of his proposing them as Mr. Blount doth his Oracles he plainly enough insinuates to an intelligent Reader that his design was no other than to overthrow the Authority of the Pentateuch out of his Store-house it is that Hobbs Spinosa and other such Politicians in Mr. Blount's Common-wealth of Learning have furnished themselves with Objections such as they are and which have been often answered My Second Observation is That not only Philo Judaeus Josephus and all others as well Ancient and Modern Jews did understand by the Law the whole Pentateuch but also the Gentiles did understand it in the same manner and consequently it cannot be imagined that the Law mentioned by our Lord should be taken in a different Sense The Author I shall cite for Proof hereof is Dionysius Longinus in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Legislator of the Jews no common Person when he declares and makes known the Power of his God according to his Majesty presently in the beginning of his Laws he tells us that God said Let there be Light and it was so Longinus in this place calls the beginning of Genesis the beginning of Moses's Laws And if Genesis comes under that Denomination I think no question can be made of the other Books nor of the true Sense of those places by me brought out of the New Testament My Last Observation is That one of the great Proofs of revealed Religion depends on the Antiquity and Verity of the Mosaic Writings if these Books were not written by Moses a wide Gate would be opened for Libertines and Deists to redicule them and to expose them for Fables Preadamitism and the Eternity of the World might be received as uncontroulable Doctrines and Christian Religion deprived of the Support of those Writings to which our Lord was pleased to make an Appeal So that is is no wonder that Mr. Blount should be so positive and endeavour with such Confidence to subvert these Writings by affirming That it is evident that Moses was not the Author of them He well knowing that his pretended Oracles of Reason will be accounted Scandalous and False as long as this part of Holy Scriptures the Mosaic Writings can be defended SECT II. Of PARADISE IN this Section the Mosaic History of the Creation is wickedly ridiculed What Ireneus says of some of the Ancient Heresies viz. That the very naming of them is a sufficient Refutation the same may be said of some Passages I shall here Transcribe Pag. 25. There is a Dialogue between the Serpent and Eve It hapned upon a time that Eve sitting solitary under a Tree without her Husband there came to her a Serpent or Adder which I know not by what Means or Power civilly accosted the Woman in these Words or to this Purpose All hail most fair One What are you doing so solitary and serious under this Shade Pag. 26. Eve says Let me see had I best use it or no What can be more beautiful than this Apple How sweetly it smells but it may be it tasts ill Serpent If it tasts ill throw it away and say I am a great Lyar. Eve Well I 'll try thou hast not deceived me Give me one that I may carry it to my Husband Serpent Well thought on here 's another for you go to your Husband with it Farewel young Woman Pag. 27. God says to the Serpent Hereafter vile Beast instead of eating Apples thou shalt lick the Dust of the Earth and as for you Mistress Curious in sorrow shall you bring forth Children Pag. 33. It perplexes me how out of one Rib the whole Mass of a Womans Body could be built for a Rib doth not equal the hundredth perhaps not the thousandth Part of an entire Body Pag. 44. The Text says They sewed Fig-Leaves together and therewith made themselves Aprons From whence you may deduce the Original of the Taylors Trade But where had they Needles and where their Thread the very first Day of their Creation since the Thâ—ead-makers Art was not yet found out nor yet the Art of Working in Iron ANSWER In this Section are many such Queries but these are more then sufficient to make any Man Nauseate For what Man that hath but a Mâ—â—e of Piety will not be concerned to read such Expressions to read the Holy Oracles of God to be thus droll'd on by these pretended ones and this sacred Book of God to be thus exposed by a scurrilous Libel Our Author often cites the Canons of the Church when they serve his Turn Here he mentions none and I am certain there is good Reason for it for not to mention ancient Canons which he must necessarily know condemns this Practice The Council of Trent condemns it and in Session 4th condemns them who shall convert and wrest the Words of Holy Scripture to Prophaneness Scurrilousness Fabulousness Flatteries Distractions Superstitions or too scurrilous Libels The first Council of Millain declares That their Rashness is very wicked who absue the Words or Sentences of Holy Scripture to Flattery Contumely Superstition Impiety or to any prophane Purposes and that the Bishops are to punish such Offenders according to the holy Canons So that as far as I know this folly of our Author in sporting thus with Holy Scripture is condemned by all Christians of any particular Denomination in the whole World What is material and worthy of Consideration in this Section we will now examine Pag. 36. These are the Words of Moses There comes a River out of Eden to water the Garden and from thence it divides it self into four Branches the Name of the first is Pishon c. Gen. 2. Ver. 10. Whereby it is apparent that either in the Entrance or Exit of the Garden there were four Rivers and that those four Rivers did proceed from one and the same Fountain-head in Eden Now pray tell me in what part of the Earth is this Country of Eden where Four Rivers arise from one and the same Spring ANSWER That there may be a plain and a full Solution of the difficulties the Oracle proposes both in this Paragaph and in the other which shall be examined in this Section I shall premise a Consideration or Two of good use in the Matters under Debate The First Consideration shall be of the Opinions of the Ancient Jews and Christians as to this Book of Genesis The Second shall be of the great alterations that have happened to many places of the Earth since the Creation Out of which it will appear that many places then well known may now be wholy unknown to us Lastly I shall make a brief Reply to what the Oracle hath here declared The First Consideration relating to the Ancient Jews is that they always looked on the Book Genesis as a Book hard to be understood yet to contain a literal Sense St. Jerom in his Preface to his Commentaries on Ezechiel says Nisi quis apud eos aetatem Sacerdotalis
Ministerii id est tricesimum annum implever it principium Geneseos legere non permittitur Unless a Man had attained to the Year of the Sacerdotal Ministry which is the Thirtieth Year compleat they were not permitted to Read the beginning of Genesis Which Practice appears also out of the Prologue Galeat and from Origen on the Canticles we are told by both that the Jewish Doctors forbid these Four things because of their Difficulty and Profoundness to be read by any but such as attained to Thirty Years of Age and those were the Three First Chapters of Genesis the beginning and end of the Prophet Ezechiel and the Book of Canticles This Decree of the Jewish Doctors is also mentioned by Prosper Aquitanicus lib. 3. de Vita Contemplativa c. 6. Where he gives us a good Account thereof and contends for the literal Sense Now altho they account this Book obscure yet I do not find that any of the Ancient Jews excluded a literal Sense Philo Judaeus excepted whose Arguments are very weak and unbecoming so great an Author It was a known rule among the Rabbies that Scripture falls not in with the Midrash i. e. The Scriptures are to be Interpreted in a literal Sense And Buxtorf de punct Antique tells us That when the Allegorical or Cabalistick Sense is contrary to the Literal the Cabalistick is to be rejected neither must we think otherwise of the Modern Jews if they will be consentaneous to themselves and the Eighth Article of their Creed Out of which it necessarily follows that altho the Jews allowed an Allegorical Sense yet they never allowed any which interfered with the Literal If we consult the Ancient Christians we shall find that they were careful to preserve the Literal Sense of Genesis Epiphanius in Ancorato c. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If there be no Literal and Sensible Paradise then there is no Fountain no River no Pison no Gihon no Tigris no Euphrates no Fruit no Leaves no Adam no eating the Forbiden Fruit but the whole truth is a Fable and nothing but Allegory And c. 54. of the same Ancorate he calls Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a furious Mad Man for his obtruding on the World Allegory instead of a Literal Truth St. Jerom in his Comentaries on Daniel c. 10. Writing something with relation to the Mosaical Creation seems to be much concerned in these Words Eorum deliramenta conticescant qui umbras imagines in veritate quaerentes ipsam conantur subvertere veritatem ut flumina Arbores Paradisum putent allegoriae legibus se debere subruere Let their follies be gone who searching after shadows and Images in the Truth endeavour the subversion of the Truth it self and think to bring Trees Rivers and Paradise it self under their Rules of Allegory St. Austin lib. 8. de Genesi ad literam cap. 1. Having delivered His opinion that some things in Genesis may admit as he calls it a Spiritual Sense doth then in general declare Narratio in his Libris non genus locutionis figuratarum rerum est sicut in cantico canticorum sed omnino gestarum est sicut in Regnorum libris hujuscemodi Ceteris The account which we have in the Book of Genesis is not Allegorical or Figurative as in the Book of Canticles but it is Historical and Literal as in the Books of the Kings and such like Historical Books As to the Second Consideration which relates to the great Changes which have happened to the Surface of the Earth I need not say much since I think it is taken for granted by all that have any acquaintance with History or Geography We Read in Plato's Timaeus of a Discourse between the Egyptian Priests and Solon about Six Hundred Years before our Saviour Solon is told there that of old Time without the Streights of Gibraltar there was a very great Island called Atlantis bigger then Asia and Africa put together and the said Island was afterward by a great Inundation and Earthquake in one Day and Night wholly overwhelmed and drowned in the Sea Some of the Ancients as Strato quoted by Strabo in the first Book of his Geography say that the fretum gaditanum or Streight of Gibraltar was forcibly broken open by the Sea The same they affirm of the Thracian Bosphorus and Hellespont that the Rivers filling up the Euxine Sea forced a Passage that way where there was none before of the like nature is that account of the Samothracians mentioned by Diadorus Siculus The River Arnus in Tuscany now falleth into the Sea Six Miles below Piza Whereby it it appeareth saith Dr. Hakewel that the Land hath gain'd much upon the Sea in that Coast for that Strabo in his time reporteth it was but Twenty Furlongs that is but Two Miles and a half distant from the Sea Varenius Conjectures That all China which is as bigg as all Europe or a great part of it was raised Originally from the Sea for that great and impetuous River called the Yellow or Saffron River coming out of Tartary and very often overflowing the Country of China is said to contain in it so much Earth and Sand as make up a Third part of its Waters the evenness and level Superficies of the whole Country of China renders this conjectture the more probable as that great Phylosopher Mr. Ray is of opinion in the 5th Chapter of the Consequences of the Deluge I shall here add what we find to this purpose in that excellent Geographer Maginus in his Preface and in Ocellus Lucanus Certum est says Maginus Insignes variationes in terrae partibus continuo evenire propter aquarum Inundationes marium praeruptiones ac recessus etenim non solum Regiones urbis oppida flumina alia hujusmodi sua nomina pro tempore mutant amissis prorsus prioribus Verum etiam fines ipsarum Regionum variantur urbes oppidaque senectute delentur Mare in uno loco Continentem Terrae dilatat in alio coarctat flumina quandoque augescunt quandoque minuuntur quandoque cursus variant quandoque etiam prorsus deficiunt sic quoque fontes stagna paludes alibi exiccaentur alibi vero procreantur 'T is certain there are great variations on the Surface of the Earth which continually happen by Inundations the breaking in and recess of the Sea Nay not only Countrys Citys Towns Rivers and the like change their Names but also Limits and Bounds the Sea in one place gains on the Land in another place it loseth Rivers sometimes grow sometimes lessen sometimes change their Channel sometimes wholy fail Fountains great standing Waters and Marshes in some places are dried up and appear in other places where they never were before Ocellus Lucanus who is an Author much valued by Mr. Blount p. 21â— of the Oracles hath these Words Nâ—w corruptions and violent alterations are made according to the parts of the Earth sometimes by the overflowing of the Sea Sometimes with
