16.

BOOK

characters among the Heathens, can have any place among I. the Jews for it was never any part of God's design to have the law kept from the people's view. Truth is never so fearful of being seen abroad; it is only Falsehood that walks under disguises, and must have its hiding-places to retreat to nay, God expressly commanded it as a duty of all the Jews, to search and study his law; which they could not do, if it were locked up from them in an unknown character. Did not God himself promulge it among the people of Israel, by the ministry of Moses? Exod. xiii. Did he not command it to be as frontlets between their Deut. vi. 8. eyes, and signs upon their hands? Not that phylacteries should be made of the law to wear, as the Pharisees interpreted it, and others from them have mistaken; but that they should have the law in continual remembrance, as if it were always between their eyes, and engraven upon their hands. Again, if we suppose the law to be among the people, but in the vulgar character, I would fain know, what sanctity, majesty, and authority there was in that character, more than in the words and matter? And if there were, how comes the vulgar use of it to be nowhere forbidden? and how durst Ezra, as is supposed, after the captivity, profane so sacred a thing, by exposing it to common use? But granting them yet further, that it was lawful, but not useful, to make use of that sacred character, I demand then, how comes that disuse to continue so punctually till the time of Ezra, and that it should never be divulged before? when there was so great reason to make it common, since the square letters are less operose, more expedite and facile than the Samaritan, which is, when time serves, used as a plea for their great antiquity. But yielding yet more, that the sacred character was only used for the authentic copy of the law, which was to decide all differences of other copies, (which some run to as their last shift,) I appeal to any man's reason, whether this be not the most improbable of all? For how could such a copy be the judge of all others, which could not be read or understood by those who appealed to it? Or was the knowledge and reading of this character peculiar to the high-priest, and conveyed down as a cabala from one to another? But how many incongruities would follow hence, in case one high-priest should die before his son was capable of understanding the letters, and so that sacred treasure must needs be lost; or had they it all by inspiration, and understood the sacred character by Urim and Thummim? Thus

every way this opinion among the Jews is pressed with CHA P. inconveniences; but it was most suitable to the Heathen VI. Priests to maintain a meum and tuum between their own character and the vulgar; for hereby they prohibited all prying into their mysteries by any but those who had the same interest with themselves, and therefore were unlikely to discover any thing that might lessen their reputation: whereas had there been nothing but truth in their records, or that truth had been for their interest, what need had there been of so great reservedness and privacy? But when the discovery of truth would undeceive the world, it was their interest to lock it up, and to give out such things to the vulgar which might advance themselves and please them; which artifices of theirs give no small ground to question the credibility of their his

tories.

IX.

Especially if we add what we promised in the last place, to shew the want of credibility in the report of ancient times among them, which was not only defectiveness and uncertainty, but apparent partiality to themselves, and inconsistency with each other. How evident is it in all these nations we have spoken to, how much they strive to enhance the reputation of their own nation, and to that end blend the history of other nations with their own, to make theirs seem the greater? How much do the Egyptians tell us of the excellency of their ancient laws and government? And yet how evident is it, from their own histories, that no such laws were observed by their kings as they speak of? Can we think that such kings as Chemmis, and the rest of them who built those vast structures of the Pyramids, and employed myriads of men for so many years for the doing of them, would be. content to be so dieted by their laws, as Hecatæus and Diodorus tell us they were to be? Nay, it seems to be very suspicious that the great enterprizes of their famous Sesoosis are merely fabulous; and some think, an attributing to themselves what was done by the Assyrian emperor in his time: by which we may guess what to think of the great conquests of Osiris and Isis, and their subduing almost the whole world to them. And it is most evident how partial the Egyptians are in dissembling their greatest losses; as is clear in the story of the conquest of Pharaoh Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. xlvi. 12. of which there is not the least mention in Herodotus or Diodorus. Herodot. But on the contrary, Herodotus tells us this Necos, as he lib. ii.

c. 31.

