after the flood Of the Chronology of the LXX Of the time between the flood and Abraham and the advantages of it Of the pretence of such Nations who called themselves Aborigines A discourse concerning the first plantation of Greece the common opinion propounded and rejected The Hellens not the first inhabitants of Greece but the Pelasgi The large spread of them over the parts of Greece Of their language different from the Greeks Whence these Pelasgi came that Phaleg was the Pelasgus of Greece and the leader of that Colony proved from Epiphanius the language of the Pelasgi in Greece Oriental thence an account given of the many Hebrew words in the Greek language and the remainders of the Eastern languages in the Islands of Greece both which not from the Phaenicians as Bochartus thinks but from the old Pelasgi Of the ground of the affinity between the Jews and Lacedaemonians Of the peopling of Amercia THE next thing we proceed to give a rational account of in the history of the fiâ—â—t ages of the world contained in Scripture is the peopling of the world from Adam Which is of great consequence for us to understand not only for the satisfaction of our curiosity as to the true Origine of Nations but also in order to our believing the truth of the Scriptures and the universal effects of the fall of man Neither of which can be sufficiently cleared without this For as it is hard to conceive how the effects of mans fall should extend to all mankinde unless all mankind were propagated from Adam so it is unconceivable how the account of things given in Scripture should be true if there were persons existent in the world long before Adam was Since the Scripture doth so plainly affirm that God hath made of one blood all Nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth Some Greek copyes read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the vulgar Latin follows the Arabick version to explain both reads it ex homine or as De Dieu renders it ex Adamo uno there being but the difference of one letter in the Eastern languages between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one denoting blood and the other man But if we take it as our more ordinary copyes read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet thereby it is plain that the meaning is not that all mankind was made of the same uniform matter as the author of the Prae-Adamites weakly imagined for by that reason not only mankind but the whole world might be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same blood since all things in the world were at first formed out of the same matter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken there in the sense in which it occurs in the best Greek authors for the stock out of which men come So Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence those who are near relations are called in Sophocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thence the name of Consanguinity for nearness of relation and Virgil useth sanguis in the same sense Trojano à sanguine duci So that the Apostles meaning is that however men now are so dispersed in their habitations and differ so much in language and customs from each other yet they all were originally of the same stock and did derive their succession from that first man whom God created Neither can it be conceived on what account Adam in the Scripture is called the first man and that he was made a living soul and of the earth earthy unless it were to denote that he was absolutely the first of his kind and so was to be the standard and measure of all that follows And when our Saviour would reduce all things to the beginning he instanceth in those words which were pronounced after Eve was formed But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female for this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave unto his Wife Now nothing can be more plain and easie then from hence to argue thus those of whom those words were spoken were the first male and female which were made in the beginning of the Creation but it is evident these words were spoken of Adam and Eve And Adam said this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh therefore shall a man leave his Father and his Mother and shall cleave unto his Wife If the Scriptures then of the New Testament be true it is most plain and evident that all mankind is descended from Adam and no less conspicuous is it from the history of the Creation as delivered by Moses For how necessary had it been for Moses when he was giving an account of the Origine of things to have discovered by whom the world was first planted if there had been any such plantation before Adam but to say that all the design of Moses was only to give an account of the Origine and history of the Iewish Nation and that Adam was only the first of that stock is manifestly ridiculous it being so clear that not only from Adam and Noah but from Sem Abraham and Isaac came other Nations besides that of Iews And by the same reason that it is said that Moses only speaks of the Origine of the Iewish Nation in the history of Adam it may as well be said that Moses speaks only of the making of Canaan and that part of the heavens which was over it when he describes the Creation of the world in the six dayes work For why may not the earth in the second ver of Genesis be as well understood of the Land of Iudea and the light and production of animals and vegetables refer only to that as to understand it so in reference to the flood and in many other passages relating to those eldest times But the Author of that Hypothesis answers That the first Chapter of Genesis may relate to the true Origine of the world and the first peopling of it but in the second Moses begins to give an account of the first man and woman of the Iewish Nation Very probable but if this be not a putting asunder those which God hath joyned together nothing is For doth not Moses plainly at first give an account of the formation of things in the first six dayes and of his rest on the seventh but how could he be said to have rested then from the works of Creation if after this followed the formation of Adam and Eve in the second Chapter Besides if the forming of man mentioned Gen. 2. 7. be distinct from that mentioned Gen. 1. 27. then by all parity of reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Generations of Heaven and earth mentioned Gen. 2. 4. must be distinct from the Creation of the heaven and earth mentioned Gen. 1. 1. And so if there were another Creation of heaven and earth belonging to
