such an impress of Gods authority on the Scriptures that any who consider them as they ought cannot but discern I still further enquire whether this impress lies in the positive assertions in Scripture that they are from God and that cannot be unless it be made appear to be impossible that any writing should pretend to be from God when it is not or else in the written books of Scripture and then let it be made appear that any one meerly by the evidence of the writings themselves without any further arguments can pronounce the Proverbs to be the Word of God and not the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiastes to be Divinely inspired and not Ecclesiasticus or else the self-evidence must be in the excellency of the matters which are revealed in Scripture but this still falls very short of resolving wholly the question whether the Scripture be the Word of God for the utmost that this can reach to is that the things contained in Scripture are of so high and excellent a nature that we cannot conceive that any other should be the author of them but God himself all which being granted I am as far to seek as ever what grounds I have to believe that those particular writings which we call the Scripture are the Word of God or that God did immediately imploy such and such persons to write such and such books for I may believe the substance of the doctrine to be of God and yet not believe the books wherein it is contained to be a Divine and infallible testimony as is evident in the many excellent devotional books which are in the world But yet further if the only ground on which we are to believe a doctrine Divine be the self-evidencing light and power of it then I suppose there was the same ground of beliâ—ving a Divine testimony when the doctrine was declared without writing by the first Preachers of it So that by this method of proceeding the ground of believing Christ to be sent as the Mâ—ssias sent from God must be wholly and solely resolved into this that there was so much self-evidence in this proposition uttered by Christ I am the light of the world that all the Iews had been bound to have believed him sent from God for light manifests its self although our Saviour had never done any one miracle to make it appear that he came from God And we cannot but charge our Saviour on this account with being at a very unnecessary expence upon the world in doing so many miracles when the bare naked affirmation that he was the Messias had been sufficient to have convinced the whole world But is it conceivable then upon what account our Saviour should lay so much force on the miracles done by himself in order to the proving his testimony to be Divine that he saith himself that he had a greater witness then that of John who yet doubtless had self-evidencing light going along with his doctrine too for the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Can any thing be more plain or have greater self-evidence in it then that our Saviour in these words doth lay the evidence of his Divine testimony upon the miracles which he wrought which on that account he so often appeals to on this very reason because they bear witness of him and if they would not believe him on his own testimony yet they ought to believe him for his works sake Doth all this now amount only to a removing of prejudices from the person of Christ which yet according to the tenour of the objection we are considering of it is impossible the power of miracles should do if these miracles may be so far done or counterfeited by false Christs that we can have no certain evidence to distinguish the one from the other Which the objection pretends and was the great thing wherein Celsus the Epicurean triumphed so much that Christ should foretell that others should come and do miracles which they must not hearken to and thence would infer as from Christs own confession that miracles have in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing divine but what may be done by wicked men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it not a wretched thing saith he that from the same works one should be accounted a God and others deceivers Whereby those who would invalidate the argument from miracles may take notice how finely they fall in with one of the most bitter enemies of Christian religion and make use of the same arguments which he did and therefore Origens reply to him will reach them too For saith he our Saviour in those words of his doth not bid men beware in general of such as did miracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bids them beware of that when men gave themselves out to be the true Christ the Son of God and endeavour to draw Christs Disciples from him by some meer appearances in stead of miracles Therefore Christ being evidently made appear to be the Son of God by the powerful and uncontrouled miracles which he wrought what pretence of reason could there be to hearken to any who gave themselves out to be Christs meerly from some strange wonders which they wrought And from hence as he further observes may be justly inferd contrary to what Celsus imagined that there was certainly an evidence of Divine power in miracles when these false Christs gave themselves out to be Christs meerly from the supposal that they had this power of doing miracles And so it is evident in all the false Christs which have appeared they have made this their great pretence that they did many signs and wonders which God might justly permit them to do to punish the great infidelity of the Iews who would not believe in Christ notwithstanding those frequent and apparent miracles which he did which did infinitely transcend those of any such pretenders Such among the Iews were Ionathas who after the dâ—struction of Jerusalem as Iosephus tells us drew many of the people into the Wilderness of Cyrene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promising to shew them many prodigies and strange appearances Not long after in the times of Adrian appeared that famous blazing-star Barchochebas who not only portended but brought so much mischief upon the Iews his pretence was that he vomited flames and so he did such as consumed himself and his followers after him many other Impostors arose in Aegypt Cyprus and Crete who all went upon the same pretence of doing Miracles In latter times the famous impostor was David el-David whose story is thus briefly reported by David Ganz David el-David pretended to be the true Messias and rebelled against the King of Persia and did many signs and prodigies before the Iews and the King of Persia at last his head was cut off and the Iews fined an hundred talents of Gold in the Epistle
