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
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
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
although if they had then a being yet they made no Figure in the World He fully tells us that the Arians appealed for tryal to the Fathers that they were condemned at Nice by a Party and by the Artifice of the Emperor Where he also gives us a monstrous Account of the Number of the Bishops there assembled And p. 99. he affirms that the Arians had not Freedome to dispute their Cause He represents the Arian Councils of Ariminum very Erroneously He manifests his Malignity when he accuses the Trinitarians of Ignorance and for Proof cites a Canon of the Church and p. 103. he gives many Instances of the same where we have proved that there is no such Canon as far as a Negative is capable of being proved And we have discovered his disingenuity in not mentioning Du Ranckin from whom he borrowed all his Materials word for word The seventh Section is of the Immortality of the soul and of the Original of the Jews In this Section the necessity of revealed Religion is proved from the insufficiency of Philosophical Reasons to this purpose As also with relation to a future State Which as Mr. Blount confesses p. 118. hath so much ruffled and entangled mens Minds The principal philosophic Reason is examined and refell'd From whence it will be evident that the Scriptures alone give a satisfactory Account of those things Sir Henry Savil's translating Tacitus and omiting the Original of the Jews is here defended Institution of Divine Worship proved to be before Moses and Abraham As also that Moses and the Israelites did not learn Circumcision from the Aegyptians and that our Author in this Method followed Celsus and Julian The eighth Section of marrying two Sisters Judaism Christianity Millenaries In which the Scriptures brought to prove it unlawful are defended The Nature of Penal Laws in this case makes more against our Deists then for him his Error proceeds from neglecting the Hebrew and following the Greek Translation The Apostolic Canon in this case considered Dr. Hammond's Mistake discovered about a Woman's leaving her Husband and marrying again As also Mr. Blount's Abuse of the Council of Eliberis where we are necessitated to speak on something concerning Excommunication the Churches great Censure Grotius his Error in his Inference from the Apostolic Canon reproved and his Collection from the Council of Eliberis proved unwarrantable St. Basil's Epistle to Diadorus in this case is considered Mr. Blount's great Falshood and Abuse of the civil Law in this case is laid open the Sects of the Jews and the case of the Messiah is rightly stated Mr. Blount's manner of Arguing is reprehended We have defended the Prophecy of Daniel in this case and have shown the Original of the Millinaries The ninth Section of Augury Origine of Good and Evil plurality of Worlds Ocellus Lucanus c. From his account of Augury I have collected the Necessity of revealed Religion discovered his mistake of Christian Processions If what Varenius concerning whole Nations being Atheistical affirms be true the most learned Dr. Stilling fleet seems to be under some mistake Varenius his Assertion argues the Necessity of revealed Religion the Chinensian and Aegyptian account of time proved to be vain and ridiculous as also the Chaldean the main Props of our Author's Hypothesis the Origine of Good and Evil not to be known by natural Religion If Mr. Blount's Supposition be granted concerning the Persians the Deist must be an Idolater his reason for plurality of worlds refuted the principal Arguments of Ocellus Lucanus refell'd his Age examined with some uncommon Observations relating to him and our Author 's great Vanity in making him cotemporary with or ancienter then Moses exposed Mr. Blount's great Argument for a double Creation out of the first and second Chapters of Genesis enquired into and proved ineffectual From hence we may see the reason why in his 5th Page he propounds it as a Difficulty how distinct pieces of the World should be Peopled as America and the like without a miracle and of Mathusalem's being the longest llv'd of all Adam's Posterity because in his Hypothesis of two distinct Originals of mankind they have an easie Solution although they have a truer and a much easier one in ours This method of his is indeed allowable in Philosophy which varies according to every new Phaenomenon but hath no place in matters of Religion His Disingenuity in relation to Cicero reproved the Difference between Ocellus and the Chaldeans is observed There are many other Matters contained in this Book which for Brevities sake I have omited but are perspicuously treated of and I hope to the Readers satisfaction Two things remain which I think fit to acquaint my Reader with one is that these