perhaps cannot excuse him from Blasphemy and a design of Subverting the Holy Oracles For how little regard he hath for them appears from his Parenthesis concerning the Duration of Future Rewards and Punishments the Scriptures being positive as well in the one as in the other and the Duration of them is of absolute necessity to compleat the Justice of God as to persect the Happiness of Man not only in this World but in that which is to come if the Scriptures be true What he says of the Arguments which may be deduced from Philosophy and Reason we will now examine and produce the strongest and most insisted on This Argument is laid down by Plato in his Phaedrus made use of by Tully in his Tusculan Questions Book the first and in his sixth Book of a Common-wealth Plato is always preferr'd by Tully before Aristotle and is called by him The God of Philosophers And now let us see how he proves the Soul's Immortality on which depend Future Rewards and Punishments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that mighty Argument which Plato calls a Demonstration and concludes this is sufficient for the demonstration thereof The Analysis of which is The Soul is always in Motion that which is always in Motion is Self-moving that which is Self-moving is never deserted of it self that which never deserts it self never ceases to move that which never ceases to move is the Source and Origin of all Motion that which is the Source of all Motion hath no Beginning and that which hath no Beginning hath no Ending Whereas every Proposition is either false or uncertain or incoherent as Mr. Parker in his Censure of the Platonick Philosophy hath observed Many such like trifling Argumentations are remarked by Baptista Crispus And Theopompus truly maintains that many of Plato's Dialogues are trifling and false as many of them are stolen out of the Discourses of Aristippus or Antisthenes or Bryson of Heraclea Can any Man in his right Wits imagine that the immortality of the Soul can be proved from hence Can any Man think that Plato himself thought this to be a good Proof Certainly I think notwithstanding his Boasts of a Demonstration he could not be so vain nor so illogical as to think so Manimus Tyrius in his 28th Dissertation tells us that Pythagoras was the first Philosopher among the Greeks who did dare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his Word to own the Immortality of the Soul Whereas if this had been a Matter of absolute Necessity antecedent to Revelation there had been no such Presumption in Pythagoras So that this Argument of great Weight as he calls it is of no Weight at all It may perhaps become the Harangues of the Parsons as our Author scornfully writes p. 118. in a Country Auditory but is very unbecoming such a Damasippus and great Bearded Philosopher as our Author is accounted by his Admirers Pythagoras also according to the foresaid Author is said to be the first who asserted the Pre-existence of Souls which was a very general Opinion amongst the Ancients Of this Opinion were the Gymnosophists and other wise Men of Egypt the Brachmans of India the Magi of Babylon and Persia as appears plainly by the Magical Oracles of Zoroaster with the Scholies of Pletho and the Chaldaic Oracle with the Scholies of Psellus Nay Aristotle himself was of this Opinion as is to be seen in his second Book De Generat Animal c. 3. where his Opinion of the Immortality of the Soul and Pre-existence are so connected as if the one did suppose the other Now the Arguments made use of were exclusively drawn from the Soul 's Operations incommunicable to the Body which is the best Argument Natural Reason can suggest The Method of our Author is wholly new and the Weakness of it rather Subverts then Establisheth what it pretends Wherefore I shall conclude this Subject in the Words of the most learned Bishop of Worcester in the third Book of his Origines Sacrae p. 608 and 609. The Scriptures give the most faithful Representation of the State and Condition of the Soul of Man The World was almost lost in Disputes concerning the Nature Condition and Immortality of the Soul before Divine Revelation was made known to Mankind by the Gospel of Christ but Life and Immortality was brought to Light by the Gospel and the future State of the Soul of Man not discovered in an uncertain Platonical way but with the greatest Light and Evidence from that God who hath the Supream Disposal of Souls and therefore best knows and understands them The Scriptures plainly and fully reveal a Judgement to come in which God will judge the Secrets of all Hearts when every one must give an account of himself to God and God will call Men to give an account of their Stewardship here of all the Receipts they have from him and the Expences they have been at and the Improvements they have made of the Talents he put into their Hands So that the Gospel of Christ is the fullest Instrument of the Discovery of the certainty of the future State of the Soul and the conditions which abide it upon its being dislodged from the Body This Passage of that excellent Prelat is a full confirmation of what I have written of this Subject and a brief Refutation of this Oracle of Reason Pag. 126. It makes me admire at what you say that a Person of such Honour Knowledge and Judgment as Sir Henry Savil was should so far complement the Jewish as to rob the English World of the fifth Book of Tacitus 's History by omitting any part of it in his Version since according to the true Method of Translating an Author ought not to be drawn off but generously and freely pâ—ured out of one Language into another least in separating him from the Dregs you â—â—aâ—e the Spirit behind you ANSWER I do not remember Sir Henry Savil gives any Reason why he omitted the Translation of the fifth Book of Tacitus's History either in his Epistle to the Reader or in his Notes or in any other of his Learned Works But I suppose the true Reason was because Tacitus's account of the Jews is full of Slanders Falshoods and Contradictions Wherefore Tertullian calls Tacitus tho' in other things an excellent Historian mendaciorum plenissimus scriptor a Writer who abounded with Lies Tacitus in many places of his Account is contrary to the Holy Scriptures so that our Author may cease his Admiration if he be in earnest in the 134th Page of his Book where he thus writes The Relations of Trogus Tacitus and the rest are only the uncertain Accounts of partial Authors since the best and only History extant to be relied on for this Subject is the Holy Scriptures dictated as every good Christian ought to believe by the Holy Spirit Whosomever considers that Deism is repugnant to Christianity as I have proved may justly admire at these last Expressions For my part I cannot liken Mr.
Mr. BLOUNT's Oracles of Reason Examined and Answered In Nine SECTIONS IN WHICH His many Heterodox Opinions are Refuted the Holy Scriptures and Revealed Religion are Asserted AGAINST Deism Atheism By JOSIAH KING M.A. And Chaplain to the Right Honourable JAMES Earl of ANGLESEY EXETER Printed by S. Darker for Philip Bishop Bookseller over against the Guild-Hall Exon and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster 1698. To the Right Reverend Father in God JONATHAN Lord Bishop of Exon. May it please your Lordship I Have been for some time in debate with my self whether I should presume to prefix your Lordship's Great Name before this Treatise That which at last weighed down the Scales with me was that of Varius Geminus in Seneca Caesar qui apud te audent dicere magnitudinem tuam ignorant qui non audent Humanitatem The principle Motive which I had for Publishing the same under your Lordship's Name and Protection besides the Testification of my bounden Duty as being a Presbyter of your Diocess owes its Original to your Lordship's great Zeal for the Truth and your great Auersion from those monstrous and Atheistical Opinions which are now so common among us Neither can I in the least doubt of your Lordship's gracious Acceptance provided that the Matter contained in the Book makes good as I hope it doth its Title What other Motives I might truly have with Respect to your Lordship's good Government and the great Happiness that we of your Clergy enjoy under the same as things generally known I willingly pretermit least I may seem too prolix and troublesome That excellent Saying of Lipsius having made a deep Impression on my Mind Breves Sermones apud Daeum saepe apud magnos viros semper grati accepti sunt May it Please your Lordship I am Your most Humble And most Obedient Servant JOSIAH KING A PREFACE TO THE Reader ABout three or four Years since when these Oracles of Reason appeared in the World and made so great a Noise I were desired by a Minister in the Diocess of Exon to read them and to conceive in Writing what I thought most blamable in them which Request I complied with not intending then to be concerned with this Controversie in publick as all will believe that know the constant Avocations of a Parochial Charge Neither did I then doubt but that a set and formal Answer would long ago have been made to Mr. Blount's Book but it proves otherwise upon which account I were desired upon an accidental Discourse to publish this my Answer which I have now done not with a design to answer every thing in the Book but to answer the greatest and most remarkable Difficulties and to obviate the principal Design of the Author in opposing revealed Religion Pliny observes in the Dedication of his natural History to Vespasian that the Greeks were wont to inscribe their Books with the Titles of the Muses Honey-combs the Horn of Amatthea Pandects and the like vain Titles to insinuate with the Reader The same course Mr. Blount hath taken who calls his Book The Oracles of Reason but it is not the Title I am offended with he subverâ—s the Title himself when p. 87. he says That humane Reason is like a Pitcher with two Ears and that it may be taken on either side That which gives Offence is the Impiety contained in it as when p. 17. he says 'T is evident that the Five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his decease And p. 58. That he can evince from sacred Oracles that the fall of Angels was before the Creation of the World And p. 89. That a Mediator derogates as much from the Mercy of God as an Image doth from his Spirituality And p. 162. That they were mean Persons that call'd our Lord the Son of David and that it was the Mob who cried Hosanna when he made his Cavalcade upon an Asinego And many the like Expressions which are to be treated of in their places If he uses our Lord thus we of the Clergy can expect no other Treatment from him to whom he objects so much Ignorance and nick-names us Quicunque Men and Canonical Gamesters p 97. and 136. I do not design to trouble my Reader with a long Ppeface wherefore I shall briefly acquaint him what I have performed in this Book which I have divided into Nine Sections for Methods sake and to avoid that Confusion Mr. Blount is guilty of as his book sufficiently proves The first Section is of the Mosaic History and Divine Miracles where I have manifested his Vanity in appealing to the Testimony of the Fathers and have defended the Divine Miracles from his subtile Objections and sly Insinuations Mr. Blount is a true Follower of the Author of the Preadamites who makes use of this Method for weakning the Authority of the Scripture and suggests his Difficulties without a flat denial that his Reader may be ensnared unawares I have also stated the Mosaic Year a thing of no common Observation and of good Use in these Controversies and proved it to be a perfect soler Year The second Section is of Paradise in which I have defended the literal Sense and discovered his mistaking the Question and his fathering on Moses p. 36 that which he never writ viz. That four Rivers proceeded from one and the same Fountain-head in Eden Where is also discovered the Falshood of Celsus and our Deists concerning the ancient Jewish and Christian Interpreters of Genesis The third Section is of the Original of things in which the difficulty concerning the Creation of Angels is discussed as also their Corporiety which p. 59. he falsly declares to be the Opinion of the Catholick Church We have also shown that some Particulars are omitted in the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Reason thereof from whence Mr. Blount can receive no Advantage Lastly we have subjoyned an Apology for St. Austin's Error The fourth Section is of the modern Brachmins in which we show how difficult it is to comprehend his Design that his Arguments are of little Force And his contradiction in saying p. 87. that Deism is a good manuring of a Man's Conscience if sorted with Christianity The fifth Section concerns the Deist's Religion We have made it evident how uncertain this Natural Religion is by the Practice of Nations And that what he adds of the Imitation of God destroys his own Supposition We have referred the Rewards and Punishments of another Life to be considered in another Section And whereas he takes it for granted that the Deist is no Idolater we have proved the contrary and that the same reason which exempts the Deists from that imputation will exempt Romanists Reform'd Socinian Mahometan c. The sixth Section concerns the Arians Trinitarians and Councils In thâ—s Section it will appear how perverse he represents the Affairs of those times P. 98. He makes the Arians to be Mounters of Constantine to the Throne
