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
language though it be asserted by some antient writers of the Church is very questionable chiefly upon this account that a sufficient reason cannot be assigned of undertaking a new translation at Alexandria if there had been any extant before Especially if all those circumstances of that translation be true which are commonly received and delivered down to us with almost an unanimous consent of the persons who had greater advantages of knowing the certainty of such things then we can have at this great distance of time And therefore certainly every petty conjecture of some modern though learned men ought not to bear sway against so unanimous a tradition in a matter of fact which cannot be capable of being proved but by the testimony of former ages And it is somewhat strange that the single testimony of one Hermippus in Diogenes Laertius whose age and authority is somewhat doubtful concerning only one particular referring to Demetrius Phalcrous should be thought of force enough among persons of judgement as well as learning to infringe the credibility of the whole story delivered with so much consent not only by Christian but Iewish writers the testimony of one of which every whit as considerable as Hermippus viz. Aristobulus Iudaeus a Peripatetical Philosopher in an Epistle to Ptolomy Philometor doth plainly assert that which was so much questioned concerning Demetrius Phalereus But whatever the truth of all the particular circumstances be which I here enquire not after nor the authority of that Aristeus from whom the story is received nor whether this translation was made by Iews sent out of Iudea or by Iews residing at Alexandria it sufficeth for our purpose that this translation was made before either the Chaldaean Dynasties of Bâ—rosus or the Aegyptian of Manetho were published to the World In order to which it is necessary to shew in what time this translation was effected and herein that channel of tradition which conveyes the truth of the thing in one certain course runs not with so even a stream concerning the exact time of it all indeed agree that it was about the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus but in what years of his raign is very dubious Ioseph Scaliger who hath troubled the waters so much concerning the particular circumstances of this translation yet fully agrees that it was done in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus only he contends with Africanus that it should be done in the 132. Olympiad which is in the 33. year of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus but Eusebius and Ierom place it in the very beginning of his raign which I think is far more probable and that in the time when Ptolomaeus Philadelphus raigned with his Father Ptolomaeus Lagi for so it is most certain he did for two years before his Fathers death By which means the great difficulty of Scaliger concerning Demetrius Phalereus is quite taken off for Hermippus speaks nothing of Demetrius his being out of favour with Philadelphus during his Fathers life but that upon his fathers death he was banished by him and dyed in his banishment so that Demetrius might have the oversight of the Library at Alexandria and be the main instrument of promoting this translation and yet those things be after true which Hermippus speaks viz. when Ptolomaeus Lagi or Soter was now dead For it stands not to reason that during his Fathers life Philadelphus should discover his displeasure against Demetrius it being conceived upon the advice given to his Father for preserring the sons of Arsinoe to the Crown before the son of Berenice Most likely therefore it is that this translation might be begun by the means of Demetrius Phalereus in the time of Philadelphus his raigning with his Father but it may be not finished till after the death of Soter when Philadelphus raigned alone And by this now we can perfectly reconcile that difference which is among the Fathers concerning the time when this translation was made For Irenaeus attributes it to the time of Ptolomaeus Lagi Clemens Alexandrinus questions whether in the time of Lagi or Philadelphus the rest of the Chorus carry it for Philadelphus but the words of Anatolius in Eusebius cast it fully for both for there speaking of Aristobulus he saith he was one of the seventy who interpreted the Scriptures to Ptolomaeus Philadelphus and his Father and dedicated his Commentaries upon the Law to both those Kings Haec sane omnem scrupulum eximunt saith Vossius upon producing this testimony this puts it out of all doubt and to the same purpose speaks the learned Iesuite Petavius in his notes on Epiphanius Having thus far cleared the time when the Translation of the Scriptures into Greck was made we shall find our conjecture much strengthened by comparing this with the age of the fore-mentioned Historians Manetho and Berosus Manetho we have already made appear to have lived in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus and that saith Vossius after the death of Soter It is evident from what remains of him in Eusebius his Chronica