Oracles are many of them transcribed out of modern Authors of whom I have taken no Notice but require all at Mr. Blount's Hands he being the Person that gave them the Title of Oracles neither take I any Notice of others concerned he being the chief Architect The other is that these Controversies depending much on Authority I am necessitated to make frequent appeals to Greek and Latin Authors whom for the Benefit of some Readers I have translated into English where if I have not kept my self strictly to the Words yet I have taken all care not to deviate from tne true sense Lastly As in all Duty bound I humbly submit the censure of what I have written to my Superiors in the Cnurch of England Farewel Mr. BLOUNT's Oracles of Reason Examined and Answered In Nine SECTIONS c. SECT I. Of the Mosaic Creation and the Divine Miracles MR. Blount Page the Second says That many Fathers of the Church have concluded that the whole Mosaic Creation seems to have been but a pious Allegory ANSWER It is worth observing that although the Author of these pretended Oracles of Reason hath little regard for the Holy Scriptures and without all peradventure less for the Fathers of the Church yet upon all Occasions he makes use of their Authorities and frequently quotes them Upon reading this Imputation and his fastning such a Charge upon many Fathers of the Church I forthwith consulted Mr. Dally of the Use of the Fathers Book the second Chapter three and fourth where he treats professedly of the Fathers Errors and I find nothing there that favours this bold Assertion On the contrary I find an Expression of Dally's from the unanimous Consent of the Fathers which if it be true this of the Oracle must necessarily be false None of the ancient Fathers can be charged with this Mistake if Origen his Interpreters I take not into the Number and perhaps St. Ambrose be excepted St. Ambrose Chap. 2. of Paradise speaks not of above One that was of this Opinion and the Margent refers us to Origen Whereas had it been true what these Oracles suggests p. 49. That in the first Ages of the Christian Church the more candid Interpreters deviated from the literal reading of Moses's History
this Reply Quis nescit Vocabulum omnis passim in Sacris Literis ambiguae esse significationis rarissime absolute accipi plurimis vero locis restringi ad subjectum de quo agitur Vt apud Mosem Gen. 41. Cum famem super Vniversam Orbem invaluisse scribâ—t non nisi de aliqua orbis portione intelligendum esse fatentur Theologi quid abstat igitur quo minus cum Deus dâ—cituâ— Inundasse Vniversam Terram totam Terrâ—m habitatam Omma haebitatae telluris animalia intelligamus Who is so Ignorant as not to know that the Word all is every where in the Holy Scriptures of an ambiguous signification and very seldom put absolutely in most places 't is restained to the Subject Matter As in Gen. 41. When the Famine is said to prevail over the whole Earth Divines understand it of some part of the Earth What should hinder but that the same may be understood in this case of the Flood and the destruction of all Creatures This is most certain from the Holy Scriptures That all Mankind those in the Ark excepted were destroyed by the Flood For the occasion thereof is thus expressed in Genesis And God saw the wickedness of Man was great upon the Earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually and the Lord said I will destroy Man whom I have created from the face of the Earth And again all Flesh died thot moved upon the Face of the Earth and every Man and every living Substance was destroyed that was upon the Face of the Ground both Man and Cattle and the Creeping things and the Fowl of Heaven and they were destroyed from the Earth and Noah only remained alive and they that were with Him in the Ark. So that Mr. Blount is very vain in Mustering up the Arguments he pretends to be brought to prove that the Flood was only in the Land of the Jews And Vossius seems to be in a great Error in limiting the same to Syria and Mesopotamia For as it seems strange that in so short an Interval as that was from Adam to the Flood according to the ordinary Computation 1656 Years and not much above Two thousand according to the largest the World should then be fully Peopled So it also seems no less strange that in such a space of time Syria and Mesopotamia should only be Peopled Besides it cannot be well imagined that so many Nations should have knowledg thereof if it were not of a much greater extent For Vossius confesseth that almost all Nations had knowledg thereof the Egyptians only excepted Josephus a Costa Witnesseth for the Americans and so doth Laet. Martinus for the Chineses for the knowledge of others Bochart in his Geogr. Sacra and Grotius in his Annotata on the First Book of the Truth of the Christan Religion And now we draw towards a Conclusion I shall not use any other Words