Diodorus relates set 30 Stars under the Planets these they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others they had as Princes over these which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former were as the privy Counsellors and these the Princes over them by whom in their courses they supposed the course of the year to be regulated We see then what a near affinity there was between Astrology and the Divinity of the Stars which makes Ptolomy call them Atheists who condemned Astrology because thereby they destroyed the main of their Religion which was the worshipping the Stars for Gods But it seems by Strabo that one of the Sects of the Chaldaeans did so hold to Astronomy still that they wholly rejected Genethlialogy which caused a great division among the Orchoëni and the Borsippeni two Sects among them so called from the places of their habitations And if we reckon the Zabii among the Chaldeans as Maimonides seems to do we have a further evidence of the Planetary Deities so much in request among the Chaldeans for the description he gives of them is to this purpose that they had no other gods but the Stars to whom they made statues and images to the Sun golden to the Moon silver and so to the rest of the Planets of the mettals dedicated to them Those images derived an influence from the Stars to which they were erected which had thence a faculty of foretelling future things which is an exact description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Talismans so much in request among the heathens such as the Palladium of Troy is supposed by learned men to have been These Talismans are by the Iews called Davids bucklers and are much of the same nature with the antient Teraphiâ— both being accurately made according to the positions of the heavens only the one were to foretell future things the other for the driving away some calamity Concerning these Zabii Maimonides tells us that the understanding their rites would give a great deal of light to several passages of Scripture which now lye in obscurity but little is supposed to be yet further known of them then what Scaliger hath said that they were the more Eastern Chaldeans which he fetcheth from the signification of the word several of their books are extant saith Scaliger among the Arabians but none of them are yet discovered to the European world Salmasius thinks these Zabii were the Chaldeans inhabiting Mesopotamia to which it is very consonant which Maimonides saith that Abraham had his education among them Said Batricides cited by Mr. Selden attributes the original of their religion to the time of Nahor and to Zaradchath the Persian as the Author of it who is conceived to be the same with Zoroaster who in all probability is the same with the Zertoost of the Persecs a Sect of the antient Persians living now among the Banyans in the Indyes These give a more full and exact account concerning the original birth education and Enthusiasmes or Revelations of their Zertoost then any we meet with in any Greek historians three books they tell us of which Zertoost received by Revelation or rather one book consisting of three several tracts whereof the first was concerning judicial Astrology which they call Astoodeger the second concerning Physick or the knowledge of natural things the third was called Zertoost from the bringer of it containing their religious rites the first was committed to the Iesopps or Magies the second to Physicians the third to the Darooes or Church-men wherein are contained the several precepts of their Law we have likewise the rites and customs of these Persees in their worship of fire with many other particular rites of theirs published sometime since by one Mr. Lord who was a long time resident among them at Surrat by which we may not only understand much of the religion of the antient Persians but if I mistake not somewhat of the Zabii too My reasons are because the antient Zaradcha or Zoroaster is by Said Batricides made the Author of the Zabii as we have seen already who was undoubtedly the founder of the Persian worship or rather a promoter of it among the Persians For Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that he was instructed in the rites of the Chaldeans which he added to the Persian rites besides their agreement in the chief point of Idolatry the worship of the Sun and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Symbol of the Sun the eternal fire is evident which as far as we can learn was the great and most early Idolatry of the Eastern Countries and further we finde God in Leviticus 26. 