A DISCOURSE Concerning SANCHONIATHON's Phoenician History.  
By HENRY DODWELL, M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity College near Dublin in Ireland.  
LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, for B. took at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1681.   

THE CONTENTS.  
THE Occasion of this Discourse, §. I. The Usefulness, §. II. The Credit of Sanehoniathons' Work depends either on Porphyry, or Philo Byblius, §. III. The Philosophers allowed a Liberty of Beneficial Falsehoods; and they who first produced this Author were, in Interest concerned for him, §. IV. Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria quote him only at the second hand from Eusebius. Several gross mistakes of Cyril, §. V. VI Sanchoniathon very little known before he was produced by Porphyry, §. VII. VIII. No rea●●● why he might not have been known, even before the time of Philo Byblius, if he had been really genuine, §. IX. He might have been taken notice of, not only as a Historian, but as a Philosopher, §. X. Concerning his Means of Information. The Writings of Taautus. The Ancient way of preserving Antiquities by Inscriptions on Sacred Pillars, sometimes abused, and very fit for the designs of Deceivers, §. XI. This was generally pretended to by those who Rivalled each other for Antiquity. The Prophecy of Cham and the Pillars of Seth contained the same Doctrines with those of Mercury, §. XII. XIII. Taautus the same with Mercury. The Ammonian Philosophy the same with the Egyptian, §. XIV. It is improbable that Sanchoniathon could derive his Information from the Books of Mercury, §. XV. Mercury no Phoenician, §. XVI. The Pretences of Philo Byblius for defence of his Author, §. XVII. It is not probable that the Ancient Egyptians would have suffered Mercury to have Revealed their Mysteries, §. XVIII. It is not probable that the Egyptian Mercury either would or could have Revealed them, §. XIX. The Son of Thabion perhaps the Second Mercury called Agathodaemon. He is supposed to be the Author of the Modern Greek Writings Fathered on Mercury, (which if meant by Sanchoniathon must be a certain Conviction of his Falsehood) perhaps first published by Numenius, §. XX. By Hierombaal Priest of the God Jevo he meant Gideon. Sanchoniathon could not mistake him for a Priest. Bochart mistaken, §. XXI. It is not Credible that Gideon ever left any Memoirs behind him, §. XXII. Sanchoniathons' account of Jewish Affairs could not have been taken from them, §. XXIII. Intrinsic Arguments of just Suspicion against this Author. His arrogating to his own Country the glory of all Famous Persons and Inventions, §. XXIV. Several Instances hereof, §. XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII. An Account of the design of Philo Byblius in this Imposture. He was disaffected to the Jews, and perhaps set on this design by occasion of Josephus' Books against Appion, §. XXIX. Josephus there insisted more particularly on the Testimonies of Phoenicians. Other things that recommended the Jewish Scriptures to the esteem of the Learned Heathens of that Age. Several Eminent Jewish Writers who, by Mystical Expositions, brought their own Doctrines near the received Systeme of the Dogmatical Philosophers, §. XXX. Heathen Oracles in favour of the Jews owned for genuine by the Heathens themselves. The good Characters of Abraham and Moses in the received Orphaicks. Joseph and Moses taken for Egyptian Priests, §. XXXI. A Set of Philosophers, several of them Ancienter than Philo Byblius, who received the Authority of Moses as a Wise Legislator and a Prophet, and mentioned him with respect. Chalcidius a Heathen, §. XXXII. The Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken into the counterfeited Works of Hermes, about the time of Philo Byblius §. XXXIII. How this might come to pass, §. XXXIV. Philo Byblius' Partiality appears in his making Sanchoniathon prefer his own City Byblos before all the Cities of Phoenicia for Antiquity, even before Berytus itself. Why he makes his Sanchoniathon inquire into the Archives of the particular Cities, §. XXXV. He had, in this Work, a particular design upon the Jews. Why he makes his Sanchoniathon live in the time of Abibalus, §. XXXVI. The time of Sanchoniathon fixed, not by the Age of Semiramis, but of Abibalus. His time, by the Tyrian Records, either Equal, or a little before the War of Troy, §. XXXVII. Why he was to Father his Informations, concerning Jewish Matters, on a Jew and a Priest, §. XXXVIII. Why on a Priest of the God Jevo, and on Gideon particularly. How he might from his Name collect his being a Priest. Hierombaal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, §. XXXIX. Why he was to begin with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All Books concerning Egyptian Notions Fathered on Hermes. The Fashion of Fathering all latter Inventions of a Sect on the First Author of it, especially in their Dialogues, §. XL. The Egyptian Philosophy followed by Sanchoniathon. How he secured himself from suspicion of mistake in Interpreting Mercury. How the Greeks came to be mistaken, §. XLI. How the Egyptians. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, §. XLII. How Philo Byblius secures his Sanchoniathon from the suspicion of Fabling, and what Fables he means, §. XLIII. XLIV. Yet he forgot himself and Fathered a Scandalous Fable upon him, §. XLV. The Name of Sanchoniathon perhaps borrowed from the Famous Egyptian Sonchis. The Atlantic Theology probably the same with that of Mercury, §. XLVI. Recapitulation, §. XLVII. The Scripture needs no Confirmation from Heathen Authors, §. XLVIII.   

A DISCOURSE, Concerning SANCHONIATHON's Phoenician History. In Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 1. ch. 10.  
§. I. HAVING in the latter of these Letters intimated some suspicion concerning the genuineness of Sanchoniathon, 
N. IX.  and considering how generally Learned men receive and quote him for an Author of that Antiquity he pretends to; as it will become me to purge myself from the suspicion of Heterodoxy, so I believe it will not be ingrateful to the ingenious inquisitive Reader to understand what may be said concerning him. Which I shall do from some Letters which passed between me and a Learned Friend concerning him before the Publication of these Letters of Advice, and which were, in truth, the Reasons of my passing that censure upon him.  
§. II. THE Credit of this Author does the rather deserve an accurate and impartial Examination, because of the great use which is made of him in clearing several Historical and Philosophical passages of the Old Testament; and because he is generally taken for the Faithfulest, and Ancientest, and consequently the most useful Heathen Author that was extant within the Memory of Learned Ages. Which might make all who either have formerly, or do still believe him so, think nothing too difficult to be confirmed by his Credit. 
* So Theodoret. Therap. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. And so his Translator. But I had rather correct him from Eusebius whom he Transcribes; who, in two places where he has occasion to cite this same passage, agrees with himself, and yet differs from Theodoret. So therefore he: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and opposing Sanchoniathon's writing in the Phoenician to the Greek Translation of him by Philo Byblius, and referring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to what follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to Sanchoniathon mentioned before, Pr. Eu. l. 10. X. 9 And then there will appear no footsteps of any Etymology of his Name. Yet Bochart gives a likely Etymology for that purpose, which, if it hold, will show, at least, a design of Philo Byblius in giving him that particular Name. * Eusio. Pr. Eu. l. 10. 31. A. X. 9 485. Theodoret Therap. II.  His very Name was observed to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which if it were given him by his Contemporaries, must needs have been a great attestation of his Integrity from them who had best reason to know him. * As for his Age, he is pretended equal to Abibalus, to whom he is said to have Dedicated this his Phoenician History, that Abibalus, I mean who, by the Phoenician Records, is supposed to be the Father of Hieromenus or Eiromus, conceived to be the same with Hiram, contemporary with David and Solomon as appears, not only from the Scriptures, but also from the same Phoenician Records, on whose credit, no doubt, it is that Josephus makes the Eleventh year complete, 
XIo Hirami, Ant. VIII. 2. p. 259. Ed. Gene. XII o c. App. l. 1. p. 1043.  or Twelfth begun of Hiram, to concur with the Fourth of Solomon, wherein the Temple was built. For he had the sum of those Records Collected to his hand by Menander Ephesius and Dius and Hieronymus Tyrius, and others, 
Vid. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 2. Cont. Appion. L. 1. Theoph. Antioch. L. 111. ad. Autolyc.  without whose assistance he could not have been so particular in fixing the certain year of Hiram. [The Learned Bochart would have this Abibalus King of Berytus distinct from him who was King of Tyre, and Ancienter. But if the account hold which we shall afterwards give from the Phoenician Records, to show him to have been Equal or a little Ancienter than the War of Troy, (exactly as this Abibalus the Father of Hiram is placed by them who mention him) it will then appear that no other was meant than the Father of Hiram. That he is called King of the Berytians, was for no other end but to signify that he was Sanchoniathon's Prince who was of Berytus, exactly as Sanchoniathon himself is in Athenalus and Suidas made a Tyrian, because his Berytus was, in his time, under the Jurisdiction of Tyre, which is again another probability that his Abibalus was the same with the K. of Tyre.] Porphyry himself who first produced this Sanchoniathon against the Christians, makes him equal to Semiramis, who as he tells us in Eusebius' Preparation, 
Pr. Eu. l. 9 p. 31. B.  was either before or equal to the Wars of Troy; 
Chron. L. 11 in it.  but he is confuted by Eusebius who makes her Eight hundred and fifty years earlyer than that same War. Her Husband Ninus is generally, 
Tertul. de Pal c. 2. ubi Salmas. & à Cerda. Eus. Pr. Eu. x. 9 p. 485. 486. Macrobius. in somn. Scip. 11. 19 Oros. L. 1. Chron. Con. Egypt. Sec. XVII. p. 522. Edit. Lips.  by Heathen Authors, made the utmost Period of all Histories they were acquainted with, who yet mention many things Ancienter than that War of Troy. [But this matter is excellently accounted for by the Learned and Judicious Sir John Marsham, who shows that Porphyry herein followed the more likely account of Herodotus, though Ctesias' larger account had the luck to be more received. Deioces (the First King of the Medes after their revolt from the Assyrians according to Herodotus,) began his Reign Olymp. 17. 4. according to Eusebius. 
Eus. Chron. Herodot. L. 1. c.  The whole time of the Assyrians was Five hundred and Twenty years according to Herodotus. If therefore we reckon backward from that Fourth year of the Seventeenth Olympiad, the time of Semiramis who succeeded her Husband Ninus, will fall out much about the time where Porphyry places it. Nor was Porphyry alone, though he had indeed few Companions, in following Herodotus. He shows that Appian did so too, and the most Judicious Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, 
Appian, Praef. Diox. Halicarn. L. 1. Philo ap. Steph. Ba●●.  and Josephus. And, which is more particularly observable to our present purpose, Philo Byblius also agrees with him in placing Semiramis later than usually, whom he makes Two thousand years later than the Building of Babylon.] Besides the Authenticalness of the Records, from whence he derived his Information, is extremely considerable, (if it should prove really what it is pretended) the Sacred Writings of Taautus, that is Mercury, 
Philo Byblius ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9 31. D.  (of whom there is so much mention in those yet earlier Times, of which he wrote his History) the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9 32. B. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Hierombaal Priest of the God Jevo. ib. p. 31. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Cities, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Temples, Ib. But as so great Recommendations of Fidelity, of Antiquity, and sufficient means of Information, must needs make him very useful for the Discovery of many and momentous Truths, if justly challenged; so, on the contrary, must they make his Authority very mischievous for seducing those, who trust it, into numerous and dangerous Errors, if they should after all be found False and Groundless. Let us see therefore, whether these challenges be as just as they are specious and plausible.  
§. III. AND here I consider First, that all these Arguments of his Credibility depend, as to Us, either on the pure Testimony of Porphyry, who was the first who produced him with any great applause and confidence, and who is therefore justly suspicious, if not of wholly coining him, yet at least of a partial favour to him, and of the first endeavours to justify and defend him after the neglects that had been cast upon him since the time that he had first been Published and Translated by Philo Byblius, or else of Philo Byblius himself. Athenaeus is the only Author extant that quoted him, that we know of, from the time of Philo Byblius to Porphyry, supposing that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Athen. Deipnos. L. 3.  whose Phoenician Antiquities are quoted by him, and joined with Mochus another very Ancient Phoenician Writer often taken notice of, were the same with our Sanchoniathon, as he is commonly conceived to be, and I believe, not improbably, though he in Athenaeus was a Tyrian, ours a Berytian, a difference not very difficulty reconcileable, as has been shown. If it should prove otherwise, than Porphyry alone must answer for both, not only the pretended Sanchoniathon himself, but the pretended Greek Translation also of him by Philo Byblius. But to allow him all the favour that is reasonable, and to grant that this Philo Byblius is to be suspected of the Original fraud, because of this more Ancient citation of him by Athenaeus, which could have been from none but Philo Byblius; yet Porphyry must needs be looked on as the retriever of a neglected, and therefore suspicious Author, who must have been by that time very Famous, if he had been thought genuine, which is very considerable for my present purpose.  
§. IV. FOR I consider further, that as the Principles both of the Pythagoraeans and Platonists (who were both of them admired by Porphyry) allowed the Lawfulness of Medicinal falsehoods, 
For the Pythagoraeans, see Tim. Locr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the Platonists, Plato himself the Rep. L. 3. v. S. Hieronym. adv. Ruff. L. 1.  as they called them, which was no doubt the Original first of those Mythological Stories with which they first beautified their Dialogues, then of all those Forgeries which were afterwards introduced by the Monks, who from their first Institution were of a Philosophical Extraction and Genius; I say besides these Principles which may let us see that it was possible he might deal disingenously with us; the occasion of his first producing him, and his design, were such as may make him further suspicious of using the utmost liberty of his Principles actually. For it was purposely to confront the Antiquity of the Scriptures, 
See the words of Porphyry in Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9 X. 9 Theodoret Therap. 11.  and in that very work which was designed to overthrow the Credit of Christianity. The like I shall 
* §. 36.  hereafter observe concerning Philo Byblius.  
§. V. BUT that I may not therefore conclude him guilty of a disingenuous Fact, only because it was agreeable, not only to Principles, but his Design, and Interest; Let us consider t●● thing itself, and see whether it be likely that either Sanchoniathon, or his Translator Philo Byblius, were ever had in any esteem till Porphyry vouched for them. If they were, how comes it to pass that none but Athenaeus should take notice of an Author so extremely valuable, if he had been genuine? How comes it to pass, that those few Christians that mention him afterwards should quote him only at the Second hand from Eusebius, or at the uttermost from Porphyry? Why had they not rather recourse to Philo Byblius himself, if he had been common? And what imaginable reason is there why he should not have been Common, especially in those Eastern parts so near Phoenicia, if he had been valued, or thought genuine? Yet 
a Therap. 11. 111. from Eus. Pr. Eu. x. 9  Theodoret it seems had never seen him, but only in Eusebius. 
b Cont. Julian. l. vi  St. Cyril of Alexandria was so far from quoting what he had occasion to produce out of him from the Original of Philo Byblius, as that his memory, on which he seems to have quoted him from Eusebius, betrayed him into several and great mistakes. He first pretends to have had what he says concerning him from Clemens Alexandrinus' Stromat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A plain sign he had not seen Philo Byblius himself. Yet who can doubt but that he also mistook Clemens Alexandrinus for Eusebius? It is certain there is no mention of Sanchoniathon or his Translator in the Stromat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Clemens as we have them extant at present. Was it therefore in what is lost? There are but two Imperfections in the whole Work, the beginning of the First Book, and the Eighth. What was wanting in the beginning of the First Book, we know by what remains to have been nothing but Introduction, where he had yet no occasion of meddling with the Antiquity of Phoenician Writers. Not in the Eighth Book, 
Strom. VI p. 617. A.  where by what he promises in the Sixth, we know he designed to answer the Heathens concerning the Coming of our Lord, that is, I suppose, concerning his coming so lately, and in so mean appearance (which were the Popular Objections of that Age) or else concerning his Second coming to Judge Persecutors and unbelievers, which ordinarily concluded their Controversial Writings. So the Sacred Writers of the New Testament frequently. So St. Cyprians Second Book of Testimonies, ad Quirin. which seems to have been the last of that Work. So Irenaeus in the last Chapters adv. Haer. So Lactantius Lib. VII. Diu. Inst. Phil. Commodianus is more particularly large on this Argument. But neither of these could afford him any occasion of mentioning this Author. 