then those which are used by the most Learned Dr. Stillingfleet now Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Origines Sacrae p. 539 and 540. I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert that the Flood did spread it self over all the surface of the Earth It is evident that the Flood was Vniversal as to Mankind but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the Vniversallity of it as to the Globe of the Earth unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole Earth was Peopled before the Flood which I dispair of ever seeing proved I grant as far as the Flood extended all Creatures were destroyed but I see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond that compass and space of Earth where Men Inhabited All these are the Assertions of that great Man So that I suppose the vanity of Mr. Blount's Suggestion is apparant by this right the Notion of the Flood Pag. 12. I must ingeniously confess Original Sin was ever a difficult Pill with me to swallow my Reason stopping it in my throat and not having Faith enough to wash it down And p. 15. never did any Church enjoyn Penance or Repentance for Original Sin wherefore it seems preposterous and unreasonable that any Man should be Damned for that which no Man is bound to Repent ANSWER That Mr. Blount hath not Faith to wash down Original Sin which sticks in his Throat is a thing to be lamented this truth being so plainly laid down in Holy Writ that no Man who hath any regard for the Scriptures but will be offended with him for Writing so contemptably of this Doctrine The chief Argument which he brings for his opinion taken from Penance and Repentance is of no force But because I think t is new I will consider it In the Primitive Church Penance was only imposed for Three Crimes viz. Idolatry Homicide and Adultry which is proved at large by Morinus in his fifth Book de Penitentia cap. 3. out of Fathers and Councils and he concludes the Chapter thu Toâ—â—igâ—â—ur tantis Testimonis freti recte nobis videmur Colegere quadringentis prope annis a Christo nato Patres haec sola tria crimina Penitenta Cassigasse Trusting to so many Testimonies we think we may truly conclude that for almost Four Hundred Years after our Saviour no Penance was Imposed but only for these Three Crimes Now if Mr. Blount's Negative Argument with relation to the Practice of the Church be valid how many Men have lived in the World without Actual Sin So that his Argument proves too much a most certain sign of its Weakness As for the Second part of his Argument That no Church ever required Repentance for Original Sin is a mistake and proceeds from not knowing the Churches Practice In the Primitive Church Repentance was required of all adult Persons who desired Baptism which must relate to Original as well as Actual Sin Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo says Ingressuras Baptismum orationibus crebris jejuniis geniculationibus crebris pervigiliis orare aportet confessione omnium retro delectorum Such as intend to be Baptized must prepare themselves by frequent Prayers Fastings frequent Humiliations Watchings with Confession of all their Sins Agreeable to this ancient Practice our Church begins its Office of Baptism with the Confession of Original Sin in these Words Dearly beloved for as much as all Men are conceived and born in Sin and our Church prays for the Pardon of the same in these Words We call upon thee for these Infants that they coming to this Holy Baptism may receive Remission of their Sins by spiritual Regeneration And to the same purpose before Tertullian we have Justin Martyr in his second Apology where he says That those who were to be Baptised jejunare docentur nobis una cum illis orantibus jejunantibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are required to Fast the Congregation also praying and fasting together with them Now the Church requiring all Catechumens to
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
very day of their Birth they should fall into Misery and Evil. Where we see that after all those Brags of Sacred Oracles and Authority of Fathers our Author with all his Reason and Arguments is forced to conclude with probability Pag. 59. The Second Nicene Council would have this Doctrine proposed out of the Book of John Bishop of Thessalonica to be confirmed these are the Words concerning the Angels Arch-Angels and their Powers to which I also joyn our own Souls this is the Opinion of the Catholick-Church that they are 't is true intelligible yet not wholly incorporeal and invisible ANSWER Supposing that it were true as it is not what Mr. Blount hath delivered concerning the Second Nicene Council 's Confirming the Opinion of John Bishop of Thessalonica yet it cannot be concluded that this was the Opinion of the Catholick-Church as to the Corporiety of Angels and Souls Who knows not