30. threatning to destroy their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Images of the Sun some render it but most probably by that word is meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hearths where they kept their perpetual fire for those are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used both for the Sun and Fire Now hence it appears that this Idolatry was in use among the Nations about Palaestine else there had been no need of so severe a threatning against it and therefore most probably the rites of the Zabii which must help us to explain the reasons of some particular positive precepts in the Levitical Law relating to Idolatry are the same with the rites of the Chaldeans and Persians who all agreed in this worship of the Sun and Fire which may be yet more probable from what Maimonides saith of them that Gens Zabaea erat gens quae implevit totum orbem it could not be then any obscure Nation but such as had the largest spread in the Eastern Countries which could be no other then the antient Chaldeans from whom the Persians derived their worship It may not seen altogether improbable that Balaam the famous Southsayer was one of these Zabii especially if according to Salmasius his judgement they inhabited Mesopotamia for Balaams Country seems to be there for it is said Numb 22. 5. that he dwelt in Pethor by the river i. e. saith the Chalâ—ee Paraphrast in Peor of Syria by Euphrates which in Scripture is called the river Esay 8. 7. But from this great obscurity as to the history of so ancient and so large a people as these Zabii are supposed to be we have a further evidence to our purpose of the defectiveness and insufficiency of the Eastern histories as to the giving any full account of themselves and their own original We are toâ—d indeed by some that Nabonasser did burn and destroy all the antient records of the Chaldeans which they had diligently preserved amongst them before on purpose to raise the greater reputation to himself and blot out the memory of his usurpation by burning the records of all their own antient Kings Which is a conceit I suppose hath no other ground then that the famous Aera so much celebrated by Astronomers and others did bear the name
real learning or truth at all in them For this though he be sharply censured by Strabo in his first Book who undertakes to vindicate the Geography of Homer from the exceptions of Eratosthenes yet himself cannot but confess that there is a â—very great mixture of Fables in all their Poets which is saith he partly to delight the people and partly to awe them For the minds of men being always desirous of novelties such things do hugely please the natural humours of weak people especially if there be something in them that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very strange and wonderful it increaseth the delight in hearing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which draws them on to a desire of hearing more of it And by this means saith he are children first brought on to learning and all ignorant persons are kept in awe nay and the more learned themselves partly for want of reason and judgement and partly from the remainder of those impressions which these things made upon them when they were children cannot shake off that former credulity which they had as to these things By which discourse of Strabo though intended wholly by him in vindication of Poetick Fables it is plain and evident what great disservice hath been done to truth by them by reason they had no other Records to preserve their ancient history but these fabulous Writers and therefore supposing a mixture of truth and falshood together which Strabo contends for yet what way should be taken to distinguish the true from the false when they had no other certain Records and besides he himself acknowledgeth how hard a matter it is even for wise men to excuss those fabulous narrations out of their minds which were insinuated into them by all the advantages which prejudice custome and education could work upon them Granting then there may be some truth at the bottom of their fabulous narrations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may be gilded over with some pleasing tales as himself compares it yet how shall those come to know that it is only gilded that never saw any pure mettal and did always believe that it was what it seemed to be Had there been any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or touchstone to have differenced between the one and the other there might have been some way for a separation of them but there being none such we must conclude that the fabulous Narrations of Poets in stead of making Truth more pleasant by their fictions have so adulterated it that we cannot find any credibility at all in their narrations of elder times where the truth of the story hath had no other way of conveyance but through their fictions But though Poets may be allowed their liberty for representing things with the greatest advantage to the palats of their Readers yet we may justly expect when men profess to be historical they should deliver us nothing but what upon strictest examination may prove undoubted truth Yet even this were the Greeks far from for Strabo himself confesseth of their eldest Historians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first Historians both of persens and things were fabulous Diodorus particularly instanceth in their eldest Historians as Cadmus Milesius Hecataeus and Hellanicus and condemns them for fabulousness Strabo condemns Damastes Sigeensis for vanity and falshood and wonders at Eratosthenes for making use of him yet this man is of great antiquity among them and his testimony used by Authors of good credit as Dionys Halycarnassius Plutarch and others Nay Pliny professeth to follow him and so he doth Aristeus Procennesius in his Arimaspia which may render the credit of his History very suspicious with whom it was a sufficient ground of credibility to any story that he found it in some Greek Authors Strabo reckons Damastes with Euëmerus Messenius and Antiphanes Bergeus which latter was so noted a lyar that from him as Stephanus tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used as a proverb for to speak never a word of truth Aristeus Proconnesius lived in the time of Cyrus and writ a History of the Arimaspi