they wrote upon no consistent plan, but each as his own temporary views and occasions required.

When I entered on a confutation of Sir Isaac Newton's Egyptian Chronology (for with that only I have here to do), I was willing for the greater satisfaction of the reader to set his arguments for the identity of Osiris and Sesostris, on which that Chronology was founded, in the strongest and clearest light. On this account I took them as I found them collected, ranged in order, and set together in one view, with the greatest advantage of representation, by the very worthy and learned Master of the Charter-house, in a professed apology for our great Philosopher. But this liberty the learned

writer hath been pleased to criticise in the Latin edition* of the tracts to which that apology was prefixed-"I am not ignorant" (says he†) "that the author of The Divine Legation supposing it, some how or other, to concern Moses's divine mission, to prove that Osiris was not the same with Sesostris, hath lately turned all that is here said into ridicule, by a comparison made between the fabulous ARTHUR and WILLIAM the Norman; who, he says, may be made one by as good reasons (though they have scarce any thing alike or in common with one another) as those which we have brought to confound Osiris with Sesostris and on this point he draws out a disputation through seventy pages and upwards; in which, however, he neither denies nor confutes, but only laughs at what we have here said of Sesostris. It is true indeed that some other of Newton's assertions he does oppose; such as those concerning the late invention of arts, arms, and instruments by some certain king; and in this part of the argument he gets the better. For that these things were found out by the Egyptians long before the age of Sesostris, holy Writ commands us to believe : but whether found out by any of their kings, is not so certain. However, these were matters we never touched upon, as relating nothing to our purpose; nor do they yet induce us to recede from that conclusion of the famous Newton, that Sesac was Sesostris, Osiris, and Bacchus. But the cause being now brought before the

• De veris Annis D. N. Jesus Christi natali et emortuali Dissertationes duæ Chronologica. "Non nescimus nuperrime accidisse, ut Vir ingenio et eruditione præstans, quum ratus sit ad divinam legationem Mosis demonstrandum aliquo modo pertinere, ut probetur Osiris non esse idem cum Sesostri, omnia huc allata in lusum jocumque verterit, instituta comparatione Arthuri illius fabulosi cum Wilhelmo Normanno, quos æquè bonis rationibus in unum hominem conflari posse ait (quamvis nihil fere habeant inter se commune aut simile) ac nos Osirin cum Sesostri confundimus. Et de hac re disputationem in 70 paginas et ultra producit. In qua tamen hæc nostra de Sesostri neque negat, neque refellit, sed irridet. Alia vero quædam Newtoni dicta de sero inventis ab aliquo rege artibus, armis, instrumentis oppugnat, et ea quidem parte causæ vincit. Nam ut ista longe ante Sesostris ætatem apud Ægyptios reperta sint, Scriptura sacra jubet credere; ab ullo unquam regum inventa esse haud ita certum. Sed ea prius non attigimus, ut quæ nihil ad propositum nostrum attinent, neque nunc nos movent, ut pedem retrahamus ab ista Cl. Newtoni conclusione Sesacum, Sesostrim, Osirin et Bacchum fuisse. Lite jam contestata judicent eruditi."-In Dedic. pp. xii. xiii.

Public, let the learned determine of it." Thus far this candid and ingenuous writer.

He says, the author of The Divine Legation supposes that it some how or other concerns Moses's divine mission to prove Osiris not the same with Sesostris; which seems to imply that this learned person doth not see How it concerns it. And yet afterwards he owns, that Scripture (meaning the writings of Moses) will not allow us to believe with Sir Isaac, that the invention of arts, arms, and instruments, was so late as the time of Sesostris. Now it follows (as I have shewn) by certain consequence, that if Osiris and Sesostris were one and the same, then the invention of arts was as late as the time of Sesostris. But this contradicting Scripture or the writings of Moses, as the learned person himself confesseth, the reader sees plainly, How it concerns Moses's mission to prove Osiris not the same with Sesostris.

The learned writer, speaking of the comparison I had made between Arthur and William the Norman, says, they have scarce any thing alike or in common with one another. I had brought together thirteen circumstances (the very number which the learned writer thinks sufficient to establish the identity of Osiris and Sesostris) in which they perfectly agree. I am persuaded he does not suspect me of falsifying their history. He must mean therefore, that thirteen in my comparison, prove nothing, which, in his, prove every thing.

