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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
the dilating and parting of the Earth by Winds and Waters imprisoned in the Bowels thereof but an Vniversal corruption of the Earth never hath been nor ever shall be Now altho Ocellus Lucanus be false in his Conclusion yet he is right in his Premises Of the truth of this Cosideration Mr. Blount himself seems to be convinced in pag. 36. where he hath these Words But to end all these difficulties or Controversies concerning the Originals and Channels of the Rivers that watered Paradise you will perhaps at last say that the Springs as well as the courses of Rivers have been changed by the Vniversal Deluge and that we cannot therefore be now certain where it was that they formerly broke out of the Earth and what Countries they past through For my part I am much of your Opinion provided you confess there happened in the Deluge such a Fraction and disruption of the Earth as we suppose there did This Supposition is that of the late Theory of the Earth which we can by no means grant and which the Authors before Cited never Dreamed of And now I return a brief solution to the difficulties proposed pag. 36. He would be told in what part of the Earth this Country of Eden is where Four Rivers arise from one and the same Spring This is indeed a difficult Question and not to be Solved But then I must ask him another Question of no less difficulty and that is in what place of Genesis Moses said this In the whole History of the Creation no such thing is affirmed by Moses Huet Bishop of Soissons in his Learned Treatise of the Situation of Paradise p. 44. returns this Answer if by these Words and a River went out of Eden to water the Garden Moses had meant that this River sprung out of the Earth in Eden 't is evident his Narative had been defective and to make this compleat it should have been in these Words and a River had its spring in the Land of Eden from whence it run along to water the Garden And p. 48. the same Learned Bishop says Moses hath marked it plainly enough that a River went out of Eden to water the Garden for these words gives us to understand that there was but one River in the Garden and in Eden and Consequently that the division did not happen there So that the Idea Mr. Blount hath conceived of Paradise seems to be as Gross as that of Mahomet's who when he entred into these Particulars affirmed that the first River with which Paradise was watered was of pure Water the second of Milk the third of Wine and the fourth of Honey The same great Prelate Pag. 53. says Moses did not say whether the Division of the River happened above or below Paradise or whether it happen far or near He denoted it plainly enough when he named the four Channels or Rivers which grew from that Division Those four Rivers were so well known in the Places where Moses then was and to those to whom he wrote that it was enough to name them that they might be known Yet he was not contented with it and as if he had foreseen that future Ages and far Nations who were also concerned in the Design of this Work might want some clearing of this Matter He gave so evident Tokens to make those Rivers known that no Man can mistake them but for want of Heed And for the further satisfaction of the Reader I had rather refer him to the Author before cited than here to transcribe him Out of all which 't is evident what great Injury he hath done to the Truth by affirming that it is apparent in the Book of Genesis that the four Rivers proceeded from one and the same Fountain-head in Eden Whereas there is not the least Footstep of any such thing in the Divine History 'T is evident what Wrong he hath done to some unwary Readers by deceiving of them and misleading them in a thing of so great Moment Lastly 'T is evident of what Frame and Make of Mind Mr. Blount was who would not stick at any Methods right or wrong to obtain his Point against Moses Whose History of the Creation although Origen in his Commentaries generally corrupted and depraved says 't is allegorically to be understood yet in his Third excellent Book against Celsus which all the World acknowledges to be Genuine he hath this Passage worthy of Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses was a very pious Man one endued with the Divine Spirit and wrote his History with Truth and Fidelity Pag. 49. I am angry with Celsus who calls this Account an old Wifes Fable upon which Orïgen replies very well by way of Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That these things were spoken in a figurative Sense However Celsus himself does in what follows acknowledge that the fairest Interpreters both among the Jews and Christians were ashamed of the literal Sense and therefore accommodated them to Allegories ANSWER No Man who hath read Mr. Blount's Oracles can believe him when he says he is angry with Celsus for exposing and ridiculing Moses's Narration Origen in his Answer observes that