that the Conditions commonly required to make a General Council which only can Represent the Catholick-Church were wanting to the Second Nicene Petrus de Marca lib. 2. de Concordia c. 17. gives us this Account Secunda Synodus Nicaena ab Ecclesia Gallicana in Concilio Francofordiensi repudiata est The Gallicane Church Assembled in the Council of Francford hath rejected the Second Nicene Council And he subjoyns this excellent Reason Secundam Synodum Nicenam Oecumedicam dici posse negarunt quod occidentis provinciae per Epistolas more Ecclesiastico sententiam rogatae non fuissent The Second Nicene Synod was deny'd by them to be Oecumenical because no regard was had to the Provinces of the Western Churches in order to their consent according to the Custom received in the Church And the same De Marca lib. 6. c. 25. adds In Synodo Francofordiensi agitatum an Secunda Synodus Nicene recipienda foret tanquam septima Synodus oecumenica decretum autem in Canone Secundo Synodum illam repudiandam esse damnandam In the Synod held at Fracford it was Debated whether the Second Nicene Synod should be received as the Seventh General Council but it was Decreed in the Second Canon that it should be rejected and Condemned Agreeable hereunto is that of Launey some time a most Learned Doctor of the Sorbon in his Epistles Par. 8. Epist 11. Antiquiores Gallia Scriptores Nicaenam Secundam Vniversalibus non accensent conciliis The more Ancient French Writers do not enumerate the Second Nicene Council among those which they account Universal And Launey then descends to Particulars proving the same by the Ancient French Annals and many Historians If we consult the Church here in Britain in those times we shall find that they Rejected it also Simeon Dunelmensis an Ancient and good English Historian in his Book de Gestis regum Anglorum ad annum 792 says That Charles King of France seut a Synodal Book into Britain which he received from Constantinople in which Book were contained the Decrees of the Second Nicene Council Now how our Church in those days was pleased or rather displeased therewith the fame Dunelmensis tells us In quo Libro hu proh Dolor Multa inconvenientia verae fidei contraria reperiunt maxime quod ibidem confirmatum imagines adorare debere quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur In which Book alas Many inconvenient things were found and repugnant to the true Faith especially that which relates to the Worship of Images which the Church of God doth utterly abominate This Testimony is the more to be regarded for that it appears from hence that in those days our Church abhorred Image Worship This Testimony is Recorded also by Roger Hoveden Matthew Westminster and other our Ancient and best Historians And so much confounded the Romanists in the begining of the Reformation that their great Advocate Harpsfield could make no other Reply but that it was commentitia insulsa fabula a foolish and an invented Fable and that it was not Written by Simeon Dunelmensis or Matthew Westminster He makes no mention of Roger Hoveden nor of the Manuscript History of Rochester in the Cottonian Bibliothec whereas the same is now to be found in the Manuscript of Dunelmensis in Bennet Colledg Library in Cambridge And those who have been conversant in those things assure us that the same is to be seen in divers Manuscripts of Mathew Westminster and Hoveden and that all old and uncorrupted Copies testifie the same thing Of what Quallity Dunelmensis was I need not say much since the Preface to the Decem Scriptures is very full to this purpose I shall only here say that he is accounted one of our best Historians by the Pontifician and Reformed Parties He was Chantour of the Church of Saint Cuthberts in Durham and continued his History to the Days of King Henry the First But Supposing that this Synod was Universal or that which is all one that the Opinion of the Catholick-Church might be gathered from it as touching the Corporiety of Angels and Souls Doth it appear that such was the definition of that Synod in any of its Decrees Or doth it appear that they Confirmed the Opinion of John Bishop of Thessalonica in this Point No certainly nothing less And for this we appeal to Edmund Richâ—r a Doctor of the Sorbon in his Learned History of General Councils in his First Book p. 655. where we Read Angelos animas esse Corporeas nequaquam approbavit Synodus sed fuit peculiaris opinio Episcopi Thessalonicensis The Second Nicene Synod did not approve of the Doctrine of the Corporiety of Angels or Souls but it was the peculiar and private opinion of the Bishop of Thessalonica And the same Richer farther adds Accedit in Synodis non attendi oportere ad ea quae privatus aliquis narrat sed ad solam Synodi definitionem ut alias observatum est Besides in Reading Councils little regard is to be had to what a private Doctor or Bishop may