent∣ly a sensible Testimony of his Presence. The Ido∣latrous Tabernacle was called the Tabernacle of Moloch, i. e. the King: Semblably the Mosaick Ta∣bernacle was accounted and held to be the Palace and Mansion of the Highest King, i. e. God. The Tabernacle dedicated to Moloch, represented the Sun placed in its Celestial Tabernacle: In imita∣tion of this, Moses's Tabernacle was a Represen∣tation of the Heavens and the Stars, and the whole World. Seeing the Learned Author was pleased to publish this Parallel to the World, I hope it is

no Offence to repeat it here, and with submission to so accomplish'd a Person, to deliver my Thoughts freely of it. He will not permit it to be said, that the Devil apes the Almighty: this he discards and brands as a* 1.240 Vulgar Error. But I crave leave to ask this Question, Is not this more tolerable, yea more credible, than to say that the Cursed Fiend is imitated by God himself? Can we think that the True God is so careful and precise in following the Idolatrous Gentiles? Can we believe that he so exactly emulated every Point of Idolatry be∣longing to Moloch's Tabernacle? Surely this can∣not be thought worthy of that All-wise Being, this cannot be consistent with what we read of him. Wherefore let us consult the Place in Amos; Have ye offered unto me Sacrifices and Offerings in the Wil∣derness, forty Years, O House of Israel? But ye have born the Tabernacle of your Moloch, and Chiun your Images, the Star of your God which ye made to your| selves; chap. 5. 25, 26. Here God reproves and upbraids the Israelites for their gross Idolatry, and particularly for bearing the Tabernacle of Moloch. Whatever Disputes there be about other things in these Words, this is undeniable, and beyond all Controversy, that bearing the Tabernacle of Moloch was a piece of Idolatrous Service, it being oppo∣sed here to offering Sacrifices and Offerings unto God. With this Idolatrous Worship of theirs Gods was provoked and incensed, and tells them in the next Verse, they shall go into Captivity for this very thing. Is it then probable that this bearing of the Taberna∣cle of Moloch was the Original of worshipping the True God in the Tabernacle? Is it reasonable to believe that he made this manner of Worship his

Own, and instituted it as one of the chief and ••rincipal Parts of the Solemn Religion of the ••ews? Were all things to be done by the Jews in their Religious Service, according to the Pattern in ••••e Mount? How then can the bearing of the Taber∣••••cle of Moloch among the Gentiles, be the First Pattern (as that Learned Author expresly saith) ••f Tabernacle-Worship among the Jews? God was * 1.241 grieved with the Generation of the Iews in the Wil∣derness, as he saith himself; he was exceedingly displeased with them for this their Idolatrous Worship: but behold! he soon changed his Mind, and took a liking to this Way, and set it up among the Israelites, and caused it to be the Choicest and most Sacred Piece of Divine Worship. Thus God's Worship was a Transcript from Moloch, in∣stead of being the First Original Pattern. I must needs confess I cannot prevail with my self to ••n∣tertain such Thoughts as these, and to frame such a Notion of God. I rather choose to embrace that Vulgar Error, (as he is pleased to stile it) that a great part of the Ceremonies which the Pagans used in their Religion, was taken from the Wor∣ship prescribed by God himself in the Old Testa∣ment, and particularly that the Tabernacle of Mo∣loch, i. e. the Seat in which he was carried up and down to be worshipp'd, the* 1.242 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that Idol, (as St.† 1.243 Luke calls that of the God Remphan) was in imitation of the Iewish Tabernacle, or portable Temple, wherein Iehovah was present; and that from the Ark in that holy Place, the Gentile Wor∣shippers borrowed their Chests, and Boxes, and litttle Houses, wherein they carried their Gods up and down. I shall afterwards have occasion to

account with the Learned Author who oppo•• this, and the Doctrine which leads to it; th•• fore I shall add no more here.

Seventhly, The Heathens followed the U•• of the Jews in some things which were done their Consecrated Places and Temples. It was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 stom, saith an* 1.244 antient Writer, to go but on•• Year into some of those Places, and it was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unlawful to visit some of them at all.† 1.245 P••∣nias instances in particular Temples which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 opened but one Day in a Year: and of Or••us's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith,‖ 1.246 None was permitted to enter into it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Priest. This any Man may see was borro•• from the Divine Constitution among God's Peop•••• that the High Priest only was to go into the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Holies, and that but once in a whole Year. T•• this likewise I may adjoin, that the Adyta a•• Penetralia among the Pagans, were taken from t•••• Holy of Holies among the Jews. Those Pla•• (which were the same also with their Delu•• were (as* 1.247 Servius explains them) Secret R••∣cesses in their Temples; they were hidden a•••• remote Apartments that were inaccessible to all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Priests, and therefore they had the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Adyta, as† 1.248 Caesar observ'd. This is a pl•• Imitation of the Sanctum Sanctorum, that In•• Part of the Sanctuary among the Hebrews, w•••• ther (as hath been said) the Chief Minister 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religion only could have access.

Eighthly, The Pagan Sacrifices, and many Rites, Usages and Circumstances about them, were bor∣rowed from the old Patriarchs and Jews, of whom the Old Testament gives us the Rela••ion. The Sa∣crifices of the Gentiles are sacrilegious Imitations of the Hebrews, saith* 1.249 St. Austin peremptorily; and at several other times he professedly declares that many of their Religious Observances were from the Jews: I might observe that their Immolation, (so called from a Cake of Flower which the Priest, when he came to sacrifice, laid on the Head of the Beast) and their Libation, or Tasting the Wine, and Sprinkling it on the Beast's Head, and likewise their Eating and Drinking part of the things which were sacrificed, making merry with the Remains of what was offered, were plain Imi∣tations of what the Hebrew Priests did. The using of Salt in Sacrifices is another thing which may be mentioned here; for this also was derived from the same Fountain. Hence Homer gives Salt the Epithet of† 1.250 Divine: and Plato observes that Salt is well accommodated to sacred things; where∣fore it is call'd by him‖ 1.251 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or, as* 1.252 Plutarch transcribes it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most acceptable to the Gods. Of what Authority and Worth Salt is, you may learn, saith† 1.253 Pliny, from its being constantly used in holy Things by the Antients. Whence had they this Notion and Practice but from the Hebrews, among whom Moses, or rather God, ordered all things that were offer'd in Sa∣crifice ‖ 1.254 to be seasoned with Salt: and thence it is call'd, in the same place, Salt of the Covenant, be∣cause they were bound as by Covenant to use it in

all Sacrifices: to which our Saviour refers, (ap••plying it to another Sense)* 1.255 Every Sacrifice 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be salted with Salt. To pass to some other Ci••••cumstances relating to the Gentile Sacrifices, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which sprang from the Old Testament: In i••tation of the Perpetual Fire on the Altar among 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Jews, the Assyrians and Chaldeans kept a Fire 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ways burning, and accounted it a very sacred 〈◊〉〈◊〉 choice Treasure. This is Nergal which we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mention'd in 2 Kings 17. 30. according to the o•• pinion of a very† 1.256 excellent Man. And so•• think this sacred Fire was kept in that City whi•••• they call'd Vr, from Vr, ignis. The Persians 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had their Perpetual Fire, which they religious•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kept, as‖ 1.257 Strabo relates. So it was ordered 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Greeks, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be kept 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Temple of Apollo at Delphos, and in that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Minerva in Athens: this Fire was call'd by the•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence the Latin Vesta. And the Roman•• as well as the Grecians observed this Custom•• a Continual Fire was kept in the Temple of Ves•• at Rome, as Virgil, Ovid, Valerius Maximus, and several other of their Writers acquaint us. The Virgins (thence call'd Vestal Virgins) who had the care of it, suffer'd it not to go out, unless in time of Civil War: at all other times they continually attended and watched it, constantly repaired and recruited it. If by any strange Accident the Fire was extinguish'd, it was not to be rekindled by ordinary Fire, but by the Rays of the Sun; which was done by Instruments on purpose. This Sacred Fire thus perpetually kept burning, and which was in order to the Sacrifices, was in em••∣••••tion

of God's express Command to his own Peo∣ple in Lev. 6. 13. The Fire shall ever be burning on the Altar: it shall never go out. And if you re∣member the Original of this Fire, namely, that it came down from Heaven, when Aaron the first time offer'd Sacrifice in the Desart, you will be farther confirmed that the Pagans had this Usage from the Jews: for herein also they imitated them, as was suggested before; they renewed this Fire from Heaven whenever it chanced to go out. The Vestal Fire was borrowed from Celestial Heat, not kindled by any Earthly Flame: which shews that the Iews Heavenly Fire, which they kept always burning, and wherewith they set on fire their Sa∣crifices, gave occasion to this of the Heathens. And what if I should say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (of which Vesta is but a Corruption) is of Hebrew Original, and is as much as Esh Iah, Ignis Domini, i. e. the sacred Fire of God's own appointing? Next, the making of Leagues and Covenants by Sacrifice and by Blood, which was an usual Custom among the Pagans, was derived from Scripture-practice, of which there is* 1.258 mention more than once. We read that among the old Romans their Solemn Com∣pacts were both made and confirmed with the Ce∣remony of Striking, Killing and Cutting up the Sacrifice; whence perculere, ferire foedus, to strike a League, was no uncommon Phrase. More espe∣cially the Killing and Sacrificing of a Swine were most in use among them, as appears from† 1.259 Livy and‖ 1.260 Virgil. And this Custom was in use among the Grecians, as is to be seen in Homer often; and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the word to signify not only

the Ceremonial Libations at their Sacrifices, b•• so the Compacts which were made at such a tim•• and (as* 1.261 Eustathius observes) the Sacrifices 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Covenants given the•• This Practice was in other Nations, (though 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a mixture of some other Ceremonies and proph•• Usages): when they swore to one another, a•••• made Bargains in a solemn Mann••r, they used 〈◊〉〈◊〉 slay some Animal and sacrifice it; and this w•••• reckon'd as a Testimony of their mutual Agree∣ment. For as a Sacrifice was a Federal Obla••••on, whereby Men made a League and Cove•••••••• with God, and entred into Communion a••d Friendship with him; so the same Ceremony wa•• used as a Signification of Humane Friendship, as •• Token of Covenanting between Men and M•••• And because Sacrificing was accompanied with •• friendly Eating and Drinking with one another, there∣fore also it hath been the Custom of all the World (of which it is unnecessary to produce Instances) to make Leagues of Friendship, and to contract Covenants in that sociable way. Eating and Drinking together have been not only a Sign, but a Pledg of Amity and good Agreement. Which you will find to be originally derived from the Practice of the Antient Patriarchs, and others in the Old Testament. Thus† 1.262 Iacob and Lab••, ‖ 1.263 Isaac and Abimelech,* 1.264 David and Abner, en∣tred into League and friendly Correspondence, and confirmed their Alliances with one another. To which I will only add this, that Salt, which was used in Sacrifices (as you heard before) was a Symbol of Friendship and Covenanting; and with

••eference to this (besides the Reason before na∣••••d) was call••d Salt of the Covenant: whence, a∣••ong the Pythagoreans, Salt was a Representa∣••ive of amicable Correspondence; and the Dura∣••on and Lastingness of it was fitly signified by ••his, which is a Preservative against Putrefaction. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 short, among the Heathen Nations this was ge∣••erally a Token of Friendship, and was used to ex∣press a Familiarity and Agreement among Persons. This we may conjecture was derived from the Jewish Practice, and particularly from Melach Be∣••rith, the Salt of the Covenant. Shall I add under this Head, that it may be the Greeks giving the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Gifts and Presents which were consecrated to their Gods in their Tem∣ples, had its rise from those Sacrifices and sacred Gifts call'd in the Old Testament Terumoth, Heave-Offerings; which had that Name because they were heaved or lifted up in honour of God, to whom they were brought? for those* 1.265 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Imitation of these, were call'd so from being lifted and hung up on some high Place in their Temples to their Gods. It seems these Heathen Devotio∣nists would have their Heave-Offerings, their Ele∣vated Presents, their Exalted Gifts, which were borrow'd from the Jews.

Ninthly, The Heathen Oracles, and giving of Answers in difficult Cases, were of Jewish Extraction. They were borrowed from God's Holy Oracle in the inmost part of the Tabernacle, and afterward of the Temple. You may easily trace them to the Mercy-Seat, whence God gave Answers to the High-Priest. This we may learn from the Name which is given it, viz. Debir, 1 Kings 8. 6. Psal. 28. 2.

which in Latin is Oraculum. This hints to us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Thing it self, as well as the Word, is tak•• from the Jews. There is an* 1.266 Ingenious Man h•• labour'd to shew that the particular Shape or fa∣brick of Apollo's Temple at Delphos, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Place, with the Ceremonies used there, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from the Old Testament. Though he hath so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things which may seem a little too fanciful, ye•••• the main may be true and solid, viz. that the P••∣gan Oracles were fetch'd from the Divine Ones 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture. Under this Head I will add, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not improbable that the Poetical Conceit of sphi•••• which used to utter Riddles and aenigmatical Say∣ings, was taken from the Sacred Oracle of the Jews, and from the Cherubims which were over the Prs∣pitiatiory whence Answers were given by God. For the Sphinx was (as the Poets feign'd) a multifor•• Creature, but had a Humane Face, and moreover had Wings: and so likewise those Sphinxes which were placed without the Egyptian Temples, were pictured with Wings. This is exactly according to the Representation which hath been given of the Cherubims; they were of a mixt and various Shape; but 'tis generally agreed they had the Countenances of Men, and that they were winged: and 'tis well known that these Creatures hovered over the Mercy-Seat, which was the Place of the Holy Oracle. So that upon these accounts, it seems to me very likely that some part of the Sacred History, concerning the Oracle and Cherubims, lies disguised under these Poetical Fictions: but let e∣very one think as he pleaseth.

But the Devil especially brought in Oracles in imitation of the Ephod, and its Vrim and Thum∣••im,

that great and celebrated Oracle among the Jews. This questionless was not unknown to the Gentiles; for a Proof of which, there are some al∣ledg what* 1.267 Diodorus the Sicilian, and† 1.268 Aelian deliver, viz. that the Chief Judg, or Lord-Chief Justice (who was also the Chief Priest) among the Egyptians, wore at his Neck an Image hanging at a golden Chain, and made of precious Stones, and the Name of it was Truth. The Egyptians ••••d this, say‖ 1.269 Grotius and* 1.270 Vossius, from the H••∣brews, as many other things; for Thummim is ren∣dred Truth by the Septuagint: and thence it is likely the Image of Truth, which hung at the Neck of the Egyptian High-Priests, alludes to the Pre∣cious Stone, or rather that Set of them which hung at the Breast of the Jewish High-Priest, in which were the Vrim and Thummim. Indeed thus far I am willing to grant, that the Egyptians might borrow the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hence, and apply it to that excellent Jewel which was made of a True Right Saphir, and therefore they used the word Truth: but I cannot proceed, and say (with some) that there is any proof hence that the Thummim was an Image. I grant that the Egyptians might have heard of the Vrim and Thummim, and it may be fancied them to be some little Images made of Precious Stones, the Vrim and Thummim being ••••dged in the same place with the twelve famous Gems which the High-Priest wore; and from t••ence perhaps the Mistake was propagated a∣••ong the Gentiles, that those Oracles of the Jews were a sort of Images: I say it is probable that this false Notion concerning the Divine Oracles

of the Hebrews, was propagated among the ••••••thens: and in pursuance of this, I will add 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conjecture, viz. that the Ancilia among the Romans, which were said to be from Heaven, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in which the Fates of the City were contain'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lodged, (which really were but one, though 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be many) had some reference to the Jews 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Thummim, that Divine and Heavenly 〈◊〉〈◊〉, on which the Fates of all Persons depen•••••• who repaired unto it, and consulted it; and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was indeed but one single Oracle, (as I have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in another place) though by the different 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it seem'd to be more. And these Ancilia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from Heaven, being in the Shape of short 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Bucklers that are to cover the Breast, seem on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very account to have reference to the holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plate; in which, you know, the Vrim and T••••••mim were deposited. And further, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Notion, let it be remembred that those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were always in the keeping of the Salii, a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sort of Priests; and the Badg of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was a brass Plate or Covering on their Breasts, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they wore over a rich Partie-coloured Vest: w〈◊〉〈◊〉 latter seems to be in imitation of the Iewish 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Priest's gaudy Vestment, as the former of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plate, wherein the Vrim and Thummim were 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Thus, without any straining, it appears that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pagans had some notice of that Great Ora••le of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hebrews, though they were very much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in conceiting it to be some pretty Image, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 strange thing sent from Heaven. Whereas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most facile and obvious Account ••hat can be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Vrim and Thummim, is, that they were not Things, but Words, i. e. they were those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words, URIM and THUMMIM, written or ••••∣graven

in some small Plate of Gold, and put into 〈◊〉〈◊〉 High Priest's Pectoral. And I am apt to think 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some of the more understanding Gentiles had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 apprehension of this, and that thence we read so often in Authors of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an Imitation of the Hebrew Letters or Writing ••hich made up the Vrim and Thummim. From 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacred Scripture in the Ephod those Ephesian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were borrowed, which they used in Magi∣•••••• Art, and whereby they did any thing that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a mind to do. In all Businesses they fled to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and consulted them. so that they were a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Oracle unto them. This I conceive was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Allusion to the Hebrew Oracle which consisted of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Writing.

T••nthly, The Scape-Goat, (Gnazazel, from gnez 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Goat, and azal he w••nt, as much as to say the W••ndring Goat) dispatched into the Wilderness with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sins of the People, and repeated Curses on his Head, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 occasion for the like Practice among the Gen∣••••••••. Thus the Greeks used in a formal manner to dismiss some Animals with a Curse; whence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 devoted Creatures were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by them, because they were thus sent away. The ••••mans did the like sometimes upon occasion: so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speaks of some Horses that Caesar* 1.271 had ••••us dealt with when he pass'd the Rubicon. After 〈◊〉〈◊〉 same manner the antient Arabians devoted to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gods Sheep and Goats. But the Practice of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••gyptians is most remarkable of all, who (as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 relates) used to heap Execrations on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a devoted Beast or Sacrifice selected for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 purpose, that if any Evil hung over them, it

might be turn'd on the Head of that Sacrif•••• * 1.272 They curse, saith he, the Heads of the Sacri•••••••• with these words, If any Mischief threaten the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in particular, or all Egypt in general, let it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 light upon the Head of this Animal. And when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had loaded him with all their Imprecations, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 used to hurry him headlong into the River 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be drowned, or they sold him to a Greek or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other profane Man, to derive all those Maled••••••••ons from themselves to the Belly of that Per〈◊〉〈◊〉 This Egyptian Expiation was taken from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or the Scape-Goat, Lev. 16. 21, 22. where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said, Aaron was to lay both his Hands upon it, 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••••••rael, putting them on the Head of the Goat: and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he was to send him away by the hand of a ••it Man 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Wilderness: and the Goat was to bear upon him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Iniquities into a Land not inhabited. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word used by the LXX to express 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hebrew word Azazel; and accordingly the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that were thought to avert 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and the A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 offer'd by the Heathens to avert impendent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are related to this.

Eleventhly, From the Water of Iealousy in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 among the Jews, (Numb. 5. 12, &c.) where••w•••••• they tried the Honesty of a suspected Wife, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like Custom came to be used by the Gentiles. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 † 1.273 old Greeks tried their She-Priests, or Nuns, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were suspected of Whoredom, with a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which they tendred to them to drink; and if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Party were guilty, she presently was struck 〈◊〉〈◊〉 They had also (as we learn from‖ 1.274 〈◊〉〈◊〉

••other Water, to try Perjury, which might be of the same Original.

Twelfthly, We read in several Authors, (some of whom you will find quoted in* 1.275 Caelius Rhodigi∣n••••) that Branches were used in the superstitious Rites of the Gentiles, and in the Worship of their Gods. Among the Athenians particularly there was a Festival which took its Name from Branches: and Plutarch and others tell us, that they went a∣bout with Boughs in their Hands in honour of Bac∣c••••••. If we compare this with what the Jews did in the Feast of Tabernacles, (as the† 1.276 Scripture testifieth, and as‖ 1.277 Iosephus relates) namely, that they sat under Booths which they shadowed with Branches; that they sacrificed to God, holding in their Hands Boughs of Myrtle and Palm; and that they went up and down many days with these in their hands, we may gather hence, that this He∣brew Rite was borrowed by the Gentiles, who were very apish; especially if we take notice that the Jews and Gentiles kept this sort of Feast at the same time of the Year. For the Feast of Taberna∣cles was celebrated on the ••ifteenth Day of the Month Tirsi, i. e. about the beginning of our Sep∣tember: then it was that they feasted, and made merry, and express'd it by all signs of rejoicing; and then it was also that the Pagans kept their great Feast in honour of Bacchus. I know* 1.278 Plu∣tarch derives that from this, and so makes the Jews imitate the Gentiles, as some of late have done: but I hope I have suggested sufficient reason alrea∣dy (and may do more afterward) to antidote a∣gainst this vain Conceit.

I pass on to other Particulars: the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mong the Iews nourished their Hair for a time, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then dedicated it to God; which was done by cutti•••• it off, and offering it in the Temple or Tabe••••••cle and then burning it with the Sacrifice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 6. 18. That the Pagans imitated them in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evident: thus concerning the Greeks* 1.279 〈◊〉〈◊〉 testifies, that they dedicated the First-fruits 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Hair to Apollo, Aesculapius, Hercules, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and other Gods. The Romans likewise the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time they shaved their Beards, and cut the Hair 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Heads, offered them to some Deity, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be proved from† 1.280 Suetonius and other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And not only the Greeks and Romans, but the Ass••••rians and several other Nations took up this O••∣stom, as you may satisfy your selves abundantly fro•• ‖ 1.281 some Criticks who have handled this Subject.

Several other things I might mention, as the Jews putting away all Leaven at the Passover: whe••ce perhaps Leavened Bread was not permitted to the Gentiles at some certain times; yea it was not law∣ful (saith Aulius Gellius) for Iupiter's Priests to touch Leaven. From the Jews the Custom of Cir∣cumcising went to several Nations, and not from them to the Jews, as* 1.282 Strabo,† 1.283 Celsus, and others conceited. But‖ 1.284 Origen confutes this Mistake, and shews that God himself first institu∣ted this Ceremony; that Abraham and his Race first practised it, and in imitation of them the Peo∣ple of the next neighbouring Countries took it up, as the Arabians and Egyptians. Of these latter, and the Ethiopians, the Persians, Phoenicians, the

Tro••lodytae, and those of Colchos,* 1.285 Herodotus,† 1.286 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ‖ 1.287 Strabo, testify that this Rite was used by them. Philostorgius relates the same of the antient Arabians. Pythagoras was circumcised, saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉. However, this is certain that this Jewish Practice came into use among several Nations, and it was originally from Abraham (who was first cir∣cumcised) and his Stock, who were Jews. I might add here, that the Jews at circumcising the Child gave it a Name: thence the Pagans took up the same Custom of giving Names to their Infants. Hence Dies Nominalis went along with Dies Lu∣stricus, and this was about the eighth or ninth Day among the Romans; which seems also to be in imitation of the Jews. Bigamy was forbidden to the* 1.288 Pagan Priests, as it was to the Jewish ones. So in compliance with the Mosaick Law, it was unlawful for their‖ 1.289 Priests to touch any dead Corps. From the same Sacred Fountain was their Aqua Lustralis, used in sprinkling of Sepulchres, and to purify those who had touched them, or came near them. From the Law of Che∣rem, the Anathema, the Thing or Person devoted to Death, Lev. 27. 28, 29. seem to be derived the Pa∣gan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Devota Capita. The neigh∣bouring Gentiles heard of the devoting to utter Destruction certain Cities and their Inhabitants; and 'tis likely they heard that this was done by the special Command of God. Hence they apishly and superstitiously imitated this Usage, (as you have seen they do in other things) and devoted certain Men to Death and Destruction, to please and pro∣pitiate their Gods. And this is the more credible,

because the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which was sometimes confounded with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) was used by the antient Greeks to signify those miserable and execrable Wretches who were thus destined to the Infernal Ghosts. When any great Plague or Calamity broke in upon the Pagans, Men, as well as Beasts, were devoted to Slaughter, and given up as Propitiatory Offerings to their Dei∣ties: and these, I say, were by them termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Accursed, Devoted, Execrable Creatures, which answers to the Jewish Cherems, which were Things or Persons devoted to utter Destruction. This Pagan Usage was but a Transcript of the Hebrew one.

Perhaps the use of Lots among the Gentiles had its Original from what the Sacred Writings relate of this Practice. In Lev. 16. 8. two Goats (in or∣der to some Sacred Design) were chosen by Lot. Ioshuah found out Achan to be an Accursed Crimi∣nal by this means, Iosh. 7. 14, 18. The first Assig∣nation of Portions in the Land of Canaan, was by casting Lots, Josh. 13. 2. Saul was chosen King of Israel thus, 1 Sam. 10. 21. By the same Method Ionas was discovered to be the Cause of the Tem∣pest, Ionas 1. 7. From which antient Instances of Lottery it is probable the Gentiles borrowed the like Usage, and made choice of their Military and Civil Officers, and transacted other Matters in this way. In* 1.290 Homer some of the Great Commanders are made after this fashion, as Eurylochus and others. Some of the Athenian Magistrates were annually call'd to their Places by Lot; whence they were stil••d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Particularly this was the manner of chusing Judges at Athens, as you may see in‖ 1.291 Cae∣lius

Rhodiginus. Yea, some were chosen into the Priesthood with this Ceremony, and therefore had the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Aristotle tells us in the fourth Book of his Politicks. They used Lottery on other accounts, as you may see in Suidas in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This also was in use among the Old Romans sometimes; and not only in the Ele∣ction of Publick Officers, but in other Affairs: more especially in their Divinations these Lots were made use of, as it were easy to prove. All which it is likely had its first Rise from the Old Testa∣ment, and the Practice of the Antients recorded there.

Is it not reasonable to think that the Cities of Re∣fuge among some Pagan Nations, whither Offen∣ders fled for Protection, had their Origine from those so expresly mentioned in Numb. 35. 13, 14, 15. Hence we read that Cadmus, when he built Thebes, founded a Place for all sorts of Criminals to repair to: and Romulus at the building of Rome erected a Sanctuary for Offenders to fly to. Further, I could observe that the New-Moons were celebrated by the Athenians and other Grecians. Concerning the first* 1.292 Plutarch is very positive: and as to the rest, that† 1.293 Proverbial Saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in use among them, shews that they so∣lemnly observ'd the first Day of the Month. The Romans likewise had the same Custom, as is mani∣fest from that of‖ 1.294 Ovid,

Vendicat Ausonias Iunonis cura Calendas.

And these New-Moon Festivals are referr'd to by

Horace more than once, as you may see in* 1.295 Tur••••bus. All which is of Hebrew Extraction. I could take notice that the Latin Iubilare, and Iubilatio (which are found in Varro and other old Romans) which signify great Rejoicing and Shouting for Joy, are from the old Jewish Law of† 1.296 Iubilee, a Time of exceeding Gladness, being the Year when Ser∣vants and Debtors were restored to their Liberty and Possessions, which occasioned great Rejoicing. And I could propound more Instances yet to prove that several Customs among the Heathens were ex∣tracted from the Holy Scriptures, and that Hea∣then Worshippers shaped New, Strange, and Pro∣fane Rites, and Ways of Worship out of the Pas∣sages they ••ead or heard of there; and that most of the Heathen Usages are corrupt Imitations of the Jews.

I will add to the several Particulars this one more, which though I will not confidently pro∣nounce was borrowed from the Jews, yet I propose it as a thing very probable: It is this, that the Hieroglyphicks of the Egyptians were in imitation of that People; for they were brought up under Sha∣dows, Types and Symbols, dark Representations, and mystical Rites: which might give occasion to the Egyptians to teach Religion and Morality by Hieroglyphick Figures. I am not positive here, (nor would I be any where else, unless I had good Grounds to go on) because I am not altogether cer∣tain that the Hieroglyphick Learning began after Moses. But there is great probability that it did, and consequently that it was derived from what

they observ'd among the Jews. This is the Per∣swasion of the Inquisitive* 1.297 Kircher, who without ••••y hesitation averreth, that the Symbolical and Hieroglyphick Learning was imbibed from the He∣brews. Nay, to go yet farther, now we are come thus far; there are those who conjecture that a great part of the Antient Gentile Philosophy was col∣lected from the Holy Book of Scripture. Among the antient Persians the Mosaick Religion might be ••iscovered in many Instances which might be gi∣ven of their Principles: and an Ingenious† 1.298 French Author hath lately proved that their Zoroastres was the same with Moses. And as for the Pytha∣g••rick and Platonick Philosophy, which consists much in Figures and Numbers, in Dark and Symbolical Precepts, it is evident that it was made up out of the▪ Sacred Hebrew Writings. The Platonists Books concerning God, the Genii, the Spirits and Souls of Men, though stuff'd with many Errors and Superstitions, discover a great Resemblance and Affinity with those things which the Bible delivers about the Nature of God, Angels, and Humane Souls. Eusebius particularly insists on this, and derives the Platonick Doctrines from the Scrip∣tures. Hence both he and Clement of Alexandria take notice of what Numenius, the Pythagorean Philosopher, said of Plato, namely, that he was ‖ 1.299 the Greek Moses. And indeed most of the anti∣ent Sages and Philosophers were obscure and my∣stick in their Stile, and way of delivering their

Notions, as the Sacred Writers are observ'd to be very often. Hence it is said by the antient Father whom I last quoted, That‖ 1.300 the way of Philosophi∣zing among those Pagans, was after the manner of the Hebrews, that is, Aenigmatical. But as to the Mat∣ter, as well as Stile, the chiefest of the old Greek Poets and Philosophers, as Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Thales, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Empedocles, De∣mocritus, Socrates, (besides Pythagoras and Plato be∣fore named) agree with Moses. We may say of them all, as an Historian saith of the first of them, (after he had set down several Particulars of sound Philosophy in his Poems)* 1.301 They have pronounced many things concerning God and Man, which are consonant to that Truth which we, who are taught by the Holy Writings, profess. This may give light to what an Egyptian Priest told Solon,† 1.302 Yo•• Grecians (saith he) are but of yesterday, and know nothing of the Rise and Antiquity of Arts: there is not one of you that is Old, and there is no Lear∣ning among you that is Antient. His meaning was, that all their Knowledg was borrowed, and that the Sacred Mosaick Philosophy and Theology were the oldest of all. From this the Heathens took theirs, though sometimes they express it in different Terms. Thus we have gone through the Mo••aick Records, and in many Instances shew'd the Derivation of Gentile Philosophy, Principles, Pra∣••tices and Usages, from those Sacred Writings;

and consequently we have evinced the Truth and Antiquity of these Records.

Before I leave this Head of my Discourse, I will here add the Testimony of Pagan and Profane Au∣thors concerning this great Law-giver Moses, the first Penman of Holy Scripture: which is still in prosecution of what I undertook, to shew that the Writings of the Old Testament, and with them their Authors and Penmen, are attested by Profane Writers. It appears, first, from what these have said, that there was such a Person, and that he was what his Writings represent him to be. This is he that is called by Orpheus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, alluding to his Name Mosheh, Exod. 2. 10. which was given him because he was drawn out of the Water. He is celebrated by Alexander Polyhistor, Philochorus, Thal∣lus, Appion (cited by* 1.303 Iustin Martyr,) by Mane∣thon and Numenius (alledged by† 1.304 Origen and‖ 1.305 Eu∣sebius,) by Lysimachus and Molon (quoted by‖‖ 1.306 Io∣sephus,) by Chalcidius, Sanchoniathon, Iustin, Pliny in Porphyrius. Moses is placed by* 1.307 Dio••orus the Sicilian in the Front of his famous Law-givers, only a little disguised under the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who is there said to have received his Laws from Mercury. And why from Mercury? Perhaps be∣cause some Chronologers acquaint us that the Great Mercurius, stiled Trismegistus, (the antientest Philosopher among the Egyptians) was either con∣temporary with Moses, or is thought to have lived about his time. But St. Augustine tells us in his

Noted Book de Civitate Dei, that this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Nephew to another M••r••urius, whose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Atlas the famous Astrologer; and he it was belike that flourished in Moses's time. Wh•••••••• (if I may be suffered to give my Conjectur••) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Poets did very ••itly relate how Atlas bore up 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heavons; when in the mean time they meant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Moses, who giving us the Authentick Records 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the World's Creation, and beginning his History with the Production of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is the T•••••• Atlas that supports the Spheres: nay, he may be rightly said not only to bear up the Heav••••s, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Earth, and to keep them from sinking into their first Chaos, by transmitting the Account and Memory of them to all Posterity. I question 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but that Moses was represented by He••••mes Trisme∣gistus; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no more than a very Great, i. e. an Excellent Man; and such none ca•• deny Moses to have been. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Interpreter, is appliable to none better than to Him, who was the first Sacred and Inspired Interpreter of the Mind of God in Writing. Letters were invented by this Hermes, saith* 1.308 Iam••lic••us from his Ma•••••••• † 1.309 Plato. Moses being the first Writer, may well be said to be the first Inventer of Letters. Di••∣dorus also tells us that this Moses was the first that gave the Egyptians (he should have said Iews, but those Mistakes are common with him and other Pagan Authors)‖ 1.310 Written Laws; and that ••e was* 1.311 a Man of a great Soul, and very power∣ful in his Life. And in another place he saith,

he was* 1.312 one that excelled in Wisdom and Valour. † 1.313 Strabo makes honourable mention of this Great ••••rsonage, yea speaks not only of him, but of the Religion establish'd by him, with great Respect. He ranks him among the best Legislators, and highly praiseth his Laws, and gives them the Pre∣eminence before all others. He reciteth some of his Sayings and Deeds, telling us that he left E∣gypt, and came into Syria, because he disliked the Egyptians for their making and worshipping of Corporeal Gods, of the Figure and Proportion of Brutes; and that Moses profess'd that God could not be represented by any Image or Like∣ness whatsoever. There are‖ 1.314 other Gentiles who speak of Moses, and his Laws and Constitu∣tions; and they would have been more favou∣rable in their Testimonials concerning him, if their Heathen Principles had not biass'd them to a more undue Character. Which is taken notice of by Philo in the Life of Moses:

Though (saith he) some Pagan Historians speak of him, yet they say but little, and that not truly neither. Out of Envy, it is likely, or because of the great Disagreement between his and the Laws of other Law-givers, they vouchsafe not to remember him.

But that Testimony which we have is sufficient, and we may thence be sa∣tisfied that Moses was the most Authentick Hi∣storian, and the Antientest Law-giver; and we may gather from what they say, that his Laws

were the first, and gave beginning to all other••▪ The famous Law-givers and Politicians among the Grecians, as Lycurgus and Solon, had the main of their Politicks from Moses's Laws, whence af∣terwards the Romans took some of theirs. And as Moses received his Laws immediately from God, so in imitation of him the greatest Law∣givers said they had theirs from some Deity; as Numa from Aegeria, Minos from Iupiter, Ly∣curgus from Apollo, Zabeucus from Minerva, &c. Still this establisheth our Notion, that the Wri∣tings and Practices of the Jews gave rise to ma∣ny things among the Pagans, which I will yet far∣ther pursue.

CHAP. VI.

Prophane Writers testify the Truth of these Parti∣culars mention'd in the Old Testament. viz. The Gigantick Race of the Canaanites: The Sun's standing still: Jephthah's Sacrificing his Daugh∣ter: Sampson's loss of his Hair: The Foxes which he made use of against the Phi∣listines: Elias's rapture to Heaven: Some passages relating to King Solomon, King Hi∣ram, &c. The Sun's going back in King He∣zekiah's time: Nebuchadnezzar's Transfor∣mation into a Beast: His Dream of an I∣mage with a Golden Head, &c. Next, it is proved that the Heathens had their Deities from the Old Testament: Their Saturn was Adam: Their Minerva was Eve: Their Ju∣piter, Cain: Their Vulcan Tubal-Cain: Their Bacchus (as also their Saturn and Ja∣nus) Noah: Their Apis, Joseph: Their Mercury and Bacchus, Moses: Their Her∣cules, Joshua and Sampson: Their Apollo, Jubal: Their Ganymed, Elias, &c.

••venthly. SOme other things which the Old Te∣stament acquaints us happened, after 〈◊〉〈◊〉 giving the Law by Moses, till the Babylonian 〈◊〉〈◊〉, are to be found among Prophane Writers. We read, in Numb. 13. 33. of the Gigantick race of Canaanites, who are called the Sons of Anak, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in Deut. 9. 2. Ios. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. they are called Ana∣kims.

Is there not some prob〈7 letters〉〈7 letters〉 that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 daridae, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and there were more than C••∣stor and Pollux that were call'd by that name, a 1.315 Tully will inform you) who by the Greeks w•••• called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (asb 1.316 several Authors acquaint 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had their Name from those Great Men who w•••••• the Offspring of Anak? These being driven Iosua•• out of Palestine, when he overcame 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Country, it is likely went into Greece, and fro•• them the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Athens and Sparta descended and hence it was that the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was gi∣ven, not only to the Tyndaridae, but all Great M•••• and Princes. I will add, that 'tis probable th•• word gave Origination to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signi•••••• Great and Principal Men, such as those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were.

From that Miracle in Ios. 10. 13. of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 standing still, perhaps the Poets Fiction arose, con∣cerning the Night doubled or trebled by Iupit•••• for Alcmena's sake. For (as hath been sugges•••••• already) this sort of Men, when they get a Story by the end, make what they please of it, and turn it into quite another thing than it was at first. The rumour of that strange Accident had come to their Ears, and they presently turn'd it into a Fa∣ble. And who should stop the Course of the Su•• but Iupiter the Supream God? And after the ra•••• that they represented their Gods, that which is further added is apposite enough, for they are not ashamed to tell us that they are Lewd and Obscene, and indulge themselves in all Lustful Practices. Now, when the Sun stood still in one Hemisphere, the other wanted his presence and light, and ••o

they had as it were a double Night, for the Sun's ••••aying here so long. But you shall have another fable shortly, that will speak to the same pur∣pose.

Porphyrius tells us, that Sanchoniathon had his Hi∣storical Narrations and Secrets from one Ierombaal, Priest of the God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which shews that that Hi∣••torian had his Matter from the Sacred Scriptures, the Hebrew Fountains of Truth, though he often∣times corrupts them. And it is evident that they had partly learnt the Name of the true God, from the Hebrews, or their Writings; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was Iehovah the true God, whom the Iews Worshipped, as I shall ••••••w more afterwards. Besides, from the same ••pring they had some knowledge of that Eminent ••••dge of Israel, Gideon; for Ierombaal, who is the ••ame with Ierubbaal (as Bochart hath proved) is Gi∣••on, as is expresly said in the 7th of Iudg. V. I. This was a Man of great Renown, and the Fame of his Noble Acts had reached to the Nations round a∣bout. He might pass with them for a Priest, as well as a great Warriour, seeing he built an Altar ••••to God, and Offered a Burnt-Sacrifice upon it, and ••t the same time thre•• down the Altar of Baal, and •• down his Groves, Iudg. 6. 25, 26. which made a great noise (you may be sure) among the Hea∣th••••s.

Again, from Iephthah's Daughter's being Sacrifi∣•••••• (which could not but be famed among the Neighbouring Gentiles, and afterwards spread it self ••••••ther) the Greek Poets made the Story of Iphi∣••••••••a's being Sacri••iced by her Father Agamemnon. That this is taken from that, and is the same Sto∣ry, (only with the alteration of the Names) is ••••••ar from this following Parallel. 1. The Chrono∣•••••••• of Iephthah and Agamemnon is the same. They

were at the same time, i. e. when the Trojan W•• was, or at least, when it is supposed to have b•••••• for Dion, Chrysostom, and some others are bold 〈◊〉〈◊〉 say, there was no such Trojan War, no Sack•• and Burning of that City, no Rape of a Gre•••• Woman: But the whole Tale of it was the m•••• Invention of the Greeks, the prime Fiction they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 up with. It was all from the Scripture, viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 History of Iephthah's Warring with the Ammo•••••••••• and Ephraimites. But this is too high a flight, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I am not ready to follow it. The Wars of T•••••• as they are represented by the Poets, are too 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be made out of so little a Story. Notwit••∣standing this, it is not improbable that the Story 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Agamemnon and his Daughter, are the same Re∣lation with that of Iephthah and his. It is the ge∣neral agreement of Chronologers, that these were at the same time, yea, the beginning of the Tr••∣jan War falls exactly in the very entrance o•• Iephthah's Government, saith a latea 1.317 Writ••••. Hence it was easie to mistake one for the other, o•• rather one gave occasion for inventing the other. 2. Iephthah and Agamemnon are both of them re∣presented to be Great Captains, and Warriours, and so agree in that common Character. 3. Th•••••• Daughters are said to be the only Daughters of their Parents. 4. They were both Virgins. 5. They were both of them devoted by their Fathers whe•• they were Warring against their Enemies. 6. One is said to wander up and down the Mountains with h••r Companions. The other is feigned to be turn'd into a Hind by Diana, and to range in the Woo••s, and Mountains. Or, some say Diana pitied t•••••• Virgin, and not suffering her to be Sacri••iced,

sent her away to be a Priestess of hers. This is Poetick Fiction, but the main agreement here, is in the Reprieve granted after their being destined to Sacri••ice. 7thly, and lastly, Iphigenia, the Name of Agamemnon's Daughter is no other than Iphthi∣genia, i. e. Iephthigenia, or, in plain English, Ieph∣thab's Daughter. So that the very Name hinteth to us that the bringing of Iphig••nia, Daughter of Agamemnon, a King of the Greeks, and General of their Armies, unto the Altar to be Sacri••i••ed, for the saving of the Grecian Fleet, was borrowed from the Sacred Story of Iephthah, a Judge or King of Israel, and Captain General of their For∣ces, his Sacri••icing his Daughter, in pursuance of the solemn Vow which he made upon his return after his Conquests over his Enemies. And this in the close might be added, that whereas Humane Slaughters were grown commendable, and fas••ion∣able even among the better sort of Heathens, by the instigation of the Devil, it is not unlikely that some of them were imitations of this Great and notable Example of Iephthah.

From Sampson's being shaved, was the Fable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Fatal Hair of Nisus, King of the Megar••nses, which being cut o•• by a desperate Lover, ruine befell that Nisus. The Story in brief is thus; Nisus (who all agree Reign'd about the same time that Sampson was Judge of Israel) had an ex••••l∣lent Head of Hair,

a 1.318—Cui splendidus ost••o Crinis in••••re••at magni siducia regis.

Concerning which it was told him, that as long

as he wore that, and kept it intire, he should pr••••sper, and be Victorio••s, and none should be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to expel him out of his Kingdom. But his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 happy Daughter Scylla fell in Love with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who was then his actual Enemy, and War'd again•••• him: She to procure Minos's Love, takes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Course the Poet speaks of there,

—Fatali Nata Parentem Crine suum spoliat.

She cuts off her Father's Hair when he was asleep, and gave it to Minos, who overcame her Father, and took his Kingdom from him. The very men∣tioning of this Story is sufficient to let you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how it agrees with that of Sampson, only there was a Wife, and here a Daughter in the ca••e, which is a mistake not unusual among the Poets▪ Sampson vex'd and injured by the Philistines, ti•• Foxes (of which that Country afforded store) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Tails with Fire-brands between them, Iudg. 15. 4. and sent them among their Corn, and thereby burnt it down. Whence seems to be framed the Fable of the Carseolan Fox, which Ovid speaks of in his Fasti, Book 4.

In Praetus's sending Letters by Bellephoron to I••∣batas, in which Bellephoron's Death was designed, and contrived, (of whicha 1.319 Homer, and othe•••• speak) there are perhaps to be seen the footstep•• of the Story of Vriah's carrying the Letter of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Death to Iodb, 2 Sam. 11. 14. There is but little difference between Iobatas, and Ioab.

It was famed that Elias went up to Heaven i•• a Fiery Chariot, with Horses, according to what 〈◊〉〈◊〉

read in thea 1.320 Sacred Story; whence the Greeks mi••took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (according to the Septuagint) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and applied it to the Sun, and its Course through the Heavens. Those Fiery Horses and Chariots, they understood of those of the Sun, and accordingly they fancy'd there are really such things, and their Poets frequently talk of them.b 1.321 St. Chrysostom was the first mention'd this, and afterwardsc 1.322 Venerable Bede. But let the Curious inquire whether there be sufficient ground for it from that Prophet's Flaming Vehicle, in which he was rapt up to Heaven.

With Pagan Poets, let us all along mix their Hi∣storians, and from them we shall be sati••ied, that there were such Persons in being, and such things done in the World, as the Holy Scriptures speak of. King Solomon and King Hiram's Letters to one another (of whose Correspondence you read in •• Kings, 5.) are to be seen in the Tyrian An∣nals, and at this day, saithd 1.323 Iosephus, and Man may have the sight of them from the Keepers of those Publick Writings. He sets down the words of Menander, who Translated those Chronicles out of the Phaenician into the Greek Tongue, which expresly mention the great Friendship of those two Kings, and the latter's sending Mate∣rials, and Workmen for the Temple. He quotes Dius, who wrote of the Phaenician Affairs, and at∣tests the same thing of Solomon, and Hiram.e 1.324 He tells us that Menander speaks of the great Fa∣mine and want of Rain in Elias's time; and that he speaks of Salmanesser King of As••yria, and that

a 1.325 Herodotus mentions Senacherib King of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 same Country, and his being discomfited.b 1.326 T•• same Author takes notice that Nebuchadnezzar (sp••••ken of in Daniel) is mention'd in Berosus, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gasthenes (who writ of the Indian Affairs,) in D••ocles (who treats of the Persian) and in Philostr••••tus's History of the Phaenicians, and Indians.

To proceed, it is Recorded that the Sun 〈◊〉〈◊〉 back in King Hezekiah's days, by the special Com∣mand of God, who (as you read in 2 King•• 20. 11.) brought the shadow ten Degrees backward by which it had gone down on the Dial of Ab•••• The Degrees in this Dial are to be understood •• those in the Heavens, say some: Others think the Degrees were Lines Engraved on the Dial. So many Hours, or so many Half-Hours, or so many Quarters are thought by others to be meant. The Miracle was here, saith ac 1.327 Learned Man, that the shadow on the Dial went back, not that the Sun it self did so. But this is a great mistaking of the Miracle; for it is expresly said, Isai. 38. 8. The Sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down: The Sun it self, as well as the shadow, moved backwards. Again, 'tis undeniable that this Glorious Luminary of Heaven really went back, and consequently that a very considerable duration of time; it may be ten hours were added to the ordinary day: for the King of Ba••ylon sent an Embassadour on purpose to Ierusalem to enquire about this Prodigy, and to know what caused so long a Day, and such a Change of the Course of Nature, 2 Kings, 20. 12. This argues that those at Babylon saw this unusual Motion of the Sun, for as

to the going back of the Shadow on that Dial, they could not see it. This shews it was a real thing, and consequently Miraculous, and Portentous, and that it was not the shadow only on the Dial that went backward so many Lines or Stroaks, without the Sun's going back in the Heavens, as some have fancied. The Chaldean Astronomers could not but hear of, as well as see this Prodigi∣ous sight (for it was as sensible to them, as to the King of Babylon) but out of ill will and malice they labour'd to suppress this Retrograde motion of the Sun: whence it is (asa 1.328 Mr. Broughton hath observ'd) that though they reckon up seve∣ral Eclipses which happen'd about this time, yet they say nothing of this Miraculous going back of the Sun. Yet (as ab 1.329 knowing Person hath observ'd) there is a Mystical Remembrance of the Shadow on Ahaz's Dial, and the length of that Day, among the Persian Priests, in their Religious Rites perform'd to Mithra. But what those other Pagans would conceal, their very Poets have de∣liver'd down to us in a Fable, telling us that the Sun being angry at Hercules's Birth, made the Night unusually long: For if the Sun make an extra∣ordinary Day in one part of the World, it fol∣lows that there must be a Night of an extraordi∣nary length in another part of it. We find also, that the foresaid Persians (in memory as it were of the Sun's prodigious going back in King Hezekiah's time) Celebrate a Tripple Sun, viz. Going for∣ward, returning back, and again going forward, as Tirinus observes out of Dion.

