The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The uncertain epocha's of Heathen Chronology.
An account given of the defect of Chronology in the eldest times. Of the Solar year among the Aegyptians, the original of the Epacts, the antiquity of Intercalation among them. Of the several Canicular years; the difference between Scaliger and Petavius considered. The certain Epocha's of the Aegyptian History no elder then Nabonasser. Of the Graecian accounts. The fabulousness of the Heroical age of Greece. Of the antient Graecian Kingdoms. The beginning of the Olympiads. The uncertain Origines of the Western Nations. Of the Latine Dynastyes. The different Palilia of Rome. The uncertain reckoning Ab V. C. Of impostures as to antient Histories. Of Annius, Inghiramius, and others. Of the characters used by Heathen Priests. No sacred characters among the Iews. The partiality and inconsistency of Heathen Histories with each other. From all which the want of credibility in them as to an account of antient times is clearly demonstrated.
THe next thing to evidence the uncertainty of the Heathen Chronology, is, the want of certain parapegmata, or Sect. 1.some fixed periods of time, according to which the account of times must be made. For if there be no certain Epocha's by which to reckon the succession of ages, the distance of intervalls, and all intervening accidents, we must of necessity fluctuate in continual uncertainties, and have no sure foundation to bottom any account of antient times upon. The great reason of this defect, is the little care which those who lived in the eldest times had to preserve the memory of any antient tradition among themselves, or to convey it to posterity in such a way as might be least lyable to imposture. Of all kinds of Learning, Chronology was the most rude in eldest times; and yet that is well called by Scaliger, the life and soul of History, without which, History is but a confused lump, a meer Mola, an indigested piece of flesh, without life or form. The antient accounts of the world were meerly from year to year, and that with abundance of obscurity, uncertainty and variety: sometimes going by the course of the Moon, and therein they were as mutable as the Moon her self, how to conform the year regularly to her motion; and it was yet greater difficulty to regul…te it by the course of the Sun, and to make the accounts of the Sun and Moon meet. There was so much perplexity and confusion about the ordering of a single year, and so long in most Nations before they could bring it in…o any order, that we are not to expect any fixed periods by which to find out the succession of ages among them. Among the Aegyptians who are supposed most skilful in the account of the year, it was a long time before they found out any certain course of it. It is agreed by most, that when the Aegyptian Priests had found out the form of the year by the course of the Sun, (which is attributed by Diodorus to the Heliopolitan Priests) L. 1. c. 50.yet the year in common use was only of 360. dayes, which in any great period of years must needs cause a monstrous confusion by reason that their Moneths must of necessity by degrees change their place, so that in the great Canicular year of 730. Thoyth which was the beginning of the Summer Solstice in the entrance into that period, would be removed into the midst of Winter, from whence arose that Aegyptian Fable in Herodotus, that in the time of their eldest Kings, …nterpe. Vide Scaliger. de Emend. Temp. l. 3. p. 195.the Sun had twice changed his rising and setting; which was only caused by the variation of their Moneths, and not by any alteration in the course of the Sun. Which defect the Aegyptian Priests at last observing, saw a necessity of adding five dayes to the end of the year, which thence were called foreign, which implyes they were not antiently in use among them, being afterwards added to make up the course of the year. Which the Aegyptians give an account of, as Plutarch tells us under this Fable: Mercury being once De I side et Osiri.at Dice with the Moon, he got from her the 72. part of the year, which he after added to the 360. dayes which were antiently the dayes of the year, which they called foreign, and therein celebrated the Festivals of their gods, thence the names of the several foreign were taken from the Gods; the first was called foreign, it being celebrated in honour of him; the second foreign, by which Scaliger understands Anubis, but Vossius more probably the Senior Orus; the third to Typho, the fourth to Isis, the fift to Nephtha the De Idol. l. 1. c. 28.wife of Typho and sister to Isis. This course of the year Scaliger thinks that the Aegyptians represented by the Serpent called foreign being described in a round circle biting some part of his tail in his mouth, whereby, saith he, they would have it understood, that the form of the year was not perfect without that adjection of five dayes to the end of the year: For to this day, saith he, the Coptites and antient Aegyptians call the end of the year foreign. It seems that afterwards they understood likewise the necessity of intercalation of a day every fourth year for the sake of the redundant quadrant each year