declare or say we ought only to look to the Decree or Definition of the Synod And this says Richer I have Observed in another Place And now I may without doing any wrong Conclude that Mr. Blount hath Read the Councils very negligently and makes use of them at Second Hand The same may be said of the Fathers he quotes He hath injuriously imputed Heresy to the Catholick Church and hath fastened an untruth on the Second Council of Nice Pag. 73. St. Austin Would have all things that are said to be the Work of Six Days to have been Created in one moment altho Moses divided them into Classes and different times that he might the better help the Imagination of the People to Comprehend the Fiâ—st Originals of things God Almighty did in my Opinion Create out of nothing in one Moment and by one individual Act all Substances whether Intellectual or Câ—â—â—â—â—al nor did St. Austin in that come wide of 〈…〉 ANSWER I Remember that I have Read somwhere in Maldenate that Gregory Nazianzen Compares
Geography of Carolus a Sancto Paulo would give little Credit to this Charge for he would not find half that number of Bishopricks in the Christian World We confess there is some difference among ancient Authors as to the precise Number of Bishops in the Nicene Synod but then the difference is very inconsiderable not so portentous and extravagant as it is here represented nor a Word of this pretended Project of Constantine's Athanasius Hilary Hierom Ruffin Socrates and others affirm the Number of the Council to be 318. 'T is true there were many Presbyters and Deacons that accompanied these Bishops of whom these Authors make no particular mention there being no such regard had of them as there was of the Bishops I am verily perswaded that what Mr. Selden says in his Commentary on Eutychius p. 81. will obtain Belief among all unprejudiced Persons I will therefore report in his own Words Nemo mihi Sancto Athanasio aequiparandus is scilicet Archidiaconus tunc Ecclesiae Alexandrinae cum Alexandro patriarcha suo cui proxime successit testis interfuit oculatus Atque diserte is in Epistola ad Episcopos Africanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No one in my Opinion as to this Matter is to be compared to Athanasius he was Archdeacon of the Church of Alexandria an Eye Witness and immediate Successor to Alexander the Patriarch and he expresly writes in an Epistle of his to the African Bishops That in the Synod held at Nice there were assembled Three hundred and eighteen Bishops There is an ancient Author who wrote a Book about the time of the fourth general Council held at Chalcedon One hundred and twenty Years after that at Nice The Title of the Book is An Exposition and Collection of all the said Synods This Book was brought into England in Manuscript together with many other Manuscripts of great Value by Christian Ravius a German a Man very well versed in the Oriental Learning This Book gives us an account much differing from Mr. Blount's He says There were 232 Bishops in the Council Presbyters and Monks 86 in all 318. Here is no mention of 2000 Bishops nor of any Artifice of Constantine's And this is the more to be regarded if it be true what Sandius the Arian Historiographer imagines p 166. that the Author of this Collection was Sabinus the Macedonian who wrote a Book of the same Title Socrates assures us that this History was written with great Partiality being an Enemy to that Council and one that accused the Fathers thereof as simple and ignorant Persons for which he is reproved by the same Socrates lib. 1. c. 6. and lib. 2. c. 13. How glad would Sabinus have been to have laid hold on this occasion to blacken Constantine and this Synod had there been the least Colour of Truth for so horrid a Calumny Perhaps some may think that Mr. Blount had somd good Grounds for laying this Imputation on Constantine and the Council although he did not produce them and would therefore be willingly satisfied what Conjectures may be made in order thereunto For the satisfaction of such I make this Answer That I believe Mr. Blount had no Grounds but such only as we find cited in Sandius and Selden In the first we find out of Hottinger in his Oriental History viz. That Petricides and Elma Cinus Arabian Writers have delivered to Posterity that there were at Nice 2300 which in truth can make nothing for Mr. Blount the Question was of Bishops only not of Others For Socrates lib. 1. c. 5. Eccles Hist says that there were at this Council Presbyters Deacons and of other inferior Orders innumerable And I find this of Socrates to be very agreeable with that which is delivered by other Historians of that Age and which peradventure might give the first occasion of this exorbitant number of Bishops And if we may be allowed to consult Reason in historical Matters I cannot do better then to cite Nicetas Coniates lib. 5. c. 9. where