being Anthropomorphites 280. Hebrew Language as well expresses the Nature of God as the Scholastical 282. Expiation consistent with the Mercy of God 292. The Origin of Sacrifices from Antient Revelation 295. God's Honour to be considered in the Mediatorship 300. What is meant by Satisfaction 303. A Vicarious punishment not unjust 306. Christ tho' God might Suffer 307. No Incongruity in the Doctrine of Christ's Intercession 309. THE CONTENTS of the Third Part. OF THE CONFERENCE Of the Predictions concerning Christ THE Objections answered of Prophecies not to the purpose p. 10. Texts quoted by way of accommodation p. 10. Texts quoted in Mystical Sense 14. Types and Allegories vindicated 20. Gen. 3.15 A Prophecy of Christ 27. Scepter of Judah Gen. 44.10 Prophecy of Christ 36. How the Fathers interpreted this Prophecy 45. Balaams Star Numb 24.17 a Prophecy of Christ 49. A Virgin shall conceive Isa 7.14 Prophecy of Christ 53. The Jewish way of Exposit a confirmation of Christianity 63. The Prophetick Excursions Explained 69. 2 Psalm a Prophecy of Christ 71. 62 Psalm a Prophecy of Christ 76. Prophecy of the Call of the Gentiles verified in Christ 83. Call of the Gentiles no random Guess of the Prophets 89. Glory of the Second Temple Hag. 2.7 a Prophecy of Christ 90. 52 53 cap. Isa Prophecy of Christ 96. The Monarchies and Weeks in Daniel Prophecy of Christ 100. Micha 5.2 Prophecy of Christ 115. Reason why Prophecies are something obscure 119. Of the Life and Actions of Christ as they are Recorded in Scripture The Birth of Christ Vindicated 124. The Blasphemy of Celsus and Julian confuted 127. Christ more glorious and great than Romulus Numa c 132. The Vindication of Christ's Anger Christ a pattern of the greatest Patience 136. Our Saviour's Discourse agreeable to the Eastern way of Reasoning 143. By making use of the Greek Philosophy and Eloquence he would not have been understood by the People 145. He avoided by this Prolixity 146. Christ does not speak Parables in his Laws nor generally Parables difficult 448. Christ's riding on an Ass not ridiculous 150. This a Token of his Humility and the nature of his Kingdom 150. To shew him to be a King as well as a Prophet 152. Jews Interpret this Prophecy of the Messias 153. Christ no Impostor but a good Man 155. Because his Miracles were done so often and before so many 157. His Miracles not capable of Collusion 158. He was no Cheat because he could get nothing by it 159. Because of the great Penalty on Impostors 162. Such Numbers could not conceal a Cheat. 163. Christ's Miracles owned by his Enemies 165. The Reason why Christ did so few Miracles in his own Country 167. Christ Preached the Gospel to the Poor not to deceive such people but because they were better qualified to receive the Gospel than the Rich. 170. The Ignorant better qualified for this than the Learned 170. This Choice made the Progress of the Gospel more miraculous 171. Why Christ required Faith in his Disciples 173. Mean Men as good Judges of Miracles as others 173. Vindication of Christ's Patience He more couragious and patient than the Heathen Philosophers 176. Reason of our Saviour's praying that the Cup might pass from him 177. Christ's Death no Collusion 181. Instances of Aristeas c. compared with Christ's Resurrection confuted 182. Testimony of Christ's rising from the Dead unexceptionable 185. The Disciples stealing away the Body a foolish Lie 189. Christ's not so generally Conversing with his Disciples after the Resurrection no Argument against the Truth of it 193. The Comparison of Apollonius with Christ foolish 199. Philostratus set on to forge his History 202. Forged in immitation of Gospel Miracles 203. Apollonius no good Man 206. Apostles more credible than Philostratus because unlearned 207. Story of Abaris his Miracles ridiculous 208. The Apostles not Counterfeits 209. Because good Men. 212. Because they knew the Matters they related ib. Because not cunning enough to carry on such a Cheat. 213. Because all witnessed the same 214. Because they could get nothing by it 215. Because the Truth of what they said easily examined 216. Because they Suffered and Died for their Doctrine 217. T is false that the Apostles ventured nothing by preaching for they ventured their Lives and Liberties 221. They did not preach for Vain Applause 222. Got nothing by the Collections 223. Persecuted by the Gentiles as well as Jews 224. Preached against the Heathen Idolatry 225. False Brethren not Informers 226. What St. Paul said to the Pharises no prevarication 226. Case of the Apostolick and Popish Miracles different 228. The Doctrine of the Messias before the Captivity 230. Not owing to the Jewish Gematria 232. Notion of a Temporal Messias did not further the Gospel 