above 365. dayes; which course of four years they called their Canicular year, because they observed its defect in that time one whole day from the rising of the Dog-star; and besides, that they called it foreign and foreign; & lustrum Sothiacum from foreign the Dog-star; but Censorinus denies any use of intercalation among the Egyptians in their civil year, although their De die Natali c. 18.Sacred and Hieroglyphical years might admit of it. And upon this ground, I suppose the controversie between those two learned persons Scaliger and Petavius concerning the antiquity of Intercalation among the Egyptians may be reconciled. For on the one side it is apparent, that the ordinary V. Petav. de doctr. temp. l. 3. c. 2.or civil year did want intercalation, by this testimony of Censorinus; Eorum annus civilis solos habet dies 365. sine ullo intercalari; ita que quadriennium apud cos uno circiter die minus est quam naturale quadriennum; and thence saith he, it comes to pass, that in 1461. years which was the great Heliacal year, it returns to the same beginning; for then the Dog-star ariseth again upon the first day of the month Thoyth, as it did at the beginning of this great Canicular year; and that this kind of civil year did continue among them in the time of Censorinus (which was of the Dionysian account 238.) appears by this, that he saith in the year wherein he wrote his book, the New-moon of Thoyth was before the seventh day of the Calends of Iuly, whereas 100. years before, it was before the 12. of the Calends of August; whence it is evident, that the Iulian year whatever some learned men pretend to the contrary, was not in ordinary use among the Egyptians in that time; and that Sosigenes when he corrected the Roman account and brought in the form of the Iulian year, did not take his pattern from the Kircher. Oedip. Egypt. Tom. 3. Class. 7. cap. 2.Egyptian year, but from the Graecians of Alexandria, who did make use of the quadrant added to the 365. years, which the Egyptians did not, as appeare further by the golden circle in the monument of Osymanduas (which Diodorus speaks of out of Hecataeus Milesius) which was of 365. cubits compass, and divided into so many segments for every Biblioth. … l. 1. c. 49.day with the observations of the rising and setting of the several stars, and the effects portended by them. And the reason why this year continued in civil use among the Egyptians, De sphaera cap. 6.is well assigned by Geminus, that the Egyptians according to a superstitious observation they had, would needs have their Festivals run through every day in the year. But now on the other side, it is as evident that by continual observation the wisest of the Egyptian Priests did discern the necessity of intercalation, and that there wanted six hours in every year to make it compleat, which every four years would make the intercalation of a day necessary; so much by Diodorus is affirmed of the Theban Priests who were the best Astronomers, and by Strabo both of the Theban Bibl. l. 1. cap. 50. Geog. l. 17.and Heliopolitan; and so likewise Horapollo, whose work was to interpret the more abstruse Learning of the Egyptian Priests; when, (saith he) the Egyptians would express a year, they name a quadrant, because from one rising of the star Sothis to another, the fourth part of a day is added, so that the year consists of 365. dayes (and a quadrant must be added, because of the antecedents and consequents) therefore every Hicroglyph. l. 1. c. 5.fourth year they reckon a supernumerary day. How unjustly Petavius hath charged Scaliger with falshood in reference to this testimony of Horapollo, meerly because the citation did not appear in that chapter mentioned by Scaliger in the book which Petavius used, hath been already observed by learned men; whereupon Vossius condemns. Petavius of strange incogitancy, because in three editions mentioned by him, Scaligers citation was right; but Conringius hath since pleaded in behalf of Petavius, that he De Idol. l. 1. c. 28. De Hermet. Med. c. 12.might make use of the edition of Causinus distinct from the other three; whereby we see how small a matter will beget a send between learned men, especially where prejudice hath lodged before, as is too evident in Petavius his rough dealing on all occasions with that very deserving person Ioseph Scaliger. But to return, from hence by degrees the Egyptians proceeded to make greater periods of years (as Eudoxus carried his octaëter is into Greece from the Canicular year of the Egyptians) they framed from this a greater Canicular year, which had as many years as a Iulian hath dayes; and lastly, the greatest Canicular year which comprehended four of the greater, and consisted of a period of 1461. years. But thus we see, that the great periods of years among them rise gradually as they grow more skillfull in the understanding the nature of the year; and that they had antiently no certain periods to govern themselves by in their computation of antient times. Nay the Egyptians have not as appears, any certain Epocha to go by elder then the Egyptian years of Nabonassar, and afterwards from the death of Alexander, and Ptolomy Philadelphus, and Augustus his victory at Actium.