he gives this Reason why no more Bishops met in so venerable an Assembly because Age and Sickness detained many and that Bishopricks were then thin sowed every little City being not then advanced into an Episcopal See In Selden we find Eutychius affirming that in the City of Nice were assembled 2400 Bishops According to Dr. Pocock's Translation Josephus Aegyptius affirms the number to be 2048. And the same is affirmed by Ismael Ibn Ali the Mahometan Historian These are the only Authors that I have any where observed to have been made use of by learned Men to this purpose To all which the Novelty of the Author is a sufficient Answer Certainly those Historians who liv'd in the Age when things are transacted and are Eye-witnesses and are a great part of the Affairs themselves are to be believed before others that lived some hundred of Years after the things were done But since Ismael Ibn Ali the Mahometan seems more full to Mr. Blount's purpose than the others I will here translate him About the End of the twentieth Year of Constantine the Emperor there were gathered together in Council 2048 Bishops then the Emperor chose out of that number 318. And they did Excommunicate Arius of Alexandria because he did assert that Christ was a Creature The foresaid Bishops were consenting to the Emperor's Pleasure and so they innovated and published a New System of Christian Religion Eusebius who lived in those Days and was a Member of the Council says in his Chronicle that the Vicennalia of Constantine were Celebrated at Rome Anno 330. and that the Council was assembled Anno 325. So that this Trip of the Mahometans is an Argument that he made use of bad Records in compiling his History And whereas he says the Council innovated as to Religion he writes like a Mahometan indeed and not like a Man acquainted with the Misteries of our Sacred Religion We have therefore reason to believe that as the Arabic Canons falsly fathered on this Council are exploded by all that have any Gust of Criticism so likewise will these Modern Arabic Pamphlets be rejected by all such as will take the Pains to examine them Pag. 99. The Arians had not the Freedom to dispute their Cause in the Council of Nice ANSWER If this could be made appear then farewell to the Authority of the Nicene Council but if this be false as undoubtedly it is what a horrid injury is done to this most Venerable Assembly This is one of the greatest Objections the Protestants have against the Council of Trent and that the Catholicks of old had against the Arian Synods but who can believe this that knows with what fervency and zeal Saint Athanasius declaims against this perverse Method And this Method He says is repugnant to the Law of God and the Blessed Apostle Athanasius Apol. ad Const Imper. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The divine Law and the Blessed Apostle require and Command all parties to be heard And to this purpose
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
It is a necessary Duty incumbent on us to prevent the same by true Ratiocination The Epistle says 't is written in Leviticus Thou shalt not Marry thy Wife's Sister to vex her whilst she is living From whence saith the Epistle 't is manifest you may Marry her Sister when your Wife is dead We are asked Whether it is not written That a Man may Marry his Wife's Sister We say it is a certain Truth that no such thing is written No Person but the Legislator ought by virtue of any Consequence to infer any thing from the silence of a Law For if this Liberty be allowed a Man may Marry his Wife's Sister tho' his Wife be Living For this Sophism will serve that turn too 't is written Thou shalt not take thy Sister that she may not vex thy Wife therefore where there is no Vexation in the case the thing is lawful They who are for this Opinion may soon pretend that there will be no Vexation nor Jealosies between the two Sisters Wherefore the Cause being removed for which the Legislator prohibited a Man to have two Sisters to Wife at one time What should hinder it But you will say this is not written in the Law neither say I is the other there written But I say if Consequences be allowed the Consequence is equal on either side it grants equal License and Liberty How much this sort of Marriage was abominated by the Ancient Christians St. Basil abundantly declares when in his Epistle he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Uncleanness to be the cause of it and the Marriage it self he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unlawful dwelling together and no Marriage You may see how effectually Basil hath refuted this pretended Oracle without Recourse to the Hebrew for he makes use only of the Translation of the 70. and Quotes the place of Leviticus in the same manner our Deist doth the Septuaginta having suffered no Alteration in this place Pag. 144. Whether