233. The Millennium no Apostolick Doctrine 234. Of the Doctrines Contained in the Old Testament Prayer of Christians vindicated because better than the Heathens 238. No Sauciness to pray to God 239. Prayer for Rain not for a Miracle 240. Christians think not to weary God by Prayer 242. Nor to flatter him by Thanksgiving 243. Mortification vindicated to be a a reasonable Duty 246. Single Marriage vindicated Polygamy not lawful from the practice of the Antients 249. Or Barbarous 250. More Comfort in Single Marriage 251. Affections of the Married do not naturally wear off by Age. 253. Nor by the speedy decay of Feminine Beauty 254. Ob. against Polygamy from the slavery of such Wives 255. From the equal Number of Males and Females 256. Humility and Meekness vind against Spinosa and Match 263. Forgiving Injuries Vindicated 268. Doctrine of Repentance Vindicated 276. And that of Grace 282. Reasonableness of the Institution of the Sacraments 287. Reasonableness of the general Resurrection 296. Of the Doctrine of Wicked Spirits 302. Of Hell and the Eternity of Hell Torments 307. Of Heaven 315. THE CONTENTS of the Fourth Part OF THE CONFERENCE Of the Authenticalness of the Books of Scripture MOses allowed to be the Author of the Pontateuch by all Antiquity p. 6. Father Simons Supposition Examined 8. No setled Scribes to write Scripture among the Jews 10. Jewish Scripture not wrote on loose Leaves 11. No Compilers to alter original Scripture 16. Esdras could not forge the Scripture 18. Spinosas Arguments against Moses being the Author of the Pentateuch answered 23. Isaiah the Author of the Book under his Name 38. Samuel Author of Judges and beginning of Samuel 41. The other parts of Samuel wrote by Nathan and Gad. 43. Kings and Chronicles a compilation after the Captivity 45. Esra wrote the book of that Name 46. Nehemiah Author of that Book 47. The Book of Job vindicated 49. The Psalms 52. Solomon Author of the Proverbs 54. Ecclesiastes 56. Panticles 57. The Authority of the Book of Isaiah 57. Jeremiah 60. Ezekiel 63. Daniel 65. Twelve Minor Prophets 66. The Absurdity of Spinosas asserting that all the Books of the Old Testament were wrote by the same hand
The Particulars of the Conference The Account of the Creation which Moses gives us 2. The Fall of Man presently after that Creation 3. His Redemption from the Calamities of that Fall by Jesus Christ And lastly The Truth of the Scripture upon whose Authority all this rests But if I have good reason to believe that the World was long before this pretended Creation that there are a great many Contradictions and Improbabilities in Moses his Relation of it that there is no likelihood of such a Lapse of Mankind nor is there need of any such Redemption nor that the Books which are brought to prove all this are of that Divine Authority they pretend to you may then very well conclude that I have something more to say against your Religion than some few flourishes of Wit and gay Periods which your Clergy would make you believe is all that Men of my Perswasion have to encounter it Nay I will add further if you can satisfy me in these Particulars and clear up these Difficulties I will profess Christianity to Morrow for it is not my Vices but my Objections as I told you which hinder me from joining Communion with you and I do not know but that I may live as vertuously and honestly as those who go so gravely to Church with black Caps and broad Bibles And therefore if you please Credentius we will take a Walk in your Garden and talk over a Point or two of this Subject for the Weather is too hot either to drink or to stay within Cred. I did not think Philologus to entertain you after this Philosophical Manner But pray Sir how long have you been in love with the Peripatum I thought you were too much of Epicurus his Party to take Example after Aristotle's Sect. I should think some other jolly Philosopher were a more agreeable Pattern for you to take than those stingy Speculatists who give their Friends a Walk to save their Wine But if it is resolved that you and I must enter the Lists of a Disputation this Evening I think it will not be inconvenient to walk abroad for if we shall grow too warm there we shall have Air to cool us And so Sir at your pleasure I follow Phil. This delicate Walk of Orange Trees Credentius puts me in mind of your Paradise and consequently of the Mosaick Creation which is the first point which you and I must clear up But I would not have you think that I find fault with this account because I am perswaded with Epicurus that the World was not made by God For Epicurus was a Blockhead to entertain such a silly thought as this and no Man of common sense that ever thought could be of his Opinion I am as impatient as you