Cod. CXI.  For none can doubt but what now, and in Photius' time, possessed the place of the Eighth Book had no affinity with the Argument of this Work. And yet neither is there any mention of Sanchoniathon or his Translator. But to put the matter out of doubt that this was only a mistake of St. Cyril, as I said; where Clemens had indeed occasion to dispute the Question of Antiquity between the Heathen and the Sacred Writers, 
Stromat. 1.  there he has not the least intimation of either of them; and the very words quoted by St. Cyril are exactly in Eusebius, 
Pr. Eu. l. 9  but not as out of the Text of Sanchoniathon, but the Preface of Philo Byblius. Which he could not so easily have confounded if he had used the Book itself; but might very probably in borrowing them from Eusebius, who comprises all he or Porphyry had collected both out of the Text and the Preface, in the same Chapters immediately following each other. Besides Porphyry reckons but Eight Books of Sanchoniathon de Abst. 11. n. 56. but Eusebius Nine, reckoning it seems the very Preface of Philo for a distinct Book. Which being quoted for Sanchoniathon's by Cyril, 
Bochart conceives the Physiology or Theogony to have been a distinct Book from the History. But see what is said hereafter.  shows that he follows the very division of Eusebius, and therefore took what he had from him.  
§. VI BUT what is it he pretends to tell us from Clemens Alexandrinus? That Sanchoniathon's Book was Translated by Josephus. But who ever mentions such a Translation amongst the Works of Josephus? How is it credible that he should so far favour the cause of the Phoenicians who so professedly maintains the greater Antiquity of the Scriptures against them in his Books against Appion? And who can reconcile this pretended Testimony from Clemens with Porphyry, who certainly, if any, conversed with the Original Translation? If he be to be credited, here are again two great mistakes of St. Cyril, First his mistaking Philo Byblius for the famous Alexandrian Philo the Jew; then his confounding that Philo with Josephus who was of the same Nation. Which again plainly show, that he quoted him by memory, and at the Second hand.  
§. VII. BUT besides that this silence, or Second-hand Quotations, even after the time he was divulged and applauded by Porphyry, are strong suspicions that he was either not known; or not regarded, (either of which are equally serviceable to my purpose;) yet further, what should be the reason that so useful and Ancient an Author should be so little known even before the time of Porphyry? Was it because he was locked up in the Phoenician Tongue? But why should he not at least, have been better known after the Greek Translation of him by Philo Byblius? Yet even then so little was he known that, were it not for the forementioned Testimony of Athenaeus, we might justly doubt whether such a Translation was ever undertaken by that Philo. 
Voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Suidas mentions this Philo, and reckons up others of his Works, and fixes his time. He places him near the Reign of Nero, and makes him Threescore and Eighteen years old, at the Consulship of Severus Herennius in Olymp. 220. Which if it be true must fall at least about the Reign of Trajan, though no such Consulship appear in our present Fasti, possibly because he might have been either a Suffectus, or expunged out of the public Fasti for some Crime. Nay, he expressly makes him to have Written concerning the Reign of Hadrian. And therefore, in all likelihood the broken number of the odd Olympiads above Two hundred and twenty is wanting in Suidas. 
Scaliger, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  But what ground Scaliger had to fix the year of the 229. Olymp. I do not understand. Yet no such Translation appears in that Catalogue of his Works, unless it were contained under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. VIII. AND why should he never have been mentioned by those ancient Apologists for the Christian Religion who wrote before Porphyry? They had a just occasion for it in that great Dispute concerning the Antiquity of the Scriptures above all Heathen Authors. On this occasion they drew up Catalogues of the Ancientest Heathen Authors they knew of, yet Sanchoniathon, the most apposite Instance of them all, never being so much as thought of. Not by Justin Martyr in the time of Antoninus Pius, though he was a Samaritan, and had thereby the opportunity to have known the Famous Writers of his Neighbouring Phoenicians, nay to have understood them though they had not been Translated to his hand. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Mart. Paraen. p. 13.  Yet he knew of nothing Ancient either amongst the Greeks or the Barbarians. Which how could he have said if he had known any thing of this most Ancient Sanchoniathon? Not by Theophilus Antiochenus in the time of Verus, with whom he ends his Chronology, though he were nearer the Phoenicians than the Grecians, nay and had special occasion in mentioning the Phoenician Antiquities. 
Ad Autolyc. L. 111.  Not by Tatianus the Scholar of St. Justin, and so not long, if at all, after him, when he wrote his Oration against the Greeks (it does not appear that St. Justin was then dead, though I know how Tatianus is mistaken by Eusebius, 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. IV. 16. He only says that Crescens had endeavoured the death of St. Justin (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his Word) but he has not the least intimation that it was in his power to accomplish it. What he says was only taken from Justins own words in his Apology. Or. adv. Graec. p. 171 & ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. X. 2. p. 493. Strom. 1.  who has also generally deceived the Learned who have followed him) though he was an Assyrian, and takes particular notice of the Ancientest Grecian and Phaenician Authors, and names all the most Ancient Phaenicians that he knew of, which were but Three, Theodotus, Mochus, and Hypsicrates. Not by Clemens as has already been observed, who deduces his computation to the death of Commodus, though he also had occasion, in disputing that same Controversy concerning the Age of the most Ancient Heathen Writers. I think St. Cyril's mistake concerning him, has been sufficiently discovered and convicted. 
Apolog. c. 19  Not by Tertullian in the times of Severus and Caracalla, though he had also the like occasion given him in his Apology. Not by Origen, though he refers to Josephus against Appion, 
C. Cells. lib. 1. p. 13. 14.  and Tatianus for a Collection of such Phoenician Authors as had mentioned any thing concerning Jewish Affairs; nay mentions Herennius Philo who had written concerning the Jews, if this be the Philo to whom the Translation of Sanchoniathon is ascribed by Porphyry, as in all likelihood he is the Philo mentioned by Suidas, who had said of himself that his Surname was Herennius. And the Title of Herennius Philo is given him in the Inscription of a M. S. Work of his on Aristotle's Metaphysics, now in the Library of the most accomplished and truly Great Dr. Isaac Vossius. And my very Dear and very Learned Friend Dr. Lloyd conceives that he might have borrowed that Surname of Herennius from his Patron Herennius Severus the Consul, which was usually for Liberti to 
* When they were made Liberti they were not only made Romans, but taken into the Families of their Patrons, as appears from the Inscriptions of their Family Sepulchers, which were generally conceived in that Form, FILIIS ET EILIABuS, LIBERTIS ET LIBERTABVS POSTERIS QVE EORUM. And then how proper was it for them to receive the Gentile name of their Patron's Family?  do in those times; and that the Consul was the same with him mentioned in Pliny, Ep. Lib. IU. 28. who there appears to have been a Lover of Learning, and himself a very Learned Person. The Times do very well agree; and it is not otherwise easy to conceive how Philo a Phoenician should come by a Roman Name. And that he was very intimate with that Consul appears both by his dating his own Age by his Patron's Consulship and by his bringing Hermippus his Countryman and Scholar acquainted with him. 
See Suid. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Yet even on this occasion, Origen makes no mention of his Sanchoniathon among those Phoenician Writers which he immediately refers to as mentioning Jewish affairs. How could he have slipped such an opportunity as this was, of mentioning him, if he had known him? Not even by Celsus himself, whom Origen places under Hadrian, though he must certainly have lived later if he be the same to whom Lucian dedicated his Pseudomantis after the death of Marcus Antoninus whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nay must have Written this very Work against the Christians later than Hadrian, for 
1 ap. Orig L. v. p. 272.  Marcellina and 
2 ap. Orig L. VI p. 326. & ubi suprà.  Martion, both of them mentioned by him, as they first broached their Heresies under Anicetus, so most probably after the death of Hadrian. Philo was as his work mentioned by Origen shows him, sufficiently disaffected to the Jews, so that if he did Translate any such work of Sanchoniathon, he would most probably have designed it as Porphyry, to confront the Antiquity of the Jews. And how greedily would Celsus have seconded him if he had known of any such work Published by him? Thus it appears that this Sanchoniathon was either generally not known, or (which amounts to the same thing) generally neglected by all sorts of Authors, both Christians and Heathens too, from the time of Philo Byblius to Porphyry.  
§. IX. BUT to ascend yet higher, what should hinder him from being known even before Philo Byblius, if he had been what he is pretended? It is true, he could neither have been known nor deservedly valued by the Greeks till he was Translated. But what imaginable cause is there why he was not Translated more Anciently? The Phoenician Records, and Histories had been searched and Translated and divulged by Hieronymus Tyrius, 
Vid. Bochart. Chanaan L. 11. c. 17. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 2. c. Appion. L. 1  Menander Ephesius and Dius, Hestiaeus and Philostratus and others; nay the very Original Records themselves are quoted by Josephus, and the Original Copies of the Epistles between Solomon and Hiram are still mentioned as extant in their Archives by the same Josephus and Theophilus Antiochenus. 
Theoph. Ant. L. 111. ad Autolyc.  How comes it to pass they should all of them overlook this most considerable, most creditable Author? Why should they omit this most Ancient account of their most Ancient times, when the great design of all these Inquiries seems to have been a General Dispute concerning the most Ancient Nations? Why did they not Translate him then? Why did they not, at least, take out of him, and vouch him for their Authority? Had they done so, why should not Josephus have had recourse to him, if not in his Phoenician Original, yet at least as to those particulars they had borrowed from him? Why does he never mention him either in his Antiquities, or his Books against Appion, especially in those things which he relates concerning Abraham, 
Ant. l. 8.  which he was particularly careful to confirm by the best Testimonies he knew of?  
§. X. Sanchoniathon had been useful even to those who had enquired only for their Histories. But consider we him further as a Philosopher; for such the Writers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and especially of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof much of Sanchoniathon's Work consisted, were then reputed, that being the usual Mystical way whereby they concealed the secrets of their Natural Philosophy. So also Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For what Eusebius had called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Phoenicians Pr. Eu. l. 9 that he calls their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 10. To which he adds the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also for completing it. For both these were pretended to be taken from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Taautus. Yet even so, there were several fair occasions of discovering, and Translating him, Ancienter than Philo. For their Ancientest Philosophers had been also enquired into long before Philo. What was Pythagoras' design in Travelling amongst them? Was it only to see their Countries and their Fashions? Was it not rather to acquaint himself with their Philosophical Improvements? 
Jamblich. de vita Pythag.  And would he, who is so much celebrated for his Conversation with the Phoenician Prophets, the Posterity of Mochus, not rather have employed his time in enquiring after this equally, if not more, Ancient both Historian and Philosopher Sanchoniathon? After the Macedonian Conquests had opened an access for the Greek Philosophers to the Phoenician Archives; they then Translated as many as were valued by them. Theodotus and Hypsicrates and Mochus were Translated by Asitus or Chaetus as Tatianus tells us; 
Orat. adv. Graec. Chaetus. But Asitus in a fragment of the Oration, as quoted by Euseb. Pr. Eu. X. 11. But Bochart corrects it Laetus, and rightly Geogr. Lib. XVI.  and the same concerning Mochus and many others appears from Strabo. How comes Sanchoniathon, if there had then been any such Author extant, to have escaped their diligence?  
§. XI. HE pretends to have had his Information from the Writings of Taautus, from the Mystical Books of the Ammonians, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Memoires of Jerombaal the Priest of the God Jevo, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the particular Cities and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Temples. Things very considerable indeed, if they had been truly pretended to. But let us see whether there be any reason to believe them on his credit. It was indeed a very Ancient way of preserving knowledge to inscribe what they would preserve in Pillars to be kept in the Temples of their most Eminent Gods, the better to be secured from Weather and the Violence of Profane hands. Thus they did with their Laws, with their Leagues and Covenants, with their Histories, and their Arts and Sciences. Instances might have been given of all these sorts, if I had thought it necessary. Particularly, for Histories there was that of Euemerus from the Inscriptions in the Temple of Jupiter Triphylius; 
Vid. Plutarch de Isid. & Osirid. Lactant. Diu. Inst. L. 11. Ap. Simpl. in Arist. de Caelo. L. 11. Com. 16. Plin. Nat. Hist. VII. 56.  for Arts, those from whence calisthenes gave Aristotle an account of the Eclipses observed by the Chaldaeans, those of the same Babylonians referred to by Epigenes, Berosus and Critodemus, and the Famous Pillars of Seth mentioned by Josephus. Out of such Pillars as these no doubt the Publisher of Sanchoniathon would have us believe his History to have been gathered. Nor was it unusual for Deceivers to impose on the World on the credit of such Pillars. 
Plutarch. de Isid. Osirid. p. 360.  Euemerus now mentioned was looked on by Antiquity as a Famous instance of it. For it was certainly the easiest way for broaching Falsehoods. These were Monuments which could be produced on the sudden concerning the most remote Antiquities without the attestation of Ancient Writings, because themselves were supposed to be Originals of the times they pretended to give account of; were supposed remote from Vulgar Knowledge or understanding, being either kept in the Adyta, or locked up in some obsolete unknown Character, which none but the Learned and the Priests could understand; were contrived in Hieroglyphics or such ambiguous notes as were capable of what Interpretation those designing Persons who produced them were pleased to put upon them; depended generally on Oral Tradition, than which there is not a more unfaithful Conveyer of Monuments to Posterity; depended wholly on the credit of the Priests, being withal generally interessed in the things thus preserved, making for the credit of their false Religion, or the credit of their Nation, for Antiquity, or rare Inventions; were to be found and examined only in one place (not like Books every where) nor even there itself without the Leave and Directions of such interessed Priests. Upon this account their very humoured Stories with which it was fashionable in those times to adorn their Dialogues, were grounded on the credit of such pretended Inscriptions. So Cebes' Table, and the Samothracian Inscriptions referred to by Axiochus, and those concerning the Atlantides in Timaeus.  
§. XII. AND thus it was generally in the disingenuous dealings of those Nations, which upon the appearing of the Jewish Scriptures in the common Tongue, began to rival them, and one another for Antiquity. Thus the Babylonians in Democritus preserved their Moral Discourses in the Pillars of Acicarus. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 303.  Thus Xisuthrus in Berosus is said to have preserved the Chaldaean Inventions Engraven in Plates from the Deluge. Thus Manetho pretended to have gathered his new Dynasties from the like Pillars of Mercury. 
Euseb. Gr. p. 6.  So Cham is pretended to have preserved 
Cassian. Coll. viij. 21  his inventions in Judicial Astrology by the like invention of Engraving them in Plates, which Plates they usually fastened to Pillars; from whence I am apt to think that the Gnostics might take occasion to forge that Prophecy which was among them obtruded in those times under his Name. 
Clem. Alexandrin. Strom. VI p. 642. A.  And as Egyptian Notions were the Principal ingredient in most of those Ancient Heresies that were comprehended under the common Name of Gnostics; so I am apt to think that Chemi the Ancient Name of Egypt gave them occasion to 
Plutarch. de Isid. & Osirid.  father what they pleased on a Scripture-Patriarch of a Name that had some affinity to it, besides that the Scripture itself calls Egypt so often the Land of Ham, so that the Inscriptions of Cham and Mercury were probably the very same. The like I also conceive concerning the Pillars of Seth aforementioned from Josephus. Nor is the mistake so difficult as may be imagined. It is very well known that the Dog-star was by the Egyptians called 
1 Horus Apoll. C. 3. Plutarch. de Isid. & Osi. Chalcidius, in Pla. Timaeum malè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyr. de antr. Nymphar.  Sothis'; That the revolution of their great year was accordingly from it called Sothiaca 
2 Clem. Alexand. Strom. I. p. 335. C.  Periodus, because the Dog-star then returned exactly to the very same place where he had been before; That their great year was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Canicularis, as Censorinus tells us, because it began exactly on the first day of that Month on which the Dog-star rose, 
De die nat. c. 18.  which was the Egyptian Thoth. Who sees not that the whole contrivance of that year was exactly fitted to the course of that Star? And that therefore Thoth was reckoned for the first Month in the year because the Dog-star rose in it? If therefore its Name were given it with any design, it seems to have been therefore called Thoth because their Sothis' rose in it, and therefore that those two Names are indeed designed for the same. Nor is the change of S and Th' either difficult or unusual in those Tongues, as might have been shown by multitudes of Examples if I had leisure.  
§. XIII. BUT whether the Name of Thoth and Sothis' were Originally the same or not; yet it seems clear that the Notions of Mercury were inscribed to Sothis'. So Manetho's Sacred History (in the same Sense no doubt, that Ennius' Translation of Euemerus' History, 
Lactant. Diu. Inst. L. 1. c. 11.  pretended also from Sacred Pillars was also called Sacred) is called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Euseb. ib. And, which yet comes more fully home to what I am now proving, the very Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this matter from Petosiris an Egyptian Writer, by Vettius Valens, Antiochenus in Scaliger and others, 
In loc Eus. Chr. Graec. p. 6.  and that in the Masculine Gender. But this whole matter will be yet plainer if we remember that the design of Manetho 
1 So Concharis is reckoned in the XVI. Dynasty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Syncell. p. 103. C.  was to fit his Chronology to that Sothiac Period. We see it accordingly prevailed in most of the later Egyptian Chronologies, which pretended to any more than ordinary Exactness. So the Destruction of Troy is noted in Clem. 