renounce all Sin the Devil and all his Works to confess all their Sins to fast and pray for God's Pardon in order thereunto What is this but Repentance as well with relation to Original as Actual Sins Besides he promises amendment in this particular Never to be lead by his corrupt Affections Agreeable hereunto is that in the Larger Creed in Epiphanius's Ancorate where Baptism is call'd Baptism of Repentance and in the Creed of the Church of Jerusalem I believe one Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Pag. 16. It hath been a Point very much disputed among several Foliticians in the Common-wealth of Learning Who was the real and true Author of the Pentateuch P. 17. It is evident that the five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his Decease ANSWER Gregory the Great in his Preface on Job discoursing about the Author of that Book hath these Words Sen quis haec scripserit valde supervacue quaeritur cum tamen auctor libri spiritus sanctus fideliter credatur Ipsi igitur haec scripsit qui haec scribendo dictavit ipse scripsit qui illis operis inspirator extitit It is to no purpose to enquire after the Author of this Book it is sufficient to believe that the Holy Ghost is the Author He therefore writ the Book who dedicated the things that are written in it he writ it by whose Inspiration it was written Hieronymus a sancta fide p. 54. truly says Constat Theodoretum complures alios patres doctissimasque aetatis nostrae Theologes in ea esse sententia ut de autoribus multorum veteris instrumenti librorum nihil certi affirmari potest ut pluribus verbis ostendit sixtus senensis alis qui hoc argumentum tractarunt It is manifest that Theodoret and many other Fathers and the most learned Divines of our Times are of Opinion that nothing can certainly be determined who were the Writers of many of the Books of the Old Testament and this is proved at large by Sixtus Senensis and others who have examined and treated of this Argument Dr. Hammond discoursing concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews whether it be St. Paul or St. Luke makes this Conclusion All which can be said in this Matter can amount no higher than too probable or conjectural it is no Matter of any Weight or Necessity that it be defined who the Author was whether St. Paul or St. Luke a constant Companion of St. Paul's for many Years and the Author of two other Books of the Sacred Cannon I know not any thing justly to be censured in the Opinions of those Divines those are to be blamed that misunderstand and misapply what they have truly written This I am sure of that nothing can be drawn from them which may be any way serviceable for Mr. Blount's design who with a strange Boldness dares to affirm that Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch There is no Book in the World whose Author can be more plainly demonstrated than that of the Pentateuch it can be made appear out of the Holy Scriptures for which if Mr. Blount had any Reverence he could never have fallen into so great an Error It can be made appear from the Consent of all Nations and all Authors except some Modern ones who make any mention of the Pentateuch whether Jews or Christians or Gentiles they all admit it as a certain Truth that Moses was the Author thereof Our Saviour in the fifth Chapter of St. John Ver. 46 and 47 says Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me for he wrote of me But if ye believe not his Writings how shall ye believe my Words Therefore Moses writ and he writ those Books which the Jews read as writ by him and no Man can deny but those Books are the Pentateuch 'T is certain that Christ always distinguished the Prophets from the Law of Moses and by the Law understood the Pentateuch Philip said to Nathaniel John 1. We have found him of whom Moses writ in the Law of whom the Prophets have spoken Luke 24. Ver. 27. And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself And in the 15th of the Acts Ver. 21. For Moses of old time hath in every City them that preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Out of which it appears without all peradventure that Moses writ the Law by which Word Philo Judaeus and Josephus say the whole Pentateuch is meant And that the Modern Jews understand the Word Law in the same manner we have the Authority of Leo Modena a Rabbi of Venice in his History of the present Iews throughout the World in which Book p. 247. he hath these Words We shall here in the last place glve the Reader a View of the Thirteen Articles of their Belief as it is delivered by Rabbi Moses Egyptus in his Exposition upon the Miscna in Sanedim cap. Helech which Articles are generally believed by all Jews without contra diction The Seventh Article of their Faith is That Moses was the greatest Prophet that ever hath been and that he was endued with a different and higher Degree of Prophecy than any other The Eighth is That the Law which was given by Moses was wholly dictated by God and that Moses put not one Syllable in of himself What this Law is appears out of the first Page of that History among the Rites which are observed by all the Jews and he says are the Precepts of the Written Law Namely such as are contained in the Pentateuch or five Books of Moses which are in all Six hundred and thirteen in Number that is to say Two hundred forty eight affirmative and Three hundred sixty five negative And these they call Mizuoth de Oraita that is to say Precepts of the Law From hence we may conclude without all manner of doubt that by the Word Law in our Saviour's Speech and in those other places of Scripture which I have cited the whole Pentateuch is understood The Testimony which is brought from the Consent of all Nations is so fully explicated and declared by Huetius that none can doubt of the Truth thereof and to whom I had rather refer my Reader then here to transcribe him Especially considering I have so fully proved the same from the Holy Scriptures and Indisputable Authority I shall only add two or three Observations hereunto belonging and conclude this Point The First Observation is that neither Julian nor Porphiry nor any of the most inveterate Enemies of the Christian or Jewish Faith did ever make it a Question whether Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch The first that ever started those Objections against it and are now so much valued was one Abenezra a Jew who although he did not dare to be so bold fac'd as to deny openly so important a Truth yet by the Difficulties he proposed and by the manner
the Angelical as well as Mundane Substances in the beginnig of Time is not accounted general by many learned Persons both of the Pontifician and Protestant Communion From whence it follows that this is a Matter of Opinion and not an Article of Religion 'T is only required of us to believe that the Angels were created by God and that they are not Coeternal with him which is the true Reason of this Difference among the Fathers St. Austin lib. 11. De Civitate Dei c. 32. says proinde ut volet unusquisque accipiat dum a regula fidei non aberrat ut angelos sanctos in sublimibus coeli sedibus non quidem Deo Coaeternos nemo ambigat As to this Matter which relates to the Creation of Angels whether before or after the Creation of the visible World let every Man enjoy his own Opinion only take care you do not err from the Rule of Faith and think that the holy Angels now in the heavenly Places are Coeternal with God Sixtus Senensis to whom Mr. Blount seems to be beholding although he names him not Lib. 5. Annot. 5. tells as that the learned Father Theodoret was of St. Austin's Opinion having disputed this Point against St. Bazil and that Theodoret concludes that if you grant that the Angels were created it matters not whether before or after the Mosaic Creation verbum pietatis non offendet he will violate no Rule of Faith St. Jerome in his Epist ad Cyp. thinks that in the Mosaic History of the Creation there is no express Mention of the Creation of Angels because the common illiterate People were not so capable as to apprehend their Natures Perenius on Genesis propounds this Question Why Moses did not mention the Creation of Mettals and Minerals as well as that of Plants and Herbs To which he gives this Answer Because Mettals and Minerals are hid in the Bowels of the Earth and not so commonly known as Plants and Herbs and that Moses did not design to report all things in Particular but first in General to relate that all things in the Beginning were Created by God whether in Heaven or Earth and in Particular such things as were most common and evident to all Men. Thomas Aquinas hath also remarked That in Moses 's Writings we have no mention of the Creation of the Air for that the same not being visible it was difficult to have a right Notion of that Body Yet methinks if Men have no mind to be contentious there is reason to believe that the Angels were not created before the Heavens the place of their Residence and Abode The Jews will tell us that Moses understood these Words of his especially of Angels when he said of God In the Beginning he created the Heavens And the Catechism of the Council of Trent in its Exposition of the Articles of the Creed lays down the same Opinion where it says Coeli terrae nomine quicquid Coelum terra complectitur intelligendum est Moses under the general Terms of Heaven and Earth comprehended all things in both Angels as well as other Beings Pag. 54. We can evince the same by the sacred Oracles and Authorities of the Fathers as well as by Reason and Arguments the Fall of the Angels was before the Creation of the World ANSWER Mr. Blount may evince from his own Oracles that the Angels fell before the Creation of the World but to prove it from the sacred Oracles he will find it difficult As to the Fathers I have not observed above Two who speak clearly as to this Matter and they are St. Cyprian and Arnoldus Bonae Vallis St. Cyprian in his Book De Zelo Livore hath these Expressions Diabolus inter initia statim mundi perit primus perdidit Ille Deo carus acceptus postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit in Zelum malevolo livore prorupit Et dum stimulante livore homini gratiam datae immortalitatis eripit ipse quoque id quod prius fuerat amisit St. Cyprian is very plain that the Devil did not fall before the Creation He says the Devil in the beginning of the World perished himself and destroyed Man He who was dear to God and accepted by him after he saw Man was made in the Image of God he was moved with great Envy and Malevolence and being stirr'd up by these Affections robs Man of the Grace and Immmortality and himself lost that which he enjoyed before Some think that St. Cyprian contradicts himself for as much as he writes in the Book De Cardinalibus Christi operibus which goes under his Name ante hoc temporale initium ipse in principio imo ipse principium existens apud Deum ante hominis conditionem superbientis Diaboli ruinam videt affectatae dominationis ambitionem Where writing concerning our Lord he says Before the Beginning of this World he was in the Beginning nay he was the Beginning himself being with God before Man was created he saw the ruine of the Devil and of the Domination he affected It must be confest that this place comes home and is to the purpose But then it must be confest that not St. Cyprian but Arnaldus Abbot of Bonae Vallis was Author of those Books Bellarmine de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis proves St. Cyprian could not be the Author of that Book because he affirms Diabolum cecidisse de coelo ante hominis creationem cujus sententiae contrarium habet Cyprianus in Tractatu de Zelo Livore That the Devil fell from Heaven before Man was created whereas St. Cyprian teacheth the contrary in his Book De Zelo Livore Which Observation of Bellarmine is allowed of by Dalle in his Book De Libris suppositis Dionysio Ignatio p. 468. Dr. Thomas James in his Treatise of the Corruption of Fathers informs us That in an ancient Manuscript in All Souls Library the Author of this Book is of much later Date written by one that lived in St. Bernard's time to whom he wrote one or two Epistles and that he was called Arnoldus Bonae villacensis We learn also from the foresaid Manuscript that the Book was Dedicated not unto Cornelius the Pope who lived Anno. 254. but unto Adrian the Pope the Fourth of that Name who was created Pope Anno. 1154. and succeeded Eugenius the Third to whom Bernard wrote his Books of Consideration And agreeable hereunto is Mr. Dalle who in his Book before cited acquaints us that the same is to be found in a Manuscript in the French King's Library So that Mr. Blount's Authority from the Fathers is reduced only to One that delivers his Mind plainly and he a very late one too who lived some hundreds of Years after St. Cyprian And now we will see his Reason and Arguments He says p. 58 and 59 Really 't is not at all probable that the most excellent Creatures were made of so frail a Nature as that the