can be at the ridiculousness of his Philosophy for his Doctrine of the Eternity the weight and falling of Atoms is but a System of Nonsense For those weighty Atoms of his would be always falling and falling through the infinite space and would never be able to meet together to frame a World and one Atom could be no more able to join with another than the Hind-wheel can overtake the foremost And as for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Side-Motion which was afterwards added I look upon to be but a pitiful Botch to patch up this foolish Hypothesis I am fully satisfied that the World had its Origin from a Wise or Powerful Being the first Cause of all things from whose Eternal Womb all things have sprung up and whose Power and Goodness still preserves the World in the same state in which it always was So that I espy two principal faults in the account of the Mosaick Creation The Ground of Theism The first is Because he gives the World too late a being it having a subsistence infinite Ages before he says it had the second is That supposing the World was Created in Time and at the time he supposes his account is so extravagant that it cannot satisfy any reasonable man And these two points in the first place I think I shall be able to make out Cred. Well! Sir I see you have ranged your Exceptions very Methodically You are resolved to find me work enough before you have done for these Heads I presume are teeming with an abundance of Objections so that you will make me run through a Body of Divinity before I have answered them all For my part I must maintain the ground of Christianity as well as I can and I am sorry it is like to suffer so much by so ill a Defender But God be thanked I have a good Cause to set against your Wit and Parts for I take every thing which can be said against our Religion to be so inconsiderable that very weak Parts and a slender stock of Learning will be able to encounter the most doughty Arguments which can be urged against it And therefore will you be pleased to proceed upon your first Head Of the Eternity of the World Phil. Why Sir the first thing I have to say against the History of the Creation as it is related by Moses is that he makes the World to begin but between five and six Thousand years ago when it is demonstrable it has continued from all Eternity And this has been the Doctrine of the wisest Philosophers heretofore For to omit Aristotle and others of later date I find Ocellus Lucanus * Oracles of Reason p. 216. who was almost cotemporary with Moses if not before him to have been of this Opinion and he is so admirable a Philosopher that in a Question of this nature I would take his word before that of the Jewish Lawgiver But his Book of the Nature of the Vniverse which is still extant gives us so many demonstrative Arguments of the Truth of this Opinion that we need go no farther than that Excellent Treatise to confute the History of the Creation Cred. But before you proceed give me leave to remind you of a very great Errour in asserting that Ocellus the Author of that Treatise was Precedent or any thing nigh Co-temporary with Moses But supposing that Treatise to be wrote by Ocellus Lucanus that ancient Pythagorean there was no less than eleven hundred years distance between his Writing and Moses his For say that Moses wrote ten Years after the Israelites coming out of Egypt which was An. Mundi 2470. the Book of the Creation will then be wrote An. Mundi 2480 but I will make it appear that Ocellus Lucanus wrote but much about the year of the World 3580. which is eleven hundred years later Now Ocellus Lucanus lived much about the time when Plato wrote or perhaps a little before being both Cotemporaries but Ocellus the elder Man For Plato's School was in its most flourishing Condition in the 102 Olympiad when he was about fifty years old Diog. Lâ—â— Vit. Plat. but he was born as Laertius informs us from Apollodorus's Chronicks in the 88th Olympiad
i. e. about An. Mundi 3525 and it is as plain that Ocellus lived much about the same time For Laertius in the Life of Archytas gives us two Letters between Archytas and Plato about Ocellus who was lately Dead Wherein Archytas tells Plato that he had undertook the Business of Publishing some Posthumous Pieces of Ocellas and upon that account had been with the Family of the Lucani and particularly with Ocellus his Grand-Children and had obtained the Papers of them viz. his Book of Laws of Monarchy of Sanctity of the Generation of the Vniverse and adds that he will send the other Pieces to him as soon as they should be found To which Plato answers that this was a very acceptable present that he very much admired the Writer and that he was worthy of that most ancient descent from the