2 Strom. I.  Alexandrinus, most probably from an Egyptian Author. So were the years of Nabonassar in Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Eclipses fitted to the same Canicular year by 
3 Ptol. L. IU. c. ult. p. 104.  Hipparchus. Now this Sothiac Period was purposely invented to give a full and exact account of the Sun's course, till he was to rise exactly in the same place of the Zodiac where he had risen before. For proceeding on this Hypothesis that the true Solar year consisted of 365 days and ¼, this Fourth was not intercalated every Fourth year, as in the Julian account, but permitted to run on (purposely that their Festivities might pass through the whole year,) till those Fourth parts of a Day made up a whole Year, which they did in 1461. Egyptian, equivalent to 1460. Julian years. That this was purposely designed to signify the Course of the Sun, appears from their calling the whole Period by the Name of 
* Censor. de d. nat. c. 18.  Annus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply taken, signifies the Sun in Ancient Authors. But the Sun, whose Course this was, was called Typhon, as Typhon was also called Seth, as Plutarch 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch. de Isid. & Osirid. p. 367. C. And a little after: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where we have the signification of Seth in the Egyptian Tongue, and the reason why the Sun and Typhon were called so. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 371. B. Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 376. A.  assures us. Accordingly as most of the Egyptian Names of Persons and Places were taken from their Gods, so we have still footsteps of this God's name in the Names of Sethron, Sethos, Sethosis, etc. And then it cannot be thought strange, that as his whole Book is denominated from his Chronological Period, so that Period itself should be ascribed to the Egyptian Seth, and consequently the Pillars also from which these accounts were taken. It may be another account may be given of this matter, that by the Pillars of Seth may be meant only their belonging to Egypt. So it appears that the same King who was called Egyptus by the Greeks, was by the Egyptians themselves called Sethos, and as it seems from thence concluded by Manetho to have been the same with him whom the Greeks called Aegyptus the Brother of Danaus, (who neither was himself known to the Egyptians, by the name of Danaus but Armais) because Sethos in the Egyptian Tongue, signified the same thing as Aegyptus in the Greek. Now the Name of Egypt was derived from the Name of Aegyptus, by which he was known to the Greeks, and therefore proportionably the Name of Sethos must have derived the like denomination of Sethos to his Country. So Theophilus Antiochenus from Manetho: 
Theoph. Antioch. L. III. add Autolyc  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which, being once admitted, will open a further way of expounding Josephus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ant. l. 3.  which must be reconciled with the place where the Mercurial Pillars were placed by Manetho, and is by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And to derive this yet higher, the usual occasion these emulous Nations took for challenging the glorious Actions or Persons of each others to themselves, was when themselves also had Actions or Persons of the same Name. Now Heliopolis in Egypt was Famous for those Mercurial Writings. And therefore they who were ambitious of challenging them to themselves, were to take occasion of doing so from a Heliopolis of their own. Accordingly the Chaldaeans, for their Xisùthrus pitched on Heliopolis in Sippara, and the Phoenicians had their Heliopolis at Mount Libanus, 
Bochart. Chanaan L. 11. c. 2.  a Sacred place, and particularly Famous for their Baitulia. And when they had, on this pretence, claimed Mercury as their own, the change was very obvious, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for them who were willing from thence to conclude, that these Mercurial Pillars were to be expected only in Syria, where their Heliopolis was placed. The very Analogy of Grammar is sufficient to show that it was a wilful and designed variation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had indeed been Greek, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though in the Dative Case, seems to have been a change from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that also from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on the design now mentioned. And there is still a footstep of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Ancientest Reading in Josephus, that Eustathius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hexaem. And this very Origination of this Word is a strong Presumption that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as some Learned Persons would have it from Ammian) is indeed an Ancient Reading in Josephus. 
Ammian Marcellin. L. 22. Vales. in loc. Sir John Marsham. Chro. Can. Sec. 1. p. 39 Ed. Lips.  That I may not now mention the Ancient Translation of Josephus by Cassiodore, and as many of the Ancients as followed either that or the Greek near those times, who generally take it for Syria on the account now mentioned. I confess I cannot easily distrust Ammian in what he says concerning those Syringes, where those Sacred Hieroglyphical Inscriptions were, which were designed to be preserved from a deluge, because he pretends to write visa pleraque, what he had seen with his own Eyes. 
Ib. p. 413.  I confess I am apt to think that these Syringes, were the places designed for the so much celebrated Pillars of Mercury, though these Inscriptions were in Vaults under ground (those were properly Syringes) and in Walls rather than Pillars (though I know how largely the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood) because I cannot think they had them in two places, for that same reason of preserving them from the Deluge. Yet the Country where they were, might have been called Seriadica, and that it was so, we have, before Josephus, the more Ancient Testimony of Manetho. Besides it is considerable, that the Doctrine of the two Destructions of the World, one by Fire, another by Water, which is pretended as the occasion of erecting these two Pillars, is originally Egyptian. And they, 
Vid. Platon in Tim. qui ea habuit ab Aegyptiis  no doubt on pretence of such Pillars, boasted themselves alone to have preserved their Histories, through the several Deluges and Conflagrations. And from this confounding the Babylonian and Egyptian accounts, which followed upon their several respective Emulations, I suppose it was, that these Inventors of the Fable of Seth, were so particular in telling us the very materials of those Pillars. The Egyptian Syringes were, as it appears from Ammian cut out of a Quarry, and therefore were of solid stone. 
Ammian, L. XXII.  But the Babylonian mentioned by Epigenes were Coctilibus Laterculis, 
Ap. Plin. N. H. VII. 56.  for which that place was Famous. These two so well fitting the design of preserving them from the Conflagration and the Deluge, made them, who were willing to confound things for Interests of their own, to be as I said so very particular, not considering that by the account given in Plato's Timaeus, the Egyptians had another pretence of preserving their own Inscriptions from the Conflagration as well as from the Deluge.  
§. XIV. So also, for the Writings from whence our Sanchoniathon is pretended to have Collected his History, there seems little doubt but they were also designed for the same with those of Mercury; as also that the Subject of these Writings, were taken from those Plates, and Pillars now mentioned. Philo Byblius himself expressly says, that Sanchoniathon enquired very carefully into the Notions of Taautus; That Taautus, to whom they were ascribed, was no other than 
* Philo Byblius says so expressly in Euseb. Pr. Eu. l. 9 p. 32. A.  Mercury, will, I believe, need no proof. And these Mystical Books of the Ammonians being joined with them, makes it yet more probable. For even among our present Counterfeit under the Name of Mercury, we have an Epistle of Asclemus to Ammon, concerning the Concealment of their Philosophical Mysteries, with several other Fragments of the like address in Stobaeus Eclog. Phys. by which we see that those unfaithful dealers with Hermes, did both join this Ammon with him whom they make a King in Libya, (very probably with some relation to the Famous Libyan Oracle of Jupiter Ammon) and withal, made the same Ammon a very zealous Patron of those Philosophical Mysteries. So that this holds exact correspondence with those other Cheats, and looks as if it belonged to the same Forge. Unless possibly we may refer it to that more Ancient Conjunction of Thoth and Thamuz, and the God of the Egyptian Thebes, called Ammon in Plato himself, 
In Phaedr. p. 213.  whence it comes to pass that the Egyptian Thebes has, in the Prophets, the Name of No-Ammon, as it was usual, and, as Diodorus observes, most proper to the Egyptians, to denominate their Cities from their Deities. It may be this may be the reason why the Name of Ammon is so usually made use of in the accounts of the Egyptian Philosophy, because the Name itself seems an offspring of Ham, ascribed in the Scripture to the Land of Egypt itself, so that the Ammonian Philosophy is no more than a Colony of the Egyptian. And these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these Mystical Writings were most properly ascribed to this God, whose very Name, as Manetho expounds it, 
Ap. Plutarch. de Is. & Osirid.  signified in the Egyptian Tongue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How much more proper an Etymology is this, than that which Bochart gives elsewhere from the Hebrew, 
De Phoen. Col. 11. 17.  where his Interest for Sanchoniathon, obliges him to make these Ammonian Writings Phoenician?  
§. XV. But to examine now the Credibility of his pretence to these Means; it is first considerable that, seeing these Records were Egyptian, it is not easy to explain how Sanchoniathon himself, a Man of another Nation, could have access to them. The difficulty Pythagoras found notwithstanding the powerful recommendation of Polycrates to Amasis who was his Hospes, shows how averse they were to communicate their Mysteries to Foreigners. But it was not at all to be expected by Persons uncircumcized, as the Phoenicians were undoubtedly in the pretended Age of Sanchoniathon. 
Porphyr. de vit. Pythag. p. 183. vid. Not. Holsten.  But supposing he had Conquered the difficulties of access, and submitted, as Pythagoras seems to have done, to Circumcision; yet the Mystical Books of the Ammonians, and much more the Mystical Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, (of which kind the Sacred Inscriptions of their Pillars generally were,) depended still on a higher degree of good will and fidelity of the Priests for their Explication. And who can undertake that they would, after all, deal Faithfully with him? Especially if they had suspected the least design in him of committing them to Writing, and divulging them to Posterity? And after all, what judicious Person would not rather inquire for this Information Originally from the Egyptians themselves? Who would not rather have trusted their present sense in which they were agreed, even in later times, than such Second-hand Relations concerning the sense of their Ancestors? And then, what will become of this so much applauded Testimony of Sanchoniathon, if Phoenician matters must not be expected from him, as they could not from such means of Information; and if the Testimony even of the later Egyptians must be preferred before him? I am very well aware that the whole credit of this Author depends on the contrary supposition, that both these Pillars of Taautus, and Apocryphal Books of the Ammonians, were in Phoenicia, and concerned Phoenician Affairs, and in the Phoenician Tongue or Characters, that a Native Phoenician might be presumed fittest to understand them.  
§. XVI. THIS will indeed, and will alone, make him so credible as he is thought to be. And it is plainly supposed in the Author himself, who makes Hermes a Native Phoenician, 
Apud Euse. Pr. Eu. 1. 10. p. 36. A. 39 B.  and to be made King of Egypt by one that was. And this seems the most likely account how the Pillars of Seth (which I said seem to be the same with those of Mercury) came to be placed by Josephus in Syria, that he had met them placed there by some who were thus in Interest, concerned to place them so, to justify their other Fictions. Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Manetho was easily corrupted into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Josephus, by them who were willing to have it so, as has already been observed. And the Egyptian Name of Seth, so exactly agreeing with the Hebrew Name, was a likely occasion of mistake, and an Argument too, for them who had rather have him believed to be a Hebrew than an Egyptian. But then against this I oppose all the contrary, both Testimonies and Arguments that might be produced to prove that Hermes was a Native Egyptian, and that Egypt was never so subdued by the Phoenicians as to receive, nor Phoenicia in such a strong and flourishing condition, as to give them a King of their own Nation. That is as many Testimonies, as there are or have been Egyptian Writers, not only after, but before the publishing of this pretended Sanchoniathon; as many of them, at least, as mention such a Person as Hermes, as many of them as wrote before these Disputes of Antiquity of Nations were started, as well as they who wrote afterwards, to abet parties now made, and to drive on designs by this time already form to their hand. The highest account of all the Mercuries in Cicero's time, 
De Nat. Deor. L. III  that was given by them who had then the curiosity to inquire into the Gods of the same Name, amounted not to above five, and among them no mention of any one that was a Phoenician, a sign none such was so much as challenged by them, till this pretended Sanchoniathon. The same account is followed by others afterwards, by Ampelius and Arnobius, 
Arnob. adv. Gent. L. IU.  a sign that even then this fictitious Phoenician was not of that credit, as to be thought worthy to increase the received Number. And these were sufficient to be opposed to the true Sanchoniathon himself. The Original Writings of Taautus, and the Mystical Books of the Ammonians must have been theirs, and could have been Interpreted by none but them, if we will allow any thing to the concurrent Testimonies of disinteressed Antiquity. But how much more than sufficient are they to oversway the Vouchers for him, and for all those things also which recommend him as so very creditable? How much Ancienter? How much freer from design? That I may not now descend to Personal Comparisons.  
§. XVII. BUT, (possibly to avoid the difficulty to be supposed in understanding Writings of this Nature;) it is supposed that Taautus either found or made all things clear; that he Originally wrote them so whatever he wrote upon his own knowledge; that he made them so, where he did not, as in his discovery of these Mystical Books of the Ammonians, from some Monuments of their own, 
Sanchon. apud Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9 p. 32. B.  concealed in their Adyta, and of difficult access, but yet procured and divulged by him; that he unriddled the Tales and Allegories, wherein they had been Originally concealed. But that the later Priests again retrieved their Mythologies and Arts of concealment. That as for the Mercurial Books themselves the Son of Thabion was the first who turned them into Allegory, 
Ap. Eus. ib. p. 39 C.  from whom they came to the Greeks. That many Generations afterwards Surmubelus, 
Ib. p. 40. B.  the God (I suppose so Sur-named like Antiochus, and Diodorus Cronus the Philosopher, from Saturn, and Pior the Egyptian from Apollo, that I may instance also in private Persons who were Sur-named from Gods, not only denominatively,) and Thuro a Woman Sur-named Chusarthis, explained those Allegories. That by this means they might come clear to Sanchoniathon from Writings, without Personal Discoveries of the Priests, which was not to be expected. This seems contrived, as if it were on purpose to defend the Credit of these Informations.  
§. XVIII. BUT how many things are here supposed no way consistent with the Notions of those times? We see it is acknowledged that the Arts of concealment of Mysteries, had been taken up and used before, because Taautus is said to have unriddled those of the Ammonians. And who knows not how great a Piaculum it was thought to divulge Mysteries? How particularly Superstitious the Ancients were that way, as appears from the Fables of Phineus and Prometheus? And (concerning the Egyptians) from their Worship of Harpocrates? How it was Capital for the Person who endeavoured it, and how they would no doubt have suppressed such Publications of their Mysteries if it lay in their power to do so? How then could Sanchoniathon come by them who lived so many Ages after? Was it because they could not suppress all Copies of what had once escaped them at first, especially not such as were in the Hands of the Phoenicians, who were not obnoxious to their Jurisdiction? But would they, at least, have paid that Honour to the Memory of a Person guilty of a crime then reputed so very impious as to make him a God? Would they not rather have erected Pillars to his disgrace (from whence came afterwards the popular notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) than borrowed all their Sacred Rites and Inventions from his Books or Pillars? Would they have ascribed all their Solemnities of Religion (as it appears they did from Clemens Alexandrinus) to such a Profaner of their Secrets, to so impious a violator of their received Religion? 
Strom. vi.   
§. XIX. AND who indeed was more unlikely to have such an accusation laid to his charge, than he that was reputed the First Institutor of their Religion, the first Imposer of that Sacred silence which they took for so necessary a Duty of all that would pretend to be Religious? Why should they ascribe their Hieroglyphics and their Sacred Characters to him, 
Sacrarum literarum peritos facit. Jul. Firmic Mathes. Lib. 111. c. 8. Euseb. Pr. Eu. l. 10. p. 36. A.  if they had not thought that he had invented them purposely for this concealment? But consider him even as the Inventor only of their Letters (an Invention expressly ascribed to him by this pretended Sanchoniathon himself) and they cannot show it possible for him to make that discovery he is pretended to have made from the very Writings of the Ammonians. For all other Sacred ways but Letters, were of so aequivocal signification, as nothing could be gathered from them without the Oral Traditions of their Priests. And therefore he could not have made so great Discoveries by Books, if himself were the first Inventor of Letters.  
§. XX. BUT who is this Son of Thabion, who is said to have turned them back into Allegories, and from whom they came at last to the Greeks? I suppose Agathodaemon, or the Second Mercury the Father of Tat, who is said by Manetho to have Translated the Books of the said Elder Mercury into Greek, but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is in the Sacred Egyptian Letter, 
Ap. Euseb. Gr. p. 6. Ed. Scaliger.  contradistinct from that which was of common use, possibly that though the words were, yet the Characters might not be understood by the Greeks without the Priest's assistance, which he also secured by placing them in the Adyta. All these things seem exactly to agree with the present Fragments of the Mercurial Writings in Greek, where the Elder Mercury is blamed by Ammon for divulging their Mysteries; where the Second Mercury is he who generally speaks in his own Person, the Elder is spoken of in the Third, and Tat is mentioned as his Son, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so often mentioned, where the very Pillars are mentioned, and that they were to be divulged to Posterity from those Pillars, as appears from a Fragment of them extant in Stobaeus. 
