of this nature, corrected too by the probable, that is, fome kind of fupport from Antiquity, which it now totally wants. Befides, the moift glebe of Egypt, we know, when impregnated with a warm Sun, was of old famed for hatching men and monsters. To return. From what hath been laft faid, we conclude, That the true original of brute-worship was the ufe of fymbolic writing: and, confequently, that Symbols were extreme ancient; for bruteworship was national in the days of Moses. But Symbols were invented for the repofitory of egyptian wifdom; therefore the Egyptians were very learned even from those early times: The point to be proved. And now, had this long difcourfe on the Egyptian Hieroglyphics done nothing but afford me this auxiliary proof, which my argument does not want, I fhould certainly have made it fhorter. But it is of much use besides, for attaining a true idea of the EASTERN ELOCUTION, (whofe genius is greatly influenced by this kind of writing) and is therefore, I prefume, no improper introduction to the present volume, whofe fubject is the religion and civil policy of the Hebrews. The excellent Mr. Mede pointed to this ufe: and the learned Mr. Daubuz endeavoured to profecute his hint, at large; but, falling into the vifions of Kircher, he fruftrated much of that fervice, which the application of hieroglyphic learning to fcripture language would otherwife have afforded. ον * Δῆμον Ερηχθῆς μεγαλήτορος, ὃν ποτ' Αθήνη 2 A far A farther advantage may be derived from this long difcourfe: it may open our way to the true Egyptian Wisdom; which by reafon of the general mistakes concerning the origin, use, and diftinct fpecies of Hieroglyphic writing, hath been hitherto stopped up. The fubject now lies ready for any diligent enquirer; and to fuch an one, whofe greater advantages of fituation, learning, and abilities may make him more deferving of the public regard, I leave it to be pursued. But whatever help this may afford us towards a better acquaintance with the ancient Egyptian Wifdom, yet, what is a greater advantage, it will very much affift us in the study of the Grecian; and, after so many instances given of this ufe, one might almost venture to recommend these two grand vehicles of Egyptian learning and religion, the MySTERIES treated of in the former volume, and the HIEROGLYPHICs in the prefent, as the cardinal points on which the interpretation of GREEK AN TIQUITY fhould from henceforth turn. SE C T. V.. HE courfe of my argument now brings me to examine a new hypothefis against the high antiquity of Egypt, which hath the incomparable Sir ISAAC NEWTON for its Patron: A man, for whose fame Science and Virtue feemed to be at strife. The prodigious difcoveries he had made in the natural world, and especially that fuperiority of genius which opened the way to thofe difcoveries, hath induced fome of his countrymen to think him as intimate with the moral; and even to believe with a late ingenious commentator on his Optics, that as every thing which Midas touched, turned to gold, fo all that Newton handled, turned to demonftration. But the fublimeft understanding has it bounds, and, what is more to be lamented, the strongest mind has it foible. And this miarcle of fcience, who disclosed all nature to our view, when he came to correct old time, in the chronology of Egypt, fuffered himself to be feduced, by little lying greek mythologists and story tellers, from the Gofben of Moses, into the thickeft of the Egyptian darkness. So peftilent a mischief in the road to Truth is a favourite hypothefis: an evil, we have frequent occafion to lament, as it retards the progrefs of our enquiry at almost every step. For it is to be observed, that Sir Ifaac's Egyptian chronology was fashioned only to fupport his Grecian; which he erected on one of thofe fublime conceptions peculiar to his amazing genius. But it is not for the fake of any private Syftem that I take upon me to confider the arguments of this illuftrious man. The truth is, his difcourfe of the empire of Egypt contradicts every thing which MOSES and the PROPHETS have delivered concerning these ancient people. Though some therefore of his admirers may feem to think that no more harm can derive to religion by his contradicting the Hiftory, than by his overturning the Aftronomy, of the Bible, yet I am of a different opinion; becaufe, though the end of the facred history was certainly not to inftruct us in Aftronomy, yet it was, without question, written to inform us of the various fortunes of the People of God; with whom, the hiftory of Egypt was clofely connected. I fufpect therefore, that the efpoufing this hypothefis may be attended with very bad confequences in Our our difputes with Infidelity. The present turn, indeed, of Free-thinking is to extol the high antiquity of Egypt, as an advantage to their caufe; and confequently to urge Scripture, which bears full evidence to that antiquity, as a faithful relater of ancient facts; yet these advantages being chi merical, as foon as they are understood to be fo, we shall see the contrary notion, of the low antiquity of Egypt, become the fashionable doctrine; and, what all good men will be forry to find, the great name of NEWTON fet against the BIBLE, It is therefore, as I fay, for the fake of Scripture, and from no foolish fondness for any private opinion, that I take upon me to examine the system of this incomparable perfon. His whole argument for the low antiquity of Egypt may be fummed up in this fyllogifm: OSIRIS advanced Egypt from a state of barba rity to civil policy, OSIRIS and SESOSTRIS were the fame. Therefore EGYPT was advanced from a state of barbarity to civil policy in the time of SE SOSTRIS. And to fix the time of Sefoftris with precifion, he endeavours to prove him to be the fame with SESAC. But this latter identity not all affecting the prefent question, I fhall have no occafion to confider it. Now the minor in this fyllogifm being the que ftionable term, he has employed his whole dif R 3 courfe course in its fupport. All then I have to do, is to fhew that OSIRIS and SESOSTRIS were not one, but two perfons, living in very diftant ages. And that none of the favourers of this fyftem may have any pretence to fay, that the great Author's reasonings are not fairly drawn out and enforced, I fhall tranfcribe them juft as I find them collected, methodized, and prefented under one view by his learned and ingenious Apologist : "He "[Sir Ifaac Newton] has found it more easy to "lower the pretenfions of the Ancients than to 66 conquer the prejudices of the Moderns. Many "of his opinions, that are in truth well founded, "pafs for dreams, and in particular his arguments "for fettling the time of Sefoftris, which the "Greeks never knew, have been anfwered with "fcurrility.I fhall lay together here the evi"dences that have convinced me of the truth of "his conclufion, because he has not any where col"lected all of them. "1. That Ofiris and Bacchus were the fame, "was generally agreed by the Greeks and Egyptians, and is therefore out of queftion; and that "the great actions related of Sefoftris are true of "Sefac, and the difference between them is only nominal, is affirmed by Jofephus. 2. Ofiris and Sefoftris were both egyptian "kings who conquered Ethiopia; and yet there "never was but one egyptian king that was maf"ter of Ethiopia. 3. Both were egyptian kings that with a prodigious army and fleet invaded and fubdued all "Afia |