Celsus speaks in this place neither of Paradise nor of Eden nor of the Tree of Life nor of that of Good and Evil but that he calls Moses's Account of the Serpent an Old Wifes Fable To which Origen answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word omitted by Mr. Blount 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man may not be thought immodest that conjectures there may be something of Figure Something that may move the Reader to seek for some considerable Matter under a figurative Expression It is evident that Celsus was wont often to say that the more modest Jews and Christians in these Difficulties had Recourse to Allegory and to avoid Shame renounced the Letter But Origen says this was a Calumny and made use of on purpose by Celsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth Jews and Christians into Hatred and Contempt SECT III. Concerning the Original of Things MR. Blount in this Section discourseth of the Centre of the World of the Phaenomena's of the Heavens of the Company of the erring and fixed Stars the Original of the Ocean and many such like Subjects of Philosophical Consideration which because they are things purely speculative and may be disputed pro and con in infinitum I shall pass them over and leave them to be considered on by the Reader at his leisure Pag. 56. Many Fathers of the Christian Church were of Opinion that before the Earth or Moses 's World there had been Angels for many Ages unknown to us ANSWER Mr. Blount hath enumerated many Fathers who were of Opinion that before the Earth was made Angels had a Being And yet every one knows that as many Fathers can be produced for the contrary Opinion I know no general Council hath concerned it self in this Controversy that of the Lateran under Innocent the Third which defines the Creation of
the Angelical as well as Mundane Substances in the beginnig of Time is not accounted general by many learned Persons both of the Pontifician and Protestant Communion From whence it follows that this is a Matter of Opinion and not an Article of Religion 'T is only required of us to believe that the Angels were created by God and that they are not Coeternal with him which is the true Reason of this Difference among the Fathers St. Austin lib. 11. De Civitate Dei c. 32. says proinde ut volet unusquisque accipiat dum a regula fidei non aberrat ut angelos sanctos in sublimibus coeli sedibus non quidem Deo Coaeternos nemo ambigat As to this Matter which relates to the Creation of Angels whether before or after the Creation of the visible World let every Man enjoy his own Opinion only take care you do not err from the Rule of Faith and think that the holy Angels now in the heavenly Places are Coeternal with God Sixtus Senensis to whom Mr. Blount seems to be beholding although he names him not Lib. 5. Annot. 5. tells as that the learned Father Theodoret was of St. Austin's Opinion having disputed this Point against St. Bazil and that Theodoret concludes that if you grant that the Angels were created it matters not whether before or after the Mosaic Creation verbum pietatis non offendet he will violate no Rule of Faith St. Jerome in his Epist ad Cyp. thinks that in the Mosaic History of the Creation there is no express Mention of the Creation of Angels because the common illiterate People were not so capable as to apprehend their Natures Perenius on Genesis propounds this Question Why Moses did not mention the Creation of Mettals and Minerals as well as that of Plants and Herbs To which he gives this Answer Because Mettals and Minerals are hid in the Bowels of the Earth and not so commonly known as Plants and Herbs and that Moses did not design to report all things in Particular but first in General to relate that all things in the Beginning were Created by God whether in Heaven or Earth and in Particular such things as were most common and evident to all Men. Thomas Aquinas hath also remarked That in Moses 's Writings we have no mention of the Creation of the Air for that the same not being visible it was difficult to have a right Notion of that Body Yet methinks if Men have no mind to be contentious there is reason to believe that the Angels were not created before the Heavens the place of their Residence and Abode The Jews will tell us that Moses understood these Words of his especially of Angels when he said of God In the Beginning he created the Heavens And the Catechism of the Council of Trent in its Exposition of the Articles of the Creed lays down the same Opinion where it says Coeli terrae nomine quicquid Coelum terra complectitur intelligendum est Moses under the general Terms of Heaven and Earth comprehended all things in both Angels as well as other Beings Pag. 54. We can evince the same by the sacred Oracles and Authorities of the Fathers as well as by Reason and Arguments the Fall of the Angels was before the Creation of the World ANSWER Mr. Blount may evince from his own Oracles that the Angels fell before the Creation of