Some have thought that the Pythagorean Me∣tempsychosis had its Original from Nebuc••adnezz•••••• Transformation into a Beast, which the Book of Daniel speaks of. That he was really turn'd into a Beast, as to shape, it is not improbable, for we read of People among the Scythians call'd Neuri, that were constantly every year for some days to∣gether turn'd into Wolves, and then return'd to their former state again.a 1.330 Herodotus, who re∣lates this, saith it was con••idently reported by the Scythians. The same happens every year to some People in Livonia (the Posterity of those Neuri) saith ab 1.331 Credible Author, who made it his business to inquire narrowly into this mat∣ter: and he adds the like Examples in some o∣ther Countries. Wherefore it cannot be utterly dis-believ'd that Nebuchadnezzar was thus Be∣stialized, and remain'd seven years so, as the Sacred History informs us. Or, if by reason only of Melancholly he thought himself a Beast (as Phy∣sicians have reported that some have imagined themselves to be Wolves, others to be Dogs, o∣thers Cocks, and have really believ'd they Wor∣ried, Bark'd, and Crow'd, which are the Actions proper to those species of Animals) this was foun∣dation sufficient for the amazed Pagans to pro∣ceed upon, and to make some fanciful matter out of it. Hence therefore some of the Heathen Me∣tamorphoses (which the Poets are frequently talk∣ing of) were coined; and hence, as I have said, the Pythagorean Transmigration, i. e. the passing of the Souls of Men into Brutes, had its birth. Which is the more credible from this considera∣tion; that this Wonderful Transformation of

that Great Monarch happen'd at, or about the same time that Pythagoras was at Babylon, whi••her ••e Travell'd on purpose to gain the Eastern Learning. Hence he brought the Report fresh with him, and being of a fanciful Genius, thought the best way to solve that strange occurrence, was to assert the Metempsychosis; for the Corporal Trans∣formation he thought argued also the Change of Souls.

Nebuchadnezzar's Dream (Dan. 2.) of an Image with a Golden Head, Breast and Arms of Silver, Brazen Belly, and Legs of Iron, which represented the four Monarchies of the World, was the foun∣dation of the Poetical Division of Time into four Ages, which they distinguish according to those four Metals; first the Golden-Age, which began with the beginning of the World, and lasted to Saturn's being turn'd out of his Kingdom. This signisies the happy State of our Fore-Fathers in Paradise, for Saturn is Adam, as you shall hear afterwards. Secondly, there is the Silver-Age, which lasted from Saturn's Exile and being depo∣sed, 'till Nimrod, or Iupiter Belus, who is the same. In this Age all Arts were found out, they say, and this truly in part is testified bya 1.332 Scrip∣ture. Thirdly, they tell us of the Brazen-Age, which began under Nimrod, or Iupiter Belus, and lasted to the first year of the return of the Hera∣clidae. In this Age Tyranny grew up, and Wars began, and Slaughter was rife, as the Poets re∣late; and not untruly, for we find the same in Sa∣cred History. The fourth Age is of Iron; it be∣gan from the return of the Heraclidae into Pelo∣ponesus,

and lasts to these very times, and so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 1.333 He••iod,b 1.334 Virgil,c 1.335 Ovid, and other Gree•• and Latin Poets speak of these Four Ages, comp••∣ring them to those Four Metals, which without dispute was from Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, and Daniel's famed Interpretation of it. These were spread over all the East, and so it was easie for the Poets (as well as others) to light upon them, and to make thence their Comparison of the Four A∣ges to the Four Metals.

Eighthly, The Heathens had their Gods from Scripture. I have partly shew'd already that some of the Patriarchs, and other Persons in the Sacred Records, are described by the Poets under other Names than what the Holy Writ gives them. Now I will shew that they are often repre∣sented under the Names of Gods by the Poets; especially it is evident to an inquisitive Eye, that the Book of Genesis afforded the Pagan World the greatest part of their Ancient Gods and Goddesses, First, to begin with Adam, he without doubt was Saturn, of whom the Poets relate that his Father was Coelus, and his Mother Tellus, that he Ruled over all the World, and was Supream Sove∣raign; that under him was the Golden-Age, that afterwards he was expelled his Kingdom, and de∣posed from the Power and Dominion he had, and that he found out Agriculture. Answerably to which, Adam is call'dd 1.336 the Son of God, which in the Language of the Poets is Son of Coelus: besides, he was formed by God out of the Earth and so might be said to be both the Son of Go••, and of the Earth. Adam was the first Ruler and

Soveraign Lord, under him was the Golden-Age, or happy State in Paradise, which all Men might have enjoyed if he had not fallen. But he fell, and lost his Empire, and was expell'd that Blessed place. He was the first that Tilled the Ground, and taught Men Husbandry. Besides, I have this to add, that Saturn is the same with Time (for by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the change of a Letter is call'da 1.337 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so they are Synonimous) and Adam well deserv'd that Name, being the Eldest of all Men, and because Time began from him. This is very plain, I think; and moreover the Name of Saturn might be given to Adam from Satar, latere, because after his fall from that happy state he had been in, he withdrew himself like a Guilty Malefactor, he fled for it, and hid himself in the Garden, Gen. 3. 10. Hence Saturnus is the same with Latius, as Vossius observes, and the Place which of old was call'd Saturnia, was afterwards called Latium, as Virgil and others testify. Thus the first Founder of Mankind, Adam, was the first and eldest Saturn, the top of all the Heathen Deities.

And that Eve, the first of the Fair Sex, the Mistress of the World, and the Mother of all Mankind, was made a Goddess by the Pagan World, is not to be question'd, (yea, though she hath been represented by them (as hath been said before) in a far other Character, for I have often intimated that 'tis the way of the Poets to make a great many things out of one, and to represent the same Person after a different, if not a con∣trary manner▪) And yet I do not at present re∣member that Vossius, or Bochart, or any other

Mythologist (which is something to be wondred at) assign her any Goddessship at all among th•••• Pagan Divinities. Nay, Vossius, who maintai•••• that Naama•• (Gen. 4. 22.) an obscure Woman, the Daughter of Lamech, was Deified by the Heathens, omits our Mother Eve, the Empress of the World, the common Parent of all Mankind. I shall therefore do her the right to assign the Rank which I think she held, and the Name which was given her among the Heathen Goddesses. To know this, we need only inquire who among them was the Goddess of Wisdom, and of all the Arts, and who invented the things which were most proper for the Female Sex to find out. This (without any curious search) was Minerva, and no other, and therefore I doubt not but Eve was this Minerva. The three great Inventions at∣tributed to the Goddess of this name, are Spin∣ning, and Weaving, and the use of Oyl; i. e. as I understand it, the use of it in preparing and or∣dering of Wooll, for 'tis likely that those who work'd in Wooll of old, made use of Oyl then as well as we do now. These are the staple In∣ventions of that Goddess; and as for the rest that the Poets talk of, they are meer fantastick Flourishes of Poetry, and are not to be minded.

Now, considering what I have said, what Wo∣man in the World can we more fitly imagine to be meant by Minerva, than Adam's Wife Eve, who questionless was endu••d by God with emi∣nent Qualities and Excellencies for the good of the World, and especially with such as were most useful in one of her Sex, and who was the Mi∣stress and Guide of all the rest. She was cer∣tainly Noted and Celebrated for some Art or other which she found out: And 'tis as certain

that no Invention is more worthy of a Woman, than Spinning, and Weaving, and working of Wool, and making of Cloathing; for this last comprehends the other two, and was the peculiar Invention of Minerva, asa 1.338 Diodorus Si••ulus, and others assure us, when they mention the things found out by her. This is call'db 1.339 Minerva's Work or Business. She was the first that invented the making of Apparel, saith anotherc 1.340 Antient Author. It is true, all Artificial Works that were considerable, were ascribed by the Antients, to this Goddess, but Spinning and Weaving were more eminently said to be from her. Our Mother Eve, who had the Wit and Skill to discover these, and to improve them by her living so long in the World, might well pass among her own Sex at least, for the wisest Woman that ever was, and might be enti∣tuled the Mistress of all Arts and Sciences, that is, in the Language of the Poets, the Goddess of Wisdom. Whence I conclude, that our first Parent Eve, was Minerva, the First and Original Spinster, from whom her Sex derive that commendable Title. Only I will add this, That when the Poets tell us, that Minerva was Born of Iupiter's Brain, and without a Mother, they seem to refer to Sacred History; which acquaints us, that Eve was not Born after the manner of other Women, but was taken out of Adam's side. He that knows how they are wont to mistake and adulterate the passages in Holy Writ, and to take one thing (and ••o one part of the Body) for another, will not be averse to credit this, and consequently that this is some con••irmation of our present Notion, that

Eve pass'd for a Goddess among the Genti••••s, and was call'd Minerva by them, that is, (as Arnobius and some others interepret it) Meminerva, be∣cause she that had so good an Invention, had doubt∣less as good a Memory, which is so requisite to that.

Cain, the Eldest Son of Adam, was the first Antient Iupiter: (for I deny not that there were other Younger Iupiters among the Pagans) This first and oldest Iupiter, the Son of Saturn, is said, to have invented the founding of Cities; and we know, that the first City in the world, was built by Cain. This Iupiter by the Athenians, was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Founder of Cities, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an incloser or strengthner of Cities, saith Pausanias; which well agrees to the First Builder. Besides, this Cain Married his own Sister, and so the same is said of Iupiter; he Married Vesta, Saturn's Daughter, who was the Goddess of Architecture, and therefore was a proper Wife for him, who was the first Architect. Moreover, we area 1.341 told, that Iupiter Travell'd over all the World, which, in other terms, is Cain's being a Vagabond. The Old Vulcan, the Smith of the Gods, was Tubal∣Cain; for by a common Aphaeresis, and change of Letters, one of these Names is easily made the other. And here let me insert that which will be useful to observe in the like cases afterwards, viz. that the Greeks and Romans, when they take any Names from the Iews, they do not alwaies set them down according to the Hebrew Termination, nor with all the Letters of the words; they take the liberty to omit some, and to alter others. Thus it is here in the words before us, and thus we shall

find it in others that are to be mention'd after∣wards, as we have found it in some already. This Tubal-Cain, or Vulcan, may be said to have found out Fire, or rather the use of it in his Employ∣ment, as he was an Arti••icer in Brass, and Iron, Gen. 4. 22.

Noah was famous of old, and if Gods were made of Men (as certainly they were) he could not miss of being made one; accordingly the most ancient Bacchus was Noah, who first Planted Vines, and taught the making of Wine, Gen. 9. 20. I will not insist on the derivation of Bacchus from Noachus, which some Learned Men approve of, thougha 1.342 Vossius will by no means allow of it, but thinks it too hard an Origination, because the Greeks did not pronounce (it is likely) Noah, but Noi, for the former was after the Points were brought in by the Masorites. But in answer to this Great Critick, I will say these three things; First, he goes upon a false supposition, that the Masorites invented the Hebrew Points, which I have already proved to be an Errour. Secondly, as I have already noted, the Pagans are wont to change the Terminations of Hebrew words, and indeed to shape them after their own way, and as they please. Thirdly, harder Etymologies please him sometimes: to go no farther than the same Chapter, he there makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be qu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, taking no notice of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though they be considerable Consonants, and no Termi∣nations neither. Notwithstanding then, the sug∣gestion of this great Master of Criticism, we may subscribe to the common Opinion of Etymolo∣gists, that Bacch or Bacchus (with the change of a

Letter or two, which is very usual, or perhaps with the mistaking of one Letter for another in the beginning of the word, Nun and Beth being somewhat like in shape) was derived from Noa••••, and that from this Old Patriarch's Planting of Vin••s presently after the Flood, and his unhappy feeling the strength and vertue of the Grape, a∣rose the Poets Tippling Deity, who is said by them to be

—a 1.343 Genialis consitor uvae,

The first Planter of the Grape, and the Inventer of Wine. And for the same reason, those who think Ianus is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vinum, hold that Noah was represented by this Ianus another God among the Poets. This is true, that it is no unusual thing to set forth the same Person by different Names, as if they were different Gods. And that Ianus comes from Iajin, and so is as much as Vinosus, and may have reference to Noah on that account is probable from this, that that part of Italy which Ianus possessed, and where he is said to be Worship'd was call'd OENOTRIA, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vinum. Of the Antiquity of Ianus that Old Writer Fabius Pictor gives this Testimo∣ny, which agrees well with Noah;b 1.344

In Ia∣nus's time there was no Monarchy, for the de∣sire of Ruling had not yet harbour'd in the breasts of Men: (accordingly we read that Nim∣rod afterwards was the first Monarch and Ab∣solute Ruler:)

He taught People first to Sa∣crifice Wine, and Meal. And the Epithet Bifrons, which is given to Ianus, intimates that he was

Noah, for he might truly be said to have had two Faces, because he look'd backwards, and forwards, he saw the times both before and after the Flood, he beheld the former and the latter World. God honour'd him so far as to make him (asa 1.345 Philo speaks) both the end and beginning of Mankind. Others more fancifully say he was called Ianus, à Ianua, from his opening a door as it were for the pre∣servation of Mankind: Andb 1.346 other such Con∣ceits of the Name there are.

Again, this Noah was represented by Saturn, and here you must not wonder that Saturn denotes both Adam, and Noah, for there is great resem∣blance between these two, the one being the Pa∣rent of the World before the Flood, the other of that after it; and for this Reason perhaps Noah is call'd by the Persians the second Adam. Besides, the Poets confound many in one, and to make a∣mends, sometimes divide one into many. But that Noah was meant by Saturn, is the Opinion of some of the Learnedest Criticks, as Goropius, Becanus, Vossius, and Boc••art, the last of which hathc 1.347 offered about a dozen probable Argu∣ments (as he deems them) to make it good. I will mention to you some of them: Saturn is said to be the Husband of Rhea, i. e. of the Earth: So Noah is said to be Ish haadamah, Gen. 9. 20. Vir Terrae, which the Heathens might interpret to be a Husband of the Earth, and thence ince••ted this into their Fabulous des••ription of Saturn. Or, if you mean by those words that Noah was a Humble

Man, and led a mean Life, then the Saturnian Reign agrees with it, in which Men were strangers to Pride and Luxury, and lived a mean, but peaceable and contented Life. Or, take it as it is Translated, a Husband-man, one that looked after the Cultivating of the Earth, and so it fits both Noah, and Saturn, or rather shews these to be one and the same Person, who was employ'd about the Earth, and the Fruits of it, whereof the Vine was one of the chiefest. Saturn devoured his Children, i. e. saith this Author, Noaha 1.348 Con∣demned the World to perish by the Flood, whilst he himself escaped. Or, it may be apply'd to his shutting up his Children in the Ark, among the Beasts, as if he intended they should be de∣vour'd and destroy'd. Saturn vomited up his Sons again, in like manner Noah restored his Sons to the Earth, after they had been shut up in the Ark, and kept so long on that other Ele∣ment. Saturn was driven out of his Kingdom by his Son, after he had first cut off his Father's Ge∣nitals: which refers to Cursed Cham, Noah's Son, who saw his Father's Nakedness, and told it with derision to his Brethren, Gen. 9. 22. The Pagans mistook this Text: for whereas the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he told or revealed, they perhaps read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he cut, whence they report that Cham or Ham (whom they call'd Iupiter) made an Eunuch of his Father. And truly, that Iupiter Hammon was the same Ham, Noah's Son, may be gather'd from the place where Ham and his posterity were Seated, namely in Africa. Here, in the Desarts of Lybia, was the Famous Oracle of Iu∣piter Hammon, who had his Name from that

Wicked Son of Noah, who in this place vented his Blasphemies (which pass'd for Oracles with some,) and thereby debauched the Minds of the generality of that Age; and in process of time he came to be Worshipped there under the Name of Iupiter Ham, or Hammon. I know some have thought Hamon is Chamah Sol, because he is reckon'd the same with the Sun: And others de∣rive it from Hamon Multitudo (as Abraham's Name is Compounded of his former Name Abram, and Hamon, a Multitude, whence he is called a Father of many Nations, Gen. 17. 5. So that Abra∣ham is but an abbreviature of Abrahammon.) But there is great reason to think that this Hammon is the same with Ham, Noah's Son, whose Poste∣rity were Inhabitants of Africa, whence Egypt is call'da 1.349 the Land of Ham. This Affrican or Egyptian Hammon is mentioned (as Bochart thinks) in Ezek. 30. 15. I will cut off the Multitude of No, in the Hebrew, Hamon of No. And so in I••r. 46. 25. Amon of No, i. e. Amon the God of No: And in Nahum 3. 8. No of Amon: But the main Argument to prove Noah and Saturn to be the same is yet behind, which is this; that Sa∣turn by the Heathens is said to have had three Sons, Iupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, and that he divided the World among them. This Fable of dividing the World among three Brethren, the Children of Saturn, did plainly arise from the dividing the Earth between the three Bre∣thren, the Sons of Noah. Of these three was the whole Earth overspread, Gen. 9. 19. By these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood, Gen. 10. 32. The Hot Country of Africa was

Cham's division, who might have his Name given him from a foresight of the place where he and his Race were to Inhabit, the Land of Cham, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caluit: this is no unlikely derivation. Again, Iaphet (another of Noah's Sons) was Nep∣tune, as Bochart indeavours to shew, for the Isles and Peninsulae fell to his share, Gen. 10. 5. And Vossius is very positive in this, that the Antientest Neptune (for there were Neptunes as well as Ioves many) was this Iaphet, to his Lot fell Europe, for▪ Iapetus or Iaphet, is reckon'd the Parent of the Europeans: These are the truea 1.350 Iapeti genus. Shem was Pluto, and what may be said for it, you may see in the fore-named Writer. From the whole there is some reason to believe that Noah, the Father of those three Sons, among whom the World was divided, was one Person at least that was represented by the Heathen God Saturn.

In the next place, it is not difficult to prove that the Egyptian God Apis, or Serapis, was no o∣ther than Ioseph, the Renowned Ruler in Egypt under King Pharaoh. This Person had abundantly merited of all Egypt, and infinitely obliged the whole Country, by laying up Corn in store, and thereby providing for them against the time of Scarcity and Famine. For this singular Benefit to them, they erected an Ox or Cow to preserve his Memory, for in that Figure Apis or Serapis ap∣pear'd, and was Worshipp'd by the Egyptians. And under what Symbol more fitly than that of an Ox could Ioseph be represented? For not to mention the Fame he got by his Wonderful In∣terpreting Pharaoh's Dream of the Fat and Lean Kine, whence perhaps that sort of Animals was

afterwards in great reverence and esteem on this account, as carrying with them some thing Mysti∣cal and Hieroglyphical, which made them the more acceptable to this People, who were then in∣clining to hearken to such things. Not to men∣tion this, I say, Ioseph might most appositely be signified by that Animal which is made use of in Ploughing, in order to the Sowing and coming up of the Corn, that Creature which is serviceable to the treading out the Corn (for that was another great employment of the Ox in those days.) Therefore the Holy Spirit in Scripture seems to refer to this in Gen. 49. 6. which Text (speak∣ing of Ioseph's Brethrens wicked Design to kill him) calls him ana 1.351 Ox, or Bull, according to the 70 Interpreters; and so according to the Hebrew, if you read it Shor, and not Shur. And, in Deut. 33. 17. Ioseph is compared by Moses to an Ox, or Bullock. Which manner of expression denotes him to be a Great and Eminent Person, as well as it hath reference to the particular thing I am now speaking of. Shor (which is the Word here, and is Synonimous with Alaph Bos) signi••ies a Prince, a Great Man, a Potentate, as knowingb 1.352 Criticks have observed. Because an Ox is reputed the Prince and Head of Animals, you'll find that in a Metaphorical way Princes and Captains are so called inc 1.353 Scripture. Whence among Prophane Writers also they are thus na∣med sometimes: for a Bull or Ox is a Symbol of Superiority, or Government, saithd 1.354 Diogenes. On this account the Famous Patriarch Ioseph, who

was Constituted by Pharaoh the Chief Ruler and Prince of Egypt, hath this Name given him. But there is something more particular intended here in this Title, for it hath respect to Ioseph as he was Grand Proveditor of that Country: for there could not be a better Symbol of Provision of Corn and Bread than this Creature. Hence is that of Solomon,a 1.355 much increase, (i. e. as the He∣brew imports, plenty of Corn and Grain) is by the strength of the Ox. And it may be to this which I am now insisting upon, viz. that Ioseph was represented by this sort of Animals, Ier. 46. 20. refers, Egypt is like a fair Heifer. The Egyptian Serapis then in the form of a Cow or Ox, was a true Hieroglyphick of Ioseph, especially when we add, that a Bushel was plac'd on its head, as saithb 1.356 Ruffinus, to signifie that Ioseph was the giver out of Corn, that he caus'd it to be measur'd and proportioned according to the needs of those to whom he dispens'd it. By this Wise as well as Liberal Act his Fame grew great among the Egyptians, and other adjoyning Na∣tions, and at length they Worshipp'd him as a God by the Symbol of an Ox, which they stiled Serapis, as not only Ruffinus, Augustin, Suidas, Iulius Firmicus of old, but Vossius, Bonfrerius, Pierius, and Kircher of late have maintain'd. And I am enclin'd to think that the word Serapis was Originally Sorapis, a Compound of Sor an Ox, and Apis an Egyptian word perhaps of the same sig∣nification. And this is the more credible, because the word Apis alone is sometimes used for Sera∣pis. Some have thought that Mercury was a Name given by the Pagans to this Ioseph, he being Her∣mes,

an Interpreter, for it is particularly recorded that he Interpreted Dreams, Gen. 41. & 42, and was a Diviner, Gen. 44. 5. whence he was called Zaphnath Paaneah, i. e. a Revealer or Interpreter of Secrets, Gen. 41. 45. But I rather think these words are better rendred by St. Ierom (who tells us he learnt the meaning of them from some that well understood the Egyptian Tongue) Salvator Mundi, and so they refer to Ioseph's timely Sa∣ving that part of the World from perishing by Famine. In this sense he was a Saviour, and he was for this made a God. Thus the Ancient Pa∣triarchs were the Poets Gods; the first Fathers whom the Bible speaks of were the Pagan Dei∣ties.

To proceed, Moses also was the Person intended by Mercury, as is excellently well proved from a numerous company of Circumstances, and very naturally, and without any forcing, by a late a 1.357 Learned French-Man, to whom I refer you. It hath no less ingenuously been proved byb 1.358 Vos∣••ius, and some others, that Moses was represented in Liber or Bacchus, for they shew out of Pausa∣••as, how it was a Tradition, that as soon as Bac∣chus was Born he was shut up in an Ark, and ex∣pos'd to the Waters, as Moses was. Liber was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so Moses, besides the Mother that bore him, had Pharaoh's Daughter, who took him and nourished him for her own Son, Exod. 2. 10. Acts 7. 21. Liber was Fair and Beautiful, and excell'd others in Comliness, as Diodorus saith, and as thec 1.359 Poets represent him: semblably Mo∣ses was noted for his singular Beauty, Exod. 2. 2.

Acts 7. 20. and the Iewish Historian tells us the King's Daughter Adopted him, becausea 1.360 ••e was of Divine Shape, as well as of a Generous Mind. The very same is Recorded by ab 1.361 Pagan Historian, which let me observe is a great Confir∣mation of the Sacred History. Orpheus stileth Liber 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which answers to Moses's being Legistator: and he attributes to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of the Two Tables of the Law. Moreover, Liber is called by the said Poet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and byc 1.362 Eu∣ripides he is named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which may be occasion'd by a mistaking of those words in Exod. 34. 29. Moses's Face shone, which is rendred by the Latin, cornuta erat facies sua, the Hebrew Ka∣ran, (whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cornu) being the ground of that mistake, and causing Moses to be Pictured with two Horns. Lastly, saith Vossius, though Moses found not out Wine, as Bacchus, yet in regard of This too he may have the Name of Liber, for he was the Conductor of the Israelites to a Land not only flowing with Milk and Honey, but abounding with Wine: and he it was that incou∣raged the faint-hearted Israelites by the sight of that Bunch of Grapes which was the burthen of two Men, Numb. 13. 20, 23. This is the Sum of what Vossius saith. This Moses was so eminent and signal a Person, and his Actions so well known to the Pagan World, that Monsieur Huet thinks and indeavours to prove that he was represented not only by Mercury, and Bacchus, but by Apollo, Aesculapius, Pan, Priapus, Prometheus, Ianus, and

by those Egyptian Deities especially, Osiris, Apis, Serapis, Orus, Anubis.

The Neighbouring People of Phoenicia and Egypt could not but hear of Iosuah and his Acts, and thence made their Hercules out of him; and from them he was sent down to the Greeks, who you may be sure would augment the Stories which they heard. I say Iosua was the Pagans Hercules, for he fought with Giants, whose great Stature at first frighted the Israelites. In the Land of Canaan, which he Conquer'd, were the Sons of Anak, Men of a vast size, Numb. 13. 33, 34. Bashan more signally is call'd the Land of Giants, Deut. 3. 13. Whilst Iosua was fighting with these Canaanitish Giantsa 1.363 the Lord cast down great Stones from Hea∣ven upon them: The remembrance of which (saith Vossius) is kept among the Gentiles, and applied to Iove assisting Hercules in the very same sort when he grapled with Giants, and was put hard to it.

Samson as well as Iosua was the Greeks Her∣cules, and from the one the History or rather Fable of the other is taken. First, as Vossius ob∣serves, the times of both agree: Hercules, and Samson were Contemporary, as appears from comparing the Greek and Jewish accounts of time. When these hit together, there is a presumption at least. Again, Hercules slew the Nemaean Lion, which answers to what we read of Samson, Judg. 14. 5, 6. A young Lion roared against him, and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a Kid, and ••e ••ad nothing in his hand. Hercules subdued many Tyrants, and Oppressors; that is the meaning of Hydra's, Centaurs, Stymphalides, &c. Thus Samson

was rais'd up on purpose to suppress and vanq••li•• those who had miserably oppress'd and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Israelites. Hercules was sent Captive by Iupi∣ter to Eurysthaeus, and put to many Labours to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deem his Freedom: so Samson served the F••••••∣listines, and undertook Great and Wonderful thi•••••• for his and his Countrie's Liberty. Hercules w•••• of great strength of Body, and that Samson was so, we have several remarkable Instances. Her∣cules was E••feminate, and most vilely served O••∣phale; our Samson was enslaved to a Woma••, and was undone by Dalilah. Hercules and Sams•••• agree in their Deaths, for they were both of them Spontaneous and Voluntary. From such sho•••• hints as these we may gather that the Fable o•• Hercules, one of the Heathen-Gods, or Heroes a•• least, was meant concerning Samson the Famous Judge of Israel.

What think you of Ionas's being signified i•• some Circumstances by Hercules, who when he returned from Col••his with the Argona••tes, as Lycophron in his Cassandra tells us, was devoured by a great Fish, which the Scholiast on that place saith was a Whale? And Hercules lay three Days and three Nights without any considerable harm in the Belly of this Whale, whence he is call'd by that Poet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which the Scholiast gives the true reason, because (saith he) all that time it was as it were Evening with Hercules, the Belly of the Fish being Dark and Shady. Ph••∣vorinus gives the like account of the foresaid Epi∣thet, telling us that all the while he was in the Caverns of the Whale it was Night. And both Cyril and Theophylact take notice of the likeness of this Greek Fable of Hercules, to the Story

of Ionah. I will only alledge this one thing more, that those Argonautes before mention'd, are said ••o have Sail'd in the Euxine-Sea, which was the very Sea according toa 1.364 Iosephus, on whose ••hoar Ionas was vomited up. This must be granted, that the Fame of what befell the Pro∣phet Ionah, namely, how he was swallowed by a Whale, and preserv'd three Days and three Nights in its Belly, and how he was after that cast upon the Land whole and sound, might ea∣sily be conveyed to the Grecians by the Phaeni∣cians their Neighbours: thence they went to work after their old rate, and fix'd it upon some body among themselves: and whom could they more fitly apply this History to than to Hercu∣les, the great Adventurer by Sea as well as by Land, and who was made the Author of all Great and Wonderful things? The Fabulous Greek Poets catch'd up every Prodigious Occurence and attributed it to him, but first they represented it with strange and uncouth Circumstances, and moulded it as they pleas'd. Thus the Gentiles framed new Gods and Heroes out of the Names and Persons they met with, or heard of out of the Scriptures. So it is, the Gods of the Pa∣gans were made out of Men in Holy Writ. The Gentiles Worshipp'd these Famous Hebrews under other Names and Titles, which they were pleas'd to fasten on them. Behold! the Ser∣vants and Favourites of the true God were Dei∣••ied by these Idolaters: Holy Men were Canoniz'd and Worshipp'd by the very Heathen World.

There are some other Particulars which mig•••• be named under this Head, (though they are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so plain and evident as these already mention'd as that the Ancientest Apollo was Moses's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 1.365 who invented Musick, that the Poets Gany•••••• snatch'd up into Heaven by Iupiter, and turn'd i•••••• that Sign which is called Aquarius, refers to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who was taken up to Heaven, and before that h•••• command over the Waters of Heaven, keepi•••• back the Rain for three years, and afterwards b•• Prayer causing those Waters to descend: That the Story of Phaeton was grounded on this Prophet's Fiery Chariots, that Lucifer's fatal Defection is meant by Phaeton's proud Attempt, and Fall; that the Dissoluteness of the Pagan Gods, of which the Poets often speak, refers to the Degeneracy and Corruption of the Sons of God, complain'd of in Gen. 6. 2. And particularly that their Leud and Wanton Gods might be from a misinterpreting the 4th v. the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men. Sometimes out of Things as well as Persons they coined Gods. The Poets observing the Rain∣Bow to be a Sign of the change of the Air and Wea∣ther, (either to be fair or foul) might make it the Messenger of the Gods, who was sent out by them when there was any Change of the present Affairs nigh at hand. But when I remember that observable Passage concerning the Rain-Bow, in Gen. 9. 9. that it should be a Token of the Covenant between God and Man, I am inclined to think that this was not unknown to some of the inquisitive Heathens, who pried into the Sacred Writings of Moses, and thence look'd upon that Remarkable Meteor as some Sacred and Divine thing, and according

to their fanciful way advanced it to the Office of Internuntia Deorum, as they expresly call'd it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Homer stiles it, a Messenger be∣tween God and Men; particularly a Messenger of Peace and Reconciliation with the new World, ••n Angel of that Covenant. This is their Iris, which is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or it is perhaps from the Chaldee Ir an Angel. Again, there are ••trange Fiery Apparitions mention'd in the Old Te∣stament, as the Burning-Bush, and the Flaming∣Chariots before spoken of; and we read that God appointed Holy-Fire to be kept always on the Altar. Hence perhaps it was that Fire was made •• God, and Worshipp'd by the Chaldeans and Per∣sians, and was in such request among the Old Ro∣mans, that (as you have heard) they ordered the Vestal Virgins to keep it unextinguish'd. Thus the Heathens had their Gods and Goddesses from the Holy Book; which it may be that Sagacious Au∣thor of the Book of Maccabees meant, when he said,a 1.366 From the Book of the Law the Heathens sought to Paint the likeness of their Images. We have found in this Discourse, that their Images or Gods have been made like to those things which they meet with in the Sacred Writings. I have shewed you the Resemblance and Agreement between them in many Considerable Circumstances.

CHAP. VII.

From the Names of the True God the Gentil•••• had the Names of their False ones; as jo•••• and Jao, from J••hovah and Jah; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from Adonai, Baal Berith and Sabazius fr•••• Epithets given to the True God. Also, t•••• Pagans giving the Title of Gods to the•••• Kings, is deriv'd from the Sacred Writings. Anchialum in Martial, hath reference to th•• form of Swearing in the Old Testament. The Authors particular resolution of that mistakes word. The use of the word Horns in Pr••∣phane Authors, is borrow'd from the Sacred Stile. Several other words, Phrases, and Forms of Speech, among the Pagans, are taken thence. There are some footsteps and relicks of the Sacred History in the most re∣mote Countries of the World. Objectio•••• against the foregoing Discourse answer'd.

Ninthly. THE Heathens had the Names of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gods, and the pronunciation of th•••• sometimes, from the Names and Titles of the True God. They seem to have derived something from what the Iews practis'd, concerning the Great Tetragrammaton, which was call'd by them Hashem, the Name emphatically, the Name appro∣priate to God, the unexpressible Name; for the Iews tell us, that this Name which we read Ie••ov••••, was pronounced by the High Priest only, and that but once a year, in the Temple, at the Fe••••

of Propitiation, so that it was not known by the People how it was pronounced. When they met with it in their Bibles, instead of it they read Adonai, or Elohim. Hence a great many Con∣jectures have been about the right pronunciation of this Name. It was read Iave or Iahave by the Samaritans, but this is laid aside, and Mercer and Drusius read it Ieheve. Some think that Iehejeh Erit was the word used at first by the Iews, and that afterwards it was corruptly changed into Ieheveh, the Iod being turned into Vau. The true Punctation of the Proper Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was anciently Iahavoh, saith thea 1.367 Learned Prefa∣cer to the First Volume of Dr. Lightfoot's Works, but he is not pleased to give any Reason for it. Whether Galatinus was the first that read and pro∣nounced it Iehovah I will not here inquire; but this is certain he had it from the Masorites, ac∣cording to whose Points it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and without question those Hebrew Criticks had it from the best and ancientest Copies. This was the ••irst and truest reading, and some Mens varying from it hath proceeded from their Belief of the Iewish Conceit and Tradition, that their Fore-Fathers knew not how to read or pronounce the Tetra∣grammaton. But though it is true they seldom or never spake it, yet this did not proceed from their ignorance of the right pronunciation of it, but from a Supersti••ious Reverence and Fear of Pro∣phaning that word, by taking it into their Mouths. But the Holy Scripture it self warrants the Pro∣nouncing of this Name, for in Gen. 22. 14. Abra∣••am calls the place where he would have Sacrificed Isaac, Iehovah-jireh: now a Place can't be call'd by

its Name, unless the Name be pronounced. So Gideon built an Altar, and call'd it Iehovah-S••a∣lom, Iudg. 6. 24. Besides, the Iews themselves, as precise and nice as they are in this matter, compound many Proper Names of it, though with some abbreviating of it, as Iehochanan, Iehonathan: whence it is evident that they knew how to pro∣nounce this Name of God, but from the reverend esteem which they had of it they refus'd to do it. The Rabbies foolishly pretend Scripture for this, Isa. 45. 15. Verily thou art a God that hidest thy self, applying these words to the concealing of his Name. And they corrupt another Text to main∣tain this their Superstitious Fancy and Practice, Exod. 3. 15. This is my Name, le gnolam, for ever: they read it legnalem, to be concealed. Now, I say, to this Practice of the Iews, viz. their obscure and uncertain Pronouncing, or ra∣ther their not knowing how to pronounce the Name of the true God, the Heathens seem to re∣fer, when they call him the Vnknown, and the a 1.368 Vncertain God, andb 1.369 the God that is not to be named. Socrates exhorted the Athenians, saith Iustin Martyr, to the knowledge of thec 1.370 Vn∣known God, that is, the God of the Iews. The Inscription on the Altar erected at Athens, To the Vnknown God, shews that they gave the True God that Name, for the Apostle interprets it of Him, Acts 17. 23. Thence that in Lucian,d 1.371 By the Vnknown God in Athens. And Hesychius tells us

that there were a sort of Gods called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Worshipp'd by these Athenians, and the Feasts kept in Honour of these strange Deities were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; especially the Hebrew God was number'd by them among the strange ones; therefore when the Gentiles were speaking of this God of the Iews, they added,a 1.372 whosoever he be: as much as to say, he and his Name are not known. And in imitation of this, perhaps some of the Pagans would have their Gods to be Vnknown.b 1.373 Macrobius Acquaints us particularly concerning the People of Rome, that they would have their God, under whose protection the City was, conceal'd; and he pre∣tends this reason for it, because if the Name of their Tutelar God were known, the Enemy would make use of it, and call him out by their Magick Art. But the true reason might be their fond imitating of the Iews (whom in many other things they were wont to follow:) hence they were not to know the Name of the Tutelar God of Rome; he wasc 1.374 Vnknown, and Vnutterable, as Plutarch testifies.

But as the Iews pretended, out of a supersti∣tious humour, that the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not un∣known to them, when they knew well enough the right pronunciation of it; so the Gentiles, though they called the God of the Iews the Vnknown God▪ and seem'd to be ignorant of his Names, yet it appears that they had some knowledge of them, and that they Intituled their Gods by the Names of the God of the Iews. Which I prove thus; the Tetragrammaton was ••ot unknown to the Chal∣deans, as is clear from 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 36. 15, 18, 20. where

we read that the Idolatrous Rabshakeh (who at that time spake in the Iews Language, v. 13.) knew it, and often pronounc'd it. And this Name of God is found among the Grecians also, though al∣tered and corrupted. Froma 1.375 Macrobius we learn that Iao was the Chief God of all among the Gentiles, for which he quoteth the Oracle of Apollo Clarius.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Know this, that the Supream God of all is Iao.

A most Illustrious Attestation to the Holy Writ, and the Great Name of God contain'd there∣in. Iehovah was corruptly pronounced Iao, and Io was a contract of Iao, as in the Songs and Hymns wherein they Sung Io Paean. This latter word (asb 1.376 one conjectures) is from Panah to look, or behold: and so Io Paean is as much as Iehovah Penoth, Lord look upon us. For it is pro∣bable that Io, Iao, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for all these were in use) were abreviatures of Iehovah, as Iah among the Iews was an Abridgment of this. Several of thec 1.377 Ancient Fathers are positive that Iehovah was written by the Greeks, who were not well acquainted with the pronunciation of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Accordingly, saith Porphyrius the Philoso∣pher, cited byd 1.378 Eusebius, Sanconiathon receiv'd the account he gives of the Iews from a Priest of the God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it is testified bye 1.379 Diodorus,

that Moses receiv'd his Laws from the God that is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Mistake arose from the igno∣rance of the Name Iehovah. Whence it appears that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with Iah and Iehovah, and that the former is but a mistaken pronunciation of these latter.

I will add that Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, came from Moses's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exod. 3. 14. according to the Septuagint, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am, according to the Original. And the same Philosopher's Tò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, answer to Iehovah, which is a Name of Existence.

Nay, that is more remarkable which we meet with ina 1.380 Plutarch, who assirms that the In∣scription on the Temple of Minerva in Egypt was thus, I am all that is, and was, and shall be. Which is a plain reference to God's Name in Exo∣dus. And he speaks of another Inscription of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Temple at Delphos, which he thus applies to the peculiar Essence and Existence of God,

is the compleat Appellation of God: in our an∣swering and speaking to God, we say, Thou art, attributing to him this true, certain, and only Appellation, which agrees to him alone, which is called Being or Existing.

And afterwards he expatiates concerning the uncertain, labile and flux Nature of Man, and all things in Comparison of God, who is most properly said to be, Eternally Existing. This is Ehejeh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I am, of which Name of the True God these Gentiles had some notice, and that from the Hebrews, and imitated in the Names that they gave to their false Deities.

Iovis, the old Nominative Case for Iupiter, (as Priscian saith, and so it is used by Ennius and Varro) is borrowed from this Name Iehovah. Iu∣piter is no other than Iovis-piter, or Iovis-Pater, Father Iove, or Iehove, and so answers to Ieho∣vah, who hath the Name of Father given him often in Scripture. And it is likely that heretofore some contracted the word Iehovah, and read or pronounced it Iovah, as the Iews pronounced Iudah for Iehudah. Nay, Iove or Iova, the A∣breviature of Iehovah was perhaps used by Moses himself; which I gather from what Iosephus saith of the Name Written on the High-Priest's Mitre; viz. That it had four Vowels, and consisted of four Vowels alone: This seems to have been Iova, which consists of just so many Vowels, though two of them are used as Consonants, unless you will say they pronounced I and V. as Vowels, thus, Ioua. We may then reasonably believe that the Name of the Heathens God Iovis came from the corrupt pronouncing or contracting the word Ie∣hovah, or (which comes nearer to it) Iehovih, for so you will find it Written in Deut. 3. 24. 9. 26. And that Iovis is of Hebrew Original, and deri∣ved from the Tetragrammaton, is confess'd by Varro, who thought that Iovis was first of all the God of the Iews, asa 1.381 St. Augustin quotes him. And though the Pagans alter'd the Name, and made it sometimes exceed, and at other times come short of four Letters, yet this did not ex∣tinguish the sense and notion among some of them, that the Original Name was a Tetragrammaton, For it is likely that the Pythagoreans 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the

Number Four, by which they used to Swear, (espe∣cially they confirmed the most serious Truths with this Oath) was taken from the Iews Tetragramma∣ton. The Excellenta 1.382 Commentator on Pytha∣goras's Golden Verses, and particularly on this passage in them, talks at large why God is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quaternarius, so that it seems the Pytha∣goreans applied it to God. Whence ab 1.383 Learned Antiquary of our own concludes, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was Iehovah, and he conceives that Pythagoras (who speaks of it in his Verses) had this Mystery of Quaternity from the Hebrews, who had in great veneration the Tetragrammaton, the Name of God of Four Letters. It was easie for this Philosopher, who convers'd in his Travels (as is acknowledg'd) with Hebrews and Chaldees, to arrive to the know∣ledge of this Name.

Let me suggest this in the next place, that since the Name Iehovah was commonly pronoun∣ced Adonai by the superstitious Iews, it might hence come to pass that this Adonai, with a very small change, gave the Name to one of the Poetick Gods among the Heathens, viz. Adonis. To con∣firm which, add what Hesychius saith, thatc 1.384 A∣donis is as much Lord among the Phaenicians. He mistakes the Phaenicians for the Hebrews here, as is very usual. Whence then can we with greater probability think that Name was given to a Pagan God, than from its being of so near affinity with Adonai, the Name of the True God among the Iews? Again, Baal-Berith, i. e. the Lord of the Covenant, was the Name of a God or Idol of the Phaenicians, Iudg. 8. 33. Which seems to be an

imitation of the Title of the True God, who as soon as the Deluge was pasta 1.385 made a Covenant with Mankind, and after that we find himb 1.386 Co∣venanting with Abraham, and afterwardc 1.387 with the whole People of the Iews: and frequently in Scripture we see he is making a Covenant with his Servants, so that he is the true Baal-Berith, the Lord of the Covenant. The Phaenicians borrowed this out of the Jewish and Sacred Writings, and applied it to one of their Gods: whence it was propagated to other Nations, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Foedera∣tor, the Covenanter, was the Title of Iupiter.

Among the Names which the Gentiles give to their Gods, I may reckon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Sabazius, (for it is sometimes Latinised) to be one. That this was the Name of iupiter especially, you read in Strabo, Valerius Maximus, Apuleius. That it was a Title also given to Bacchus is witnessed by d 1.388 others. In allusion to this, the word Sabos is often heard in the Orgia, i. e. the Sacred Rites of Liber, ase 1.389 Plutarch acquaints us. And from f 1.390 Aristophanes we learn that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were words of Acclamation and Rejoycing among the Pagans, at their Great Solemnities, and Festi∣vals. Now this Name seems to be of Hebrew Original, and refers to the Iudaick Sabbath, that Sacred Festival in which God was most solemnly Worshipp'd by that Nation: And this Plutarch was sensible of, viz. That there was an assinity be∣tween 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (before mention'd, the word used in the Gentile Festivities, especially by those that kept the Bacchanalia) and the Iewish Sabbath; only

in this he err'd, not knowing the derivation of the Hebrew word, that he thought this was taken from that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as he ex∣presly saith. Or perhaps this Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was given to their false Gods, was taken from that of the true one; and Iupiter Sabazius is as much as Iehovah Zabaoth, which both a 1.391 Isaiah andb 1.392 Ieremiah frequently repeat as the proper Name of God: Iehovah Zabaoth, the Lord of Hosts is his Name. Some have thought the word Tzebaoth is placed here by way of Appo∣sition, as if it should be rendred Dominus Sabaoth, and thencec 1.393 Ierom reckons Sabaoth among the Names of God. But questionless this word is in the Plural Number, & in regimine, and so the true rendering is Lord of Sabaoth, i. e. of Hosts. Yea, you will find the Hebrew word retain'd even d 1.394 in the Greek, as if there were something more than ordinarily remarkable in the Hebrew. The Pagans, who got the sound of this word (as very famous among the Hebrews) took it by it self for God's Name, and thence (it is likely) fra∣med the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This shall suffice in brief for a proof of what I undertook, that the Names of the God of Israel are applied by the Hea∣thens to their Idol-Gods. The Pagans call their Deities by Titles which are given to the True God Iehovah. This makes good what I aim'd at, that the Heathens had these as well as other things from the Sacred Scriptures: and it is certain they could have them from these only; which is a proof of the verity and antiquity of those Holy Writings.

Speaking here of the Heathen-Gods, and their Names as borrowed from Scripture, it may not be impertinent to observe, that even the Title of Gods given by the Pagans to their Kings and Prin∣ces, was derived from the same inspired Writings I grant that it partly proceeded from their sot∣tish Opinion that they were Gods indeed: But it is as true, that it might be derived to Prophane Writers, from the stile of the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, where Magistrates are called Gods. Thus in Exod. 22. 8. the Gods and the Rulers of the People are Synonimous. Moses was to Aar•••• instead of a God, Ex. 4. 16. i. e. according to the Chaldee and Arabick, a Iudge or Prince. God himself honours the Rulers of the Sanhedrim with the Title of Gods, Ps. 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods. So in Psalm 138. Gods in the 1st verse are Kings of the Earth in the 4th. It might be ob∣serv'd that Elohim and Adonai, the usual Names of God himself, are attributed to Great Men in the Sacred Writings. In short, as God is often called King in Scripture, so Kings are called Gods, and thence the expression is convey'd to the Pagans, and frequently used by them. Among the Eastern People Melech, Moloch, and Malcham, (for these words are indifferently used) signifie both God and King. And perhaps it was in con∣formity or relation to this Notion, that they commonly inserted the Names of their Gods into those of their Princes, though it might be also as a good Omen, or for Honour's sake. From their Gods, I say, Princes compound their Names, as Belshazar, from Bel: Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuza∣radan, and Nebonasser, from nebo an Assyrian God; Evilmerodach, from Merodach a Babylonian God•• and many others. Among the Persians we read

the Name of God was bestow'd on their Empe∣rours: Thus Xerxes was stiled the* 1.395 Persian Iupiter. One of the Antiochus's had the Sirname of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We shall find likewise that other Nations complied with this Notion. What if I should say that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mention'd by Pythagoras in his Golden Verses, are these Terrestrial Gods I am speaking of; viz. Great Princes, Celebrated He∣roes, Wise Rulers, Divine Men, or Earthly Dei∣ties? Plato tells us in his Politicks that a Good King isa 1.396 like some God chosen out from amongst Men. Princes and Commanders are stiled by Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, born and bred of the Gods. But especially among the Romans this sort of Language was common. Rome was no less than Heaven, and the Emperour was God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is apply'd to the first Caesar byb 1.397 Strabo. The next (viz. Augustus) is called Deus Caesar by Propertius. Edictum Domini Dei{que} nostri, is Martial's Lan∣guage. At Rome the Royal Palace was reputed a Temple: the Mount Palatine was Sacred and Venerable, because the Emperour's Seat was there. c 1.398 The Soveraignty of Magistrates approaches next to the Majesty of Heaven, saith the Grave and Renowned Oratour. And with him agrees the Pithy Moralist, who tells us thatd 1.399 the Peo∣ple are to look upon their Governours under no other Character, than as if the Gods were come down to visit them. We may say here, as the Philosopher in another Case, & hic Dii sunt, there is a kind of Divinity in Rulers, they are

Earthly Numen's, they are Created and visible Deities: And being so stil'd first of all in Scrip∣ture, the Title hath come down to the Pagan World, but hath been infinitely abused.