in three Books who seems to have been the Sir Iohn Maridevil of Greece from his Stories of the Arimaspi with one eye in their foreheads and their continual fighting with the Gryphens for gold yet the story was taken upon trust by Herodotus Pliny and many others though the experience of all who have visited those Northern Climats do sufficiently refute these follies Strabo saith of this Aristeus that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one inferiour to none for juggling which cenfure was probably occasioned by the common story of him that he could let his soul out of his body when he pleased and bring it again yet this Juggler did Celsus pitch on to confront with our blessed Saviour as Herocles did on Apollinus so much have those been to seek for reason who have fought to oppose the doctrine of faith But further what credit can we give to those Historians who have striven to confute each other and lay open one anothers falshood to the world Where was there ever any such dissonancy in the sacred History of Scripture doth the Writer of one Book discover the weakness of another do not all the parts so exactly agree that the most probable suspicion could ever fall into the heart of an Infidel is that they were all written by the same person which yet the series of times manifests to have been impossible But now if we look into the ancient Greek Historians we need no other testimony then themselves to take away their credibility The Genealogies of Hesiod are corrected by Acusiddus Acusiddus is condemned by Hellanicus Hellanicus accused of falshood by Ephorus Ephorus by Timaeus Timaeus by such who followed him as Iosephus fully shews Where must we then fix our belief upon all in common that is the ready way to believe contradictions for they condemn one another of falshood Must we believe one and reject the rest but what evidence doth that one give why he should be credited more then the rest And which is a most irrefragable argument against the Graecian history their eldest historians are ackowledged to be the most fabulous for our only recourse for deciding the controversies among the younger historians must be to the elder And here we are further to seek then ever for the first ages are confessed to be Poetical and to have no certainty of truth in them So that it is impossible to find out any undoubted certainty of ancient times among the Greek Historians which will be yet more evident when we add this that there are very few extant of those Historians who did carry the greatest name for Antiquity The highest antiquity of the Greek Historians doth not much exceed the time of Cyrus and Cambyses as Vossius hath fully demonstrated in his learned book De Historiâ—is Graecis and therefore I shall spare particular enquiries into their
if we number these 340200 days or 11340 monethly years which makes up of Iulian years 931. and 152 days the number falls A. M. 3282. about which time in probability Sennacherib invaded Aegypt Thus we see by making use of those Lunà r years that it is possible to reconcile some of the Aegyptian extravagant accounts to some probability and consistency with truth but however we owe very little thanks to the Aegyptians for it who deliver these things in gross without telling us which years they mean and thereby evidence their intent to deceive all who have so little wit as to be deceived by them The next kind and form of the Aegyptian year was that which consisted of four equal moneths amounting to 120 days the use of this kind of year among them is attested by Plutarch in the fore-cited place and by Diodorus who gives an account of this kind of year among the Aegyptians Solinus seems to mention this as the only year in request among the Aegyptians and so S. Austin Perhibentur Aegyptii quondam tam breves annos habuisse ut quaternis mensibus finirentur This renders then the Aegyptians accounts yet more uncertain and only leaves us to guess with the greatest probability of reason what form of year was meant by them in their Computations So when Diodorus speaks so much in favour of the old Aegyptian Kings and Laws and produceth this from the Aegyptian Priests as the best evidence of the excellent temper of their Government that they had Kings of their own Nation for the space of 4700 years till the time of Cambyses his inroad into Aegypt which was in the third year of the 63 Olympiad Now besides the apparent contradiction of these accounts to the other already explained if we take them in gross as the Aegyptians give them it is evident this can be no otherwise true then by taking these accounts in that form of years now mentioned by us For these 4700 years taking them for 120 dayes apiece make up of Iulian years 1544. which being deducted from the year of the world 3475. which was the time when Cambyses invaded Aegypt the remainder is A. M. 1931. about which time we may fix the death of Orus from whom their proper Kings commenced And of these years Vossius tells us we are to understand what they report of the long lives of their ancient Kings when they attribute to each of them the space of 300 years as when they attribute a 1000 and more to their eldest Kings we are to understand them of simple Lunar years of 30 days by which these Gigantick measures of the term of their lives may without the help of Procrustes be cut short according to the proportion of mens ordinary age in those eldest times So when Diodorus reckons from the death of Proteus to his own time A. M. 3940. 