the World but to prove it from the sacred Oracles he will find it difficult As to the Fathers I have not observed above Two who speak clearly as to this Matter and they are St. Cyprian and Arnoldus Bonae Vallis St. Cyprian in his Book De Zelo Livore hath these Expressions Diabolus inter initia statim mundi perit primus perdidit Ille Deo carus acceptus postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit in Zelum malevolo livore prorupit Et dum stimulante livore homini gratiam datae immortalitatis eripit ipse quoque id quod prius fuerat amisit St. Cyprian is very plain that the Devil did not fall before the Creation He says the Devil in the beginning of the World perished himself and destroyed Man He who was dear to God and accepted by him after he saw Man was made in the Image of God he was moved with great Envy and Malevolence and being stirr'd up by these Affections robs Man of the Grace and Immmortality and himself lost that which he enjoyed before Some think that St. Cyprian contradicts himself for as much as he writes in the Book De Cardinalibus Christi operibus which goes under his Name ante hoc temporale initium ipse in principio imo ipse principium existens apud Deum ante hominis conditionem superbientis Diaboli ruinam videt affectatae dominationis ambitionem Where writing concerning our Lord he says Before the Beginning of this World he was in the Beginning nay he was the Beginning himself being with God before Man was created he saw the ruine of the Devil and of the Domination he affected It must be confest that this place comes home and is to the purpose But then it must be confest that not St. Cyprian but Arnaldus Abbot of Bonae Vallis was Author of those Books Bellarmine de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis proves St. Cyprian could not be the Author of that Book because he affirms Diabolum cecidisse de coelo ante hominis creationem cujus sententiae contrarium habet Cyprianus in Tractatu de Zelo Livore That the Devil fell from Heaven before Man was created whereas St. Cyprian teacheth the contrary in his Book De Zelo Livore Which Observation of Bellarmine is allowed of by Dalle in his Book De Libris suppositis Dionysio Ignatio p. 468. Dr. Thomas James in his Treatise of the Corruption of Fathers informs us That in an ancient Manuscript in All Souls Library the Author of this Book is of much later Date written by one that lived in St. Bernard's time to whom he wrote one or two Epistles and that he was called Arnoldus Bonae villacensis We learn also from the foresaid Manuscript that the Book was Dedicated not unto Cornelius the Pope who lived Anno. 254. but unto Adrian the Pope the Fourth of that Name who was created Pope Anno. 1154. and succeeded Eugenius the Third to whom Bernard wrote his Books of Consideration And agreeable hereunto is Mr. Dalle who in his Book before cited acquaints us that the same is to be found in a Manuscript in the French King's Library So that Mr. Blount's Authority from the Fathers is reduced only to One that delivers his Mind plainly and he a very late one too who lived some hundreds of Years after St. Cyprian And now we will see his Reason and Arguments He says p. 58 and 59 Really 't is not at all probable that the most excellent Creatures were made of so frail a Nature as that the
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
Philosophers use to do but like the Natural Theology of the Ancients it treats of God of the World of the Beginning and Ending of Things of the Primitive State of Nature of the Periods of Worlds and their Renovations ANSWER If our Modern Brachmans philosophize in these things as the Ancient Brachmans did the Modern could not philosophize out of Books given by God to the great Prophet Brahma as formerly the Law of the Israelites was to Moses as Mr. Blount reports they were wont to pretend Clemens Alexandrinus p. 451. says They worshiped Hercules and Pan. And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Worshipped a certain Pyramid under which they thought a certain God to be buried Porphury in his 4th Book De Abstinentia accuses them of Polutheism and so doth Quintus Curtius in his Eighth Book Maffeius in his Book of the Indians affirms that they worshipped God or a Daemon in the Figure of an Ox as the Egyptians did Apys and that they also worshipped an Elephant as God Pag. 83. They affirm there are several Worlds existing at one and the same time in divers Regions of the Vniverse and that there are several successive ones So that the same World is destroyed and renewed again according to certain Periods ANSWER Of these several Worlds existing at one time in divers Regions of the Universe I find no mention either in that Book under the Name of St. Ambrose nor in Porphury nor in Clemens of Alexandria Strabo indeed lib. 15. says That their Opinion of the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World had a Beginning and was Corruptible and Orbicular but he hath not a Word of the Multitude of Worlds