If from the Aegyptians we remove our discourse unto Sect. 2.the Grecians, we are still plunged into greater uncertainties, it being acknowledged by themselves that they had no certain succession of time before the Olympiads. To which purpose the Testimony of Varro in Censorinus is generally taken notice of, distributing time into three parts, reckoning two of them to be unknown and fabulous, and the historical part of time to begin with the first Olympiad. Indeed Scaliger and some others are loth to reject all that Not. in Can. Isogog. l. 3.second part of time as fabulous, which was in the interval between Deucalions flood and the Olympiads; therefore they had rather call it Heroical, though much corrupted with Fables, and think that it was historical as to persons, but fabulous as to the actions of those persons. But granting this, yet we are wholly to seek for any certain account of the succession of time and persons, for want of some certain Epocha's, which like the Pole-star should guide ut in our passage through that boundless Ocean of the Graecian history. It must be confessed that some of the learned Heathens have taken a great deal of pains this way to find out some certain periods to fix on in the time before the Olympiads, as Philocorus, Apollodorus, and Dionysius Halycarnassensis, and others, who out of their skill in Astronomy sought to bring down some certain intervals between the destruction of Troy, and the first Olympick game of Pelops, restored by Hercules & Atreus. But granting that their Epocha's were fixed and certain, that the destruction of Troy was upon the 23 of Thargelion, the 11 monethmonth of the Attick account, and that the Olympick game fell out answerably to the ninth of our Iuly, and these things were evidently proved from Astronomical observations; yet how vast an account of time is lost quite beyond the siege of Troy! and besides that, as to all other accidents in the In-tervals between these two Epocha's, which could not be proved by Celestial observations concurrent with them, they were left at a very great uncertainty still; only they might guess whether they approached nearer to one Epocha then the other; but the series of Families and their Generations (three of which made a Century of years) whereby they might come to some conjectures, but could never arrive at any certainty at all.
But that which is most to our purpose, is, that all the history of the Original of Greece, the foundations of their Sect. 3.several Kingdoms, the succestion of their first Kings, and all that comes under the name of the history of their ancient times, is clearly given over by their own most skilful Chronologers, as matters out of the reach of any clear evidence. Thence come such great differences concerning the antiquity of their ancient Kingdoms; the Argolick Kingdom by Dionysius Halycarnass. is supposed to be the eldest, and the Attick younger then it by 40 Generations, which according to their computation comes to a 1000 years, which is impossible; and yet the Arcadians, who gave themselves out to be elder then the Moon, are supposed to be younger by him then the Grashoppers of Athens by nine Generations; and the Pthiotica under Deucalion, younger thenthe Arcadica by 42 Generations, which Scaliger might well say were impossible and inconsistent. The Sycyonian Kingdom is by most supposed to be of greatest antiquity among the Graecians, from which Varro began his history, De Civit. Dei l. 16. c. 2.as S. Austin tells us, and yet as to this, Pausanias only re…kons the names of some Kings there, without any succession of time among them; and yet as to those names, Africanus (and Eusebius from him) dissent from Pausanias; and which is most observable, Homer reckons Adrastus, who is the 23 in the account of Africanus, to be the first that reigned in Secyon, whose time was after the institution of the Olympick game by Pelops: of him thus Homer, foreign Il. 3.Whereby he expresseth Adrastus to be the first King of Sicyon; and not as Scaliger would interpret it, that Adrastus was first King of the Sicyonians before he was of the Argives; for in the time of Adrastus at Sicyon, either Atreus, or Thyestes was King of the Argives; for in the second year of Phaestus and Adrastus his supposed Predecessor in Sicyon, Atreus restored the Olympick game of Pelops, in the 41 year of their reign, and they reigned at Argi 65 years: Now that Phaestus at Sicyon is supposed to reign but eight years; and therefore the reign of Adrastus at Sicyon falls in with that of Atreus & Thyestes at Argi or Mycenae. Thus we see now how uncertain the account of times was before the beginning of the Olympiads among the Graecians, which is fully acknowledged by Diodorus, and the very reason given which we here insist on, foreign, that there was no certainty in the ancient Graecian history, because they had no certain term (which he calls