He goes on,-in a disputation of seventy pages and upwards, the author of The Divine Legation neither denies nor confutes, but only laughs at what we have said of Sesostris. What is it the learned

writer hath said of Sesostris? Is it not this? That between his history and that of Osiris there are many strokes of resemblance: From whence he infers (with Sir Isaac) that these two Heroes were one and the same. Now if he means, I have neither denied nor confuted this resemblance, he says true. I had no such design. It is too well marked by Antiquity to be denied. Neither, let me add, did I laugh at it. What I laughed at (if my bringing a similar case is to be so called) was his inference from this resemblance, that therefore Osiris and Sesostris were one and the same. But then too I did

First I denied it, though Osiris and

more than laugh: I both denied and confuted it. by shewing that this resemblance might really be, Sesostris were two different men, as appeared by an equal resemblance in the actions of two different men, the British Arthur and William the Norman. But as the general history of ancient Egypt would not suffer us to believe all that the Greek writers have said of this resemblance, I then explained the causes which occasioned their mistaken accounts of the two persons, from whence so perfect a resemblance had arisen. Secondly, I confuted what the learned person had said of Sesostris, by shewing, from the concurrent testimony of Antiquity,

and from several internal arguments deducible from that testimony, that Osiris and Sesostris were in fact two different persons, living in distant ages.

two very

The learned writer proceeds,—It is true indeed that some other of Newton's assertions he does oppose; such as those concerning the late invention of arts, arms, and instruments; and in this part of the argument he gets the better. But if I have the better here, it is past dispute I overthrow the whole hypothesis of the identity of Osiris and Sesostris. For, as to the resemblance, which Antiquity hath given them, that, considered singly when the pretended late invention of arts hath been proved a mistake, will indeed deserve only to be laughed at. But were it, as Sir Isaac Newton endeavoured to prove, that the invention of arts was no earlier than the time of Sesostris or Sesac, there is then indeed an end of the ancient Osiris of Egypt; and the Hero, so much boasted of by that people, can be no other than the Sesostris of this, author. For the very foundation of the existence of the ancient Osiris was his civilizing Egypt, and teaching them the Arts of life: But if this were done by Sesostris, or in his reign, then is HE the true Osiris of Egypt. As, on the contrary, were the invention of arts as early as SCRIPTURE-HISTORY represents it, then is Egypt to be believed, when she tells us that Osiris, their Inventor of arts, was many ages earlier than Sesostris their Conqueror And consequently, all Sir Isaac Newton's identity separates and falls to pieces. In a word, take it which way you will, If Osiris were the same as Sesostris, then must the invention of Arts (for all Antiquity have concurred in giving that invention to Osiris) be as late as the age of Sesostris, the Sesac of Newton: but this, SCRIPTUREHISTORY will not suffer us to believe. If, on the other hand, Osiris and Sesostris were not the same, then was the invention of Arts (and for the same reason) much earlier than the age of Sesostris; as indeed all mankind thought before the construction of this new Chronology. These were the considerations which induced that Great man, who so well understood the nature and force of evidence, to employ all the sagacity of his wonderful talents in proving the invention of Arts to be about the age of his Sesostris or Sesac. And is it possible he should have a follower who cannot see that he hath done this? or the necessity he had of doing it? It will be said, perhaps, "that Sir Isaac has, indeed, argued much for the low invention of Arts: but had neither inforced it under the name of an argument, nor stated it in the form here represented." The objection would ill become a follower of Newton, who knows that his Master's method, as well in these his critical as in his physical inquiries, was to form the principal members of his demonstration with an unornamented brevity, and leave the supplial of the small connecting parts to his

reader's sagacity. Besides, in so obvious, so capital, so necessary an argument for this identity, it had been a ridiculous distrust of common sense, after he had spent so much pains in endeavouring to prove the low invention of Arts, to have ended his reasoning in this formal way: "And now, Reader, take notice that this is a conclusive, and perhaps the only conclusive argument for the identity of Osiris and Sesostris." Lastly, let me observe, that the very reason which induced Sir Isaac to be so large in the establishment of his point, the low invention of Arts, induced me to be as large in the subversion of it. And now some satisfactory account, I hope, is given of the seventy long pages.