that he not only flourished in the time of Philadelphus but writ his history at the special command of Philadelphus as manifestly appears by the remaining Epistle of Manetho to him still extant in Eusebius This command of Philadelphus might very probably be occasioned upon the view of that account which the Holy Scriptures being then translated into Greek did give of the world and the propagation of mankind upon which we cannot imagine but so inquisitive a person as Philadelphus was would be very earnest to have his curiosity satisfied as to what the Aegyptian Priests who had boasted so much of antiquity could produce to confront with the Scriptures Whereupon the task was undertaken by this Manetho High-Priest of Heliopolis whereby those things which the Aegyptian Priests had to that time kept secret in their Cloysters were now divulged and exposed to the judgement of the learned world but what satisfaction they were able to give inquisitive minds as to the main 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or matter enquired after may partly appear by what hath been said of Manetho already and by what shall be spoken of his Dynastyes afterwards But all this will not perswade Kircher for whatever Scaliger nay what Manetho himself says to the coutrary he with the confidence and learning of a Iesuite affirms that this Manetho is elder then Alexander the great For these are his words Frequens apud priscos historicos Dynaestiarum Aegyptiacarum fit mentio quarum tamen alium authorem non habemus nisi Manethonem Sebennytam Sacerdotem Aegyptium quem ante tempor a Alexandri quicquid dicat Scaliger in Aegypto floruisse comperio Certainly some more then ordinary evidence may be expected after so confident an affirmation but whatever that person be in other undertakings he is as unhappy a person in Philology as any that have pretended so much acquaintance with it One would think he that had been twenty years as
to be understood in those words concerning a succession of Prophets will appear by the occasion of their being brought in for verse 14. God prohibits them to hearken after the manner of their neighbour-nations to observers of times and Diviners and then brings in the following words v. 15. as to the reason of that prohibiteon that God would raise up a Prophet among themselves like unto Moses and to him should they hearken Now let any rational man judge whether it were so probable an argument to keep them from hearkening to Diviners of other Nations that there should a Prophet arise 2000 years after like unto Moses as that he would raise up a continued succession of Prophets among themselves to whom they should hearken Thus Origen in his excellent books against Celsus shews the necessity of the prophetical office among the Iews from hence for saith he it being written in their Law that the Gentiles hearkend unto Oracles and Divinations but God would not suffer it to be so among them it presently follows A Prophet will the Lord God raise up in the midst of thee c. Therefore saith he when the Nations round about them had ther Oracles and several wayes of divination all which were strictly prohibited among the Iews if the Iews had no way of foreknowing things to come it had been almost impossible considering the great curiosity of humane nature to have kept them from despising the Law of Moses or apostatizing to the heathen Oracles or setting up something like them among themselves Which interpretation of his seems to have a great deal of reason not only from the coherence of the words here but from the Analogy of many other precepts of the Law of Moses which it is most certain have a respect to the customs of the Idolatrous Nations round about them Another reason why it is most probable that by this is understood a succession of Prophets is the change which follows against false Prophets and the rules to discover them v. 20 21 22. which had not been so pertinent and coherent if the opposition did not lie between the order of true Prophets among the Iewes and the false Prophets which should rise up in the midst of them And that which yet further justifies this interpretation is that there is no other place in the whole Pentateuch which doth expresly speak of a suâ—cession of Prophets if this be not understood of it and is it any ways probabe a matter of so great moment and consequence should be wholly pretermitted Especially when we find it so exactly performed in the succeeding ages of the Iewish Commonwealth their immediate Rulers like Dictators at Rome after Moses death being most raised up by immediate incitation and impulse from God and many of them inspired with a spirit of prophecie How should the Iews have expected these or obeyed them when they appeared had not God foretold it to them and provided them for it by the Law of Moses Neither did these Prophets arise singly among them like blazing Stars one in an age to portend future events but whole Constellations of them sometimes appeared together yea so many smaller Prophets were sometimes united together as made up a perfect Galaxy when they were entred into Societies and became Schools