he tells us himself courting the Aegyptian Mysteries for compassing his Oedipus should have found some better arguments to prove an assertion of this nature then meerly the testimony of Iosephus the Hebrew book Iuchasin and some Arabick Writers not one of all which do mention the thing they are brought for viz. that Manetho was elder then Alexander All the business is they quote him as an ancient Writer but what then The Author of the Book Iuchasim was Abraham Zacuth a Iew of Salamancha who writ in the year of our Lord 1502. and this book was first printed at Constantinople 1556. Might not this man then well mention Manetho as an ancient Writer if he flourished above 1600 years before him in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus And what if some Arabick Writers mention him are they of so great antiquity and credit themselves that it is an evidence Manetho lived in Alexanders time to be praised by them It would be well if Kircber and other learned men who think the world is grown to so great stupidity as to believe every thing to be a Iewel which is far fetched would first assert and vindicate the antiquity and fidelity of their Arabick Authors such as Gelaldinus Abenephi and many others before they expect we should part with our more authentick Records of History for those fabulous relations which they are so full fraught withall Were it here any part of my present business it were an easie matter so to lay open the ignorance falsity and fabulousness of those Arabians whom that Author relies so much upon that he could not be freed from a design to impose upon the world who makes use of their Testimony in matters of ancient times without a Caveat I know none fit to believe these Arabick Writers as to these things but those who have faith enough to concoct the Rabbins in matter of History Of whom Origen saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who are as Grotius truly saith pessimi historiae Magistri nam ex quo patria expulsi sunt omnis apud illos historia crassis erroribus fabulis est inquinata quibus proinde nihil credendum est nisi aliunde testes accederunt And as Is. Caubason passeth this sharp but due censure upon them Rabbinis ubi de Lingna Hebraica agitur vocis alicujus proprietate vel aliquo Talmudico instituto meritò à Christianis tribui non parum nbi verò à verbis venitur ad res aut ad historiam vel rerum antiquarum veteris populi explicationem nisi falli decipi volumus nihil admodum esse illis fidei habendum Sexcentis argumentis hoc facilè probarem si id nunc agerem And in reference to their ancient rites as well as history Ioseph Scaliger hath given this verdict of them Manifesta est Iudaeorum inscitia qui cum usu veterum rituum etiam corum cognitionem amiserunt multa quae ad eorum sacra historiam pertinent longè meliùs nos teneamus quam ipsi The same which these very learned persons say of Rabbinical may with as much truth be said of these Arabick Writers in matters of ancient history which I have here inserted to shew the reason why I have thought the testimony of either of these two sorts of persons so inconsiderable in the matter of our future discourse which being historical and that of the greatest antiquity little relief is to be expected from either of them in order thereto But to return to Kircher It is freely granted that Iosephus an Author of credit and age sufficient to give his opinion in this case doth very frequently cite Manetho in his Aegyptian History particularly in his learned Books against Appion but where he doth give the least intimation of Manetho being elder then Alexander I am yet to seek But Kircher will not yet leave the matter so but undertakes to give an account of the mistake which is that there were two Manetho's besides and both Aegyptians mentioned by Suidas one a Mendesian who writ of the Preparation of the Aegyptian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of perfume used by the Aegyptian Priests The other a Diospolitan who writ some Physiological and Astronomical Treatises whose works he hears are preserved in the Duke of Florenee his Librarie and this was he saith he who lived in the times of Augustus whom many by the aequivocation of the name have confounded with the ancient Writer of the Aegyptian Dynastyes Is it possible so learned a Iesuite should discover so little judgement in so few words For first who ever asserted the Writer of the Dynastyes to have lived in the time of Augustus Yet secondly if that Manetho whom Suidas there speaks of lived in Augustus his time according to Kircher then it must necessarily follow that the Compiler of the Dynastyes did for it is evident to any one that looks into Suidas that he there speaks of the same Manetho for these are his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Can any thing be more plain then that he here speaks of Manetho Sebennyta who was the Author of the Dynastyes though he might write other things besides of which Suidas there speaks But Kircher very wisely in translating Suidas his words leaves out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which decides the controversie and makes it clear that he speaks of the same Manetho of whom we have been discoursing Thus it still appears that this Manetho is no elder then the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus which was the thing to be proved Now for Berosus although the Chaldeans had occasion enough given them before this time to produce their antiquities by the Iews converse with them in Babylon yet we find this Author the first who durst adventure them abroad such as they were in Greek Now that this Berosus published his history after the time mentioned I thus prove Tatianus Assyrius tells us that he writ the Chaldaick history in three books and dedicated them to Antiochus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read in the fragment of Tatianus preserved in Eusebius but it must be acknowledged that in the Paris edition of Tatianus as well as the Basil it is thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here it relates to the third from Alexander in the other to the third from Seleucus Now if we reckon the third so as to take the person from whom we reckon in for the first according to the reading in Eusebius it falls to be Antiochus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the other reading it falls to be Antiochus Soter for Seleucus succeeded Alexander in the Kingdom of Syria Antiochus Soter Seleucus Antiochus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiochus Soter But according to either of these readings our purpose is sufficiently proved For Antiochus Soter began to reign in Syria in the sixth year of Ptol. Philadelphus in Aegypt Antiochus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 succeeded him in the 22. year of Philadelphus