What follows is still more unaccountable-However these were matters (says the learned writer, speaking of the invention of Arts) we never touched upon, as relating nothing to our purpose. Here I cannot but lament the learned writer's ill fortune. There was but this very circumstance in the book he would defend, which is essential to his purpose, and this he hath given up as nothing to his purpose; and more unlucky still, on a review of the argument, he hath treated it as an error in his author, who took so much pains about it; but yet as an error that doth not at all affect the point in question. For,

He concludes thus-Nor do they yet induce me to recede from that conclusion of the famous Newton, that Sesac was Sesostris, Osiris and Bacchus.-Sesac, as I said before, I have no concern with. And as

to Bacchus, it is agreed that this was only one of the names of Osiris. The thing I undertook to prove was, that Osiris and Sesostris were not the same person: but in doing this, I did not mean to say that Osiris was not one of the names of Sesostris. This is a very different thing and the rather to be taken notice of, because I suspect a quibble in the words of the learned writer, which would confound the difference. Nor is my suspicion unreasonable. For I have met with some of his most learned followers, who have ventured to say, that Sir Isaac meant no more than that Sesostris was AN Osiris. But if he meant no more, I would allow him to mean any thing; and never to have his meaning disputed. I, for my part, and so I suppose every body else, understood him to mean, "That the old Osiris, famous, amongst the Egyptians, for Legislation and the invention of the Arts. of life, was the very same man with Sesostris, whom these Egyptians make to be a different man, of a later age, and famous for the Conquest of the habitable world." This was the proposition I undertook to confute. Wherein I endeavoured to shew, "that there was a real Osiris, such as the Egyptians represented him, much earlier than their real Sesostris." And now (to use this writer's words) the cause being brought before the public, let the learned determine of it. As to

the other point, that Sesostris went by the name of the earlier Hero, this I not only allow, but contend for, as it lays open to us one of the principal causes of that confusion in their stories, which hath produced a similitude of actions, whereon Sir Isaac Newton layeth the foundation of their IDENTITY.

But if Sir Isaac Newton and his learned Advocate have paid too little deference to Antiquity, there are, who, in a contrary extreme, would pay a great deal too much. The learned Dr. Pococke, in his book of travels, introduceth his discourse On the mythology of the ancient Egyptians in this extraordinary manner: "As the mythology, or fabulous religion of the ancient Egyptians, may be looked on, in a great measure, as the foundation of the heathen Religion in most other parts; so it may not be improper to give some account of the origin of it, as it is delivered by the most ancient authors, which may give some light both to the description of Egypt, and also to the history of that country. We may suppose, that the Ancients were the best judges of the nature of their Religion; and consequently, that all interpretations of their Mythology, by MEN OF FRUITFUL INVENTIONS, that have no sort of foundation in their writings, are forced, and such as might never be intended by them. On the contrary, it is necessary to retrench several things the Ancients themselves seem to have invented, and grafted on true history; and, in order to account for many things, the Genealogies and Alliances they mention must in several respects be false or erroneous, and seem to have been invented to accommodate the honours of the same Deities to different persons, they were obliged to deify, who lived at different times; and so they were obliged to give them new names, invent genealogies, and some different attributes."*

He says, We may suppose that the ancients were the best judges of the nature of their religion, and of their mythology. But the Ancients, here spoken of, were not Egyptians, but Greeks; and the Mythology here spoken of was not Greek, but Egyptian: Therefore these Ancients might well be mistaken about the nature of a Religion which they borrowed from strangers; the principles of which, they tell us, were always kept secreted from them. But this is not all; they in fact were mistaken; and by no means good judges of the nature of their Religion, if we may believe one of the most authentic of these Ancients, HERODOTUS himself, where discoursing of the Greeks he expresly says, "But the origin of each God, and whether they are all from eternity, and what is their several kinds or natures, to speak the truth, they neither knew at that time nor since."†

The learned Traveller goes on—and CONSEQUENTLY that all interpretations of their Mythology by men of FRUITFUL INVENTIONS, that