Trojans Now if Ocellus were so ancient a Writer as Moses how should Plato never have seen his Books before How should it come into his Head to put Archytas upon search after Books which were wrote eleven hundred Years before Or how could they be supposed to have lain dormant in the Family for so many Ages If he had been as old as Moses Plato would never have mentioned his most ancient Descent from the Trojans for Moses lived long before those Trojan Ancestors were born But the Letter is express that Archytas had this Book from his Grand-Children which were probably his Heirs and who had the right of disposal of his Papers when he was Dead So that it appears that this Ocellus was so far from being a Writer as old as Moses that he was but a late Grecian Writer For not to mention Orpheus Homer and Hesiod who lived six or seven Centuries before most of the Greek Books which are most commonly read were much Ancienter than this Author All the celebrated Dramatical Poets Aristophanes Aeschylus Euripides Sophocles all the Lyrick ones Stesichorus Alcaeus Pindar Sappho Simonides Anacreon and other moral Poets Ancienter than these Tyrtaeus Theognis Phocylides besides the famous Historians Herodotus and Thucydides But in respect of the Jewish Books he was but a writer of yesterday for he was so far from being able to vie with Moses for Antiquity that the very last Writer of the Old Testament wrote before him for the Canon was compleated and the Prophecies sealed up in Malachy who wrote almost 40 years before this Writer For Malachy flourished in the first year of Artaxerxes Mnemon and Ocellus not till about the 35th So that we have proved not only Moses but the whole Bible to be ancienter than this Old Writer But after all I believe I can make it appear that this Book which you mention is not so ancient as the Author it lays claim to but was composed by some modern in imitation of that Ancient piece of Ocellus's which Archytas in his letter mentions For there are some manifest marks which make it appear that it is a piece of much later date than Ocellus Lucanus 1. For it is known to all that the Ancient Pythagoreans wrote always in the Dorick Dialect as appears by the works or fragments yet exstant of Timaeus Locrus c. But this Treatise is wrote in common Greek nay it is evident that Ocellus himself wrote in Dorick Stob. Ecl. Phys Lib. 1. Cap. 16. as does appear from what is quoted from him by Stobaeus in his Ecloges viz. a fragment out of his Book of Laws which Archytas says he wrote In which fragment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. shews plainly the Dialect in which this Author wrote 2ly We may observe that the Author of this Piece was an Aristotelian Philosopher who goes all along upon Aristotle's Principles viz. The four Elements talks much of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Elementary qualities of the Transmutation of the Elements of Antiperistasis c. almost in the very words of Aristotle in his Books of Natural Auscultation So that instead of being as old as Moses 't is probable he may not be much older than Simplicius or Philoponus Phil. Let this be as it will the weight of the Arguments he produces does not depend upon the Antiquity of the Author Ocell §. 2. Or. Reas p. 210. and those I am sure are too strong to be baffled by a little Criticism and Chronology The sum of his first Argument is this If the World or Vniverse be generated or had a beginning 't is generated out of Nothing or Something But all Men agree that Nothing can be produced from Nothing To say it was produced out of Something is as unreasonable for that something must be a part of the Vniverse or the Whole Vniverse because there is nothing besides the Vniverse and that would be to make a thing produced out of it self which is of all the most palpable Contradiction Cred. I know this Doctrine of the World 's being formed out of Nothing sate so cross in Epicurus his Brains Answ to Ocellus his I. Argument that it set him upon the sent of his Atheistical Opinions to get rid of it For as the story tells us when he heard a Grammarian whom he was Scholar to explaining those famous Verses of Hesiod in his Theogonia Sext. Empir cont Math. Lib. 9. Diog. Laert. vit Epic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chaos was first form'd by th' Eternal Mind Next the wide Earth the Seat of every kind He very pertly asked if the Earth was made out of the Chaos what the Chaos was made out of At which question the Grammarian being confounded made answer that it was not his Province to teach such things but that of the Philosophers With this Answer Epicurus being unsatisfied he left the Grammarian and betook himself to the study of Philosophy But notwithstanding this I