the Solution of Justinian in the like cases of Affinity in the first Book of his Institutions Tit. 10. de Nuptiis be not properly applicable to Leviticus 18. Ver. 18. Si una tibi nupta est ideo alteram uxorem ducere non poteris quia duas sorores eodem tempore habere non licet If you are Married to one you cannot Marry the other because you cannot that is you ought not to be Married to two Sisters at one time ANSWER I do not remember that I have met with a greater Disingenuity in any Author than I have here found in this place of Mr. Blount's I have consulted Justinian's Institutes with the Commentaries of Antonius Contius Jacobus Gothofredus and Franciscus Acoursius and I cannot find the place cited in any of these Editions There is a place or two Tit. de Nuptiis concerning Marrying two Wifes but not a Word of Marrying two Sisters So that I have reason to think that Mr. Blount wilfully and fraudulently changed these Words duas uxores twice used in that Title into duas sorores two Wifes into two Sisters although the present case is wholly omitted And I am verily perswaded that nothing can excuse him unless perhaps some invisible Manuscript or some Edition never heard of before It is not to be passed over in silence that our Deist in this Page proposes a Query concerning the Canons of the Church of England viz. Whether if any of the Canons of the Church of England be dubious it may not be proper and convenient to consult the antient Canons for Explanation and Illustration What he designs by this Query his other Queries have either nothing to the purpose or have been already answered I cannot conjecture considering his Concessions relating to the 99th Canon and the Table of Marriage set forth by Authority 1563. Wherefore to put all out of doubt and to vindicate the Perspicuity of the forementioned Canon and that the Illustration it receives from former Canons makes more against Mr. Blount then otherwise I will set down the Opinion of our Church concerning these Marriages out of the Book Entituled Liber quorundam Canonum disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Anno 1581. in which Book we find these Words Omnia Matrimonia quae uspiam contracta sunt intra gradus cognationis aut affinitatis prohibitos in 18 Levitici autoritate Episcopi dissâ—lventur maxime vero si quis priore uxore demortua ejus sororem uxorem duxerit hic enim gradus communi Dostorum virorum consensu judicio puâ—atur in Levitico prohiberi That is All Marriages which have been at any time contracted within the Degrees of Cognation or Affinity prohibited in the 18th of Leviticus shall by Episcopal Authority be dissolved Especially if a Man marries his deceased Wife's Sister It is the Opinion of the Learned that this Degree is prohibited in the forenamed Book of Leviticus The Conclusion is very obvious and our Author 's wonted Subtilty hath proved a Disadvantage to his Design Pag. 157. I cannot find any Authentick Ground to believe that the Sects among the Jews were more Antient then the Days of the Maccabees ANSWER It is a common Opinion among learned Men that all the Sects of the Jews had their Beginning after the Death of their Prophets And this is substantially proved by Cunaeus lib. 2. c. 17. de Repub. Hebraeorum But how long after their Deaths is a very great Question as Pfeiffer says Exercit. 4ta speaking of the Pharisees Casaubon in his first Exercit. against Baronius quotes Josephus lib. 13. c. 9. for mentioning the Pharisees Sadduces and Essenes in the Affairs of Jonathan Asmonaeus 140 Years before the Nativity of Christ The same Josephus lib. 18. c. 2. affirms that those three Sects or as he calls them Philosophies were known to the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translator renders multis retro saeculis many Ages past Of all their Sects the Sadduces are the most ancient and Casaubon in the place cited thinks the Pharisees to be soon after them Antigonus Sochaeus whose Disciple Zadoch the Author of the Sect of the Sadduces was succeeded Simeon the Just whom the Jews commonly and among them Abraham Zacuth makes to be the same with Jaddus that went out to meet Alexander 330 Years before Christ So that Mr. Blount seems to be somewhat mistaken as to the Antiquity of these Sects Pag. 158. The Introduction of those Sects and of that Caballa occasioned that Exposition of the Prophecy of Jacob viz. The Scepret shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver between his Feet until Shiloh come and unto him shall the gathering of the People be from whence they did according to that fantastick Caballa imagine that whensoever the Scepter should depart from Judah and the Dominion thereof cease that then there should arrive a Messiah ANSWER The Exposition of this Place with respect to the Messiah is evident from the Consent of the Ancient Jews who never understood it in any other manner