Stob. Eclog. Phys.  Yet it does not appear that Manetho published that Text of those Mercurial Books he pretends to have used out of the Sacred Egyptian, into the common Greek Character. That he might forbear to do as a Priest. Possibly Numenius might have contributed hereunto, who is therefore charged by his own Heathen Brethren for divulging Mysteries. Whoever did so, seems also to have enlarged those of Manetho, 
Macrob. in somn. Scipion. L. 1. c. 2.  with other things he took for Mercurial, as will appear hereafter. However these very allusions to these Greek Mercurials, are sufficient to convict this pretended Sanchoniathon of falsehood, in the opinion of such as believe the Mercurials themselves to be Forgeries, and Forgeries much later than the time that Sanchoniathon pretends to. However, if they were again involved by this Second Hermes, how comes Sanchoniathon to have understood them? But if this Surmubelus and Thuro had extricated them before the time of Sanchoniathon, how comes Orpheus (who must have been Elder or contemporary with him, if he flourished at, or a little before, the War of Troy, and who is generally supposed to have borrowed his Notions from the Egyptians,) not to have understood them free from Allegories, as well as this pretended Sanchoniathon? But to proceed.  
§. XXI. HE is pretended also to have borrowed his Informations from Hierombaal the Priest of the God Jevo. There is little reason to doubt but that he meant Gideon, who was by his Father Joash Sur-named Jerubbaal. 
Jud. VI 32.  The putting of H before Hebrew words beginning with ay, (that is, putting Aspirations where in the Original, the I is Consonant,) is so common, that I believe none will doubt of it. Instances are very obvious, as in Hieremias, Jerusalem, Hiericho, etc. And the M S. Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as easy to have been mistaken for a u, which is their Mark for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is an ordinary occasion of mistake in multitudes of MSS. Especially in the less skilful Publishers of Printed Books from MSS. and this Name is at this present Written Jerobaal, with an o in the Vulgar Latin Text, Judg. VI 32. And almost as little reason is there to doubt, but that the Name Jevo, is only a Greek imitation of the Tetragrammaton, the middle and final Aspirations being utterly unexpressible in the Greek Tongue. But neither is this account of his Information, any thing more creditable than the others. How could Gideon be a Priest, who was of the Tribe of Manasseh? 
Jud. VIII. 27.  Was it on account of the Ephod which Gideon made? But where is there the least intimation that he wore it himself? Nay, when he is said to have placed it in his own City of Ephra, it seems to imply, that it was placed there for another's wearing. And how comes it to pass, that the Scripture should pass it over in silence, that is so punctual in taking notice of Violations of the Priesthood, in matters of lesser consequence in Jeroboam and others? But how could Sanchoniathon have been guilty of such a mistake, in so fresh a memory of Gideon, in so near a Neighbourhood of the Jews, in a matter wherein then the meanest of them could have informed him, (so careful they were then to keep up the memory of their Tribes,) if he had been so diligent in procuring Information, as is pretended? Suppose he had been so negligent himself; yet, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verba Porphyrii ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. l 9 31. A.  how could King Abibalus, to whom he is said to have Dedicated his Book? How could all his contemporary Enquirers after Truth, from all whom, he is pretended to have received commendations, be yet all so mistaken in a thing of so easy Information? Yet to make this fancy concerning Gideon's Priesthood look more likely, the excellent Bochart conceives that the Baal Berith, 
Ph. Col. 11. 17. Judg. VIII 33.  with whom the Israelites committed Idolatry after the death of Gideon, must have been the God of Berytus, Sanchoniathon's own City. But it seems most likely, that this Baal Berith was the God (not the Goddess) to whom Gideon's Ephod was Consecrated, at his own City Ephra. 
Judge VIII 27. Judg. IU. 4.  That Ephod is said to have been a snare to Him and his Family. And accordingly this Baal Berith's Temple, furnished the Sichemites with Arms in their Conspiracy with Abimelech, which proved the ruin of the greatest part of Gideon's Family. If so, then there was no ground to make this Baal Berith the same with Jao, to whom Philo Byblius would have us believe that Gideon was Priest. However, there is no probability that Berith (if it must needs be the name of a place,) could be the same with Berytus. This Berith, where the Sichemites dwelled was in all likelihood under the Dominion of the Israelites, but Berytus was in Phoenicia, and was in Sanchoniathon's time (if we may believe Philo Byblius) under a distinct King from Israel. Besides the different ways of writing these words in the Hebrew, gives little occasion for such a mistake. The Phoenician Berytus was so called as Stephanus tells us, rather from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And it is observable, that Stephanus seems to have taken what he had concerning these Phoenician places, from Philo Byblius himself, as might have been shown in several Instances, and is on another occasion confessed by Bochart himself. 
Phoen. Col. 11. 12.  If this were taken from him also, than it will at least follow, that this affinity between the Names of Berith and Berytus, could have been no occasion of mistake to Philo Byblius. Which as to our present purpose, is of much greater consequence, than what that same Learned Person observes from Nonnus, who takes Berytus for Beroe, the Daughter of Venus and Adonis. This therefore, looks like one of those ill-meant Blunders, which those Modern Greeks were ordinarily guilty of in the Jewish History, who pretended, no doubt from the like Records, to give other accounts of them, than their own writings had done of themselves, only with a design to asperse their Nation. Thus Moses is made a Woman, 
Suid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Joseph. c. Ap. 1. 1057.  called Moso by Alexander Polyhistor. Moses and Joseph are joined together as contemporaries in Chaeremon. But Moses is the Son of Joseph in Trogus Pompeius, 
Just. Hist. XXXVI. 2.  Epitomised by Justin. Many more Instances might have been given, if it had been necessary. Nor will the Answer of Bochart serve to excuse him here. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may indeed alone signify a Prince as well as a Priest. But when it is joined with the God, to whom he is said to have been Priest, that were alone sufficient to determine the signification, from any ambiguity of which it might otherwise have been capable. But besides I shall 
* § 38.  hereafter have occasion to show his design in making him a Priest, for recommending what he was to deliver on his Testimony.  
§. XXII. BUT possibly his pretended Memoires of Gideon, might have given him the Title of Priest, and Sanchoniathon a Stranger, a likely occasion of such a mistake. If they did so, than this itself had been a sufficient Argument, that they could not have been Gideon's. And then, what credit must that part of his History be of, which relies on so uncreditable Informations? And indeed, how unlikely is it, that Gideon should have left such Memoires behind him? In all likelihood, what had come from him, would have been accounted Prophetical; at least, if it had been undoubted, would have been made so by the attestation of the Sanhedrim, who were by God himself established for the Authentical Judges of Prophets. Which is the most defensible way for asserting the Divinity of the Anonymous Authors of the Old Testament. And if so, what probability had there been of their miscarriage? Nay, supposing them only Humane, and of no higher repute among the Jews; yet, who can think they would have neglected so precious a Monument of their Antiquity, from so sure a hand as Gideon's? But there is not the least Memory of such a work among the Jews, not in their Canonical Histories; not in the multitudes even of Counterfeit, that were Ancient, or were ever received, even among the Hellenists, of which we have any account, either in the Ancient Stichometriae, or in any Ancient Quotations; not so much as in any Quotation of those Canonical Writers that lived near those times, and quote several extant then, which have since miscarried, as the Book of Jather, of the Wars of the Lord, etc. Not even in the Book of Judges, where his Testimony had been most useful for continuing the Jewish History, from the death of Joshua, to his own time. Can we think they would thus generally have neglected him, if they had known him, or thought him Genuine? Can we think the Phoenicians would have valued him, if his own Countrymen had so neglected him?  
§. XXIII. Certainly, if he ever had any such Memoires, or made use of them any where, it must have been, most probably, where he gives account of Jewish matters. But his accounts concerning them, are so full of mistakes, of mistakes so inconsistent even with Jewish Interest, as could not, with any probability, have been occasioned by any Jewish Testimonies; much less by so grave and unexceptionable a Testimony as that of Gideon. I have had occasion to mention one instance already, that of his making Gideon a Priest. And such generally are the rest of his accounts of Jewish affairs, as far as we can judge of them, by the few Fragments preserved to us by Porphyry. He makes Abraham a Native Phoenician, 
By the Name of Saturn ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 10. p. 36. C. p. 38. D.  and the same with the Greek Saturn, who bestowed Attica on Minerva. What Jew would have robbed his Nation of their Father Abraham they so much boasted of, would have derived them from the Uncircumcised Philistines, so much abhorred and despised by them? Would have dishonoured Abraham himself, so far as to have made him a Heathen Deity, a thing so detested by the Jews? He makes him actually Sacrifice his Son. It is plain what Interest obliged him to say so, viz. that he might hereby give an account of that Ancient, but Inhuman Custom, of Sacrificing their own Children to him, under the name of Saturn or Moloch. For this was generally the design of the Heathen Mysteries, to commemorate some memorable Action of their Deity. Thus the pleasure that Ceres took in the obscene behaviour of Baubo, was commemorated in the Eleusinian Mysteries. And the like delight that Hercules took in the Plow-man's Curses, when he was eating his Plow-oxens, was also remembered with the like Curses still repeated in the Solemnities of the Worship of Hercules. But what ground could he have in doing so, from the Old Testament? He might indeed from the later Mystical Expositions of the Hellenists, who speak of it as done, because it was reckoned to him as done in the Divine acceptance, Gen. XXII. 16. Therefore St. Paul says he Offered him, Heb. XI. 17. adding withal, that he received him from Death in a Figure, V. 19 And the expression of having actually offered him, is also used by St. Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians. 
Clem. ad Corinth. Ep. 1. §. 10.  If it were hence that he derived his mistake, that will also prove him Counterfeited about the time he was first produced. He gives also different accounts of the reason why Abraham should have offered his Son. Sometimes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 40. D. P. 38. D.  sometimes again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I know not whether any occasion of the former account, might have been taken from 2 Kings three 27. Am. i. 16. where the King of Moab being pressed by distress of War, offered a Firstborn Son; but not his own, but the King of Edom's. But there is no pretence of either in Abraham's case from any Jewish Records, nor consequently could he have these different Informations from the Memories of Gideon, unless we can suppose them, not only different from all the Authentic Records of his Nation, but from themselves also, these things being the Principal in this Author, that concern the Jews, and yet, being so impossible to have been taken from any Memoires of Gideon, make me verily suspect, that the Forger of this Author himself, as he did not use, so neither did he know of any such Memoires, either truly or pretendedly passing under the Name of Gideon, at least, not owned for such among the Jews. Which as it is a clear conviction of his designed disingenuity in a matter not excusable by any pretence of Ignorance; so it will render him justly liable to a suspicion of a like disingenuity in his other fair pretences, though we had not the like evidence of conviction of them. At least no such pretences to means of Information must be trusted on his word, and there is no better pretended for them.  
§. XXIV. BUT, to let the Informations alone, the work itself affords Intrinsic Arguments enough of just suspicion. A great occasion of the Forgeries of those times, was the Emulation of several Nations, for glory of Inventions and Antiquity. Hence it came to pass, that of all glorious Inventions, and of all Famous Persons, so very different and inconsistent accounts are given by the Historians of the several Rival Nations, each of them challenging them for their own. Hence such a multitude of Jupiter's, Herculeses, Aesculapius', Diana's, etc. nay, and of Homer's too, different not only in Nation, but in Age too, yet pretending generally to the glory of the same Actions. It must needs be, that of so inconsistent reports concerning the same Person, all but one must have been not mistakes, but designed Forgeries. Which I therefore note to show that, as it was not unusual, so neither was it new, to Forge on such occasions. Yet they pretended generally to honest means of Information. Now this pretended Sanchoniathon, is full of this vanity of arrogating useful Inventions and Persons to his own Phoenicia. Which, as they will prove him later than these Aemulations of several Nations about Antiquity, much later than the time pretended for the true Sanchoniathon; so they will expose him to all the Testimonies and Arguments that may be produced for the several Nations against him in all, or any of the respective Particulars. If he can be disproved or charged with indirect dealing in any one particular, that will be sufficient to weaken his credit in all the rest. Let us come therefore to the particulars.  
XXV. THus he ascribes the Invention of Iron, to the Phoenician 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in all likelihood, 
Ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. l. 10 p. 35. C.  the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesiod, whom he makes the Famous Vulcan; whereas the Scripture attributes the same to Tubal Cain, and the Grecians to the Idaei Dactyli, 
●log. 287.  not long before the Wars of Troy. 
Str. 1 〈…〉 430.  For there we find that all the Arms of the Heroes, both offensive and defensive, were of Brass, as appears by Homer, and is observed by the Scholiast, on Apollonius Rhodius and Pausanias, 
La 〈…〉. p. 84  which are great suspicions that the Invention of Iron was late, because it had not as yet reached those Parts. But it is indeed strange, that Vulcan should here be taken for a Phoenician, 
〈…〉.  who is by the Egyptians, reported to have been the notorious Original of the first Generation of their Deified Kings; 
〈…〉 crip. ●VII. Eus. 〈…〉 l. 9 D. 〈…〉 1. Cl. Prot. 〈…〉 10. D.  The design of which Deifying being observed by this Philo himself, to have been the honour of some profitable Invention for Humane Life, will make it likewise probable, that he was also taken for the Inventor of Fire and Iron. There were indeed several Vulcan's observed by the Ancients, but not above Four, and among them none that appears to have been thought Phoenician. Thus also he makes Magus the Son of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Titanes, which were accounted bad Daemons. Who sees not here an instance of that ordinary vanity of the Grecians, of turning the Name of the Sect into a proper Name of a Man, and thence pretending to give an account of their first Institution? Who sees not a plain design to rob the Chaldaeans of the Magis, and to make them a Phoenician Invention? Which let him believe, who can find in his heart to do so. I need not to observe, that the whole Sect of the Magis, if they were first Instituted by the Chaldaean Zoroastres, (who seems to have lived near the time of Pythagoras, and is said by some to have conversed with him) they must have been Instituted long after the time of our pretended Sanchoniathon, and therefore could not have been taken notice of by him. As for the Bactrian Zoroastres, I doubt the very pretending to him was only such another design of robbing the Chaldaeans of him. 
L. 11. Bibl. ex Ctesiâ.  Diodorus calls him Oxyartes, and that was, it may be, his true Name. I might also observe, that when he makes this Magus the Son of those bad Daemons, he evidently alludes to the bad sense of the Name of Magus, which was yet very much later than the Institution of the Sect itself.  
§. XXVI. He also makes the Dioscuri, not only Phoenicians, 
Ap. Euseb. ib. p. 36. A.  but the same also with the Corybantes and Curetes. It is evident he could not understand the Castores, who were not only later than Sanchoniathon, but than those Curetes and Corybantes also. The most candid sense that can be put upon it, is by the name Dioscuri to understand, not the Sons, but the Nurses of Jupiter. So indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in Hesiod for Nursing. And so the Curetes or Corybantes, are in Truth, said to have Nursed him in the Antrum Idaeum. But then, the word being Greek, could not have been known to the Phoenician Sanchoniathon; and what word must have answered it in his Original Phoenician, is not easy to guests. Nor do I know why Philo should use it in so unusual a Notion, 
●useb. 37.  which yet he elsewhere uses for them absolutely, without the explicatory Addition of the Titles of Curetes or Corybantes. And is not this a plain design upon the Cretan Jupiter, to make him, as well as his Nurses, Originally Phoenician? But this may possibly be thought excusable as an Interpolation of the Translator, who must at least, have been the Author of that Greek word. For it seems evident, not only from this, but the mention of several other Greek words, 
●words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 36. because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. & p. 39 ●he quotes Hesiod, etc.  and of the Greek Nation, nay, of the very Alexandrians, that he did use the liberty, rather of a Paraphrast, than of a faithful accurate Translator. But then, how shall we be able to distinguish between his Interpolations, and the Text of his pretended Sanchoniathon. It seems also strange, that these Corybantes or Cabiri, or Samothraces', which, by the Grecians account of them, seem to have been the same, and to have accompanied the Mater Deorum out of Phrygia into Crete, should here be made immediately Phoenicians, though I am apt to believe indeed that their Mysteries had some Originally-Phoenician ingredients. 
Bochart. de Phoen. Colon. 12.  But it is yet more strange, how they should have found Crete Inhabited, where they must have Nursed, or at least, received Jupiter, if themselves had been the first Inventors of Ships, 
Ib. p. 36. A.  as is here pretended, unless possibly they made use of those hard shifts, which are here also mentioned, as invented before. Which yet is hardly credible of so great a Multitude as might be thought sufficient to People the whole Island.  