nor of their Renovations nor Periods The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clemens of Alexandria is the Metempsychosis and relates not to successive Worlds Strabo moreover acquaints us that they did philosophize about the Immortality of the Soul as Plato did as also of the Punishments in Hell which Strabo impiously calls Fables But as to this Account of the Opinion of the Modern Brachmans of whom we should have so many Particulars seems very strange when our Author p. 79. tells us That they are said to conceal their Divinity and their Opinions in Phylosophy in all kinds besides the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it must be confessed that these two Opinions were entertained by the ancient Brachmans for there is plain Proof thereof in Porphury and in Philostratus in Photius's Bibliothec. The Account we have in Quintus Curtius lib. 8. is That they approved of Self-murther they worshipped many Gods and especially Trees for Gods The Remark of Curtius is worth Notice Quis credat inter haec vitia esse curam sapientiae Who can think where there were such Vices any regard could be had for Philosophy What Mr. Blount could design by this Section cannot by me be comprehended his Arguments have little strength and supposing they were convincing yet nothing could from thence be collected worthy of Observation Pag. 87. We have a Letter to Dr. Sydenham where he writes of the Deists Arguments and says That human Reason is like a Pitcher with two Ears and may be taken on either side ANSWER What he writes of human Reason in comparing of it to a Pitcher with two Ears may be allowed and gives us some Light how to behold his Oracles as we ought for most of them have two Handles and are proposed as the Devils Oracles were of Old full of Ambiguity Epicterus in his Enchiridion c. 65. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing hath two Handles Reason certainly hath so And from hence we may infer what a bad Foundation it is in Matters of Religion The necessity of revealed Religion from hence appears as also doth the little Support we can have from that which is commonly called Natural In a Word This Assertion of Mr. Blount's is both a sufficient Reproof to the Vainglorious Title of his Book and subverts the very design for which it was written Pag. 87. Tho' Deism is a good manuring of a Man's Conscience yet certainly if sowed with Christianity it will produce the most profitable Crop ANSWER This Assertion is very absurd for Christianity and Deism are wholly inconsistent the one supposing the necessity of a Mediator the other renounces it and accounts all Mediatorship with respect to God unnecessary So that supposing Deism the very Essence of Christianity is destroyed so ridiculous is it to talk of sowing Christianity on a Conscience manured with Deism SECT V. Of the Deists Religion PAg. 88. and 89. The Deists Religion is first negative God is not to be worshipt by an Image nor by Sacrifice the positive is by an inviolable adherence in our lives to all the things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an imitation of God in all His imitable Perfections especially in His Goodness and believing magnificently of Him ANSWER As to the negative Religion of the Deist we confess That in the two first negatives we have no controversy with them in the sense they are here proposed For we acknowledge There ought not to be made any material Image of God neither ought God to be worshipped by any Sacrifice of any bruit Creature but that God's infinite Mercy excludes a Mediatour that we deny The whole System of Christian Religion requires our Belief thereof and therefore as we have said in the end of the foregoing Section the Deist is repugnant to Himself when He supposeth some advantage from Christianity and yet wholly rejects the grand Hypothesis upon which it is built As to the positive Proposition we say It is defective and leaves us in great uncertainties Cornelius Agrippa de vanitate Scientiarum c. 54. truly affirms Quod aliquando vitium fuit modo virtus habetur quod hic virtus est alibi vitium sit quod uni honestum alteri turpe quod nobis justum aliis injustum apud Athenienses licuit viro sororem germanam habere in Matrimonio apud Romanos nefas habetur That which hath at some times been accounted a vice is now accounted a vertue that which in this Country is accounted a vertue in another is accounted a vice among the Athenians it was lawful for a man to marry his own Sister which by the Romans was abominated and much more hath Agrippa to the same purpose that of Lucan concerning the Parthians is unknown to none Cui fas implere parentem quid reor esse nefas Nothing in Nature can be thought to be unjust to that man who thinks he may lawfully lie with his own Mother Julius Firmicus in his Epistle to Lollian gives also this Instance Apud Aegyptios Lacedaemonios furari honorificum apud nos furca suspensi strangulantur Among the Egyptians and Lacedemonians it is not only accounted lawful