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
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
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
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
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
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
The forecited Honor. Du Plessis in the 29. c. positively and truly affirms Quod ipsi Sanhedrin seu Juces 70. quos R. Moses Hadarsan ante adventum Messiae non destituros dicebat sub Assyriorum jugo sub Macchabaeorum Principatu persever abant The Sanhedrin or 70 Judges whom Rabbi Moses Hadarsan asserted should not cease till the the Coming of the Messiah continued under the Bondage of the Assyrians and the Government of the Macchabees He also adds In ipsa captivitate habuerunt perpetuo Judaei suum Reschgaluta id est Principem exulum ex tribu Juda exque ipsa Davidis stirpe quod Judaeorum Historiae testantur The Jewish Historians testify That when they were in Captivity they had their Prince of the Tribe of Judah of the Family of David And yet Mr. Blount contrary to all these Authorities peremptorily says That the Scepter in the Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar so departed from the Tribe of Judah as that it was never resetled in it more A plain Argument He had not well considered Revealed Religion which so ignorantly he impugns Pag. 159. Other Prophecies are either general and indefinitly exprest as to the time of their accomplishment or inexplicable from their obscurity or uncertain as to their Authority such as are the Weeks of Daniel which Book the Jews reckon among their Hagiographa or Sacred but not Canonical Books ANSWER The Prophesies of the Prophet Daniel which expresly point at the time of the Messiah's Coming and concur with our JESUS are very considerable The Prophesy in the 9th of Daniel ver 24 25 and 26. Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in the everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophesy and to anoint the most holy Ver. 25. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again and the war even in troublous times Ver. 26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for Himself and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the ends of the war desolations are determined Ver. 27. And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease and for the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it desolate even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate This Prophesy is clearly meant of the Messiah because here we have not only his Name but his Sufferings and the account of his Sufferings not for himself but the People The ancient Jews understood this place of the Messiah Hoornbeck to this purpose tells us that R. Saadias a gaon Rabbi Naahman Gerundensis and divers others expound this place of the Messias At last he gives us Manasse Ben Israel which being very material I shall quote it at large out of him Verum ut addam illud interpretationis hujus prophetiae varie etiam illa ab hujus aevi Hebraeis explicata est neque illud mirum cuique videre debet si in prophetia tam obscura variant sententiae But that I might add this of the Interpretation of this Prophesy for this is variously expounded by the Hebrews of this Age neither let this be a wonder to any if there be a difference of opinions in so obscure a Prophesy There are therefore those who take these 70 weeks so that they say After the end of them the Messiah is to come who would constitute the Jews Lords of the whole Earth And this truly all those did imagine that took arms against the Roman Emperour and altho' they were obnoxious to many miseries and labours yet notwithstanding they always placed their hope in the Messias that was to come because they thought he would afford the sight of himself when they were in the midst of their miseries wherefore these words To finish transgressions they expounded That after the expiration of 70 weeks sins are pardoned Thus far Hoornbeck out of Menasse Ben Israel We have here an evident testimony that the Jews that lived about the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem looked for the Messias then to come because they thought Daniel's Period was then ended and tho' by mistake they expected a temporal Prince yet 't is evident they thought this Prophesy did concern the time when the Messias should come That which is most difficult here is the direct time of the Messias's cutting off is told us under the name of so many Weeks which are not to be understood in our common acceptation of the word but are to be taken for Years The word Weeks in holy Scripture signifieth sometime the space of seven Days as here in this Prophesy 10. ch ver 2. where Daniel says That he mourned three Weeks or sevenets of Days And in the 16. of Deuteron 9. ver where commandment is given Seven Weeks shalt thou number unto thee begin to number the seven Weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn The word Weeks is sometime taken for Years in Scripture and containeth seven Years As in the 29. chap. Genes ver 27. Fulfil her Week and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other Years As also Leviticus ch 25. ver 8. And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of Years unto thee seven times seven Years and the space of the seven Sabbaths of Years shall be unto thee forty and nine Years The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in approved Authors is in like manner used not only for seven Days but also for seven Years space as in the end of the 7th Book of Aristotle's Politicks where mention is made of such as divided Ages by Sevenets of Years 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Varro in his first Book of Images writeth Se jam duodecimam annorum hebdomadam ingressum esse That he had now entred into the twelfth Sennet of Years which Expression is plain and full In this Signification the Word is to be taken in this place understanding by 70 Sevennets 490 Years having Proof thereof from Holy Scripture and Prophane Authors And to those before mentioned we may add Censorinus de die Natali c. 14. and Macrobius Book first in Somnium Scipionis c. 6. As for those who stretch the Word further to a Sevenet of Tenths or Jubilies or Hundreds of Years as some have done their Opinion hath neither warrant of God's Word nor any likelyhood of Truth The greatest Difficulty is about the Beginning of those Weeks concerning which we need not say any thing considering that those must
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