Having taken notice of several References in Prophane Authors, to express Passages and Usages Recorded in the Old Testament, I will here su∣per-add one which I meet with in Martial's Epi∣grams: And I will the rather insist upon it, be∣cause the place is obscure, and hath yielded mat∣ter of great Controversie among the Learned. The Epigrammatist writes to a Iew, and tells him he will not credit what he saith, though he Swears by the Temple of Iupiter, or of any other Deity: Wherefore he puts him upon Swearing by Anchialus.

a 1.400 Ecce negas, juràsque mihi per templa Tonantis: Non credo; jura, Verpe, per Anchialum.

There have been great disputes about this An∣chialus, some thinking it to be Sardanapalus's Statue crected in Anchiala, a City of Cilicia, and there Worshipp'd: Of this Opinion is Dom. Cal∣derinus: Some taking it for a Man or a Boy, some for a City or Town, and others for a Beast, as Vossius the Elder conceits it refers to the Iews Worshipping an Ass, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Asinus. But he might as well have under∣stood by this word a Horse, or a Man that carries Burthens, for that is the import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Besides, Angarius and Anchia∣lus are too different in sound to be thought to be the same: Wherefore I dismiss this. The rest of the Modern Criticks agree in this, that the

Poet directing this Epigram to a Iew, refers to something in use among that People, and particu∣larly something mention'd in their Bible (for that would make the Jest the more biting, as he imagined) viz. The Form of Swearing by the True God which is used there. But these Authors differ about the Form.a 1.401 Ioseph Scaliger de∣rives it from the Hebrew Fountain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i. e. si vivit Deus, which was a form of Swear∣ing with the Hebrews: hence, saith he, Martial was mistaken, and thought they swore by An∣cbialus, whereas the Oath was Am chi alah, i. e. If God liveth. Our Learned Farnaby likes this Criticism very well, and hath inserted it into his Notes on this place. But by the leave of so Great a Critick, there is I conceive something faulty in it: For though I am most willing to grant, that there is in this place a reference to the Form of Swearing which was used by the Iews in the Old Testament; yet I am not for∣ward to assent to this interpretation of the word Anchialum, which this Noble Philologist pre∣sents us with, and that for these Reasons; first it is not Am but An that must answer to the begin∣ning of the word Anchialum. However, this may be born with, being an easie change of a Letter. Secondly, there is no such Hebrew Word as am. There is im si, but then it should be Imchialum, not Anchialum. Thirdly, Ala is not an usual word for God among the Iews, because it is an Arabick, not an Hebrew word, and 'twas never made use of in that Nation, and 'tis not once mention'd in the Holy Bible, wherefore I can't be∣lieve they solemnly Swore by it.

For the same Reason I am apt to reject th•••• other solution of this place in Martial, which a verya 1.402 Excellent and Choice Writer hath of∣fered. Anchidlum or Anchialon, saith he, is com∣posed of these three words [An] non, [Cha] vivit (and without the Vowel under it Chi, and perhaps they might vulgarly pronounce it so) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or [alon] deus: For this (saith he) is an Oath of a Iew who denies the Crime which he is accus'd of, he Swears thus, An chi alon, i. e. Non: vivit deus. But I cannot on due Considera∣tion think that this is a true account of this Passage; for first Alon was not a Name in use (nay perhaps not known) among the Iews. This Author indeed saith it may be gathered out of Plautus, that God's Name was pronounced Alon, but we are not to consider what pronunciation the Name had among other People, i. e. Foreign∣ers, but what was in constant use among the Iewish People: for the Poet refers here to that. Wherefore there being no such Name among them, it could not be used by them in an Oath and consequently it is not here meant, when Mar∣tial is jesting with the Circumcised Poet. And as for the word Eljon, which 'tis true is often used in Scripture, and of which this Alon seems to be a corruption, it is an Epithet rather than a Name of God, and therefore was not (it is likely) put into a Formal Oath. Again, the word an, which this Author makes one of the ingredients of this word which the Poet useth, hath no such lignification as he pretends it hath. Indeed ajin, and the contraction of it in is non, but an hath no other signification but ubi, or quorsum, or quous

〈◊〉〈◊〉 as any Man may satissie himself, by consult∣•••••• the places where it occurs.

But anothera 1.403 Person of infinite Literature (who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is of Opinion that it is an Oath, and a Iewish 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is here meant) tells us, that per Anchialum is a corruption of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. ulciseatur is qui vivit in aternum: For we read, saith he, that Chi olam is one of Gods Great Names, Dan. 4. 31. and we read also of Swearing by this Name, Dan. 12. 17. wherefore Martial's Verse should have been written thus,

Non credo: jura, verpe, iperan Chi olam.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Let him who lives for ever (viz. God) take ••••••geance on me, viz. if I forswear my self. This is a Criticism worthy of so Learned an Antiquary. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I have something considerable to object against a; as first this iperang which he here brings in is ••••••••ether redundant, for we read not that they ••••••d this word in Swearing, therefore there was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason to insert it here, and to make it part of the form of a Iewish Oath. Moreover, Chi∣•••••••• is mistaken for Chi gnolma in Dan. 4. 31. which will not come into the Verse. But chiefly I make bold to dissent from this Worthy Person's Opinion, because I think I have an easier and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to propound.

That which I offer is this, that this word An∣•••••••••• contains in it these three words, an, chi, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The word an is an abreviature of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which is an usual Interjection, sometimes translated now, Psal. 118. 25. and sometimes oh, (〈◊〉〈◊〉 exclamatory Syllable,) Ex. 32. 31. yea, in all

or most of the places where we find it, it bear this last signification, or borders very near up•••• it. It is a particle used among the Hebrews 〈◊〉〈◊〉 express the Affections and Emotions of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as Mercer hath well observ'd) which are frequent∣ly accompanied with Exclamations. And by en∣quiring into the Texts where 'tis used, it will ap∣pear, that it is also an Interjection of Asseveration and is as much as sanè, profecto, certè. To th•••• purpose it is rightly rendred truly, Ps. 116. 16. wherefore it is no wonder that it is used it Swearing. I find that this Passionate Expletive 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the same signification in the beginning of Word or Sentence with [na] in the end of them whence perhaps the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Latin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (both used in Oaths) are derived. This I have said to shew the fitness of this first word in this place. The two others are Chi and Elohim, which being joined together are the same that [God li∣veth,] which you will find to be the very expre•••• words which are used in the Old Testament whe•• they Swore, as in 1 Sam. 2. 27. 1 Kings 17. 12▪ 18. 10. Chai Elohim, God liveth: but we rende•• it [as God liveth] and perhaps very significantly because an Oath is generally express'd by a defective Speech: some word is left out, and our Tran∣slators supply it. This we are certain of, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is usual in the Old Testament to Swear by God Life, and in these very terms, The Lord live•••• God liveth. Yea, God himself Swears by his Life Am. 6. 8. As I live, saith the Lord. Thence God in the Old Testament is called the Living God Which Epithet is so commonly given him, and was without doubt so frequently used by the Iews, that it came by that means to be well known to the Gentiles, which I should guess gave rise 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Greek Name of Iupiter. The Heathens Na∣med him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Living God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And I am apt to think that from the Nominative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is of the same Original) the Name Deus comes, for 'tis probable that heretofore it was pronounced as one Syllable, and so was as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for you see the is turn'd into in the three next Cases, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Therefore even Deus 15 the Living God. But to proceed, God's Life is himself, and there∣fore 'tis no wonder that God's People the Iews Swore by it. Chi Elohim was the constant form of words which they used, and it was taken (as you have heard) out of the Holy Scriptures. So then An chi elohim is no other than Verily, truly the Lord liveth: the word an being presix'd by the Iews to express their affection and concern about the thing which they asserted or denied with a Solemn Oath. Now, when the Iews pronounced this Oath in these words, those that were ignorant of the Tongue, thought it was all but one word or Name. Our Witty Poet who was not skill'd in the He∣brew, was guilty of the same mistake, and put the Iew upon Swearing by Anchialum, which was a misunderstanding of An chi Elohim: which words when they were pronounced fast and indistinctly, seem'd unto those who were not skill'd in the Hebrew Tongue to sound like Anchialum. There∣fore Martial saith, Iura, verpe, per Anchialum, i. e. per an chi Eloim, or with an usual Synalaepha, An ch' Eloim, which likewise is an instance of what I asserted before, that Transpositions, Ab∣breviatures, and Corruptions of words are very usual, and that their right Terminations are laid aside very often. Or, perhaps the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El (which is also the usual Name of God in the

Old Testament,) is here intended: For that also was used in Oaths, as appears from Iob 27. 2. Chai El. As God liveth. And without doubt it was used by the Iews, as well as Eloah and Elohim, in Swearing: yea, some Hebritians have thought that these words are derived from the Verb Alah juravit, because they are used in Swearing. An chi El, Verily God liveth, was a common form of an Oath, no less than An chi Elohim, and thence the ignorant Hearers among the Pagans thought that the Name of the Iews God was Anchiel, or Anchial: And Martial here having occasion to use it in the Accusative Case, adds the usual ter∣mination to it, and makes it Anchialum. Swear to me, saith he to his Brother Poet, who was a Iew, by a Jewish Oath, Swear by the most So∣lemn and Sacred Oath that you have in use a∣mong you, and that is, (as I have heard) Anchial or Anchiel, which is no other then An chi El, Verily God liveth. With great deference and re∣spect to the judgments of the foresaid Learned Criticks, I propound either of these to be the ••airest and easiest solution of that controverted place of Martial. It is not Chi Alah, nor Chi Alon, nor Chi gnolam, but Chi Elohim, or Chi El (take which you please) that is referr'd to here by the Poet: for these are the very words used in Scripture, and we read that one of them espe∣cially is the express form of Swearing among the Hebrews. Which is the thing I alledged this passage for, viz. To let you see how Pagan Wri∣ters have frequent references to the Book of God, and particularly the Name of the True God, and to the Customs and Usages there spoken of, and thereby do in some measure give testi∣mony to the Truth and Reality of those Wri∣tings.

I would offer to the Learned another Notion in prosecution of the Subject I have been so long upon. I am of the Opinion that from The frequent mention of Horns in the Old Testament, the Heathens borrow'd the like expression, and apply'd it in that very sense in which 'tis used in those Holy Writings. The Hebrew Keren (whence the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latin Cornu, and the German and English Horn,) signifies Might, Strength, For∣titude, as also Ioy, Safety, Prosperity; whence you read of the Horn of Salvation, 2 Sam. 22. 3. Psal. 18. 2. and the exalting, lifting up, and setting 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Horn, 1 Sam. 2. 1. Ps. 75. 4, 10. Ps. 89. 17. Ps. 112. 9. Lam. 2. 17. Zach. 1. 21. On the con∣trary, cutting off the Horn, signifies debasing, de∣grading, a mournful, unsafe, afflicted Condition, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is clear from Ps. 75, 10. Ier. 48. 25. Lam. 2. 3. And defiling the Horn, is of the same import, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 16. 5. From the signification of the Verb Kuran, we may be partly confirmed in this sense of the Noun Keren, for 'tis said of Moses's Face that it shone, Ex. 34. 29. it was very Bright and Glorious. The vulgar Latin renders it, it was Horn'd, and thence (was said before) Moses is ••sually Pictured with Horns. But we must un∣••••rstand it spoken Metaphorically, viz. of those ••ays or Beams of Light which darted from his face, and which were as 'twere Horns of Light. So in Hab. 3. 4. by Horns is meant Brightness or Light, and it is so expresly interpreted in that rerse. The Radiency, the Splendour of Moses's Face was very great, and is rightly called by the Apostle, the Glory of his Countenance, 2 Cor. 3. 7. So that hence we may gather that the word im∣ports Outward Glory. And as this word Keren signifies more generally Power, Grandeur, Our∣ward

Glory, and Prosperity, so it more particu∣larly denotes Kingly Power, Soveraign Dominiou and Empire, the Greatness and Splendor of Crowned Heads. (Whence, by the way, I propound it as probable, that from the Eastern words Karan and Keren are derived the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dominus, Imperator, and the Latin Corona.) Thus Horn is applied in 1 Sam. 2. 10. He shall give strength unto his King, and exalt the Horn of his Annointed. And in the Psalms you will find that this word hath particular reference to David as King, Ps. 89. 24. 91. 10. So in Ps. 132. 17. 'tis spoken of him as the Lord's Annointed, and 'tis joyn'd with a Crown in the next verse. In the Book of Da∣niel this Language is very common, in the 7th and 8th Chapters a Horn and Horns signifie Princely Dominion, and the Persons that exercis'd it: and in the latter of these Chapters those two Horn'd Beasts, a Ram, and a Goat, are Representatives of Kings, and Kingdoms. It is in express words said in two places, Horns are Kings, Dan. 7. 24. 8. 7. Now, from this particular stile and idiom of the Ancient Holy Book of the Scriptures, the Heathen Writers learnt to speak after the same manner. Not only in a general way was the word Horn used by some of their Authors, toa 1.404 express Vigour, Spirit, Strength, and Power, but more especially and signally they mak•• use of it to signifie Supream Power and Dignity, such as that of their Gods, and of their Kings. Thusb 1.405 Cor∣niger was the Epithet of Iupiter Hammon, and we may inform our selves from several Writers

that he was commonly pictured with Horns: which had its rise, I conceive, from the like re∣presentation of Great Ones in the Old Testament, as you have heard. I know other Reasons are alledg'd, as that of Servius, who thinks this Iupi∣ter had that Title, and was represented Horned, because of his Winding Oracles, because his An∣swers had as many crooked Turnings as a Ram's Horn. Macrobius, and some others tell us, that this Hammon, was no other than the Sun, whose Beams are Cornute, whose Rays are in the fashion of Horns. If the Moon had been meant, then I confess, the Epithet of Horned had been very Natural: But I don't think, that the Metaphorical Horns of the Sun (which are its Rays) were thought of here by the Antients. Wherefore, I look upon these as mean and trifling Reasons. But the true occasion, if I mistake not, of their describing Iupiter Hammon with Horns, and of representing other Gods, as Pan and Bacchus, after the same manner, was this, that they complied with the Stile of the Sacred Writings, (as was an usual thing with them) which set forth Great Power, Magnificence and Glory, especially Kingly Power and Greatness, by the expression of Horns. This suited well with their Gods, who were Great Folks, and generally Deified Kings. We read, that a Ram and a Goat are Symbols of Regal Strength, in the Prophetick Writings; in imitation of which, it is probable, Iupiter Hammon was worshipp'd in Afsrick, in the shape of an Image which had partly the proportions of a Ram, and partly of a Goat. And from the same Original, (viz. the Holy Scriptures) it was, that Antiently the Pagan Kings and Monarchs were represented and stiled Horned, as we may satisfie our selves from several Authors.

It is well known that Alexander the Great was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bicornis: of which some give this Reason, because (say they) of the amplitude of his Empire, which was extended to both the extream Horns of the World, East and West. Others say, he would have been thought to be the Son of Iupiter Hammon, who was Cornute, and accordingly they drew Alexander so. And there are other Reasons assign'd bya 1.406 Authors, why this Great Conquerour had the denomina∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but they seem to be far fetch'd, and not to give us the true and genuine ac∣count of it, which I take to be this, viz. That this Title was derived to the Gentiles from the frequent Language and Phraseology of the Old Testament, which expresses Kingly Power by Horns, and more especially from the Prophecy of Daniel, where the Grecian Monarchy is de∣seribed by a He Goat, an Horn'd Animal, and the first King of that third Monarchy, viz. Alexander the Great, is signified by Keren Chazuth, a No∣table Horn, Dan. 8. 5. a Great and Visible Horn, as the Hebrew word properly signifies: And a∣gain, he is call'd in the same Chapter the Great Horn, v. 21. All Interpreters agree in this, that Alexander the Great is meant here, although they differ in expounding other parts of the Chapter. Hence this Mighty Monarch would in his Pictures and Coins be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, represented as Horn'd, yea, his choice Horse, which he most prized, is known by this Character. And from this Great Man his Successors learnt to stamp their Coine with Horned Images and Impressions. Hence

••lexander is called Dulcarnain, in the Alcoran by Mabomet, which is equivalent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that I suppose to be the meaning of that Eastern word: And 'till some others give a better In∣terpretation of Chaucer's [at Dulkernoon] I pre∣sume to say it signifies as much as to be in a ••aze, to be at ones wits end, to be dilemma'd, to be push'd at on one side and the other, as 'twere with a double Horn. So much for that Name given to that Great Monarch, of which many Writers have disputed, and I have made bold to put in among the rest, and to offer my apprehensions concerning that Epithet. I refer it to the Old Testament, which was not unknown to some of the wisest of the Gentiles, who thence borrow'd many Words and Phrases, and more Customs and Practices. Hence Horns came to be significat••ve of Kingly Greatness and Power. Hence it was a Custom among the Persians to wear aa 1.407 Rams Head of Gold for a Diadem. Hence Attila, King of Hunns, was pourtray'd with Horns, as is to be seen in An∣cient Medals. And that Horns were a Badge of Regality and Dominion, is clear from what we read inb 1.408 Valerius Maximus, viz. That when on a sudden Horns were seen to appear on the head of Genitius Cippus, as he was going out at the door, the Response was, that he should be King, if he return'd into the City.

I have now almost finish'd my Task, I mean, so far as it respects the Old Testament. Let me only add this after all, That many things in Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Theognis, &c. may

not only be reduced to, but seem to be borrow'd from David's Psalms, Solomon's Proverbs, the Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, (which are but an imitation of these) and other parts, both of the Canonical and Apocriphal Writings. This hath been partly shew'd bya 1.409 some of late, but might be carried on much further. I do not think every Saying that is like another in Scripture, was taken thence. That of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 9. (which he takes from Isai. 64. 4.) Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, neither hath it enter'd into the Heart of Man, is very like that passage in Empedocles,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—

but no Man can think there was any reference to it. I do not say, that Lucretus's

Cedit item retro, de terrâ quod fuit ante, In terras: Et quod missum est Aetheris oris, &c.

was copied out of Solomon, Eccles. 12. 7. Toen, shall the dust return to the Earth as it was; and the Spirit shall return unto God who gave it. I know many Sentences may happen to be alike, yea the same in Sacred and Prophane Writers: The Moral Subject they Treat upon might afford the like matter and words sometimes; but in comparing the Hagiographa, and those Writings, you will find, that that there is more than this; the Genius

of the Stile is the same, the manner of Expression, the forms of Speech, the particular Phrases and proverbial Sayings, which had their first rise among the Hebrews, are the very same. This is excellently shewed by the Learned Hugh Grotius in his Annotations, and it plainly discovers whence the Pagan Writers had those things. Some of the Prophane Poets, borrow'd their strain of Love-Songs and Epithalamiums, from Solomon's Canticle: Especially Theocritus, (asa 1.410 Sanctius hath observed), from whom the rest learnt that way of Verse, hath not a few passages in his Idyllia, expresly taken out of that Sacred Song. And in that Dialogue of Plato, which he entitles Symposium or his Eroticks, there are several things, which you would guess are allusions to Solomon's Love-Dialogue, or Epitha∣lamium. And to heap up several particulars toge∣ther, it was said by Solon in his Discourse with Cra••sus, (as both Herodotus, and Diogenes Laertius report) that theb 1.411 Term of Mans Life, is three∣score years and ten, as if he had had it from the Pen of the Holy Psalmist, Psal. 90. 10. The Acclama∣tion or Shout which was used among the Heathens in War, when there was an occasion of Joy and Thanksgiving, wasc 1.412 〈◊〉〈◊〉; which you may ea∣••ily conceive was a corruption of Allelujah. Some d 1.413 Chapters ande 1.414 Psalms of the Old Testament, are disposed in an Alphabetical Order; which gave rise to that sort of Verses, call'd Acrosticks: Such are the Arguments of Plautus's Comedies, and the

Elogium of Christ, in one of the Sibylls, which you will find also in Tully. This piece of Wit and Fancy, was borrowed from the Holy Writings, which were Endicted by the Sacred Spirit. And here, when I am speaking of the Pagans borrowing from the Hebrews, I might even observe to you, that the very Greek Alpbabet is taken from them; which the Grecians themselves in part confess, for they say they had their Letters from the phani••i∣ans, who were near Neighbours to the Hebrews, and who indeed are usually mistaken for these.

I will add in the last place, that the Old Testa∣ment, hath left some remains of it, in most remoto Countries of the World, as China, India, America, as our Modern Travellers will inform us. In all these parts, there are evident and apparent foot∣steps of the History of the Bible. Mastinius in his History of China acquaints us, that the Chi∣neses have Records concerning the Vniversal Flood, and that there are among that People several Me∣morials of the Old Patriarchs; and accordingly a 1.415 one hath given us a brief account out of him of Cain, Enoch, and Noah. That in India, the footsteps of Mosaick Doctrine remain among the Brachmans, is proved byb 1.416 Huetius. The high∣est Mountain of Zeilan, an Isle in the East-Indies, is call'd by the Inhabitantsc 1.417 Adam's Top, and there is Adam's Cave, where he lamented himself after his Fall. The Ceremony of putting their Hands under one another's Thighs, when they solemnly Swear to one another, of which we read

in Gen. 24. 2. 47. 29. isa 1.418 observ'd among some of the Indians at this day. The Americans, saith ••••osta, have Traditions of the Deluge, and make mention of it in their Discourses: And Huetius ••••eweth, that several Rites and Laws of Moses are observed by them. The Antient Patriarchs left behind them, remembrances of their Actions, even in these places; their Memory is still preserv'd and retained in many Names, Customs, and Practices, that are among them. The Name Ioseph is often found there, and Hallelujah is used in their Songs, asb 1.419 Hornius observes. The People of Peru re∣port, c 1.420 that all their Earth was overwhelm'd with waters, and lay cover'd with them a long time, that Men and Women perished, excepting only a few, that betook themselves to some Vessels of wood, and so preserv'd themselves. Those of Mexico telld 1.421 that there were five Suns hereto∣fore, that gave light to the World, and that the first and oldest of them perished in the waters, and at the same time, the Men that were upon the Earth were drowned, and all things were destroy∣ed. And several other such passages, the Inhabi∣tants of the New-found-Land, received from their Forefathers, some of whom perhaps were Iews, fore 1.422 Manasseh Ben Israel thinks the Ten Tribes who were carried Captive, came into the West-Indies, (as well as into some parts of China and Tartary) and there have left footsteps of old Iudaism. But whether these were Relicks, or only Apeings of it, I will not stand to dispute.

Thus I have abundantly made good, that the Heathens borrowed from Scripture and Inspired Men. Their Priests took their Religious Cere∣monies, yea their very Gods: their Poets took their Fables; their Historians, their more serious Narratives; their Philosophers, their Notions and Opinions; their Common People, their Words and Phrases, their Usages and Customs, from the Writings of the Old Testament, and the Doctrine, Rites, and Practices of the Iews therein Recorded. So that it is evident, that Pagans bear Testimony to the Contents of the Old Testament, and that Prophane Writers attest the Truth and Authority of those Sacred Writings.

If any Object, that I have shewed my self arbi∣trary and lavish, in some of the Derivations of Words, which I have offered, and that there is not sufficient ground for the Etymological part of my Discourse; I bri••fly Answer, I have purposely and industriously all along, taken care to avoid this imputation. For I have sometimes taken notice of, and been ashamed of the great Extra∣vaganc•• of some Writers in this very point. Thus Calepine derives Canis à Canendo, as if Barking and Singing were the same thing.a 1.423 One de∣rives Scribo from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and labours to make it out. Such an Extravagant Etymologizer is Ave∣narius in his Hebrew Lexicon, who fetches 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Mashal dominatus est, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Tsa∣niph, and Scorpio from Gnacrab, which is the He∣brew Name of that Animal. Yea, he deduces Turk from Kedar, by a Metathesis. And Monsieur Bochart is not far behind him, for he is oftentimes

very bold and presuming in his Etymologies, he making it his business to fetch all from the Phaeni∣cian Tongue; which to accomplish, he makes any thing out of any thing. I have not ventured to Etymologize after the rate of these Men (though they are all of them very Learned Heads), but I have with singular care, throughout my whole un∣dertaking, endeavour'd to preserve the Honour of Grammar and Criticism, which so many have vio∣lated; and not to put off the Reader with far fetch'd Derivations of Words and Names, without observing the due Laws of deducing and forming them. I have never presumed to derive one word from another, where there was not a fair Gram∣matical Analogy between them, and some agree∣ment in their sound, and some considerable proba∣bility of their being nearly allied to one another.

In the next place, if any Object, that I have ga∣thered many things from the mere sound and like∣ness of words, which is an uncertain and Arbi∣trary thing, and there is no conclusion to be made thence; I Answer, it is true, the sole Affinity of words is no firm and undeniable Argument of their Origination. The significations of words in different Languages, may sometimes be coincident, yet we are not certain thence of their Deri∣vation. This I am most ready to grant; nay farther, that it is folly to derive one word from another, meerly because of the likeness of them; as if, because the Pentateuch is divided into Para∣shah's, therefore we must derive Parishes from thence, they being such a part of a City or Town set out, as divided and separated from the rest: You may as well derive Montgomery from Gomer, and say it is the Montanous Country where Gomer Lived. Who thinks, that the English word Evil,

comes from the Hebrew, Evil, a Fool? It would be ridiculously quibbling, to fetch the Proverbial Saying, As lean as a Rake, from the Hebrew, Ra•••• tenuis, macer, gracilis fuit; or to make a bad one in English, to have assinity with Abaddon. It would be yet more intolerably ridiculous, and might be look'd upon as a School-Boy's pun, to derive a High-Man, from one of the three Giants call'd Ahiman. Wherefore, I do not contend, that all accidental likenesses in words, are a foundation to ground Etymologies and Derivations upon. I know some are very foolish and trifling here; they find such and such words in different Tongues, agreeing in sound, and thence they infer they are akin, if they can but make out any kind of resem∣blance in their signification. If the Hebrew word bad, (which hath many significations) had one like the English (bad), they would presently say, that this came from that. If Siccus had been of the same signification with Aegrotus, we should have said the English word Sick was thence. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had signified any thing like Caelum, or Aether, we should have derived Skie thence. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had been as much as imperare, gubernare, some would conclude regnum to be derived from it. And* several other words I could instance in, which you shall find in another place. I grant then, that there is a great deal of uncertainty in Etymologies, and we are not to lay any huge stress upon them. But though this be true, yet where we find there is agreat pro∣bability that words are related to one another, where there is good ground for it, we are to take notice of it. Though there be in Goropius B••chan•••• and some others before mention'd, many frivolou•• Etymologies, and fanciful Derivations, yet this hath not made Wise Men disregard the Alliance and

Cognation which are between words, especially be∣tween the Hebrew and other words. Thus it is most probable, that the following Greek, Latin, English, and French ones, are derived from the Hebrew.

Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Myste∣rium. Lat. Uro. Mensura. Gibbosus. Engl. Fig. Dumb. Cable. French, Harasser, and English, Harasse.

From.

Mister, idem. Ur, ignis. Mesurah, idem. Gibben, idem. Fag, ficus. Dum, siluit, ob∣mutuit. Chebel, funis. Haras, diruit, destruxit.

I cannot peremptorily aver, that these are of Hebrew Original, but no Man alive is able posi∣tively to assert the contrary. Yea, there are many words in the Derivation, of which all gene∣rally agree; few or none deny, or so much as doubt, that the Latin Gubernare, and the English 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Govern, are from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and all of them from the Hebrew Gabar, Gubernavit, vicit: T••••er, from Turris, and both from Tur (Syriak) the same: Camel, and Camelus, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same: Tornace, to Turn, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that from Tor, ordo, cursus: Vinum, Wine, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from Iajin, the same. And it is granted by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saccus, a Sack, come from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (Sak) of the same signification. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies the same in all Languages, and

therefore it can't be denied that the Moders ones had it from the Learned ones, and that the Ancientest among these, which is the Hebrew, communicated it to the rest. Who questions whe∣ther these English and Latin words come from the Greek? Viz.

Strangulare, to Strangle, Comere, to Comb, Discus, a Dish, Pix, Pitch. Anchora, Anchour, Linum, a Line, Linnen, Chorda, Chord, P••na, Pain▪ Tumba, a Tomb, Hora, an Hqur, Lampas, a Lamp.

from

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And many other words there are whose derivation is plain and easie, and therefore is most readily acknowledged. There is reason then why we should enquire into the Original of words, and track them to their fountain head. And this is that which I have done in the fore-going Enter∣prize: where there was a great likelyhood that the Greek or Latin were derived from the Hebrew, I took notice of it, and improved it to my purpose. I have not offer'd any thing that

is strain'd and forc'd: The Derivation of those words which I had occasion to look into in this Discourse is very plain and obvious, and such as any unprejudic'd Man will not boggle at, as

Thoth and Bau, Erebus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Python, I••petus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iphigenia, Belus, Jerombaal, Jobatas, Hamon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jovis, Adonis, Anchialum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

From

Tohu and Bohu. Ereb. Pathan. Iaphet, Anakim. Bethel. Iphthigenia, or Iepthi∣genia. Bel, or Baal. Ierubbaal. Ioab. Ham. Iah, and Iehovah. Iehovah. Adonai. An chi Elohim. Allelujah.

I appeal to any Impartial Critick, whether there be not ground for these Derivations. They are Natural, plain, and easie, and the main substantial Radical Letters on both sides are preserv'd: besides, there were always Con∣current Circumstances to determine me to believe this to be the true Origination, as that the Mat∣ter spoken of was alike, that the Gentiles had notice of these things or Persons. from the Iews, and particularly that they had made many of their Gods from F••mous Men, and that those Hebrew Persons, whom we mention'd, were some of the most Famo••s in the whole World, and other things occurred to me of the like na∣ture.

And as for Bacchus and Noachus, or Bacch and Noach, though I am not very earnest in pres∣sing the affinity between them, yet those who consider what a number of words is changed and corrupted by time, will not wonder that some Learned Writers have thought those words to be the same Originally. There are many Greek and Latin words which might be produ∣ced, wherein one or more Letters are put for others, and such alterations are made, that the words have lost their native sound, and s••em to be quite other words. I could render this the more credible, by instancing in many words in our own and other Modern Langua∣ges, which are corrupted in common Discourse, and are much unlike the words from whence they are derived: And yet we readily acknow∣ledge

that they are Corruptions of such and such words. And if there be these alterations in the same Tongue, you may imagine how much more it is in the transferring of words into other Tongues: You may conceive what a change of Letters and Syllables, what Transpo∣sitions, or Contractions, besides the altering of the Terminations, there must be to make an Oriental word become an European one.

That Iphigenia should be as much as Iephthige∣nia, that Iova should be put for Iehovah, that Vulcan should be from Tubal-Cain, and An••hia∣lum from An chi Elohim, is no marvel at all, if you consider how common an Aph••resis and Syncope, i. e. the taking away a Letter or Syl∣lable from the beginning or middle of a word, ••re.

In my reading, and observation, I have met with these in the Eastern Tongues.

Ammon, Hoshea, Iob, Iezer, Iemini, Ram, Dumah, Coniah, Siris, Apis, Belinus, Hamet, Mummy

For

Ben-ammi, Gen. 19. 38. Jehoshua, Numb. 13. 16. Jashub. Gen. 46. 13. Num. 26. 24. Abiezer, Num. 26. 30. Ios. 17. 2. Benjemini, 2 Sam. 20. 1. Aram, 1 Chron. 2. 9. Mat. 1. 3. Edumah, or Edom. Isai. 21. 11. Jeconiah, Ier. 22. 24. Osiris. Serapis. Abelion. Selden de Dis. Syris. Muhamet. Amomum. This being the Herb which they mingle with other Spices for Embalming.

So in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indo∣lentia: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nomine carens: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stellio;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arena. In the Latin like∣wise, Amarum comes from the Hebrew Marar, or Marah, amarus fuit. Nomen comes from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Tego from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fallo from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Syria, from Assyria, (so call'd from Assur the Son of Shem,) Natolia, from Anatolia, (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the East) the Name which Geographers gave to Asia the Le••s. In Plautus you read of Conia, for Ciconia, Rabo, for arrhabo. And in the Latin Italianized, Puglia, from Apulia, a Country in Italy; Rimini, from Ariminum, a City in the same place. And in the French, per∣haps Galliard, a Dance, is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exsultare, and Gallant, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ornare, the first Letter being cut off. In our own Tongue also I have observed many words, of which I have given you an account in the end of this Work,* because I will not stay to interrupt you now. And all this I have done for the sake of the Objectors, to let them see there is good rea∣son for the foregoing attempt, and that it was not unworthy of our Task to regard the sound of words, and to take notice of their likeness to one another, and to observe what Alterations and Corruptions they have undergone, and there∣by to arrive at the first and Ancient signification of them (though it be something difficult to do so, beca••se when words are abbreviated, or o∣therwise alter'd, 'tis not easie to tell what they 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and whence they came;) which thing I hope we have attained in part, in our indeavours to prove that the Heathens borrow'd the Names of their Gods from the Holy Scripture, and that other Pagan words are of the same Original.

Another Objection or Cavil is, that as I have shew'd a great deal of Arbitrariness in words, and in the derivation of them, so I have shew'd no less in the Things and Matters which I have been treating of Many of them are founded on meer imagination, and are altogether precari∣ous. In answer to this, I must needs say, there are some who in this Theme shew themselves too Curious, and Fanciful, they stretch things too far, and what they assert hath no other bot∣tom than their own bold imagination. The Fa∣thers are not altogether to be excus'd in th•••• matter. Those that have impartially perus'd Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, Iustin Martyr's Exhortatory Orations to the Gentiles, Euse∣bius's Evangelical Preparation, and some other Writings of the Ancients, cannot but observe that they are something extravagant in this kind; and they have a conceit that several Ver∣ses in the Poets, and other Passages in the re〈…〉〈…〉 of the Heathen Authors, are taken out of the Bible, where there is little or no ground to be∣lieve any such thing. Some Persons fancy every thing to be borrowed from Scripture, these Men would vouch that the Story of Romulus and Re∣mus's being cast into Tiber in a Basket of Osiers, and Faustulus's finding them, and bringing them to his Wife, who nourish'd them, refers to Mo∣ses's being exposed in an Ark of Bull-rushes, and taken up and Educated by Pharaoh's Daughter. Had Orpheus's going to Hell been after Christ's time, they would have said it referr'd to Christ's Descending into Hell. I am as forward to blame such Men as the Objectors are, and it never entred into my thoughts, that every thing

which hath a Resemblance to what we meet with in Scripture is therefore taken from it. But this must not prejudice ••ober enquiry, and true Improve∣ment of this Notion which I offer. Because some foolishly think that all or most of the passages a∣mong the Poets relate to the Bible, shall we say therefore none were taken thence? Because some things are made out by meer invention and wit, shall we affirm that every thing is so? This is fond and ridiculous. Wherefore, I have been very Cautious in this Subject, and have kept my self within bounds. I have not promiscuously pro∣pounded things, but have used Choice, and pitched on those particulars only which carry some probability and likelyhood with them. Some observing that thea 1.424 Hebrew word used by Moses in Gen. 1. 2. signi••ies to hat••h, as a Bird doth her Eggs by sitting upon them, have thought that the Pagans had thence the notion of the World's being an Egg; and to this purpose some things are offer'd to shew that they had ••uch an apprehension. And to pass by the An∣cients, we are told byb 1.425 Late Writers, that some of the People in the Southern parts of the East-Indies have the same Notion of the Ori∣gine of the World. Thec 1.426 Chinoise say all things were from an Egg: yea, theird 1.427 first Man had the same rise. But why might it not pass for an Egg in a plain Philosophical way,

as at this day there are some Philosophers who tell us that all things are from an Egg, all Living Creatures at least are propagated by Eggs, ye•• Man himself? Thus the World may be thought to be a Great Egg. But I rather think it was from the Oval or Round Figure of the World that they represented it by an Egg: and you must know it was believ'd that this sort of Fi∣gure had some perfection in it, and so on that account they took the more notice of it, and this Spherical shape of the Universe was much admired and Celebrated by them: yea, it was thought to be Sacred and Divine: so that by this means the World came to be a very Worship∣ful Egg. But I cannot satisfie my self that it was said to be so from the fore-cited place of Scrip∣ture, where 'tis said the Spirit of God moved on (or hovered over) the face of the Waters. I do not think that a single word used in a Metapho∣rical way is foundation enough for this Notion. Therefore I have not made use of it in the fore∣going part of my Discourse, but I rather reckon it to be something akin to the fancy of that a 1.428 Ingenuous Writer, who tells us, that the Ge∣neration of Castor and Pollux out of an Egg, was founded on this, that they were Born and brought up in an Upper-Room, according to the import of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which sometimes hath this signification. But, did not this Learned Man mistake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which indeed car∣ries that sense with it?

Some have thought that the Story of Darius Hystaspis being chosen King of Persia, by the Neighing of his Horse, was grounded in the History of Mord••cai, and the King's Horse which he rode upon, for this Darius they take to be Ahasuerus. But I have omitted this (as well as several others) because it hath little or no foun∣dation. Besides, that they greatly disparage Mordecai by such an application as this, for Da∣rius got the Kingdom of Persia by his trusty Groom Oebares, rather than by his Horse, for he Communicated the Design to him over Night, who took effectual Care to have his Master chosen Emperour the next Day. And chosen he was; a jockey made him a Monarch. I have not had the considence to say thata 1.429 Ho∣mer's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, refers to the History of b 1.430 Shamgar's Smiting the Philis••ines with an Ox-Goad, (which is in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) and doing such wonderful Execution with that Weapon: though 'tis the conjecture of no meaner a Man thanc 1.431 Bochart, that that Fable was borrow'd from this real Truth. I have not pretended to a••firm that the Story of Arion, (which Pliny and Ovid relate) viz. That he being cast into the Deep by the Seamen of the Ship wherein he was, struck up with his Harp, and the Dol∣phins presently came about him, and he mounted upon one of their backs, and so escaped; that this Story, I say, was taken from the Hi••••ory of

Ionas; though there is a verya 1.432 considerable Wri∣ter, who makes no question of it, and to advance the belief of it, would have us observe, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both a Minstrel and a Prophet. If I had inserted into the Parallel of Samson and Her∣cules, that Hercules's Pillars, spoken of by Geo∣graphers, refer to the two Pillars, of the House, which Samson took hold of and pull'd down, it might justly have been objected, that I stretch'd the Parallel too far; and yet I must tell you, that there are no contemptible Authors, (among whom Vossius is one) who have made one, a Reference to the other. I have purposely avoided such far-fetch'd Conceits, and have all along declin'd the suggestions of those Writers, who have let their imaginati∣ons run too high. This I consider'd, that among the Poets especially, there are many things which are the pure product of their Luxuriant Fancy, and have no ground at all in the things them∣selves. It is their way (as I have said before) to insert their own whimsies, to lard True Story with their own wild Conceits and Capricio's, which we must never mind; for they are only Poetick Flourishes, and therefore must not be thought to refer to any real thing. The fixing this on my mind, kept me from running into those Extravagancies, which some have been guilty of, whilst they imagined, that the Poets in all or most of the particulars, with which their Fables are stuffed, allude to so many express

passages in True History. I attended to the main thing in their Writings, which I saw came so near to Scripture; the rest I pass'd by, as meer Poetick Flash and Foolery, and not to be taken notice of. In short, I have always trod where there is some tolerable ground and footing; and I have omitted several particulars which others insist upon, meerly because they have so sandy a bottom. So little Reason have any to blame me for indulging of Fancy, in this present under∣taking, where I have endeavour'd in abundant instances to make it probable, that the Pagans borrowed from the Sacred Writings.

CHAP. VIII.

The Antiquity of the Writings of the Old Testa∣ment asserted. The way o•• communicating Scrip∣tural Truths and Historie•• to the Pagans, viz. by the Commerce which the Iews had with other Nations; by their being dispers'd over all the World; by the Translation of the Bible into Greek; by the Travels of Philosophers and other Studious Men among the Heathens. How the Sacred Truths▪ but especially the Historical part of the Old Testament, came to be misunderstood and corrupted, viz. by the confusion of Tongues; by being Transmitted to Barbarous People; by length of time; by passing through many hands; by the Supersti∣tion and Idolatry of the Receivers; by the affectation of Mysteries and Abstrusities; by the Grecian Humour of Inventing and Ro∣mancing; by Mens being Timerous; by Igno∣rance of the Jewish Religion and Affairs; by a•• Averseness and Hatred to the Jews. It was thought by some dangerous, to insert the Holy Text into their Writings. What designs the Devil had in corrupting the Scripture, and mixing it with Falsities i•• the Books of the Pagans.

BUT not withstanding all I have said, there are some who will by no means entertain this Discourse, but with great earnestness and

violence oppose it. I am obliged therefore in the next place, to fortifie it by Reason. I will discover to you the Foundations on which my O∣pinion is built, and give you a Rational Account, how it comes to pass, that the Heathens bear witness to the Old Testament. This I will do, first, by shewing you how they came by these Traditions and Truths: Secondly, whence, and how they disguis'd and corrupted them.

For the First, It is not likely the Gentiles could light on these things by Natural Reason, for those discoveries concerning the Creation, and the Paradisiacal State of Man, and the particular mann••r of his Fall, and several other things which I mention'd, are beyond Nature's Ken, they are not such things as fall within the cognizance of Men, as they are Rational Creatures; therefore they must be particularly Revealed to Mankind: And the Authentick Body of Divine Revealed Truth being the Bible, we cannot but infer, that those things were borrowed from that Sacred Volume. And as for Matters of Fact, relating to the Old Patriarchs, and other Eminent Men in former days, on which I have asserted, that many of the Pagan Stories and Fables depend, these were Recorded in those Sacred Books first of all, and therefore these Books are the Foun∣tains from which the Heathens took these Relati∣ons. This Argument, I take to be unanswerable, namely, that the Old Testament is the First and Antientest Book that ever was extant, and there∣fore, when the Pagan Writers mention things in this Book, they took them thence, or from those Persons who had them out of these Writings. Here then it is necessary, to insist a little on the

Antiquity of this Holy Volume. That Moses's Writings were long before all others, is proved by several of thea 1.433 Fathers of the Christian Church. You may reckon the Date of his Books, to be about A. M. 2460, which was above 400 Years before the Trojan War, before which we do not hear of any Writers whatsoever: Yea, it was above a Thousand Years after it, that the Antientest Historian (unless you will reckon those Fabulous ones, Dares Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis) appeared. Without controversie, Mo∣ses was the Oldest Historian either Natural or Ec∣clesiastical. The Antiquity of his Works is be∣yond all other Books; they all begin long after him. And as for some other Books of the Old Te∣stament, they were before the Writings of any Heathens. To begin first with the Antientest Egyptian Writers, some tell us, that in Moses's time flourish'd those Excellent Philosophers, Zo∣roastres, and Mercurius Trismegistus; but wh••n yo•• come to Examine this, you find no less than four Zoroastres's, and to which of these the Writings are to be attributed, and what date they bear, i•• uncertain, so that we can conclude nothing there. There are also great Disputes about Her••os or Trismegistus, namely who he was, and when he Lived▪ and at what time the Writings that go under his Name were written, and whether they be genuine. Kircher holds them to be such, but Casa••bon attemp•••• the contrary. His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is quoted by 〈◊〉〈◊〉

••artyr, Lactantius, and Augustin, and therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ancient: but his Antiquity cannot be proved 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be equal with that of the Holy Writers. Manetho, or Manethos, who writ the Egyptian History, lived but in Ptolomaeus Philadelphus's time. Then, for the Phaenician Antiquities, which San∣••athon writ in the Phaenician Tongue, and which Philo Biblius (who lived in Adrian's time) ••••rn'd into Greek, (of which Version Eusebius hath ••••eserv'd us a Famous Fragment) though Scali∣•••• hath labour'd to prove them Supposititious, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some others reckon them not as such, and ••••rticularly the Learned Bochart hath Comment∣•••• upon them, as true and Genuine Writings. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as for the An••iquity of this Phaenician Histo∣••••••n and Theologer, though it may be acknow∣••••dg'd to be great, yet without question he was ••oses's junior by many hundred years. And so was the Author of the Babylonian or Chaldean 〈◊〉〈◊〉; for Berosus, who is said to compile ••••••m, lived at the same time that Manetho did. And though perhaps Frier Annius hath imposed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the World by the Name of this Author, as a 1.434 some think, and accordingly bring several Arguments to prove this new Berosus a Cheat, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it doth not follow that the old one, of ••hom both Iosephus, and Eusebius have preserv'd the fragments, was such. Some Greek Writers plead great Antiquity next; Orpheus, and Mu∣••••••s, the Ancientest of them all, are ••aid to have b 1.435 Lived in Gideon's days, which was about 200

years after Moses. And 200 years after this Li∣ved Dares Phrygius, and Dictys Cretensis, who wrote the Trojan War. And 100 years after this, Homer wrote his Poem, who Flourish'd not 'till at least 150 years after David the Divine Poet. This is observable, that the Greeks, as soon as they had gain'd any knowledge of Let∣ters, and Arts, fell to inventing of incredible Stories, and writing of meer Fictions. Whence a 1.436 Eusebius complains, that there were nothing but meer Fables in the Greek Histories (if they may be call'd Histories) before the beginning of the Olympiads, that Famous Greek Epoche, or Com∣putation, which began from the Instauration of the Olympick Games by Iphitus: but when this was, is not very clear, for some say it was in the time of Azariab King of Iudah, above two hundred years after the Death of Solomon, others say in the Reign of Vzziah King of Iudah, A. M. 3173. Others fix it A. M. 3189, eight years before the Birth of Romulus and Remus, four hundred and seven years after the Destruction of Troy. Others place the Olympiads lower, about A. M. 3228, others A. M. 3256, about seven hun∣dred and fifty years before Christ. Varro's Divi∣sion of Times into Vnknown, Fabulous? and Histo∣rical, the last of which he begins not 'till the Greek Olympiads, proves this very thing. The most Ancient Greek Historians were Archilo••us, Ari∣steas, Proconnesius, Hecataeus Milesius, Charon Lampsacenus, &c. but nothing of their Writings is preserved. Herodotus is the Ancientest Greek

Historian we have extant, and therefore is called the Father of History: but he begins his Hi∣storical Relations but a little before the Pro∣phetick Histories of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Da∣niel make an end.