§. XXVII. Other instances there are of the like Vanity and Affectation in this Author. Some I have had occasion to touch at formerly. Who can endure to see 
1 Ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 10. p. 38. D. & p. 40. C.  Abraham, to see the famous Egyptian 
2 〈…〉 9 B.  Hermes, made Original Phoenicians? This alone, one would think, were sufficient to overthrow those great Eulogies that are given him for his Faithfulness and Diligence, 
〈…〉. A.  but this is not all. Jupiter Belus, the Famous Founder of the Assyrian Monarchy, Typhon the Brother of the Famous Egyptian Osiris, must also be made Originally Phoenicians; than which what can be more certainly false, if any thing be certain in the Ancient Assyrian or Egyptian Histories? So must also Adodus the Father of Benhadad King of Syria in the Scripture, and in Trogus Pompeius, and Worshipped by the Syrians for a God. So must Aesculapius, 
〈…〉  whose Sons were Peloponnesians, and on that account present at the War of Troy; besides that himself is reported to have been the Son of Arsinoe the Daughter of Leucippus a Messenian. So must also Minerva, if she had Attica bestowed on her by the Phoenician Saturn. But when were the Phoenicians so famous for their Conquests, as to have so great and remote Dominions as Egypt, Assyria and Attica at their disposal: What writer, even of their own, however partial to his own Country, did so much as pretend it before our pretended Sanchoniathon? But it is a strange mistake in Chronology (in which it seems to have been a special Providence of God for their Discovery, that Counterfeiters have generally been unskillful) that she should be made contemporary, or rather later 
* For she is made the Daughter of Saturn, p. 36. D. But Esculapius is made the Son of Syduc, the Brother of Misor, whose Son Mercury is said to have been Counsellor to Saturn as soon as he was come to Man's Estate, p. 36. D. And the Posterity of the Dioscuri are made contemporary with Saturn p. 37. B. Which Dioscuri themselves were Sons of Syduc, and consequently Brethren to Aesculapius. See p. 36. A.  than Aesculapius, as will appear by our Author's computation; whereas Aesculapius flourished, as I said before, but little before the War of Troy, but Minerva strove with Neptune, for the Dominion of Attica in the time of Cecrops Diphyos, some hundreds of years before. There were indeed several Minervae, and Aesculapii pretended by them, who had the curiosity to inquire into them, in order to the exposing them. But this very pretence of a Multitude, was later than the times of Emulation, and yet none of those Multitudes pretended to have been Phoenicians. The passage of Damascius concerning a Phoenician Aesculapius, 
Damasc. vit. Isidor. ap. Phot. Cod. ccxl 11. p. 1073.  seems plainly Transcribed from Philo Byblius, and therefore ought not to be taken for a distinct Authority.  
§. XXVIII. AND why should Abraham, 
● 3. D.  if he were the Phoenician Saturn, Circumcise himself, as this Author also pretends, when it is so well known, that the Ancient Phoenicians were so averse to it, that a long time after Abraham's death, they are still stigmatised by the name of the uncircumcized Philistines? But the design is plain. He had a mind to challenge a Person of such Note for his Countryman; and because the Story of Abraham's making a Covenant with God by Circumcision, was one of the most memorable passages of that Great Man's Life, therefore he thought it fit to assert it to their Saturn. And it may be the rather, because by this time, when this work was Counterfeited, the Phoenicians themselves seem also to have received Circumcision from the Egyptians. Who knows but that such Tales as these might have been the reason why Abraham was Worshipped at Mamre, 
〈…〉 111. Zozo. Eccl. 1. 4.  for some considerable time before Constantine who first forbade it, with Idols and Sacrifices; by Gentiles as well as Christians; by Phoenicians as well as those of Palestine and Arabia? That Humane Sacrifices were not among those as they are particularised by Sozomen, (though they were otherwise the properest for the Phoenician Saturn) there was very good reason, because they had been, long before that time, forbidden by Roman Laws. The First Roman Law against them was at Rome, An. II. C. 657. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and P. Licinius Crassus being 
1 Plin. Nat. Hist. XXX. c. 1.  Consuls. After that it was particularly forbidden the Druids by 
2 Plin. Nat. Hist. XXX. c. 1.  Tiberius, at last forbidden every where by the Emperor 
3 Porphyr. de Abst. 11. 56.  Hadrian. Besides that by the account Philo Byblius himself, as well as other Writers of Phoenician affairs, give concerning them; these Humane Sacrifices, by the Rules of the Phoenicians themselves, seem not to have been ordinary, but only reserved for some very great distress, as an expiation to that angry Daemon. But all these instances do abundantly show how extremely partial this Author was, in adorning his own Nation with the spoils of others. Which is not reconcileable either with the Veracity or Antiquity of the true Sanchoniathon. Nor will any supposable mistakes of Philo in Translating him, serve to bring him off in so gross and designed instances concerning his Neighbours and the Famous Persons now mentioned. For they concern Things, not Words and Expressions; Things very notorious, not only of Probable or Conjectural Evidence.  
§. XXIX. I cannot therefore but think this Author Counterfeited purposely with a design of confronting the Antiquity of the Scripture. But who was the Impostor, whether Philo Byblius or Porphyry, that I confess I cannot easily determine. I confess I should rather charge it on Porphyry, the abusing of the Name of Philo, as well as that of Sanchoniathon, were it not for that only Testimony of Athenaeus, and I have given my reasons why I should otherwise have thought it improbable that Philo was the Author of that Translation. But because I cannot tell what to say to that express Quotation of Athenaeus before the time of Porphyry, I doubt Philo will not easily be discharged of it. For by his Exceptions against the Testimony of Hecataeus for what he had Written in favour of the Jews, That either his work must have been counterfeited; 
〈…〉  or if genuine, that he himself must have been carried away by the plausibility of the Jewish pretences: It appears that he was engaged in that Dispute concerning the Antiquity of the Jews, and engaged against the Jews, and therefore was a Person sufficiently interessed to set on such a disingenuous design as far as his Principles would give him leave. And I have already shown how far Platonical Principles did so. If I may venture to guests in a matter that affords no better Arguments than guesses, I should suspect that Josephus' Books against Appion were the occasion of engaging Philo on this Subject, What Josephus had there produced in defence of the Antiquity of the Jews, was very probably the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluded to by Philo. I cannot think any other was meant, because Josephus seems to have been the first that engaged in that Dispute, (he does not intimate in the least that any had engaged in it before him) and because the time was so short between Josephus and Philo, that there could hardly be any new occasion for any one else to undertake that cause that Josephus had so very lately, and so accurately defended. For Josephus wrote his Books against Appion immediately after his Antiquities and his Life, in the Thirteenth year of Domitian, because he Dedicated these also to the same Epaphroditus, who was put to Death in the year following; and Philo seems to have written under Hadrian. Besides the fame of Josephus; with all wellwishers to Learning, and the Eminent capacities he served in, both among his own Countrymen, and in the Courts of the Vespasians, added no doubt a greater Authority to what came from him, and recommended it to the Reading of all curious Persons, not now to mention the attestations of the Emperors, and of King Agrippa, and of other Learned Men, Heathens as well as others, among whom himself reckons Julius Archelaus and Herod. 
C. App. 1. 1037. F.  And this very Testimony of Hecataeus, which it seems so gravelled Philo, had been produced, and insisted on, in this very work by Josephus. 
Cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1048. B. 11. p. 1063 F.  Which will therefore make it very probable, that this Work of Philo Byblius against the Jews, was designed in answer to Josephus against Appion.  
§. XXX. WHICH being supposed, I consider further that Josephus in that same Work had principally insisted on the Testimonies of Phoenicians and Egyptians, 
Cont. App. L. 1. p. 1039. C.  for proving the Antiquity of his own Nation, as of those who had best reason to know them; but the Phoenicians most of all, 
C. Appion. L. 1. p. 1043. F. Antiq. viij. ●. p. 258. F. ●. Appion. ●. p. 1042. ●.  as being nearest. Accordingly he Appeals not only to their Writers that were extant, but their Written Records, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were preserved to that very time. This could not choose but particularly move Philo Byblius as being himself a Phoenician, and who might very well have known Josephus himself, if he were Threescore and Eighteen years old, at the Two hundred and Twentieth Olympiad, as has been observed out of Suidas, though possibly the odd number of the Olympiad, above Two hundred and twenty, which is requisite to make him live to Write concerning the Empire of Hadrian, is wanting. I mention not Scaliger's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which tells us more particularly, not the Olympiad only, but also the very year wherein he conceives him to have Written, because it is of no Authority. But there was another thing that added further to the reputation of the Jews about that time. Their Essenes' had been in great reputation with as many as had occasion to hear of them, as a very Philosophical sort of Persons. 
Nat. Hist. v. 17. de Abstin. IV. iv. 11. etc.  Pliny the Elder had mentioned them with great respect, as afterwards Porphyry did also. But this concerned only their Philosophy of living. There was also among them, others who had written Books of Philosophy, not only Aristobulus the Peripatetic in the time of Ptolomaes Philometor; not only many others intimated, though not named by Philo the Jew, and Josephus, if he ever lived to finish that work of the Sentiments of the Jews, 
Praef. ad Antiq. in fin. & Ant. xx. 9 & alibi saepe.  so often promised by him, as I doubt, he did not. These, by Mysticizing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Moses to a sense, not very distant from that received among the wisest Philosophers, and in a most elegant, rapturous, modish style (such was that of Philo particularly.) They gained so much further on the good opinion of the wise ones of that Age, as to have their Nation, which had formerly been despised as Barbarous, now to pass among the Nations which were Famous for Wisdom. And the rather because this way of Mysticizing the Poets, for the Greeks, into a Systeme of Philosophy, was already taken up by the Stoics, and the other Dogmatical Philosophers, who were concerned for the defence of the received Religions against the Atheists and Epicureans, and Sceptics, who had taken great advantage from those Fables, for exposing them. Who had withal, been herein imitated by the Egyptians, who had Allegorized Isis and Ostris, and all their own most Ancient Histories. From whom the Alexandrian Jews seem willing to differ as little as was possible. Accordingly Laertius, 
Prooem. ad vit. Philos. p. 3. B.  who wrote not long after, takes them into that Number; and endeavoured, 
Numen. ap. Orig. c. Cells. 1. p. 13. & Eus. Pr. Eu. IX. 7.  ash was able, to give some account of them, though on the ill Informations of Clearchus the Peripatetic. So also Numenius before him.  
§. XXXI. BUT there were also other things that contributed hereunto about the time of which I am speaking. One was the attestation of some Oracles received among the Heathens themselves, which also commended them for that very cause wherein they differed from the rest of Mankind. Such was that produced by St. Justin Martyr, not long after the time of Philo, as given by a Heathen Deity to a Heathen Enquirer: 
Parnaetic. p. 12.  So he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
God might possibly in this Case, make the Devil speak against his own Interest, as he did in the case of Balaam. To the same purpose we have other Oracles also owned by Porphyry, 
Ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. X. 10.  (very probably in his Body of Philosophy Collected out of Oracles,) whereof some might have been Ancienter than the time of Philo Byblius. I am not concerned to Dispute what real Credit these Oracles deserved, yet certainly they could not choose but have been very powerful recommendations to those Philosophers who did actually believe them Divine, and that is all for which I am concerned at present. To the same purpose, also I refer the advantageous Characters of Abraham and Moses, in the Orphaicks first mentioned in these first times of Christianity. And as Orpheus had among the Heathens the Reputation of a Sacred and Inspired Person, so his word must have been reverenced by them all, but particularly by the Egyptians, and the Disciples of Mercury, because he was taken for a great promoter of their Philosophy. But there was yet a further reason that might peculiarly recommend him to the Egyptians. That is, that he was, by some Traditions, received by Persons of great Authority among themselves, pretended to have been a Sacred Person to the Deity of Heliopolis. So Chaeremon, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself, 
Ap. Joseph. cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1057. B.  makes Joseph and Moses also to have been Egyptian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same Notion as the Jews also had their Sacred Scribes. And Manetho a High Priest and Scribe, 
Manetho ap. Joseph. cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1053 A. & 1054. A. 1055. C.  also had delivered the same concerning Moses, that his Egyptian name was Osarsyph, and that he was called so from Osiris. So I read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of Heliopolis to whom he was Priest. The occasion of pretending this concerning Joseph, might possibly be his Marrying the Daughter of Potipherah Priest of On., which by the Greek Interpreters and Demetrius, 
Demetrius ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. IX. 21.  was rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concerning Moses, possibly it was his skill in all the Learning of the Egyptians, that which was 
1 Philo Jud. de vit. Mos. Lib. 1. p. 606. B. Clem. Al. Strom. 1. p. 343. C. D.  Sacred as well as other sorts, which they might think he could never have got in such Perfection, if himself had not been a Sacred Person. It is no matter how far they were mistaken in believing so concerning him. Their actual believing so, is sufficient for my purpose, to make them entertain a great reverence for his Philosophy.  
§. XXXII. ACCORDINGLY there was about that time a Sect of the Philosophers themselves, that began to take notice of those Mystical Expositions of the Law, and to produce them with respect as Authorities, with honourable mention of Moses under the Titles of Legislator and Prophet. A name not unusual to them among the other Orientals that were Famous for Wisdom, but particularly used among the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and very properly belonging to him as a Scribe or Priest of Heliopolis. 
L. III. adv. Christian. ap. Euseb. Eccl Hist. VI 19  Porphyry that inveterate Enemy of Christianity, takes notice of them, as they who had led our Christian Origen the way in his Allegorical Expositions. For such he reckons Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, Nicomachus, Chaeremon and Cornutus. These did not only follow the way of Allegorising, in turning the Heathen Theogonyes into Mystical Senses, as appears in the work still extant of Cornutus, on that Subject. That was not new. The Stoics whom both Cornutus and Chaeremon followed, had begun that long before. They also followed the Allegorising Jews, in allowing the Authority of Moses, in quoting him by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, which I think is not usual with any but those Allegorical Writers. Thus Numenius, 
Orig. c. Cells 1. p. 13. IV. p. 198. 199  with whom it was very ordinary. Thus Longinus in that only work which is extant of his, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And no doubt it would have appeared concerning more of them, if they had been extant. Nay thus even afterwards (when the rancours of the Philosophers themselves against the Scriptures were grown higher) Porphyry himself, 
De antr. Nymph. P. 256.  and Chalcidius, who is therefore by some less considering Persons mistaken for a Christian, who yet presumes to confute 
* He reckons Moses among those who make matter to have a beginning. p. 372. Edit. Meursii. But he afterwards joins himself with those who make it Eternal. p. 376. 401. 409. 410. etc. Besides his saying concerning Moses, divinâ, ut ferunt, Inspiratione vegetatus, plainly implies, that he did not believe him so inspired himself, but that he only delivered herein the Sense of others.  his Prophet where he dissents from him, though he do it indeed, as became the time he lived in, when the Empire was Christian, with civility and great respect. And the first of these which are mentioned by Porphyry will, in all likelihood, be earlier than Philo Byblius. So will Apollophanes, if he were the same who was meant by the Counterfeiter of the Works now extant under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, who is there made to observe the Eclipse at our Saviour's Death at Heliopolis in Egypt; and if that otherwise Learned Impostor have but observed the due decorum of time. 
Athen. Deipnos. VII. 6. vid. Menag. in Laert. L. VII. p. 186.  Much more, if he were the Stoic, mentioned by Athenaeus, but under the corrupt name of Aphanes, as contemporary with Eratosthenes, and Fellow-Disciple with him to Ariston Chius. And some of his Companions in this passage of Porphyry were Stoics, as Cornutus and Chaeremon. So will Numenius, if it were to him that Apollonius Tyanaeus wrote that Discourse, whereof we have a Fragment in Stobaeus. 
Eclog. Physic.  So will also Cronius for the same reason, whom Porphyrius assures us to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Friend and acquaintance of Numenius. 
De Antr. Nymph. p. 263.  So was Annaeus Cornutus certainly, 
To him Persius writes Sat. V. Lib. XI. Ep. 58. Nat. Quaest. L. VII. C. 5. confer. Orig. c. Cells. l. p. 45.  and Chaeremon the Stoic, contemporary with Martial under Domitian, who must yet have been old at that time, if it were his Book de Cometis which was mentioned by Seneca. And he is certainly quoted by Josephus.  
§. XXXIII. BUT there was also another occasion about this time, which made the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more taken notice of. Which, though it seems indeed to have proceeded from this, yet recommended it farther, to many who knew nothing of the favourable esteem the forementioned Philosophers had for the Jewish Philosophy itself. That is, that it was about this time, taken into the pretended Philosophy of the Egyptian Hermes. The name of Hermes had indeed been mentioned by many Authors before the coming of our Saviour. 