Hereticks in Reading the Fathers to Flies if they happen on any place that is sound they pass it over if putrid or rotten there they suck It must be Confest that St. Austin was here in a mistake and that in this Point he came wide of the mark to use Mr. Blount's expression St. Austin was indeed of this Opinion in lib. 5. de Genesi ad literam and lib. 6. c. 5. but the occasion of his mistake was Reading the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Latin And for the satisfaction of my Reader I shall cite a place out of Gerhard Vossius in his Pars altera de Creatione thesis 16. Where he takes notice of this Mistake of St. Austins and the occasion of it and from whom we have a satisfactory Answer Hoc Siracidae illo Ecclesiastici 18. adstrui posse censent Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul sed praeterquam quod apocrypha canonicis opponi non debent Graece est non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est pariter ut sententia sit omnia unum agnoscere creatorem sive communiter ut in complutensi transfertur hoc est communi lege ut Junius vertit accipi debere sequentia inibi ostendunt quod si vidisset Augustinus non tantoper◠〈◊〉 eo loco torsisset in Genesi ad literam lib. 5. 〈…〉 lib. 6. c. 5. By that place of Siracâ—des in the 18th of Ecclesiasticus some think it may be proved That God created all things not in any Intervals of time but in one and the same Instant The place of Ecclesiasticus is commonly but falsly translated He that liveth for ever created all things together or at once but that besides Apoeryphal writings are not to be opposed to Canonical Scripture The Greek hath another meaning for in Greek the sense is He that liveth for ever hath created all things in like manner So that the sentence in Ecclesiasticus is All things in like manner have one and the same Creatour Thus 't is translated in the Complutensian Bible or else as Junius hath translated it All things were created after the same method as it were by a common Law And this is the genuine sense of the place as the following places in Ecclesiasticus will convince us Which if St. Austin had seen he had not been misled nor had been put to so much trouble by this place No Man can have a greater deference for St. Austin than my self yet I must confess that both those great Men and the Governour of the African Churches were but meanly skilled in the Greek St. Austin confesses the same in his 8th Epistle to St. Jerom Petimus ergo nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum Ecclesiarum studiosa societas ut interpretandis eorum libris qui Graece Scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt curam atque operam impendere non graveris We desire and together with us desires all the Studious Society of the African Churches that he would not think it burthensom to bestow some pains in interpreting those Books which were written in Greek upon the holy Scriptures And Father Simon in his Critical History on the Old Testament Book 3. says That Austin did not understand Greek well enough to read the Greek Fathers Commentaries upon the Bible and therefore He desired St. Jerom to translate them into Latin that he might read them Yet it must be granted That although he was no Critick He had yet some skill in that Language for he makes sometimes mention of the Greek Codes as Ep. 59. and in his Retractations but his skill therein was so ordinary as it often occasioned some mistakes Upon the whole 't is very surprizing that such a Critick in the Greek as our Deist would be thought to be when He saw St. Austin's slip as He must unavoidably observe it if he read Him of these matters should yet make use of His Authority it being certain that the false Latin translation misguided that great Father All the Question seems to be about the particular matter of the Creation when God was pleased to make the World And that this may be a thing of some difficulty I think few men will deny that have well considered it I am sure Gassendus in his Physicks was of this opinion when he says Majus est mundi opus quam ut assequi mens humana illius molitionem possit The creation of the World is so great a work that a Man can scarce comprehend it after a diligent intention And I have often thought that this of Gassendus is not much abhorrent from that of Solomon Ecclesiastes 8th ver 16. and 17. When I applied my heart to Wisdom and to see the business that is done upon the earth for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes ver 17. Then I beheld all the work of God that a Man cannot find out the work that is done under the Sun because though a man labour to seek it out yea further tho' a wise man think to know it yet shall he not be able to find it Maimonides who was in great Reputation among the Jews determines the Question thus Omnia simul creata aberant postea successive invicem separata all things were created at once and afterwards divided into separate Classes and Times However it be 't is certain St. Austin had a firm Veneration for the Mosaic History he never ridiculed it as our Author does and if he mistook in the Interpretation of a place of Genesis he may be excused who submitted himself to the Rule of Faith and constantly believed that the World had a Beginning And although our Author in this place thinks St. Austin came not wide of the Mark yet I suppose he will not thank him for what he says in his 43d Chaprer of Heresies where he accounts the Origenists for Hereticks for interpreting Paradise Allegorically and not according to the Letter SECT IV. Of the Modern Brachmans PAG. 77. Having spoken already of the Modern Brachmans in the Indies whom besides the near Resemblance of their Studies and Customs we have several other Arguments to show they are descended of the ancient Race ANSWER There is a Treatise amongst the Works of St. Ambrose whose Title is de Moribus Brachmanorum this Treatise is in three Libraries in Italy viz. the Vatican the Millain and Medicean under the Name of St. Ambrose but there are good Arguments to induce us to believe this Treatise to be Spurious In this Treatise are several commendable Qualities of the Brachmans represented and the Dialogue between Dandamis and Alexander contains good Morality But the Account we have here is so different from that in ancient Authors as that it may easily induce us to conceive a vast difference between the Ancient and Modern Brachmans Pag. 78. Now their Body of Learning doth not teach nor treat of each little Point or Nieity in Philosophy as our Modern
Philosophers use to do but like the Natural Theology of the Ancients it treats of God of the World of the Beginning and Ending of Things of the Primitive State of Nature of the Periods of Worlds and their Renovations ANSWER If our Modern Brachmans philosophize in these things as the Ancient Brachmans did the Modern could not philosophize out of Books given by God to the great Prophet Brahma as formerly the Law of the Israelites was to Moses as Mr. Blount reports they were wont to pretend Clemens Alexandrinus p. 451. says They worshiped Hercules and Pan. And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Worshipped a certain Pyramid under which they thought a certain God to be buried Porphury in his 4th Book De Abstinentia accuses them of Polutheism and so doth Quintus Curtius in his Eighth Book Maffeius in his Book of the Indians affirms that they worshipped God or a Daemon in the Figure of an Ox as the Egyptians did Apys and that they also worshipped an Elephant as God Pag. 83. They affirm there are several Worlds existing at one and the same time in divers Regions of the Vniverse and that there are several successive ones So that the same World is destroyed and renewed again according to certain Periods ANSWER Of these several Worlds existing at one time in divers Regions of the Universe I find no mention either in that Book under the Name of St. Ambrose nor in Porphury nor in Clemens of Alexandria Strabo indeed lib. 15. says That their Opinion of the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World had a Beginning and was Corruptible and Orbicular but he hath not a Word of the Multitude of Worlds nor of their Renovations nor Periods The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clemens of Alexandria is the Metempsychosis and relates not to successive Worlds Strabo moreover acquaints us that they did philosophize about the Immortality of the Soul as Plato did as also of the Punishments in Hell which Strabo impiously calls Fables But as to this Account of the Opinion of the Modern Brachmans of whom we should have so many Particulars seems very strange when our Author p. 79. tells us That they are said to conceal their Divinity and their Opinions in Phylosophy in all kinds besides the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it must be confessed that these two Opinions were entertained by the ancient Brachmans for there is plain Proof thereof in Porphury and in Philostratus in Photius's Bibliothec. The Account we have in Quintus Curtius lib. 8. is That they approved of Self-murther they worshipped many Gods and especially Trees for Gods The Remark of Curtius is worth Notice Quis credat inter haec vitia esse curam sapientiae Who can think where there were such Vices any regard could be had for Philosophy What Mr. Blount could design by this Section cannot by me be comprehended his Arguments have little strength and supposing they were convincing yet nothing could from thence be collected worthy of Observation Pag. 87. We have a Letter to Dr. Sydenham where he writes of the Deists Arguments and says That human Reason is like a Pitcher with two Ears and may be taken on either side ANSWER What he writes of human Reason in comparing of it to a Pitcher with two Ears may be allowed and gives us some Light how to behold his Oracles as we ought for most of them have two Handles and are proposed as the Devils Oracles were of Old full of Ambiguity Epicterus in his Enchiridion c. 65. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing hath two Handles Reason certainly hath so And from hence we may infer what a bad Foundation it is in Matters of Religion The necessity of revealed Religion from hence appears as also doth the little Support we can have from that which is commonly called Natural In a Word This Assertion of Mr. Blount's is both a sufficient Reproof to the Vainglorious Title of his Book and subverts the very design for which it was written Pag. 87. Tho' Deism is a good manuring of a Man's Conscience yet certainly if sowed with Christianity it will produce the most profitable Crop ANSWER This Assertion is very absurd for Christianity and Deism are wholly inconsistent the one supposing the necessity of a Mediator the other renounces it and accounts all Mediatorship with respect to God unnecessary So that supposing Deism the very Essence of Christianity is destroyed so ridiculous is it to talk of sowing Christianity on a Conscience manured with Deism SECT V. Of the Deists Religion PAg. 88. and 89. The Deists Religion is first negative God is not to be worshipt by an Image nor by Sacrifice the positive is by an inviolable adherence in our lives to all the things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an imitation of God in all His imitable Perfections especially in His Goodness and believing magnificently of Him ANSWER As to the negative Religion of the Deist we confess That in the two first negatives we have no controversy with them in the sense they are here proposed For we acknowledge There ought not to be made any material Image of God neither ought God to be worshipped by any Sacrifice of any bruit Creature but that God's infinite Mercy excludes a Mediatour that we deny The whole System of Christian Religion requires our Belief thereof and therefore as we have said in the end of the foregoing Section the Deist is repugnant to Himself when He supposeth some advantage from Christianity and yet wholly rejects the grand Hypothesis upon which it is built As to the positive Proposition we say It is defective and leaves us in great uncertainties Cornelius Agrippa de vanitate Scientiarum c. 54. truly affirms Quod aliquando vitium fuit modo virtus habetur quod hic virtus est alibi vitium sit quod uni honestum alteri turpe quod nobis justum aliis injustum apud Athenienses licuit viro sororem germanam habere in Matrimonio apud Romanos nefas habetur That which hath at some times been accounted a vice is now accounted a vertue that which in this Country is accounted a vertue in another is accounted a vice among the Athenians it was lawful for a man to marry his own Sister which by the Romans was abominated and much more hath Agrippa to the same purpose that of Lucan concerning the Parthians is unknown to none Cui fas implere parentem quid reor esse nefas Nothing in Nature can be thought to be unjust to that man who thinks he may lawfully lie with his own Mother Julius Firmicus in his Epistle to Lollian gives also this Instance Apud Aegyptios Lacedaemonios furari honorificum apud nos furca suspensi strangulantur Among the Egyptians and Lacedemonians it is not only accounted lawful but honourable to commit theft but with us 't is punished with death Diogenes Laertius vita Pyrrhonis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Leviathan are Demonstrations Pag. 98. Constantine at first espoused the Arrian Interest to mount the Throne as the present Lewis the XIV did the Interest of the Hugonots ANSWER What ground or Authority our Immortal Deist might have for this His Assertion I do not know I believe it is a Dream of His own I am