reason of this diversity but that they thought them not so authentick but they might cut off alter and transpose as they saw occasion which is most plain and evident in Eusebius who makes no difficulty of â—utting of one whole Dynasty and dividing another into two only to reconcile the distance between Thuoris the Egyptian King and Tentamus the Assyrian Emperour and the destruction of Troy and therefore leaves out 4. Assyrian Kings and a whole Dynasty of the Egyptians to make a Synchronisme between those three But yet there hath been something very fairly offered to the world to clear the truth if not Manetho in order to his Dynastyes viz. that the subtle Egyptian to inhance the antiquity of his own Country did take implicite years for solid and place those in a succession which were cotemporary one with another This indeed is a very compendious way to advance a great sum of years with a very little charge Wherein he hath done saith Cappellus as if a Spaniard in the Indies should glory of the antiquity of the Dynastyes of Spain and should attribute to the Earles of Barcinona 337. years to the King of Arragon 498. to the King of Portugal 418. to the King of Leo 545. of Castile 800. years and yet all these Dynastyes rise from the years of our Lord 717. when the Saracens first entred Spain There are very few Nations but will go near to vie antiquity with the Egyptians if they may thus be allowed to reckon successively all those petty royalties which antiently were in most Nations as might be particularly instanced in most great Empires that they gradually rise from the subduing and incorporating of those petty royalties into which the several Nations were cantonized before And there seems to be very strong ground of suspition that some such thing was designed by Manetho from the 32. Dynasty which is of the Diospolitan Thebans for this Dynasty is said to begin from the tenth year of the 15. Dynasty of the Phaenician Pastours in the time of Saites now which is most observable he that begins this Dynasty is of the very same name with him who begins the very first Dynasty of Manetho who is Menes and so likewise his son Athothis is the same in both Which hath made many think because Menes is reckoned first not only in both these but in Diodorus Eratosthenes and others that this Menes was he who first began the Kingdom of Egypt after whose time it was divided into several Dynastyes Which makes Scaliger say illa vet ustissima regna fuerunt instar latrociniorum ubi vis non lex aut successio aut suffragia populi reges in solio regni collocabant This opinion of the coexistence of these Dynastyes is much embraced by Vossius both Father and Son and by the Father made use of to justifie Scaliger from calumniatours who made as though Scaliger did in effect overthrow the authority of the Scriptures by mentioning with some applause the Dynastyes of Manetho But to this opinion how plausible soever it seems I offer these exceptions First As to that Menes who is supposed to be the first founder of the Aegyptian Kingdom after whose death it is supposed that Aegypt was divided into all these Dynastyes I demand therefore who this Menes was was he the same with him whom the Scripture calls Misraim who was the first Planter of Egypt this is not probable for in all probability his name must be sought among the Gods and not the mortals that raigned If we suppose him to be any other after him it will be hard giving an account how he came to have the whole power of Egypt in his hands and so soon after him it should be divided For Kingdoms are ofttimes made up of those petty royalties before but it will be very hard finding instances of one persons enjoying the whole power and so many Dynastyes to arise after his decease and to continue coexistent in peace and full power so long as these several Dynastyes are supposed to do Besides is it not very strange that no Historian should mention such a former distribution of several principalities so antiently in Egypt But that which to me utterly overthrows the coexistence of these Dynastyes in Egypt is by comparing with them what we finde in Scripture of greatest antiquity concerning the Kingdom of Egypt which I cannot but wonder that none of these learned men should take notice of When the Egyptian Kingdom was first founded is not here a place to enquire but it is evident that in Abrahams time there was a Pharaoh King of Egypt whom Archbishop Usher thinks to have been Apophis not Abimelech the first King of Egypt as Constantinus Manasses reports in his Annals by a ridiculous mistake of the King of Gerar for the King of Egypt This Pharaoh was then certainly King of all the Land of Egypt which still in Scripture is called the Land of Misraim from the first planter of it and this was of very great antiquity and therefore Funccius though improbably thinks this Pharaoh to have been Osiris and Rivet thinks Misraim might have been alive till that time here then we find no Dynastyes coexisting but one Kingdom under one King If we descend somewhat lower to the times of Iacob and Ioseph the evidence is so undoubted of Aegypts being an entire Kingdom under one King that he may have just cause to suspect the â—yes either of his body or his mind that distrusts it For what more evident then that Pharaoh who preferred Ioseph was King of all the Land of Aegypt Were not the seven years of famine over all the Land of Aegypt Gen. 41. 55. Was not Joseph set by Pharaoh over all the Land of Aegypt Gen. 41. 41 43 45. And did not Joseph go over all the Land of Aegypt to gather corn Gen. 41. 46. Nay did not he buy all the Land of Aegypt for Pharaoh Gen. 47. 20. Can there possibly be given any fuller evidence of an entire Kingdom then these are that Egypt was such then Afterwards we read of one King after another in Egypt for the space of nigh two hundred years during the children of Israels slavery in Egypt and was not he think we King over all Egypt in whose time the children of Israel went out thence And in all the following history of Scripture is there not mention made of Aegypt still as an entire Kingdom and of one King over it Where then is there any place for these co-temporary Dynastyes in Aegypt Nowhere that I know of but in the sancies of some learned men Indeed there is one place that seems to give some countenance to this opinion but it is in far later times then the first Dynastyes of Manetho are supposed to be in which is in Isai. 19. 2. Where God saith he would set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians and they shall fight every one against his brother City against City and Kingdom
