wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

282 Concerning the Book I.that it might perhaps be queftioned, whether the truth and divinity of Chriftianityappear more in having prevailed againft the open force and oppofuionof its profefled enemies, or in not being at laft fmothered and opprefTedby thefe frauds and forgeries of its feeming friends and defenders. Theother extreme may be, in concluding the whole bufinefs of the Sibylline ora»that the learned Blonder hath written, it feems to be undeniably evidentfrom Virgil's fourth Idyllium, that the Cumean Sibyl was then fuppofcd tohave predicted a new fiourifhing kingdom or monarchy, together with ahappy ftate of jullice or righteoufnefs to fucceed in the latter age of theworld:Ultima Cumai ve?ut jam carminis alas,Magnus ah integro feclorum nafcitur ordo.Java redit £5? "virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,.Jam nova progenies ccelo delabitur alto, &c.Moreover, it is certain, that in Cicero's time the Sibylline prophecies wereC'V.D/o'/- 2. interpreted by fome in favour of C^far, as predidling a monarchy ; Sibylla[Cii.LlV. i;erfus obferi-amus., quos ilia furens fudijje dicitur. Riorum interpres nuperY''^ 3^3" • falfa quadam kominum fa-ma di£furiis in fenatu putabatur, eum, quern reverdOp r']* regi m habebamus, appellandum qucque eje regem, Ji falvi effe vellemus. Wetcike notice of the lerfes of the Sibyl, uhich fhe is faid to have \cured out inL. Cotta a fury or propbeti:k fren'zy, the interpreter zvhereof was lately thought to havecles (as any ways relating to Chriftianity) to have been a mere cheat and figment•, and that there never was any thing in thofe Sibylline books, whichwere under the cuftody of the ^liudecimviri, that did in the leall predictour Saviour Chrift, or the times of Chriftianity. For notwithftanding allii^^iiinecim-^^.^ about to declare in the fenatehoufe, that if we would be fafe, we fhouldackn'.wledge him for a king, who really was fo. Whicli interpretation of theSiby line oracles Cafttr C^far's death) Cicero was fo much offended with, (healfo looking upon a Roman monarchy, as a thing no lefs impofTible than undeHrable)that upon this occafion he quarrels with thofe very Sibylline oraclesthemfelves, as well as the readers and expounders of them, after thisD Div m^nfief I 2 i Hoc fi efi in libris, in quern homincm, i^ in quod tempus efi ? Callidi]*[Uui lupra i?«''^> qui ilia compofuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidt£'et, pradihum videretur,hominum £5? tempcrum definitione fuhlatd. Adhihuit etiam latehram obfcuritatis,ut iidem verfus alias in c.liam rem pojfe accommodari viderentur.Ncn ejje autem illud carmen f.irentisy turn ipfum pocma declarat, (ejl enimmagis artis i^ diligentia quam incitationis is' motus) turn verb ea qua: «zf ori^^I,-dicitur, cum deinceps ex primis verfuum Uteris aliquid conne5fitur. OuaniebreriiSibyllam quideni fepcfitam Cf ccnditavi habeamus, ut, id, quod proditumefi a majoribus, injufju fnattls ne leganlur quidem libri. If there heany fuch thing contained in the Sibylline books, then we demand, concerningwhat man is it fpoketi, and cf what time ? For whoever framed thofeSibylline verfes, he craftily contrived, that wbctfoever fijould come topofs, rr.ight feem to have been predi^fed in them, by taking away all dijiin^ionof perfons and limes, lie alfo purpofely affected obfcurity, that' Is his Treatifc of the SHrfls, printed in Funch at Paiii 1649, in 410.the