In Euseb. Graec. p. 6.  His Pillars also are said to have been consulted by Manetho for compiling his History. But for any Philosophical Discourses published under his name, such as the Poemander and Asclepius now extant, such as were many more now lost, but mentioned by the Ancients, I believe there can be no Testimonies produced much Ancienter than Philo Byblius, at least not as extant in the common Greek Character as well as Tongue. And yet they could hardly have been much later, considering that St. Justin Martyr quotes them about the time of Antoninus Pius, as also his Contemporary Apuleius, if the Latin Translation of Asclepius be his, considering withal, that 
1 De Isid. & Osirid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 375. F.  Plutarch also mentions them, an Author undoubtedly equal, if not Ancienter than Philo Byblius; that 
2 He quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the marks of Apis, probably out of those Two and Forty Mystical Books of Hermes, which contained the Rituals of the Egyptian Priests, mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, unless possibly he did not mean a Book, but a Tradition Fathered upon Hermes, like those mentioned by Manetho.  Aelian does so who lived under Hadrian,, Contemporary with Philo; considering also that before them, the Egyptian Heretics, the Basilidians especially, and the Valentinians, made use of many of his Notions. Now those Heretics are generally by the consent of Antiquity, said to have risen about the time of Hadrian. But our most Learned Bishop of Chester 
* Vind. Ign.  thinks them Ancienter, to whom I refer the Reader for satisfaction that desires it. However, the Author from whom they borrowed their Heresies, should in all reason, be some while Ancienter than they. And from him it is most likely that the Valentinians took their Ogdoas, and the Basilidians their Magical Practices, that I may not now descend to a more particular Parallel. Nor yet can I think, as the Learned Casaubon does, that any Christian (even of those Heretics) counterfeited him. There are such other marks in him, that the Author was indeed a Heathen. 
Poemand. c. 3. 25.  He calls the Sun the greatest God of those that are in Heaven, to whom all the Heavenly Gods pay respect, as to their King and Potentate. 
Ib. c. 3. 17.  And he elsewhere mentions the Gods appearing in the Stars. That he should call the Sun God, might indeed seem agreeable to the Basilidian Hypothesis, who made Abraxas theirs. But that he should allow all the Stars for Gods also, seems more than any Christian could grant. Yet even this Expression the Hellenistical Jews did not scruple. So Philo the Jew, speaking concerning the Creation of the Heavens, says, that it ought therefore to be created first, and of the purest part of Matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
De Mund. Opif. p. 5. E  These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were no doubt the Stars. However there were many more things extant then, in the time of Philo Byblius, which did undeniably prove the Author to have been a Heathen. Such were those Books mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Strom. vi. p. 633.  wherein all the whole Order of the Egyptian Worship was particularly prescribed, by which their Idolatrous Priests in those times were guided.  
§. XXXIV. YET though the Author of these Counterfeited works, pretending to the name of Hermes were a Heathen, I must withal grant, that the great Person now mentioned, had an occasion for mistaking him for a Christian, from those frequent allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures, which he had observed in him. But I have already shown another way how these Allusions, not express Quotations, might have been used by a Heathen of that Age. That is, that the Counterfeiter of them, might have been one of that Set of Philosophers, who had, as has been shown, taken in the Jewish Philosophy into theirs, from the Writings of Philo and such others as had recommended it to them, by their Mystical Expositions of it. Accordingly, their Quotations of the Scriptures themselves, are generally at the Second hand, as they found them already produced by such Writers as they dealt with, not mentioning, or but very rarely, either Book or Author, as in all likelihood they would, if they had taken them immediately from the Originals. And this Party was more likely to propagate among the Egyptians, (such as these undoubtedly were who Forged the Works of Hermes,) because the Alexandrian Jews were most Famous both for Numbers and Learning, above any of their Nation in any other Colony; had multitudes of their Philosophical Essenes', and a flourishing Temple among them to the days of Vespasian; and did, no doubt, suit their notions as near, as Truth would give them leave, to the received Doctrines of the Egyptians, which were very plausible recommendations to them. And when it had thus got into the Hermetical Philosophy, by this means it was unawares insinuated into those who were most averse either to the Jewish or the Christian Religion, who yet had a great Veneration for the Philosophy, as was pretended, of the Ancient and Deified Hermes. Longinus was one of them, who yet wrote against the Christians. And Porphyry another, 
Ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. xv. 20.  who yet was one of the greatest Adversaries, perhaps, that the Christians ever had. And this was the more likely to prevail among them, when Moses himself was taken for one of their own Priests, and that of Heliopolis, where those very Pillars are pretended to have been, from whence the Doctrine of Mercury was pretended to have been Collected, the custody of which must, by their customs, been properly his Province as a Priest. So that on this account, they might presume his Doctrine to have been the same with that of Mercury. But how much more might they presume it, if they took his Person to have been the same also? And some of them were of that opinion, if we may believe Artapanus. This I take to be a more likely account, 
Artap. ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. ix. 27.  how Scripture Notions got among the Philosophers, than the common mistaken passage concerning Ammonius and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I am sure it agrees much better both with Historical Truth and Experiments than the other, however it has had the Fortune to take among Learned men.  
§. XXXV. To return therefore to Philo Byblius, this I take to be the most likely design of his forging the whole History of his pretended Sanchoniathon. He was, no doubt, as a Phoenician, zealously concerned for the honour of his Country. Nay his concernment for his own City Byblos appears, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Eus. b. Pr. Eu. l. 10. p. 37. A. and from him Stephanus. Nat. Hist. v. 20.  in that he makes his fictitious Author pretend that it was the First City in Phoenicia. Had it been so, it is strange, it should never have been mentioned in the Scriptures before the times of the Prophets, where notwithstanding so many other Phoenician Cities are so frequently mentioned. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Josua seems to be rather from Gabala a City of Phoenicia, distinct from Byblos, Ptolemy and Gamala in Pliny. This very thing is a shrewd suspicion that Sanchoniathon was to say nothing but what Philo Byblius would have him, that though we have seen him so full of a partial design for the honour of his Country; and though we have seen him guilty of so many instances of notorious disingenuity in that regard; and though this pretence concerning Byblos, appears, from the Scripture-description of Phoenicia, to have been as groundless a fiction as any he had been guilty of: Yet he should yield to the Interest of Philo, and make his Byblos a more Ancient City even than his own beloved Berytus, when he might with as much ground have preferred his own City before it. The name of Berytus does certainly better resemble a Phoenician Original than that of Byblos. Philo therefore being thus concerned; and being, by his concernment, prompted to say many things both new and false, and which could not be made appear from any Monuments as yet produced; thought himself therefore obliged to pretend some new means of Information for his pretended Sanchoniathon, in such matters as he was to deliver without any known Authority of extant Authors. And because he knew the Tyrian Records and Inscriptions had been searched and published before; he therefore makes his Sanchoniathon to inquire also into the Records and Inscriptions of the other particular Cities. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. l. 9 p. 31. B.  This seems to have been his Artifice to recommend what he had to say in favour of his own City, in opposition to the other Cities of Phoenicia, or in favour of his Country, in opposition to such Countries as had not Authority of their own Records to oppose against him.  
§. XXXVI. BUT these were not the only Adversaries against whom his Ambition had engaged him in this Work. He seems also in this very Work to have had a particular design upon the Jews. One whole Book of this work seems to have related to them in particular. For that very same passage concerning Abraham's Sacrificing Isaac, 
Pr. Eu. l. 10. p. 40. B.  which Eusebius relates from the work of Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he produces elsewhere from the First Book of his Phoenician History. 
Pr. Eu. iv. 16. p. 156. D.  By this it should seem, both that the proper Title of the First Book was concerning the Jews, (as many 
* Thus it appears from the abrupt beginnings of many of Philo's Works, that they were designed to continue others, though of different Titles. So St. Luke's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was his Gospel, his Second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, written, no doubt at the same time, and intended to continue the same History where his Gospel left it. So Josephus after his Antiquities, immediately subjoined his Life, (as has already been observed by the most Learned Dr. Isaac Vossius) and after his Life his Books against Appion, yet so as that his Life and his Two Books against Appion kept their distinct Titles, none ever mentioning any more than Twenty Books of his Antiquities, excepting Cassiodore, who reckons Two and twenty, Diu. Lect. c. 17. No doubt the Two odd Books were those against Appion. So that it seems his Life, though added as an Appendix to his Twentieth Book, yet did not increase the Number. So 〈◊〉 Antiochenus' Third Book Admetus Autolye. was not Anciently called the Third Book as it is now, but by a proper Title, Liber de Temporibus ad Autolyc. as appears from Lactantius, Diu. Inst. l. 23. and it plainly begins with a new address, as if designing a new Argument. So Clemens Alexandrinus' Protreptick, Paedagogus and Stromat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carry on the same design. So Eusebius' Book De Martyribus Palaestinae plainly connects with the end of the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastical History, yet so as not to disturb the account of his Ten Books of that whole work. So the same Eusebius' Three Books against Marcellus Ancyranus, and Two De Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ belong plainly to the same work. So the Seven Books of Lactantius of Divine Institutions, have every one of them distinct Titles. But the instance of the Books of Lucifer Calaritanus is most remarkable. They were all designed as parts of the same work, written continuedly, and intended to be presented at the same time to the Emperor Constantius. Yet no continuation of any one number of Books, or Title. There are Two in defence of Athanasius, one De Regibus Apostaticis, another De non conveniendo cum Haereticis, another De non ●arcendo in Deum delinquentibus, and lastly, one De eo quòd moriendum set pro Dei filio. I have been the more particular in these instances, because as the Observations are useful, so I have not found them commonly taken notice of.  Instances might have been given of such proper Titles of Parts of larger Works in those times,) and that this Book distinct from Philo's Preface, was reckoned as the First Book, which would again confirm what I said before to reconcile Eusebius, who reckons Nine Books of this Phoenician History with Porphyry, who reckons only Eight, that this First Book was taken into the Number of the whole Work by Eusebius, but left out by Porphyry, because it had a distinct Title by itself. Unless possibly the same passage in the First Book of the Phoenician History, were quoted by Philo in that other work of his concerning the Jews, for I confess there is some difficulty in making them the same. However, for the present, supposing that he designed one Book principally to give an account of Jewish Affairs; and that he had withal, a farther design of arrogating the principal ornaments of their Nation to his own, (of which his other Work is alone sufficient to render him suspicious, though he had no particular Book of this that bore such a Title) and that he knew that an account from Phoenician Records here, would not be taken for sufficient to confront their own so much better, and more Authentic Testimonies concerning themselves, especially when confirmed with such a concurrence of Testimonies of other Nations, Phoenicians as well as others, as he had seen produced by Josephus: Therefore it may be, he thought it fit his Sanchoniathon should live in the time of Abibalus the Father of that Hiram, whose time was the highest Period of any Phoenician Testimonies, yet produced concerning Jewish Affairs.  
§. XXXVII. This time he makes either equal, or a little before the Destruction of Troy, when he makes his Author equal to Semiramis, who was, as he tells us, either equal, or a little before that War. Which yet is not so to be understood, as if he had fixed this time by the Age of Semiramis. No, he would have his Abibalus equal with her, whose Husband Ninus was taken, as I said, for the utmost Period of Heathen History. But the fixation of this time, was from the time of Abibalus, and that Abibalus no other than the Father of Hiram. His time indeed, according to the account that had already been given from the Tyrian Records by Menander Ephesius, will agree with what is said concerning the War of Troy. For from the Twelfth of Hiram, concurrent with the Fourth of Solomon wherein the Temple was begun, to the building of Carthage by Dido are reckoned One Hundred forty three years and Eight Months, by Josephus from Menander. If therefore Dido received Aeneas coming from Troy, 
Joseph. c. Appion. L. 1. p. 1042. B. 1043. F. & apud Eus. Pr. Eu. X. 13. From whom Theophilus Antiochenus' account of that same Number from the same Authority is to be corrected L. iii add Autolyc. cxliii. for cxxxiv. And Lactantius who usually followed Theophilus in his Chronology has cxl. neglecting the smaller number. Diu. Inst. iv. 8.  as Virgil and his Authors will have it (as undoubtedly so exact a Man as he had Authors for what he said, and there is nothing so certainly agreed among Authors concerning the building either of Carthage or Rome to contradict it) Sanchoniathon must then have been so much and more (as contemporary, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porph. ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9 p. 31. D.  not with Hiram, but Abibalus) before the War of Troy, as Porphyry himself does expressly place him. Which there would yet have been more pretence for with them who had followed the account of Appian, 
Appian. Punic. init.  who makes the very building of Carthage to have been Fifty years Elder than the Destruction of Troy. I doubt not but it was a great mistake, but I am only concerned to show what account, right or wrong, they might have followed who made him Elder than the War of Troy. But if this same number of One hundred forty three years and Eight Months was the distance between the War of Troy and the building of Carthage, 
Chron. L. two. Num. Euseb. 971.  as Eusebius does conceive; than it will follow that he was about the time of that War. And to this exactly agrees the account of the same Menander and Laetus, 
Menander & Laetus ap. Cl. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 326.  (the Publisher and Translator of Mochus, Hypsicrates and Theodotus) who make Menelaus put in at Phoenicia in his return from Troy in the time of Hiram. This I take to be the true account of this doubtful dis-junction concerning this time, because it is so very agreeable with the then extant Phoenician Authors. As for the making Sanchoniathon equal with Semiramis, as it was indeed done very unskilfully; so it seems (as I said) to have been with a design to put him beyond all possibility of conviction by different Authors, making him hereby so far superior in time to any Records that might pretend to rival him, as that he must have been equal to the utmost Period of time, that they pretended with any confidence to give any account of.  
§. XXXVIII. AND having placed him thus high, he was in course obliged to derive his Means of Information yet higher. But being to give an account of Jewish Affairs, upon the Credit (as I said) of Jewish Testimonies, yet very different from those which were owned and received among the Jews themselves; he was therefore obliged to bethink himself of some Jewish Name to Father his Records upon, of whose Writings the Jews themselves had never heard. And the reasons, why he was to make him a Priest, might be of two sorts: That he might hereby recommend his Author's Credit, because those most Ancient accounts of things were generally, as we have seen, derived from Sacred Inscriptions in Temples, pretended also to have been written either in Hieroglyphics, or Sacred Characters, to which as the Priests were supposed to have the easiest access, so they were also, by those Mystical Instructions which they were obliged to know as Priests, best qualified for understanding them: And that he might also give an account why such unheardof Writings might have been so long concealed from Vulgar knowledge, because being Sacred, and written by a Sacred Person, they might have been kept within the Adyta, only among the Priests, which might also give an account how they might afterwards miscarry, before the pretended Sanchoniathon was to appear to quote them, though they might have been supposed really extant when he was to Collect his Observations from them. Accordingly, whoever of the Philosophers, made it his business to inquire into the Monuments of any place, whether Historical, or Philosophical, made his addresses to the Priests of the place, whose Antiquities he was desirous to learn. So Pythagoras in Phoenicia to the Prophets the Posterity of Mochus, in Egypt to the Heliopolitane, 
Jamblich. de vit. Pythagor. Porphyr. vit. Pythag. Plutarch. Solon & de Isid. & Osirid. Clem. Al. Strom. 1. p. 303.  Memphitane and Diospolitane Priests, particularly to Oenuphis or Psenuphis, and perhaps Sonchis; Solon and Lycurgus, but particularly Solon, to the same Priests now mentioned; Eudoxus to Chonuphis, and Plato to Sechnuphis. And for Plato, on occasion of his Story of the Island Atlantis, and the Exploits of his own Countrymen the Athenians against them, for which he was beholden, not to any Athenian Monuments but only to those pretended to by the Egyptian Saitane Priests: So he thought himself concerned, as well as he could, to defend their Credit, and to do it by these degrees. First, though this was only a matter of Secular History, 
In Tim. init.  yet for the better recommendation of it, he refers, not to Secular, but Sacred Records. Next he assigns these Sacred Writings, as was undoubtedly most proper, to the custody of the Priests. Then he insinuates a Recommendation of the Credit of their Priests, beyond any of other places that might be opposed to them, from the particular conveniences they enjoyed, above others, for addicting themselves wholly to the employment of their own Profession, and their unmixedness with the Profane Vulgar. Accordingly they who, before Sanchoniathon, pretended to Publish their own Records, were generally Priests. So was Berosus and Manetho, 
Ap. Euseb. Chr. Gr. p. 6.  and Chaeremon. And Manetho assumes the Title in the very Dedication of his Work, as if it were purposely to add the greater credit to his performance. And though the Jews pretended to no such Sacred Pillars or Inscriptions; nor ever kept their Sacred Books so reserved from the Vulgar, either in Sacred unknown Characters, or by laying them up in the Adyta; yet because it was fashionable, they also insisted on the same way of defending their own Records against the Heathens who contradicted them. So Josephus also reasons. 
Cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1036.  He also derives his Information from the Sacred Records of his own Nation. He makes the preserving these Records the peculiar Province of their Priests. He insists on the same Qualifications of their Priests, which Plato had used before him, their Separation from Secular Employments, and their unmixedness with Vulgar Affinities. And as often as he has occasion to vindicate his own Credit, either against Justus Tiberiensis, or the then Gentile Authors who had given other accounts of the Jewish War, than he had done, though this were not a Subject wherein he could pretend any Sacred Records, yet still he insists on this Topick of his being a Priest for Vindicating his own Historical Credit against them. 
Antiq. xuj. 11. p. 563. E. cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1038. A.  So that from hence the Learned Bochart might have seen a very useful reason why Sanchoniathon, when he makes his Hierombaal not only a Jew, but a Priest, should also understand the name Priest in the Sacred and Popular signification.  
§. XXXIX. AND having thus made him a Jew and a Priest, it followed farther, that he was to be made a Priest of the God of the Jews. But Jao (which is the same name with Jevo, and is read for it in this same passage of Porphyry concerning Sanchoniathon, 
Theodoret. Therap. two.  as we have it in Theodoret) is the name by which the God of the Jews was known among the Heathens, even before the time of Philo Byblius. 
Bibliothec. L. two.  Diodorus Siculus in the time of Augustus, had expressly made Jao to be the God from whom Moses, as he would have it believed, pretended to have received his Laws. And it may also hence be conjectured why he pitched on Gideon rather than any other on whom he was to Father his Forgeries. He designedly chooses to call him by his Surname of Hierombaal, rather than his Original name of Gideon, possibly because it was the Fashion, as on other occasions, so on the undertaking the office of a Priest, for those Orientals, to change their names, as one Ceremony of their Consecration. Thus Joseph, whom they made a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had the Egyptian name given him of Psonthom-phanech in the Scripture, but Peteseph in Chaeremon; Moses that of Osarsiph in Manetho, 
Chaerem●n ap. Joseph. C. Appion. L. 1. p. 1057. B.  Tisithen in Chaeremon, Joachim, but especially Melchi with the Mystae in Clemens Alexandrinus. 
Osarsiph ap. Maneth. Jos. C. Appion. L. 1. p. 1054. A Tisithen ap. Chaeremon. Joseph. ib. p. 1057. B.  And this might also have been the reason why Nabuchadnezzar changed the names of Daniel and the Three Children when he had given them up to the Institution of the Chaldaeans who were reputed Sacred among them. 
Joachim. & Melchi after his Assumption into Heaven. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. 1. p. 343. C.  And upon this account, as I said, he might the rather make a Priest of Gideon, because there is none of the Judges but he that has any more than one name given him in the Scripture. But insisting on his Authority as a Priest, he might think it more convenient to call him by his Mystical name, rather than by that by which he was commonly known. Besides who knows but he might purposely pitch upon the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the very name might seem to the Greeks, (for whom he designed his pretended Translation,) to imply his being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? There are innumerable examples of the like absurd Etymologies of words of other Tongues, especially among Mystical Writers of all sorts, both Jews and Gentiles, from Greek Originals, which yet generally prevailed. How much more easy was it for him to impose on them in a Tongue so little understood by them as the Hebrew or Punic? They themselves took a Liberty of doing it, when they had a mind to prove their own Fictions from such ignorant Etymologies. Thus Lysimachus proved that the Jews had built their City Jerusalem, 
Lysimach. ap. Joseph. cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1058. G. So Eupolemus derives Hierosolyma quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ap Eus Pr. Eu. ix.  with the Sacrilegious spoils of all other Temples and Altars they met with in their way from the Etymology of Hierosolyma quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who knows also but he might himself gather a thing he was so willing should prove true from the very Hebrew name of Gideon? It may be he might think it to have some affinity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered by the LXXII. 
Vid. Selden de Diis Syr. Syntagm. 1. c. 2. & Buxtorf.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which none can doubt to have been proper to the Superstitious Priesthoods of those times, of which kind it is most likely this Heathen would make that of gideon's. As for the Letter G, where it stands for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there it is frequently neglected, and even where it stands for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it does here, yet it is easily changed for another Letter of the same Organ, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is. But, if we must needs take in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet he might possibly collect the same from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If it signify to destroy, we know the Sacrifices were Symbols of destruction, either as acknowledged due for past crimes, or as imprecated in case of any new violation of Faith for the future, as in those which were used in the making of Covenants. Accordingly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for destruction, 
St. Matth. xxiv. 51.  no doubt in allusion to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were cut into two pieces for the Covenanters to pass through. But if it signify to divide, that is yet most properly the Priest's Office, whence the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle, applied to Sacrifices Gen. iv. 7. in the LXXII. Whether by dividing, we understand the dividing the whole for the Parties to pass through, or the dividing the back (whence the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle) to look into the Entrails, or the dividing the Fat to God's part to be burnt, not reserving it to themselves, of which the famous Story of Prometheus among the Heathens, 
Ap. Hesiod. Theogon.  which is supposed most properly to belong to the Case of Cain.  
§ XL. It was also further usual in those Precedents, whom our pretended Author seems to emulate in Forging this work, to begin their Antiquities with a Philosophical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So had Moses, whose Translation by the LXXII. very probably first set the rest upon it. So had Berosus, 
In Euseb. Gr. p 6. In Euseb. Gr. p. 6. & de Pr. Eu. II. P. 44. C.  as appears by what we have from Alexander Polyhistor out of his First Book. So Manetho's in his Book Sothis', the same it should seem with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which was contained his Theologia, another name of the Mystical accounts of those First Originals, and it may be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Suidas, and seems to have been also the beginning of his 
Voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  History. Thus therefore Philo also thought it convenient to begin his Sanchoniathon with a Philosophical, but Mystical account of the beginning of the World. And here also the Egyptian Notions had generally obtained. I have shown how Berosus and the Phoenicians came to pretend to them. I have also shown how the Doctrine even of Moses came to be taken into them. But it seems to have been the custom of the Egyptians, to father all their Arts and Monuments, and Sacred Constitutions on Hermes. Thence so many thousand Books ascribed to him in Jamblichus. 
De Mist. Egypt. & Chald.  Nor was it only taken up by them. It was usual in those times to father the Monuments of a Sect on the first Author of it. Thus the Golden Verses, and other works among the Pythagoreans ascribed to Pythagoras, who yet is said to have written 
* Joseph. c. Appion. L. 1. 1046. E. Lucian de laps. in salut. S. Hieronym. adv. Rufin. Plutarch. de Fort. Alexand. L. 1. p. 328. A. Porphyr. vit. Pythag. p. 208. Claudian. Mam de Stat. Anim. L. 11. C. 3.  nothing, and that with a design that his Disciples might not read, but live according to his Injunctions. Thus Plato's Discourses fathered on Socrates who yet disowned 
* Laert. L. 111. Platon. p. 78. B. The same Athenaeus says concerning Gorgias and Phaedon Deipnos. L. xi. c. 15. p. 505. 2. 507. B.  his being the Author of many things there attributed to him. Thus 
* Clem. Al. Str. 1. p. 304. D.  Zoroastres' works kept secret among the Disciples of Prodicus, a shrewd suspicion of their being Forged by them. And this modish way of those times was, in all likelihood, the occasion of so many Supposititious works Forged by the Primitive Heretics under the name of the Apostles. So also 
* Eupolem. ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. L. ix  Enoch being owned by the Babylonians for the Author of Judicial Astrology, and other Arts and Sciences, being pretended to have been revealed to his Son Mathuselah by an Angel, was in all likelihood the occasion of Forging the Prophecy of Enoch, and those Discoveries pretended in it by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it also appears that the Books of Mercury favoured the same accounts of the fall of those Angels, 
Fragm. ap. Stob. Eclog Phys. & Lactant. Diu. Inst. two 15, 16.  because the Babylonians and Egyptians both pretended to the same Traditions at Heliopolis. But in no sort of Writing was this more frequent than in their 
1 Expressly owned by Cicero Ep. ad Varron. ante Quaest. Academic. & Macrob. Saturnal. L. 1. C. 1.  Dialogues, which was the Form generally observed in these pretended works of Mercury. And I cannot tell, but these same Traditions of the Heliopolitanes were so far countenanced by the Jews themselves, as their own Revealed Religion would give leave. The account of Moses' Expedition into Aethiopia, and several other things much for his advantage, was taken by Artapanus from the Heliopolitanes, 
Artapan. apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. ix. 27. p. 432. D. Joseph. Ant. two. 5.  and greedily followed by Josephus, which shows no ill understanding among them. So also does the Jews choosing that place above all others, 
Joseph. Ant. xii. 15. xiii. 6. xx. 8. Bell. Jud. seven. 30.  to build their Egyptian Temple of Onias, I mean at the Heliopolitane Leontopolis in contradistinction to Leontopolis, that was the head of a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor is there any heed to be taken of the Rabbins who place it in Alexandria, though I believe, 
Vid. Selden de Success. in Pontif. Hebr. L. two. c. 8.  by Alexandria they mean the whole Egyptian Colony of Jews, in opposition to their Colonies in other Countries.  
XLI. THIS Egyptian Philosophy therefore, being that which was ingredient in most of the received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at least being pretended and conceived to be so, how different soever the accounts were, which were pretended from that same Original; therefore Philo Byblius also thought it fit to take it into his pretended Sanchoniathon. And because he had found it Fathered on Authors who so little agreed concerning the Particulars of it, where it was to be had, and who must therefore some of them be certainly mistaken; it was therefore necessary to pretend to some very certain means of Information. Accordingly he also pretends to the Writings, not the Pillars of Taautus or Mercury. Which, by the way, makes it suspicious that he took his Informations from the Books as Published from the Heliopolitane Pillars, seeing he does not himself, so much as pretend to the Original Pillars themselves; and yet to secure his credit from being only at the Second hand, he pretends that Mercury caused them to be written Originally, not in Pillars, but in Books. But because so many before him who had pretended to those same Writings, had yet mistaken in Interpreting them; he therefore contrives a likely account how they might have a likely occasion of such mistakes, and yet himself be free from the suspicion of the like Errors. He pretends therefore that the first Writings of Mercury, had extricated the Philosophical accounts of the first Originals of things, fnom the Mythological Arts of concealment, wherein Antiquity had involved them; and that it was some while after, but yet before any communication with the Greeks, that the Priests had again involved them. Which yet being done before Orpheus' time, by whose means they came to the Greeks, was a plain occasion how the Greek Writers, who followed those latter accounts darkened purposely by the Priests, might be mistaken. Because they had nothing to inform them but these designedly obscure Allegories, which were both capable of many senses in themselves; and if any certain sense had been preserved, yet it had not been easily discoverable by the Greeks without the Priests, who, as I said, were not forward to communicate any thing of that nature to Strangers.  
§. XLII. AND by the same means he had also provided an account how the Egyptians themselves might be mistaken concerning their own Philosophy. For those Priests, who first involved them, are said to have delivered them down thus obscured, both to their own Successors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. i. 10. p. 39 C.  that is, to such as were initiated in their Mysteries, as I believe Vigerus has rightly rendered it. It seems then, that they must not have been supposed to have cleared them, even to such as were initiated, which sure they would have done, if themselves had preserved any certain Tradition concerning them. Accordingly they are supposed to have continued under this obscurity, till (after many Generations from Taautus, 
Ib. p 40. B. ) Surmubelus and Thuro are said to have again unriddled them. So I understand those words of Philo Byblius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For this seems to have been the Notion of that Sacred term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is used in the counterfeit Writings of Mercury, (whom this Author follows) and the Penmen of the New-Testament, and other such Writers of that Age, for the Revelation of Mysteries. I suppose from that Literal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and withdrawing of the Veil before the Shrine of the Image by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were in the ordinary course of Initiation to be used to those who were brought into the dark Adyta, and initiated in the higher sort of Initiation called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These therefore I suspect to have been pretended for the Authors of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which this Author pretended, as has already been observed. Wherein if I be not mistaken, it will then be further suspicious, that these Authors themselves did not so discover them as to make them common to the profane Vulgar, but only so as to retrieve the Traditions of the Priests, which had probably, by that time, quite miscarried, afterthy had been so long reserved in their Breasts, and entrusted only to Oral-Tradition. For, if these discoveries had been designed for the Vulgar, the Writings which contained them, would not have been styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (the proper term for Mystical Writings) nor confined to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by that means rendered inaccessible to uninitiated Persons, as they are supposed to have been. Besides that, by the present extant Epistle of Ammon, it appears that the Ammonians must not have been for divulging their Mysteries.  
§. XLIII. AND in giving this account how all that had before him, written on this Subject, might have been mistaken, he at the same time secured his own Authority from the like Exceptions. For having pretended before, that Taautus had written his Books clear from those Mythologies and Allegories wherein they had been involved by the Priests, and were afterwards again involved till they were a second time unriddled by Surmubelus and Thuro; and having made his Sanchoniathon derive his Information immediately, both from Taautus' own Books, and from the Books of those Expositors, who afterwards retrieved his way of speaking clearly without Allegories: He had hereby secured himself of two things of great moment for recommending his Credit. One was, that his Informations were derived from clear and unobscured Originals, not from Allegorical and Second-hand accounts, from them who had no mind to be understood by those to whom they communicated their Mysteries. Another was that, even for those Originals themselves, he did not depend on a single Authority. The consent of the Writings of Mercury, with those of the Ammonians, were to be mutual attestations of the Sincerity of each, (at least would be pleaded as such by him) that neither the Original Writings of Taautus, nor those retrievements from the Ammonians, might seem suspicious of being the Fictions of those who first produced them. For having pretended them to be from distant Writers, and distant places, and Sacred inaccessible Records; it would be pretended that there could not have been that Communication between them, as to make them able to agree in Forgeries. Yet was not this excluding of Allegories to be understood so, as if he had avoided all Fables; but particularly with respect to the Stoical way, whether by them derived to the later Egyptians, or borrowed from them. That was to Allegorise their first Histories into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Systeme of Natural Philosophy, to make Jupiter signify the Aether, Juno the Air, Vesta the Earth, Neptune the Sea, etc. and so to Allegorise the History of the Actions of those Persons into a History of Nature; as if indeed there had never been such Actions or Persons, but only that the several Elements of Nature had been Mystically represented by such Names, and the Phaenomena of Nature had, by a Poetical Prosopopoeia, been turned into a Romance. That these were indeed the Allegories designed by Philo Byblius, appears by these words of his: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Philo Bybl. ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. l. 9  And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
Ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. L. 10. p. 39 C.  And what with graceful mixtures of Poetical fancy, in the most Ancient Writers of their First Originals, who were generally Poets; what with that delight of the Ancients in Parables, and in vesting their Parables with Historical and likely Circumstances; what with that ordinary Method of these Mystical Writers, who usually made way for their Allegories by catching at little occasions of confuting the Historical Truth of what they designed to Allegorise (wherein we see them imitated by Philo, Origen, and the other Ancients who first began to practise this way with the Scriptures) I say with all these ways, they made it indeed seem likely, if not concerning all that was said of those Persons, yet concerning many of them, that they were not so much as designed for Historical Truths, but only for Allegorical Representation. Yet these not being distinguishable from their designed Histories, at least not in later times after the obliteration of the Original Traditions; and being withal delivered on the same Authority which delivered the designed Histories; must therefore render all their Histories liable to just Suspicion.  
§. XLIV. NOR does it seem to have been the way of Allegorising only, that Philo found fault with in the Greek Writers, and that uncertainty of their Histories which necessarily followed thereupon; but also the indecorousness of their Allegories to their Deities, which the Epicureans and Jews before, but now in Philo's time, the Christians had lately made great advantage of, for exposing the received Religions. When he makes Anobret (designed the same with Sarah) an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Vid. Porphyr. de Antr. Nymphar.  The very name of Nymph is Allegorical, and in the Philosophical Allegories, of a peculiar signification. This therefore Philo takes particular notice of, that from these Allegories of the Phoenician Priests, the Greeks had taken occasion to set up those which were so very offensive, and gave so great advantage to their common Adversaries. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Philo ap. Euseh. Pr. Eu. l. 9  These were the Allegories so much decried, not only by Adversaries, but disowned by the Philosophers generally, and such generally as, with any judgement, undertook the defence of the received Religions: That the Gods should have a beginning, and be Born by the Conjunction of Males and Females like other Mortals, (this he means by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) That they should be molested by Wars, and reduced to so great extremities, as the Fablers pretended, in the Wars with the Giants, and Typhon and Euceladus and the Titans, (those were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) That they should Emasculate one another as Saturn is pretended to have served Ouranus, and Jupiter his Father Saturn, (those are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here meant.) These the wisest Men looked on, not only as corruptions of their Histories, but as reproaches to their Gods, and Religions. Plato disowned them, and therefore sends Homer Crowned out of his Commonwealth. 