confident no Chronologer of any repute could affirm so great a Falsity nothing is more notorious both in Ancient and Modern History than that Constantine mounted the Throne before Arius himself much less the Arians made any considerable figure in the World Perhaps the odium He thought might reflect on Constantine by the Comparison of Lewis the XIV prompted Him to commit so palpable an Error Had there been any truth in this Imputation it cannot be imagined that the Arian Historian Philosorgius would have past it in silence who only says That when Constantius was dead and buried that Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Connstantine was His Successor in the Empire Pag. 98. If you will believe the Learned Petavius and other Arians they did offer to be try'd by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council ANSWER Petavius is a late Author and unless he brings Proof for what he says he is not to be relied on in historical Matters of so remote Antiquity Sandius in his Nucleus Hist Eccles p. 256. cites our Bishop Taylor to the same purpose viz. That the Arians appealed to the Fathers for Trial and that the Offer was declined To which our learned Dr. Gardiner in the Appendix ad Nucleum makes this Answer Ego vero a reverendi Tayleri manibus venia petita fateor me Socratis Zozomeni verbis potius assenteri c. I for my part am forced to beg Bishop Taylor 's Pardon and do confess that I assent rather to Socrates and Sozomen who report the contrary Which Answer is good and valid The Bishops that lived in those Days were far enough from declining Trial by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council that they desired nothing more The Arians were the Men as Socrates says lib. 5. c. 10. that trusted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were the Men that refused the Judgments of the Ancients and defended themselves by Niceties and Disputations And to the same purpose Sozomen lib. 7. c. 12. I will cite two or three Authorities more which will make this thing so very plain that nothing but reading Fathers at second hand and too great Credulity can apologize for Mr. Blount Athanasius is known to be a Bishop who made as great a Figure in the Church as any one in his time a Man of great Learning and exemplary Piety and one that was as well acquainted with the Methods that the Orthodox and Arians made use of as any Man could possibly be This great Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Nicene Synod says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold we have demonstrated this our Opinion from Fathers to Fathers as they delivered the same to us But for your parts O new Jews and Disciples of Caiaphas What Fathers can you produce that are Fautors of your Heresies Truly ye cannot bring so much as one of the number of those who were accounted Prudent and Wise all such detest you Ye can alledge none but your Father the Devil who was the sole Author of this Heresie and Defection from the Truth Alexander Bishop of Alexandria a Person in nothing inferior to Athanasius one that had all the Qualifications desireable in a good Prelate In an Epistle of his to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople as we find it in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History Book the first Chapter fourth says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You Arians have so good Opinion of your selves as that you think none of the Ancients are worthy to be compared to you Neither will ye endure that those who in my younger Days were esteemed as our Guides and Masters should upon any Terms be equalled to you Neither will ye grant that any of our present Colleagues have any competent Knowledge of these Controversies Ye think your selves to be the only wise Men and that although ye have nothing yet ye enjoy all things You boast that you alone are the finders out and possessors of Truth and that to you such Mysteries are revealed and kept from other Men. By which Words Alexander of Alexandria signifies that the Arian Sentiments were repugnant to the Doctrine of the most ancient Fathers to the Doctrine of his immediate Predecessors and of all those Bishops who had the Government of the Church when this unhappy Arian Heresy began He signifies also that the first Defenders of Arianism were Enthusiasts and pretenders to extraordinary Revelation To these two I will only add St. Austin who treating of the blessed Trinity at large in fifteen Books in his first Book Chapter the 3d. he delivers his Mind as fully and as much to the purpose as either of the two before quoted Thus he says Omnes quos legere potui qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate divinorum librorum vetorum novorum Catholici tractatores hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere quod pater filius spiritus sanctus unius ejusdemque substantiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem All the Authors that I have met with who have written before me of the holy Trinity all the Orthodox Writers and Commentators of the Divine Books of the Old and New Testament proposed this to themselves to prove that according to the Holy Scriptures the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost have one and the same Substance which includes a Divine Unity with an inseparable Equality This last Testimony of St. Austin is very remarkable and as comprehensive as the most zealous Trinitarian could desire And from hence we cannot but observe how blameworthy some very learned Men of the Roman Communion have been who though they sincerely believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity yet by affirming either by mistake or design that this heavenly Doctrine cannot be proved by Scripture nor by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council but only by unwritten Tradition they have given great advantage to the Antitrinitarian to triumph and have confirmed them in their Heterodox Opinion nempe hoc vult Ithacus magno mercantur Achivi Pag. 98. For at that Council the Arians were rather condemn'd by a Party than by the General Consent of the Christian Church because Constantine out of above two Thousand Bishops then Assembled excluded all but Three hundred and Eighteen nor were those perhaps for Accounts vary all Bishops that made up this great Council ANSWER This is a heavy Charge against the Nicene Council it had been but reasonable that the Immortal Deist should have showed the Grounds which he had for this Accusation No Truth nor Innocence can be sufficient if an Accusation goes for Proof He that should read the ancient View of Bishopricks in Aubertus Miraeus or the Sacred
less than two hundred Dissenters and not three only as Mr. Blount bears us in hand that held the contrary As to what is added concerning the Persecutions used by the Arians we own it to be true and the Orthodox frequently inveighed against the Arians for these their Barbarities I shall therefore acquaint my Reader what Grotius says lib 2. De Jur. Pacis Belli cap. 21. sect 5. Athanasius is very vehement against the Arian Heresy for in his Epist ad Solit. they were the first who made use of the Temporal Power to punish dissenters with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscations and Banishments says Mr. Blount Those Bishops were condemned in France by the judgment of the Church which persecuted the Priscillianists to death and in the East that Synod was condemned which consented to the Burning of Bogomilus Page 100. As for the Trinitarians of those times I must confess that I cannot but esteem them as enemies to all Humane Learning for they had Canons forbidding them to read any Ethnick Books ANSWER I have seldom found such Confidence any where as these Oracles do in all places afford us How ridiculous this insulting of Mr. Blount's is will fully appear in handling this Point In prosecution of which I shall First Lay down the Discourse of Father Paul relating hereunto Secondly I shall show what Reasons I have to dissent from that learned and worthy Person Thirdly I shall consult the Opinions of some of the most Learned of the Eastern Church with my Reason for so doing Lastly I shall make plain Inferences which will be sufficient to cramp the Presumption of our Deist and to defend the Trinitarians as he calls them against the Imputation of Ignorance Of what Candor and Learning Father Paul was every Man knows that hath read his History of the Council of Trent where p. 472. he hath this Discourse In the Church of Martyrs there was no Ecclesiastical Prohibition though some godly Men made Conscience of reading bad Books for fear of offending against one of the three Points of the Law of God to avoid the Contagion of Evil not to expose ones self to Temptations without Necessity or Profit and not to spend time vainly These Laws being Natural do remain always and should oblige us to beware of reading bad Books though there were no Ecclesiastical Law for it But these Respects ceasing the Example of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria a famous Doctor did happen who about the Year of our Lord 240. being reprehended by some of his Priests for these Causes and troubled with these Respects had a Vision that he should read all Books because he was able to judge of them yet they thought that there was greater Danger in the Books of the Gentiles than of the Hereticks the reading whereof was more abhorred and reprehended because it was more used by Christian Doctors for a vanity of Human Eloquence For this cause St. Jerom either in a Version or in a Sleep was beaten by the Devil So that about the Year 400 a Council in Carthage did forbid to read the Books of the Gentiles but allowed them to read the Books of Hereticks the Decrees whereof is among the Canons collected by Gratian and this was the first Ecclesiastical Prohibition by way of Canon Thus far Paul And now I come to the second thing The Council of Carthage which Father Paul relates to is that which is commonly called the 4th Carthaginian Council whose 16th Canon is ut Episcopus Gentilium libâ—os non legat Haereticorum autem pro necessitate tempore That a Bishop do not read the Books of the Gentiles but in reading the Books of Hereticks He is to have regard to Necessity and Opportunity Now in this particular I dissent from Paul and joyn with that great Antiquary Justellus who in his Preface to the Code of the African Church says Concilium quod vocant quartum Carthaginense plane repudiandum est nec fides adhibenda Canonibus 104 quos sine auctoritate huic Concilio adscribunt The Council which is commonly called the fourth Carthaginian is to be wholly rejected neither is there any Faith to be given to the 104 Canons which without any good Authority they ascribe to it There is no mention of these Canons in the Collection of Ferrandus nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus nor in the Code of the African Church nor in the Collection commonly called the Afr. Council In a Manuscript that belonged to Cardinal Barberini they are entituled Ancient Statutes of the Eastern Church But these Canons themselves prove the contrary The Ceremonies of the Ordination of the lesser Orders as they are sate forth in this Council are agreeable enough to the Practice of the Western Church where these Orders were conferred by delivering holy Vessels but not to the Eastern Church where these Orders were always conferred by Imposition of Hands In other Manuscripts they are entituled The ancient Statutes of the Church In a word there can be no sufficient reason given why they should not be found in the ancient Collections if they were genuine The ancientest Author Father Paul cites is Gratian whose testimony is of no weight if not strengthen'd by some collateral Evidence For all know He is a perfect Rhapsodist and this is so fully made out by August Tarraconensis in his Book de Emendat Gratiani that there is not any place left for the least doubt Which prejudice together with that of Moderness may be objected against Isidore Burchardus Hincmare Ivo Carnotensis c. and the defence which Schelstrate makes is so weak and dull as that it savours little of a Vaticane Library keeper whereas otherwise in his Ecclesia Africana He discovers much Learning and Reading I am now to consult the Opinions of some in the Eastern Church and to bring my reason for doing so Saint Basil in the first Tome of his Works hath a Homily whose Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Homily was compos'd for young Men not to prohibite them to read the Books of the Gentiles but to direct them and to shew what benefit they might reap thereby Amongst other things He takes notice that Moses was educated in the Learning of the Egyptians and so proceeded to the knowledge of the true God In like manner in following ages Dauiel at Babylon learned the Learning of the Chaldeans and from thence proceeded to Divine Doctrines Gregory Nazianzen ad Seleucum Iambie 3. treats of this matter where he prohibits nothing as touching reading the Books of the Gentiles but only lays down this Rule That from the same Plant Roses may be gathered and Thorns and that we ought to take one and leave the other The reason of these two citations is to stop the mouths of those who pretend that the Apostles prohibited the reading the Books of the Gentiles and for that purpose quote chap. 5. of the Apostolical Constitutions whose Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning reading the Books of such as are
