Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	find_v	great_a	king_n	3,579	5	3.5272	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61580	Origines sacræ, or, A rational account of the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1662 (1662)	Wing S5616; ESTC R22910	519,756	662

reason of this diversity but that they thought them not so authentick but they might cut off alter and transpose as they saw occasion which is most plain and evident in Eusebius who makes no difficulty of ●utting of one whole Dynasty and dividing another into two only to reconcile the distance between Thuoris the Egyptian King and Tentamus the Assyrian Emperour and the destruction of Troy and therefore leaves out 4. Assyrian Kings and a whole Dynasty of the Egyptians to make a Synchronisme between those three But yet there hath been something very fairly offered to the world to clear the truth if not Manetho in order to his Dynastyes viz. that the subtle Egyptian to inhance the antiquity of his own Country did take implicite years for solid and place those in a succession which were cotemporary one with another This indeed is a very compendious way to advance a great sum of years with a very little charge Wherein he hath done saith Cappellus as if a Spaniard in the Indies should glory of the antiquity of the Dynastyes of Spain and should attribute to the Earles of Barcinona 337. years to the King of Arragon 498. to the King of Portugal 418. to the King of Leo 545. of Castile 800. years and yet all these Dynastyes rise from the years of our Lord 717. when the Saracens first entred Spain There are very few Nations but will go near to vie antiquity with the Egyptians if they may thus be allowed to reckon successively all those petty royalties which antiently were in most Nations as might be particularly instanced in most great Empires that they gradually rise from the subduing and incorporating of those petty royalties into which the several Nations were cantonized before And there seems to be very strong ground of suspition that some such thing was designed by Manetho from the 32. Dynasty which is of the Diospolitan Thebans for this Dynasty is said to begin from the tenth year of the 15. Dynasty of the Phaenician Pastours in the time of Saites now which is most observable he that begins this Dynasty is of the very same name with him who begins the very first Dynasty of Manetho who is Menes and so likewise his son Athothis is the same in both Which hath made many think because Menes is reckoned first not only in both these but in Diodorus Eratosthenes and others that this Menes was he who first began the Kingdom of Egypt after whose time it was divided into several Dynastyes Which makes Scaliger say illa vet ustissima regna fuerunt instar latrociniorum ubi vis non lex aut successio aut suffragia populi reges in solio regni collocabant This opinion of the coexistence of these Dynastyes is much embraced by Vossius both Father and Son and by the Father made use of to justifie Scaliger from calumniatours who made as though Scaliger did in effect overthrow the authority of the Scriptures by mentioning with some applause the Dynastyes of Manetho But to this opinion how plausible soever it seems I offer these exceptions First As to that Menes who is supposed to be the first founder of the Aegyptian Kingdom after whose death it is supposed that Aegypt was divided into all these Dynastyes I demand therefore who this Menes was was he the same with him whom the Scripture calls Misraim who was the first Planter of Egypt this is not probable for in all probability his name must be sought among the Gods and not the mortals that raigned If we suppose him to be any other after him it will be hard giving an account how he came to have the whole power of Egypt in his hands and so soon after him it should be divided For Kingdoms are ofttimes made up of those petty royalties before but it will be very hard finding instances of one persons enjoying the whole power and so many Dynastyes to arise after his decease and to continue coexistent in peace and full power so long as these several Dynastyes are supposed to do Besides is it not very strange that no Historian should mention such a former distribution of several principalities so antiently in Egypt But that which to me utterly overthrows the coexistence of these Dynastyes in Egypt is by comparing with them what we finde in Scripture of greatest antiquity concerning the Kingdom of Egypt which I cannot but wonder that none of these learned men should take notice of When the Egyptian Kingdom was first founded is not here a place to enquire but it is evident that in Abrahams time there was a Pharaoh King of Egypt whom Archbishop Usher thinks to have been Apophis not Abimelech the first King of Egypt as Constantinus Manasses reports in his Annals by a ridiculous mistake of the King of Gerar for the King of Egypt This Pharaoh was then certainly King of all the Land of Egypt which still in Scripture is called the Land of Misraim from the first planter of it and this was of very great antiquity and therefore Funccius though improbably thinks this Pharaoh to have been Osiris and Rivet thinks Misraim might have been alive till that time here then we find no Dynastyes coexisting but one Kingdom under one King If we descend somewhat lower to the times of Iacob and Ioseph the evidence is so undoubted of Aegypts being an entire Kingdom under one King that he may have just cause to suspect the ●yes either of his body or his mind that distrusts it For what more evident then that Pharaoh who preferred Ioseph was King of all the Land of Aegypt Were not the seven years of famine over all the Land of Aegypt Gen. 41. 55. Was not Joseph set by Pharaoh over all the Land of Aegypt Gen. 41. 41 43 45. And did not Joseph go over all the Land of Aegypt to gather corn Gen. 41. 46. Nay did not he buy all the Land of Aegypt for Pharaoh Gen. 47. 20. Can there possibly be given any fuller evidence of an entire Kingdom then these are that Egypt was such then Afterwards we read of one King after another in Egypt for the space of nigh two hundred years during the children of Israels slavery in Egypt and was not he think we King over all Egypt in whose time the children of Israel went out thence And in all the following history of Scripture is there not mention made of Aegypt still as an entire Kingdom and of one King over it Where then is there any place for these co-temporary Dynastyes in Aegypt Nowhere that I know of but in the sancies of some learned men Indeed there is one place that seems to give some countenance to this opinion but it is in far later times then the first Dynastyes of Manetho are supposed to be in which is in Isai. 19. 2. Where God saith he would set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians and they shall fight every one against his brother City against City and Kingdom