3400 years it must be understood of these years of four equal moneths for so those 3400 years make up of Iulian years 1117. which being deduced from 3940. the remainder is 2823. about which year of the world Proteus may be supposed to live which was about the time of the Iudges in Israel Neither was this only the Aegyptians way but in probability the antient Chaldeans observed the same which may be a ground likewise of those unmeasurable accounts among them in their first Dynastyes as is evident in the fragments of Abydenus and Apollodorus out of Berosus where the times of their first Kings are reckoned not by years but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now according to them every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contained 3600. years 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 600. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 60. Now who can imagine that Alorus and the ten Kings from him to Xisuthrus should raign 120. Sari as their computation is which reckoning for every Saros 3600. years makes up 432000. years A very fair sum for the Chaldean Dynastyes before the time of Xisuthrus by whom in probability Noah was by them understood There have been only two wayes thought on of dealing with these computations either rejecting them as wholly fabulous and founded on no evidence or records of history as we have seen already only they might retain being so near the place of the settlement of Noah and his posterity after the flood the memory not only of the flood of which it is evident they had several remainders preserved in their traditions but likewise of the ages of men preceding the flood wherein they were right reckoning from Alorus the first to Xisuthrus i. e. from Adam to Noah ten Generations but as to the names of those ten persons and the times they lived in being wholly ignorant through the unfaithfulness of tradition they took their liberty not only of coining names but of setting what age to them they pleased themselves And to this purpose Scaliger observes that some of their first Kings are reckoned before the flood which saith he is denyed by Georgius Syncellus without any shew of reason Thus far then we may admit of the Chaldeans Dynastyes as to some part of the tradition but rejecting their names and computations as fabulous The other way of explaining these Dynastyes is by the several wayes of computation among them For the learned Monks Panodorus and Anianus understand those vast sums not of years but dayes and so make a Saros to contain 120. months of 30. dayes a piece which saith Scaliger make ten Chaldee years and a Nirus 20. equal months and a Sosos two according to which computation the 100 Sari make but 1200. years But this computation of theirs is rejected by Georgius Syncellus because he supposeth Eusebius so well versed in these things that he would never have set them down for years if the Chaldaeans had not understood them so and therefore he would not trouble himself in reducing Fables to true History as he expresseth it whose words are at large produced by Scaliger in the fore-cited place and it will appear more necessary to reject those Chaldaean computations if we take the sums of their years in the sense which Salmasius gives of them in the preface to his book De annis Climactericis from whom Pyrerius the Author of the Praeadamites hath borrowed most of his arguments as to these things According to him then every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contained no less then 6000. years as the Toman among the Persians contained 10000. but because that learned man hath only given us his reperi Scriptum without any certain foundation for so large an account of those sums we shall take them in as favourable a sense as we can In order to which a very learned man of our own hath found a third interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Chaldee accounts from a correction of Suidas by the M. S. in the Vatican Library according to which he thus reads the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so
of Moses and to fall into Idolatry but if there had been any the least suspition of any falsity or imposture in the writing of Moses the ringleaders of their revolts would have sufficiently promulged it among them as the most plausible plea to draw them off from the worship of the true God Can we think that a Nation and religion so maligned as the Iewish were could have escaped discovery if there had been any deceit in it when so many lay in wait continually to expose them to all Contumelies imaginable Nay among themselves in their frequent Apostacies and occasions given for such a pretence how comes this to be never heard of nor in the least questioned whether the Law was undoubtedly of Moses his writing or no What an excellent plea would this have been for Ieroboams Calves in Dan and Bethel for the Samaritans Temple on Mount Gerizim could any the least suspition have been raised among them concerning the aut bentickness of the fundamental records of the Iewish Commonwealth And which is most observable the Iews who were a people strangely suspitious and incredulous while they were fed and clothed with miracles yet could never find ground to question this Nay and Moses himself we plainly see was hugely envied by many of the Israelites even in the wilderness as is evident in the Conspiracy of Corah and his complices and that on this very ground that he took too much upon him how unlikely then is it that amidst so many enemies he should dare to venture any thing into publick records which was not most undoubtedly true or undertake to prescribe a Law to oblige the people to posterity Or that after his own age any thing should come out under his name which would not be presently detected by the emulatoâ—rs of his glory What then is the thing it self incredible surely not that Moses should write the records we speak of Were not they able to understand the truth of it What not those who were in the same age and conveyed it down by a certain tradition to posterity Or did not the Israelites all constantly believe it What not they who would sooner part with their lives and fortunes then admit any variation or alteration as to their Law Well but if we should suppose