You will find this Argument prosecuted by a 1.437 Clemens Alexandrinus, who shews that the Learning and Knowledge of the Hebrews was before that of the Greeks, as much as the Iewish Nation was before the Seven Wise Men, and the Sacred History before the Argolick. He shews that Thales, and Solon, two of their Wise Men, lived about the forty sixth, and the fiftieth Olympiad, and Pythagoras about the sixty second, than which the Iews were much older by the confession of Philo Pythagoreus, Aristo∣bulus Peripateticus, and Megasthenes. He com∣pares the Age of Moses with Bacchus, the Se∣ven Wise Men, and some of the Grecian Gods, and proves that he was above six hundred years before any of these. He demonstrates from Chronological Computations, that H••ggai a••d Zachary were Elder than Pythagoras, and that Solomon was much Seniour to the Wise Men. And all this is in order to this, that the Greeks, (as well as the Chaldeans and Egyp∣tians) had their Knowledge from the Hebrews, and not these from them. Seeing then that the Ancientest Pagan Writers are short of the Holy Scriptures, seeing all Authors and Wri∣ters are after Moses (for he indeed was before all the Great things that are in Pagan History, 400

years before the Trojan War, which is the first starting of History with the Greek and Roman Au∣thors. His Laws had the precedency of all others whatsoever, yea, the very name of Law was scarce extant at that time: in all Homer you can't find the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they had no writ∣ten Rules to direct their Manners by, the will of their Princes was the only Law,) since these things are thus, the Transcendant Antiquity of the Writings of the Old Testament is hence undeniably proved. These are the ancientest Memorials in the World, these are the oldest Monuments of Truth, and consequently the Iews were the first People that had these things set before them, and, as a consequent of that, all others took from them. From this com∣paring the Antiquity of Writers, it is clear that Moses's Laws and the Customs of the Pa∣triarchs were not borrowed from the Pagans (as some have imagin'd,) but that the Chaldeans, Phaenicians, and Egyptians, yea, that the Ara∣bians and Persians (as might have been shewn, and as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet, now a wor∣thy Prelate of our Church, hath proved in his Admirable Discourse on this Subject) and that the Greeks and Latins have derived their Mysteries from the Hebrews, and that all the Gentile Theologers borrowed their Great Truths from the Books of the Old Testament: for these being the ancientest and first Records, it is most reasonable to believe that those that came after them took from them, and that these Sacred Writings yielded matter to those others. This is the first Reason to prove that

the Pagan Historians, Philosophers, and Poets were beholding to the Scriptures.

Secondly, I will prove it from the way of Communicating those Scriptural Truths and Hi∣stories to them. 1. This happen'd by reason of the Commerce which the Iews had with the Neighbouring Nations, Chaldeans, Phaenicians, Egyptians, and others. Especially in King So∣lomon's time there was a great Commerce be∣tween the Hebrews, and these latter: and then it is probable the Egyptians learnt many things of the Iews. As Solomon Married a Wife thence, so it is likely they affected some of the Rites and Manners of his People, and espoused their Customs and Usages, together with their Notions and Opinions. It must be remembred also, that the Chaldeans, Phaenicians, and Egyp∣tians were the Nations which Greece Traded with, and so this Country had an opportunity of receiving the Iewish Traditions and Customs at the second hand: and hence it is that you have the footsteps of them so frequently in the Greek Authors, as well Poets as others. Nay, to speak more generally, Iudea was very well ••ituated for the propagating of Laws and Usa∣ges to all other Nations, for it was placed in that Climate of the World which was fit for this purpose, viz. in the middle of the then Inhabited Earth: To which convenient situation perhaps the Psalmist refers, in Psal. 74. 12. God worketh Salvation in the midst of the Earth. And so that of Ezekiel concerning Ierusalem, I have set it in the midst of the Nations, Ch. 5. v. 5.

Secondly, A great part of the Hebrews being dispersed over all the World by Divine Provi∣den••e, had an opportunity of Communicating these things to the Gentiles. The main Body of them were sent into Assyria, and Babylon by Nehuchadnezzar, where they had converse with those S••rangers seventy years: and a part of them were carried at the same time into Egypt with Ieremiah. It is not to be doubted that they carried with them the Holy Writings which were then extant, and out of them they daily imparted the passages of the History of the Creation of the World, and Noah's Flood, and the Propagation of Mankind, and other the like particulars contained in those Books. After∣wards, when they were beaten by Pompey, and made Slaves, they were carried Captive into Egypt, Syria, Greece, Rome. Besides that, in the times of the Maccabees some had freely left their Country, and went into Egypt to make Proselytes there. When they were thus scattered into these Foreign Countries, it is no wonder that the People in these parts attain'd to some knowledge of the Sacred Books, and of the Traditions of the Iews. They must needs hear and learn something of those Mat∣ters, Conversing familiarly with the Iews.

3. The Iewish Notions and Customs might easily be Communicated to the Gentiles, seeing Moses's Writings were Translated into Greek in the time of the Persian Monarchy, if not before it (asa 1.438 Eusebius reports from Mega∣sibenes

a Man well Skill'd in History, and who lived with Seleucus, as Eusebius in the same place affirms:) seeing there was a Greek Tran∣slation of a considerable part of the Old Testa∣ment before Alexander the Great's time, as a 1.439 Clemens of Alexandria Testifieth. And ac∣cordingly Demetrius Phalereus, Library-Keeper to King Ptolomeo, Sirnamed Philadelphus, in an Epistle to him, whichb 1.440 Eusebius citeth, saith, that before the Septuagint Version many things were Translated out of the Bible. But this is most certain, and agreed to by all, that upon Alexander the Great his Conquests, the Iews and Greeks had converse with one another, and were no longer Strangers, being now United under the same Empire. And, as an effect of this, soon after Alexander the Great, all the Old Testament was entirely Translated into Greek by Seventy two Iews, whom the fore∣said King of Egypt appointed for that purpose. Hence the knowledge of those things contained in the Sacred Writings could not but be com∣municated to the Gentiles.

4. This Communication was made by the Travels of Philosophers, and inquisitive Men among the Pagans. Of Pythagoras we are told byc 1.441 Laertius, that

when he was young, and being very desirous to Learn, he left his Country, and was initiated into all the

Mysteries not only of the Greeks, but Bar∣barians.

And particularly he testifies that he Travell'd into Egypt, and Chaldea. Of the same Philosopher it is asserted by Origen, Cle∣m••ns the Alexandrian, Porphyry, and others, that he went into Chaldea in the time of the Captivity, where he had the opportunity of conversing with the Iews. Ludovicus Vives thinks that he Travel'd also into Egypt, and was acquainted with Ioremiah there. Mr. Sel∣don likewise holds that he went and visited Iudea, and there Convers'd with Ezekiel, with whom he was Contemporary, and learnt the Tetragrammaton, and other Mysteries of him. Concerning Plato, it was believ'd by many, saitha 1.442 St. Augustin, that he took a journey into Egypt, and was there the Prophet Iere∣••niah's Auditor, and read the Prophetick Wri∣tings; and though this Father himself was not inclin'd (as he declares) to believe this, because he thinks that Philosopher was born after that time, yet he most readily assents to this, that he had many things from the Books of the Old Testament; and to prove this,b 1.443 he ci∣teth several passages out of that Heathen Wri∣ter. It is most evident to all that have con∣vers'd with this Author's Writings, that there are sundry things in them above the strain of common Philosophy, as concerning the Creation of the World, the Formation of the First Man out of the Earth, the Innocent and

Happy State of Mankind, the loss of that Pri∣mitive State, and the vile degeneracy of the Sons of Men, with many other Particulars which are fetch'd from the Sacred Writings. I might mention likewise how loftily he speaks of God, and his Nature, how admirably he Discourses of the Soul, how clearly he asserts a Future Life, and the Rewards and Punish∣ments of another World, how feelingly he treats of Vertue and Goodness, how Divinely he writes concerning Religion, which he re∣presents as Pure and Spiritual, and Purged from the Heathen Superstitions. This Sublime and Extraordinary Knowledge the Ancients think he gained by Travelling into Syria, Iu∣dea, and Egypt, and holding converse with those that understood the inspired Writings. And it is their Opinion, that though he Con∣vers'd with some of the Iewish Nation, and imbibed their Sentiments, yet he carefully a∣voids mentioning their Name, because they were odious to other Nations, and consequent∣ly those structures of true Theology which are in his Works would have fared the worse for it. But though he would not speak this out plainly, yet he seems to utter it in a disguised manner: Perhaps he hinteth that he receiv'd those Notions from the Iews, when he mentions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the Syrians and Phaenicians, who were the Neighbouring People to Iudea generally pass'd for Iews. That other Great Philosophers, as Solon, Democritus, Hera∣clitus, &c. Travel'd into Egypt, and Babylon, is testified by Diogenes Laertius in their Lives.

The same is attested bya 1.444 Diodorus con∣cerning Orpheus, Musaeus, Homer, Lycurgus, and other Wise Grecians, viz. That they went and visited those Foreign Parts, and thence came furnish'd with the Knowledge of those things which they had learnt in those Coun∣tries. The like is confirmed by the testimony of someb 1.445 Christian Fathers, who also add that those Chief Philosophers of Greece, when they sojourn'd among the Egyptians, learn'd many things of their Priests, which they had from the Tradition of the Iews who had been among them: And there they perused the Mosaick Writings, which were of great account among some of them. Hence the Religion, Rites, and Practices Recorded in those Books were divulg'd and spread abroad in the World. Indeed it is very probable in the Nature of the thing it self that this would happen: for the Iews being a People so Renowned for Re∣ligion, and their Fame and Glory being every where Celebrated, it could not be but that fo∣reign People, especially the most Philosophical and Inquisitive among them, should be desirous to confer with the Bible, or Iewish Authors, and to know their Laws, Ways, and Customs, and that whole Nations should be forward to imitate and make use of them. This is more than Prophetically intimated, in Deut. 4. 6. where 'tis said, that when the Nations shall hear all those Excellent Statutes given to the Iews,

They shall say, surely this great Nation is a wise and understanding People. If the Pagans should so admire and value the Iewish Customs and Ceremonies, they would (as the consequent of that) imitate and practise them. Thus you have a Rational Account of the Consonancy of Pagan Writings and Customs to the Sacred Scriptures, you see how they were derived from these Fountains.

In the next place, I am to enquire, how the Scriptural Stories and Truths came to be corrupted; whence it is, that they are mixed with Obscuri∣ty and Falsity in the Writings of the Pagans, how it comes to pass, that one thing is put for another, and that it is so hard oftentimes to un∣derstand what they deliver. I will give you an Account of this, in these following parti∣culars,

1. The confusion of Languages did not a little contribute to these Mistakes, Corruptions and Falsities. When the World was of one Tongue, the notices of things which were imparted by Speech, were very clear and intelligible; when they all joyn'd in one Language, they could easily apprehend one another, and there could arise no mistakes, by Ambiguity in the variety of words. But upon confounding the first I an∣guage, and dividing it into many, there follow'd a great disorder among Mankind, for then it be∣came difficult to understand one another. The Words being confused, the Conceptions and Things which were convey'd to Men by those words, were also confused, obscure, and uncertain. The variety and multiplicity of Words, begot mi∣stakes

and confusions; among so many millions of words, it was impossible, but that there should be a great many ambiguous and equivo∣cal, and thence the Phrases, Sentences, and Speeches, must needs be so too. This is one Reason, why the Sacred Truths of Scripture were corrupted, when they came into the Hands of the Heathens. The Eastern words and forms of speaking, were misunderstood by the Grecians; the Hebrew Dialect and Idiom were mistaken by the People of another Language and Country: The Oriental Expressions were misinterpreted by the Europeans, who were Strangers to the literal and proper Sense of them. Hence arose Fables, Fancies, and ground∣less Conceits, which they mixed with the Spiri∣tual Verities, and almost defaced and extinguish∣ed them.

2. The Sacred History of Scripture, and the Traditions of the First Ages of the World, were easily corrupted, because they were Trans∣mitted to Ignorant and Barbarous People. God was pleas'd not to vouchsafe that Light and Know∣ledge to the Gentiles, which he bestowed on his own People, but he thought fit to leave them in that darkness and blindness, which their gross Sins had brought them to, and which were now become the just Punishment of them. Many of them were so besotted, that when they heard of those Holy and Mysterious Truths, they were not able to bear them, they could not apprehend the true meaning and import of them. But because some of them, who were the most Con∣t••mplative, would be exercising themselves a∣bout

them, they resolved to make something of them, or out of them: And accordingly, when they committed them to Writing, they applied them to some Person or Thing, which was known and famous among them; and thus an Historical passage in Holy Scripture, became a Story of their own, or a Divine Truth was turn'd into a Fable. By this means, the things which they borrowed from the Word of God, came to be D••praved and Disguised.

3. The long tract of Time and diversity of years, have partly introduced this corruption and alteration. For length of time blotted out some of the former Accounts, and defaced the Memoirs of things. The Antient Names of several Persons and Places are worn out, and others (quite different from them) are used in their stead. The true Original, Occasion, and Meaning of many things were forgotten, and in place of them, New, but False Relations, crept in. Then came to pass at last, (when the right Notions of things were worn out) that Men of Poetry and Invention, thrust upon silly People their own Fancies and Conceits, and per∣swaded them to accept of the most unlikely Sto∣ries for Truth.

4. The Historical passages of Scripture, and the strange Events which hapned among the Iews, being spread abroad, and passing through many Hands, or rather Mouths, could not but for that Reason be corrupted. By the great di∣versity of Relators they were changed, some adding to them, and others diminishing them,

so that at the last, they were quite different from what they were at first.

5. As Superstition and Idolatry increased, the greater Corruptions there were of True Histo∣ry, Men making that to Administer to their Idolatrous Worship. So that in those Coun∣tries, especially where there were the fiercest Bigots for the Pagan Devotion, there was al∣waies a more plentiful coyning of these Fables, under which were hid very useful Truths, taken out of the Old Testament.

6. This must be added, that it was the Custom of the Antient Pagans, to wrap up their Noti∣ons in obscure and dark Terms, and to represent them in an Aenigmatical way.a 1.446 Origen thinks Plato in one of his pieces, hath something of that Paradise, which Moses in the beginning of his Writings speaks of, and he gives this Reason why he thinks so, viz. because it is Plato's usual way to describe things obscurely, and to disguise the greatest and most excellent Verities, under the vail of Mysteries and Fables. And this was the guise of others, besides Plato, especially of the Pagan Poets; they affected obscurity and diffi∣culty of Stile; whence sprang several of the Fabulous Histories of the Gods, and other odd passages in their Writings. And so, when they took some things of moment from Scripture, or from those who were acquainted with those

Sacred Records, they cloath'd them with their dark and Mystical Expressions, in so much, that it was hard to know whence they had them.

7. The Grecian Humour, was to Invent and Romance; their Poets especially (who were their first Writers) were famous for this. They abused, mangled, jumbled, and confounded the Stories in Holy Writ, they turn'd those Sacred Things, into Magical Pranks sometimes, and from the Names of Holy Persons spoken of in the Old Testament, they took occasion to invent new Deities, and shape new Gods. Their fre∣quent practice was to piece out Scripture with their own Fancies, and to add something of their own heads. This is owing to the Greek Vanity, it is to be ascribed to the Levity and Capriciousness of these Fabulous Men, whose very Genius led them to affect Banter and Fictions. The Poets dealt with Sacred History, as the Legendaries do with the Lives of Saints; they have some general ground for what they say, but they make plentiful additions to it; there is perhaps something of Truth at bottom, but then you have their own Inventions besides. Thus the Grecian Writers counterfeited all along the shape of Real Truths, in most of their Fa∣bles, there was a medly of Falshood and Truth together.

8. This is also certain, that the Pagan Philo∣sophers, did out of fear sometimes disguise the Notions of Truth, which they received from Scripture. Plato, saith Iustin the Martyr, had learnt in Egypt the True Doctrine concerning

God, One only God, with several other Sacred Truths, but, lest some Melitus or Anytus should Accuse him, he would not divulge them to the People: For fear of incurring Socrates's Misfortune, he either conceal'd or disguis'd all. He dreaded the Poysonous Cup, and so would not discover those Sacred Things, but rather chose to lap them up in Poetick Conceits and Fables, in Mysteries and Riddles, which his Writings are full of. And this it is likely was the Case of other Philosophers and Writers among the Gentiles, they were Timorous, and dared not Transgress the Publick Laws, and incur the punishment due to Innovators in Reli∣gion; and therefore they spoke ambiguously and obscurely, and corrupted those Truths which they had received from the Holy Fountains.

9. Some out of meer Ignorance of the Iewish Religion and Affairs, misrepresent and corrupt those things. This is seen plainly in Strabo, and Diodorus the Sici••ian, who (as was hinted afore) make the Iews to be Egyptians, and a 1.447 Strabo particularly saith of Moses, that he was an Egyptian Priest. So Herodotus, because the Hebrews had lived among the Egyptians, saith those things of the former, which belong to the latter, and so perhaps, vice versâ. I remember he particularly saith, thatb 1.448 Circumcision was first of all used among the Ethyopians and Egyp∣tians, and from them went to the Phaenicians

and Syrians, and thence some thought Abraham receiv'd this Rite, and commended it to his Posterity. It is as easie to observe, how grosly the Latin Writers were mistaken; it was a com∣mon thing with them to confound Iews and Chri∣stians, and to make no distinction between them, as I have shew'd on another occasion.a 1.449 Tacitus's description of the Nation and Religion of the Iews, together with the Original of them, shews that that Excellent Historian, was extremely ignorant of the Affairs of that People. They were at first call'd Idaei, faith he, from the Mount Ida, and afterward by an addition of a Letter, they had the Name of Iudaei. Their Sabbath was Consecrated to Saturn, he saith; and many such false and fabulous passages are to be found in the Account which he gives of them. So Iustin shamefully errs in several things belonging to the Iewish History; he makes Abraham the third King of the Iews, Israel the Fourth, Ioseph the Fifth, and Moses (whom he reckons to be Ioseph's Son) the Sixth. In his whole Thirty Sixth Book, where he de∣scribes the Original and Increase of the Iewish Nation, he hath almost as many mistakes, as words. The rest of the Pagan Historians ex∣ceedingly mistake, when they Treat of that People, because they did not rightly inform themselves, and indeavour to have a perfect Ac∣count of the Iewish Matters. Thus Iosephus him∣self excuses in part the Heathen Writers, when

they speak of things done in Iudea, imputing their Errors to want of Knowledge and Infor∣mation. Yea, he wonders not that the Iewish Nation was not known to some of them, and that they write not a word of it; for the most dili∣gent Historians,a 1.450 saith he, were ignorant of France and Spain; and he instances in Ephorus, who he observes had so little knowledge of Spain, that he took it for one single City, and no more. We might observe likewise, that lit∣tle or nothing is mention'd of this our Isle of Britain, either by Greek or Roman Historians, before Casar's Commentaries. And in the same place he takes notice, that neither Herodotus nor Thucydides, nor any that were of that Age make mention of Rome, although it had been in great power a long time, and had waged so many Wars. He adds, that all Things of the Greeks are new, and of yesterday, giving this as one Rea∣son, why the Greek Historians make no mention of the Iewish Affairs. They were themselves but upstarts in respect of the Iews. But though they knew but little of them, yet they feigned many things, and represented them as they pleas'd. Especially their Poets? who were very ignorant of the Iewish Institution, and of the true meaning of the most things which they had from those of that Nation, or from their Books, yet took the liberty to invent and add, and to mingle their own Conceits and Fancies, with

that little which they had heard or knew of them.

10. Some, if not most of the Heathens, out of Averseness and Hatred to the Iews, perverted those things which had any Relation to that People. This was a Nation that was separated from all others, and was different from, not to say contrary to, the rest of the World in many things; wherefore they grew odious and dete∣stable, and the Pagans wilfully Misrepresented and Traduced them, and delighted to load them with all sorts of Calumnies. All Wri∣ters bandied against the Iews and Christians, they were all in League against these, however they disagreed among themselves. Hence it is, that when-ever they present their Readers with any thing concerning them, they generally shew that Ill-Will which they bore to them. Thus Manethon the Egyptian Historian, though he hath many things that agree with what the Scrip∣ture saith of the Iews, yet he mis-represents se∣veral particulars, and adds others in disgrace of Moses and the Israelites. And indeed from Egypt was the rise of those Malicious Calumnies against them, for the People of that Nation were sensible of, and retain'd in their Minds the many Plagues that were inflicted on them for their sakes, and the last Mortal Farewel in the Red-Sea, and they expressed their implacable prejudice against them, by reproaching them, and they taught others to do so too. Thusa 1.451 Iustin

(or rather Trogus Pompeius, whom he Epitomi∣zes) tells us, that the Iews were expell'd Egypt, because God had Reveal'd to the Egyptians, that the Plague which then raged among them, could by no other way be allay'd, than by that Na∣tion's being turn'd out. Diodorus the Sicilian, and a 1.452 Tacitus write, that the Iews were thrust out of Egypt by the Inhabitants, because they were Scabby and Leprous. Apion, with a detestable Impudence, rails against this People, and, out of meer malice, invents and forges Lies to disgrace them. He not only repeats the foresaid Ca∣lumny, viz. That they were expell'd out of that Country, because their Bodies were over-run with Leprosie, but he adds several others, and miserably perverts the History of Moses. b 1.453 Pliny avoucheth, that Moses was a Magician; andc 1.454 Strabo reckons him among Astrologers and Diviners. So Ioseph is said to have been skill'd ind 1.455 Magick Arts. Though perhaps it might proceed from Ignorance only, that some of the Pagan Historians reckon these in the number of Magicians, for they had heard of what wonderful things these Great Men had done in Egypt; the one, when he grapled with the Egyptian Sorcerers, the other, in Interpre∣ting of Dreams, and they concluded they were effected by Magick; accordingly, they repre∣sented them as Persons of that Character. But

even the mistakes of these Gentile Writers, concerning them and others, shew, that they had heard of such Men, and the things they did, and they are a Testimony of the reality of the History in general. Then, as for the Pagan Poets, the same prejudice and Hatred reigned in them, and discover'd themselves in Lies and Fictions about the Iews, and what is related concerning them in the Old Testament. When they refer to any passage in the Sacred Story, they malitiously desile it with their own Inven∣tions; they distort and falsly deliver the circum∣tances, and they blend it so with their own ridiculous Fancies, that they turn it into a Fable.

Again, if we may give credit toa 1.456 Deme∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 Phalereus, (Library-Keeper to King Ptolo∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 and who was the Man that first excited him to promote that notable work, of Tran∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Old Testament into Greek) there was this Notion among the Pagan Writers, that this Holy Book was not to be prophanely hand∣led, nor the Matters of it made common by every one that undertook to write; yea, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inserting of them into their Writings, was I gross Prophaning of them, and had met with •• suitable punishment. Thus, one Theopompus, who had inserted some passages of the Bible into his Writings, was struck with Madness; and

another named Theodectes, who made use of some place of Scripture, in a Tragedy of his, was almost deprived of his sight for it; but the former, when he was made sensible of his fault, was restor'd to a right mind again, and the lat∣ter, upon acknowledging the like Offence, re∣cover'd his Eye-sight. This was related, saith Iosephus, to King Ptolomee by the foresaid Demetrius, a very serious Man, and it was assigned as a Reason, why the Contents of these Sacred Writings, which were so Divine and Admirable, were but rarely mention'd by the Historians and Poets. These Examples had struck a terrour into some of them; having heard how some Prophaners of these Holy Things, were Animadverted upon, by a Divine Hand, they were afraid to Record any passages in the Old Testament. Therefore, some of them chose rather, to disguise the Sacred Stories, and to stuff them with Fabulous Narrations, that they might scarcely be known, to have been bor∣rowed from that Holy Book.

Lastly, the Devil hath a design in all this. Tert••∣lian's a 1.457 Words are remarkable; when he had said that the Things which are contrary to Truth, (i. e. the Heathen Fables, Rites and Usages) are made out of the Truth (i. e. the Holy Scriptures) he fur∣ther

adds, that this Imitating of the Truth, is wrought by the Spirits of Error, that is, the Devils, who affect sometimes to Ape God and what he doth. This is most apparent, that they are a Mimical fort of Creatures, and shew themselves sometimes diligent Emulators of the most Holy P••rsons and Things. Their great Subtilty and Craft, are to be discern'd here, for when they brought the Hebre•• Rites and Ceremonies of Gods own ap∣pointment, into the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Worship and Ser∣vice, they did this to Prophane them, and ••o make them contemptible and ridiculous. They did it, that those Divine and Sacred Things might be despised, and that they might be turn'd into Superstition and Idolatry. So likewise, they cunningly mixed something of sacred Truth with Fables, that thereby they might make the things that are True to be suspected. Satban is desirous to pervert and even erase the whole Sacred Scripture and Antient Truth, but because he sees he cannot effect this, he there∣fore contrives how he may disguise the Scrip∣ture-Stories, he sets the Poets to work to make them into Fables, and thinks by that means to take off our Esteem of those Inspired Writings, and to diminish that Credit which we ought to give to those Sacred Truths. He pushed on those Grecian Wits, to obscure and deface the Old Names in Scripture, that the Original of them might not be known. He out of direct malice, moved those fanciful Men to invent Fables, to defame the Primitive Stories, to blemish the Sacred History, to obscure and pervert the Truth. The Poets turning the

Scriptures into Fabulous Narrations, was the way to invalidate the Testimony of them, and to make them seem a meer Poetick Fiction, a Dream, a Fansie, that hath no real bottom. It is no wonder then, that the Devil imped their Fancies, and assisted their Inventions, and help'd them to change the Truth into a Lie, that there∣by he might rob God and the Scripture of their Honour. This, I say, might be a device of that Evil Spirit, (as he hath Devices and Wiles of all sorts) to elude the Authority of Sacred History, and to take away the Credit of Divine Truth.

Again, as that Crasty Spirit designs by this means to disparage, yea, to null the Truth, so he thinks hereby to gain assent to Falshood, and to promote the greatest Impiety imaginable; for when Truth is mixed with Falshood, he hopes that this latter will be entertain'd for the sake of the former. And when Lewd and Viti∣ous Practices, are founded in those that are In∣nocent and Religious, he expects, that these should justifie those. Perhaps, when he added the Sacred Ceremonies of the Iews, to the pro∣phane Worship of the Gentiles, he thought thereby, to take away the difference between them, and to render them alike; so that Men should not be able to distinguish, between a True and False way of Worship.

Thirdly, the Devil's Design in introducing several Sacred rites and Customs, into the practice of the Heathens, was to conciliate

to himself a greater Authority and Esteem, a greater Glory and Repute among them. He commends those things to the Pagans which were Religiously used, and even by God's own People, and prescrib'd by God him∣self; this he doth to inveigle the Pagan World, and to bring them to Admire and Worship him.

Wherefore, an Answer may easily be return'd to that Objection, of a late Learned Writer, a 1.458

What advantage can the Devil have by his imitating the Divine Worship?

He ever Acts for some end that may be prositable to himself; but how can this prove so,

seeing it would be more advantageous to him, to insti∣tute a Worship and Ceremonies, that are Diametnically contrary to those in the Divine Law, that by those, as by so many proper and peculiar Characters, his Herd might be distinguished from the Flock of the Shepherd of Israel.

The Answer, I say, to this, is very easie and obvious, for there can be nothing more Advantageous to that Evil Spirit, than his emulating of Divine Worship, and appointing Ceremonies suitable to it, for by this means, his Kingdom is most sensibly advanced, and that with the greatest Artifice and Craft imaginable, be∣cause this Vile. Fiend is Adored, even whilst the

Divine Worship of the True God seems to be earried on. It was the Subtilty of this Great Mimick, to approach as near to God and True Religion, as he could, to make use of those things, which by God's own express Command were used in his Worship. This is a cunning way of gaining Proselytes, and increasing the number of his Worshippers. Thus he Acts for some End, and that a very Profitable one too; certainly much more Profitable to him, than if he had Instituted Proper and Peculiar Ceremo∣nies of Worship, for these would too palpably have distinguish'd his Herd, from the True Flock; whereas, those bring them into a kind of Rival∣ty with it. Besides, this fond Emulation in the Devil, is a gratifying of his first Proud Inclina∣tion, and aspiring to be like God. He is still Ambitious of Divine Honour, otherwise cer∣tainly, he would not have desired to be Wor∣ship'd by the Son of God himself. And he would be Worshipp'd in the same way, that God is, with the same Signs and Badges of Adorati∣on. Hence most of those Sacred Rites enjoyned by God himself, and made use of, in his Wor∣ship by the Iewish Church, were transferred by Sathan to his Idolatrous and Impious Wor∣ship. This is the effect of his Haughty Spirit, which thirsteth after Divine Honour, even such as is given to the only True God.

Thus I have amply shew'd you, how it came to pass, that the Rites and Practices, and the greatest Truths contained in the Holy Scrip∣ture, were corrupted, disguised, misapplied,

and abused by the Pagans. I have given you the Reasons and Arguments which may con∣vince you of this, and render you an account of the manner of it.

CHAP. IX.

The Author's Assertions Confirmed by the ample Suffrage of the Ancients and Mo∣derns. Consectaries drawn from the whole, viz. That we cannot with any shew of Reason admit of the Opinion of those who hold that the Jews borrow'd all or most of their Religious Rites from the Gentiles: That from what hath been premised, we may take notice of, and admire the singu∣lar Providence of Heaven: That we are ascertain'd of the Antiquity, Reasonable∣ness, and Certainty of our Religion: That we are reconcil'd to the writings of Pro∣phane Authors: That we are assured of the Truth and Authority of the Scrip∣tures of the Old Testament.

I Will now add unto Reason and Evidence the Suffrage of the Learned and Wise, whether Ancients or Moderns. It was averr'd long since by Demetrius Phalereus, that Great Historian and Philosopher, in an Epistle of his to King Ptolomey, that the Gentile Philosophers took many things from the Holy Scriptures, as you will find him cited by Eusebius in his Evangelical Preparation. This is an early Te∣stimony to the truth of what I have asserted: By this it appears, that the Notion which I

have offered, is above two thousand years Old.a 1.459 Iosephus, the Learned Iew, who li∣ved about half a thousand years after, attests the same, and professedly proves that both Philosophers and Poets borrowed from the Sacred Fountains of Scripture. This is abundantly te∣stified by the Christian Fathers, as Tatianus, who hath a setb 1.460 Oration on this Subject, that what Learning the Greeks gloried in, was received all of it from the Barbarians, (as they call'd the Iews)c 1.461 T••eophilus Bishop of Antioch (who lived likewise in the Second Cen∣tury) asserts this in defence of Christianity, proving that whatever the Pagan Poets writ of Hell, and the pains of it, and several other Subjects in Divinity, was stolen from the Writings of the inspired Prophets; and that the Christian doctrine, which is in a great part taken from them, is the Ancientest Re∣ligion. d 1.462 Iustin the Christian Philosopher and martyr speaks to the like purpose, and proves that all the true Notions in Theology among the Pagans, sprang from Moses, and the Holy Writings, and he instanceth in, and enlargeth on many Particulars, shewing that Orpheus, Homer, and Plato, had several of their Words, Phrases, Opinions, Traditions, De∣scriptions from the Prophetick Writings. He maintains, that the Fables of Bacchus, Hercu∣les, Aesculapius, &c. were made out of the

depraved sense and meaning of the Holy Writ. At another time he pursueth the same Argu∣ment, and attempts to demonstrate, that all the Great and Brave things in the Philoso∣phers and Poets Writings are from the Holy Book. Clement of Alexandria is very copious on this Theme: The Scope of the first Book of his Stromata, is to shew, that the Philoso∣phy of the Hebrews was many Generations older than that of the Gentiles; and in prose∣cution of this, he endeavours to evincea 1.463 that the Opinions of the Greek Philosophers and others, were taken from Moses, and other Hebrews. And in the Second Book of his Stromata, he farther insisteth on this Subject, and proves, that the Greeks were Notoriousb 1.464. Plagiaries, and stole their Philosophy from the Barbarians: And so he goes on in the following Books to prove, that all the good Notions among the Greeks came from the Hebrews, that whatever Excellent Truths the former taught, th••y had from the latter, they Sacrilegiously took them from the Holy Patriarchs and Iews. This is the sense of the forty seventh Chapter of Tertullian's Apologetick, he there maintains that c 1.465 both Poets and Philosophers were behold∣ing to the Prophets, and derived all their best

things from them. Yea,a 1.466 those very Argu∣ments which the Pagans bring against the Christian Truth, are fetch'd from it, as I observ'd from him before. I have mention'd Origen already, but if you consult his Fourth Book against Celsus, you will find this more largely asserted, viz. That the Pagan Rites and Stories were taken from the Scriptures. Eusebius likewise hath been quoted before, but if the Reader think good to peruse the Author, he will see this Argument insisted on inb 1.467 four or five Books together, where he proves that the Greeks had some under∣standing of Moses's Theology, and follow'd the Iewish Writers in several things, which he makes good by alledging several passages out of Theophrastus, Hecataeus, Porphyrius, Nu∣menius, Megasthenes, &c. And afterwards he goes on, and more designedly clears this Pro∣position, that what is good in the Writings of the Gentile Philosophers, is all stoln from the Hebrews, and that the Wisdom of the Greeks especially came from the Iews. I might add the Testimony ofc 1.468 St. Augustin, who shews that the Platonists borrowed from the Scrip∣ture: And ofd 1.469 Theodoret who agrees with him in this, and farther proves that other Phi∣losophers had their Theologick Notions from

Moses, and the Prophets. Thus we see this is an Old and Received Truth.

Nor doth it want the S••ffrage of the most Learned Modern Writers, some of whom, without any order of time, I will briefly men∣tion. Stuckius is very plain and peremptory, and speaks the Sum of what we have delive∣red in the preceeding Discourse,a 1.470

The whole Religion of the Old Pagans (saith he) proceeded from a depraved, perverse, and preposterous kind of imitating that Ancient and truly Divine Religion which the Patri∣archs and their posterity the Iews had such a reverence for, as being prescribed them by God himself.

Villalpandus on the Pentateuch professedly declares, that the Sacrifices and other Usages among the Gentiles, came from the Iews.

Who can deny, saithb 1.471 another, that the Laws which were given to those Holy Men the Hebrews, came first to the Egyptians, and then out of Egypt went to Greece?

The c 1.472 Elder Vossius hath in almost innumerable places assorted this, that the Gentiles made a great number of their Fables out of the Hi∣stories which are in the Sacred Writings; d 1.473 Bochart hath with great Wit and Learning traced and discovered the footsteps of Scrip∣ture-History among the Heathens in their

Mythology. It is the Opinion of

a 1.474 Marcus Marinus, that the Theological Sentiments concerning Divine Things, were the same a∣mong all the Ancient Hebrews and Patriarchs, but afterwards they were depraved by the Greeks, and Converted into Fables.b 1.475 Lewis Capell hath these express words, In the Old Fables of the Greeks you may perceive some shadow and Image, some dark and flying footsteps as 'twere of several of the Hi∣stories in the Bible: Which might be de∣monstrated by a manifold induction of par∣ticulars. It is the declar'd judgment of c 1.476 another, that the Gentiles were wont to transferr the more remarkable Histories of the Old Testament, and the Divine Mira∣cles related therein, to their false Gods: And he instances in several.

And because I have asserted in the foregoing Discourse, that the Sacred Mysteries and Rites of God's own appointment have been prophaned and abused even to Magical purposes, I will adjoyn here the Testimony ofd 1.477

Petrus Crinitus, who expresly tells us, that the Egyptians and o∣thers, made and invented Magical Ceremo∣nies out of the Scacred Rites and Observan∣ces of the Iews, and that they were wholly indebted to these for them.

Kircher, and Isaac Vossius have done their part in this Subject, but Huetius in his Evan∣••••lical Demonstration hath out-done them, and ••ost that have writ on it. Among our own Countrymen, these deservedly are to be num∣bred, viz. Sir Walter Raleigh, who among se∣veral other passages hath these Remarkable ••ords;a 1.478

The Heathens did greatly en∣rich their Inventions, by venting the stoln Treasures of Divine Letters, alter'd by Pro∣phane Additions, and disguis'd by Poetica•• Conversions, as if they had been conceived out of their own Speculations.

Next to this Worthy Knight the Famousb 1.479 Mr. Sel∣•••••• may be mention'd, who avers, that the ••ost impious Customs among the Gentiles had ••••eir Original from Scripture-History, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 confirms by several Examples. You will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Reverendc 1.480 Bishop Montague (though ••••is Author's Adversary in another point) ••greeing with him in this.

The Heathens saith he, of Old, made use of many things which were taken from the Divine Polity in the Old Testament, but were afterwards cloak'd and disguis'd by the Malice and Fraud of the Devil.

The Judicious Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath two distinct Chapters of the Gentile Stories and Fictions being ••orrowed ••rom the Bible. I will mention a passage or

two out of some other places of his Works,

a 1.481 If Moses (saith he) was forty days in the Mount to receive Laws from Gods own mouth, Minos will be Iupiter's Auditor in his Den or Cave for the same purpose. In emulation of Shiloh, or Kirjath-jearim, whilst the Ark of God remained there, the Hea∣thens had Dodona: And for Ierusalem they had Delphi, garnish'd with rich Dona∣tives, as if it had been the intended paral∣lel of the Holy City.

And he hath these remarkable words in the same place,

Any Judicious Man, from the continual and serious observation of this great Register of Truth (he means the Scrip∣tures) may find out the Original of all the principal Heads, or Common places of Poeti∣cal Fictions, or Ancient Traditions, which cannot be imagin'd should ever have come into Man's fancy, unless from the imitation of the Historical Truth.

A Worthy Pre∣late, whom I have already Named hath give•• us his suffrage most freely in this cause, and hath undertaken to defend it in the close of his Origines Sacrae. I could produce half 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hundred more Authors of good Note an•• Learning, but I forbear, because I have don•• sufficiently. From these I have quoted, you may see that what I have maintained in this Discourse is no idle fancy, no notion taken up by shallow Heads, but that the deepest Judg∣ments,

the most Judicious and Impartial Pens have adopted it for a Truth. We have it upon the Authority of all these Ex∣cellent Persons, and many more in former, in later, and even in our present times, as well as upon the plain Evidences, Reasons, and Arguments before alledged, that the Ancient Philosophers and Poets borrowed from the Bible, that many of the Gentile Fables are founded on the most Sacred Veri∣ties, that the Scripture is the Source and Fountain from whence many of their Opini∣ons, Customs, and Practices sprang, that most of the Gentile Theology arose from the mi∣staken and depraved sense of the Holy Wri∣tings of the Old Testament.

From the whole let me offer these three or four Consectaries. 1▪ We cannot with any shew of Reason admit of that Opinion which holds that the Iews borrowed all or most of their Religious Rites and Ceremonies from the Gentiles. This, though it bids desiance to that Reason and Testimony which I have produced, hath had some Abbettors and Pa∣trons. Thusa 1.482 Origen acquaints us that Celsus stifly maintain'd that the Mosaick Hi∣story was borrowed from the Fables of Hea∣thens. And with him other Heathens at

that time concurred; and, to defend their Idolatrous Traditions and Usages, asserted that Scripture History was a corruption of some of their Fables. The Story of the Flood they said was taken from Deucalion, and Pa∣radise from Alcinous's Gardens, and the Burn∣ing of Sodom and Gomorrah from Phaeton's setting the World on fire, &c. But Origen shews the absurdity of these allegations, from the Antiquity of those Relations in Sacred Scripture, and thence proves that the Greeks had these from the Iews, and not on the contrary. He makes it evident that the Iewish Nation had the Original Traditions, and that others were corrupted and changed from these by the Heathens. This Pagan Conceit, which was taken up on purpose as an eva∣sion against Christianity, is revived by some Writers of late, but by none more designed∣ly and industriously carried on and impro∣ved than by a late Learned Man of our own, who hath delivered such admirable and choice things on occasion of pursuing this subject, and hath snewed himself so Great a Master of all kinds of Literature, that we can scarcely be displeas'd with his Notion that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at the head of all. I will not pretend t••∣enter the Lists with this Great Champion being conscious to my own inabilities, but this I will do, I will set some Great Men upon him (though I have partly done it al∣ready) and leave him to grapple with them▪ Iosephus the Learned Iew, was a Competent Judge in this matter, viz. Whether the Iews

••orrow'd their Sacred and Religious Rites from the Gentiles, or whether (on the con∣trary) these borrow'd from them. Let us bear what he saith,a 1.483

There hath been a long time, saith he, among most Nati∣ons a great Zeal and Emulation towards our way of Religion and Worship. There is not a City among the Greeks, or Barbari∣ans, yea, not any Nation which hath not received from us the Custom of Resting on the Seventh day, and of Fasting, and of Lighting up of Candles. And several things which relate to Meats forbidden us by our Law, are also observed by Foreign Nations.

Here this Knowing Person acquaints us that the Gentiles were followers of the Iews, not these of them; and particularly mentions some ••ites which they receiv'd from them. With this agrees what two considerableb 1.484 Rabbies have said, viz.

Our Law is the Law of Truth, and all Nations glory in it, and every one of them hath taken a Branch from our Law, and in it they glory: For the Laws that are among the Gentiles, are as it were Branches cut off from our Law.

Whence it undeniably follows, that the Iewish Laws and Ceremonies were not taken from ••hose of the Pagans.

Christians agree in this with the Iews Thus Iustin Martyr, in his Dialogue with a Iew, expresly declares, that as Circumcision had its Original from Abraham, so the Sab∣bath, and Sacrifices, and Offerings, and Feasts had theirs from Moses, and not from the Gentiles. And Tertullian, speaking of the De∣vil's seducing and perverting of Hereticks, tells us, that he doth the like also among the Pagans, fora 1.485 he apes the most Sacred and Divine things even in the Idolatrous aud Mysterious Worship of the Gentiles, and makes use of them therein to prophane and im∣pious purposes. This hath been the general sense of the Christian Church, whether Pa∣pists, or Protestants. Upon those words in Deut. 12. 30. Estius concludes (and all Un∣derstanding Men may do so too) thatb 1.486 from thence it is manifest that the Iewish Cere∣monies were not taken from Gentilism, but Instituted by God himself. Among the Re∣formists you will see this more plainly at∣tested c 1.487

All that consent, saith one, which is between the Iewish and Gentile Rites, ariseth from the Devil's study to deprave many things which are in the Iewish Wor∣ship

of God, and to transfer them to his own. And another thus,a 1.488 It is a wicked and detestable thing to imagine that the Rites commanded in the Mosaick Law were as it were Play-games and Sports only in imitation of the Pagans. Therefore, that those Rites may have that honour and dig∣nity which is due to them, we must hold this as an infallible Truth, that all the things in the Iewish Worship were accord∣ing to the Spiritual Pattern which was shew'd to Moses in the Mount.

To which I add Cocceius's notable words,b 1.489 I admit not

that the Iewish Law is an imitation of the Gentile Ceremonies: For on the contrary, it is certain that it was made to draw off the Israelites from many of the Pagan Rites, by those several Laws which were in it, contrary to those Rites. So it became a Hedge or Partition Wall between the Iews and Gentiles, that they might not come near one another as to their Cere∣monies, for from a likeness in these, there would have followed a mutual Converse and Communion, and consequently a De∣pravation.

As to Particular Rites among the Gentiles, as that of Sacri••ices, and using of Salt in them, Spanhemius refers the Original of them to the Iewish Law, and the practice

of God's People, adding thata 1.490

This Iewish Custom was by a fond imitation in the De∣vil, who sometimes is Gods Ape, made use of in the impious and idolatrous services of the Pagans.

So as to the Ark of the Testimo∣ny, which the Learned Dean saith was in imitation of the Heathens; the contrary is expresly vouched byb 1.491 another worthy Writer in such plain terms as these,

Having thought of the whole matter (viz. the Arks or Chests, which he had said before were used in the Religious Mysteries of the Pagans,) my Opinion concerning them is this, that the Devil, as he was ever an Ape, and a Lu∣dicrous imitator of God's Works and Insti∣tutions, so here particularly he had a mind to set up these his Arks against the Ark of the Covenant made by God.

And hear what a late Learned Author, often commended by the Worthy Dean himself, saithc 1.492

Chests or Arks used at the Greek and Egyptian Feasts, especially in the Eleusinian Solem∣nities, with the Toys shut up in them (of which Clement of Alexandria speaks) these were Images or Imitations of the Ark of the Covenant among the Iews.

All these Allegations and Testimonies (together with

those before) are absolutely repugnant to the Learned Doctor's assertion, which he so often repeateth, that many of the Mosaical Laws about Religious Rites and Ceremonies were ta∣ken from the Rites and Usages among the Pa∣gan Idolaters.

But this Author is so Considerable and Worthy a Writer, that it may be thought his single Authority is able to counterpoize (if not out-weigh) the joint Suffrage of the Persons before named: wherefore I will make bold to Combat his Notion with a plain Text of Scripture, which carries irresistible Autho∣rity with it. The express words of it are these (in Deut. 12. 30, 31, 32. Take heed to thy self, that thou be not snared by following them (i. e.) the Heathens,) and that thou en∣quire not after their Gods, saying, How did these Nations serve their Gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their Gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Observe here, the Iews were forbid to follow the Customs and Rites of the Gen∣tiles, and (in order to that) to enqui•••• ••••ter their Idolatrous Service, and the manner of it. They must by no means 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the true God, as the Nations served their false Gods and Idols. The Reason 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this is r••nd••ed, because every abom••nation to the Lord which he hateth, was done by them to their Gods.

The Rites and Ceremonies which they used in Worshipping their Gods, were abomi∣nable to the God of Israel: Wherefore it is absurd to think that he would appoint his People such Religious Rites and Services as were abominable and hateful to him: un∣less you will say, that which was abomina∣ble in the Heathens, was not so in God's own People. But this increases the absurdi∣ty rather than takes it away. No Man of sober thoughts can talk after this rate; for if God disliked those things in the Idola∣trous Worshippers, it is certain that he did much more so in the true ones. Wherefore he instituted such a Service as was most opposite to the Heathen way of Worship, and had not the least affinity with it. Hence it is added, what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; as much as to say, you must not follow the directions or ex∣ample of those Pagaus in your Worshipping of me, you must do nothing in my Ser∣vice but what I expresly Command you, neither adding thereto, nor diminishing from it. How then can any Man with Reason as∣sert, that the Iews borrowed their Rites in Religious Worship from the Gentiles? A Per∣son of so bright an intellect, as our Learned Author is, cannot but see the force of this Text, and be convinc'd that it ruines his Hypothesis, which he was pleas'd to take up it may be only to give proof of his own Skill to the Learned World, and to try that

of his Opponents. So much for the first Co∣rollary from the preceeding Discourse.

2. From the Premises we may learn the Excellency of our Religion, viz. 1. That it is the Ancientest Religion in the World. We may plainly see the Footsteps of it in the oldest Times that were. The memory of it is among the most Celebrated Monuments of Antiquity. The Truths of it are to be read in the Histories of the First Ages, yea, in the Fables of the Old Poets, in the rusty and antique fragments of the Primitive Times of the World. 2. See the Reasonableness (which is another Excellency) of our Reli∣gion. Many of the Scripture-Truths were receiv'd by the Philosophers and Sages among the Gentiles, who had no other Conduct than that of their Rational Faculties. These Ma∣sters of Reason entertain'd some of the Grand Principles of our Religion, and approved of them, and acknowledg'd them as Rational. 3. See the Certainty of our Holy Religion. It is attested not only by Friends, but Enemies. It hath even the Approbation of Heathen Writers, who have▪ Recorded, and thereby confirmed some of the most remarkable things reported in the Sacred Writings, as the Crea∣tion of the World, our first Parents Hap∣piness, and afterwards their Fall, Noa••'s Flood, the long Lives of the first Persons, the Building of the Tower of Babel, the Confusion of Languages, the Renowned Acts of several of the Patriarchs and first Wor∣thies,

&c. It is a great establishing of our Faith, that those Pagans derived so many things from Scripture. The Gentile Writers vouch a great part of our Religion. Where∣fore we must needs imbrace it when it is at∣tested by such Disinteressed Persons.