demonstrating the undoubted antiquity of one beyond the other whereby we must do as Archimedes did by the crown of Hiero find out the exact proportions of truth and falshood which lay in all those Heathen Fables And this now leads to the third account why truth is so hardly discerned from errour even by those who search after it which is the great obscurity of the History of Ancient Times which should decide the Controversie For there being an universal agreement in some common principles and a frequent resemblance in particular traditions we must of necessity for the clearing the truth from its corruption have recourse to ancient history to see if thereby we can find out where the Original tradition was best preserved by what means it came to be corrupted and whereby we may distinguish those corruptions from the Truths to which they are annexed Which is the design and subject of our future discourse viz. to demonstrate that there was a certain original and general tradition preserved in the world concerning the oldest Ages of the world that this tradition was gradually corrupted among the Heathens that not withstanding this corruption there were sufficient remainders of it to evidence its true original that the sull account of this tradition is alone preserved in those books we call the Scriptures That where any other histery seems to cross the report contained in them we have sufficient ground to question their credibility and that there is sufficient evidence to clear the undoubted certainty of that histery which is contained in the sacred Records of Scripture Wherein we shall observe the same method which Thales took in taking the height of the Pyramids by measuring the length of their shadow so shall we the height and antiquity of truth from the extent of the fabulous corruptions of it Which will be a work of so much the greater difficulty because the truth we pursue after takes covert in so great antiquity and we must be forced to follow its most flying footsteps through the dark and shady paths of ancient history For though history be frequently called the Light of Truth and the Herald of Times yet that light is so faint and dim especially in Heathen Nations as not to serve to discover the face of Truth from her counterseit Error and that Herald so little skill'd as not to be able to tell us which is of the Elder house The reason is though Truth be always of greater Antiquity yet Errour may have the more wrinkled face by which it often imposeth on such who guess antiquity by deformity and think nothing so old as that which can give the least account of its own age This is evidently the case of those who make the pretence of ancient history a plea for Insidelity and think no argument more plausible to impugn the certainty of Divine Rev●lation with then the seeming repugnancy of some pretended histories with the account of ancient time reported in the Bible Which being a pretext so unworthy designed for solill an end and so frequently made use of by such who account Infidelity a piece of antiquity as well as reason it may be worth our while to shew that it is not more liable to be baffled with reason then to be confuted by Antiquity In order therefore to the removing of this stumbling-block in our way I shall first evince that there is no certain credibility in any of those ancient histories which seem to contradict the Scriptures nor any ground of reason why we should assent to them when they differ from the Bible and then prove that all those undoubted characters of a most certain and authentick historie are legible in those records contained in Scripture Whereby we shall not only shew the unreasonableness of Infidelity but the rational evidence which our faith doth stand on as to these things I shall demonstrate the first of these viz that there is no ground of assent to any ancient histories which give an account of things different from the Scriptures from these arguments the apparent desect weakness and insufficiency of them as to the giving an account of elder times The monstrous confusion ambiguity and uncertainty of them in the account which they give the evident partiality of them to themselves and inconsistency with each other I begin with the first of these the defect and insufficiency of them to give in such an account of elder times as may amount to certain credibility which if cleared will of its self be sufficient to manifest the incompetency of those records as to the laying any foundation for any firm assent to be given to them Now this defect and insufficiency of those histories is either more general which lies in common to them all or such as may be observed in a particular consideration of the histories of those several Nations which have pretended highest to Antiquity The General defect is the want of timely records to preserve their histories in For it is most evident that the truest history in the world is liable to various corruptions through length of time if there be no certain way of preserving it entire And that through the frailty of memory in those who had integrity to preserve it through the gradual increase of Barbarism and Ignorance where there are no wayes of instruction and through the subtilty of such whose interest it may be to corrupt and alter that tradition If we find such infinite variety and difference of men as to the histories of their own times when they have all possible means to be acquainted with the truth of them what account can we imagine can be given by those who had no certain way of preserving to posterity the most authentick relation of former Ages Especially it being most evident that where any certain way of preserving tradition is wanting a people must soon degenerate into the greatest stupidity and Barbarism because all will be taken up in minding their own petty concerns and no encouragement at all given to such publick spirits who would mind the credit of the whole Nation For what was there for such to employ themselves upon or spend their time in when they had no other kind of Learning among them but some general traditions conveyed from Father to Son which might be learned by such who followed nothing but domestick employments So that the sons of Noah after their several dispersions and plantations of several Countries did gradually degenerate into Ignorance and Barbarism for upon their first setling in any Countrey they found it employment sufficient to cultivate the Land and fit themselves habitations to live in and to provide themselves of necessities for their mutual comfort and subsistence Besides this they were often put to removes from one place to another where they could not conveniently reside which Thucydides speaks much of as to the ancient state of Greece and it was a great while before they came to imbody themselves together