in common use was only of 360. dayes which in any great period of years must needs cause a monstrous confusion by reason that their Moneths must of necessity by degrees change their place so that in the great Canicular year of 730. Thoyth which was the beginning of the Summer Solstice in the entrance into that period would be removed into the midst of Winter from whence arose that Aegyptian Fable in Herodotus that in the time of their eldest Kings the Sun had twice changed his rising and setting which was only caused by the variation of their Moneths and not by any alteration in the course of the Sun Which defect the Aegyptian Priests at last observing saw a necessity of adding five dayes to the end of the year which thence were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implyes they were not antiently in use among them being afterwards added to make up the course of the year Which the Aegyptians give an account of as Plutarch tells us under this Fable Mercury being once at Dice with the Moon he got from her the 72. part of the year which he after added to the 360. dayes which were antiently the dayes of the year which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therein celebrated the Festivals of their gods thence the names of the several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken from the Gods the first was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being celebrated in honour of him the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Scaliger understands Anubis but Vossius more probably the Senior Orus the third to Typho the fourth to Isis the fift to Nephtha the wife of Typho and sister to Isis. This course of the year Scaliger thinks that the Aegyptians represented by the Serpent called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being described in a round circle biting some part of his tail in his mouth whereby saith he they would have it understood that the form of the year was not perfect without that adjection of five dayes to the end of the year For to this day saith he the Coptites and antient Aegyptians call the end of the year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems that afterwards they understood likewise the necessity of intercalation of a day every fourth year for the sake of the redundant quadrant each year above 365. dayes which course of four years they called their Canicular year because they observed its defect in that time one whole day from the rising of the Dog-star and besides that they called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lustrum Sothiacum from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Dog-star but Censorinus denies any use of intercalation among the Egyptians in their civil year although their Sacred and Hieroglyphical years might admit of it And upon this ground I suppose the controversie between those two learned persons Scaliger and Petavius concerning the antiquity of Intercalation among the Egyptians may be reconciled For on the one side it is apparent that the ordinary or civil year did want intercalation by this testimony of Censorinus Eorum annus civilis solos habet dies 365. sine ullo intercalari itaque quadriennium apud cos uno circiter die minus est quam naturale quadriennum and thence saith he it comes to pass that in 1461. years which was the great Heliacal year it returns to the same beginning for then the Dog-star ariseth again upon the first day of the month Thoyth as it did at the beginning of this great Canicular year and that this kind of civil year did continue among them in the time of Censorinus which was of the Dionysian account 238. appears by this that he saith in the year wherein he wrote his book the New-moon of Thoyth was before the seventh day of the Calends of Iuly whereas 100. years before it was before the 12. of the Calends of August whence it is evident that the Iulian year whatever some learned men pretend to the contrary was not in ordinary use among the Egyptians in that time and that Sosigenes when he corrected the Roman account and brought in the form of the Iulian year did not take his pattern from the Egyptian year but from the Graecians of Alexandria who did make use of the quadrant added to the 365. years which the Egyptians did not as appeare further by the golden circle in the monument of Osymanduas which Diodorus speaks of out of Hecataeus Milesius which was of 365. cubits compass and divided into so many segments for every day with the observations of the rising and setting of the several stars and the effects portended by them And the reason why this year continued in civil use among the Egyptians is well assigned by Geminus that the Egyptians according to a superstitious observation they had would needs have their Festivals run through every day in the year But now on the other side it is as evident that by continual observation the wisest of the Egyptian Priests did discern the necessity of intercalation and that there wanted six hours in every year to make it compleat which every four years would make the intercalation of a day necessary so much by Diodorus is affirmed of the Theban Priests who were the best Astronomers and by Strabo both of the Theban and Heliopolitan and so likewise Horapollo whose work was to interpret the more abstruse Learning of the Egyptian Priests when saith he the Egyptians would express a year they name a quadrant because from one rising of the star Sothis to another the fourth part of a day is added so that the year consists of 365. dayes and a quadrant must be added because of the antecedents and consequents therefore every fourth year they reckon a supernumerary day How unjustly Petavius hath charged Scaliger with falshood in reference to this testimony of Horapollo meerly because the citation did not appear in that chapter mentioned by Scaliger in the book which Petavius used hath been already observed by learned men whereupon Vossius condemns Petavius of strange incogitancy because in three editions mentioned by him Scaligers citation was right but Conringius hath since pleaded in behalf of Petavius that he might make use of the edition of Causinus distinct from the other three whereby we see how small a matter will beget a send between learned men especially where prejudice hath lodged before as is too evident in Petavius his rough dealing on all occasions with that very deserving person Ioseph Scaliger But to return from hence by degrees the Egyptians proceeded to make greater periods of years as Eudoxus carried his octaëter is into Greece from the Canicular year of the Egyptians they framed from this a greater Canicular year which had as many years as a Iulian hath dayes and lastly the greatest Canicular year which comprehended four of the greater and consisted of a period of 1461. years But thus we see that