3. We ought to take notice of the Won∣derful Providence of God in this matter. Be∣hold, the Scripture is attested by those who never owned its Authority, yea, the very Enemies of these Holy Writings rati••ie the Truth and Certainty of them. The Heathen Poets, whilst they Corrupt Divine Truth, assert it. Their very Lies and Fictions bear witness to the Sacred Verities: their Fables confirm the Infallibility of the Bible. This is the Lord's doing; here the Great and Over-ruling Wisdom of God is seen. Here his Almighty Power in ba••••ing Satan's Con∣trivances and Designs may be discern'd. He (as was said before) intended the Corruption of the Scriptures, the silencing of the Truth, the Exalting of himself, and the Advancing of his Kingdom. But the All-Wise and Powerful Moderator of the World disap∣pointed his Designs, and made this thing we are speaking of serviceable and beneficial to Religion; he made it become an Argument of its Antiquity, Reasonableness, and Certainty, against the Cavils of Atheists, and Infidels.

4. Henceforth we are reconciled to the Writings of Prophane Authors. We have this

considerable advantage by reading the Works of the Ancient Heathens, and by perusing their Stories and Fables, that we shall find some Greater Thing couched in them than the bare Narrative. For these Writers bor∣row'd many things from the Holy Book; their broken Stories are often-times an imperfect ac∣count of Scripture Relations. Sundry things in their Writings are gather'd out of the Divine Volume, but are strangely wrested, pervertrd, and obscured, by having new Names, and ••eigned Circumstances affix'd to them. Almost all the Gentile Fables, and Theology, flowed from a depraved sense of the Sacred Writings. The Poets disguise true Stories with many Fictions, and some Reliques of Divine Truth are buried under their ingenuous Fancies, and Fabulous Narrations. Ovid Transcribed the Greek Theology from Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, and other Ancient Poets, and these had it from the Bible. The very Poetick Fictions refer unto real Story, and are drawn from the Divine Source of Truth. So that we are reading the Holy Scripture in a manner whilst we are turning over Pagan Writers. In these we meet with Truths Transplanted from the Sacred Book, we find many passages stollen from the Hebrew Fountains. It is not to be denied then that Scholars, and Students, yea, the very Candidates of Sacred Theology, may with great profit prie into these Writings of the Pagans, for here are the footsteps of Divine Verities. Pro∣phane and Sacred Learning are to be joyn'd. The Gentile Monuments illustrate the inspired

ones. We may, notwithstanding the disguise which Poets have put upon the Stories, see the foundation of them, and perceive that those vain Figments•• are grounded on some Solid Truth, and that a Sacred Treasure lies hid un∣der those confused Fables. For this is not to be denied, that Palestine afforded Greece matter of fancy, and invention; the Pagan Poets were be∣friended by the Iews, Athens was indebted to Ierusalem, Parnassus was beholding to Sinai, and Helicon to Iordan. You see then the ad∣vantage we may reap by being acquainted with Prophane Writers, whilst we look further than the outward shape which they have given to many things, and search into that Truth which lies hid under it, even the Sacred and undoubted History of the Old Testament. Thus we may make them serviceable to far higher and better ends than they are intended. This is the best improvement that can be made of them, to see the true Source of what is written by them, to understand whence they borrowed their matter, and to confirm our selves in the belief of the Truth of the Sacred Writings, by perusing these which are Prophane.

5thly, and lastly then, See the Authority, Truth, and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which is the main thing I have been aiming at. I had proved this before by several Arguments, and those perhaps on some accounts more Forcing and Convictive than this: but I thought good to add this to them, as no contemptible way of proving the

Antiquity and Authority of the Sacred Book. The Truth of the Historical part of the Old Testament is evidenced from Heathen Writers, not only Historians, but Philosophers, and Poets. A Man may, by comparing these with the Sacred Volume, find out the Original of the Pagan Traditions, and Fictions, and observe the Lineaments of true and unquestionable Hi∣story among them. Hence we shall have no reason to doubt that there were such Persons and Things in being, as are spoken of in the Old Testament, and that the Passages and Trans∣actions there mention'd were real, and true. This admirably serves to evince the Authority of those Writings, this proves the Truth of the Records of Holy Writ, and that they ought to be received as the Oracles of God, i. e. as Infallible.

CHAP. X.

The Authority of the Books of the New-Te∣stament, confirmed by Pagan and Iewish Writers, who speak of a King or Lord that should come out of the East, and parti∣cularly out of Judaea. An Enumeration of the Opinions of the Learned concerning the Sibylls, with the particular Sentiment of the Author, viz. That the Contents of their Verses were horrow'd from the Old-Testa∣ment, and that those Women were not Pro∣phetesses, but only related what they found in the Inspired Writings, or heard of thence. A full Answer to the Objections of those who hold the Sibylline Writings to be Spurious.

NExt I am to shew how the Scriptures of the New-Testament are vouched and confirmed by an External Testimony, i. e. how professed Pagans ••nd Iews, Enemies to Christianity, have related ••nd asserted the very same things that are set down ••n those Evangelical Writings. First, I will begin with that which is of a middle nature, between what I have been discoursing of before, and what •• am now to ingage in, (which therefore may apt∣••y serve as a Transition from one to the other,) I ••ean the belief and report recorded in Pagan Writers, that a King or Lord should come from the ••ast, and do great and mighty things. This was de∣••ived from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 belongs to the former Discourse: but beca••se

it is mentioned by Historians that were after Christ's time, and the Application is with all rea∣son to be made to Him, (I rightly bring it in here.) It was, I say, a constant Report that prevail'd about the time of our Saviour's Birth, and after∣wards, that some eminent Person or Persons should rise out of those Eastern Nations, and be Lords of the World. We find* 1.493 Tacitus asserting this, and that great Politician and Statesman would needs have it fulfilled in Vespasian and Titus, because they were called out of Iudea unto the Empire of Rome. Suetonius agrees with this Author, and tells us, that† 1.494 it was an ancient and constant Opinion among the Eastern People, that some should come out of Iudea about that time, and have the universal Sway, and Reign over the World.‖ 1.495 Iosephus the Jewish Historian relates the same, and acquaints us, that it was the common rumour and vogue among the Iews that one of their own Country should be an Universal Emperor; which he, as well as the fore-cited Authors, applieth to Vespasian, because he conquer'd the Iews, and with Titus came from Iudea in Triumph to Rome. Other Iews thought this common Fame was meant of Herod, asserting him to be the Person fore-told by the Prophets, and to be the expected Messias: These were the Herodians mentioned in Mat. 22. 16. Thus, though through Ignorance▪

they knew not how to fix this Rumour aright, yet out of Flattery, they could apply it to their Prin∣ces. But it is most evident that this Fame of an Universal Monarch arose from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which frequently speak of a great King and Ruler that should come out of the East, and particularly out of Iudea. Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall He come forth unto me that is to be the Ruler in Israel, Mic. 5. 2. Which is interpreted of the Messias by the Iewish Sanhedrim, whom ••erod gathered together, demanding of them where Christ should be born, Mat. 2. 4, 5. That Prophecy of Micah speaks plainly of a Iew, one that by birth ••as of Iudea, yea of Bethlehem; and therefore it was most falsly applied to those Roman Emperors before-named, who came not out of Iudea, but ••ut of Italy; not from Bethlehem, but from Rome. And as for Herod, he was not a Iew, but an Idu∣••ean; he was not born in Bethlehem, but in Ascalon. ••ut in our Blessed Saviour this remarkable Prophe∣••y is exactly accomplish'd, he being a Iew by ••••rth, and of the City of David, and constituted ••y God a matchless King and Governor over his People. Behold, a King shall Reign in Righteousness, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 32. 1. And in several other places of this Prophecy Christ is represented as a King, and his Coming is express'd after that manner. There was ••iven him Dominion and Glory, and a Kingdom, that ••ll People, Nations and Languages should serve him. His Dominion is an everlasting Dominion, which shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pass away, and his Kingdom that which shall not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 destroyed, Dan 7. 14. Which is expresly applied to Christ by the Angel from Heaven, Luke 1. 33. And in many other places of Scripture this Divine Person, who was to come to redeem and save Mankind, is set forth as a King, or Great Lord and

Prince, one that should ••ear Sway in the World, and wield his Scepter over all Nations. Hence this Rumour was spread among the Eastern Peo∣ple, and especially about the time of Christ's birth, that a Great Lord or King should arise in those parts, and spread his Dominion over the World. Hence those Pagan and Jewish Writers before•• mentioned, speak of this Great Ruler and Mo∣narch, who is no other than our Lord Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This they had from the Prophesies of the Bible, where 'tis so of∣ten fore-told that a King shall arise, and gain an Universal Empire over Mankind. To this we may refer that which* 1.496 Suetonius re∣ports (and he quotes his Author for it,) that a few Months before Au∣gustus was born there was this publick Prodigy, viz. a Proclaiming of this, That† 1.497 Nature was bringing forth a King to the Roman People. Whereupon the Senate be∣ing allarmed and frighted, made a strange Decree, That no one born that Year should be Educated. This Prodigy, without doubt, refer'd to Christ, whose Birth was in Augustus's Reign; this was the King that was to be born to all the World, which was then in a manner subject to the Roman Empire, and therefore might be call'd the Roman People.

So the Sibylls Oracles or Prophesies are of a middl•• nature and Consideration, and therefore are just∣ly to be treated of in this place: As they were borrow'd from the Scriptures of the Old Testament they belong indeed to the former part of this Dis∣course; but as they attest the Truth of the mai•• things in the New-Testament, they are reducible to this. I will consider them first as they are

taken out of the Scriptures of the Old-Testament. This may seem to be strange at first, because the Opinions of Writers have run an other way; but after I have plainly laid the matter before you, I doubt not but the thing which I offer will easily gain your assent, and then it will rather seem strange that it was not taken notice of and imbra∣ced before. There have been these four Opini∣ons among the Learned concerning the Sybills O∣racles or Verses.

1. Some say they are Counterfeit, yea, that some Christians (but Hereticks) have imposed upon the World in this matter. This I will ac∣count for afterwards, because it will more perti∣nently be handled under the Second Considerati∣on, viz. as they are used as an Attestation of the Truth of the New-Testament. Indeed this Opini∣on rudely takes away the Subject of the Question, and therefore must be consider'd in the last place: in the mean time we suppose the thing spoken of to be real, and not counterfeit.

2ly. Then, some have asserted that the Sibylls were divinely Inspired, and consequently that their Verses are Sacred and Divine. Iustin Martyr, Ar∣••obius, Lactantius, and some other ancient Fathers cry them up as equal to the holiest Prophets. As God, say they, spake by the Prophets to the Iews concerning Christ before he came, so he fore••told him to the Gentiles by the Sibylls, and the same Prophetick Spirit was in the latter that was in the former. Baronius, Bellarmine, and the Roman Do∣ctors generally think the same of them, and there∣fore they use their Testimony as very Sacred, and altogether Irrefragable. By the way, I might observe, that they are sometimes quoted by these and others of the Church of Rome to assert and

countenance some of their Popish Doctrines: (So that it seems Popery was a Religion before there were any thoughts of it in the World, and before it had a Being.) But here Authors are divided a∣gain, for some hold these Gentile Prophetesses were Good and Holy Person, others that they were not. The former Opinion is grounded on that Tenent of the Iewish Doctors, that never any vicious and unhallowed Persons were honored with the Pro∣phetick Spirit, and that those Irradiations and ex∣traordinary Impressions of the Holy Ghost were made only upon Men of holy Lives and innocent Behaviours. Besides, these Prophetick Women speak of One only True God, and they inveigh against the False Gods and their Altars; which is a sign they were good and religious People. O∣thers have a contrary Opinion of them, and think they were Irreligious and Prophane, for that O∣pinion of the Hebrew Doctors before spoken of is not always true, though it be generally so. We read of Baalam, the Sorcerer of Mesopotamia, that he prophesied concerning the future State of the Iews, and concerning the Coming of Christ. Saul was a very bad Man, yet was endued with a pro∣phetick Spirit. Caiphas, one of Christ's Judges, was stirred up by the Holy Ghost to prophecy concerning our Saviour's Death. And why might not God inspire Heathen Women, though they were Wicked, with a Spirit of Prophecy? And that they were such seems to appear from their Verses, wherein there are some things very Fond and Su∣perstitious, (and so indeed they may be quoted by the Roman Catholicks in defence of their Cause.) This shews that they were not possessors of true Virtue and Goodness. But then I ask this, can we think that the choicest Mysteries of Reli∣gion

were revealed to them, if they were Wicked and Prophane? Would God vouchsafe so great and peculiar a Privilege to the worst of Persons?

3ly. Therefore, some hold that these Pagan Pro∣phetesses spake not by a good, but evil Spirit. The Devil reveal'd these things to them, saith* 1.498 St. Ambrose, and helped them to fore-tell these future Events. And some have turn'd those foresaid In∣stances this way, telling us that Baalam, Saul and Caiphas, prophesied by the assistance of some Evil Daemon. So the Heathen Oracles spoke truth of∣tentimes, though their Answers came from the Infernal Spirits. That these Sibylls received their Skill from Satan may be discern'd (say some) in the Errors and Superstitions which are in their Books, yea the Idolatries of the Gentiles are coun∣tenanced by them in some passages which occur in their Predictions. But then this may be said to baffle this Opinion, that the fore-telling of such fu∣ture Contingencies is not in the power of that Evil Spirit. Moreover, it is unlikely that these Gentiles (were they informed by a Divine Intelli∣gencer, but especially when they were acted by a Diabolick one) should have as clear, nay a clear∣er fore-sight and discovery of Christ to come, than the Iews, God's own People, and the holiest Men among them had.

4ly. It is the Judgment of† 1.499 the Learned Isaac Vossius, that the Sibylline Verses (so call'd) were made and collected by the Iews. This he asserts only concerning those Writings of theirs which were extant before Christ's coming: for the Iews being dispersed over the World, and knowing that

Daniel's Seventy Weeks were expiring, were stirred up by God to compose these Verses, thereby to signifie to the Gentiles the approaching of Christ. But of the other Works of the Sibylls, viz. those that were afterwards quoted by some of the Fa∣thers, he hath not the same opinion and esteem, but thinks they were made and compiled, or in plain terms forged by some Christians, particularly the Gnosticks. This is a very odd account of the Sibylls, and shews that the Learned Author of it was in a great streight: He was first willing to reject the Christians from being the Composers of those Writings (which some had asserted,) and yet it seems afterwards he retracts that Sentiment, and is not unwilling to believe that the Christians themselves forged and counterfeited these Sibylline Oracles. But if the Iews were the Authors of some part of these Writings, then I ask, how came they to insert things savouring of Heathen Supersti∣tion and Idolatry? And if the Christians were Com∣pilers of an other part of these Verses, how came they to insist in the steps of the former, and to add some things (as is said) in favor of those Pa∣gan Corruptions? But I dismiss this as a divided and dist••acted Opinion: Besides that I can't see why the Iews might not as well have produced the Bi∣ble to the Gentiles (for it had been translated into Gre••k, a Tongue intelligible to the Pagan World, a long time before our Saviours Coming:) that had been more Authentick than any other Wri∣tings whatsoever of their own Composing.

In the Fifth and Last place, I take leave to propound an other Opinion, which is this, I hold that these ancient Writings or Oracles were not made by Iews, but Pagans, and particularly by those Women call'd Sibylls, who made them in no

other sense than this, that they took them out of the Holy Scriptures of the Old-Testament, and turn∣ed them into Verse. This is that which I assert as most consonant to Reason; and it is a farther Proof of what I have been so long insisting upon, viz. that the Pagans borrowed from the Bible. I am not sollicitous whether these Women were good or bad, whether they were moved by God or by an Evil Spirit. There are some Inconveniencies in asserting of either side. But there is a plain and easie way different from both, viz. that we are not to look upon them as Prophetick Persons, as if they had a Gift of fore-telling all those things they speak of. No, they only extracted what they writ from the Scriptures, from the ancient Prophesi••s therein contain'd, especially from that of Isaiah. And so indeed in some sense their Wri∣tings may be said to be Divine and Inspired; for whatever these Pagans fore-told was no other than what they took from the Inspired Prophets in holy Writ. They are Instances of the like nature, with those that I have so often produced in the fore∣going Discourse, namely, Gentile Poets, that made use of several passages in the Sacred Volume, and inserted the main Substance of them into their Verses. And as those Heathen Poets mingled pro∣phane Notions and Fables with the Sacred Do∣ctrine and History (which I shew'd before) so here it is as true that these Pagan Versifiers mixed some things that were Superstitious with their Pro∣phesies of Christ and his Kingdom, which they derived from the Old-Testament. It is well known that there were Female Poets among the Pagans, as Sapho, &c. and therefore we need not scruple to believe that the Sibylls writ in Verse. Indeed the looseness and neglectfulness of the Stile shews

that it was done by some easie Poets. That they were Pagan Women is clear from the frequent Alle∣gations of the Fathers, who represent them always as such, and produce the Writings of these Pagans as a proper Confutation of the Gentiles whom they dispute against. And the Heathens themselves ac∣knowledged them to be such and no other, as is apparent from what you shall h••ar afterwards con∣cerning Erythraea and the Cumaean Sibyll. Now, concerning these Poetick Pagan Women, I assert that they were no Prophetesses, no more than Hesiod and Ovid and other Pagan Writers before∣mentioned, and that they, like these, took some things out of the Old-Testament, (which also were much fam'd and talk'd of) and digested them in∣to Numbers. It is undeniable that in their Verses there are very notable Testimonies concerning our Saviour; there are mentioned many conside∣rable Circumstances of his Birth, Life, Miracles, Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and his coming to Judgment▪ but there is no more Rea∣son to think that these were spoken by them from a Prophetick Spirit, than to believe that Orpheus and Homer were inspired when they refer to some things that are in the Books of Moses. If these had been Prophesies in a strict sense they would have been communicated by God to his peculiar Peo∣ple (to whom were committed his Oracles) rather than to common Pagans. It is ce••tain that these were too Choice Secrets to be r••••eal'd to them. Wherefore it is reasonable to conclude they were taken out of the Prophesies of the Old-Testament, which were spread abroad among the Gentiles. The Sibylls only recite those Prophesies, but by no means are you to think that they were Prophe∣sies of their own. It is true, the Pagans hearing

of these Predictions, and not knowing the rise of them, attributed them to their Prophetesses the Sibylls; and so they passed for the Sibylls Oracles, as if those Women made and ••ndited them of their own Heads. But they are the Oracles of the Ho∣ly Prophets, and not of any Persons among the Pa∣gans. The Sibylls are not the original Authors of them, but they were borrowed from the Sacred Volume of the Bible. This is the true Account of the Sibylls Writings, and by this we are rid of all the hard Consequences which may be drawn from the fore-going Assertions. We need not trou∣ble our selves to enquire whether they had these things by Divine A••••lation, or by the help of some evil Daemon. We need not dispute whether they could be endued with the Gift of Prophecy, and yet be Pagans in their Persuasions and vitious in their Lives; or whether, if they were acted by a Diabolick Spirit, they could foretel things of this sacred nature. For there is no necessity of main∣taining either of these, because we can solve the matter before us without supposing any thing of this kind, viz. by holding that these Sibylls▪ as many others before them, took these things from the ancient Prophets in Holy Scripture, and dress'd them up after their own fashion. All things agree very well with this Opinion, and we are press'd with no Absurdities, insomuch that I have won∣dred sometimes that this hath not been thought of by the Inquisitive. This is yet a farther Evidence of what I so largely pursued before, that the Gen∣tiles insert into their Writings several particular•• of the Old-Testament: and at the same time it's a Con∣firmation of the Truth and Certainty of the Evangelical Writings, which is the next thing I offered.

Secondly then, I will consider the Sibylls Ora∣cles and Verses, as they are a signal Attestation and Confirmation of the Authority of the New-Testa∣ment. Behold here the main things relating to our Blessed Saviour, plainly spoken of by these Pagans, whose witness in this case is very considerable. They declar'd in these Writings that there should be a great Change in the World, and that a New Governor or King should arise, and be very Emi∣nent. Cic••ro frequently takes notice of this passage of the Sibylls, and the Roman Senate was mightily allarm'd with it, and was affraid their Common∣wealth would be turned into a Monarchy. Yea, Lentulus began to take heart from this Prophecy, (if you will believe Tully and Salust) and fancied he was the King the Sibylls spoke of. And others afterwards imagin'd that Iulius Caesar, or Augustus, or (as some thought) Vespasian or Titus were in∣tended: whereas the plain truth is, that the Sibylls had only divulged in their Verses the ancient Pro∣phesies concerning the Coming of the Messias, which were found by them in the Holy Writings of the Iews, and began to be known at that time to the World. If we had no more to alledge but this, this were sufficient to prove the Authority of the Sibylls Writings. They tell us in their Mystick Verses that a Little Child should throw down Ido∣latry with his hand, and stop the Mouths of the Delphick Daemons: this was no other than the Ble••sed Babe Iesus. It were endless to transcribe particular passages in these Writings, as concern∣ing Christ's Miracles,

* 1.500 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Which is only a Paraphrase on that Prophesie con∣cerning our Blessed Lord in Isai. 35. 5, 6. and ma∣ny other Texts in the same Prophet, which speak of the miraculous Acts which he was to exert here upon Earth. So what is said of his Sufferings,

* 1.501 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

is borrowed from that Prediction in Isai. 5••. which is no other than a Description of the Messi∣as's Sufferings. And that passage re••••ting to the Resurrection, and his coming to Jugdment,

† 1.502 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

is founded on some peculiar Texts in the Old Te∣stament which speak of the Messias's last Advent and glorious Reign. Certainly it is of great mo∣ment that these Persons attest these things, the very same which were predicted in the Old-Testa∣ment, and which are recorded in the Holy Wri∣tings of the Evangelists and Apostles. This may be serviceable to refute the Objections and Cavils of the most professed Adversaries of Christianity. Accordingly the ancient Christians, especially the Fathers, made use of these Heathen Writings against the Heathens themselves, beating them with their own Weapon. Peruse Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch, and you will ••ind these Womens

Verses highly commended by them. Peruse* 1.503 Iustin, and† 1.504 Clemens Alexandrinus, and you will see that they frequently quote those Writings, and rely on them in their disputes against the Pagans for Christianity. So doth Tertullian, so doth Origen, arguing out of these Pagan Books for the Religion which they had espoused. In Imitation of these Learned Fathers, Constantine the Great, in§ 1.505 one of his Orations, speaks very reverently of the Sibylls Predictions, and vindicates them as no contem∣ptible Proof of Christianity.‖ 1.506 Lactantius and Ar∣nobius alledge them to prove the same. St. Augu∣stin quotes the Acrosticks of Sibylla Erythraea, and turns them into Latin. Thus the Fathers used to convince the Gentiles out of the Sibylline Oracles, and the Old Christians constantly read these Wri∣tings, and appeal'd to them in their Discourses with the Heathens. From which practise of theirs the Gentiles (asa 1.507 Origen testifies) stiled the Chri∣stians Sibyllists; yea, the ancient Christians were so addicted to the reading these Books of the Si∣bylls, that they were strictlyb 1.508 forbid by the Laws to do it for the future upon pain of Death. Andc 1.509 we are told what was the Reason why the Emperors prohibited the reading of these Books, namely, because they thence fetch'd ma∣ny things that made for their Cause. These Wri∣tings of Heathen Women were in those days rec∣koned to be a notable Testimony to the Truth of Christianity. Whence it appears that they were no Forgeries, for the Anci••ntest and Learnedest

Fathers (as well as other Christian Brethren) would not have quoted them to confirm the Chri∣stian Religion if they had been such. But we see they did frequently alledge them to that end, and especially in their Disputes with the Gen∣tiles. As they made use of the Heathen Philoso∣phers and Poets for attesting the Sc••iptures of the Old-Testament, (as hath been shewed you) so they cited these Gentile Prophetesses (for such they sup∣pos'd them to be) to assert the Writings of the New Testament. It may be said that it doth not absolutely and nec••ssarily follow, that, because the Fathers used the Sibylls Verses to confute the Pa∣gans, therefore they were true, for they might suppose them to be such, though they did not ex∣presly declare it. In answer to which I return, that it cannot but be granted that there is a great probability of these Sibylline Writings being true, because they are quoted by the Fathers: For 1. Many of these knowing Persons use their Testimo∣ny. If one or two only did so, we could make no conclusion from thence; but since it is certain that great numbers of them (not only those be∣fore named, but others) expresly appeal'd to those Books, we cannot with any Reason slight their Allegations. 2. If these Books were quoted by the Fathers but seldom and rarely, there would not be so great a Motive to attend to them; but seeing we find them not only once, or twice, but very often made use of by them, it argues that they deliberately did it, and it invites us to give the greater attention and credit to them. 3. They quote them not as on Supposition only, but as True and Genuine, and such as may and ought to be de∣pended on. 4. The Fathers were Persons that were Competent Judges in this Case. Many of them

were Men of Sagacity and of a Critical Genius, and were not easily to be imposed upon. They had also time and leisure to examine these Wri∣tings, and to enquire whether they were forged or no; and we are sure it was their Concern to do it, for their Religion depended much upon it. Wherefore those who blast the Authority of the Fathers in this point, have little reason to do so. They were no credulous Fools, and such who took up any thing on trust; they were able to discern these Writings to be Counterfeit, (if they had been such) as well as any other Persons.

But notwithstanding this, there have been of old, and are of late, several Men that reject the Sibylls Writings, as Spurious and Counterfeit. And who should forge them but Christians? Here then I am obliged to answer that Cavil, that the Writings which go under the name of the Sibylls were ••orged by Christian Hereticks. This, it seems, was an old Objection, for Origen acquaints us that it was made by the Arch Pagan Celsus. And La∣ctantius after him, saith that this Objection was renewed against the Sibylls Books by some other Pagan Adversaries, viz. that they were forged by some Christians themselves. Behold also the Mo∣derns concur••ing with the Pagans to defame the Sibylls. Scaliger is very warm against them, and holds that the Fathers were much deceived about them.* 1.510 Isaac Casaubon against Baronius, endeavors to prove the credit of the Sibylls to be suspected. Becman† 1.511 is against the authority of these Writings, and saith they are Supposititious. David Blondel

uses all ways to prove them to be Forgeries and Impostures: and he holds they were the Fictions of some busie Christians, who had the boldness to impose upon the World by these Cheats and Ro∣mances. As many of the ancient Christians and Fathers, saith he, received counterfeit Gospels, Acts and Epistles; so they were cheated and abused by ••hese spurious Pieces of the Sibylls. The Learned Dallé is of the same Opinion, and tells us that the Predictions concerning our Saviour and his King∣dom were put out under the names of the Sibylls ••y some Ch••istians, who were fallen into Here∣••••e. They had a mind to use a kind of pious Fraud ••o establish some part of Religion, they thought it to cheat the World for their good, and so they ••••blish'd these Writings under the names of those ••rophetesses.* 1.512 The Learned Dr. Cave, who is ••ot wont to doat on these Moderns, follows them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Opinion very closely, and leaves the anci∣••nt Fathers of the Church for their sake: He pe∣••emptorily tells us that the Sibylls Verses were made ••nd feign'd on purpose by the Ch••istians to up∣••old their Religion and Faith; and they are da∣••••d by him from the Year 130, in Adrian's Reign▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the first flight of them, he saith. But all ••••is is Suspition and Prejudice, and bold Affirma∣••••ves, but no proof; which will evidently appear, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you consider (besides what hath been said alrea∣••y) these following things: 1. Some of the Si∣••••lls Verses were extant before Christ's coming into the World, as is con••essed by ancient Christians ••nd Pagans, and by all the Learned Antiquaries. The Acrosticks, which are concerning the Last

Judgment and the Consummation of the World, (of which I spoke before) which consist of so many Verses as there are Letters in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Verse be∣ginning with Ι the second with Η, &c. these, I say, are mentioned by Tully in his Second Book of Divi∣nation, (and are in an other place inserted into his Works, as Eusebius testifies in the Life of Con∣stantine, and saith they are translated into Latin Verse by him) where he adds that this is not a Poem of a mad and frentick Person, for the Com∣posure and Contrivance of the Verse argues the contrary, and shews attention of Mind, Skill, and Diligence. These Sibylline Verses, the Initial Let∣ters of which point at our Lord Christ, are men∣tioned not only by Tully, but by* 1.513 Varro, who al∣so lived before our Saviour's time. If then they were extant and famous before Christ's Birth, it is impossible they could be invented by the Christi∣ans. Whence it is plain, that all the Writings of the Sibylls were not obtruded by Christians, unless you will say there were any such before Christ. Again, Virgil's Fourth Eclogue is not denied to be the same now that it was at first; and yet there he Comments on the Cumaean Sibyll's Oracle, which is a clear Prediction of Christ. Accordingly, in Constantine's Oration,† 1.514 part of this Poem is appli∣ed to Christ, and look'd on as a Prophesie of him, although the Poet makes use of it in a way of Pa∣negyrick to the Emperor Augustus, and to Asinius

Pollio, his good Patron; yea, he ridiculously ap∣plies it to Pollio's Son, who was born that Year. He understands those words borrow'd from the Sibylls Oracle [Iam redit & Virgo] concerning Astraea; but the sense was much higher▪ there be∣ing a reference in those words to the Sign menti∣oned by the Evangelical Prophet, A Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, Isai. 7. 14. Of that gol∣den Age which was to come, he saith,—Incipi∣ent magni procedere menses. What Magnitude is in Bodies, that Diuturnity or Length is in Time; and so here is intimated the duration of Christ's Reign, Whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and shall stand for ever, Dan. 2. 44. 7. 27. Or those Days and Months shall be Great, because they are the Lord's, to whom whatever appertaineth is Great; whence every thing that is in its kind the greatest is called God's. Several other things in that Eclogue are transcribed out of that Sibyll's Verses, and were meant of Christ's Coming, and the happy state of the World which should accompany it, which are frequently spoken of in the Old-Testament, whence the Sibyll borrow'd these Prophesies. No Man can have the face to say that These, made use of here by the Roman Poet, were obtruded on the World by Christians, seeing Christianity it self had its rise afterwards.

I might go on still and shew that the Sibylls Oracles (or some of them at least) were mention∣ed by Authors before our Saviour's time, as by Plato in his Phaedrus; by* 1.515 Aristotle, who particu∣larly names the Cuman Sibyll; by† 1.516 Chrysippus, who

makes mention of her of Delphos, by* 1.517 Diodorus the Sicilian Historian, and† 1.518 Pausanias, who speak of the same. Dionysius Halicarnass. takes notice of an∣other, and Eratosthenes hath written of the Samian Sibyll; and Euripides quotes her of Lybia. Thus we are assured from the Testimony of these Wri∣ters, who lived before Christ's Nativity, that there were such Persons among the Heathens, noted for their Enthusiastick and Prophetick Genius, as they suppos'd. Now, what Man, in his Wits, dares say that the Christians forg'd the Verses of these Sibylls, when there were no Chrstians at that time?

2. Let it be considered how signally it was or∣dered by God's Providence that some of these Books of the Sibylls should be evidenced to be true and genuine. Be••ore Christ's Coming the Verses of these Poetick Women were enquir'd into by the Gentiles; they were searched and compared with other Copies, and the Spurious ones were reject∣ed, and the rest kept and safely laid up, so that the Christians might alledge them (as they did) with∣out suspition of Imposture. These Books were first offer'd to Tarquin King of the Romans at that time, who bought some of them and deposited them in the Capitol, and appointed Officers on purpose to take care of them, as is related by se∣veral credible§ 1.519 Writers. In that place the Books continued till the Capitol was burnt, which was about fourscore Years before Christ's Birth. And after it was rebuilt, Messengers were dispatched by the Senate into Asia and Greece to search for these Sibylls Verses, and accordingly a thousand of

were brought and laid up in the new Capitol. O∣thers afterwards that were carefully collected were placed in golden Boxes in the Temple of Apollo; and when ever there was any great Affair on foot these Oracles were consulted, as appears from se∣veral good Historians. Both* 1.520 Tacitus and† 1.521 Sue∣tonius testifie, that when these Writings had been sought out and fetch'd to Rome, they were by Au∣gustus's command diligently examined and review∣ed by the Senate, and by the Quindecemviri, that the true Copies might be known from the False. Wherefore there is not the least colour of Reason to think that these Books which were thus search∣ed into, and examined so strictly, were Counter∣feit; much less is there any possibility that these ancient Writings could be Figments of the Christi∣••ns; for they could not feign them before they were in being.

3. Nor is there any ground to think that the Vo∣lume of the Sibylls Verses, now extant, as to the main, is not the same with that which was before our Saviour's days, or that Heretical Christians cor∣rupted it, and added to it. For first, if they did so, why is it not shew'd what Heresie, what ••alse Do∣ctrin they upheld, and maintain'd by these Additi∣ons and Supplements of theirs? I see nothing of this made out by our Adversaries. Again, If these Writings had been the forgeries of Christians, the Heathens would have certainly, at one time or other, laid open this Cheat, and let the World know there were no such Verses. But none of them ever pretended to do any thing of this nature; wherefore no Man of consistent. Thoughts can

imagine that these Writings were the meer Inven∣tion of some Christians. Nay, I could add from good Authors, that not only Heathens, but Iews, made frequent use of these Celebrated Books, and several of them were brought to embrace the Chri∣stian Faith by reading the Contents of them; and truly when they saw many things fulfill'd which are here spoken of and fore told, it could not but induce them to think well of Christianity. Whence it is plain, that they had no suspition of these Writings; they had no such apprehension as some since have formed▪ viz. that they were a Cheat, and that some Christians were the Authors of it. And then, as for using of Pious Frauds to vouch Christianity, there is as little ground for that; for seeing they had such a Cloud of Witnesses of all sorts to attest the Truth of the Christian Religion, it was altogether superfluous and unnecessary to counterfeit any. Or, if we should suppose any such thing, and grant that some ill-minded Chri∣stians inserted some things of their own into the Sibylls Writings, yet it doth not follow thence that all is Spurious and Counterfeit. I know some condemn all, and others allow every thing that goes under the name of the Sibylls Oracles But I know no cause for either, but the usual one, namely, that Writers must run directly counter to one an other. This is their practise generally, but it is no good one, and I have no Inclination to follow it. I take an other way, the middle one. I do not think that all the Verses that bear their names are theirs, and genuine; and I am far from thinking that all are Counterfeit. What if we grant that some things in the Collection of the Sibylls W••itings (as in many others) are alt••ed and super-added? Can we conclude from thence

that every thing in them is changed and corrup∣ted? No surely. There were Counterfeit Gospels written, but these do not prejudice the others which are True: So there are many Pieces go under the names of the Fathers, which are Spurious, but we do not reject the rest of their Works because of them. Thus perhaps it may be here; some Christians might add a few things, they might in∣sert some Verses that mention those individual Acts, and particular Works of our Saviour, with some Circumstances which are no where menti∣oned in the Prophesies of the Old Testament. This perhaps they might do; I cannot wholly deny it, but this is no Argument that the main of these Books was not composed before Christ's time, and is Genuine and Authentick. Nay, we are certain that the date of them was long before: I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated that; Therefore let us not condemn the whole for the sake of a small part. We are certain that many things quoted out of them by the Fathers, and which are the clearest Attestations of the Sacred Truths of the Bible, are not Supposititious and Forged. We are certain that some of their Writings were extant before there were any Christians to corrupt and adulterate them; and many of the particular Passages quoted by the Fathers in these Writings are now to be found, and are the very same that they were then, and consequently they are now as good a Testimony of the Truth of Christiani∣ty, as they were at that time.

But it is also Objected, that the Number of the Si∣bylline Books is unknown, and we can neither tell how many the Sibylls or their Writings were; and as for their Quality and Condition of Life, these are uncertainly delivered. Nor do we well know

their Names, as appears from this, that Cumaea in Virgil is put for Cumana, and other Mistakes there are. It is true, the Opinions were various con∣cerning these things; their Names and Verses are often confounded, and it is hard to distinguish them from one another. This is granted, and even by* 1.522 those who have with great Eagerness maintain'd the Credit and Authority of the Sibylls; they acknowledge that it is much controverted, What and how many these Prophetick Persons were, and in what Times they lived, and in what Countries they we••e bred Some say there was only One; they think it was with th•• Sibylls as with th•• Iupiters and Hercules's, and other Gods, who were many, and yet but One.† 1.523 Boisardus is per∣swad••d, that the same Sibyll travelled into divers Countries, and took her Name from the diffe∣rent places she le••t her Verses in. And so a lat•• Author‡ 1.524 tells us there was but one Sibyll. There were two of these Pro∣phetesses, saith Martianus Capella; three, saith§ 1.525 Pliny; four, saith Aelian; seven, saith‖ 1.526 Sal∣masi••s. Lactamius out of Varro, (that great Ro∣man Antiquary) concludes them to be Ten, and names them thus, The Delphick, (who was the Eld••st) the Erythraean, the Samian, the Cumane, the Cumaean the Hellespontiack or Trojan, the Les∣bick or Iabyck, the ••hrygian, the Tiburtine, the Per∣sian or Chaldaean.a 1.527 Others add two more, viz. Epiro••i••k and Egyptian, and make them a compleat Douzen. Thus the Reckoning is not alike; but

this is no Argument against what we have assert∣ed. It is not material how many the Sibylls or their Writings were; it is frivolous to insist upon this. They might all of them been put into one, if Authors pleas'd; or they might divide them in∣to more, as the way at some Coffee Houses now is to deal out Pamphlets. Wherefore there is no reason to reject them on this account, seeing we have proved that their Books (were they more, or fewer) are owned as to the main by the Fa∣thers and Primitive Christians to be true, and see∣ing they were frequently made use of by them as sufficient Witnesses to the Truth of a great part of the Christian Religion.

And as for those Moderns, who have rejected these Witnesses, we may, with reference to them, take up that Lamentation of a late* 1.528 Learned Wri∣ter, (who himself is partly guilty of the Fault he complains of) Verily the Christian Religion hath no Enemies more set against it than Christians themselves; for you may observe, that there is searcely any Prophecy or Testimony to be found concerning Christ among the Ancients, which many even of the most Learned Men have not endeavoured to weaken, yea utterly to destroy and annull. This is a very deplorable Thing, but it were easie to prove it most true in several In∣stances: You will meet with some of them in the following part of this Discourse, and more parti∣cularly in the Testimony concerning Christ which Iosephus gives. But this which is now before us, is as Signal a one as any that can be named; for the Sibylls Verses are very express Attestations con∣ce••ning our Saviour and his Great Undertakings.

Yet how strangely do Christian Men endeavor to enfeeble, yea, to baffle and subvert these Testi∣monials concerning our Lord? They tell us they are the Forgeries of Iews, and the Impostures of Heretical Christians, and all manner of Objections they invent against them; yea, a late* 1.529 Writer pronounces these Sibylls to be mad and frentick People, and so there is no heed to be given to what they say. When it hath pleased God to af∣ford us such a remarkable Confirmation of our Religion from the Mouths of Pagans, is it not un∣pardonable Ingratitude thus to vilisie and reject it? Is it not an Argument of a vile and perverse Spirit to use all means, and those very shameful ones too, to disprove that plain Evidence which these Sibylls bring, and to shut their Ears to that repeat∣ed Testimony which they give to Christianity and the Blessed Author of it? In short, the Pagans had their Temples, and Priests, and Sacrifices, and Oblations, and Prayers; and they had also their Scriptures, i. e. the Sibylls Books. In these was dis∣covered the Council of God; for the Sibylls, accord∣ing to the import of their Name, were Interpreters of God's will to the Heathens. In these were ex∣presly fore-told the Birth of the Holy Jesus, and many other remarkable things relating to Him: By these Oracles the Gentiles were pre-admonish∣ed of Christ's Coming; it seemed good to God to prepare them for the Gospel, by these Fore∣runners and Messengers, as he did the Iews by their extraordinary Prophets. And they are use∣full to Us as well as to the Gentiles; we may be fortified in the Belief of our holy Religion by what

they delivered. They give a plain and clear suf∣frage for Christianity and the Founder of it. The ancient Christians thought their Writings to be Authentick Records, though now some are plea∣sed to slight and vilifie them. They look'd upon them as good Evidences of the Christian Faith, and of the New-Testament which containeth it; and there is still the same Reason that we should esteem them as such, especially since the Objecti∣ons to prove the falsity of these Books are very mean and weak. Therefore (to conclude) till they can produce better Reasons against these Te∣stimonials, I think we may safely and reasonably make use of them.

CHAP. XI.

It is proved from particular unquestionable Te∣stimonies of professed Enemies of Christ, that there was a Person of such a Name, and that all the great and eminent Circumstances of his Birth, Life, and Death, are really true. As to his Birth, they attest the particular time of it, the general Tax or Enrolling, the won∣derful Star, the Murthering of the Infants of Bethlehem. Then, as to his Life and Actions, Abgarus's Letter to our Saviour, and our Saviour's Answer to it, are proved to be an Authentick Evidence. What the Emperor Augustus did in relation to Christ, is consider••d. The Defection of the Sun's Light, and the Earth-quake at our Savi∣our's Passion, are not wholly pass'd over in silence by Heathen Writers.

HAving thus premised those Particulars which are of a middle kind, between the former part of the Discourse and this; I will now wholly insist on such things as are more Appropriated to the Sub∣ject I am Treating of. This then, I will prove from Witness••s who are professed Enemies of Christ, (i. e. Pagans and Iews,) that there was a Pe••son of such a Name, and that all the great and ••minent Circumstances of this Persons Birth Life, and Death are really true. First, The Pagan Hi∣storians p••esent us with his Name. Tacitus, telling how the Christians suffered for the firing of Rome,

which Nero laid to their Charge, saith, the Empe∣ror inflicted the most exquisite Punishments on those Pe••sons,* 1.530 who being detestable for their Villanies, were commonly called Christians, from the Author of that Name Christ. Here this Hi∣storian expresly sets down the Name that these Persons were known by, and His Name, f••om whom they took it. This was Christ; though, as we lea••n from† 1.531 Lactantius, this Name was sometimes a little altered, for by changing of a Letter they pronounc'd it Chrest. Thus we read in‖ 1.532 Suetonius, that Claudius banished the Iews from Rome, because they were always raising Tumults by the Instigation of one Chrestus. The§ 1.533 Learn∣ed Usher indeed is of Opinion, that here is not meant Christ our Lord, but some other whose true and right name was Chrestus. But (with Honor first paid to that great and justly admired Anti∣quary) it is more likely that Christ our Saviour is here meant, because Lactantius (as you have heard) tells us he was called Chrestus, and because it is clear froma 1.534 Tertullian, that the Christians were called Chrestiani; and sob 1.535 Iustin Martyr informs us that the Christians were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: yea, he seems to say that the Gentiles did not give them a wrong Name when they call'd them so,

for they were truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very Good-natur'd, Sweet, and Benign Persons. But questionless it was a mistake in the Pagans, and the Historian above-mentioned was guilty of it. Some think he mistook not only our Lord's Name, but the time of this Fact which he mentions, imagining that Christ lived in the Reign of Claudius; but this was too gross an ove•• sight for so knowing an Historian, especially he, living so near our Saviour's Time. But to understand this Author a••ight, we must know, that it was common with the Pagan Writers to confound the Names of the Iews and the Chri∣stians, and to say that of one which appertain'd to the other; (nor is it a Wonder that Christians for a time were called Iews, because the first Chri∣stians were of the Iewish Nation) Accordingly by the Iews here (who he saith were expell'd out of Rome) are meant Christians, who were lookt upon by the Gentiles as Seditious and Tumultuous Per∣sons, because their Master and Founder was rec∣koned such a one. And so when this Writer saith they raised Tumults impulsore Chresto, the meaning is, they were set on by His Example; He, though dead, had a great Influence upon them, and stir∣red them up to do what they did. Or, if you will understand Iews here in the strictest Sense, viz. such as profess Iudaism, then it may refer to Theudas's Insurrection, who, though he was an Egyptian, as some gather from Acts 21. 38. yet he headed the Mutinous Iews; which gave just occa∣sion to the Emperor to banish all of that Nation and Religion from Rome. And because (as I have said) the name of Iews and Christians was pro∣miscuous among the Gentiles, thence Chrestus, i. e. Christ is said to be their Ringleader and Impulsor. Pliny the Younger mentions the Christians and

Christ by name, for* 1.536 he tells the Emperor that some that were brought before him upon Suspition of being Christians, were found to be Persons of another Perswasion, for upon his Sollicitation they refused not to Curse Christ. This was the Appellation he was known by to the Gentile Histo∣rians, and this is the very Title which the New-Testament so often giveth him. Thus far then the Pagans bear witness to the Gospel.

But from the Name I pass to the Person and his Actions, and most of the great and notable Cir∣cumstances which accompanied his Birth, Life and Death. First, we will speak of those four remark∣able things which attended his Birth. namely the Particular Time of it, the General Tax, the Wonderful Star, and the Murdering of the Infants of Bethlehem.

First, Those known Adversaries of Christianity, the Iews and Gentiles, testifie that Christ was to come at that very Time when he came. It was the universally receiv'd Tradition of Elias, that after four Thousand Years the Messias should be born; for though that Celebrated Saying or Prophecy in the Talmud of Two thousand Years before the Law, and two Thousand after it, be not exactly true, for there were about Two Thousand five Hundred Years from the Creation to the Law, and from the giving of the Law to Christ there were not above Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years, yet the Prophecy may be made use of to convince the Iews, that the Messias is come, and it is a plain Indication of the Time when he was expected by them, even that Time when he bles∣••ed the World with his Presence on Earth. Hence

it is that (when Christ was brought to Ierusalem to be offered in the Temple) as soon as Simeon be∣held him, he forthwith acknowledged him, and cried, out Mine Eyes have seen thy Salvation. This is that Simeon to whom the Iewish Doctors had reference, when they said, The Disciples of Hillel shall not fail till the Messias cometh; for this Simeon called the Iust, was one of the chief of those Disciples. * 1.537 Rabbi Hakiba, the Wisest of all the Talmudical Doctors, interprets those words of Haggai,† 1.538 The Desire of all Nations shall come, of the Messias; and it is confessed by all the Learned Iews, that he was ardently desired and expected, not only by that People, but by all Nations, just at that time when our Saviour came; for this was the Great Lord of the World, who was then lookt for by the Gentiles out of the East; this was that Universal Monarch, who was expected to rise out of Iury, of whom I spoke before. This was no other than the Messias, the Christ, whom all the World longed for at that time by a gene••al Consent; and that was the ful∣ness of Time, spoken of by the Apostle, that blessed Time when the Son of God was born of a Wo∣man. So that the holy Records of the Gospel, and those of Pagans agree in this.