the whole Iewish Nation partial to themselves and that out of honour to the memory of so great a person as Moses they should attribute their ancient Laws and records to him Which is all that Infidelity its self can imagine in this Case Yet this cannot be with any shadow of reason pretended For 1. Who were those persons who did give out this Law to the Iews under Moses his name Certainly they who undertake to contradict that which is received by common consent must bring stronger and clearer evidence then that on which that consent is grounded or else their exceptions deserve to be rejected with the highest indignation What proof can be then brought that not only the Iewish Nation but the whole Christian world hath been so lamentably befooled to believe those things with an undoubted assent which are only the contrivances of some cunning men 2. At what time could these things be contrived Either while the memory of Moses and his actions were remaining or afterwards First how could it possibly be when his memory was remaining for then all things were so fresh in their memories that it was impossible a thing of this universal nature could be forged of him If after then I demand whether the people had observed the Law of Moses before or no if not then they must certainly know it at the time of its promulgation to be counterfeit for had it been from Moses it would have been observed before their times if it was observed before then either continually down from the time of Moses or not If continually down then it was of Moses his doing if we suppose him to have had that authority among the people which the objection supposeth if not then still the nearer Moses his time the more difficult such a counterfeiting could be because the Constitutions which Moses had left among them would have remained in their memories whereby they would easily reject all pretences and counterfeits 3. How can we conceive the Nation of the Iews would have ever embraced such a Law had it not been of Moses his enacting among them in that state of time when he did For then the people were in fittest capacity to receive a Law being grown a great people and therefore necessary to have Laws newly delivered from bondage and therefore wanting Laws of their own and entring into a setled state of Commonwealth which was the most proper season of giving Laws These considerations make it so clear that it is almost impossible to conceive the Nation of the Iews could have their Laws given to them but at the time of their being in the wilderness before they were setled in Canaan For suppose we at present to gratifie so far the objection that these Laws were brought forth long after the constitution of the government and the national settlement under Moses his name how improbable nay how impossible is it to alter the fundamental Laws of a Nation after long settlement what confusion of interests doth this bring what disturbance among all sorts of people who must be disseised of their rights and brought to such strange unwonted customs so seemingly against their interests as many of the Constitutions among the Iews were For can we imagine that a people alwayes devoted to their own interest would after it had been quietly setled in their land by Constitutions after the custom of other Nations presently under a pretence of a coppy of Laws found that were pretended to be given by one in former ages of great esteem called Moses throw open all their former inclosures and part with their former Laws for these of which they have no evidence but the words of those that told it them We have a clear instance for this among the Romans although there were great evidence given of the undoubted certainty that the books found in Numa's grave by Petilius were his yet because they were adjudged by the Senate to be against the present Laws they were without further enquiry adjudged to be burnt Was not here the greatest likelyhood that might be that these should have taken place among the Romans for the great veneration for wisdom which Numa was in among them and the great evidence that these were certain remainders of his wherein he gave a true account of the superstitions in use among them yet lest the state should be unsetled by it they were prohibited so much as a publick view when the Praetor had sworn they were against the established Laws Can we then conceive the Iewish Nation would have embraced so burdensome and ceremonious a Law as Moses's was had it been brought among them in such a way as the books of Numa
Christ and his Apostles were sufficient evidences of a divine spirit in them and that the Scriptures were recorded by them to be an infallible rule of faith here we have more clear reason as to the primary motives and grounds of faith and withall the infallible veracity of God in the Scriptures as the last resolution of faith And while we assert such an infallible rule of faith delivered to us by such an unanimous consent from the first delivery of it and then so fully attested by such uncontroulable miracles we cannot in the least understand to what end a power of miracles should now serve in the Church especially among those who all believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Indeed before the great harvest of Converts in the primitive times were brought in both of Iews and Gentiles and the Church sully setled in receiving the Canon of the Scriptures universally we find God did continue this power among them but after the books of the New Testament were generally imbraced as the rule of faith among Christians we find them so far from pretending to any such power that they reject the pretenders to it such as the Donatists were and plead upon the same accounts as we do now against the necessity of it We see then no reason in the world for miracles to be continued where the doctrine of faith is setled as being confirmed