great irregularities in the observation of it for it is expresly said That a multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves yet they did eat the Passeover otherwise then it was written And yet it is said upon Hezekiah's prayer that the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah and healed every one So that we see God himself did dispense with the strict ceremonial precepts of the Law where men did look after the main and substantial parts of the worship God required from them Nay God himself hath expresly declared his own will to dispense with the ritual and ceremonial Law where it comees to stand in competition with such things as have an internal goodness in them when he saith he desired mercy and not sacrifice and the knowledge of God more then burnt-offerings Thus we plainly see that the ceremonial Law however positive it was did yield as to its obligation when any thing that was moral stood in competition with it And so the Iews themselves suppose an open violation of the judicial Law to have been in the hanging up of Sauls sons a long time together directly contrary to Deut. 21. 23. which they conceive to have been from the 16. of Nisan to the 17. of Marchesvan which is as much as from our March to September whereas the Law saith expresly that the body of one that is hanged shall not remain all night upon the tree but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day One of the Iewish Rabbies as G. Vorstius tells us is so troubled at this that he wisheth that place in Samuel expunged out of Scripture that the name of God might be sanctified But whether this were done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the command of the Oracle or no or whether only by a general permission we see it was acceptable unto God for upon that the Gibeonites famine was removed and God was intreated for the Land Thus we have now proved that there is no immutable and indispensable obligation which ariseth from the things themselves Secondly it is no ways inconsistent with the wisdom of God to repeal such a Law when once established The main argument of that learned R. Abravanel whereby he would establish the eternity of the Law of Moses is fetched from hence That this Law was the result of the wisdom of God who knows the suitableness of things he appoints to the ends he appoints them for as God hath appointed bread to be the food of mans body Now we are not to enquire why God hath appointed bread and no other thing to be the food of man no more saith he are we to enquire why God hath appointed this Law rather then another for the food of our souls but we are to rest contented with the counsels of God though we understand not tht reasons of them This is the substance of that argument which he more largely deduceth To which we answer that his argument holds good for obedience to all Gods positive precepts of what kind or nature soever they be so long as we know their obligation to continue but all the question is whether every positive precept must always continue to oblige And thus far his similitude will hold good that whatever God doth command we are to look upon it to be as necessary to our souls as bread to our bodies but hence it follows not that our souls must be always held to the same positive precepts any more then our bodies to the same kind of food Nay as in our bodies we find some kind of food always necessary but the kind of it to alter according to age health and constitutions so we say some kind of Divine revelation is always necessary but God is graciously pleased to temper it according to the age and growth of his people so he fed them as with milk in their nonage with a ritual and ceremonial Law and trained them up by degrees under the Nursery of the Prophets till the Church was grown to age and then God fed it with the strong meat which is contained in Gods revelation of his will by the Gospel of his Son And therein was abundantly seen Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his variegated wisdom that he made choise of such excellent and proportionable wayes to his peoples capacity to prepare them gradually for that full and compleat revelation which was reserved for the time of the appearance of the true Messias in the world For can any thing be more plain then the gradual progress of Divine revelation from the beginning of the world That fair resemblance and portraicture of God himself and his will upon his word if I may so express it had its ground work laid upon mans first Apostacy in the promise made Gen. 3. 15. whereon some further lines were drawn in the times of the Patriarchs but it had its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was shadowed out the most in the typical and ceremonial Law but was never filled up to the life nor had its perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the Son of God himself appeared unto the world If then it be inconsistent with the wisdom of God to add any thing to the Law of Moses why not to the revelation made to Adam or the Patriarchs or especially to the seven precepts of Noah which they suppose to have been given to all mankind after the flood If it were not repugnant to the wisdom of God to superadd rituals and ceremonials to morals and naturals why shall it be to take down the Scaffolds of Ceremonies when Gods spiritual Temple the Church of God is come to its full height Is there not more reason that rituals should give place to substantials then that such should be superinduced to morals There are only two things can be pleaded by the Iewes why it should be more repugnant to the wisdom of God to add to the Law of Moses then to any former revelation which are the greater perfection they suppose to be in this revelation above others and that God in the promulgation of it did express that he would never alter it But both these are manifestly defective and insufficient in order to the end for which they are produced For first what evidence is there that the Law of Moses contained so great perfection in it as that it was not capable of having any additions made to it by God himself We speak not now of the perfection of the Moral Law which it is granted contained in it the foundation of all positive precepts for this we never contend for the abrogation of but the ritual Law is that we meddle with and is it possible any men should be so little befriended by reason as to think this to be the utmost pitch of what God could reveal to the world as to the way of his own worship Let any indifferent rational person take the precepts of the Gospel and lay them in the ballance with those of the