Another Ci••cumstance of Christ's Birth, which the New Testament takes notice of, is the Tax that was made by the appointment of the Emperor Augustus; and this also is recorded by the Gentile Writers, which is a Confirmation of the Truth of the Evangelical History. It came to pass in those days, (saith§ 1.539 St. Luke) that there went out a De∣cree from Caesar Augustus, that all the World should

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Taxed, or Enrolled, as the Greek Word properly denoteth. This was no Mony-Tax, but only a setting down or Enrolling of every Person accord∣ing to his Quality, Age, and Station in the Place where he was. It was a taking in Wri∣ting the Names of every individual Man, it was a numbring the People, and Registring the true va∣lue of their Estates, Incomes and Revenues, and way of getting their Livelihood. A late* 1.540 Writer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Opinion that the design of this Census was to know the number of Soldiers, and what ••ighting Men Iudaea afforded; whence it is, saith he, that Prophane Writers say not any thing of it, it being not considerable. But he forgot that the Virgin Mary went to Bethlehem with her Babe to be En∣rolled there. Or rather he did not forget this (for he makes mention of it afterwards) but he considered not that Women and Children are not ••sually listed for Soldiers. It is more agreeable ••hen to Reason and Truth to assert that this De∣cree of Augustus was for the purpose afore-menti∣••ned, namely, that he might have a particular ••ccount of the Number and Quality of all his ••ubjects. The Emperor had Precedents among the old Roman Kings for this, for Plutarch tells us, ••hat Numa Pompilius, and Florus relates how S••rvi∣••s Tullius took an Account of the Age, Family, Patrimony and Offices of the R••mans, digesting them into particular Classes, and setting them down in the Censual Tables. Augustus, by such a Census as this, knew the Strength of his Empire, and what the Riches of the People werein the seve∣ral Provinces, and so when there should be occasion

for a Subsidy he could take his measures hence. For tho this Tax, which St. Luke mentions, be not a Pecuniary one, yet it was in order to it. This Registring, this Enrolling of every Person was to this purpose, that they might more easily be taxed or sessed by the Head. And whereas it is said all the World was Taxed or Enrolled, it is to be re∣strained (though not to Iudaea only, as some imagine, yet) to the Roman Empire. All that were under the Dominion of the Roman Empire, at that time, were book'd and registred to the pur∣pose aforesaid. This being a thing so well known we may expect that the Pagan History, as well as that of the Gospel should take notice of it; and accordingly we find Dio, Iosephus, and Tacitus, making mention of it.

I know some are unwilling to grant that it is the same Tax mentioned by St. Luke, because it is said, this Taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, Chap. 2. v. 2. Now it is Re∣corded by Iosephus and others, that Quintilius Va∣rus (not Cyrenius) was President of Syria at that time of Christ's Birth, and the same Authors relate that Augustus taxed the Empire in that President's time. How then can they speak of the same Taxing which St. Luke Records? And More∣over, as for Cyrenius, he was, according to* 1.541 Iose∣phus, commissioned by the Emperor to make a Tax, not about the time of Christ's Birth, but a good while after. Whence it follows, that Augu∣stus's Taxing of the World, or ordering Cyrenius to manage it, which is mention'd by the Evangelist, is different from that Tax which the foresaid Wri∣ters

speak of. Some answer the first Difficulty thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cyrenius for Quintillius Varus, by the neglect and fault of the Transcriber. This is the Opinion of Steuberus in his Preface before Helvicus's Tables, and also of Ludovicus Capellus. But this is an ill way of solving the Difficulty, because it disparageth the Holy Text, and argueth it to be corrupted. If we ad∣mit of th••se over-sights and mistakes of the Tran∣scribers, we must impeach the S. Scriptures of Er∣ror. Therefore the true Answer is this, That Quintilius Varus was the ordinary President of Sy∣ria, he was the Governor Residentiary, but Cyre∣••ius (or Quirinus, or Quirinius, as he is call'd by * 1.542 Tacitus and† 1.543 Suetonius) was the Governor Ex∣traordinary, that is, he was sent thither by Augu••stus to make a general Tax there. Not that he ••as the settled Ruler of that Province, but was on∣••y appointed, at that time, to take care of that bu∣••••ness; and afterwards (upon Varus's Death) he ••as made President in ordinary of Syria. This, I conceive, is the true reconciling of this Passage of St. Luke, with what you read in Prophane Authors. It is rightly said, that Cyrenius was Governor of Sy∣ria, because he went with extraordinary Power from the Emperor to govern and preside in that particular Affair. This amounts in a manner to what Drusius and Petavius say in this Case. viz. That Varus and Cyrenius were join'd in the Work; or one began it, and the other carried it on and ••••nished it. And then, as to what is said concern∣ing the disagreeing of St. Luke, and the Iewish Hi∣storians, about the time of Cyrenius's Taxing, which

the former saith was in the Year when Christ was born, but the latter nine Years after Herod's Death; in the Reign of Archelaus; I conceive this differ∣rence betwixt them is easily adjusted. Which is done not by Distinguishing between the Taxes; as* 1.544 some tell us long Stories of a two-fold Tax, one under Augustus, without any Exaction of Tri∣bute, the other, under the same Emperor, but with gathering of it; in the first, Christ was born, but the other was a considerable time after. St. Luke speaks of one, say they, and Iosephus of the other, and so they are different Taxes, and thus there is an end of the Controversie. I do not deny, that there were two Taxes under Augustus, for† 1.545 Dion, as well as§ 1.546 Iosephus, affirms this; nay, Suetonius‡ 1.547 l••ts us know that this Emperor caused a Census of the Roman Empire to be made thrice. That he did it more than once, is implied, in that the Evangelist calls this Taxing under Cyrenius the First; (for I do not attend to‖ 1.548 those who think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or that the Prepo∣sition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is omitted by an Elipsis, so that it should be thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before he was President or Governor; and then the meaning is, that this Tax was before Cyrenius was President, which is a plain perverting of the Grammar and Sense of the words, and therefore not to be regarded. It is called the first, because it was the first that was un∣der

Cyrenius. That is plain; but this is that which I assert moreover, that they are not different Taxes which are spoken of by St. Luke, and the Iewish Historian, but they are the same; only the Inspi∣red Writer relates it barely, but the other with some additional Circumstances. They may seem to differ, because one is called an Enrolling, and the other is represented as a Mony-Tax; but if you consider, that one was in order to the other, that the taking Mens Names was but a preparative to the actual levying of Tribute, you will soon ap∣prehend the Mistake in the fore-mention'd Histo∣rian, and see that he speaks of the very same thing. Nay, though he represents it in part, as a pecu∣niary Census, yet you will find it call'd by him * 1.549 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the same word which the Evangelist useth. Or, if they seem to differ, as to time, yet they may be the same notwithstanding that; for it hath been observed by† 1.550 Baronius, and several Learned Criticks, that Iosephus is often faulty as to the Timing of things, and so he is here, and by that means confounds one thing with another; but to a considerate Enquirer, it is evident, that he and St. Luke do not disagree, but that the Relati∣on which this latter gives us is confirmed by the former. Eusebius was clearly of this Opinion, and was not affraid to assert, that§ 1.551 the Taxing which Iosephus speaks of, is the same that St. Luke writes of. Nor are we to attend to a‖ 1.552 Learned Doctor of the Sorbon, when he charges this upon him as a mistake and falshood, unless he had back'd his charge with good reason.

As for Tacitus's Testimony, that is denied by none, but it is granted, that he speaks of the first Tax, under which Christ was born. He gives this short Description of the Books of Taxes, which were made at that time,* 1.553 The Publick Revenues (saith he) were contained in them, the number of the Citizens and their Fellows that were in Arms, how many Ships, Kingdoms and Provinces there were within the compass of the Roman Empire, was exactly set down, and consequently what Taxes and Impositions there should be, what was needful to be laid out, and what to be contributed in the several parts of the Em∣pire: And all this Augustus writ over with his own hand. Thus the Roman and Iewish History ac∣cords with the Sacred one in this matter; it con∣firms the Relation of St. Luke concerning Christ's being born under the first Census. Wherefore it is falsly said, that Augustus's Taxing all the World, i. e. all the People of the Roman Empire is not men∣tioned by any Historians, either Pagan or Iewish. It is true, this is matter that seems more proper for the Diaries of the Emperors, than for the An∣n••ls of History; which may be the reason why it is not taken notice of by many, nor insisted upon by them. But we see it is not forgotten by some, but particularly recorded by them, as is evident from what hath been propounded. The same may be farther evidenc'd from the Censual Tables at Rome, wherein all Persons that were subject to the Roman Empire were enroll'd according to Au∣gustus's Decree. By reason of this universal Regi∣string

of Persons, it came to pass, (through the wonderful Providence of God) that the Holy Iesus's Name, with the Time of his Birth, and the Place of it, and his Stock and Lineage, were Re∣corded in these Publick Rolls, as some of the An∣cientest Fathers openly declar'd, and appealed to these Records at Rome for the proof of it. Tertul∣lian testifieth, that this Tax under Cyrenius was set down in these Tables, and* 1.554 as a most faithful Witness of Christ's Birth was kept in the Roman Archieves in his time. Iustin Martyr doth the same in his publick Defence of Christianity to An∣toninus Pius and the Roman Senate: There is a Town, saith he, call'd Bethlehem in the Land of Judaea, five and thirty Furlongs off of Jerusalem, where Christ was born, as you may learn out of the Censual Tables made for that Tax which was under Cyrenius your first Procurator in Judaea. So he, both† 1.555 Cyril and ‖ 1.556 Orosius take particular notice of this, namely, that our Blessed Lord and Saviour was registred as a Subject of Caesar, and as a Citizen of Rome. Moreover, that Women and Children, as well as Men, used to be Enroll'd in the Census, is testifi∣ed by Dyonisius Halicarn. (Lib. 1.) speaking of that which was in Servius Tullius's time. And Ci∣cero (de Legib. lib. 3.) acquaints us that this was usual. To conclude then, this Taxing was a thing known and open, and the Heathens themselves (as Celsus, Porphyry, and Iulian) did not deny it. Thus the Publick Records of Rome vouch the Hi∣story

of the Gospel. Therefore the Fathers ap∣peal'd with great Confidence to these Authentick Tables, as knowing that these were a notable Con∣firmation of the Sacred Records, and particularly of what St. Luke delivers concerning the Tax which Augustus made.

The Third remarkable Circumstance of Christ's Birth was the appearing of a wonderful Star, Mat. 2. 2. 7. 9. which is also taken notice of by Heathen Writers. There are great Disputes among the Learned about this Star, which appear'd to the Magi when our Saviour was born. Some have said it was an Angel, some a fixed Star, others a Planet, and it hath been thought by some to be a Comet, or some lower Meteor. The true decision of the quarrel is this, That this strange Apparition was none of these, and yet it had something of all these in it. It is probable some glorious Angel presided, as an Intelligence, in this shining Body, and directed its Course and Motion. It might pass for a fixed Star or a Planet in respect of its heighth, if you consider at what distance it was seen.* 1.557 We have seen his Star in the East, said the Wise Men, i. e. they being in the East (in Chaldea, Persia, or Arabia, for 'tis question'd from which of th••se they came) saw his Star at Beth••ehem or Ierusalem. Or if this Interprotation be not ad∣mitt••d, but that the meaning be thought to be this, that they saw that Star, it being then in the East, in those parts where they were, in those Ea∣stern Countries where they lived, and that they came along by the conduct of it to Iudea, then this a••gues its orderly Motion from East to West, and so shews its res••mblance to the ordinary

Stars. It had also something of a Comet in this, that* 1.558 it came and stood over where the young Child was, that is, as I conceive, it directly darted its Beams in a Line, as it were, upon that very place where the Holy Babe was; its glorious Train which came from it spread it self towards that quarter, and so this heavenly Light shew'd where the House was that was bless'd with such a Guest. In this respect also it had the nature of a Meteor, that it was partly in the lower Region, and there hover'd for a time. But if we strictly consider the nature of this Apparition, we shall find, that it really was none of these which I have named. It was not an Angel, (although guided by one) whatever some fanciful Men have imagined, for this is not the way of the Holy Spirit's speaking here, as you may see in this very Chapter, where that particular sort of Messenger is called in plain terms an Angel of the Lord, v. 13. and so again, v. 19. It could be neither fixed Star nor Planet, be∣cause both its Motion and Appearance were in∣terrupted. They saw it when they were in the East, but it disappear'd afterwards, or moved an other way when they came to Ierusalem, other∣wise they would not have asked (as they did) † 1.559 Where is he that is born King of the Jews? It is evi∣dent hence, that it did not shew 'em where Christ was when they came at first to Ierusalem; but afterwards it appear'd again, and not only so, but conducted them to the place where the Blessed Babe lay. It was no Comet, for the length of its duration proves this, it being seen two Years be∣fore Christ's Birth.‖ 1.560 Herod sent forth and slew all the Children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the

Coasts thereof, from two years old and under, accord∣ing to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise Men, that is, according to the time the Star had appeared, of which he was particularly in∣formed by the Wise Men. H••nce a* 1.561 Learned Man infe••s, that these Eastern Sages came not to visit Christ till two years after he was born. But this doth not follow thence, for the Star might ap∣pear a Year or two before Christ was born, and give those Sages an Intimation of some strange thing that was to come to pass; and 'tis likely that after it had appeared a good while, and they were throughly confirmed in their Perswasion, that some great thing was to happen, as signified by this new and unexpected Luminary in the Hea∣vens, they set forwards towards Iudea, which they knew was the Scene of the greatest Wonders in the World, and they were a long time on their Journy from those remote parts which they left, (perhaps sometimes making a halt, or sometimes going back, accordingly as their Apprehensions and Surmises were concerning this new Phoena∣menon in the Heavens,) two Years or thereabout might be spent from the time of the first appear∣ing of this heavenly Light till their arrival at Ie∣rusalem. From this we gather that it was of great Continuance, such as is never known to be the duration of Comets.

Some think this new Star appear'd only to the Magi, because (say they) otherwise Herod would not have so diligently enquired of them concerning its appearing, for he might have learnt that of his own Subjects. But to understand this aright, let us observe the words,† 1.562 Herod, when he had privily

call'd the wise Men, enquired of them diligently what time the Star appeared, i. e. either first what was the time of its usual Rising, for it did not appear al∣ways, night and day: Or secondly, Perhaps the Inhabitants of Ierusalem, and other Iews, did not observe it, it being no great and large one; but these Magi, who were skill'd in the Stars, and took notice when a new one shew'd it self, knew the time of its rising; therefore Herod enquired of them. Or thirdly, He enquired what was the time when the Star began first to appear. And that This is the true meaning, is evident from what is said in the Sixteenth Verse of this Chapter, viz. That Herod slew the Children from two Years old and under, according to the time which he had enquired. Where you see these two are joined together, and answer to one another, the Age of the Children, and the time since the appearing of the Star. Herod had been told by the Wise Men that this had appear'd about Two Years; therefore he ordered all Chil∣dren born within that time to be slain. Hence it is plain, that the time of the Stars first shewing it self, which was in those Regions where the Wise Men inhabited, was the thing which Herod made enquiry about, and in which he could not be sa∣tisfied by his own Subjects. But it doth not fol∣low from this that the Star was not seen by them at all, nor by Herod himself, because his enquiry was not about the present appearing of it, but only concerning the time of its first Appearance. Besides, if it was seen of none but the Magi, then it could not be expected it should be taken notice of in the Writings of ••••her Pagans; but we find that it is taken notice of, which is the chief thing I am concern'd in at present. The Sibylls in their Ver∣ses prophetically speak of it, or rather (as I have

shewed before) borrow it from the Old-Testament, wherein is* 1.563 Baalam's Prophecy concerning the Star, which though it is chiefly meant of Christ himself, yet it may not exclude this unusual Star which usher'd him into the World. But Virgil, who Transcribes the Sibylls Verse, applies it in Court-flattery to the Emperor Augustus.

† 1.564 Ecce Dionoei processit Caesaris astrum.

After its Appearance it is mentioned by Chalcidius a Platonist in his Comment on Plato's Timaeus, where speaking of the wondrous Presages of Stars mentioned in Writers, he saith,‖ 1.565 There is another more Holy and Venerable History, which tells us of the appearing of a certain Star, which did not denounce Diseases and Death, but the descent of a God to converse with Mankind, which when the Chaldean Sages saw they took it to be the fore-runner of a Deity, and they forthwith sought him out and worshipped him. This Star is mentioned by* 1.566 Pliny, under the name of a Comet, (So all extraordinary Stars were call'd) which appear'd in the latter end of Augustus's Reign; and he adds, that that one Comet is adored and reverenced all the World over. But hear what he saith farther in the same place, speaking of the several Species of Comets,† 1.567 There is a bright Comet hath appear'd, which by reason of its Silver looks, was so refulgent, that it could scarcely be look'd upon; it had the shape of a Man, and at the same time shew'd in it the Effigies of a God. He might mean the Star which

appear'd at Christ's Nativity, and which brought the Wise Men to visit him; for there might be (it is probable) a Rumour abroad in Pliny's days, that in Augustus's Reign a Comet appeared in Iu∣dea, which had the Image of him whom the Chri∣stians call'd God Man. However, they are very strange words which this Writer utters, and de∣serve your Consideration. Macrobius, an Enemy of Christianity, speaks of the coming of the Magi from the East to Ierusalem; and Iulian the Apo∣state confesseth the appearing of a new Star, though he trifleth about solving the manner of its appearing. This Testimony of our Adversaries is sufficient.

Again, Herod's murdering the Babes of Bethle∣hem, is mention'd by Prophane Writers, as well as by the holy Evangelist, Mat. 2. 16 Dion in the Life of Octavian Caesar hath left a brief Memorial of it. But you will find it recounted more parti∣cularly by Macrobius, who not only tells us of He∣rod's killing the Children of Bethlehem, but of slay∣ing his own Son. It seems this bloody Man had put to death two of his Sons (Alexander and Ari∣stobulus) before, and now his Son Antipater also is dispatched about the time of the slaughter of the Infants, and upon the same account and jealousie, to secure the Sovereignty of Iudea to his other Sons (who were born after he was King) for whom he designed it. He adds, that the Tidings of both (that is, Herod's killing the Infants of Bethlehem, and his own Son together with them) being brought to the Emperor Augustus, his witty re∣mark or reply was this* 1.568 It is better to be Herod's

Hog than Son, (because Herod being as to his Reli∣gion a Iew, would not have kill'd his Hog.) Or; if it be granted, (and I shall not be very unwilling to do so) that Augustus could not hear of this, be∣cause Antipater was no Child, but grown up in years, and was not at Bethlehem when the slaughter of the Children was, but* 1.569 was slain five days be∣fore his Father's death, (which yet was not long after this) Admit this, I say, yet all that can be said is, that Macrobius represents not the Story aright as to all its Circumstances, especially the Time; but notwithstanding this, he gives Testimony to the main thing (which is, that we are to attend at present) viz. the slaughter of the Children by the Command of Herod, especially of such who were born† 1.570 within the space of two Years, which is the thing St. Matthew expresly records. Tertullian appeals to the Censual Tables and publick Acts at Rome for the Truth of this, which shews it was a thing well known to those Pagans. Nor were the Iews backward to assert this, as you will see in‖ 1.571 Philo, who relateth that Herod's Son was killed with the Children. If it be objected here that the famous Iewish Historian saith nothing of this Mas∣sacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem, I answer, 1. Nor is there any mention of it in the other three Evangelists. This is no uncommon thing for one Evangelist to record that which none of the others so much as make mention of. 2. Many things in the Old-Testament, and those of great Fame, are omitted by this Author, who designedly took up∣on him to give an Account of all the great Oc∣currences among the Iews. He hath nothing of

the History of Iob, nothing of the Golden Calf, and other matters worthy of our Observation; where∣fore let us not wonder that this Historical Passage in the New-Testament concerning the Infants of Bethlehem is not mentioned by him. 3. It is suf∣ficient, that this Murther of the Infants is testified by one of his own Nation, and by Heathen Men, as you have heard. It is probable that other Gen∣tile Historians had delivered the same; for it had been recorded some where, as appears from Macro∣bius, who received it from those Authors.

Secondly, after Christ's Birth we are to consider his Life, and some notable things which accompa∣nied it, and to shew that these also are attested by those that were professed Enemies of Christianity. That there was such a one as Iesus who lived in Iudea in Tiberius's time, and did great and won∣derful things, and was followed by many of the Iews, and was acknowledged by them to be the Messias, and sent from God, and was famous for those Wonders and supernatural Effects which he wrought in the sight of the People, is not disown∣ed by the greatest Adversaries of the Christian Religion. Hierocles freely confesseth it, as you may read in Eusebius. Celsus, Iulian and Porphyry, deny not the Miracles done by Christ and the A∣postles, as several of the* 1.572 ancient Fathers assure us; they confess the matter of Fact, that he cured the Blind and Lame, &c. but they ascribe it to Ma∣gick. In short, they give assent and testimony to the chief Passages of the Evangelical History con∣cerning our Saviour, (though they cavil at others, and strive to consute them) They frankly acknow∣ledge

that there was such a Person as Iesus of Na∣zareth in the Reign of Tiberius, who declared him∣self to be the Messias, and sent from Heaven to Redeem and Save Mankind, and who Preached those Doctrins which are recorded in the Gospels, and acted those marvellous things which are set down there. This Testimony of the Pagans is ir∣refragable and undeniable. And such is that of the Iewish Writers, who frequently make mention of Christ, and acknowledge there was such a Per∣son, and that he lived at that time in which we say he did, and that his doings were no less than miraculous, and exceeding the power of Nature. This the Iews, who then, or not long after lived, report concerning Him, as you may see in the * 1.573 Talmuds. To this purpose Buxtorf in his Tal∣mudick Lexicon may be consulted, and our Learn∣ed Lightfoot in his Harmony and Horae Hebraicae, where he hath abundant Proofs concerning the matters of Fact mentioned in the Evangelical Wri∣tings, even out of Talmudick Authors. This is an other Confirmation of the History of Christ the True Messias.

Besides this, I will mention some things which happened among the Pagans at that time when Christ was on Earth, as an Assurance to us that there was such a Man, and that he did such and such things. Thus I might produce† 1.574 Publius Len∣tulus, the Roman Proconsul his Letter from Ieru∣salem to the Senate of Rome, describing our Savi∣our as to the Colour, Shape, and Proportion of his Body. I do not know any reason why we should

doubt of the Credit of this Testimony, unless it be his, that it is not taken notice of by any very an∣cient Writer. The Chronicles of Edessa I might ••ext mention, which tell us of Abgarus's or Ag∣••rus's Letter to Christ, and Christ's Answer to ••im.* 1.575 Eusebius, who sets both down, acquaints is that he transcribed them out of the publick Tables and Records of the City of Edessa, and that the Originals were extant at that time when he wrote his Ecclesiastical History. There is some probability of this from what the Evangelist saith, that† 1.576 Christs Fame went throughout all Syria, and so Abgarus, who was a King in that Country, and whose Residence was in Edessa, might come to a knowledge of our Saviour, and be de••irous to hold a Communication with him by Writing. And what though the Evangelists are wholly si∣lent about it? This is not to be wondred at, for they omitted abundance of Passages belonging to our Saviour's Life, as appears from Iohn 20. 30. 21. 15. As for the Author of the foresaid Relation, his Authority is unquestionable in this matter, for he is universally acknowledg'd to be an honest and faithful Historian; and here he declares to the World that he saw the Originals of these Epi∣stles in Syriack at Edessa, and translated them thence into Greek. It is indeed the peculiar Excellency of this Historian, that he produces the ancient Monuments for what he delivers. This makes him a Writer worthy to be credited: For what can be more desired than the citing of the Authors and unquestionable Witnesses from whence he had his Relations, and the inserting of Extracts faith∣fully taken out of them, as is usual with those that

write Annals? Observe it, he took these Epistles out of the Syriack, in which they were writ; and that is the reason why other Authors and Writers before him speak nothing of them, they being ig∣norant of the Tongue; but he having Skill in it, found out this choice Piece of Antiquity. After∣wards these Letters are mentioned and appeal'd to by Darius Comes in an* 1.577 Epistle of his to St. Au∣gustine. And† 1.578 Ephrem, who was a Syrian himself, and was well skill'd in the Syriack Writings, yea, and was a Deacon of that very Edessa where these Epistles were kept, makes mention of them parti∣cularly, and asserts the Authority of them. There∣fore those excellent Men,‖ 1.579 Casaubon and* 1.580 Montague, are strongly enclined to embrace them as true and genuine. A late worthy and industrious Wri∣ter, † 1.581 looking upon them as such, reckons our Sa∣viour and this Abgarus among the Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters of the First Age; and‖ 1.582 farther professeth, that upon a diligent enquiry into these Letters he can∣not discern any flaw or falshood in them, he can∣not find any appearance of Fraud and Imposture; he sees nothing unworthy of our Blessed Lord in the stile or contexture of that Epistle which is at∣tributed to him. Yea, next to the Bible he thinks these are the most remarkable and venerable piece of Antiquity that respects Christianity. As to those Objections which are started against the Au∣thority of these Epistles by a* 1.583 Learned Divine of the Sorbon, it must be said that they are unworthy of him, for they are very frivolous and ground∣less, and he might have used the same Arguments

••gainst many parts of the Evangelical History, and the passages that occur there.

But suppose, after all, that these Epistles were not really written by Christ and by Abgarus, yet (notwithstanding this) they are no mean Testi∣mony for us. If we should only grant that Eusebius ••ound them among the Records of Edessa, this is ••ery considerable. Though, I think, there is good Evidence of the Truth of these Writings, yet I am not mightily concern'd whether these Writings were real or feigned, that is, whether Abgarus did send such a Letter to Christ, and whether our Sa∣••••our return'd an Answer to it. This is sufficient, that Eusebius, who translated them out of Syriack ••nto Greek, was wel•• satisfied that there were such Records at that time in Edessa. Whether they were Spurious, or not, is not so material; for, whe∣ther they were such or not, they give a Testimo∣ny of the Person whom we speak of, they certifie ••s of this Truth that such a one really was at that time when these Records bear date. For suppose the People of Edessa forged them, as being ambiti∣ous to retain the Memory of their Prince▪ and to celebrate it by this particular Memorial inserted into their Records, yet this makes not a little for our purpose; for though we should grant the Letters to be Supposititious, (as some Learned Men have concluded them to be) yet the Regi∣string of such may be true; though they ••eigned these in a poletick Remembrance of one whose Name they intended to transmit to Posterity, yet the Recording of them is thus far an Attestation given to Christ, that hereby his Person and Worth were acknowledg'd by these Edessens so long ago▪ But I pass this by.

I could relate here what was done by Pagans in Testimony of their acknowledging and approving of Christ. Thus the Emperor Augustus refused the Title of Lord, saith* 1.584 Dio; and it is not improba∣ble that he did it on our Saviour's Account.† 1.585 Some indeed tell us that it was upon another oc∣casion, viz. when at a Play Dominus aequus & bo∣nus was pronounced, and thereupon the People, as if the words were said of Augustus, with great signs of Joy shewed their Approbation of them, the Emperor labour'd by signs to stifle their Flat∣tery, and the day after put forth an Edict, forbid∣ding any to call him Lord. Such a thing as this might happen, and yet the first and truest Mo∣tive to his refusing that Title might be with refe∣rence to our Lord Christ, who was born not long before. The reason to believe it is this, that this Emperor was much changed after Christ's Birth, and after the Fame of him was spread abroad, he became a great favourer of the Iews and their Religion, as Philo the Iew acquaints us in the Account which he gives of his Embassy to Caius in behalf of his Country-men of Alexandria. He there relateth several particular kindnesses which he shew'd to the Iewish Nation; and all grant that Philo is a very credible Author in this case. And though‖ 1.586 Suetonius gives an Instance of his Aversion to the Iews and to Ierusalem it self, yet it is likely this was before the other, and so it in∣hanseth the Emperor's after-Esteem and Favour for that Nation and People. If you thus consider that he was now much altered, it is not hard to believe that his putting out the foresaid Edict was

done in honour to Christ: He would not be called Lord after our Saviour was come into the World, who was Lord of Lords and King of Kings. And this may appear to be the more probable if that be true which is farther related of Augustus, that about the close of his Reign he inquired at Apollo's Oracle, who was to adminster the Affairs of the Empire after him, and received this Answer,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

A Hebrew Babe, a God himself, and King Of blessed Subjects bids me quit this place, And trudge again to Hell; wherefore, great Sir, From these our Altars silently be gone.

Whereupon the Emperor left off Sacrificing, and returning to Rome, built in the Capitol an Altar with this Inscription, Ara Primogeniti Dei. But because no very ancient Historian reports this, and* 1.587 those that do are thought to be sometimes fabulous, therefore I offer it not as if I much re∣lied upon it. Nor do I on that other passage in † 1.588 Suidas, viz. that one Theodosius a Iew ascertain'd a Christian whom he discours'd with, that Christ was chosen one of the Priests of the Temple upon the death of another, and that they writ him down (as the Custom was to Register the Names of those that were elected Priests, and to assign also their Parents Names) The Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. The Book wherein this was re∣corded

was kept in the Temple till the Destruction of Ierusalem, and it was well known to the Priests and Rulers of the People. This is a remarkable Testimony, but because it wants evident Autho∣rity, I will not insist on it. That which I have said already may suffice towards the proving what I undertook, that Christ's Life is attested even by Pagan Witnesses

Thirdly, his Death, with some of the most con∣siderable attendants of it, is related by Persons of the same Character. Thus the great Roman Hi∣storian expresly voucheth this Article of our Chri∣Christian Belief,* 1.589 that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, and that in the Reign of Tiberius. Lucian, who was famed for his Taunts and Scoffs at the Christians, calls their Great Master and Founder, † 1.590 The Man that was fastned to a Gibbet and hung up upon it in Palestine. And this is confess'd by Iews as well as Pagans; the particular manner of his Suffering, namely on the Cross, is acknowledg'd by the Talmudick Writers very often; and by the Iews in Contempt and Scorn our Saviour is blas∣phemously call'd Talui, suspensus, He that was hang'd. The Eclipse at Christ's Passion, mentioned by the Evangelists, and that as an‖ 1.591 Universal One, is left upon Record also by Heathens. Dionysius, an Athenian by Birth, before he was converted to the Faith, when he was a Student in Egypt, was an Eye-witness of this miraculous Eclipse, which he

gives an Account of in an* 1.592 Epistle that he wrote, ••ssuring us that it was seen, not only by himself, but by Apollophanes, who was at the same time with him at Heliopolis in Egypt. They were both greatly astonished, concluding some strange thing was happening to the World; but D••onysius† 1.593 said to have cried out in such Language as this, Either the God of Nature suffers, or the Frame of the World is like to be dissolved. This is that Dionysius who is call'd the Ar••opagite, Acts 17. 34. For re∣turning home after his Travels, he was chosen in∣to the Senate of Areopagus, and thence hath that Name, and was converted to the Christian Faith by St. Paul.‖ 1.594 Origen, dealing with Celsus the Phi∣losopher, proves this Eclipse at Christ's Passion out of Phlegon Trallianus, (one of Trajans freed Men) who it seems was a great Chronologer; and* 1.595 Eu∣sebius mentions the same Author, and quotes his words, which are these; In the Fourth Year of the 202 Olympiad, there happened a great Defection of the Sun, such as was never known before. The Day at the Sixth Hour was so turned into dark Night that the Stars appeared in the Heavens. And he adds, There was an Earthquake at the same time in Bithynia, which over-turned several Houses in the City of Nice. Thus that Writer. What could be more Accurate seeing Christ's Passion was in the last Year of the 202 Olympiad, which was the 18th year of Tiberius's Reign? Or, if according to Scaliger, this be not very punctual, (for the Eclipse at our Saviour's Death, he saith; was in the beginning of the 203 d. Olympiad) yet it is granted that a Years difference here is of no great moment, especially when the

time is so circumstantiated and fixed by what fol∣lows, for the Hour of the Day assign'd by Phlegon, plainly shews that he relates the same thing which St. Mark doth, who expresly affirms the Eclipse to have happened at the Sixth Hour, Mark 15. 32. Besides the Earthquake, the Companion of the E∣clipse, is said by this Phlegon to have been at the same time, which agrees with St. Matthew c. 27. v. 51. all which proves that this Pagan Writer re∣fers to the very same Eclipse mention'd by the Evangelists.* 1.596 Eusebius ••citeth the same Testimony, and also adds the like suffrage of an other Gentile Writer, who (though not named by him) is † 1.597 Thallus, as Grotius proves from Iulius Africanus, who citeth this Author for this very purpose, and sets down his words; and the same Testimony you will find mentioned by Origen. Moreover, Tertullian appeals to the Roman Archives about this portentous Eclipse, and tells the Pagans that they had this recorded in those Authentick Tables, yea, that at the very moment when it happened it was inserted into those publick Records. Lucian the Martyr appeal'd to the same publick Acts of the Romans, as‖ 1.598 Eusebius repors; he bids them con∣sult their own Annals, and lets them know that those would certifie them of the Truth of that Eclipse. Shall I add to all these what Adrianus Gressonius in his History of China saith, that those People have registred it in their Annals, that at that very time, about the Month of April, an ex∣traordinary and irregular Eclipse of the Sun hap∣pened, at which strange and unusual thing Quam-vutius, the Emperor of China, was exceedingly

troubled. Thus this Prodigy which was taken notice of at Christ's Suffering on the Cross is attested by Pagans, which is some accession to this Truth related by the Evangelists. And it is the more considerable, because we are certain that That Eclipse was not natural, being in the Oppo∣sition of the Moon, i. e. when the Moon was Full; for it was the day before the Passover, which fell on the* 1.599 Fourteenth Day of the first Month, call'd Nisan, (which answers to our March,) when the Moon was Full, and opposite to the Sun. Now, it is known to be against the Rules of A∣strology that the Sun should be eclipsed when the Moon is at the Full; whence we must conclude this Eclipse to have been Miraculous, and alto∣gether against the course of Nature, and that it could be the Hand of God only, to testifie Christ's Divinity. Lastly, We cannot but think that this wonderful Eclipse was seen and observed by the Enemies of Christianity, and acknowledg'd by them to be a real Prodigy when we consider that the Evangelists expose this Relation to those pro∣fessed Enemies of the Christian Religion, who if such a thing had not happened could have pre∣sently confuted the Reporters of it. Can it enter into our Thoughts, that these Writers were so foolish as to imagine they could impose upon the Faith of Men in such a matter as this, which was publickly to be seen, and which every one might take notice of? This is an unreasonable and groundless Surmise.

In the next place the Earthquake at Christ's Pas∣sion (which as you have heard, was attested by Phlegon) is now more distinctly to be considered.

That Author indeed saith that it was in Bithynia, but it might be in other Countries likewise. He did not intend to relate how far it reach'd, but what he knew, and in what place it was most observ'd, he sets down. And this being join'd with the Relation of the Eclipse, is an Argument, (as hath been hinted before) that it refers to the Earthquake at Christ's Passion, which not only shook the Land of Iudea, but other remote Countries, as the Lesser Asia, wherein this Bithy∣nia was. For as the Eclipse was Universal, so was the Earthquake, it is probable, and the whole Earth felt the shock of it, though to some Places only it proved destructive, as to this in Asia parti∣cularly. With which concurs that of* 1.600 Pliny, who tells us of an extraordinary Earthquake in Tibe∣rius's Reign, which over-turn'd Twelve Cities in Asia, to help and relieve which the Emperor re∣mitted their Tribute, say† 1.601 Suetonius and‖ 1.602 Dion. Concerning that Earthquake at our Saviour's Pas∣sion, Eusebius quotes the Testimony of Thallus mention'd before; and the same is alledged as an Authentick Witness by* 1.603 Tertullian and† 1.604 Origen.

Some Learned Men are pleased to relate here, as appertaining to Christ's Passion, the Story they meet with in‖ 1.605 Plutarch, and quoted out of him by* 1.606 Eusebius, of the Death of Great Pan lamented by the Daemons. This falling out in the Reign of Tiberius, and about the time (as some conceive) when our Saviour Suffer'd, is applied by them to Him and his Death, and they think it is to be reckoned among the Pagan Testimonies. But I am

not so well satisfied as to that, but rather think it may more pertinently be made use of to shew how our Saviour dispossessed the Devils, and si∣lenc'd the Pagan Oracles, which were given by them. Accordingly we find that Plutarch, from whom we have this Story, brings it in upon occasion of the Oracles ceasing, and he gives this as an Instance of it; The Daemons, saith he, that assisted at those Oracles are departed, a Proof whereof we have in this Pan.

Lastly, Of the rending the Veil of the Temple, mention'd by* 1.607 Three of the Evangelists, the † 1.608 Iewish Historian expresly testifieth, and he is as good a Witness as we can desire in this Af∣fair.

CHAP. XII.

After particular Testimonies, now more ge∣neral ones are produced, as that of Pontius Pilate in his Letters to Tiberius. The respect which this Emperor and others bore to Christ. Josephus's famous Testimony concerning him, as also concerning others mention'd in the New-Testament. At∣testations of Pagans concerning St. Paul, St. Peter, and the Truth of some Passages in the Acts. All Christ's Predictions about the Destruction of Jerusalem con∣firmed by Heathens and Jews. What Pliny and Trajan relate of the Christi∣ans. Mahomet bears Witness to Christ.

THus you have particular Testimonies as to those Three great Things, our Saviour's Birth, Life, and Death. Now, in the next place, I have general Testimonies to produce. There are some Pagan and Iewish Witnesses that confirm all these, yea, and more than what hath been hitherto te∣stified, namely Christ's Resurrection. As other Governors and Deputies of Provinces used to send an Account to the Emperors and Senate of the most remarkable Things that happened in their Provinces, so Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Iudea, did the like, and his Relation is the more valu∣able, because it is the Testimony of a Person who Condemn'd our Saviour to death. His Let∣ter, or Letters rather (there being two of them)

to the Emperor Tiberius soon after Christ's Death, give an Account of his Life, Miracles, Crucifixi∣on, and rising to life again. And as Publick Acts were wont to be transmitted and reserved in the Imperial Archives, so these were kept there, whence the Christian Fathers had them. Hegesippus (an ancient Champion of the Christi∣an Cause) made use of them against the Pagans, as we are informed from* 1.609 Eusebius.† 1.610 Iustin Martyr tells the Roman Emperors, that as for the Death and Sufferings of Christ they were to be seen in the Acts of, or under Pontius Pilate, and refers them to those as satisfactory and undeni∣able. Tertullian with great boldness alledgeth the same Records as a sufficient Confirmation of the History of Christ in his Apology, c. 5. & 21. Where∣upon ‖ 1.611 one of the Learned'st Men of our Age concludes that this ancient Father found this among the Acts of the Roman Senate, where all things of this nature were set down. It is not to be questioned, saith he, that Pontius Pilate sent this Account to Tiberius; if we consider that this was the constant practise of all the Governors and Deputies of Provinces to transmit the Relation of every remarkable Occurrence to the Emperors by whom they were placed in those Stations for this purpose, viz. to inform them concerning the Affairs of those particular Places. Now, the Crucifying of our Saviour, and his Rising again, were certainly very considerable and remarkable Passages, and therefore 'tis not to be doubted, that Pilate, as Procurator of Iudea, sent the Em∣peror

a Relation of them. On which account this Judicious Writer asserts the Authority of these Letters; and there are other Arguments which he useth to enforce the Truth of them, which are worth the consulting. Thus it plainly appears from the fore-mention'd Fathers, that there were such Letters from Pilate to Tiberius, and that there was such an Account of our Saviour extant at that time; otherwise they would not have made their Appeals to them in their Apologies, otherwise they would not have call'd upon the Emperors to consult their own Records which testified of Christ and his Actions. Wherefore I look upon* 1.612 Du Pin's Judgment as flat here, who saith, That though this Relation cannot be absolutely charged with falshood, yet it is to be reckoned as doubt∣ful. † 1.613 Tertullian adds, (and from him Eusebius) that Tiberius would have put Christ into the num∣ber of the Gods, upon Pilate's Writing such strange things to him concerning Him; he refer'd the Matter to the Senate, desiring them to rank Him among those that were Worship'd and Deified, but the Senate refused it, because they themselves did not first order and approve of it, for it was an old Roman Law, that no God should be set up by the Emperor unless first approved of by the Senate; for this reason only they rejected Christ from being admitted among the Gods. However, the Emperor still retain'd the same Reverence and Esteem of Christ, as a most Divine Person, and

in Honour to him favoured the Christians, and by* 1.614 Edict ordered that none should accuse and disturb them meerly for their Religion, and the name of Christians, annexing a severe Penalty on such as dared to transgress this Edict. Nay, Ter∣tullian and other Fathers assure us, that he had so great a Reverence for Christ, that he intended to erect a Temple to him. This was from that In∣formation which Pilate sent him concerning our Saviour. I might mention the Kindnesses which other Emperors had for Christ, as no con∣temptible Testimony to that purpose which I de∣sign this Discourse for.† 1.615 Lampridius reports that Alexander Severus Worshipped our Lord, and had his Picture in great Veneration, and that he had thoughts of erecting a Temple to him, and taking him into the number of the Gods. Which Adrian likewise, he saith, intended to have done, but was hindred from it by being told that all would turn Christians, and the Temples Consecrated to the other Gods would be forsaken. These are ample Attestations of Pagans concerning Christ, and (which is greater) they are their Approba∣tions of him.

Next, I produce the Testimony of a Famous Iew, whom I have so often made mention of, who forty or fifty Years after some of the Evan∣gelical Writings, gave an account of the Iews Af∣fairs, and of Christ, and of many things relating to Him. Among other Passages he hath this memo∣rable one;* 1.616 At this time, saith he, there was one

Jesus, a Wise Man, if I may call him a Man, for he did most wonderful Works, and was a Teacher of th••se who received the Truth with delight. He brought ma∣ny to his Perswasion, both of the Jews and Gentiles. This was Christ, who though he was by the Instigati∣on of some of the Chief of our Nation, and by Pilate's Doom hung on the Cross, yet those who loved him at first did not cease to do so, for he came to Life again the third day, and appeared to them, the Divine Prophets having fore-told these and infinite other Wonders of him; and to this day remains that sort of Men, who have from Him the name of Christians. Both Eusebius and St. Ierom alledge this Famous Testimony of Io∣sephus concerning Christ, as an undeniable Con∣firmation of the Christian Religion. And the latter of these Writers places this Iew among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Church, because he speaks of our Saviour with this great respect. A* 1.617 late Writer hath a great many idle foolish Cavils a∣gainst this so notable a Memorial of Iosephus con∣cerning our blessed Lord. He thinks it strange that Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, and Clemens Alexan∣drinus writing against the Iews make no use of this Testimony, especially that the first of these in his Dialogue with Trypho (where his design is to con∣vert that Iew to Christianity) omits it wholly. But to him that considers things aright this will not seem strange; for if he looks into these Fa∣thers, he will find, that their grand enterprize and design were to convince the Iews out of the Old-Testament, which they profess'd they heartily believed and imbraced; and therefore those learn∣ed and pious Writers fixed here, and were not so∣licitous to go any farther. What need was there

of flying to human Authors when this divine and inspired Volume furnished them with abundant Arguments and Proofs against Iudaism? It would have been unnecessary and superfluous to alledge the Testimony of this Person, though never so cre∣dible, when they had so many infallible Authors to vouch them and the Religion which they had espoused. Again, this late Critick tells us that this Testimony is against Iosephus's mind, he be∣ing a Iewish Priest, a legal Sacrificer, and most tenacious of the Iewish Religion. He was of the Sect of the Pharisees, and one of the Princes of the Mosaick Church, therefore it is unlikely that he would leave any such thing upon record in his Writings. Those that know Iosephus's Sect and Life cannot believe, saith he, that these words were his. Yes, they very well may, for he doth not absolutely assert our Saviour to be the true Messias, but only that he was the Person who was called Christ, and that excellent Worth, and even Divinity appeared in him; and he farther bears witness that this excellent Person, who was of old prophesied of, was not treated according to his transcendent merits, but was barbarously put to death by his Country-men, and yet that in a mi∣raculous manner he was revived, and thereby gave an undeniable proof of his Innocency and Inte∣grity. All this, though it be a most remarkable Attestation of our Saviour, yet might have been said (as really it was) by a Iewish Sacrificer, by a strict Pharisee, by a tenacious asserter of the Mo∣saick Riligion. The whole Testimony is but the result of an unprejudiced and honest Mind, such as this Historian was Master of. And if it be true what this Criticizer mentions, and attempts to prove out of Origen, that Iosephus had before this

writ against Christ, the Testimony thereby be∣comes the more remarkable, because it is a great argument of the irresistible power of the Truth, and that there was a wonderful change wrought in this Person. And truly this Objector himself mentions that which may induce us to believe it; for we read, saith he, in Iosephus's Book which he writ of his own Life, that he having gone through all the Iewish Sects, was admitted at last into the discipline of Banus, a Disciple of Iohn the Baptist. Thus this Author answers himself, and what he had before objected, namely, that this Historian wrote against his own mind, if these words of his were true. It is not likely that he spoke contra∣ry to his Perswasion, if he was entred into the discipline of Iohn Baptist, who had been Christ's fore-runner, for thereby this Author imbibed a good opinion (to say no more) of the Founder of Christianity. What this Critick farther saith, that if this Testimony were Iosephus's, he would have said a great deal more than he doth, is very f••ivolous, and not worth taking notice of. And so is that, that the Stile plainly betrays the Cheat, it being frigid and lax, putid and inert, (as he saith) whereas it is evident to any competent Judge, that the Language is nothing of this nature, but is like the rest of the Historian's Stile. Lastly, we are beholding to him for finding out the Author of the Cheat, who he affirms is Eusebius, as if he had lived before or at the same time with Iosephus, that is, as if one of the Fourth Century was contempo∣rary with him that flourish'd in the First. He pe∣remp••o••ily tells us that* 1.618 Eusebius clapt in this Passage meerly out of design, namely, to gratifie

a party of Christians, and to carry on the Cause. And that we may give credit to this, he falls very severely on this worthy Man, and both ignorantly and maliciously finds fault with him. This is the course that our angry Critick takes; but no sober and judicious Person can allow of it, for it may be plainly discern'd that this Writer was resolv'd up∣on it to run down this Testimony of the Iewish Historian by any kind of artifice whatsoever; but when we come to examine the Methods he takes, they are found to be of no force; what he offers for proof is groundless, precarious and inconsist∣ent. After all that he hath said, this Iewish Testi∣mony, and the Credit of its Author, remain impreg∣nable. What though we have granted that in some things he is faulty (and where is their an Historian that is not?) what though he omits some remarkable Occurrences, and mistakes the order of Time, of which he could not come to a certain knowledge? Notwithstanding this, his Testimony in this matter may be valid, nay, we have all the reason imaginable to believe it is such, for he was capable of attaining to a full know∣ledge of what he here writeth. There is then no ground to think that he imposed upon his Reader, or spoke against his Perswasion, but on the con∣trary it is reasonable to look upon him as one that freely uttered his mind, and shew'd himself to be Ingenuous, Faithful, and Impartial. Such was he esteemed to be by those* 1.619 ancient Writers who had oceasion to make use of his Testimony, and such was his Character with all those Persons who have since used the same in Confirmation of

the History of the Gospel. And truly it is a full and pregnant Ratification of it, an attesting no less than the Life, Death, and Resurrection of our Saviour. This latter especially being attested by a Iewish Priest, is considerable. This Person knew nothing of that Cheat which the Iews labour'd at first to put upon some, and therewith to stifle the truth of Christ's rising from the dead, namely, that* 1.620 his Disciples came by night and stole him away. He tells us plainly and expresly, that Christ was restor'd to Life on the Third Day after he was put Death, which is exactly according to the Narrative in the Gospels. I will conclude then with the words which a Pious Father useth, after he had recited Iosephus's Testimony of Christ, † 1.621 If our very Enemies, saith he, dare not oppose the truth, who will shew himself so obstinate as not to give credit to those things which are as clear as the Sun, yea, much clearer? If Iews and Pagans bear witness to Christ, we Christians are obliged to listen to their Testimony, and to abominate the practise of those who endeavour (and that with no little art and pains) to enervate and destroy it.