parapegma, as others Epocha, and Censorinus titulus) from whence to deduce their accounts. But now from the time of the Olympiads (i. e. from the first of them after their restauration by Iphitus, wherein the names of the Conquerors were ingraven in brass tablets for the purpose) the succession of time is most certain and historical among the Graecians; by which account we have from thence a certain way of commensurating the sacred and prophane history. All the difficulty is in what year of sacred history the Olympiads began, which Scaliger thus finds out. Censorinus writes (in the year of Christ 238. which was of the Iulian period De emend. temp. l. 5.4951.) that, that year was from the first Olympiad of Iphitus 1014. the first Olympiad was of the Iulian period 3938. which was according to our learned Primate A. M. 3228. and the 35 of Uzziah King of Iudah, or the 34. as Capellus thinks: So that from henceforward we have a clear account of times, which we have demonstrated to have been so uncertain before.
If we come from the Greeks further into these European parts, we shall find as much darkness and obscurity as Sect. 4.to ancient times, if not more, then in those already discoursed of. For the truth is, the account of times before the Romans in Italy, Germany, old Gallia or Britain, are scarce fit to be discoursed of under any head then that of impostures. Not that I think those Nations had lain in a perpetual sleep till the Romans waked them into some kind of civility, but that they had no certain way of conveying down the transactions of their own and former times to the view of posterity. On which account we may justly reject all those pretended successions of Kings h…re in Britain from Gomer to Brute as fabulous: And it will be the less wonder it should be so in those then accounted barbarous Nations, when even among those who were the Planters of knowledge and civility among others, the account of their ancient times is so dark, confused, and uncertain: As it would sufficiently appear to any that would take the pains to examine the succession of the two first Dynastyes among the Latins; the first before Aeneas his coming into Italy, and the second of the Aeneadae after; and certainly it will be sufficient ground to question the account of times before, if in the third Dynasty, when the succession seems so clear, and so certain an Epocha as the building of Rome, to deduce their accounts from their Chronology be uncertain, which I shall briefly speak to. For although Porcius Cato have in Dionysius the honour of finding out the first Palilia of the City of Rome (which was the Feast observed to the honour of the God Pales, in the time of which, the foundations of Rome were laid) yet there appears no great certainty in his undertaking; for therein he was after contradicted by the learned Roman Varro. Dionysius tells us that Cato found by the Censors tables the exact time from the expulsion of the Kings, to the time of the Cities being taken by the Gauls; from which time to his own, he could not miss of it from the Fasti Consulares; so that it cannot be denied but that Cato might have a certain account of times from the Regifugium to the time he writ his Origines. But what certainty Cato could have from the first Palilia of the City to the expulsion of Tarquin, we cannot understand. For the succession of Kings must needs be very uncertain, unless it be demonstrated from some publick monuments, or certain records, or some publick actions certainly known to have fallen out precisely in such a year of their several Reigns. Now none of these do occur in the Roman history in all that Interval from the Palilia to the Regifugium; so that not only the whole interval, but the time of every particular Kings Reign, are very uncertain. And therefore Varro being destitute of any demonstration of that time, had recourse to L. Tarrutius Firmanus, to see if by his skill in Astronomy he could certainly find out the first Palilia of Rome: His answer was, that he found that the City was built in the time of an Eclipse of the Sun, which was in the third year of the sixth Olympiad, according to which account Varro proceeded, and thence arose the difference between the Palilia Catoniana and Varroniana; the latter falling out in the 23 of Iphitus, the other in the 24. But if we believe Ioseph Scaliger, there could not be an Eclipse of the Sun at the time affirmed by Tarrutius: But yet V. de Emend. …cmp. l. 5. p. 388.granting an Eclipse of the Sun then, what certainty can we have of the succession of the several Kings afterwards, without which there can be no certain computation ab Urbe Condita? If then the Romans, who had so great advantage of knowing times, and were withall so inquisitive concerning the building of their City (which was a thing of no very remote distacne) could attain to no absolute certainty without it, what certainty can we expect as to an account of far ancienter times, either from them or others, when they had no Censors tables, nor Fasti Consulares to be guided by? And thus much may serve to shew the great uncertainty of Heathen Chronology, as to the giving an account of ancient times.