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
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
venture their lives upon the truth of what they writ concerning him as the Apostles did to attest the truth of what they preached concerning our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ 2. The fidelity of the Apostles is evident in their manner of reporting the things which they deliver For if ever there may be any thing gathered from the manner of expression or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the particular temper and disposition of the person from whom it comes we may certainly read the greatest fidelity in the Apostles from the peculiar manner of their expressing themselves to the world Which they do 1. With the greatest impartiality not declaring only what was glorious and admirable to the world but what they knew would be accounted foolishness by it They who had sought only to have been admired for the rare discoveries which they brought to the world would be sure to conceal any thing which might be accounted ridiculous but the Apostles fixed themselves most on what was most contemptible in the eyes of the world and what they were most mocked and derided for that they delighted most in the preaching of which was the Cross of Christ. Paul was so much in Love with this which was a stumbling block to the Iews and foolishness to the Greeks that he valued the knowledge of nothing else in comparison of the knowledge of Christ and him crucified Nay he elsewhere saith God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ. What now should be the reason that they should rejoyce in that most which was most despicable to the world had not they seen far â—reater truth and excellency in it then in the most sublime speculations concerning God or the souls of men in the School of Plato or any other heathen Philosophers That all men should be bound in order to their salvation to believe in one who was crucified at Hierusalem was a strange doctrine to the unbelieving world but if the Apostles had but endeavoured to have suited their doctrine to the School of Plato what rare persons might they have been accounted among the Heathen Philosophers Had they only in general terms discoursed of the Benignity of the Divine nature and the manifestations of Divine goodness in the world and that in order to the bringing of the souls of men to a nearer participation of the Divine nature the perfect Idea of true goodness and the express image of the person of God and the resplendency of his glory had vailed himself in humane nature and had everywhere scattered such beams of light and goodness as warmed and invigorated the frozen spirits of men with higher sentiments of God and themselves and raised them up above the faeculency of this terrestrial matter to breath in a freer air and converse with more noble objects and by degrees to fit the souls of men for those more pure illapses of real goodness which might alwayes satisfie the souls desires and yet alwayes keep them up till the soul should be sunning its self to all eternity under the immediate beams of Light and Love And that after this Incarnate Deity had spread abroad the wings of his Love for a while upon this lower world till by his gentle heat and incubation he had quickned the more plyable world to some degree of a Divine life he then retreated himself back again into the superiour world and put off that vail by which he made himself known to those who are here confined to the prisons of their bodies Thus I say had the Apostles minded applause among the admired Philosophers of the Heathens how easie had it been for them to have made some considerable additions to their highest speculations and have left out any thing which might seem so mean and contemptible as the death of the Son of God! But this they were so far from that the main thing which they preached to the world was the vanity of humane wisdom without Christ and the necessity of all mens believing in that Iesus who was crucified at Hierusalem The Apostles indeed discover very much infinitely more then ever the most lofty Pl tonist could do concerning the goodness and Love of God to mankind but that wherein they manifested the Love of God to the world was that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And that herein was the Love of God manifested that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us And that this was the greatest truth and worthy of all acceptation that Iesus Christ came into the world to save sinners They never dreamt of any divine goodness which should make men happy without Christ No it was their design to perswade the world that all the communications of Gods goodness to the world were wholly in and through Iesus Christ and it is impossible that any should think otherwise unless Plato knew more of the mind of God then our blessed Saviour and Plotinus then Saint Paul Can we think now that the Apostles should hazard the reputation of their own wits so much as they did to the world and be accounted bablers and fools and madmen for preaching the way of salvation to be only by a person crucified between two thieves at Hierusalem had they not been convinced not only of the truth but importance of it and that it concerned men as much to believe it as it did to avoid eternal misery Did Saint Paul preach ever the less the words of truth and soberness because he was told to his face that his Learning had made him mad But if he was besides himself it was for Christ and what wonder was it if the Love of Christ in the Apostle should make him willing to lose his reputation for him seeing Christ made himself of no reputation that he might be in a capacity to do us good We see the Apostles were not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ because they knew it was the power of God to salvation and therefore neither in their preaching or their writings would they omit any of those passages concerning our Saviours death which might be accounted the most dishonourable to his person Which is certainly as great an evidence of their sidelity as can be expected which makes Origen say that the Disciples of Christ writ all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a great deal of candour and love of truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not concealing from the world those passages of the life of Christ which would be accounted most foolish and ridiculous 2. With the greatest plainness and simplicity of speech Such whose design is to impose upon the minds of men with some cunningly devised fables love as much ambiguity as ever Apollo did in his most winding oracles of whom it is said Ambage nexâ Delphico mos est Dco Arcana tegere Servius tells us that Iupiter Ammon was therefore pictured with Rams-horns because his answers