Again, Iosephus confirms the Truth of the E∣vangelical History, by relating several other things which are recorded there. Thus‖ 1.622 he speaks of the putting Iohn the Baptist to death, whom he hugely extols, telling us that he was an excellent Man, and stirred up the Jews to piety and vertue, ho∣liness and purity, both of Body and Soul; and that He∣rod caused him to be killed because he feared his Autho∣rity would hurt him, and occasion a defection among

the People. He also relates how this Herod cast off his own Wife, and took Herodias, who was his Brother's Wife. This Author makes honourable mention of* 1.623 St. Iames, whom he calls the Bro∣ther of Iesus Christ, and relates his Martyrdom, and declares that the taking away his Life was so flagitious a Sin, that it was in revenge of that that the Iews were destroy'd, their Temple and City burnt, and all other Evils befel that Nation. He fully agrees with St. Luke in mentioning† 1.624 Herod's Speech to the People, and their impious Flattery, and the immediate Iudgment of God upon this Wicked Man, by whose command that holy Apostle was put to death. It is true, Iosephus saith not that he was eaten up of Worms, but this is included in that he saith he was seized with a sudden pain and disease, and died in great torment of his Bowels, which without doubt, were gnaw'd and devour'd by those Worms St. Luke specifieth. Because this Wri∣ter relates that Herod the Great, the Infant-slayer, ‖ 1.625 was infested and plagued with noisom Vermin in his Body, therefore some say he is guilty of a great mistake here, and speaks that of this Herod which St. suke faith of the other, viz. Herod Agrippa. But I do not see any reason for this imputation of Guilt, because Herod the Great as well as the other Herod, might dye of that filthy disease, though it is not mention'd by St. Matthew or the other Evangelists. Wherefore we have no reason to think this Historian was mistaken, and disagrees with the holy Writers. As to the main you will find him concurring with them, not only in this, but in other matters recorded by them, and con∣sequently

you will find him attesting the verity of the History of the Gospel, and you will con∣clude that he is a very substantial Witness for the Christian Religion.

Having produced these Testimonies concern∣ing St. Iohn and St. Iames, I might add some∣what relating to St. Paul. That Insurrection mention'd in Acts 21. 38. where you read that the Tribune of the People said to St. Paul, Art not thou that Egyptian who before these days didst raise a Tumult, and leadest into the Wilderness four thousand Men? That Insurrection, I say, is the same with that taken notice of by* 1.626 Iosephus more than once, which was begun by an Egyptian, who pretending to be a Prophet, gathered together great numbers of Iews, the attempt and issue of which are recorded by this Historian; and so it is a Confirmation of what St. Luke here records with reference to St. Paul. I will here add also a Pagan Testimony concerning this Apostle, viz. concerning his being caught up to the third Heaven, mention'd by himself in 2 Cor. 12. 2. This is re∣ferr'd to in one of† 1.627 Lucian's Dialogues, where one Triphon professeth himself to be Paul's Disciple, and would make Critias such a one, and convert him to the Christian Faith. Paul is there descri∣bed thus,‖ 1.628 That Bald-pate, that Hawk-nos'd Gali∣lean, who mounts up through the Skies into the third Heaven, and thence fetcheth those goodly Notions which he preacheth to the World. He is called a Ga∣lil••an, because that was the common name of a Christian, and he is said to be Bald, as that holy

Man is‡ 1.629 reported to have been when he was old. His Hawk-nose alludes to his high flight, and mount∣ing up into the Air like a Hawk, when he as∣cended to Heaven. And this ascending into the third Heaven, is a plain Description of him, be∣cause none of the Apostles, or other Christians, ever did so but he. And what is added next, that he learnt there all his fine and goodly Notions, it may refer to what that Apostle saith in the same place, that* 1.630 he heard unspeakable words, which it is not possible for any Man to utter. I could observe, that in the same Dialogue this Author bears testimony to the Faith receiv'd and professed by the Christi∣ans, whilst there he sco••••ingly brings in a Catechu∣men asking this question, By whom would you have me swear to•• you? And then his Instructor answers thus,† 1.631 By that God who reigneth on high, who is Great, Immortal, Celestial, by the Son of the Father, by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, One of three, and Three of one. Thus from this Pagan Scoffer, (who could laugh and speak truth together) we are informed that the Doctrin of the Blessed Tri∣nity (which the New-Testament so expresly de∣clares) was profess'd by the Primitive Christians.

To this I might add the Inscription on the Athe∣nian Altar, taken notice of by St.‖ 1.632 Paul, and which wants not the Testimony of Prophane Writers. This is mentioned by Pausanias in his Atticks, and hinted at by Lucian in his Philopatris. Thucydides saith there were no less than twelve Altars erected in the Market-place in Athens with

this Inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and* 1.633 Philostraius makes mention of the same. Laertius takes notice of the† 1.634 nameless Altars at Athens, and particular∣ly of one erected, To the unknown and strange God.

To proceed, some have produc'd a Letter of Seneca (Nero's Tutor) to St. Paul, with St. Paul's Answer to it. This is mentioned by‖ 1.635 Ierom, who reckons Seneca in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, because of this Epistle to the Apostle; and‡ 1.636 St. Augustin also takes notice of it. But I am not so fond as to take in all sorts of Testimo∣nies, without any distinction; but I rather look upon those Epistles as Spurious, the stile plainly shewing that one of them at least (that to Seneca,) is so. But because this Seneca was a grave and se∣rious Philosopher, and was against the Supersti∣tions of the Romans, and was far better than the Pagans of that time, hence some thought he was a Christian, and was so perswaded to be by St. Paul, and then it was easily believed that they convers∣ed together, and had Correspondence by Letters.

Concerning St. Peter likewise I will only leave this, and submit it to the censure of the Readers; his encountring that Arch-Sorcerer, Simon of Sa∣maria, (who is spoken of in Acts 8.) and his dis∣mounting him by his Prayers from his Chario••, though they are not mention'd in the infallible Records of the New-Testament, yet are registred by Clemens the Roman, Arnobius, and Epiphanius. For it seems, this Magician would needs be flying in the Air, and by such artifices bring credit to his false Doctrins; but St. Peter, by the extraor∣dinary assistance of the Spirit, and the Efficacy

of his ardent Addresses to Heaven, baffled this soaring Magician, and brought him down from his heighths, and laid him prostrate and dead on the Ground. Which very thing, I conceive, is at∣tested by Suetonius, in whose Writings this Simon goes under the fabulous name of Icarus, the famous Flyer among the Poets.* 1.637 This Person, faith he, at his very first attempt fell down near the Emperor's Bed∣Chamber, and besprinkled him with his Blood. The Representation of Icarus in that Play which Nero exposed to the People might be a mistaking of the true Story of Simon Magus, whose downfal hap∣pening at Rome in that Emperor's Reign in the sight of all the People, might well be remarked in his Life by this Historian. But this is pro∣pounded in way of Conjecture only. Thus I have briefly shew'd what some Heathen Witnesses testifie concerning St. Iohn, our Saviour's fore-run∣ner, and concerning those chieif Apostles St. Iames, Paul, and Peter, who are so often spoken of in the New-Testament. Which is a farther Confirmation of what I have undertaken to make good, viz. that the Truth of the holy Writings of the New-Testament is vouched by those who are the greatest Adversaries of them.

I pass to another Historical matter recorded in these Sacred Writings, viz. the Universal Famine, fore-told by Agabus, Acts 11. 28. which if you will credit Pagan Historians, happen'd in accordingly the fourth Year of Claudius's Reign, and was over all the World in the sixth Year.† 1.638 Dion Cassius, who had compiled his History out of the Fasti of Rome, through the several Years, speaks of this Famine

under that Emperor, and mentions his great care of the City, that the Inhabitants might not be starved. So* 1.639 Suetonius commends him for his Diligence and Providence in furnishing the City with Provision.† 1.640 Iosephus also mentions this grievous Famine in Claudius's days, with some par∣ticular Circumstances and Accidents which agree with what is delivered by St. Luke concerning the relief which was sent at that time by the Disciples at Antioch, to the Brethren in Iudea, that being a Place where the Famine exceedingly raged. Thus we find that of Eusebius to be true, who speaking of this dreadful Famine recorded in the Acts, tells us, that‖ 1.641 even those Writers, who were averse from the Christian Religion, have deliver'd the same in their Histories.

The next thing I undertake is to treat of Christ's Predictions concerning the Overthrow of Ierusalem, and some things which were to follow upon it, and to shew that they are expresly confirm'd by Heathens and Iews, In the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew, and the 21st of St. Luke, (which speak of the Destruction of Ierusalem, both City and Temple, and the whole Nation, yea, with some remarkable Consequences of it; though I know these Chapters have been, and may be ap∣plied another way, viz. as a Description of the fore-runners of the end of the World, and the day of Judgment, as I shall shew elsewhere, there being a primary and secondary meaning of this Chapter, as well as of some other places of holy Scripture) there is, I say, first fore-told, That many shall come in Christ's name, saying, I am Christ,

and shall deceive many, v. 5. And again, v. 11 Ma∣ny false Prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many; i. e. they shall pretend to be Messiasses and Deli∣verers of the People, though indeed they are very Impostors. Of the truth of this† 1.642 Iosephus will in∣form you, who relates that there was a vast num∣ber of these Pretenders and Mock-Saviours that drew the People after them, particularly he tells us of a certain Egyptian in Felix's time, and of Theudas when Vadus was Procurator, and of Iu∣das the Gaulanite; which two last, some think, are not the Theudas and Iudas spoken of by Gamaliel, Acts 5. 36, 37. but others are of Opinion that these are the same with them, only that Iosephus mistakes a Gaulanite for a Galilean, and is also mi∣staken in the time, for he saith Iudas was in the the Reign of Archelaus. If so this Impostor can∣not be meant in this 24th of St. Matthew. But I will not stand now to dispute whether there were two Iudasses and two Theudasses, or whether St. Luke's and Iosephus's Iudas and Theudas are the same. It is sufficient for my purpose, that these and other Seducers and Disturbers arose, and stirred up the People to Sedition, and drew many after them in expectation of the Messias's coming, and partly pretended that they them∣selves were He. So it was after the Destruction of Ierusalem, there rose up Ionathas Barchochebas; who being the most famous of those Impostors is taken notice of by* 1.643 Iosephus and others, as a great Ring-leader of the Iews in Adrian's time. He confidently profess'd himself the Messias, applying Baalams Prophecy to himself, Num. 24. 17. A Star shall rise out of Jacob: His name Barchochab,

which signifies the Son of a Star, being not a little serviceable to this Imposture. He prevail'd on a great number of People to adhere to him by his inviting Promises, and perswading them he was to be their Deliverer. Yea, he brought over a great part of the Learned'st Iews to him, not on∣ly in Iudea, but in Greece, and Egypt; but he and his Party being vanquished by the Emperor, the Iews no longer call'd him Barchochab, but chang∣ed his name into Barchozab the Son of a Lye, a false Prophet, a lying Impostor. Divers others in those days took upon them the name of Messias, and said they were to restore the Iewish Nation, and to that end led People after them into the Deserts, for in such places the pretended Prophets and Leaders drew up their forces as the fittest ren∣desvouz for them, as Iosephus faith in several pla∣ces; which gives an Account of our Saviour's words in this Chapter, vers. 26. If they shall say unto you, behold he is in the Wilderness, go not forth to them.

Again, Wars and rumours of Wars are fore-told to be the fore-runners and attendants of that fatal time which should befall Ierusalem, v. 6. Of this we have plentiful mention in the Pagan and Iew∣ish History. Those were properly rumours of War when Caius threatned the Iews, and offered to set up his Image in the Temple, of which Tacitus, Iosephus, and Philo speak, telling us in what Con∣sternation the Iews, both in Alexandria and Iudea were at that time. There were actual Wars when those slaughters were committed on the Iews in Caius's time at Alexandria and Babylon, of which* 1.644 Iosephus makes mention. Likewise, when

* 1.645 upon the cruelty of Cestius Florus the President of Iudea, there was a Rebellion of the Iews against the Romans in the Twelfth Year of Nero's Reign, and an open War followed that Rebellion, which was the first occasion of their final Overthrow by the Roman Armies, who came soon after, and sat down before their City. Or by Wars and Commotions (for so St.† 1.646 Luke words it) are to be understood those Civil Wars and Intestine Broils among the Iews themselves, of which we read in‖ 1.647 Iosephus and other Iewish Records of those Times. There we may be informed concerning the Tumults of the Seditious and the Zealots; the former were those that endeavoured to cast off the Roman Yoke, and in order to that raised Tu∣mults, and foster'd Sedition and Faction, which produced mutual slaughters and bloodshed; the latter were a sort of Men that pretended to be Inspired with an extraordinary Zeal for their Re∣ligion and Country, but shewed no other Effects of it but Rage, Rapine, and inhumane Slaughters. Besides the fury of these Zealots, (these Iewish Rapparees and Assassins) and the Domestick Quarrels and Ravages caused by the Factious, there were also Foreign Assaults and Invasions from their Enemies abroad.‡ 1.648 Iosephus records how the foresaid Cestius first of all approached their Ci∣ty, and drew a Line about it, but the main shock and fatal blow they receiv'd were from Titus's Ar∣mies which laid siege to them, of which you shall hear farther afterwards. The short of what is now to be said is this, that if any Man consults the Iewish and Heathen Writings, which relate what

was done about that time in Iudea by the Zealots▪ and the Factious, and by the Romans, he must say our Saviour's words concerning those days were true, Ye shall hear of Wars, and rumours of Wars; for Nation shall rise against Nation, and Kingdom against Kingdom, v. 6, 7. Not to mention ••hat History tells us that the Roman Empire was strangely allarm'd with Wars about the latter end of Nero's Reign; Kingdoms rose against one another both in the East and West, and Blood and Slaughter be∣gan to be very rampant.

In the same Verse he fore-tells there shall be Fa∣mines, and Pestilences, and Earthquakes; and so it happened. as Iosephus assures us, for he (as hath been said already on another account) mentions the great Famine in Claudius's Reign, (fore-told in the Acts)* 1.649 and another after that in the same Empe∣rors time. But that long Famine, attended with Pesti∣lence, in the time of the Siege of Ierusalem, exceed∣ed all the rest, the dread and horror of which were such, faith† 1.650 Iosephus, as were never known to Greeks or Barbarians. Among other dreadful passages, he relateth how a Noble Woman was forced by extremity of Hunger to eat her own Child that suckt her Breast. And hereby the words which our Saviour afterward speaks in this Chapter were verified,‖ 1.651 Wo to them that are with Child, and to them that give suck in those days, and those in Luke 23. 29. The days are coming in which they shall say, blessed are the Barren, and the Wombs that never bare, and the Paps which never gave suck. As to the Earthquakes which happen'd, they have been recorded by some of the Gentile Writers, and particularly that in Claudius's Reign, as‡ 1.652 Eusebius lets us know.

Those horrible Earthquakes which were felt, and those Thunders (as I may so say) which were heard under Ground by the Inhabitants of Cam∣pania after the Siege of Ierusalem, are accurately described by* 1.653 Dion Cassius, who also informs us that the Mount Vesuvius in that Province began first to burn about that time, to the great Horror of the neighboring People. It follows v 9. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all Nations for my name sake. There is abundant testimony given to this by Ta∣citus, Suetonius, Pliny, and other Prophane Wri∣ters. The† 1.654 former of these relates what exqui∣site Punishments, what severe Torments were in∣flicted on the Christians by Nero for their burning of Rome, though indeed he set it on fire himself. And the other ensuing Persecutions in his Reign, which the Christians underwent, are sufficiently testified by the Enemies of Christianity.

Let us now approach towards Ierusalem's last fatal Siege, the immediate fore-runner of its Over∣throw. When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed wi•••• Armies, then know that the Desolation thereof is nigh, Luke. 21. 20. And more particularly and distinctly this close besieging of Ierusalem is express'd in Luk. 19. 43. The days shall come upon thee, that thine Enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. Which ‖ 1.655 Dion Cassius amply and particularly attesteth, say∣ing, That Titus Vespasian cast a Trench round the City, and so closely kept them in with his Army that none could escape, no not through those Vaults under the City Walls, which were

made for conveying Water into the City; for even those were stopt up by Titus. And from the* 1.656 Iewish Historian (who was personally pre∣sent at the Siege, and knew very well all the Oc∣currences of it) we learn that the Romans made three Trenches about Ierusalem, and built a Wall or Rampire round about it in three days, so that none could pass in or out. The Army which shut them so close up is call'd the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place, v. 15. It is true, Chrysostom understands this of Titus's Statue set up in the Temple; but Iosephus (who is very full in Relations of this matter) saith nothing of it. Others understand it of the mad and abo∣minable pranks of the Zealots, who seiz'd the Temple, and acted strange and unaccountable things. But it is most probable that this Place is meant of the Pagan Idolatrous Roman Army, which stood in the ••uly place, i. e. environed Ie∣rusalem, ca••l'd the holy City, and at last made their way into it. That this is the true meaning, ap∣pears from comparing this Evangelist with an∣other. What St. Matthew here faith, When you see the abomination of Desolation standing in the holy Place, is explain'd by St. Luke thus,† 1.657 When you see Jerusalem incompass'd with Armies, i. e. the abominably Desolating Armies, the Armies consist∣ing of Ethnick Idolaters, who were an Abomina∣tion to the Iews, and who not only threatned but brought Desolation and Destruction on the City and Temple, the Roman Armies, whose Banners or Ensigns were in the shape of Eagles, ‡ 1.658 rapacious devouring Creatures. In allusion per∣haps

to which our Saviour uttered those words, Wheresoever the Carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered together, v. 24. that is, wheresoever the Iews, destin'd to slaughter and death, were to be found, wherever these walking Corpes, (these Carkases) were to be seen, thither the Roman Armies, as God's Executioners should fly, and like preying Eagles fall upon them, and devour them. Most remark∣able is that which Christ farther saith in Luke 19. 44. They shall lay thee even with the Ground, and shall not leave in thee one stone upon another. Which * 1.659 Iosephus will acquaint you was fulfilled by Ti∣tus's demolishing the whole Temple, and Walls (ex∣cepting a small part of these latter, which he ordered should remain: And particularly he commanded three Towers, besides part of the Wall, to be left standing, that Posterity might see by those Relicks what stately and stronge Place the Roman Army had taken, and partly also that these might be a Garison for his Soldiers) and by laying level the whole compass of the City, as well as the Temple, that those who came thither should scarce∣ly believe it was ever inhabited. To accomplish this more effectually he made his Soldiers pluck up the very Foundations of the City and Temple, that is, the uppermost parts of the Foundation which they could conveniently come at, and then tear up the Ground with a Plough: (for as it was a Custom among the Romans to make use of the Plough when they laid the Founda∣tions of a City, so they dug up the Ground in the like manner when they destroy'd it.) The Iews themselves Record this; we find both in the Talmudick Chronicles, and in R. Ma••monides (as Dr.† 1.660 Lightfoot assures us) that Ierusalem was ploughed up after the Destruction of it. At

which time there was a literal accompli••hment of that Prophecy of Mica••, c. 3. v. 12. Sion shall be ploughed as a Field. Afterwards, in Adrian's Reign, the Iews rebelling under the Conduct of Barchoc••ab, as hath been said, the Emperor caused all the remaining footsteps of the City and Tem∣ple to be defaced and demolish'd, and comman∣ded the three Towers, which by Titus's Order were left standing, to be pull'd down, and then strewed the City with Salt. Nay, the very name of the City was extinguished, for Adrian, af∣ter this total Desolation, causing the City to be built anew, (but much more contracted than before) call'd it by his own name, Aelia; and here he set up the Heathen Worship, and in de∣••iance and abhorrence of Iudaism, erected the Image of a Sow over one of the greatest Gates of the City. And after this, when Iulian out of that hatred and malice which he bore to the Christians and their Religion, set the Iews on work to rebuild the Temple at Ierusalem,* 1.661 lo a terrible Earthquake spoilt all, and those Stones of the Foundation which lay unmoved before were now thrown out of their places. Then were those words of Christ in the beginning of this Chapter exactly fulfill'd, There shall not be left here. one Stone upon another that shall not be thrown down, v. 2. Lastly, I will add this, that this direful and tragical end of the holy City was usher'd in with several strange Spectacles and Signs, according to our Saviour's Prediction, not only in this Chapter (v. 29.) but in Mark 13. 24. Luke 21. 25. And even these are parti∣cularly mentioned and described by Iewish and

Pagan Authors. Ierusalem was compassed with Armies in the Sky as well as with those below. Of these strange Sights the chief Roman Historian speaketh, saying,* 1.662 There were Armies seen in the Air encountring one another, that their Weapons were exceeding bright and glistering, and that the Temple seem'd to be all of a Light by the continual flashings of the Clouds. And he proceeds to enumerate other prodigious Accidents which were the pre∣••ages of Ierusalems Destruction. Thus the Twen∣ty-fourth of St. Matthew, and the other parallel Chapter in St. Luke, which treat of the fore∣runners of Ierusalems Destruction, and the De∣struction it self may be particularly made good out of mere Heathen Writers, who knew nothing of Christ's Predictions concerning it. But not only of these, but of all the other strange Appa∣ritions, Voices, and portentous Events† 1.663 Iosephus gives us a particular Account in an intire Chap∣ter on this Subject. There you will find that the Prognosticks of Ierusalems Destruction, the Signs and Tokens in Heaven or Earth, which the Evangelists speak of, are faithfully Recorded by that Jewish Historian.

I have yet another Evidence to exhibit, and that is concerning Christ's Followers and Servants in the Age next after him; whence it will ap∣pear from the Relation given by a professed Heathen what the Christians were. And by a fair and rational Deduction, we may gather what manner of Persons they were at the very first, and consequently that the Evangelical History re∣presents them aright.‖ 1.664 Pliny the younger, Wri∣ting

to Trajan, gives an account of the Religion and Practise of these Persons; for he being Pro∣consul of Bithynia in that Emperors time, and appointed by him to inspect the carriage of the Christians, he was careful to inform himself of that matter, thereby to gratifie his Master who had employ'd him. Accordingly he tells how strangely that Religion increased and gather∣ed strength every day in that Province, and that not only great Cities, but Towns and Vil∣lages were filled with the Professors of it, and in proportion to this, that the Pagan Worship daily decreased. He testifies how resolute and constant they were in their Profession, for he saith he had some Persons before him under Examination, who were accused of being Fol∣lowers of Christ, but he presently found them to be no Christians, because they were so ready upon his Suggestion to adore the Emperors Image, and even to curse Christ himself. Which was a sufficient Evidence to him, he saith, that they were not* 1.665 Christians indeed; for he had been imformed, (he tells the Emperor) that Persons of that Character could not possibly be forced to any thing of that nature, but that they were immoveable and unshaken in their Religion. Lastly, he gives some account from their own Mouths and Confessions of their way of Re∣ligion, and how devoutly they served God, and that they worship'd Christ as such. Then there is also Trajan's Rescript to Pliny concerning the Christians, wherein he expresses it to be his plea∣sure, that these Persons should no longer be un∣der the Inquisition, i. e. they shall not be sought

for to be punished, notwithstanding their sted∣fastness and Pervicaciousness (as Pliny had repre∣sented it) in their Religion; for he was satisfi∣ed of their good moral Qualities, and that they were neither perjur'd Persons, nor Sacrilegious, nor Adulterers, nor Homicides, nor Malefa∣ctors of any sort. This Character and Account which were given at the beginning of the Second Century by the Emperor himself, and by Pliny, who had certain knowledge of the Christians, may create a Perswasion in us that they were at first the same holy and Innocent Persons, and that their Religion wonderfully increased and flourish'd, and that all the Severities which were used towards them, were not able either to sti∣fle them or their Religion, and consequently may assure us that the History of the New-Testa∣ment rightly and truly describes them, and gives a faithful Account of Christianity, and the Au∣thor of it. After this ample Testimony, it would be needless to insist on what* 1.666 Arrianus and† 1.667 Galen, and several other credible Writers have deliver'd concerning the manisold Sufferings of the first Christians; and that invincible Patience, Resolution and Constancy, wherewith they un∣derwent them.

After all that hath been said, I will conclude with the Testimony of that Arch Infidel Ma∣homet, who hath these express words in the Al∣coran, ‖ 1.668 The Spirit of God hath given Testimony to Christ the Son of Mary; a Divine Soul was put into him. He is the Messenger of the Spirit, and the Word of God. His Doctrin is perfect, &c. And

again,‡ 1.669 the Gospel is called the Light and Con∣firmation of the Testament, and the right way to fear God. And moreover,† 1.670 he brings in God speaking and declaring thus, that he had sent Christ, the Son of Mary, and that he had given the Gospel to no other end but that they might obtain by it the love and grace of God, And in other places the Miracles of our Sa∣viour are owned and confess'd to be true. Thus even this Great Impostor, and Enemy to Christianity, bears Witness to the Blessed Ie∣sus; Thus the Alcoran acknowledgeth the Gospel to be Divine and True.

CHAP. XIII.

The Testimonies before-mention'd briefly sum∣med up. An Objection, viz. That some remarkable Passages relating to the History of Christ in the New-Testament, are not so much as mention'd by either Jewish or Gentile Historians, fully answered by con∣sidering that, I. A great part of our Sa∣viour's Life was spent in privacy. 2. No Historians, either Jews or Heathens, take notice of all Occurrences. 3. They wilfully conceal or mis-represent some things out of Design: This shew'd in several Particu∣lars. 4. Pagan Historians, out of mere Contempt, omit many things which the Go∣spel Records. 5. Yea, sometimes out of mere Hatred and Spight. 6. Some Pieces of Pagan History are lost. 7. Some of these that are extant are defective.

THese are the Testimonies of professed Ad∣versaries to Christianity, whereby the Hi∣story of Christ and his Followers is abundantly confirmed. Even those who are averse to the Gospel attest, and sometimes approve of the chief things related in those holy Writings. A∣mong the Iews we have Philo, an excellent Pla∣tonist of Alexandria, who flou••ish'd soon after Christ, and lived in the times of the Apostles, We have Iosephus a Jewish Histor••an, some say

a Priest, who writ about forty Years after, and had great opportunities of acquainting himself with the Christian as well as the Jewish Affairs. We have the Talmudick Doctors and Writers, some of which lived near those Times, and give their suffrage most freely to the matters of Fact re∣corded in the Gospel. Among Pagans we have their Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, Caius Caligula, Trajan, Adrian, Alexander Severus; we have their Deputies and Officers, Lentulus, Pilate, Pliny; we have their noted Historians, Philosophers and Learned Writers, as the aforesaid Pliny, the Proconsul in Asia, in his Epistles; his Uncle of the same name, (who flourish'd in Vespasian's time) in his natural History; Cornelius Tacitus, a famous Roman Orator and Historian, in his Books of History and Annals: Plutarch, a Priest of Apollo Pythius, loved by Trajan, and made Con∣sul by him, in several of his Teatises; Lucian in his Dialogues, (all which four flourish'd in the Emperor Trajan's time,): Suetonius in his Cae∣sars: Dion Cassius in his Roman History, the for∣mer of which lived in Adrian's time, whose Se∣cretary he was, the latter in Alexander Severus's, towards the middle of the Third Century. We have, besides all these, those four sworn Enemies of Christianity, Iulian, Celsus, Porphyrius, Hiero∣cles, whose Writings attest the Truth of many things which the New-Testament speaks of. We have Macrobius (if we may reckon him an Hea∣then Author) in his Saturnalia, and Lampridius in his Lives of the Emperors. We have their Women also, the Sibylls, whose Testimony con∣cerning Christ is not contemptible. Lastly, as we have the joint assent of Iews and Gentiles, so of M••••omet himself, in the Azoara's of his Law,

which give suffrage to the Evangelical Writings. Thus we have all the Witnesses that can be d••∣sired and expected; and we have all the Evidence and Proof that can be had.

These things need not to have been insisted on, or so much as mention'd, if some Ill-mind∣ed Men, who pretend to knowledge in History, had not question'd several Relations in the New∣Testament, because they say they are not to be found in the History either of Pagans or Iews- To obviate the Cavils of these Men, I designed∣ly undertook to shew you the Concurrence of Scripture and Heathen Authors, to discover the Harmony between the History of the Gospel, and the Accounts which are given us in Jewish Sto∣ry. In these you may meet with the most con∣siderable Passages which you read in the Books of the New-Testament, viz. The Tax in Augustus's time, the appearing of the Star. Herod's putting to death the young Children at Bethlehem, the Account of our Saviour's Persons, Life, Actions, &c. all which have been particularly insisted up∣on. I have shew'd you that all these memora∣ble things are related by the Enemies of Christi∣anity, as well as by the Evangelists and Apostles themselves, who had so great love of it.

But here it may be Objected thus, granting that these remarkable Passages related in the New∣Testament, are mentioned in Pagan and Jewish Historians, yet others as remarkable are not. Now, if there were such things, and if they were publickly known, What was the reason they were not recorded by those who made it their busi∣ness to transmit such Occurrences to Posterity? Why do not the Pagan Historians of that Age mention Christ's and the Apostles Miracles, and

all the great and notable things mention'd in the New-Testament? This very thing disparageth the Evangelical Records, and causeth us to suspect that they are fabulous: for if they were not, o∣ther Historians, yea, all the Historians of those Times would make mention of them, as well as the Evangelists do. I will stifle this cavelling Obje∣ction, by offering these following things to your Consideration, which will fully satisfie you, that there is no ground at all for this which they alledge.

I. This is to be considered, that from the time soon after Christ's Nativity, till the Eighth Year of his Age, there could be no History expected concerning him, for he was all that time in Egypt; therefore you have not one word of him, for all that space of time, in the four Evangelists. And if these say nothing of him, there is no rea∣son to expect that other Historians should. When he returned into Iudea, he lived retired from that time till he was Thirty Years old; only it is said that he went to Ierusalem with his Pa∣rents, and disputed in the Temple with the Doctors; and then presently he came home to Nazareth, and there lived obscurely. Here was no matter for History thus far. And afterwards he was but three Years and a half employed in Action, so that 'tis no wonder the Pagan and Jewish Writers could afford to say but little of our Saviou•• and his Doings, there being so great a part of his Life spent in privacy.

2. You must remember this, that there are many considerable Things and Persons, (besides those we have been speaking of) which some chief Historians among the Iews and Heathens take no notice of; therefore you are not to marvel that some of those things before mentioned are

not spoken of by them. That Obscurity of the Sun at Iulius Caesar's death, which lasted a whole Year, is not recorded by any but Ovid, Virgil, and Pliny; yet ten Historians or more in the af∣ter Age wrote Caesar's Life, and gave an Account of his fatal End, and of several things that followed. The like Prodigy Ced••enus reports to have hap∣pened in Iustinian's time; but there were almost twenty considerable Writers from Iustinian's time till Ced••enus that mention no such thing. Or, if these Examples be not Authentick (as truly I cannot say much for them) I will produce those that are so in all Mens Judgments. You may observe, that those Writers who have un∣dertaken to compile all the laudable things and Manners of divers Nations, and have even prais'd the Brachmans and Gymnosophists, and ransack'd the most remote parts of the World, for things excellent and observeable, yet have said no∣thing of the Essenes, who far out-did all of them, and were in the face of the World, most emi∣nent and conspicuous. Neither Strabo, nor Ta∣citus, nor Iustin, nor Aristaeas, who have parti∣cularly spoken of the Iews, say any thing of these. Nay, Iosephus a Iew, and who, in his two Books against Apion hath heaped up all that is Great and Noble of that Nation, hath no∣thing there (though, as you shall hear anon, he hath something in his other Writings) of this famous Sect of Philosophers among them; shall we therefore be quarrelsome, and deny there were Essenes before or in Christ's time? Again, I could observe to you that the Romans are not so much as mentioned either by Hero∣dotus or Thucydides, or any other Greek Writers of that time, though they were in the same

quarter of the World, and growing great and formidable. It is somewhat strange, but is very true, and is taken notice of by Iosephus against Apion, though this Author (as you have heard) was himself desective in the like case. Suetonius writ the Lives of the first twelve Roman Empe∣rors; yet if you compare his Relations with the things set down in others, you will find, that he hath pass'd by many considerable things, he hath omitted sundry matters which were very obvious. Let us apply this to our present pur∣pose: What if none of the Heathen Historians, who have related the Roman Acts, had spoken of that famous Census or Tax in Augustus's time? What though the Eclipse at Christ's Passion had not been taken notice of by Historians? (though both this and the other are recorded) yet it would not have followed thence that there were no such things; for you see 'tis not unusual with Historians to pass by some Persons and Things which are very remarkable, and worth record∣ing. If then, some matters spoken of by the Evangelists be not mentioned in other Histories, we cannot with any Reason thence conclude that the Evangelists recorded that which is false. No such thing can be inferr'd, for even among Pagan Writers there are many peculiar historical Pa••sages mentioned by some of them, which none else speak of. Tacitus and Valerius Maxi∣mus, and others, have Narrations which are not to be found in any others, and yet they are not suspected of falshood. Why then may we not credit those things which the New Testament Records, although no Gent••le Historians say a word of them? Nay, we have observed this before of the Evangelical Historians themselves,

that they do not all Record the same things. Though all of them mention some Passages, yet there are others which are spoken of only by one or two of the Evangelists; and there are some Things or Persons which none of them make mention of, and yet they are as remark∣able as some of those which they have committed to Writing. Thus the Gospels speak of the Phari∣sees and Sadducees, yea, of the Galileans and He∣rodians, and yet say not a word of the Essenes, who were a considerable Sect, as was noted before. We are not to be troubled then that some things occur in the New Testament, which are not to be met with in very approved Authors. No Hi∣story, Sacred or Prophane, relates every thing. The Evangelists themselves pretend not to this, you must not expect all Christ's doings in their Writings, for one of them, who wrote last of all, closeth his Gospel thus,* 1.671 There are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Books that should be written.

3. We are to know this, that both Jewish and Pagan Historians concealed or misrepresent∣ed some things which relate to Christianity, and that willfully and out of design. I begin with the first sort of Historians, and offer this Instance; we read in Philo and Iosephus the Cha∣racter of the Essenes, (whom I mention'd be∣fore) viz. that they were the most Devout Men of all the Jewith Nation, that they were a retired People, and given to Husbandry, that they were famed for their mutual Love to one another, and that (as an effect of this) they

had all things in common, like those Primitive Christians spoken of in the Acts, or like the Co∣lidei or Culdees among the Scots in the first Ages; that though they were the devo••••est Worship∣pers among the Iews, yet they* 1.672 offered no Sa∣crifices, but composed their minds wholly to 2 severe Sanctity, that they were celebrated for their great Austerity of Life, for their Tempe∣rance, Chastity, and Self-denial; that† 1.673 their bare Word was of more force with them than an Oath, and that they avoided all Swearing, counting it far worse than Perjury; that they ‖ 1.674 were generous Despisers of all those things which affright and trouble others, and that they vanquish'd all Torments and Persecutions with For••itude and Steadiness of mind. And as for Death, if it was to be undergone with honour and repute, they judged it ••o be better than Im∣mortality. This is the true, but admirable Cha∣racter of that People, and both these Authors tell us that they were Iews. It is true, there were such People as Iewish Esse••es, and Iosephus neckons them as one of the three Sects of Phi∣losophers among the Iews. But it is probable that this excellent Character, or all of it at least, belongs not to These, but to the Christians of Alexandria at that time. Philo then in his Trea∣tise

of a Comtemplative Life, where he pretends to describe the Essenes, wri••eth in praise of these Iewish Christians, who were under the Tuition and Conduct of St. Mark, Bishop of Alexandria; for this Evangelist Preaching the Gospel in Egypt setled a Church here. This was the O∣pinion of that Learned Father* 1.675 St. Ierom; That Church, saith he, did at that time Judaize, and therefore Philo the Iew thought it to be for the praise of his Nation to describe their excellent Order, Life and Institution. For this Reason this Author is numbred by that Father among the Ecclesiastical Writers, namely because he hath left an Encomium of these Christians, who lived thus religiously under St. Mark the Evangelist. † 1.676 Eusebius is of the same Judgment, and saith what Philo writes of the Essenes is to be under∣stood of those Primitive Christians who were disciplin'd under St. Mark. Epiphanius and Chry∣sos••om were of this Perswasion, and so were some others of the Fathers▪ Baronius holds they were old Christian Monks, and a great number of Protestant Writers agree in this, that they were devout Christians bred up as Disciples under that holy Man. This is the more credible, be∣cause it is said of them that they used no Sa∣crifices; this plainly shews they were no Iews as to their Religion, although Philo and Iose∣phus were willing to represent them as such, in honour of their Nation, they being so much admired for the Piety and In••egrity of their Con∣versations. And the rest of the Character is a plain Description of the Primitive Christians, as they are represented in the History of the Go∣spel,

i. e. as having for a time all things Common, as being Exemplary for their brotherly Love, as Persons of singular Moderation and Self-denial, as those who were bid not to Swear at all, as those who underwent the severest Persecutions with an undaunted Courage and Fortitude, and resisted even unto Blood, and loved not their Lives unto the Death. Now the Jewish Writers for Politick Ends, would not give this Account of them as Christians, but as Iews, that the Credit of it might not redound to Christianity, but to their Own Religion and way of Worship.

Then, for Pagan Historians, they also out of Design omit some things, and insert others that are very false. Thus, as* 1.677 Budaeus hath well ob∣serv'd, Pliny the Natural Historian, could not be ignorant of the Eclipse at Christ's Passion, it being recorded in the Roman Archives, and he being a diligent Searcher in those Acts; but he would not insert that into his Writings which he knew Princes were desirous should be con∣ceal'd; for the Doctrin and Religion of Iesus were to be as little plausible as could be among proud and voluptuous Men, whom the Chri∣stian Religion so much abhors and condemns. To have mention'd that Prodigy, might exalt that Religion too much, and the Eclipse might make it shine the brighter, and be more admi∣red and reverenc'd by the World. For this Rea∣son it is probable the Heathen Writers neglect∣ed to record this so prodigious an Accident, it making for a new Religion contrary to their own. I will give you another notable Instance, which is this, when M. Aurelius Antoninus's Army

was in great streights, and wanted Water, they were suddenly and unexpectly supplied with Rain, but at the same time their Enemies a∣gainst whom they fought were over-whelm'd with Hail and Thunder.* 1.678 Dion,† 1.679 Iulius Capitolinus, ‖ 1.680 Claudian, Lampridius report this thing, but say it was from the Emperor's own Prayers to Iupiter, and from the Inchantments of the Iew∣ish Magicians. But the plain truth is, that the Christian Soldiers by their Prayers procured this extraordinary and unexpected Rain for the re∣lief of their Thirst, and brought down Thun∣der and Storms upon their Enemies. The re∣lating of this would have been too great an Honour to the Christians, and to their Religi∣on, and the Master of it; wherefore the Pagan Historians out of Policy would not ascribe this Wonder to the Prayers of the Christians, but to those of the Emperor, and tell us the very words he used. But they have not wholly con∣cealed the Truth, for (as you have heard) they impute this wonderful Accident partly to the Inchantments of the Iewish Magicians. We know how common a thing it is with the Pagan Wri∣ters to mistake Iews for Christians, and so the Iewish Magicians here are no other than the Christians in that Army, who because they brought to pass such a wonderful and astonishing Thing, are said to be Inchanters and Magicians. These religious pious Christians were employ'd in the Expedition against the Germans and Sarmatians, and when the Army was ready to perish with Thirst, obtained and fetch'd down by their

effectual Prayers great showers of Rain for them∣selves, and destructive Thunder and Lightning on their Enemies Camp, and thereby procured a Victory over them, whence the Emperor got the Names of Germanicus and Sarma••icus. This is alledged and made use of in the Cause of Christianity by Apollinaris, in his Apology to the Emperor, as* 1.681 Eusebius resti••ies. And this is mentioned by Tertullian, as a thing every where known in his Apology to the Senate; and he tells them there that the Emperor's own Letter to them, not long before sent to them out of Ger∣many, acknowledged the same, viz, that God wrought a Miracle for the sake of the Christi∣ans who were in his Army, and he owed the Victory wholly to their pious Addresses to Hea∣ven. This Father would never have said this to the Romans, if there had been any possibili••y of con••uting it; yea, if it had not been a thing certainly known by them. This Story of the Thundering Legion you have also at large in† 1.682 Eu∣sebius, who assures us that this Name was given them for this very reason, because by their ar∣dent Prayers they procured Thunder to fright and disperse their Enemies, and Rain to refresh themselves. And if what some have endeavour'd to prove were true, viz. that this was the name of a Legion in Augustu••'s time, and was named so from the Tunderbolt which it carried in the Shield, yet I do not ••ee any reason to disbelieve this ancient Author; for why may not a Name be given on different accounts? Why may it not be call'd the Thundering Legion, for

this reason which he mentions as well as for that which others Assign? I don't perceive that these are inconsistent. Eusebius goes on, and adds that the Emperor hereupon recall'd his Edicts against the Christians, and by a new Decree appointed a severe Punishment to be in∣flicted on the Accusers of them. The Gentile Historians say nothing of this, and will not let us know that that miraculous Event was by means of the Christians. A Victory gain'd by the Pray∣ers of Christians would sound ill. This would have been too signal a Testimony of the Truth and Prevalency of Christianity, therefore it is suppressed. For the same reason you may rec∣kon Christ's Mriacles are omitted in Pagan Hi∣storians, if you suppose they came to their Ears. It is their cunning to write nothing of these, for hereby they would at the same time com∣mend Christianity, and disparage their own Way. Besides, some of them were affraid to own the miraculous Acts of Christ and his Follow∣ers, for they saw that this sort of Men were persecuted and put to death; so that they da∣red not relate the Wonders they did, lest they should be suspected to favour Christianity, and by that means become liable to Capital Punish∣ment. Or, if they fear'd not this, yet they were affraid to displease the great ones, as I said before. If they knew any thing would be ungrateful and unacceptable to their Masters they pass'd it by. Thus when it was given out by the Sibylline Oracle in the Year before our Saviour was born, that Nature did then bring forth a King to the World, the Roman Senate thereupon ordered that no Child born that Year

should be brought up, as appears in* 1.683 Suetoni∣us. Which was sufficient to give check to the Roman Historians, and so 'tis not to be won∣dred (as the† 1.684 Learned Vossius observes) that the killing of the Children of Bethlehem by Herod's command is not mention'd by any but the E∣vangelists, he might have said, unless by Ma∣crobius; that act of his being somewhat a-kin to the Edict of the Roman Senate.

4. I adjoin this, that the Christian Religion, and the Professors of it, were generally look'd upon by Prophane Writers as very contempti∣ble, so that some of these scorn'd to record those things which had any relation to them. Hence it is that Christ's Miracles, and other things appertaining to Christianity, are not so much as mention'd. They would not vouchsafe to record such mean sorry things, and which in∣deed some of them took for Fables and mere Falsities. On this account likewise it cannot be expected that the Roman History should at any time particularize the Christian Affairs, unless when War and Tumults suppos'd by them to be caused by the Christians invited those Wri∣ters to it. Then the Roman Glory is concern'd to let the Conquest be told, and to have an Account given of the Particulars. But other Things relating to Christianity are deemed low and mean, and are passed over in filence, as not of any Concern and Moment. The Pa∣gan Historians do purposely omit the Acts of the Christians because they think them not worth the reciting.

5. To speak more plainly, Prejudice, Hatred and Malice, may be assign'd also as the Causes why some of the most remarkable Passages in the Evangelical History are not mention'd by Pagan or Jewish Writers. It is no wonder that Valerius Maximus, who hath made a Collection of the memorable Acts and Sayings of other Nations as well as Rome, and dedicated them to Tiberius, yet hath not a word of Jewish Acts, much less hath inserted any Christian ones. His Aversness to the Christian Religion may solve this very well, unless you will say that Chri∣stianity was but just risen at that time when he wrote, and the materials of History concern∣ing it were not yet brought to him. But this cannot be said of Tacitus, who lived in the next Age, and who was a great Hater of the Chri∣stians, and was very* 1.685 severe upon them in his Writings, on which account he cannot be thought to have related things impartially con∣cerning them. Suetonius was† 1.686 bitter against them, and who then can look for any ••air Ac∣count from him? The same may be said of Lucian and Pliny, who though they deliver some Truths (and not inconsiderable ones) concerning the Christians, yet their Aversness to them and their Religion (which by the latter of them is call'd ‖ 1.687 Pervicacia & inflexibilis obstinatio) would not permit them to speak what they knew of them. Plutarch, of all that lived and writ about that time, was the civilest to the Christian Religi∣on;

he no where jeers or slanders it, or makes any Reflections upon it, which made Theod••••••t think he was almost a Christian, and had a favour for their Religion. But the rest (some of whom I have named before) hated the Chri∣stians, yea their very name was odious to them; hence when they speak of Christians or Chri∣stianity they mingle Calumni••s and Lies with what they say. Christians with them pass for fond and superstitious People, nay for flagiti∣ous and profligate, nay sometimes for Diaboli∣cal Impostors and Wizards, and the most exe∣crable sort of Persons under heaven. I might here mention Zosimus, a fierce Pagan, and there∣fore shews it in his History when he speaks of the Christians. Being a great Hater of these Persons he doth upon all occasions speak ill of them, and particularly of Constantine the Great, because he was the first Emperor that threw off Heatheanism, and imbraced Christianity. He tells us that he Murder'd his Empress, his Son, and other near Relations, and that he was smitten with Leprosie for these unnatural and horrid Crimes; in brief, he relates the Particu∣lars of this great Man's Life contrary to all an∣cient Historians that have written concerning him. The ground of which was no other than this, that he had entertain'd a particular Grudge and Prejudi••e against the Emperor, and bore a hatred to Christianity it self; so that what∣ever he wrote concerning them ••avor'd, of ill will and malice. It is not then to be marvell'd at, that such Men mis-represent many Passages which relate to the Professors of Christianity, and fa••si••ie all reports concerning them. They

can by no means speak well of a People that they hate. A Religion that they so abhor can have no Persons Good of it, they think. You must not expect they will relate Truths which they have a dislike of. This is one reason why Pagans are def••ctive in their Historical Narra∣tions; why many things spoken of by the E∣vangelists, are not mention'd by them, or are vilely mis-represented. This is the cause why so few of Christ's Actions, and the Affairs of Christians are taken notice of; and why thos•• that are, are so miserably perverted. Prejudice and Envy, Spl••en and Malice, are the Source of this Miscarriage.

6. I add this, that many pieces of History are lost, as hath been acknowledged and complain'd of by the Learned; whence it is that many Oc∣currences which we meet with in the History of the Gospel are not to be found in the Wri∣tings of the Pagans. We have but a few of these left us in comparison of their number at first; and those that we have are but Relicks of those Hi∣stories before written. Particularly the Stupen∣dous Acts of our Saviour, and the Monuments of the bravest and noblest things done in that Age wherein He was born are now missing. All Dio's History from the Consulships of An∣tistius and Balbus unto the Consulships of Mes∣sala and Cinna, that is, for the space of Ten Years, Five Years before Christ's Birth, and Five after it, is quite lost, and so is Livy's Hi∣story of that time. In vain therefore doth any Man think to find the remarkable Passages re∣ferring to Christ's Birth in these Writers; much more vain is it to look for these things in those

Writers whose Histories are altogether missing at this day. Thus to instance only in the Uni∣versal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which makes the greatest noise with the Objectors, that without doubt was set down by some Roman Historians, but their Wri∣tings either by Negligence, or by Fire, or by the Invasion of the Barbarous Nations into Italy, or by age and length of time are lost. It is clear that some did make mention of it; otherwise whence had* 1.688 Suidas all that which he relates of the Twenty Persons that were sent to make the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? God perhaps would in his Pro∣vidence approve the loss of these, that holy Hi∣story might be partly imbraced by Faith, and not owe its Authority wholly to Human Testi∣mony. But such as is remaining I have pro∣duced, and that is enough to satisfie any sober any confiderate Person.