BOOK calls him, conquered the Syrians at Magdalos; and the I. story of Vaphres and Amasis in him seems to be only a disguise of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest; only lest men should think them conquered by a foreigner, they make Amasis to be an Egyptian plebeian. Again, what a vast Diodor. 1. i. number of cities doth Diodorus tell us of, that were in Egypt in their eldest times; no less than 18,000; when yet himself confesseth, in the time of Ptolemæus Lagi there were reckoned but somewhat above 3000 cities; and then Egypt was the most populous that ever it had been. How probable doth this sound, that in those eldest times such vast multitudes of cities should be erected? But the truth is, it is not unsuitable to their opinion of the production of the first men; which were caused, they say, by the heat of the sun, and the mud of Nilus; and it is certain then they might be the most populous nation in the world: for there could be no defect as to either efficient or material cause, there being mud enough to produce myriads, and the sun hot enough to impregnate it. The partiality of other nations hath been already discoursed of in our passage; and so likewise hath their mutual repugnancy to, and inconsistency with, each other which yet might be more fully manifested from the contradictions in reference to the Egyptian history, between Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Dicæarchus, Eratosthenes, and all who have spoken of it: as to the Assyrian empire, between Herodotus, Diodorus, and Julius Africanus as to the Persian empire, between Herodotus and Ctesias; and those in no inconsiderable things, as is evident in Photius's Excerpta out of him. Among the Grecians we have already discovered it, as to their history and geography; and if we should enter into their theology, and the history of that, we should find their other differences inconsiderable, if compared with these: of which we may partly make a conjecture by the incredible spite that is borne by the gravest Greek authors, as Strabo, Plutarch, and others, towards Euhemerus Siculus, for offering to deliver the history of Jupiter, which he saith he transcribed from the golden pillar in the temple of Jupiter Triphyllius in Panchotis.

:

:

But I suppose enough hath been discovered already, to prove that there is no credibility in any of those Heathen histories, which pretend to give an account of ancient times; there being in all of them so much defect and in

VI.

sufficiency, so great uncertainty and confusion, so much CHAP. partiality and inconsistency with each other. It remains now that I proceed to demonstrate the credibility of that account of ancient times which is reported in the sacred Scriptures; which will be the second part of our task.

I.

BOOK II.

CHAP. I.

The Certainty of the Writings of Moses.

In order to the proving the Truth of Scripture-history, several Hypotheses laid down. I. The first concerns the Reasonableness of preserving the ancient History of the World in some certain Records, from the Importance of the Things, II. and the Inconveniences of mere Tradition or constant Revelation. III. The second concerns the Certainty that the Records under Moses's Name were undoubtedly his. The Certainty of a Matter of Fact enquired into in general, and proved as to this Particular, IV. by universal Consent, V. and settling a Commonwealth upon his Laws. VI, VII. The Impossibility of an Impostor as to the Writings of Moses demonstrated. The Pleas to the contrary largely answered.

BOOK HAVING sufficiently demonstrated the want of credi11. bility in the account of ancient times, given by those nations who have made the greatest pretence to learning and antiquity in the world, we now proceed to evince the credibility and certainty of that account which is given us in sacred Scriptures: in order to which, I shall premise these following hypotheses.

Hypoth. 1.

First, It stands to the greatest reason, that an account of things so concerning and remarkable should not be always left to the uncertainty of an oral tradition, but should be timely entered into certain records, to be preserved to the memory of posterity. For it being of concernment to the world, in order to the establishment of belief as to future things, to be settled in the belief that all things past were managed by Divine Providence, there must be certain records of former ages, or else the mind of man will be perpetually hovering in the greatest uncertainties; especially where there is such a mutual dependence and concatenation of one thing with another, as there is in all the Scripture-history. For take away but any one of the main foundations of the Mosaical history, all the superstructure will be exceedingly weakened, if it doth not fall quite to the ground. For man's obligation to obedience unto God, doth necessarily suppose his original to be from him; his hearkening to any proposals of favour from