And yet were it only an uncertainty as to Chronology, we might better bear with it; for the mistake meerly in Sect. 5.computation of times were not so dangerous (any further then the credibility of the history depends on the computation, as in point of antiquity) if we were but certain that the persons and actions related of them were such as they are reported to be. But that which adds much to the confusion and uncertainty of Heathen history, is, the frequency of Impostures, which are more hard to be discovered, in that there are no authentick histories of those times extant, which hath both given occasion to variety of imposture, and much hindered their discovery. For the curiosity of men leading them back into a search after ancient times, it makes them exceeding credulous in embracing whatever pretends to give them any conduct through those dark and obscure paths of ancient history: And the world hath never been wanting of such as would be ready to abuse the simple credulity of well-meaning, but less wary men; but those ages have been most feracious in the production of such persons, which have pretended to more Learning then they had. The pretence of learning made such persons appear, and the want of it made them not be discovered. Thus it was not only of old among the Chaldean and Aegyptian Priests, and the Graecian Poets and Historians, of whom we have spoken already; but even among those who might have learned more truth from the Religion they professed, then to think it stood in need of their lyes. For there can be no greater disparagement offered to truth, then to defend it with any thing but it self, nothing laying truth so open to suspicion, as when falshood comes to be its advocate: And a false testimony discovered, doth more prejudice to a good cause, then it could any wayes advantage it, were it not discovered; and therefore their labours have been as serviceable to the world who have discovered Impostors, as those who have directly maintained truth against its open opposers, those being so much more dangerous, in that they appear in the disguise of truth, and therefore are with more difficulty discovered. Such a one was that ignis fatuus that appeared in a kind of twilight in the Christian world between the former darkness of Barbarism, and the approaching light of knowledge; I mean Annius Viterbiensis, who like Hannibal in passing the Alps, not finding a way ready to his mind, sets himself to burning the woods, and firing the rocks, and dissolving them with vinegar to make a passage through them: So Annius being beset in those snowy and gray-headed Alps of ancient history, and finding no way clear for him according to his fancy, he labours to burn down all certain Records, to eat through the credit of undoubted Authors, to make a more free passage for his own history, which he deduceth suitably to Scripture from the concurrent testimony of the eldest Historians. To which purpose, a New Berosus, Manetho, Philo, Metasthenes (as he mistook for Megasthenes) and Xenophon must put on a grave disguise, and walk abroad the world with a mantle of Antiquity about their shoulders, although they were nothing else but aery Phantasms, covered over with the Cowl of the Monk of Viterbo. For being himself somewhat more versed in the history of those elder times then generally persons were in the age he lived in, he made that unhappy use of his skill, to play the Mountebank with his learning; and to abuse the credulity of those who have better stomacks then palats, and can sooner swallow down the compositions that are given them, then find out the Ingredients of them. Thus Annius puts a good face on his new-old Authors, bids them be bold and confident, and they would fare the better: And the truth is they tell their story so punctually in all circumstances, in those things which had no certain conveyance to posterity, that that were sufficient ground to any intelligent person to question their authority. But lest his Authors should at any time want an Interpreter to make out their full meaning, he sets himself a large Commentary upon them: And certainly he was the fittest person in the world to do it; for cujus …st condere, ejus …st interpretari; none so fit to explain Annius, as Annius himself. The whole story of this Imposture, how he made the Inscriptions himself, and hid them under ground, how they were digged thence and brought to Annius; how Annius caused them to be sent to the Magistrates, and after published them in the equipage they are in, are at large related by that learned Bishop Antonius Augustinus, from Latinus Latinius.Dialog. 11.