Lastly, I remark this in the close of all, that there are two of the most celebrated Roman Hi∣storians from whom we can expect nothing that hath Relation to Christ's Birth, or any great Occurrence that happened about that time. For Livy wrote but to Augustus's beginning, which was before Christ, and for that reason no Man can rationally think, that such Nota∣ble Concomitants of our Saviour's Nativity as the General Taxing, and the Appearing of the Star, could be recorded by this Historian. And as for Tacitus (who is the other Celebrated Hi∣storian) there is as little reason to expect any of these notorious Matters in his Writings, be∣cause he goes not back so far as Augustus. His

Annals begin with Tiberius, and continue to the death of Nero: and his Books of History begin where his Annals left off, and go on to the end of Titus Vespasian's Expedition against the Iews, and there have their Period. L. Florus is but an Abbreviator of Livy, and therefore we can look for nothing there. So Velleius Paterculus, though he goes something farther, is an Epitomizer, a Scantling of an Historian. As for Iustin, who flourished in the Emperor Antoninus Pius's time, he was but an Epitomizer of Trogus Pompeius, and goes no farther than he went; there∣fore we cannot expect any thing of him concerning the Christian Affairs. Thus you see what are the boundaries of these Chief Hi∣storians, and what you may look for (or rather not look for) from them, and also you have the Reasons given you why but few things which have reference to the History of the Gospel are found recorded in Pagan Writers. But all that could be rationally look'd for, is recorded, as I have shew'd you, by the best Historians among the Pagans.

These are the several Considerations which I undertook to offer, and I question not but that they will fully satisfie the Scruples and Objections before started, and abundantly clear up this Truth to us, that we have sufficient Testimony from Pagan and Iewish Writers concerning the Gospel-History. This Proposition is evident, that the New-Testament is confirmed by Pro∣phane Writers, that the Evangelical Records are attested by the authority even of those who were without. These have transmitted to us many of those things which are registred by the holy E∣vangelists.

The Memoirs of these things are in Prophane Story, in the Writings of those that opposed the Christian Religion.

Thus I have finish'd what I attempted, that is, I have proved the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures from the suffrage and attestation of Strangers. I have let you see that the Confes∣sion of our Adversaries agrees with that of our best Friends. We appeal to the Iews, and to the Gentile-World; even these bear witness to the Sacred Writings. And their witness cannot be rejected by any reasonable Person, because* 1.689 a Testimony is least to be suspected when it comes from an Enemy, yea, because such a Testimo∣ny is reputed† 1.690 firm and solid, because it is‖ 1.691 worthy to be believed, b••cause‡ 1.692 it is most valid for the Commendation and Establishment of the Truth. This then rend••rs the Books of the Old and New-Testament, worthy of all Accepta∣tion, viz. that they are vouched by Profes••▪d Adversaries. And this is that which I have been urging in this Discourse, viz. that Iews and Pagans testifie the same things which the Inspi∣red Writers deliver. A great part of the me∣morable Passages set down in these Sacred Wri∣tings are left on Record in those others. This is a mighty Confirmation of the Truth of these

holy Books, this is a clear Evidence that they are not forged and supposititious, but that the Matters contain'd in them are real and certain, that they give a just and faithful Account of the things they treat of; in brief, that they are the Word of Truth, and endited by the Spirit of Truth. And thus much in pursuance of the First General Head concerning the Holy Scriptures, viz. the Truth and Authority of them.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alex. in Protrept.
• † 1.2

  Gen. 9. 27.
• * 1.3

  Deut. 28. 49, &c.
• † 1.4

  1 Kings 13. 2.
• * 1.5

  Antiqu. 1. 11. c. 1.
• † 1.6

  Dr. Jackson.
• * 1.7

  Dan. 2.
• † 1.8

  Temporum conscius, & totius Mundi. Po∣lyhistor. Epist. ad Paulin.
• * 1.9

  Ver. 2.
• † 1.10

  Ver. 20.
• ‖ 1.11

  Ver. 5.
• * 1.12

  Ibid.
• * 1.13

  John 21. 18.
• † 1.14

  Ver. 22.
• * 1.15

  Earum rerum quae fo••••uitae putantur praedictio atque prae∣sentio. De Divinat. l. 1.
• * 1.16

  Lib. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.17

  Colloqu. Mensal.
• * 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orig. cont. Cel••. l. 6.
• * 1.19

  Lib. 1.
• † 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Isid. Pelus. Ep. l. 5.
• * 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Just. Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph.
• † 1.22

  Arnob. lib. 1.
• ‖ 1.23

  Sozom. l. 1. c. 11.
• ‖‖ 1.24

  Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 2. 9.
• * 1.25

  Indignum vehementer exis••imo ut verba coelestis oraculi restringam sub regulas Donati. Epist. ad Leandrum.
• † 1.26

  Robert Boyle Esq of the Stile of Scripture.
• * 1.27

  1 Pet. 1. 21.
• † 1.28

  2 Tim. 3. 16.
• * 1.29

  Chrysost. Homil. in Saul. tom. 8.
• † 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. 18. i•• Gen.
• * 1.31

  Institur. Theolog. lib. 4.
• † 1.32

  Socinus and Erasmus.
• ‖ 1.33

  Hie∣ronym. in Isai. 29, & 56. In Joel 11. In Mic. 5. Item in 1 Ep. ad Tim. Necnon in Epist. suâ 50.
• ‖‖ 1.34

  Videbitis eum in testimo∣niis quae habet de Veteri Testamento, quam prudens, quam dissimulator sit ejus quod agit. Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufin.
• * 1.35

  Iudg Hale of the Knowledg of God, and of our Selves.
• * 1.36

  Haec est Mendaciorum natura, ut cohaerere non possint. In••tit. l. 5. c. 3.
• † 1.37

  Tenue est Mendacium; perlucet, si dili∣genter inspexeris. Sen. Ep. 80.
• ‖ 1.38

  2 Pet. 1. 19.
• ‖ 1.39

  Alia omnia Dicta argumentis ac testibus egent; Dei autem Sermo ipse sibi testis est. Salvian. de Guber. l. 3.
• * 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. ••ib. 7.
• * 1.41

  Bellarmin, Joseph Scaliger, Casaubon, Arias Montanus, Villalpandus, Drusius, Capellus, Morinus, Bochart, Vossius, Walton.
• * 1.42

  Dissertat. de Lit. Hebr.
• * 1.43

  F. Simon's Crist▪ Hist: of the Bible.
• * 1.44

  Lectio.
• † 1.45

  Scriptio.
• * 1.46

  From masar, trader••.
• * 1.47

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.48

  Part 3.
• * 1.49

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 15. c. 11.
• † 1.50

  Galatinus, Leo Cast Melchior Canus, Huntlaeus.
• ‖ 1.51

  In Exercitat. & Diatribe.
• ‖ 1.52

  Muis and ••uxtorf abroad; Brought on, ••••••her, Light••oot, ••ocock at home.
• * 1.53

  F. Simon's Crit. Hist. Of the Old Test▪
• † 1.54

  Is••ac Vossius de 70 Interpretib.
• * 1.55

  ••uxtorf de Orig. Punct.
• † 1.56

  Comment on Hosea 10. 10.
• * 1.57

  L••b. Joma, c. 1.
• † 1.58

  Zohar ex Midr••s••▪
• * 1.59

  Dr: Bright's Preface to Dr▪ Lightfoot's Works▪
• * 1.60

  Quid est aliud gens ipsa nisi quaedam scriniaria Christiano∣rum, bajulans Legem & Prophetas? &c. Contra Faust. lib. 1••. cap. 23.
• † 1.61

  Epist. 60.
• * 1.62

  In Prolegom. in Exercitas. Sac.
• * 1.63

  Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.
• † 1.64

  Epistle to the Hebrews, St. James's, St. Jude's, the Revelation.
• ‖ 1.65

  Flacius Illyricus, Erasmus, Cal∣vin, Chamier, Lightfoot.
• * 1.66

  Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Je∣rom, Augustine.
• † 1.67

  Catal. Scriptor. Ecclesiast.
• * 1.68

  Nu••c totus Graias Latiás{que} habet orbis Athenas. Iuvenal.
• * 1.69

  Graeca per orbem universum leguntur. Pro Arch. Poet.
• * 1.70

  Bp of Cork's Discourse of the Authority of Scripture.
• * 1.71

  Tractat. Theologico-Politic.
• * 1.72

  Cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. l. 6. 19.
• † 1.73

  Cateches. 4.
• * 1.74

  Prolog. Galeat. Prolog. in lib. Salomonis ad paul. & Eustock
• † 1.75

  Prolog. in Psalm.
• * 1.76

  Exposit. in Job. l. 19. c. 17.
• * 1.77

  Sess. 4.
• * 1.78

  Praefat. in libr. Proverb.
• † 1.79

  Artic. 6.
• * 1.80

  〈◊〉〈◊〉, pag. 216.
• † 1.81

  Jacob. Boldu•• d•• Oggio Christiano.
• * 1.82

  Casp. Peucer. de Divinat. generib.
• * 1.83

  Praepar. Evang. l. 1. c. 5.
• † 1.84

  Theogon.
• ‖ 1.85

  Metamorph. lib. 1.
• * 1.86

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De mundi Incorruptib.
• * 1.87

  Nat. Quaest. l. 3. c. 13.
• † 1.88

  In Thalete.
• ‖ 1.89

  Aqua dixit esse initium rerum, Deum autent ••am Mentem quae ex aquâ ••ncta fingeret. De Nat. Deorum, l. 1. c. 25.
• * 1.90

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De vitâ Mosis.
• * 1.91

  Robert Boyle Esq.
• † 1.92

  Gen. 1. 2, 6, 9.
• ‖ 1.93

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Hymn,
• ‖‖ 1.94

  Metaphys. l. 14. c. 6.
• * 1.95

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He siod. Theogon.
• † 1.96

  Gen. 1. 4, 6, 7.
• ‖ 1.97

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ &c.
• * 1.98

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In A••axag.
• † 1.99

  Lib. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.100

  Materiae infinitae particulas simile, inter se, & minutas, pri∣mùm 〈◊〉〈◊〉, postea in ordinem adductas •• Mente Divi•••• Tusc. Quaest. l. 4.
• * 1.101

  Demost••enes in Epitaph. Isocrates in Panegyr. •• C••e. Ora••. pro Flacco.
• * 1.102

  In his Protagoras, Critias, Menexenus, Politicks.
• † 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Zen.
• ‖ 1.104

  Celebrant carminibus antiquis (quod unum apud illos memoriae & annalium genus est) Tuitonem deum, terrâ editum & filium Mannum originem ge•• tis conditoresque. De morib. Germ.
• * 1.105

  Metamorph. lib. 1.
• † 1.106

  In Timaeo.
• * 1.107

  I psum corpus nostrum quod de limo figulatum, etiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fabulas nationum Veritas transmisit; utrumque originis ••le••∣tum consite••••••••. De came Christ.
• † 1.108

  De hominis fictione 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quoque, quamvis corrupte, tamen non aliter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nempe hominem de luto à Prometheo sactum esse dixerunt: •• cos non sesellit, s••d nomen artifieis. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 2.
• * 1.109

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: spiritus, à spirando: animus & anima, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ventus.
• * 1.110

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Plutarch. Platon. Quaest.
• † 1.111

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the done.
• ‖ 1.112

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Antonin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.113

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 1. cap. 14.
• † 1.114

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.115

  Dei pars. Epist. 92.
• * 1.116

  A nature divinâ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 animos & delibatos habemus.—Humanus animus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ptus est ex mente divinâ. Tusc. lib•• ••
• * 1.117

  Esse apibus partem divinae mentis.—Virg. Georg.
• † 1.118

  Gen. 5. 2.
• * 1.119

  Gen. 2. 21, 22.
• * 1.120

  Or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.121

  In Timaeo.
• ‖ 1.122

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.123

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 108, &c.
• * 1.124

  Diodor. Sic. l. 1.
• † 1.125

  Odyss. 10.
• ‖ 1.126

  Georg. lib. 1. •• neid. 8.
• * 1.127

  Metamorph. lib. 1.
• * 1.128

  Odyss. n.
• † 1.129

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.130

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, qu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suidas.
• † 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.132

  Qu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.133

  Devitand. are alien.
• * 1.134

  Iliad. 1.
• * 1.135

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sopater.
• † 1.136

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hierocl.
• ‖ 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arist••
• ‖‖ 1.138

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.139

  Porphyrius de Abstin. Simplicius in Epicter. Hierocles in Pythag. Garm.
• † 1.140

  In Politic.
• ‖ 1.141

  In Atlantic.
• * 1.142

  Proem. ad vir. Philo••.
• * 1.143

  Praepar. Evang. lib. 12, 14.
• * 1.144

  Cont. Celf. lib. 6.
• † 1.145

  De Prap, Evang. lib. ••. cap. 10.
• * 1.146

  Lib. 14.
• † 1.147

  Praep. Evang. lib. 1. cap. u••••.
• ‖ 1.148

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. cap. 7.
• * 1.149

  —Pinge duos angues: sacer est locus; extra Meite.
• * 1.150

  Pro••rept. seu Exhortat. ad Gent.
• † 1.151

  Aeneid. 6.
• ‖ 1.152

  De Haeres. cap. 17.
• * 1.153

  Colloqu. Mensa••▪
• * 1.154

  Ovid Metamorph. lib. 1.
• * 1.155

  Antiqu. I. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.156

  Cont. Appion, I. 1.
• † 1.157

  Antiqu. Jud. I. 1. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.158

  Praepar. Evang. l. 9.
• * 1.159

  De solert. animal.
• * 1.160

  Lib. 30. cap. 36. & lib. 29. c. 16.
• † 1.161

  Hist. lib. 3.
• ‖ 1.162

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.163

  Aelian. Hist. ••. 1. c. 47.
• † 1.164

  Immemor imperii sedisse sub arbore ••ertar, Dum fierent tardà dulcia poma morà. Fast. l. 2.
• * 1.165

  Servius.
• † 1.166

  De Corvo q••em ex arc•• e••••i••t Noe.
• * 1.167

  Metamorph. lib. 1.
• † 1.168

  Gen. 8. 20. 21.
• * 1.169

  Macrob. Saturn. l. l. c. 18.
• † 1.170

  Oedyp. Aegypt.
• * 1.171

  Perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gigas, is a Corruption of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 terrigena; so Giants are express'd, Prov. 9. 18. where Rephaim is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.172

  Lib. 1. cap. 5.
• * 1.173

  —Tum partu terra ne••ando Eoum{que} Japetum{que} creat, saevum{que} Typhoen, Et conjuratos coelum rescindere ••ratres. Ovid.
• † 1.174

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Odyss.••
• * 1.175

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.176

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eustath. in loc.
• * 1.177

  Contra Cels. lib. 4.
• * 1.178

  Lib. 2, & 5.
• † 1.179

  L. 40. c. 6.
• ‖ 1.180

  L. 10. c. 6.
• * 1.181

  In Tox••••i.
• * 1.182

  Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.183

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.184

  De Verit. Christ. Relig.
• * 1.185

  Nat. Hist. l. 31. c. 7.
• * 1.186

  Antiqu. l. 15. c. 19.
• * 1.187

  Contr. Gent. l. 1.
• † 1.188

  Strom. 7.
• ‖ 1.189

  Mr. Mede, Mons. Bochart.
• * 1.190

  Minimus inter fratres aetat•• Josephus fuit, cujus excellens ingenium fratres veriti clam interceptum peregrin•••• mercato••••∣bus vendiderunt. Hist. l. 36. c. 2.
• † 1.191

  In Haere••i Nazaraeorum.
• * 1.192

  Hist. lib. 30.
• † 1.193

  Lib. 3.
• * 1.194

  Dux exulum factus sacra Egyptiorum furto abstulit.
• † 1.195

  Lib. 2. cap. 75.
• * 1.196

  Pandect. Turc. cap. 130.
• † 1.197

  Respons. ad Orthodox.
• * 1.198

  Effigiem animalis quo monstrante errorem s••timque d••••••∣••••rant penetrali sacraverunt. Hist. lib. 5.
• * 1.199

  N. Fuller. Miscellan▪
• * 1.200

  Tanaquil Faber. Epist. 6.
• † 1.201

  Antiqu. Jud. l. 13. c. 6. & De bello Jud. l. 7.
• * 1.202

  Appion contr. Jud.
• † 1.203

  Turpissimae pecudis capur. •• Octavio.
• ‖ 1.204

  In Catalectis.
• * 1.205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Symp••
• † 1.206

  Nihil aeque quàm inopia aq••ae satigabat. Hist. l. 5.
• * 1.207

  Contr. Appion. l. 2.
• * 1.208

  Juvenal. Sat. 14.
• † 1.209

  Lib. 16.
• ‖ 1.210

  Lib. 1. in Pa••atit. ad tit. 5.
• * 1.211

  Lib. 16. Tit. 8.
• * 1.212

  De D••s Syr. Syntag. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.213

  Exod. 13. 21. Numb. 14. 14.
• * 1.214

  In Alexand. Severo.
• * 1.215

  In Tiberio, cap. 32.
• † 1.216

  In Pseudolog.
• ‖ 1.217

  Strom. l. 5.
• * 1.218

  Praepar. Evang.
• * 1.219

  Virg. Aen. 6.
• † 1.220

  Constat Diis superis sacra factarum corpo∣ris ablutione purgari: cùm vero inferis litandum est satis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 si aspersio sol•• contingat. Saturn. l. 3. c. 1.
• ‖ 1.221

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. Halicarn. l. 7.
• * 1.222

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Apol. 2.
• * 1.223

  Mr. ••heringham in Cod. Jom. cap. 2••.
• † 1.224

  De die Natal. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.225

  In Aeneid. 8▪
• * 1.226

  In Aeneid. 8▪
• * 1.227

  Dr. Spencer, de Leg. Hebr.
• † 1.228

  Lib. 2.
• ‖ 1.229

  Sympos. l.••••
• * 1.230

  Lib. 3.
• † 1.231

  Lib. 1. cap. 1.
• ‖ 1.232

  De Legib. Hebraeorum.
• * 1.233

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. 192.
• ‖ 1.234

  In Comm. in Act. 7. 43.
• † 1.235

  Demonst. Evang.
• ‖ 1.236

  In Comm. in Act. 7. 43.
• * 1.237

  De animal. Sacr. Pars 1. lib. 2.
• ‖‖ 1.238

  Mos. & Aaron. l. 4. c. 2.
• * 1.239

  De Legibus Hebraeorum, Lib. 3. cap. 3. Dissertat. 1.
• * 1.240

  Lib. 3. cap. 2.
• * 1.241

  Psal. 95. 10.
• * 1.242

  〈…〉〈…〉
• † 1.243

  A••ts 7. 43.
• * 1.244

  Quaedam fana semel anno adire permittun••, quaedam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 toto nefas visere. Minut. Faelix.
• † 1.245

  In Baeoticis.
• ‖ 1.246

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eliac. 2do.
• * 1.247

  Secreta Te••∣plorum. In Aen. 2.
• † 1.248

  Pergami in occultis & remo•• Templi, qu•• praeter Sacerdotes adire fas non est, quae Gr•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellant. De Bell. Civ. l. 3.
• * 1.249

  Cont. Faust. l. 22. c. 17.
• † 1.250

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iliad. 1.
• ‖ 1.251

  In Timaeo.
• * 1.252

  Sympos. l. 5.
• † 1.253

  Maxima salis authoritas è sacris vete∣••m intelligitur. Nat. Hist. l. 31. c. 7.
• ‖ 1.254

  Lev. 2. 13.
• * 1.255

  Ma•• 9. 49.
• † 1.256

  Mr. Selden, de Dis Syr. Syntag. 2. cap. ••.
• ‖ 1.257

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 15.
• * 1.258

  Gen. 21. 27. Exod. 24. 6, 7, 8.
• † 1.259

  Decad. 1. lib. 1.
• ‖ 1.260

  —Cae•••• jungebant foedera porcâ. Aen. 8.
• * 1.261

  In Iliad ••.
• † 1.262

  Gen. 26. 30.
• ‖ 1.263

  Gen. 31. 46.
• * 1.264

  2 Sam. 3. 20.
• * 1.265

  From 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sustollere, suspendere.
• * 1.266

  Dr. Dickinson 's Delphi Phoenicizantes.
• * 1.267

  Lib. 1.
• † 1.268

  Var. Hist. l. 14. c. 34.
• ‖ 1.269

  De veri••. Christ. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 1.
• * 1.270

  De 70 Interpretib.
• * 1.271

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 consecraverat, ac vagos & sine custode dimi••era••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iul. c. 81.
• * 1.272

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Lib. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• † 1.273

  Pausanias, lib. 7.
• ‖ 1.274

  Vit. Apollon. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.275

  Lib▪ 7. c. 29.
• † 1.276

  Lev. 23. 40.
• ‖ 1.277

  Antiqu. l. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.278

  Sympos. 4. 3.
• * 1.279

  In Theseo.
• † 1.280

  In Nerone.
• ‖ 1.281

  Meursius in Graec. Ferial. l. 3. ••ipsii Comment. in Tacit. Montague against Selden's Hist. of Tit••es. Casaubon in Theophrast. charact. Heinsius in Sil. Ital.
• * 1.282

  Lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 7.
• † 1.283

  Orig. contr. Cels. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.284

  Ibid.
• * 1.285

  Lib. 2, & 3.
• † 1.286

  Lib. 3. c. 32.
• ‖ 1.287

  Lib. 16, & 17.
• * 1.288

  Liv. Decad. l. 1. 10.
• ‖ 1.289

  Dio. Hist. lib. 54.
• * 1.290

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• ‖ 1.291

  Antiqu. Lect. lib. 22. c. 18.
• * 1.292

  Quaest. Rom.
• † 1.293

  Hesych.
• ‖ 1.294

  Fast. l. 1.
• * 1.295

  Advers. lib. 15. c. 19. & l. 24. c. 45.
• † 1.296

  •• evit. 25. 9, 10, 11.
• * 1.297

  Obelise. Pamph. lib. 2. c. 7.
• † 1.298

  Huet. Demonst. Evang. P••op. 4.
• ‖ 1.299

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. lib. 11. c. 6. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.300

  'O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.
• * 1.301

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cedr••••▪ Hist. Compend.
• † 1.302

  Plato in Tim••••o.
• * 1.303

  Orat. contra Gent.
• † 1.304

  Contra Cels. lib. 4.
• ‖ 1.305

  Praepar. Evang. lib. 9. c. 6.
• ‖‖ 1.306

  Cont. Appionem, l. I.
• * 1.307

  Lib. I.
• * 1.308

  De Myster. Egyp••.
• † 1.309

  In Phileb.
• ‖ 1.310

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.311

  A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.312

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eclog.
• † 1.313

  Geograph. lib. 16.
• ‖ 1.314

  Dionys. ••onginus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Trogus Pomp. & ex ••o Justin. lib. 36. Tacit. Hist. lib. 5.
• a 1.315

  De Nat. deor. lib. 3▪
• b 1.316

  Tull. ibid. Plu••arch. in Theseo. Theodor••t.
• a 1.317

  Horn. Ar••. No••.
• a 1.318

  Ovid's Metamorph. lib. 8.
• a 1.319

  ••liad.
• a 1.320

  2 Kings, 2. 11.
• b 1.321

  Serm. 2. de Elia.
• c 1.322

  In lib. Regum, quae••t. 28.
• d 1.323

  Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2. & contr: Ap. l. 1.
• e 1.324

  Antiq. l. 8. c. 7. l. 9. c. 14. l. 10. c. 1.
• a 1.325

  In Eu'erpe.
• b 1.326

  Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11.
• c 1.327

  Grot. in loc.
• a 1.328

  Consent of Scripture.
• b 1.329

  Selden de Dis. Syr. Prol. cap. 3.
• a 1.330

  Lib. 4.
• b 1.331

  Casp. Peucer. de Divinat.
• a 1.332

  Gen. 4.
• a 1.333

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• b 1.334

  Aen. 8.
• c 1.335

  M••tamorph. l. 1.
• d 1.336

  3. Luke 38.
• a 1.337

  Es•• idem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Macrob. Sa••ur•••• I. 1. c. 12.
• a 1.338

  Lib. 6. cap. 14.
• b 1.339

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apollon. l. 1.
• c 1.340

  Aristid. in Hymn. in Jov.
• a 1.341

  Dio••or. Sic. l. 4. c. 25.
• a 1.342

  Theolog. Gentil. l. 1. cap. 19.
• a 1.343

  Ovid.
• b 1.344

  In Annalib.
• a 1.345

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Abraham••.
• b 1.346

  Initium aedium dicitur Ianua, initium mensium dicitur Ianuarius: sic Noachus erat in••••••um al••erium generis humani.
• c 1.347

  Geograph. Sac. 1 part. l. 2. c. l.
• a 1.348

  Heb. 11. 7.
• a 1.349

  Psal. 105. 23. 106. 22.
• a 1.350

  Hor. lib. 1. Ode 3.
• a 1.351

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.352

  Angelus Caninius in Instit. Ling Syr. ••••seph Scaliger in Euseb. Nor.
• c 1.353

  Gen. 36. 19. Psal. 22. 12. 68. 30.
• d 1.354

  Dion. Orat. 2.
• a 1.355

  Prov. 14. 4.
• b 1.356

  Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 23.
• a 1.357

  Huetius, in Demonstr. Evang.
• b 1.358

  De Theolog. Gent.
• c 1.359

  Candida formosi venerabimur ora Lyaei. Sen. in ••••dip.
• a 1.360

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joseph. Antiq. l. 4. c. 5.
• b 1.361

  Quem tormae Pulchritudo commenda••••r. Iu••tin. l. 36. c. 2.
• c 1.362

  In Bacchis.
• a 1.363

  Jos. 10. 11.
• a 1.364

  Antiq. l. 9. c. 11.
• a 1.365

  Gen. 4. 21.
• a 1.366

  1 Mac. 3. 48.
• a 1.367

  Dr. Bright.
• a 1.368

  Incerti Judaea D••i. Lucan. Ph••rsal. lib. 2. Inc••rtum N••∣••en, Trebel. Pol. in vitâ Claudiani.
• b 1.369

  Inn••mi••atus deus. In vitâ Caligulae.
• c 1.370

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apolog. 1.
• d 1.371

  N•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I•• P••ilopat.
• a 1.372

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dion. Hist. l. 36.
• b 1.373

  S••tur∣••••. l. 3. ••. 9.
• c 1.374

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Roman. Q••aest.
• a 1.375

  Saturnal. I. 1. c. 18.
• b 1.376

  Rous's Archaelog. Attic. I. 2. c 2.
• c 1.377

  Irenaeus, Clem. Al••xandr. Eusebius, &c.
• d 1.378

  P••aep. Evang. I. 1. c. 5.
• e 1.379

  l. 5. c. 5.
• a 1.380

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. D••••••. & Osiris.
• a 1.381

  Deum Judaeorum Iovem putavit. De Consens. Evans. lib. 1.
• a 1.382

  Hierocl.
• b 1.383

  Selden de Dis. Syr.
• c 1.384

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.385

  Gen. 9. 9.
• b 1.386

  Gen. 17. 9.
• c 1.387

  Ex. 34. 27.
• d 1.388

  Ari∣stophan. in Avib Diodor. Sic. lib. 36. Lucian. Concil. D••or.
• e 1.389

  Sympos. 4.
• f 1.390

  In Vesp.
• a 1.391

  Ch. 48. v. 2. 51. 15. 54. 5.
• b 1.392

  Chap. 10. 16. 31. 35. 50. 34.
• c 1.393

  Epist. 136. ad Marcellam.
• d 1.394

  Lord of Sabaoth, ••••m. 9. 29. Iam. 5. 4.
• * 1.395

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. Long. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.396

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.397

  Lib. 4.
• c 1.398

  Magistra∣••••m pot••stas proximè adDeorum Immortalium numen accedit ••ro Rabirio.
• d 1.399

  Non alio nomine populus Rectorem 〈…〉〈…〉 quàm si Dii Immortales porestatem visendi sui ••a∣tiant. Senec. de Clement. l. 1.
• a 1.400

  In Verpum. lib. 11. Epigr. 94.
• a 1.401

  De Emendat. Temp. in Prolegom.
• a 1.402

  Petit. Var. Lection. l. 1.
• a 1.403

  Seldeq de ••ur. H••red, Hebr.
• a 1.404

  Tunc pauper cornua sumit. Horat.
• b 1.405

  —S••••••t Corniger illis Iupiter.—••ucan. l. 9.
• a 1.406

  Scaliger de emendat. Temp. Ho••••inger, L'Empereur.
• a 1.407

  Ammian. Marcellin. l. 19.
• b 1.408

  Lib. 5.
• a 1.409

  Mr. Gataker in Anto••in. Dr. Duport in Homer.
• a 1.410

  In Cantic. Solo••.
• b 1.411

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Herodot. l. 1. c. 32. Laert. in Solone.
• c 1.412

  Aeschil. in Prometh.
• d 1.413

  Prov. 31. and the four first Chapters of the Lamentation.
• e 1.414

  Psalms 25. 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145.
• a 1.415

  Horn. Arca Noae.
• b 1.416

  Demonst. Evang. Prop. 4.
• c 1.417

  Ursin. Analect. lib. 4.
• a 1.418

  Avenarius in verbo Jarek.
• b 1.419

  De Orig. Americ.
• c 1.420

  Aug. Cara.
• d 1.421

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Go••••
• e 1.422

  Spes Israelis.
• a 1.423

  Herm. Hugo de Scribendi Origine.
• a 1.424

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Incubare.
• b 1.425

  Abraha. Roger. Janua, &c.
• c 1.426

  M. Mart. Hist. Sinens.
• d 1.427

  Nieuhof. Leg. Bat.
• a 1.428

  Dr. Brown. Vulg. Errors.
• a 1.429

  〈◊〉〈◊〉
• b 1.430

  Iudg. 3. 31.
• c 1.431

  De Sa••r. Animal. pa••s prior. l. 2. c. 39.
• a 1.432

  Huet. Prepar. Evang.
• a 1.433

  Tatianus, Tertullian, Clem. Alexandr. Just. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Euseb. Praep. Evan. lib. 8. & 10. Cyril Alexandr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Julianum, Jul. Africanus.
• a 1.434

  Ludovicus Vive••, Melchior Can••s, Raphael V••lateranus.
• b 1.435

  Euseb. Chronic.
• a 1.436

  Praep. Evang. l. 10.
• a 1.437

  Strom. lib. 1.
• a 1.438

  Praep. Evang. lib. 9. c. 3.
• a 1.439

  Strom. lib. 1.
• b 1.440

  Praep. Evang. lib. 8. c. 3.
• c 1.441

  In vit. Pythag.
• a 1.442

  De Civ. Dei. 1. 8. c. 11.
• b 1.443

  De Doctrin. Christ. 1. 2. c. 28.
• a 1.444

  Lib. 2. Cap. ult.
• b 1.445

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 10. Cyril. Alexand. contra Iuliarum. 1.
• a 1.446

  Contr. Cels. lib. 4.
• a 1.447

  Lib. 16.
• b 1.448

  Lib: 2. cap. 36. & 104.
• a 1.449

  Hist. lib. 5.
• a 1.450

  Contr. Apionem. l. 1.
• a 1.451

  Hist. lib. 36.
• a 1.452

  Hist. lib. 5.
• b 1.453

  Nat. Hist. 1. 30. c. 1.
• c 1.454

  Lib. 16.
• d 1.455

  Justin. Hist. 1. 36. c. 2.
• a 1.456

  Joseph. Antiq. Iud. 1. 12. c. 2.
• a 1.457

  Cmnia adversùs veritatem de ipsâ veritate construc•• sunt, operan••ibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mulalionem istam spiritibus Erroris. Apolog cap. 47.
• a 1.458

  Dr. Spencer, de Legib. Hebreorum. lib. 3. cap. 12. Dissert. 1.
• a 1.459

  Contra Apionem.
• b 1.460

  Ad Gentiles.
• c 1.461

  Ad Autolyc. lib. 2.
• d 1.462

  Paraenes. ad Gracos. Apolog. 2. pro. Chri∣stainis.
• a 1.463

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.464

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• c 1.465

  Quis Poetarum, q••s Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum foute potaverit?
• a 1.466

  Omnia adversùs veritatem de ipsâ veritate con∣structa sunt.
• b 1.467

  Praep Evang. lib. 9. 10, 11, 12, & 13. partim.
• c 1.468

  De Doctr. Christian. lib. 2.
• d 1.469

  De Cur. Graec. affect. Serm. 2. de Principiis.
• a 1.470

  Tota gentium antiquarum religio profecta ••uit ex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. De Sacrif. Gent.
• b 1.471

  Natal. Comes, Mytholog. lib. ult.
• c 1.472

  De Theolog. Gentili.
• d 1.473

  Geo∣graph. Sacra. & De Animal S. Scripturae.
• a 1.474

  Arca Noae.
• b 1.475

  Diatribo de Voto Iepth••.
• c 1.476

  Iacob. Tirinus in Vet. & N. Test.
• d 1.477

  De honest•• disciplin••. 9. 5.
• a 1.478

  History of the World, Chap. ••. Sect. 3.
• b 1.479

  De Dis Syr. Proleg.
• c 1.480

  Diatrib. Anti-Bellar 〈…〉〈…〉
• a 1.481

  Vol. 1. Book 1. Chap. 10.
• a 1.482

  Con. Cels. l. 4.
• a 1.483

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Cont. Apion. l. 2.
• b 1.484

  R. Himman, and R. So••••••••.
• a 1.485

  —qui ipsas quo{que} res Sacramentorum divi∣norum in Idolorum mysteriis aemulatur. De Praescript.
• b 1.486

  Ex eo ••••xtu manifestum est ••••rem••nias Judaicas non esse petitas ex Gentilitate, sed ab ipso Deo institutas.
• c 1.487

  Consensus omnis inter Judaeorum & Gentilium ritus ortus est ex Diaboli studio, qui plera{que} depravavit, & in suam venerationem transtulit. P. Fag. in Num. 7. 89.
• a 1.488

  Calvin in Ex. 25. 8.
• b 1.489

  In Iohn 9. 30.
• a 1.490

  Per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, à Daemone Dei simi••, id ipsum ad impios & idolololatricos cultus traductum videtur. Du••. Evang. Pars 3. Du••. 91.
• b 1.491

  Riter ••••••. in Oppian. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c. 4.
• c 1.492

  ••uet. Demonstr. Evang.
• * 1.493

  Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis Sacerdotum liter•••• contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profecti{que} Judaea rerum potirentur: quae ambages Vespasianum & Titum praedixerant. Hist. l. 5.
• † 1.494

  Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus & constans opinio, ess•• in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. I•• Vespas. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.495

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De bello Jud. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.496

  In Augusto Cap. 94.
• † 1.497

  Regem po∣pulo Romano naturam par∣turire.
• * 1.498

  Comment. in 1. Epist. ad Corinth. 11. cap.
• † 1.499

  De Orac. Si••yl.
• * 1.500

  Lactant. Instit. l. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.501

  Idem l. 4. c. 18.
• † 1.502

  Idem l. 7. c. 20.
• * 1.503

  Orat. ad Gent. & alibi.
• † 1.504

  Stromat. l. 6.
• § 1.505

  Ad Sanct. Caet. c. 18.
• ‖ 1.506

  Instit. l. 4. c. 15. 18.
• a 1.507

  De Civ. Dei. l. 18. c. 23. Cont. Faust. l. 13.
• b 1.508

  Cont. Cel••. l. 5.
• c 1.509

  Justin Mart. Orat. ad Gentil.
• * 1.510

  Exercitat. 1. ad Apparat. Annal. cap. 10.
• † 1.511

  Exercit. 14. cont. Photin.
• * 1.512

  Histor. Literar. p. 33, 34▪
• * 1.513

  De ling. Lat. lib. 5.
• † 1.514

  Vltima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas: Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo: Iam nova progenies Coelo demittitur alto, Iam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.
• * 1.515

  Or the Author of the Book De Mirabilib. Auscultationib.
• † 1.516

  Lib. de Divinatione.
• * 1.517

  Lib. 4.
• † 1.518

  In Phocaicis.
• § 1.519

  Dionys. Halicarn. Valer. Maxi∣mus, A. Gellius, Pliny, Lactantius.
• * 1.520

  Annal. lib. 5.
• † 1.521

  In Augusto. c. 31.
• * 1.522

  Baronius in Apparatu. Poslevinus, Montacut. Exercir. 4. in App rat. Baron Acts and Monuments. Chap. 3. Isaac Vos∣sius de S••b••ll. O••••c
• † 1.523

  De Divinatione.
• ‡ 1.524

  Mr. Petit.
• § 1.525

  N••t. H••••t. l. ••4. c. 5.
• ‖ 1.526

  Plinian. Exercitat.
• a 1.527

  Isidorus, Suidas, O••up••rius de Sibyll.
• * 1.528

  Vossius de Sibyl. Orac. cap. 11.
• * 1.529

  Servatius Gallaeus.
• * 1.530

  Quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat; Auctor nominis ejus Christus. Annal. l. 15. c. 44.
• † 1.531

  Sed exponenda hujus nominis ratio est, propter ignoranti∣am errorum, qui eum immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere. Institut. l. 4. c. 7.
• ‖ 1.532

  Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultnantes, Claudius Roma expulit. In Claud. c. 25.
• § 1.533

  Annal. aer. Dom. Anno 54.
• a 1.534

  Apolog. 2. ad Senat.
• b 1.535

  Sed cum perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis, Adv. Gent. c. 3.
• * 1.536

  Epist. 97. lib. 10.
• * 1.537

  In Sanhedrim.
• † 1.538

  Chap. 2. v. 7.
• § 1.539

  Chap. 2. v. 1.
• * 1.540

  Bynaeus de Natali J. Christi.
• * 1.541

  Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 1.
• * 1.542

  Annal. lib. 3.
• † 1.543

  In Tiber. c. 49.
• * 1.544

  Beza, Sc••liger, Cas••ubon, Grotius.
• † 1.545

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (t••e very word used by St. Luke,) Hist. lib. 20.
• § 1.546

  A••tiqu. l. 18. c. 1.
• ‡ 1.547

  In Augusto, Cap. 27.
• ‖ 1.548

  Cloppenburg in Syntagm. Bynaeus. Jacobus Perizonius.
• * 1.549

  Joseph. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 1.
• † 1.550

  Apparat.
• § 1.551

  Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 9.
• ‖ 1.552

  Du Pin, Tom. 2 Cent. 4.
• * 1.553

  Opes publicae eo continebantur, quantum civium socio∣rum▪ in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vecti∣galia, & necessitates ac largitiones; quae omnia manu sua perscripserat Augustus, Lib. Annal. l. 1.
• * 1.554

  Testem fidissimum Dominicae nativitatis Romana Archi∣va Custodiunt. Cont. Marcion. l. 4. c. 7.
• † 1.555

  Cont. Julian, l. 6.
• ‖ 1.556

  Romano censu statim ascriptus ut natus est, lib. 6. c. 22. Dicendus uti{que} civis Romanus census professione Romani, Ibid.
• * 1.557

  Mat. 2. 2.
• * 1.558

  Mat. 2. v. 9.
• † 1.559

  Mat. 2. v. 2.
• ‖ 1.560

  Mat. 2. v. 16.
• * 1.561

  Dr. Lightfoot.
• † 1.562

  Mat. 2. v. 7.
• * 1.563

  There shall come a Star out of Jacob, Num. 24. 17.
• † 1.564

  Eclog. 4.
• ‖ 1.565

  Est quc{que} alia fanctior & venerabilior Historia quae perhibet de ortu stellae, &c. Apud Marsil. Ficin. Tract, de stell.
• * 1.566

  Nat Hist. l. 2. c. 25.
• † 1.567

  Fit & candidus Cometes, argenteo crine ita refulgens ut vix contueri liceat, specie{que} humana, Dei Effigiem in se ostendens.
• * 1.568

  Quum audisset Augustus inter Pueros, quos in Syria Rex Judaeorum intra bimatum jussit intersici, filium que{que} ejus occi∣sum, ait, Melius est Herodis Porcum esse quam Filium, Saturnal. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.569

  Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 17. c. 10.
• † 1.570

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 2. 16. Intra bimatum, Macrob.
• ‖ 1.571

  In Breviario Temporum.
• * 1.572

  Origen cont. Celsum. Cyril cont. Julianum. Augustin. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.
• * 1.573

  Talmud Hierosolym. Sanhedrin, cap. 7. Talm. Bab. San∣hedrin, Gem. 43. 1.
• † 1.574

  Eutropius, Hist. Compend. Nicephor. I. 1. c. 40.
• * 1.575

  Eccles. Hist. •• 1. c. 13.
• † 1.576

  Mat. 4. 24.
• * 1.577

  Ep. 263.
• † 1.578

  Tom. 3. F. 1. Num. 4.
• ‖ 1.579

  Exercitat. ad Baron. 13. cap. 31.
• * 1.580

  Orig. Eccles. Tom. 1.
• † 1.581

  Dr. Cave Histor. L••tera••.
• ‖ 1.582

  In his Apostolici.
• * 1.583

  Da Pin Bibl. Patr. pag. 1.
• * 1.584

  Hist. Rom. lib. 55.
• † 1.585

  Paulus Orosius, lib. 6. cap. 20.
• ‖ 1.586

  In Octavio. cap. 93.
• * 1.587

  Nicephor. Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 17. Cedrenus, Suidas in verbo [Augustus]
• † 1.588

  In verbo [Iesus]
• * 1.589

  Tiberio imperitante per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. Tacit. Annal. l. 15. C. 44.
• † 1.590

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 De morte Peregrini.
• ‖ 1.591

  There was darknes••〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over the whole Earth, Mark 15. 33. over all the Earth, Luke 23. 44. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 27. 45. should be rendred, and not (as it is) over all the Land, i. e. Iudea only.
• * 1.592

  Ad Polycarp. Epist. 7.
• † 1.593

  Suidas in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.594

  Cont. Cel••. lib. 2.
• * 1.595

  Chronicon. A. D. 33.
• * 1.596

  Chronic. an. 33. Christi.
• † 1.597

  Apolog. ad gentes cap. 21.
• ‖ 1.598

  Eccl. Hist. l. 9. c. 6.
• * 1.599

  Ex. 12. 2, 6.
• * 1.600

  Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 84.
• † 1.601

  In Tiber. c. 48.
• ‖ 1.602

  Hist. lib. 57.
• * 1.603

  Apo. cap. 21.
• † 1.604

  Cont. Cels. l. 2. & Tractat. 36 in Matth.
• ‖ 1.605

  De Defect. Oracul.
• * 1.606

  De Praep. Evang. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.607

  Mat. 27. 51. Mark 15. 38. Luke 23. 45.
• † 1.608

  Antiqu. l. 2.
• * 1.609

  Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 2.
• † 1.610

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apol. Adv. Gentes.
• ‖ 1.611

  Dr. Pearson, Epise. Cistr. Praecect. in Act. Apost.
• * 1.612

  Bib. Patr. 1. Cent.
• † 1.613

  Tiberius annuntiatum sibi ex Syria, Palaestina, quae veri∣tatem illius Divinitatis revelarat, detulit ad Senatum cum praerogativ•• suffrag•••• sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus{que} periculum accusatoribus Christianorum, Apol. Ibid.
• * 1.614

  Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. Chronic. ad annum 22 Ti∣berii.
• † 1.615

  In Alex. Severo. cap. 43. & 51.
• * 1.616

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 4.
• * 1.617

  Tanaquil Faber. Epist. 44.
• * 1.618

  Eccl. Hist. 1▪ I. c. 11.
• * 1.619

  Eusebius, Jerom, Isidore Pelusiot-Sozomen. &c.
• * 1.620

  Mat. 28. 13.
• † 1.621

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; ••••idor. Pelus. Ep••••t. l. 4.
• ‖ 1.622

  Antiqu. Jud. I. 18. c. 7.
• * 1.623

  Antiqu. l. 20. c. 8.
• † 1.624

  Antiqu. Jud. l. 19. c. 7.
• ‖ 1.625

  An∣tiqu. Jud. lib. 17. c. 8. De bello Jud. l. 1. c. 21.
• * 1.626

  Antiqu. l. 20. c. 6. De bello Jud. l. 2. c. 12.
• † 1.627

  In Phi∣lopatr
• ‖ 1.628

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‡ 1.629

  Nicephor. Hist.
• * 1.630

  V. 4.
• † 1.631

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.632

  I found an Altar with this Inscription, To the unknown God, Acts 17. 23.
• * 1.633

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In vit. Apollon,
• † 1.634

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Epimen••de.
• ‖ 1.635

  De Scriptor. Ecclesiast.
• ‡ 1.636

  Epist. 14.
• * 1.637

  Icarus primo statim ••conatu juxta cubiculum ejus decidit, ipsum{que} cruore respersit, In Nerone, cap. 12.
• † 1.638

  Hist. lib. 60.
• * 1.639

  In Claudio. cap. 18.
• † 1.640

  Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2, & 3.
• ‖ 1.641

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eccl. Hist▪ l. 2. c. 8.
• † 1.642

  Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2. & 3, 6. 7. & de bel. Jud. 2. c. 11, 12.
• * 1.643

  De bello Jud. lib. 7. c. 31.
• * 1.644

  Antiquitat. Jud. l. 18. c. 11, 12.
• * 1.645

  Joseph de bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 13.
• † 1.646

  Chap. 21. Vers. 9.
• ‖ 1.647

  De bel. Jud. lib. 5. c. 1, 2.
• ‡ 1.648

  De bel Jud. l. 2. c. 23, 24.
• * 1.649

  Antiq••. l. 20. c. 5.
• † 1.650

  De bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 7, & 8.
• ‖ 1.651

  Vers. 19.
• ‡ 1.652

  Chronicon.
• * 1.653

  Hist. lib. 66.
• † 1.654

  Annal. l. 15. c. 44
• ‖ 1.655

  Hist. Ro∣man. lib. 66.
• * 1.656

  De bel. Jud. 1. 6, & 7.
• † 1.657

  Chap. 21. Vers. 20.
• ‡ 1.658

  Job 39 29, 30.
• * 1.659

  De bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 18.
• † 1.660

  Hor. Heb. in Matth.
• * 1.661

  Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3.
• * 1.662

  Visae per Coelum concurrere acies, rutilantia arma, & su∣bito nubium igne collucere Templum, &c. Tacit. Hist. l. 5.
• † 1.663

  De bello Jud. l. 7. c. 12.
• ‖ 1.664

  Lib. 10. Epist. 97.
• * 1.665

  Revera Christiani.
• * 1.666

  In Epictet. l. 4. c. 7.
• † 1.667

  De different. puls. lib. 3.
• ‖ 1.668

  Azoar. 1.
• ‡ 1.669

  Azoar. 12.
• † 1.670

  Azoar. 67.
• * 1.671

  John 21. 25.
• * 1.672

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo. lib. quod omnis probus liber.
• † 1.673

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joseph. de bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 7.
• ‖ 1.674

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.675

  Catalog. Script. Ecclesia••t.
• † 1.676

  Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.677

  D•• asse lib. 4.
• * 1.678

  Hist.
• † 1.679

  In Marco Aurelio.
• ‖ 1.680

  In Marco▪
• * 1.681

  Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 26.
• † 1.682

  Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 5▪ & in C••ronico.
• * 1.683

  In Octavio cap. 49.
• † 1.684

  De Orac. Sibyll.
• * 1.685

  Per flagitia invisi.—Haud perinde in crimine in••end•••• quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Annal. I. 15.
• † 1.686

  Genus hominum superstitionis novae & male••icae. In Ne∣rone, cap. 16.
• ‖ 1.687

  Epist. 79. lib. 10.
• * 1.688

  In verbo [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]
• * 1.689

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chry••o••t. in Psal. 45.
• † 1.690

  Satis ••••mum te••timonium e•• ad probandam veritatem quod ab ipsis prohibetur inimicis▪ Lactant. In••t. I. 4. c. 12.
• ‖ 1.691

  A•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. M. hom de Nativ. Christ••.
• ‡ 1.692

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Nyss. de Anim.