not within the pale of the Church To which there needs no other Reply than the Testimonies of these two learned and pious Bishops If there had been such Constitutions in their times they could never have written as they did Besides the Authority of these pretended Constitutions as to this point is so fully refuted by Mr. Dalle in his Book de Pseudopigr Apostolicis pag. 326. that there is no place left for a Reply I may add hereunto the Law of the Emperour Julian the Apostate from Theodoret Eccles Hist lib. 4. c. 8. He first of all prohibited the use of Rhetoric Poetry and Philosophick Arts to the children of the Galileans so he called the Christians and the reason of the Law is in these words They wound us with our arrows as it is in the Proverb for out of our own Books they borrow arguments which they make use of to our confusion And all know this to be true who have read Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and others in their Controversies with the Gentiles The Corollaries and Inferences I shall make are very plain First I affirm that there is no good Evidence for such a Canon anno 400. much less Canons as Mr. Blount says The Second is That this pretended Canon was made 75 years after the holding of the Nicene Council and therefore our Deist could not gather from this Canon the Ignorance of the Trinitarians of those times The Third is That it cannot be presumed that the Canons of the Church should be conform to the Decree of the Emperour Julian which was made on purpose to eradicate the Christian Religion no more can it can be presumed that Basil and N zianzen would impugn an Apostolical Constitution Lastly The Learning of the Gentiles was so amply treated of by the Fathers of the 4 first Centuries their Philosophy and Theology was so fully examined and refuted by them that unless these Books had been prohibited it was impossible for the Trinitarians of those times to have been ignorant of all the solid Learning contained in the Books of the Gentiles Pag. 103. And to shew how ignorant the Clergy were in the time of the Emp. Marcian we find the Greek Tongue so little understood at Rome and the Latin in Greece that the Bishops in both Countries in all 630. were glad to speak by Interpreters Nay in this very Council at Chalcedon the Emperor was fain to deliver the same speech in Greek to one party and in Latin to the others so that both might understand him the Council of Jerusalem for the same reason made certain Creeds both in Greek and Latin at the Council of Ephesus the Pope 's Legats had their Interpreter to expound the words and when Celestine 's Letters were there read the Acts tells us how the Bishops desired to to have them translated into Greek and read over again insomuch that the Romish Legats had almost made a controversy of it fearing least the Papal Authority should have been prejudiced by such an Act alledging therefore how it was the ancient custom to propose the Bulls of the See Apostolick in Latin only and that that might row suffice Whereupon those poor Greek Bishops were in danger not to have understood the Pope 's Latin till at length the Legats were content with Reasons when it was evidenced to them That the major part could not understand one word of Latin But the pleasantest of all is Pope Celestine 's Excuse to Nestorius for his so long delay in answering his Letters because he could not by any means get his Greek construed sooner Also Pope Gregory the Fiest ingeniously confesseth to the Bishop of Thessaly that hâ— understood not a jot of his Greek ANSWER Mr. Blount hath discovered much malignity against the Clergy in this and the next Page the great Imputation of their not being good Grecians cannot be charged on the present Clergy Besides we are not so ignorant as He is disingenuous who hath taken all those choice Remarks word for word out of Du Ranchin's Review of the Council of Trent p. 151 and 152. and yet makes no mention of the Author to whom he was so much obliged What our Author proposes to Himself by this Method is not very material for since the Latin and Greek are the Learned Languages why may not one of them be sufficient for a Clergy-man He that hath been in the least concern'd in the Popish Controversies cannot be ignorant that Casaubone Rainolds Dalle and others have sufficiently demonstrated how unskilful Baronius and Bellarmine have been in the Greek Tongue and yet who can doubt but that they were deservedly reputed great Clerks Who can doubt but that St. Austin and the African Bishops were very Pious and Learned Men and yet how meanly they were skilled in the Greek Tongue I have shown in another place If our Author be delighted with such Instances He might have brought some more pertinent to His purpose For Alphonsus a Castro tells us there were some Popes so illiterate as they were totally ignorant of Grammar Saint Amour tells us of a Pope who said He was a Canonist and no Divine The Learned Bishop of Sarum in the Preface to his Regale acquaints us with a Report at Rome at the Election of a Pope that Cardinal Albici should say For the Love of God let us at least have a Pope that is so learned that He may be able to read the Gospel in the Mass However it be none of Mr. Blount's Instances affect us of the Reformed Church whom yet I think he purposely designs to derogate from in his Paragraph For p. 97. he writes very contemptibly of them and says ' The Quicunque Men by which he understands the Clergy of England are as much below Mr. Hobbs his Resentments ' as he is above their Anger And this he writes near the beginning of this Chapter where these his Proofs are of the Ignorance of the Clergy but how unjust this charge is with respect to them is so manifest that it would be a madneâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—fute him SECT VII Of the Immortality of the Soul and the Original of the Jews THese Oracles of Reason have nothing remarkable from p. 106 to p. 116. save only this That he borrows whole pages without any acknowledgment The Epistle to Mr. Wilwood is a translation out of Gassendus third and fourth Chapters of the third part Syntag. Epic. Philos his Treatise of Beneficence to Madam and his preference of Plato and Pythagoras to Aristotle are either purely Moral or else grounded on the Sentiments of those Philosophers with whom we have no mind to contest at present about those Points of Fate and Fortune Pag. 117. Your incomparable Version of that passage of Seneca where he begins with Post mortem nihil est ipsa mors nihil There is nothing after death and Death it self is nothing And pag. 128. he says This is Seneca 's Opinion ANSWER What Seneca's Opinion was of the Immortality of the Soul
be accused of Incogitancy and of not Reading the Authors he cites Of this Opinion or not much differing from it was Photius that Learned Patriarch of Constantinople in his 205th Ep. to Theod. Hegumenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Circumcision of Abraham and his Posterity was instituted as an Emblem of Restraint from Incestuous Copulations The Chaldeans did lie with their Mothers Daughters and Sisters by a wicked and abominable Custom Wherefore that neither Abraham nor his Posterity should be polluted with these their wicked Practices God instituted Circumcision The circumcising his own Flesh importing the dividing and averting him from those of his Consanguinity or Affinity in respect of Conjugal Conversation Whereas the Chaldeans Impurity and Incest continued a long while after Abraham's time without either Fear or Shame And here it must not pass unobserv'd That Mr. Blount makes use of the same Method that the profest Enemies of Christianity did of old Julian the Apostate affirmed that the Jews learned to Circumcise from the Egyptians as we are told by St. Cyril Book the Tenth contra Julianum p. 354. And Celsus affirms the same thing to whom Origen Lib. 2. p. 17. returns this Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Abraham was the first of all Mankind that was Circumcised SECT VIII Of Marrying two Sisters Judaism Christianity Millenaries PAg. 136. It is lawful to marry two Sisters The first Text of Scripture which is commonly urged in this case is that of marrying a Brother's Wife which seems to be forbidden where by a side wind they would bring in that of marrying a wife's Sister as parallel saying Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem Jus but with their Pardon the Simile doth not run upon four feet the reason is not the same for the words in Leviticus 18. and 16. which forbid the marrying a Brother's Wife say Because a Man thereby uncovers his Brother's nakedness which seems not at all to be a good reason against marrying the Wife's Sister because every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness before any such Marriage with her Sister ANSWER Our Author's Opinion concerning Marrying two Sisters seems to me grounded on that which He calls in the 106 p. of his Book the bewitching smiles of a Woman whom he there unhandsomly denominates The most lovely Brute of the Vniverse And I doubt not but his Friend Torismond as he calls him p. 135. looks on it as his best Argument We do not say that Similies always run on four feet but I am sure the present Similies do The reason of the Law is the same both as to Brothers and Sisters And whereas he says Every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness He seemeth not to understand the Scripture Phrase which is only used with relation to a turpitude committed by an unlawful Marriage If a Woman marries her Father she discovers the nakedness of her Mother in a Scriptural sense tho' in our Author 's Unscriptural sense Her Mother's nakedness was discovered before by Her Father Mr. Selden in his Vxor Hebraica Book first Chap. 6. tells us that whereas we read in the 16th Verse of the 18th Chapter It is thy Brother's nakedness in a most ancient Copy of the Greek Version in the King's Library at Saint James's Instead of Turpitudo est fratri tui the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 She is thy Brother's Wife Quasi says Selden ipso nomine seu turpitudinis seu nuditatis fratris foemina seu uxor ejus expressim nominaretur As if says he he by the words turpitude or nakedness of this Brother his Woman or his Wife was expresly named If this Remark of Mr. Selden's be well it is of good use So that the Reason of the Law is the same in marrying of two Sisters as marrying a Brother's Wife The Sense of the Law with Relation to Brothers is Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Brother's Wife for it is thy Brother's nakedness And by a parity of reason Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy wife's Sister for it is thy Wife's nakedness What our Author says concerning Penal Laws that they are ty'd up to the very Letter is true but it hath no place ubi eadem oratio Where there is the same reason And therefore the Karans or Scripturians among the Jews who are opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals that bind themselves most to the Scripture Rule have resolved this matter First that there is place for Argument and Deduction from the words of the Law Secondly that whatsoever can be deduced thence either a fortiori or a pari either because the remoter degree is prohibited or that which is equally remote is to be deemed piously and rightfully concluded Thus when ver 7. the Father and Mother are both named and v. 12. The Father's Sister And v. 13. The Mother's Sister And v. 14. The Father's Brother yet the Mother's Brother is not named nor the Sister's Daughter which would be equivalent with that And yet this being the Marriage of the Uncle on the Mother's side with the Neece which is of the same distance with the Uncle of the Father's side with the Neece and the Aunt on the Mother's side with the Nephew from the naming and prohibition of these ver 13 and 14. by the parity of reason that which is not named is by all resolved to be prohibited And as Dr. Hammond p. 436. hath observ'd just thus it is in this matter The Wife's Sister which is not named is directly in the same degree of Propinquity with the Brother's Wife which is named and prohibited Pag. 138. The Canon of Scripture which seems more nearly to concern this case is Leviticus 18. ver 18. where it is said Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her life time But this doth not therefore seem to restrain or prohibit the marrying of two sisters one after the other for the first being dead the other cannot be a Rival or vexation as the Text calls it to her dead sister And then how shall the Prohibition be urg'd if the reason of it be removed it is rationally apparent that there is great stress placed in those Expressions during her life and to vex her in uncovering her shame upon her as doth more fully appear in our Translation of the Bible in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign printed An. Dom. 1599. ANSWER If as Mr. Blount says p. 137. all Penal Laws are straitly ty'd up to the express Letter of the Law where there is par ratio the like or same reason and no where to be construed by Parallels he hath lost more for his purpose in this place of holy Scripture than he got by the former For then nothing can be concluded from this place of Leviticus for marrying a Wife's Sister after her death the express Letter of the Law mentions nothing of it All that can