From a like quarry to this, came out those other famous Inscriptions, walking under the specious title of Antiquitatum Sect. 6.Ethruscarum fragmenta, wherein, besides many palpable incongruities to the customs of those eldest times, discovered partly by Leo Allatius in his discourse concerning them, there are so many particular stories and circumstances related concerning Noah's being in Italy, and other things, so far beyond any probability of reason, that it is a wonder there are yet any persons pretending to learning, who should build their discourses upon such rotten and sandy foundations as these Inscriptions are. But though Ixion might, Iupiter would never have been deceived with a Cloud instead of Iuno; so, though persons unacquainted with the lineaments of truth, may be easily imposed on with appearances instead of her: yet such persons who have sagacity enough to discern the air of her countenance from the paint of forgeries, will never suffer themselves to be over-reached by such vain pretenders. But these Impostors are like the Astrologers at Rome, ever banished, and yet ever there; and so these are ever exploded by all lovers of truth, yet always find some to applaud and entertain them: Although it be more difficult to do so now in the present light of knowledge, and all advantages for learning, then it was in those elder times, when the Heathen Priests pretended to the Monopoly of Learning among themselves, and made it one of their great designs to keep all others in dependence on themselves, thereby to keep up their veneration the better among the people. And therefore all the Records they had of Learning or History, were carefully lockt up, and preserved among the Priests; and lest at any time others might get a view of them, they were sure to preserve them in a peculiar Character distinct from that in civil and common use. By which means the Heathen Priests had all imaginable opportunities and conveniences for deceiving the silly people, and thereby keeping them in an obsequious Ignorance, which is never the Mother of any true Devotion, but of the greatest Superstition.
It is well known of the Aegyptian Priests, that the sacred Sect. 7.Characters of their Temples were seldom made known to any but such as were of their own number and family, Diod. l. 3.(the Priesthood being there hereditary) or such others as by long converse had insinuated themselves into their society, as some of the Greek Philosophers and Historians had done: And yet we have some reason to think they were not overfree and communicative to some of them, by the slender account they give of several things, which are supposed to be well known among the Aegyptians. That the Phoenician Priests had their peculiar and sacred Characters too, is evident from the words of Philo Byblius concerning Sanchoniathon, if we take Bochartus his Exposition of them: Euseb. Praep. E…. vang. l. c. 10.He tells us that his History was compared foreign, with the Inscriptions in the Temples written in the Ammunean letters, which are known to few: Literae Ammuneorum (saith Bochartus) sunt literae Templorum, literae in sacr is exceptae. For foreign is the Sun, thence foreign the Temple of the Geogr. sacr. p. 2. l. 2. c 17Sun, whom the Phoenicians worshipped as their principal Deity, under the name of Beel-samen, the Lord of Heaven. The same Author tells us out of Diogenes Laertius, of a Book of Democritus, foreign; by which it is evident that the Babylonian Priests had their sacred Characters too: And of a Testimony of Theodoret Quest. in Gen. 61.of all the Graecian Temples, foreign, that they had some peculiar Characters which were called sacred. But that leraned Author thinks there is no necessity of understanding it peculiarly of the Graecians, because the Greek Fathers called all Heathens by the name of Greeks; but if so, the Testimony is the larger, and amounts to an universal Testimony of the Heathen Temples.