pimple any the most trivial thing with a word speaking or the touch of the hand Upon this Arnobius challengeth the most famous of all the Heathen Magicians Zoroastres Armenius Pamphilus Apollonius Damigero Dardanus Velus Iulianus and Baebulus or any other renowned Magician to give power to any one to make the dumb to speak the deaf to hear the blind to see or bring life into a dead body Or if this be too hard with all their Magical rites and incantations but to do that quod à rusticis Christianis jussienibus factitatum est nudis which ordinary Christians do by their meer words So great a difference was there between the highest that could be done by Magick and the least that was done by the Name and Power of Christ. Where miracles are truly Divine God makes it evident to all impartial judgements that the things do exceed all created power For which purpose we are to observe that though impostures and delusions may go far the power of Magicians further when God permits them yet when God works miracles to confirm a Divine Testimony he makes it evident that his power doth infinitely exceed them all This is most conspicuous in the case of Moses and our blessed Saviour First Moses he began to do some miracles in the presence of Pharaoh and the Aegyptians turning his rod into a Serpent but we do not finde Pharaoh at all amazed at it but sends presently for the Magicians to do the same who did it whether really or only in appearance is not material to our purpose but Aarons rod swallowed up theirs The next time the waters are turned into blood by Moses the Magicians they do so too After this Moses brings up Frogs upon the Land so do the Magicians So that here now is a plain and open contest in the presence of Pharaoh and his people between Moses and the Magicians and they try for victory over each other so that if Moses do no more then they they would look upon him but as a Magician but if Moses do that which by the acknowledgement of these Magicians themselves could be only by Divine Power then it is demonstrably evident that his power was as far above the power of Magick as God is above the Devil Accordingly we finde it in the very next miracle in turning the dust into Ciniphes which we render lice the Magicians are non-plust and give out saying in plain terms This is the finger of God And what greater acknowledgement can there be of Divine Power then the confession of those who seemed to contest with it and to imitate it as much as possible After this we finde not the Magicians offering to contest with Moses and in the plague of boyles we particularly read that they could not stand before Moses Thus we see in the case of Moses how evident it was that there was a power above all power of Magick which did appear in Moses And so likewise in the case of our blessed Saviour for although Simon Magus Apollonius or others might do some small things or make some great shew and noise by what they did yet none of them ever came near the doing things of the same kind which our Saviour did curing the born blind restoring the dead to life after four dayes and so as to live a considerable time after or in the manner he did them with a word a touch with that frequency and openness before his greatest enemies as well as followers and in such an uncontrouled manner that neither Iews or Heathens ever questioned the truth of them And after all these when he was laid in the grave after his crucifixion exactly according to his own prediction he rose again the third day appeared frequently among his Disciples for forty dayes together After which in their presence he ascended up to heaven and soon after made good his promise to them by sending his holy Spirit upon them by which they spake with tongues wrought miracles went up and down Preaching the Gospel of Christ with great boldness chearfulness and constancy and after undergoing a great deal of hardship in it they sealed the truth of all they spake with their blood laying down their lives to give witness to it Thus abundantly to the satisfaction of the minds of all good men hath God given the highest rational evidence of the truth of the doctrine which he hath revealed to the world And thus I have finished the second part of my task which concerned the rational evidence of the truth of Divine Revelation from the persons who were imployed to deliver Gods mind to the world And therein have I hope made it evident that both Moses and the Prophets our Saviour and his Apostles did come with sufficient rational evidence to convince the world that they were persons immediately sent from God BOOK III. CHAP. I. Of the Being of God The Principles of all Religion lie in the Being of God and immortality of the soul from them the necessity of a particular Divine revelation rationally deduced the method laid down for proving the Divine authority of the Scriptures Why Moses doth not prove the Being of God but suppose it The notion of a Deity very consonant to reason Of the nature of Idea's and particularly of the Idea of God How we can form an Idea of an infinite Being How far such an Idea argues existence The great unreasonableness of Atheism demonstrated Of the Hypotheses of the Aristotelian and Epicurean Atheists The Atheists pretences examined and refuted Of the nature of the arguments whereby we prove there is a God Of universal consent and the evidence of that to prove a Deity and immortality of souls Of necessity of existence implyed in the notion of God and how far that proves the Being of God The order of the world and usefulness of the parts of it and especially of mans body an argument of a Deity Some higher principle proved to be in the world then matter and motion The nature of the soul and possibility of its subsisting after death Strange appearances in nature not solvable by the power of imagination HAving in the precedent book largely given a rational account of the grounds of our faith as to the persons whom God imployes to reveal his mind to the world if we can now make it appear that those sacred records which we embrace as Divinely inspired contain in them nothing unworthy of so great a name or unbecoming persons sent from God to deliver there will be nothing wanting to justifie our Religion in point of reason to be true and of revelation to be Divine For the Scriptures themselves coming to us in the name of God we are bound to believe them to be such as they pretend to be unless we have ground to question the general foundations of all religion as uncertain or this particular way of religion as not suitable to those general foundations The foundations of all