cannot see any thing in this Philosophical Axiom Ex nihilo nil fit that should any ways make against God's Creation of the World out of nothing Indeed this has been an Axiom in the mouths of Philosophers of all sorts the Aristotelian and Pythagorean Platonist and Stoick but then a great many of them meant no more by it than that it has no place in natural productions but that it ought not to be extended to the primary production of things For Empedocles his Verses quoted by Plutarch and Aristotle are the most ancient Piece in the Graecian Philosophy where this Axiom is urged and he only makes use of it to prove that matter is not produced in the Generation of Things nor destroyed in their Corruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Children in Knowledge vainly to suppose That all that 's Born from Nothing has arose Or when in Death the scatter'd parts do flie To think that Ought does into Nothing die And we find that the Corpuscularian Philosophers who made Atoms the first Principles of things were those that did chiefly make use of this Axiom to confute the Doctrines of Forms and substantial
Essences which Aristotle and some others before him did explain the Phaenomena of Nature by And indeed this Axiom was very conclusive against that Opinion for when by that Philosophy it should be asserted that a Room was enlightened by the Generation of the Form of Light or that Fire was extinguished by the corruption of the form of Fire it was very seasonably replied in the words of this Maxim Ex nihilo nil fit nothing is produced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from something which was before a thing is not produced by annihilation of the old Form and the Production of a new Substance which was not before out of nothing for the course of Nature allows of no such supernatural Productions all these Phaenomena are to be accounted for by the alteration of the Figure and Motion of the Parts and the different appearances they produce in the Mind of Man Intel. Syst Cap. 1. p. 30 c. And this Dr. Cudworth in his Intellectual System has proved at large to be the meaning of this Assertion of the Ancient Atomick Philosophers But then Sir be pleased to consider what this Axiom has to do to confront the Omnipotent Power of God in the first Creation unless it can be proved that it implies an absolute Impossibility for God to create any thing out of nothing which no one can reasonably assert Now no one can say it implies an absolute Impossibility for then such Impossibility must arise either from want of Power in God to do it or from some natural Repugnancy in the thing it self It cannot proceed from want of Power in God for he is the Origin of all Power and every thing that is possible to be done can be done by him To say the Impossibility arises from the part of the Subject is as incongruous For such Impossibility must be caused from a Power of resisting in that thing or from a Contradiction which the doing thereof would imply But there can be no Power of resisting in any thing which is able to resist the Divine Activity because that and all other Power came from Him which argues in Him a greater Power But as for the Subject of Creation that is Nothing and therefore that to be sure cannot give any Resistance There remains only to prove that it implies no Contradiction to produce something out of Nothing Indeed to be and not to be at the same time implies a Contradiction but to be and not to be at diverse times does not and the reason is obvious Because the Existence of a Thing in any one Instant does perfectly exclude all possibility of non-existence for that Instant but the not being of a Thing in any Instant does not exclude any possibility of its being afterward when God Almighty pleases Now it is so far from being a Contradiction for a Thing to be produced out of nothing by God-Almighty that we find it according to the Philosophy of some in some measure done even by finite Beings For they account Accidents a sort of Beings which are produced by Creatures themselves out of nothing by a kind of subordinate and delegated Creation which God has given them the Power of by Vertue of their Beings Thus the Mind produces Thought the Fire produces Heat the Sun produces Light which are all distinct from the Substances which produce them and yet are generated out of nothing But however both Thought and Light and Heat are real Beings and do properly Exist and are composed out of no Pre-existent Matter and therefore must be produced out of Nothing either by the immediate Power of God continually acting which is most reasonable or by a subordinate Power communicated to the Creature with its Being Now why is it not as easy for the Deity to produce Substance out of nothing