by miracles in the first preachers of it There are only these two cases then wherein miracles may justly and with reason be expected First when any person comes as by an extraordinary commission from God to the world either to deliver some peculiar message or to do some more then ordinary service Secondly When something that hath been before established by Divine Law is to be repealed and some other way of worship established in stead of it First When any comes upon an extraordinary message to the world in the name of and by commission from God then it is but reason to require some more then ordinary evidence of such authority Because of the main importance of the duty of giving credit to such a person and the great sin of being guilty of rejecting that divine authority which appears in him And in this case we cannot think that God would require it as a duty to believe where he doth not give sufficient arguments for faith nor that he will punish persons for such a fault which an invincible ignorance was the cause of Indeed God doth not use to necessitate faith as to the act of it but he doth so clearly propound the object of it with all arguments inducing to it as may sufficiently justifie a Believers choice in point of reason and prudence and may leave all unbelievers without excuse I cannot see what account a man can give to himself of his faith much less what Apology he can make to others for it unless he be sufficiently convinced in point of the highest reason that it was his duty to believe and in order to that conviction there must be some clear evidence given that what is spoken hath the impress of Divine authority upon it Now what convictions there can be to any sober mind concerning Divine authority in any person without such a power of miracles going along with him when he is to deliver some new doctrine to the world to be believed I confess I cannot understand For although I doubt not but where ever God doth reveal any thing to any person immediately he gives demonstrable evidence to the inward senses of the soul that it comes from himself yet this inward sense can be no ground to another person to believe his doctrine divine because no man can be a competent judge of the actings of anothers senses and it is impossible to another person to distinguish the actings of the divine Spirit from strong impressions of fancy by the force and energy of them If it be said that we are bound to believe those who say they are fully satisfied of their Divine Commission I answer First this will expose us to all delusions imaginable for if we are bound to believe them because they say so we are bound to believe all which say so and none are more confident pretenders to this then the greatest deceivers as the experience of our age will sufficiently witness Secondly Men must necessarly be bound to believe contradictions for nothing more ordinary then for such confident pretenders to a Divine Spirit to contradict one another and it may be the same person in a little time contradict himself and must we still be bound to believe all they say If so no Philosophers would be so much in request as those Aristotle disputes against in his Metaphysicks who thought a thing might be and not be at the same time Thirdly The ground of faith at last will be but a meer humane testimony as far as the person who is to believe is capable of judging of it For the Question being Whether the person I am to believe hath divine authority for what he saith What ground can I have to believe that he hath so Must I take his bare affirmation for it If so then a meer humane testimony must be the ground of divine faith and that which it is last resolved into if it be said that I am to believe the divine authority by which he speaks when he speaks in the name of God I answer the question will again return how I shall know he speaks this from divine authority and so there must be a progress in infinitum or founding divine faith on a meer humane testimony if I am to believe divine revelation meerly on the account of the persons affirmation who pretends unto it For in this case it holds good non apparentis non existentis eadem est ratio if he be divinely inspired and there be no ground inducing me to believe that he is so I shall be excused if I believe him not if my wilfulness and laziness be not the cause of my unbelief If it be said that God will satisfie the minds of good men concerning the truth of divine revelation I grant it to be wonderfully true but all the question is de modo how God will satisfie them whether meerly by inspiration of his own spirit in them assuring them that it is God that speaks in such persons or by giving them rational evidence convincing them of sufficient grounds to believe it If we assert the former way we run into these inconveniences First we make as immediate a revelation in all those who believe as in those who are to reveal divine truths to us for there is a new revelation of an object immediately to the mind viz. that such a person is inspired of God and so is not after the common way of the Spirits illumination in Believers which is by inlightning the faculty without the proposition of any new object as it