De Allegor. Homer.  So did Heraclides, and generally the Stoics, 
Plutarch. de Audiend. Poet. de ls. & Osirid. p. 355. 358. Procl. Theol. Plat. Lib. 1. c. 4. Macrob. Somn. Scip. L. 1. c. 2.  who for this very reason turned them into Allegory. So Plutarch, Proclus and Macrobius. And therefore here Philo thought he might do an acceptable piece of service to the common cause of Philosophy and Paganism in general, if he could from the Originals of these Fictions, show that they were intended for no other but Fictions, by those who first invented them; and that they had no grounds in their First and most simple, and most creditable Traditions and Histories, but were superadded by those who neither did, nor could pretend to any new means of Information, and by this means disoblige their common cause, from the defence of what the common consent of their Wise men had granted, to be indeed so very indefensible.  
§. XLV. HE pretends therefore, in his own History, to give us, from the forementioned Records, the Historical Truth concerning those Ancient Persons and Actions of the Phoenicians, free from those Additional passages concerning them, which were only invented for designs of Allegory, whether by the Greeks, or the Phoenician Priests themselves. Yet neither so does his performance agree with his undertaking. However it comes to pass (whether through the heedlessness of Philo, or his Injudiciousness in his choice out of extant Histories, what he was to Father on his Sanchoniathon,) we have some things intermixed, which neither are likely to have been true, nor to have been designed for such by the Authors; nay seem to have been designed for no other than Allegorical senses, and that in the worst most indefensible way of Allegorising, from which he had pretended to vindicate their received Religion. He makes his Saturn Emasculate his Father Ouranus. Here is one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he had before reckoned among the most Scandalous sort of Allegories. But this he may possibly pretend to have been done by his Man Saturn, who was afterwards by mistake made a God, especially as the name God employed not a Divine Honour only, but also a Divine Nature. And concerning the Man it might have been Historically true, and designed for no more by his pretended Sanchoniathon. But what shall we say to that which follows, where he makes the Blood that flowed from the wound of Ouranus to have passed into the Springs and Rivers? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Euseb. Ib. p. 38. B.  What? one Man's Blood, and from such a wound as that was, to have flowed into the Fountains and Rivers? Certainly this could have been meant for no other but an Allegory. It is like what is told concerning Osiris among the Egyptians, and the tears of Sophia among the Valentinians, who seem to have borrowed much of their Heresy from the Egyptians, where it first appeared. And I can hardly doubt, but that this was intended by the Authors from whom he took it, to show the true Original of Fountains and Rivers, that the Waters beneath the Firmament, as the Scripture distinguishes them, were derived from those above the Firmament; the Fountains of the Deep supplied from the Windows of Heaven; the Fountains and the Rivers nourished by the Rain which came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the larger Notion of it, as it includes the Air also. And possibly considering this as taken from Taautus an Egyptian, by the Rivers might be meant the several Ostia and Cuts of Nilus, from which no doubt all the Fountains of Egypt proceeded, which were accordingly turned also into Blood, when Nilus was so; and then he might allude to the Tradition of the Egyptians, that Nilus was derived from Heaven, as Diodorus tells us.  
So Homer calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  
And again,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Ib.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him is Nilus. And I am apt to think that the reason why he called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was because, of all those many Opinions which were afterwards raised concerning the Rise of Nilus, he rather inclined to that which derived it from the Air which is called Jupiter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I said in the larger Sense, whether from the Rain or the melted Snow, both of which belong to Jupiter in the sense now mentioned. The most Ancient and most Popular Opinions are most likely to have been intended by the Mythologers. And to prove that this was so, we cannot have a fitter Testimony than this of Homer. He is one of the most Ancient of the Pagan Writers. As a Poet, he is most suited to Vulgar capacity, and of nearest affinity to the Mythologists. He was an Egyptian Born, of the Egyptian Thebes, if we may believe Heliodorus. But whether we believe him or not, yet it is more unanimously agreed, that he learned most of his Philosophical Notions from the Egyptians. Whence it will follow, that this was most probably the Popular received opinion among the Egyptians in the time of Homer. And of the Two Opinions (which as I said, do make for this purpose) one of them was received by most of the Greatest and most Ancient even among the Egyptians themselves. That the Nilus had its Original from Rain, was the Opinion of 
1 Aristotle. Anonym. ap. Phot. Cod. ccxlix.  Aristotle, 
2 Agatharchides. Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. L. 1. Theoph. Simocatta ap. Phot. Cod. LXV.  Agatharchides, and of the Egyptian Priests, as 
3 Ap. Plutarch. de Plac. Philos. L. iv. c. 1.  Eudoxus assures us. That it was from Snow was the sense of 
4 Diodor. Sic. Bib. L. 1  Democritus, 
5 Diodor. Sic. Bib. L. 1  Anaxagoras, 
6 Senec. Nat. Quaest. iv. 2.  Aeschylus, 
7 Senec. Nat. Quaest. iv. 2.  Sophocles, 
8 Senec. Nat. Quaest. iv. 2.  Euripides, and all 
9 Senec. Nat. Quaest. iv. 2.  Antiquity, mentioned also by 
10 Lucret. L. vi.  Lucretius and 
11 Mela. l. 9 Diodor. Sic. Bibl. L. 1.  Mela, whether soever of the two be true, or was thought so by the Ancient Egyptians, or by the most Ancient Philosophers, (who in all likelihood borrowed what they said concerning it from the Egyptians) is equally subservient, to show what might have been the actual sense of the pretended Hermes in this Allegory. And that Nilus is derived from the blood of the Genitals of Ouranus, rather than any other part, might have been to express the Fruitfulness of this River above all others. The Slime it brought along with it, manured the Land for Corn, and was withal so very Prolific, as that it engendered several Animals, and made Women Fruitful that used the Water, and gave occasion to the Fancy of those Ancient Atheists, who thought the first men produced out of the Slime of Nilus. Now if I have hit the meaning right in this instance, this will also afford a new Argument against our pretended Sanchoniathon. Either he pretended falsely that Taautus was free from these Physiological Allegories, especially from the Scandalous sort of them, and this was a mistake that must needs have been wilful, and with ill design. He must needs have known from the Books themselves, if he had indeed any such Books, whether any such matter was so much as pretended by him. If it was pretended, but falsely; that will ruin the Credit of Taautus himself, and make him suspicious of being forged by some Modern concerned Author, which will consequently ruin the credit of Sanchoniathon also, if he pretend to know Fictions invented so long after his own time. Or else he did not confine himself to those Informations of Taautus, which were indeed free from such Allegories. And this will also be another conviction of his unsincerity in pretending what he did not intend to perform. In all likelihood it was Philo who here betrayed himself, and forgot the Person he was to Act under the name of Sanchoniathon. Which will be a conviction of his disigenuous dealing in this, as well as his other pretended means of Information.  
§. XLVI. THIS seems to have been this Author's design in pretending to the now mentioned means of Information. If I might presume yet farther, to guests why he pitched on the very name of Sanchoniathon, on whom he was desirous to Father his Forgeries; I do not know whether it might not have been in imitation of the Egyptian Sonchis, 
Solon, Plutarch. in Solon. & de Isid. & Osirid. Pythagoras Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.  to whom Solon and Pythagoras are said to have been beholden for what discoveries were made to them of the Egyptian Philosophy. He is styled an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of the most Learned of their Priests of Sais, Characters excellently qualifying him for understanding their Sacred Records, those especially of his Countryman the Egyptian Mercury. But yet because he was to make him as well as Mercury, pass for Phoenicians; therefore he might think it fit a little to disguise his name with a termination different from that whereby he was known to the Alexandrians, as he had done in the name of Mercury. He calls him designedly Taautus, whom he confesses that the Egyptians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Alexandrians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Why might he not accordingly call him Sanchoniathon, whom the Egyptians called Sonchis, especially if by such a change he could draw such an Argument for his credit from his very name, as Bochart conceives? This Sonchis had taught Solon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This seems to have been no other than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Diodorus Siculus, 
Diodor. Sic Bibl. L. iii ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. L. two.  and in all likelihood was the same with that of Mercury, as this of Sanchoniathon was professedly. For those Atlantii challenged Mercury for theirs, and made him the Son of Maja the Daughter of their famous Astrological Atlas, and it may be this was the reason why our pretended Sanchoniathon also thought fit to challenge Atlas as a Phoenician, that they might also have the double Title to that same Philosophy, on account of Atlas as well as of Mercury. I am apt to suspect that the occasion of this Philosophy of the Atlantii might have been taken from the mention of the Atlantic Island in Plato's Timaeus. This, some Author well known to Diodorus, might (in imitation of the Philosophical Mythologies, than so much in fashion, and particularly of Euemerus who wrote his Sacred History from a like pretended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a fictious Island called Panchaia) have made the Subject of new Discoveries. He might have Personated some who had found it, and in describing the place and the People, it very well became the Poem, to have given an account of their Sentiments, on those Subjects concerning which that Age was so very inquisitive and curious. Yet it also became it to derive them from Atlas, and so to fit their Opinions to his Person. Or perhaps it might rather have been that yet more ancient account of Solon, concerning the Atlantes in Verse, from whom Plato took his first occasion, 
Plutarch. Solon. p. 92. 96.  but (as Plutarch tells us) never lived to finish it. It should seem the design of these Atlantic Discourses both of Solon and Plato was much larger than that small account given in Plato's Timaeus. From some of these, rather than Timaeus, it is probable that Aelian had his Tradition that the Kings of Atlantis that were of Neptune's race, 
Aelian. de Animal. XV. 2.  wore their Diadems of Hee-goats as their Queens did of Shee-goats hairs, The Nation of the Atlantes are mentioned by the Ancients as inhabiting at the foot of Mount Atlas, 
Herodot. Melpom. Mela. 14. 8. Plin. N. Hist. v. 18.  the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aelian, upon whom these Traditions were immediately Fathered. And the Country there abouts, 
Aelian. Anim. seven. 2.  as it is described by the same Aelian probably from the same Traditions, was very pleasant and Sacred, and upon both accounts, very fit for the Scene of such a Poetic Philosophy. But though that might have been the Poetic Scene, yet the Egyptians seem to have been the Poets that contrived these Stories, that we may not admire how it should agree with the Doctrine of Mercury. For as Plato had it from Solon, so Solon seems to have pretended it no higher than Sonchis the Egyptian. And considering the Antiquity pretended of these Atlantians, no Nation could or did pretend to such Information concerning a Nation situate in the West of Africa as the Egyptians. Besides Enoch was taken for the same with this famous Astrological Atlas, 
Eupolemus ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. L. ix.  as Eupolemus tells us. How could they have taken up this conjecture, but from the agreement they had observed between the Doctrines of Atlas, and those of Enoch? How could they guests at the Doctrine of Enoch, but by the Apocryphal Writings then extant under his name? The Atlantic Doctrines therefore agreed with those of the Book of Enoch, and that those agreed also with the Forgeries then extant under the name of Mercury, has already been observed. 
§. 40.  So that Sonchis taught Solon nothing but what had very well become the Person of Sanchoniathon.  
§. XLVII. THUS I have endeavoured to give an account of the design of this whole Fiction, and that such a one as might agree both with the Time and Person of Philo Byblius. I have shown what liberty the Principles of those Philosophers allowed them for the Practice of such disingenuities. I have shown how little such an Author as Sanchoniathon was known before the time of Philo Byblius, notwithstanding all the search that had been made into the Phoenician Records, and how little regarded after. I have shown how little he savoured of the Ancient simplicity, and how much of the Modern Emulations. I have shown how little creditable he is in his pretended means of Information, and how far from that singular Love of Truth, for which he would have it believed, that his Sanchoniathon was so particularly remarkable. I have shown that those means themselves are also suspicions, either that they never were extant, as the Memoires of Gideon; or that they were Counterfeited themselves, as the Writings of Taautus and the Ammonians, and that long after the time that Sanchoniathon is pretended to have lived in; that he could have followed no Jewish Records in his accounts of Jewish matters; and that his following the Writings of Mercury and the Ammonians, divulged so long after his pretended Age, are rather Convictions of his Falsehood, than a Recommendation of his Credit. I have endeavoured also, as far as I could guests from the Circumstances he lived in, to give a particular account of the occasion and design of each particular observed in the management of this whole Fraud. And I know not what can be desired more for the Conviction of it at this distance of time, and loss of Original Monuments.  
§. XLVIII. NOR can I see that this discovery will in the least injure the Cause for which those Pious as well as Learned Persons have been concerned, who have hitherto made use of this Author for expounding or confirming some Historical or Philosophical passages of Scripture. If there were any of these Heathen Antiquities, that could either pretend to the Age of the Scriptures, or to that even Domestic Evidence of being genuine, there might then be some pretence for reconciling or confirming some passages of the Scriptures by them for their use who did not grant the advantage of the Sacred Writers above their own in regard of their Divine Inspiration. But we never hear of any of those Heathen accounts of things mentioned in the Scriptures, before the Translation of the LXXII put them into an Emulation. Then it was that Berosus, and Manetho, and Menander, and Laetus first made and published their Inquiries. No mention of the Chaldaean Xisuthrus, nor of the Egyptian Hyesi, nor of Abraham nor Moses, nor the general Deluge in Ctesias or Xenophon, or Herodotus, or any of those more Ancient certainly-genuine Writers. When they did publish them, the very Records pretended for them make them suspicious of Forgery. They were pretended only from Sacred Pillar● extant in Adyta, and these very Pillar● challenged in several places, yet not accessible by any who had been desirous to convict them. But the Scriptures were only then Translated. The Originals were extant long before in Books accessible and intelligible by any who had the curiosity to learn their Tongue. I do not insist on the Translation pretended to have been in Plato's time, because I find no better Arguments for it than guesses that Plato had some things from the Sacred Writings, which I believe he had not, besides that such a Supposition is directly contrary to the much better attested Story of Aristaeus concerning the Translation performed by the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus. I rather choose those more Ancient instances of Theopompus the Historian, and Theodectes the Poet, who had seen and understood these Books of the Jews, before the Translation of Philadelphus, as we are assured by Demetrius Phalereus in Aristaeus, 
Ap. Joseph. Ant. xii. 2.  besides that even the Book of Daniel, one of the latest of them, was yet shown to Alexander the Great, if we may believe Josephus. 
Ant. xi. 8.  So that even from the Greeks we have as early Evidence of their being known, as we have of their being enquired after, or of their being in a capacity to understand them; and there can be no reason to expect earlier. Besides the repugnancy of those other Nations to each other, and of the different Authors even of the same Nation, 
Cont. Appion. L. 1. p. 1036. F.  were certain Arguments that they did not write from the same uniform and true Records, as the Jews who all agreed in the same Books, as Josephus observes. And for the Pentateuch, that of the Samaritans must in all likelihood have been received from them before the time of the LXXII. both because the Samaritans were before that so exasperated by the Jews, as that it is not likely they would receive any such thing from them, and because it should seem the Prophets were not then collected by the Jews that they might have been delivered to them, and because they still preserve it in the Old Hebrew Character, not in that which was afterwards introduced by Esdras. Upon all these accounts it cannot be thought reasonable either to oppose these Heathen accounts to the Scriptures, or to think that any thing can be made more creditable in the Scriptures, because it is confirmed by the consent of so exceptionable Authorities. I have rather shown that the occasion of their agreeing in Philosophical matters, was rather their imitating and allowing the Authority of Moses, and making him the Standard of their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which may indeed be of use for showing Historically how that part of Moses was actually understood from those times wherein these Heathen accounts were first produced; but can be of no farther use for showing either the sense of Moses, or how the ancient first Deliverers of his Doctrine did actually understand him, than as these things may be inferred, or presumed, from the actual sense of those later times, wherein these Heathen Antiquities first appeared.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 4. Marg. l. 4. init. Marg. l. 17. Can. P. 28. l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 32. l. 15. Asclepius. P. 43. l. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [not a u but a Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the first tail cut off.] P. 47. l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 48. l. 27. Jasher. P. 57 Marg. l. 3.— lon. 1. 12. P. 58. l. 27. disposal? P. 59 l. 15. Diphyes. P. 60. Marg. l. 5. Sozo. P. 61. l. 5. V. C. P. 65. l. 25. were. P. 78. l. 10. in Ptolemy. P. 91. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [Daleth for Resh.] P. 98. l. penult. they. P. 112▪ l. 7. fictitious. P. 116. l. 13. Hycsi.  
FINIS.