Neither was this only peculiar to them, if we believe Sect. 8.some persons of greater Learning then Iudgment, who attribute this distinction of sacred and vulgar Characters to the Iews as well as others, but without any probability of reason. For these learned men being strongly possessed with the opinion of the modern Iews concerning the Antiquity of the present Hebrew Characters, and finding themselves pressed not only with the Testimony of some ancient Rabbins, but with the stronger evidence of the ancient shekels about Solomons time, inscribed with the Samaritan letters, have at last found this Evasion, that the Samaritan letters were in vulgar use; but the present Characters were then sacred, and not made common till after the time of the Captivity. But this seems to be a meer shift found out by some modern Iews, and greedily embraced by their Followers, because thereby they are in hopes to evade the strength of the contrary arguments, which otherwise they can find no probable solution of. And a meer shift it will appear to be, to any one that considers on how little ground of reason it stands: For none of those reasons which held for such a distinction of Characters among the Heathens, can have any place among the Iews. For it was never any part of Gods design to have the Law kept from the peoples view. Truth is never so fearful of being seen abroad; it is only falshood that walks under disguises, and must have its hiding-places to retreat to: Nay, God expresly commanded it as a duty of all the Iews, 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? did he not command it to be as frontlets between their eyes, Exod. 13. 16. D…ut. 6. 8.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 ingraven 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 then 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, then the Samaritan, which is, when time serves, used as a plea for their great Antiquity. But yeilding yet more, that the Sacred Character was only used for the authentick coppy of the Law, which was to decide all differences of other coppies (which some run to as their last shift) I appeal to any mans reason, whether this be not the most improbable of all? For how could such a coppy be the Iudge 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 dye 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 Iews is pressed with inconveniencies, but it was most suitable to the Heathens 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 Histories.
Especially if we add what we promised in the last place, to shew the want of credibility in the report of ancient times Sect. 9.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 inhance 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 Aegyptians 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 imployed myriads of men for so many years for the doing of them, would be content to be so dieted by their Laws, as Hercataeus and Diodorus tell us they were to be? Nay it seems to be very suspitious, that the great enterprises of their famous Sesoosis are meerly fabulous, and some think an attributing to themselves, what was done by the Assyrian Emperour 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 Aegyptians are in dissembling their greatest losses; as is clear in the story of the Conquest of Pharao Neco by N…buchadnezzar, Jer. 46. 12. of which there is not the least mention in Herodotus or Diodorus; But on the contrary, Herodotus tells us this Necos, as he Lib. 2.calls him, conquered the Syrians at Magdalos; and the story of Vaphres and Amasis in him seems to be only a disguise of Nebuchadnezzars Conquest; only lest men should think them conquered by a Forraigner, they make Amasis to be an Aegyptian Plebeian. Again, what a vast number of Cities doth Diodorus tell us of that were in Aegypt in …iblioth…. l. 1their eldest times? no less then 18000. when yet himself confesseth in the time of Ptolomaeus Lagi there were reckoned but somewhat above 3000 Cities, and then Aegypt 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, say they, by the heat of 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 Aegyptian History between Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Dicaearchus, Eratosthenes, and all who have spoken of it; as to the Assyrian Empire between Herodotus, Diodorus, and Iulius Africanus; as to the Persian Empire between Herodotus and Ctesias, and those in no inconsiderable things, as is evident in Photius his excerpta out of him. Among the Graecians 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 spight that is born by the gravest Greek Authors, as Strabo, Plutarch, and others, towards Euemerus Siculus, for offering to deliver the History of Iupiter, which he saith, he transcribed from the golden pillar in the Temple of Jupiter Triphyllius in Panchetis.
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 insufficiency, so great uncertainty and confusion, so much 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.