uses And although Aristotle in his books de partibus animalium hath said enough to refute the fond opinion of those Philosophers yet none hath handled this argument with more exactness and accuracy and with a more peculiar reflection on Epicurus then Galen hath done in his excellent piece De usu partium Which Gassendus thinks Galen writ with a kind of Enthusiasm upon him adeo totum opus videtur conscriptum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so that all those seventeen books of his on that subject are a kind of 119. Psalm in Philosophy or a perpetual Hymn upon the praise of the great Creator or a just Commentary on those words of the Psalmist Psal. 139. 14. I am fearfully and wonderfully made marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well In the entrance of those books Galen first shews the great variety of parts which is in several animals suitable to their several natures the horse because of his swiftness and pride hath the strongest hoofs and most curled main the Lyon because of his fierceness and courage hath his strength lying in his teeth and paws the Bull in his horns the Boar in his tusks the Hart and Hare being timerous creatures their parts are made fittest for flight but man because he hath a principle of reason in him hath no defensive or offensive weapons in his body but he hath hands to make use of both which being joyned with and imployed by his reason far exceed all those advantages which any other creatures have being imployed not only to defend himself but to build houses make clothes arms nets whatever is useful for himself or hurtful to those creatures which he hath command over but because man was made for society and civil converse therefore his hands were not only imployed to defend himself or hurt other creatures but for the mutual benefit and advantage of mankind for by these were Laws written Temples built all instruments of Arts framed by them we enjoy the benefit of others wits we can discourse with Plato Aristotle Hippocrates and other antients though at such a distâ—nce from us Now that the configuration of parts is not the cause of the use of them afterwards as the Lyons paw of his courage the Bulls horns of his fierceness or the slenderness of the Hart of its fearfulness appears by this because the young ones of the several kinds of animals before their parts are grown up strive to make the same use of them which the others do As Galen saith he had often seen a Bull-calf pushing with his head before any horns were grown out and a Colt kicking when his hoofs were yet tender and a young Boar defending himself with his jaws before he had any tusks which is an evident argument that the parts were designed for the use and not the use follow the parts So saith he take three eggs one of an Eagle another of a Duck and a third of a Serpent and after they are hatched through a moderate heat we shall find when they are but newly hatched the two first will be striving to fly before they have wings and the third endeavouring to creep away on its belly and if you breed them up to greater perfection and bring them into the open air you will presently see the young Eagle mounting into the air the Duck quoddling into a pool and the Serpent creep under ground Afterwards he comes particularly to handle the several parts of mans body and first begins with the Hand and shews in each part that it were impossible to have framed them with greater conveniency for their several uses then they have The use of the hand is to take hold of any thing which man can use now there being things of such different sizes which men may use it had been impossible for the hand if it had been one entire thing and undivided that it could have held things greater or lesser then its self but it must have been equal to it But now as the fingers are placed and divided they are equally fit for laying hold of objects of any size or quantity For the least things as a Barley corn are taken up with the fore-finger and the thumb things somewhat bigger are taken up by the same but not by the extremities of them as before things somewhat bigger then these with the thumb fore-finger and middle-finger and so on by degrees till at last the whole hand is used so that the division of the hand into fingers is necessary Neither were this enough but the very position of the fingers as they are is necessary too for they had been useless if they had been all divided in a right line for the firmest hold is either circular or at least in two opposite points but now this is provided for by the position of the thumb which may equally joyn with any of the fingers in taking hold of any thing After this he largely shews the patticular necessity of the softness roundness of the flesh and nails on the tops of the fingers and the special usefulness of these and then comes to the bones of the fingers how necessary they are for firm hold and if there had been but one bone in each finger they would have served only for those things which we take up when they are extended but now seeing they have three several joynts they are fitted for all kinds of things for when we bow our fingers we use them as though they had no bones at all and when we stretch them out as though they were all but one entire bone and the several inflections of the joynts serve for all kind of figures and then he shews the necessity of the flesh within the fingers and on either side of them and upon them and so with wonderful accuracy handles the magnitude number figure of the bones and nature of the joynts of the fingers and then the tendons and muscles belonging to the several fingers which after he hath discoursed on through his first Book he concludes it with the manifest inconveniency which would follow in the hand were not every thing in it in that exact magnitude position and figure in which it is With the same exactness he goes through all the parts of the body handling in the second Book all that belongs to the arm in the third the legs in the fourth and fifth the Organs of nutrition in the sixth and seventh the lungs in the eighth and ninth the Head in the tenth the peculiar and admirable fabrick of the eyes in the eleventh the other parts of the face in the twelfth the parts of the back and so in the thirteenth in the fourteenth and fifteenth the genitals in the sixteenth the arteryes veins and nerves and in the last the peculiar disposition and figure of all these parts and the usefulness of the whole design Which is as great as can be in any work whatsoever which is for us to take notice of