be wilfully blind that deny the completion thereof But our Author is not to be born withal as to what he says concerning the Prophecy's Authority and that the Jews reckon it not among their Canonical Books Father Simon who had well weighed this Point in his Critical History of the Old Testament Book 1. Chap. 9. says There are many learned Men who find fault that the Jews exclude Daniel from the number of the Prophets and Theodoret hath reproved them very severely But it is easie to reconcile their Opinion in this Point with that of the Christians since they agree that the Books of the Bible which are called Canonical have been equally inspired by God and moreover that the Book of Daniel is of the number of these Canonical Books Josephus in the Tenth Book of his Antiquities Chap. 12. writing of Daniel says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was endued with a Divine Spirit and that he was of the number of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was one of the greatest Prophets that his Books were read by the Jews which abundantly demonstrated that he conversed with God For he did not only foretel things to come to pass as the other Prophets did but he determined the very time in which they were to be fulfilled And whereas other Prophets predicted Calamities and so lost their Esteem among the Princes and the People He foretold Good Things to come by which he conciliated the Favour of all Persons and as for the certainty of Events he obtained a Belief amongst all Men. Porphiry the Philosopher the Scholar of Plotinus and cotemporary with Origen who made it his Business to refel the Prophesies of Daniel when he found all things so punctually delivered as that there was no place for a Refutation he finally assumed the Impudence to affirm that not Daniel but an Impostor under his Name who lived in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes Published these Prophecies And this his Impudence was much more tolerable than that of Mr. Blount's who asserts that Daniel's 70 Weeks were uncertain as to their Authority Pag. 162. He never evinced his Genealogy from David for tho' some mean Persons called him the Son of David and the Mobb by that Title did cry Hosannah to him yet did he acquiesce in terming himself the Son of Man As also when he made his Cavalcade upon an Asinego they extolled him as the Descendant of King David ANSWER This is a very bold Stroke Infidelity unmasked To what purpose should our Saviour evince his Genealogy from David The honourable Du Plessis Chap. 30. observes Nusquam in Evangelio exprobratum Jesu legamus quod ex stirpe Davidis seu ex tribu Juda oriundus nonesset sed quod fabri filius ut diuturnae Davidicae domus erumnae ad inopiam nonnullos redegerant We never read in the Gospel that our Lord was upbraided with his not being of the Tribe of Judah or Lineage of David it was objected that he was a Carpenters Son for the Miseries that had befallen the House of David had reduced some of that Family to great Penury Agreeable hereunto is that of Episcopius lib. 3. Instit Jesum Nostrum ex tribu Judae ortum duxisse nemo circae ista tempora quibus discipuli ejus vivebant dubitavit That our Lord Iesus sprang out of the Tribe of Judah no one doubted in the Days of his Disciples The Jews did all acknowledge it as appears by the Question of our Saviour How say the Scribes that Christ is the Son of David What think ye of Christ Whose Son is he They say unto him The Son of David The Genealogy of Jesus shews his Family the first Words of the Gospel are The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David The Apostle in his 7th Chapter of the Hebrews Verse 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah Benjamine Tudelensis whom Abraham Zacuth in his Chronicon calls the great Luminary in his Itinerary affirms that the very Mahometans call the Messiah the Son of David How impious is our Author then in this Expression That they were but mean Persons that called him the Son of David How blasphemous he is in his Expression of the Mobb the Cavalcade on the Asinego is manifest to all those that have any Reverence for the Holy Gospel and the Prophets Pag. 164. It is apparent that not only the Jews but also the Christians were Millenaries and did believe and expect the Temporal Reign of a Messiah together with the Vnion of the Jews and Gentiles under one most happy Monarchy ANSWER It must be granted that many eminent Persons for Sanctity favoured the Millenaries But if we impartially examin this matter we shall find that it wholly rests on the Authority of Papias who pretended Apostolical Tradition Now of what Authority this Author was I report from the Words of Casaubon in his 16th Exercitation Number 74. Narrat Eusebius in tertio Historiarum papiam hunc Scriptorem fuisse futilissimum qui omnes traditionum fabellas mirifice amplecteretur scriptis Mandaret Multa igitur falsa absurdaque de Christo Apostolis scripsisse quaedam etiam fabulis propriora Eusebius declares in the third Book of his History that this Papias was a most triflng Scribler who embraced all manner of fabulous Traditions and committed them to Writing He writ many false things of Christ and the Apostles and some of his Narrations look more like Dreams and Fables then true History And in that number Casaubon gives a pregnant Instance out of Oecumenius Now as Papias pretended this Tradition to come from the Apostles so he did nothing but what others in those primitive times were wont to do It was usual for Sectaries to boast that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least their Disciples We read in Clemens Alexand. lib. 7. Strom. That Basilides an ancient Heretick boldly avouched that he had for his Master Glaucias St. Peter's Interpreter and that Valentinus affirmed with the like boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad who was one of Saint Paul's familiar Acquaintance It would be difficult to show the difference in the Cases before-mentioned and consequently this Tradition of Papias may be as well rejected as that of Basilides or that of Valentinus and that Tradition can be no certain Rule for us to walk by Pag. 165. Not one of the two first Ages dissented from the Opinion of the Millenaries and they who oppose it never quote any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least 250 Years after Christ Of this Opinion was Justin Martyr and as he says all other Christians that were exactly Orthodox Irenaeus relates the very Words which Christ used when he taught this Doctrine This Pretence and Millenary Invention stopt the Mouths of the Unbelieving Jews ANSWER It is a great Boldness to affirm that not one of the two first Centuries opposed this Opinion For how could our
Deist know this when so many Monuments of Antiquity relating to the first Centuries are lost This Method I remember to be used by Bishop Pearson in the Defence of Ignatius's Epistles It is certain that in the first and second Ages there were some that denied the Book of the Revelations to be Canonical Scripture and that the Author thereof was Cerinthus the Heretick and not St. John and there was no reason that induced them to think so besides this Doctrine of Milleranism Nepos an Egyptian Bishop was a great defender of this Opinion he writ a Book about the Year of our Lord 244. in defence of it he Titles his Book a Reproof of the Allegorists By that Name he called the Antimillenaries so that the Opponents of the Millenaries must have been then considerable their Nickname is sufficient Demonstration thereof 'T is very surprizing to hear our Deist affirm that they who oppose this Opinion never quote any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus Forasmuch as the same Dionysius in Eusebius lib. 7. c. 25. affirms that some who Preceeded him rejected the Book of the Revelations upon that account Besides the Defenders of this Doctrine kept it as secret as they possibly could Non defendere hanc Doctrinam says Lactant. lib. de vit Beat. publice atque asserere solemus We are not wont to defend and assert this Doctrine publickly 'T is no wonder then if the Opponents of this Opinion were not so numerous 'T is also very plain that our Deist is mistaken in the Design and first Contrivance of this Millenary Invention as he calls it Nay Lactantius lib. 7. c. 26. pretends there is a Command from God to keep this Doctrine in silence Now if Lactantius who was himself a Millenary and well acquainted with their Methods hath rightly informed us our Deist's Suggestions must be very weak We read in Eusebius lib. 7. c. 23. how successful Dionysius was in overthrowing Milleranism and that Coracion a principal Man of that Party was so convinced by him as that He promised never to dispute for that Doctrine more never more to teach it nor to make any mention of it If the Books of Dionysius and Nepos two of the greatest and ablest Writers of the respective Parties were now extant we could not fail of having a true Prospect of this Controversie but their Books by the Injury of Times are perished Upon which consideration if we had said nothing else this last Remark had been sufficient to defeat Mr. Blount's Argument drawn from the Silence of the two first Ages The various reading of the much celebrated place in Justin Martyr relating to the Millenaries leaves us in Uncertainties But we are confident after a diligent Examination that Irenaeus no where pretends as our Deist bears us in hand that he did to relate the very Words which Christ used when he delivered this Doctrine Besides that which is a prejudice never to be overcome is the Silence of the Gospel in so important a Matter Our Author is frequent in quoting Councils as well as Fathers for Heterodoxies what reason there should be for his not citing any Councils in this Case no not so much as Gelasius Cyzicenus in reference to the Nicene Council I cannot account for I can only account for my self declare that what general or ancient Prov. Coun. have done in this case whether they have approved it or condemned it I do not know neither am I ashamed so to confess For Scaliger in his Exercit. 345. calls verbum Nescio ingenni candidique animi pignus In the beginning of the Reformation there were some who endeavoured to give Countenance to this Opinion wherefore our Church then passed a severe Censure on such Persons For in a Convocation at London in the Year of our Lord 1552. in the last Article save one the Millenaries are called Hereticks The Article is as followeth They that go about to renew the Fable of the Hereticks called Millenarii be repugnant to Holy Scripture and cast themselves headlong into a Jewish Dotage This Article is to be seen in the Collection of Articles Injunctions c. p. 52. Prefaced by the Learned Bishop Sparrow I say Prefaced because the Author of the Antopology p. 56 informs us that the said Bishop told him That he was not the Collector and that if he had been concerned in the Collection he would have published more Materials The latter part of this Information seems very probable forasmuch as the said excellent Prelat was most accurate in Matters of this nature From what hath been said concerning this Subject we may sufficiently discover Mr. Blount's Vanity when p. 169. he affirms that there was as Universal a Tradition for Milleranism in the Primitive Times as for any Article of our Faith Whereas there is no Article of our Faith but may be tried and proved by that Golden Rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis Quod omnibus quod semper quod ubique the Articles of our Faith have been received by all Orthodox Persons at all Times and in all Places which cannot be said of Milleranism We acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such only as can be proved by Holy Scriptures and to such Articles the Rule of Vincentius is only competent This I conceive to be the Sense of our Convocation in the Year of our Lord 1562. Collect. Artic. p. 92. when they define that all Articles of Faith are grounded on those Canonical Books of Holy Scripture of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church I think I may not be importune and unreasonable if I relate the whole Article Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not Read therein nor may be Proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation in the Name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority there never was any doubt in the Church SECT IX Of Augury Of a God Origin of Good and Evil plurality of Worlds Natural Religion Ocellus Lucanus PAg. 167. Augury is a sort of the ancient heathenish Superstition And Pag. 169. We may see that Superstition like Fire endeavours to resolve all things into it self ANSWER Mr. Blount hath given us some Account of the Pagan Superstition of Augury out of which it appears how insufficient Natural Religion is of it self and how necessary Revealed Religion is to shew the vanity of these Abominations To this purpose very remarkable is that of Alexander ab Alexandro in the end of his last Book Dierum genialium Quantum debemus Christo Domino Regi Doctori nostro quem verum Deum veneramur scimus quo praemonstrante explosa monstrosa ferarum gentium doctrina rituque immani ac barbaro veram religionem edocti humanitatem verum Deum colimus evictisque erroribus infandis ineptiis