by his Almighty Power as it is for a Creature to produce Accidents by his finite and limited One Or why could not God-Almighty produce all things out of nothing at first as well as to produce these Accidents Modes or Appearances every moment All the Difficulty which makes some Men unwilling to allow this power to God is because we do not see any Instance of this before our eyes being used only to Natural and Artificial Productions We see Blood produced out of Food and Flesh out of Blood we see the Juices of the Earth turned into Wood the Wood into Smoak and Flame whilst the matter remains the same after those so many alterations and therefore we conclude that no production or Corruption can be made any other way than this We experience that a Carpenter cannot build a Ship or a House without pre-existing materials and therefore we are apt sillily to conclude that God himself can do no more because we cannot conceive how he should do it or because he must do it by other Methods than those which we are used to But I pray is not this as unreasonable as for a blind Man to deny that any one can perceive Colours because he cannot possibly conceive how they should be distinguish'd And if there be other good Arguments to prove that God has Created the World out of nothing it is in vain to deny it because it is inconceiveable by us or contrary to the course of nature since the Creation Phil. Well! but what say you to Ocellus's second Argument Ocellus Luc. Tex 3. Oracl Reas p. 211. If the World be made or produced it must follow the Laws of other productions it must grow from worse to better from its infirm Estate to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vigor and so decline to its old Age and Dissolution But we find that the World always was as it is now there has never been the least decay in i◠nor the least improvement of its perfection it always stands at the same stay and so always must continue Cred. Argum. II Ans To this Argument Sir be pleased to take this Answer 1st That it is a thing somewhat uncertain whether or no the World continues in the same state it was in at the beginning most learned Men for many Ages have been of the contrary opinion that it grows old and doth every day verge towards its final Destruction and Dr. Hackwell who wrote his Book of Providence about Threescore Years ago was the first Man that had the Boldness to encounter with the received opinion and he raised himself not a small number of Adversaries upon it But truly I am so far of that learned Mans opinion as not to think any very remarkable decay is to be found in the World for the Heavenly Bodies do observe the same motions and when we espie any difference between the Ancient and Modern Accounts it ought to be attributed to want of exactness in the old Calculations the Bodies of Men are of the same magnitude as is manifest by the Ancient measures of Digits Feet c. and their natural parts or ingeny seem not at all to be
this was the sum and acme of the Hieraglyphical way of writing Now this was a way of writing very troublesome and uncertain for the figures and marks must needs be very numerous and yet not represent one quarter of the words in a Language and therefore consequently very difficult to be unlocked The only way therefore to get rid of this trouble was to invent a few marks which might represent all manner of words And this was not very difficult to be attempted by those who had made any Observation upon the nature of words For such could easily determine that although words were never so numerous yet the Elementary parts which did compose them were but few They might soon perceive that all words were but four or five sounds diversly modulated by the Organs of the Mouth and Throat The five Vowels are far easier to be distinguished than the notes in Musick and the Consonants are not much more difficult In the word A-mo any one way perceive the first Syllable is only a clear plain sound of the Breath through the Mouth and mo is only a hollow sound modulated by the Lips Amor is a sound made by the same Organs with a regurgitation of the last Vocal sound to the Throat From hence an ingenious person may observe that by the modulation of these sounds fourteen or fifteen ways by the repeating or transposing them all manner of words are made And then he may very well conclude when he has sufficiently distinguished these sounds and modulations that by applying particular Marks or Letters to each of these he may represent all manner of words or write what he will with those few Characters And I doubt not but this or something very like was the reasoning of that admirable Person who first thought upon this noble Art Indeed it is far easier to run along with this thread of