of the Prophets for such we frequently read of in Scripture The original and institution of which may cast a further light into our present design and shew us the little reason the Iews could have to expect miracles from them to confirm their doctrine who were brought up in the knowledge of their Law and were called out from their several societies into the prophetical office by the immediate incitation of God himself Which being so commonly known among them there needed no such extraordinary proofs to manifest the Divine authority by which they were employed Two things then we shall endeavour to clear First the original and institution of these Schools of the Prophets and secondly that it was the erdinary course for the Prophets by employment to be taken forth of these societies wherein they were educated First for the original and institution of these Schools of the Prophets The first Seminaries or places of institution among the Iews were the Cities of the Levites which were dispersed up and down in the several Tribes of Israel God thereby turning that into a blessing which was pronounced as a curse upon Levi by his Father Iacob viz. that he should be divided in Iacob and scattered in Israel But though the fulfilling of that prophecie might be the primary ground oâ— that scattering yet it is evident that God aimed at some further good in it both in reference to the Levites and the Israelites Lyra undertakes to assign four reasons of this distribution of the Cities of the Levites among the Tribes 1 because if they had lived but in one Tribe the worship of God would have seemed to have been confined to that Tribe 2 because they would have been a burden to that Tribe they had their habitations in 3 from the equity of being maintained by all who served for all 4 because it was their office to teach the people and therefore it was necessary they should live among them These reasons are most of them opposed by Abulensis but defended by others The last is that which most insist on it being the peculiar office of the Levites to teach the people so 2 Chron. 35. 4. And said unto the Levites qui erudiebant omnem Israelem as Vatablus renders it who taught all Israel and Masius insists on that as the great reason of their dispersion to be ready to teach the Law among the Israelites But yet all those who are agreed that teaching the Law was the duty of the Levites are not yet agreed of the manner of that teaching for there being two parts of their Law the one ceremonial and judicial and the other moral and spiritual the question is whether of these two did belong to or was performed by the Priests and Levites There are many who understand all that Office of teaching which belonged to the Priests and Levites to be meerly concerning the ceremonial part of the Law i. e. deciding all cases of controversie which should arise concerning their ceremonial worship which in Levit. 10. 10. is called putting a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean But it seems somewhat strange that God should take so great care about the shell and outside of his worship and none at all for the moral and spiritual part of it especially when he had set apart a whole Tribe meerly for his own service and freed them from all other employments that they might have a greater liberty to attend upon the things relating to his service especially when it is mentioned as the duty of the Priests and Levites to teach all the statutes which the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses and that
not executed upon him So Ahabs humiliation Hezekiah his earnest prayer the Ninivites repentance all interposed between sentence and execution whereby we may be fully satisfied of the reason why these denunciations did not take effect But where the persons continue the same after threatnings that they were before there is no reason why the sentence should be suspended unless we should suppose it to be a meer effect of the patience and long-suffering of God leading men to repentance and amendment of life Which is the ground the Iews give why the not fulfilling of denunciations of judgement was never accounted sufficient to prove a man a false Prophet to which purpose these words of Maimonides are observable in his Iesude Thâ—rah where he treats particularly on the subject of prophecies If a Prophet foretel sad things as the death of any one or famine or War or the like if these things come not to pass he shall not be accounted a false Prophet neither let them say hehold he hath foretold and it comes not to pass for eurblessed God is slow to anger and rich in mercy and repenteth of the evil and it may be that they repent and God may spare them as he did the Ninivites or defer the punishment as he did Hezekiah's Thus we see that Prophetical comminations do not express Gods internal purposes and therefore the event may not come to pass and yet the Prophet be a true Prophet 2. Predictions concerning temporal blessings do not always absolutely speak the certainty of the event but what God is ready to do if they to whom they are made continue faithful to him For which we have sufficient ground from that place of Ieremiah 18. 