in his hands the â—rint of the nails now our Saviour condeseending so far as to satisfie the incredulity of Thomas hath made it thereby evident that the body which our Saviour rose from the grave with was the same individual body which before was crucified and buried in the Sepulchre And we sind all the Apostles together upon our Saviours appearance to them after his resurrection so far from being credulous in embracing a phantasm instead of Christ that they suspâ—cted that it was either a meer phantasm or an evil spirit which appeared among them upon which it is said they were terrified and affrighted and supposed they had seen a spirit Which our Saviour could not beat them off from but by appealing to the judgement of their senses Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have and afterwards more fully to convince them he did eat in the midst of them Now the more suspitious and incâ—edulous the Apostles themselves at first were the greater evidence is it how far they were from any design of abusing the world in what they after preached unto it and what strong conviction there was in the thing its self which was able to satisfie such scrupulous and suspicious persons 2. When many witnesses concurr in the same Testimony Nothing can disparage more the truth of a testimony then the counter witness of such who were present at the same actions but when all the witnesses fully agree not only in the substance but in all material circumstances of the story what ground or reason can there be to suspect a forgery or design in it especially when the persons cannot by any fears or threatnings be brought to vary from each other in it Thus it is in our present case we find no real dissent at all mentioned either as to the birth miracles life death or resurrection of Iesus Christ all the witnesses attest the same things though writing in different places and upon different occasions no alteration in any circumstance of the story out of any design of pleasing or gratifying any persons by it Most of our Saviours miracles not only his Apostles but the people and his very enemies were witnesses of whose posterity to this day dare not deny the truth of such strange works which were wrought by him And for his resurrection it would be very strange that five hundred persons should all agree in the same thing and that no torments or death could bring any of them to deny the truth of it had there not been the greatest certainty in it There can be no reason to suspect such a testimony which is given by eye-witnesses but either from questiâ—ning their knowledge of the things they speak of or their fiâ—elity in reporting them Now there is not the least ground to doubt either of these in reference to those persons who gave testimony to the world concerning the person and actions of our blessed Saviour For first They were such as were intimately conversant both with the person and actions of Iesus Christ whom he had chosen and trained up for that very end that they might be sufficiently qualified to acquaint the world with the truth of things concerning himself after his resurrection from the dead And accordingly they followed him up and down wheresoever he went they were with him in his solitudes and retirements and had thereby occasion to observe all his actions and to take notice of the unspotted innocency of his life Some of his Disciples were with him in his transfiguration others in his agony and bloody sweat they heard the expressions which came from his mouth in all which he discovered a wonderful submission to the will of God and a great readiness of mind to suffer for the good of the world Now therefore the first thing cannot at all be questioned their means of knowing the truth of what they spake Neither secondly is there any reasâ—n to suspect their fidelity in reporting what they knew For 1. The truth of this doctrine wrought so far upon them that they parted with all their worldly subsistence for the sake of it Although their riches were not great yet their way of subsistence in the world was necessary they left their houses their wives and children and all for Christ and that not to gain any higher preferments in this world which had they done it would have rendred their design suspicious to the curious and inquisitive world but they let go at least a quiet and easie life for one most troublesom and dangerous So that it is not how much they parted withall but how freely they did it and with what chearfulness they underwent disgraces persecutions nay death its self for the sake of the Gospel Now can it be imagined that ever men were so prodigal of their ease and lives as to throw both of them away upon a thing which themselves were not fully assured of the truth of It had been the highest folly imaginable to have deceived themselves in a thing of so great moment to them as the truth of the doctrine which they preached was because all their hopes and happiness depended upon the truth of that doctrine which they preached And as Tertullian observes non fas est ulli de suâ religione mentiri for saith he he that sayes he worships any thing be sides what he doth he denyes what he doth worship and transfers his worship upon another and thereby doth not worship that which he thus denyes Besides what probability is there men should lye for the sake of that Religion which tells them that those which do so shall not receive the reward which is promised to those who cordially adhere unto it Nay they declared themselves to be the most miserable of all persons if their hopes were only in this present life Can we now think that any who had the common reason of men would part with all the contentments of this world and expose themselves to continual hazards and at last undergo death its self for the sake of something which was meerly the fiction of their own brains What should make them so sedulous and industrious in preaching such things that they could say necessity was laid upon them yea wo was unto them if they preached not the Gospel when yet they saw so many woes attending them in the preaching of it had there not been some more powerful attractive in the beauty and excellency of the doctrine which they preached then any could be in the ease and tranquillity of this present world Thus we see the fidâ—lity of the Apostles manifested in such a way as no other witnesses were ever yet willing to hazard theirs And therefore Origen deservedly condemns Celsus of a ridiculous impertinency when he would parallel the relations of Herodotus and Pindarus concerning Aristeus Proconnesius with those of the Apostles concerning Christ For faith he did either of those two