Thought after the Invention than before but to say that amongst so many Millions of Ingenious Men in millions of Ages no one should ever have reasoned after this manner or have prosecuted this hint successfully is a thing so very incredible that we Christians have not Faith to believe And this is all I have to say to you about the Eternity of the World so that now I am ready for your other exceptions if you have no more to reply upon this Head Phil. I think we have bandied this subject about long enough and I thank you kindly for your Arguments which as you have urged them have had that force upon me as to make me abandon my former Opinion of the World's Eternity which indeed I never before thought so absurd as you have made it But still my dear Friend I have some dregs of a Doubt behind whether it may not be many thousand of years or perhaps Ages older than you look upon it to be if you go upon the Mosaical account For if we look into the ancient computations of other Nations besides the Jews we shall find prodigious accounts of Time For Scaliger in his Book de Emendat Temp. says that then A. D. 1594. O. R. p. 226. the Chineses reckoned the World to have been eight hundred eightscore thousand and seventy three years old and the * Id. 182. Bramins of Gauzrat said that in the years 1639. there had passed 326669 Ages To this if we add the excessive computations of the Egyptians and Chaldaeans and the Inscriptions of Ancient Marbles in some ancient Language which is now forgot we cannot in any probability allot the World so late an Original as the Mosaical account does Cred. The Argument I urged before from the Increase of Mankind is good against these excessive Computations as it is against the Eternity of the World Excessive Computations no Argument of the Eternity of the World for granting the World so old as is here pretended it would have been over-peopled long before now as much as it would have been in an Eternity So that if you allow the Cogency of the Argument in one case you must likewise in the other But besides the pure assertions of Nations as to their Antiquity without good History to support them have always been very little regarded because it has been a constant Vanity in all Nations to appear as old as they could Hence the Inhabitants of every Country endeavoured what they were able to be esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indigenae born out of their own ground or perpetual Inhabitants of it And with how great a Zeal Nations have carried this concern we may make an Estimate of by that pleasant contention of the Scythians and Aegyptians in the second Book of Justin As for the Aegyptians Diodorus Siculus who lived among them interprets their vast accounts of time by Months or Lunary years and so may the other be esteemed if there be any truth in them at all As for your old Inscriptions such as that which they tell us is to be seen at Caxumo in Aethiopia that is easily to be accounted for by the great alteration of Kingdoms and Languages For if the Romans after a few hundred years could hardly read or understand their old Laws what more can we expect from a few Barbarous Africans shut up from the rest of the World Of the Mosaick Account of the Creation Phil. Well Sir I shall trouble you no more upon this Head which has already taken up too great a part of our Discourse But I would fain see how you will get over our Objections against the Mosaick History of the Creation which your Bibles begin with For it seems to me to be such a Fardel of Unphilosophical contradictious talk as is fit only for the Chimney Corner instead of Witches and Apparitions One would expect that when an inspired Prophet should go about to give an account of the Origin of things he should do it in a noble Philosophick manner as Virgil tells us of old Silenus Vti per inane coacta Semina terrarum animaeque marisque fuissent Et liquidi simul ignis ut his exordia primis Omnia ipse tener mundi concreverit orbis c. Ecl. 6. Shews how the Earth By Atoms meeting in the Void had Birth What form'd the Soul and what the Ocean made And how the liquid Flames a Being had From whence all these their native Forms had bore And how the tender Globe was crusted o'er But instead of this he only Magisterially tells us things were so which any thinking Man that does not suffer every thing to pass upon him is assured of the contrary of For though your Arguments have convinced me of a temporary production of the World and that God some time or other perhaps not many thousand years ago did make it yet I can never believe it was made in that sort he would have it For he makes the whole Universe as well as this World or Earth of ours to be made at the same time as if those prodigious Bodies of