9 10. At what instant I shall speak concerning a Kingdom to build and to plant it if it do evil in my sight that it obey not my voice then will I repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them So Isaiah 1. 19 20. If ye be willing and obedient ye shall eat the good of the Land but if ye refuse and rebel ye shall be devoured with the sword for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it Whereby we see it evident that all promises of temporal blessings are not to be taken absolutely but with the condition of obedience But this the Iews can by no means digest whose rule is that all prophecies of good things to come must necessarily come to pass or he was no true Prophet who spake them For saith Maimon Whatever good thing God hath promised although it be promised under a condition he never revokes it and we never find that God repented him of any good thing promised but in the destruction of the first Temple when God had promised to the rightâ—ous they should not die with the wicked but it repented him of his words But it is very plain to any one that considers the Iewish Interpretations of Scripture that in them they have always an eye to themselves and will be sure not to understand those Scriptures which seem to thwart their own interest as is most apparent in the present case for the grand reason why the Iews insist so much on the punctual accomplishment of all promises of good to be the sign of a true Prophet is to uphold their own interest in those temporal blessings which are prophecyed of concerning them in the old Testament although one would think the want of correspondency in the event in reference to themselves might make them a little more tender of the honour of those Prophecies which they acknowledge to be divine and have appeared to be so in nothing more then the full accompllshmenâ— of all those threatnings which are denounced against them for their disobedience even by the mouth of Moses himself Deut. 28. from the 15. to the end Can any thing be more plain and evident then that the enjoyment of all the priviledges conferred upon them did depend upon the condition of their continuing faithful to Gods Covenant The only place of Scripture produced by them with any plausibility is that Ierem. 28. 9. The Prophet which prophecieth of peace when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him For reconciling of which place with those already mentioned we are to understand that here was a particular contest between two Prophets Hananiah and Ieremiah Ieremiah he foretold evil to come though unwillingly v 6. Hananiah he prophecied peace Now Ieremiah according to Gods peculiar directions and inspiration appeals to the event to determine whose Prophecie was the truest Now saith Jeremiah if the Prophecy of Hananiah concerning peace be fulfilled then he is the true Prophet and I the false And in this case when two Prophets Prophecy contrary things it stands to reason that God will not reveal any thing by the mouth of his own Prophet which shall not infallibly come to pass that thereby the truth of his own Prophet may be fully manifested Besides Ieremiah refers not meerly to the event foretold but gives a sudden specimon of his own truth in another Prophecy concerning the death of Hananiah which was punctually accomplished the same year ver 17. And which is most considerable to our purpose both these Prophets considered the same people under the same circumstances and with the same conditions and so Ieremiah because of their incorrigibleness foretells desolation certainly to come notwithstanding this Hananiah foretells peace and safety which was contrary directly to Gods method of proceeding and so the falsity of his Prophecy would infallibly be discovered by the event So that notwithstanding this instance it appears evident that predictions of temporal blessings do suppose conditions and so have not alwayes the event fulfilled when the people do not perform their condition of obedience And thus we have now laid down the rules whereby the truth of Prophecyes was to be judged by which it appears what little need the constant Prophets had to appeal to miracles to manifest the certainty of Divine revelation in them So we have finished our first proposition concerning the manner of trying Divine revelation in the Prophets God sent among his people We now come to the second general proposition concerning the Prophets Those Prophets whom God did imploy upon some extraordinary message for confirming the truth of the religion established by him had a power of miracles conferd upon them in order to that end So that we must distinguish the ordinary imployment of Prophets which was either instruction or prediction of future events among Gods own people from their peculiar messages when they were sent to give evidence to the truth of that way of religion which was then setled by Gods own appointment Now the Prophets generally did suppose the truth of their religion as owned by those they were sent to and therefore it had been very needless imploying a power of miracles among them to