Principle which is good as Infinity of Being and Necessity of Existence it unvoidably follows That the Principle of Evil the other Anti-god which is in all things contrary to the former must be an Infinite Non entity which yet exists And if this be not the height of Non-sense nothing can be so Besides this Principle overthrows all Religion as well Natural as Revealed it destroys all Vertue and Goodness For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil then Evil necessarily falls out all Freedom of Will is destroy'd all difference of Good and Evil is taken away For if Evil becomes once necessary it loseth its Nature there can be thâ—n no Government of the World by Laws no Rewards no Punishments for they all suppose Liberty of Action All these must be banished out of the World if this Persian Opinion be true Which according to Mr. Blount may be true if Genesis be a Parable and in his Opinion it is so To such Contradictions Men expose themselves when they take on them the Patronage of such gross Lyes and Falsehoods How important this Question is and of how great Concernment it is to us to fix it on sure grounds no body can be ignorant To which purpose that of Simplicius is remarkable in his Commentary on Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Controversy about the Nature of Good and Evil not being well stated is the cause of great Impiety towards God and perverts the Principle of good Life and casts those Persons into innumerable perplexities who are not able to give a rational account thereof If we consult Origen and Celsus we may soon perceive that the Origin of Evil cannot be discovered by Natural Religion for both own the discovery thereof to be of great difficulty Celsus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a difficult thing to know the Nature of Evil unless a Man philosophises the Vulgar are not capable of it And altho' Origen differs from Celsus lib. 4. and says That Celsus is in an Errour in imputing this to Matter yet in this accords with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any thing in the World be of difficult discovery that which relates to the Origin of Evil is of the number of those things This is affirm'd by Origen with respect to Natural Religion in which all things are of very easy investigation and as Mr. Blount says of the Innate Idea of a Deity p. 178. are soon imprinted on the Minds of Men. Plutarch in his Book de Iside Osiride p. 369 370 and 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Opinion pleaseth many and wise Men some think there are two Gods of contrary Natures one is the Author of all Good the other of Evil. And Diogenes Laertius tells us that this was the Opinion of the Persian Magi who were of greater Antiquity than the Egyptians according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy One of those Gods was call'd Oromasdes the other Pluto or Arimanius And Plutarch says That Mithra was a Mediatour-God whom the Persians plac'd between the other two The Chaldeans made Gods of the Planets two of which they made Good the other two Authors of Evil and the odd three to be promiscuous and middle trimming Gods half good and half evil The Greeks imputed all Good to Jupiter Olympius but Evil to Hades The Egyptians teach that Osiris was the Author of all Good but that Typho was the Author of Evil. And Plutarch says farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Name of Typho is a sufficient Indication of his Nature I shall not trouble my Reader with any more Instances of this Nature because how various and how different the Opinions of Philosophers were as to the Origin of Evil how obscure and confused they were in the Account they gave thereof all Men know that have been any ways conversant in these Controversies And Plutarch's Books de Iside and Osiride and de Procreatione Animae e Timaeo are undeniable and sufficient Evidences thereof In which Books besides the diversities before mentioned the Reader will soon find that the great Admirers of the Philosophers do not seem to understand them on this Subject But this indeed is no wonder since nothing is more plain than that they did not understand themselves Neither could it be otherwise since they were destitute of proper means requisite hereunto And now I appeal to any judicious Reader whether any thing can be more absurd more impious more contradictory to Right Reason than what Mr. Blount hath written concerning the Origin of Evil. And if the right Notion thereof could have been imprinted on Mens Minds by Nature without Scripture and Revealed Religion how is it possible so many Philosophers and whole Nations should have been guilty of such grand Absurdities as we have seen that they were Pag. 193. The Opinion of Plurality of Worlds seem more agreeable to God 's infinite for so must all God 's Qualities be communicative Quality to be continually making new Worlds since otherwise this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted and for infinite duration lie useless and dormant ANSWER The Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds was maintained by several of the ancient Philosophers as Anaximander Anaximenes Democritus Epicurus his Scholar Metrodorus and others who maintained an infinity of Worlds and their great Reason as Elias Cretensis says was from the infinite Power and Goodness of God On the contrary the Stoics would not allow above one World which they call the Universe and Plato endeavours to prove the same by three Arguments as may be seen in Plutarch in his first Book Chap. 5. of the Opinion of the Philosophers Of the same Opinion was his Scholar Aristotle who labours to prove the same in no less then two whole Chapters as to the Validity of his Arguments I shall not write any thing in particular thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject This is notorious that what he takes upon himself to prove he commonly confirms by strong Reasons and indeed a Man shall scarce find any philosophical Subject but may by some means or other be collected out of his Writings Dr. Pearson assures us in his Dedication of Laertius to King Charles the Second that Dr. Harvey was commonly known to have said Nihil fere unquam in ipsis naturae penetralibus invenisse se quin cum Aristotelem suum pensiculatius evolveret idem ab illo aut expâ—icaâ—um aut saltem cognitum reperiret He scarce ever found any thing among the Mysteries of Nature but when he had diligently perused the Books of Aristotle he found the same either explained or known by him So that I conceive that his Authority and Reasons to be a great Prejudice to the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds 'T is reported of Aristotle that when he read the Mosaic Writings that he commended them for the Majesty of the Stile he thought it worthy of a
And if we consult Timaeus Locrus or any other of the Pythagoric School we shall find their Sentiments very different from those of Ocellus And in a word 't is very strange he should dissent from his Master in a point of so considerable moment Aristotle lib. 1. de Coelo c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Philosophers say the World was made and not eternal And to the same effect he speaks lib. 3. c. 2. Now altho' we may suppose that Aristotle was so disingenuous as not to own that he had his Arguments from Ocellus 't is certain he no where mentions him yet it overcomes all belief that he should be so impudent as to affirm as he did that all Philosophers before him held the World to have had a beginning if this Book of Ocellus Lucanus had been extant in his days as it is now especially had it been of that Eminence and Antiquity as Mr. Blount pretends who hath discoursed subtilly but very injudiciously of so weighty a Subject Page 218. It plainly appears out of the Bible that there were two Creations both of Man and Woman and that Adam was not the first Man nor Eve the first Woman only the first of the Holy Race and this divers of the Jews believe For in the first Chapter of Genesis ver 27. it is said So God created Man in his own image in the image of God created He him Male and Female created He them Bidding them increase and multiply and have dominion over all things Which plainly shews that Man was then created and that the other Creation of Adam and Eve spoken of in the second Chapter ver 2. and 22. were of the first Man and Woman of the Holy Race and not the first Man and Woman that ever was in the World ANSWER This seems to me to be the greatest Paradox that I have at any time met with Vincentius Liâ—inensis cap. 17. accuses Nestorius That inaudito scelere duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos with an unheard of wickedness he affirmed That there were two Christs two Sons of God one who was begotten of his Father the other of his Mother Wherefore the Virgin Mary ought not to be call'd the Mother of God but of Christ because that Christ who was God was not born of the Virgin but He only who was Christ Buxdorf in his Synagoga Judaica cap. 36. affirms That the Modern Jews believe that there are to be two Messiah's Duos sibi Messias fingunt vel somniant alterum Messiam Ben Joseph alterum vero Messiam Ben David They perswaded themselves that one of their Messias's was to be the Son of Joseph the other the Son of David That one was to be of the Tribe of Ephraim a poor simple Man the other to be of the Tribe of Judah a King and a Conquerour Tertullian lib. 4. cont Marcion c. 6. gives us this Account Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum qui Tiberianis temporibus Marcion held that there were to be two Christs one who was revealed in the time of Tiberius by an unknown God for the Salvation of the Gentiles the other was to be sent from the Creatour for the restitution of the Jewish state A Man might think that there was some mischief in this number Two and that the Philosophers who curst it had good grounds for so doing Yet among all the Two's I find none to be more absurd and more ungrounded than this of the Two Creations For it is destitute of the least colour of Reason I think it not unreasonable to query from which of the two Creations our Deists descend They will not pretend to descend from Adam for the Holy Race descended from him Neither do I know how they could descend from the First Creation or from the Man and Woman before Adam and Eve if the Mosaic History of the Creation be a meer Allegory This is a Knot to be unty'd by Friend Torismond or Ingenious Major A. For my part I know no way but to cut it And that our Deists may be said like Curtius Rufus in Tacitus ex se nasci to be descended from Themselves If the Book of Genesis be a meer Parable and an Allegory as our Author bears us in hand that it is his Argument falls to the ground But as we are of another Opinion so we shall answer his Argument upon a truer Principle Mr. Blount here follows the Author of the Preadamites who makes a double Creation the one in the first Chapter of Genesis the other in the second Chapter and that the first may relate to the first Peopling of the World but the second relates to the first Man and Woman of the Jewish Nation Whosoever consults Moses will find it otherwise The utmost that can be collected is That in the first Chapter of Genesis the creation of Male and Female is laid down in general ver 27. but in the second Chapter it is laid down in particular as ver 7. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and ver 22. That the rib which the Lord God had taken from man he made a woman This is a matter of great Consequence because if there were Men and Women before Adam I cannot perceive how the Scripture can be true I will therefore demonstrate first out of the Mosaic Writings and secondly out of other places of Scripture that this a meer Fiction Moses in his second Cap. v. 3. says That God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it He had rested from all his works which God had created and made can it then be imagined that Moses should write thus if the first Parents of the Jewish Nation were not then created Can it be imagined he should thus contradict himself in the next words certainly no Man in his right wits can think so Genesis the 3. ver 20. we read that Adam called his Wife's Name Eve because she was â—he Mother of all Living that is of all Men as Mr. Selden well observes in his 1. Book De jure nat gent. ch 5. whose words being very pertinent I shall here recite them Nam etiam in Genesi capite tertio versu vicesimo omne vivens Onkelos Chaldaeus expressim Mater omnium filiorum hominum Cui consona est illa Judaeorum Mauritaniensium Mater omnium viventium quae rationalia sunt Et Arabica illa altera Saudiae ubi adjicitur quae rationalia mortalia sunt etiam in Tawasii Persica ibi vertitur Mater omnium viventium quae rationalia For also in the third Chapter of Genesis ver 20. all living signifies every Man as where Eve is called the Mother of all Living The Chaldean Orkelos renders it The Mother of all the Sons of Men. The Version of the Mauritanian Jews The Mother of all living Creatures who are rational The Arabic of Saudia adds a word and reads Rational and Mortal The Persian Version of Tawus renders it in like