but honourable to commit theft but with us 't is punished with death Diogenes Laertius vita Pyrrhonis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Leviathan are Demonstrations Pag. 98. Constantine at first espoused the Arrian Interest to mount the Throne as the present Lewis the XIV did the Interest of the Hugonots ANSWER What ground or Authority our Immortal Deist might have for this His Assertion I do not know I believe it is a Dream of His own I am confident no Chronologer of any repute could affirm so great a Falsity nothing is more notorious both in Ancient and Modern History than that Constantine mounted the Throne before Arius himself much less the Arians made any considerable figure in the World Perhaps the odium He thought might reflect on Constantine by the Comparison of Lewis the XIV prompted Him to commit so palpable an Error Had there been any truth in this Imputation it cannot be imagined that the Arian Historian Philosorgius would have past it in silence who only says That when Constantius was dead and buried that Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Connstantine was His Successor in the Empire Pag. 98. If you will believe the Learned Petavius and other Arians they did offer to be try'd by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council ANSWER Petavius is a late Author and unless he brings Proof for what he says he is not to be relied on in historical Matters of so remote Antiquity Sandius in his Nucleus Hist Eccles p. 256. cites our Bishop Taylor to the same purpose viz. That the Arians appealed to the Fathers for Trial and that the Offer was declined To which our learned Dr. Gardiner in the Appendix ad Nucleum makes this Answer Ego vero a reverendi Tayleri manibus venia petita fateor me Socratis Zozomeni verbis potius assenteri c. I for my part am forced to beg Bishop Taylor 's Pardon and do confess that I assent rather to Socrates and Sozomen who report the contrary Which Answer is good and valid The Bishops that lived in those Days were far enough from declining Trial by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council that they desired nothing more The Arians were the Men as Socrates says lib. 5. c. 10. that trusted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were the Men that refused the Judgments of the Ancients and defended themselves by Niceties and Disputations And to the same purpose Sozomen lib. 7. c. 12. I will cite two or three Authorities more which will make this thing so very plain that nothing but reading Fathers at second hand and too great Credulity can apologize for Mr. Blount Athanasius is known to be a Bishop who made as great a Figure in the Church as any one in his time a Man of great Learning and exemplary Piety and one that was as well acquainted with the Methods that the Orthodox and Arians made use of as any Man could possibly be This great Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Nicene Synod says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold we have demonstrated this our Opinion from Fathers to Fathers as they delivered the same to us But for your parts O new Jews and Disciples of Caiaphas What Fathers can you produce that are Fautors of your Heresies Truly ye cannot bring so much as one of the number of those who were accounted Prudent and Wise all such detest you Ye can alledge none but your Father the Devil who was the sole Author of this Heresie and Defection from the Truth Alexander Bishop of Alexandria a Person in nothing inferior to Athanasius one that had all the Qualifications desireable in a good Prelate In an Epistle of his to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople as we find it in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History Book the first Chapter fourth says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You Arians have so good Opinion of your selves as that you think none of the Ancients are worthy to be compared to you Neither will ye endure that those who in my younger Days were esteemed as our Guides and Masters should upon any Terms be equalled to you Neither will ye grant that any of our present Colleagues have any competent Knowledge of these Controversies Ye think your selves to be the only wise Men and that although ye have nothing yet ye enjoy all things You boast that you alone are the finders out and possessors of Truth and that to you such Mysteries are revealed and kept from other Men. By which Words Alexander of Alexandria signifies that the Arian Sentiments were repugnant to the Doctrine of the most ancient Fathers to the Doctrine of his immediate Predecessors and of all those Bishops who had the Government of the Church when this unhappy Arian Heresy began He signifies also that the first Defenders of Arianism were Enthusiasts and pretenders to extraordinary Revelation To these two I will only add St. Austin who treating of the blessed Trinity at large in fifteen Books in his first Book Chapter the 3d. he delivers his Mind as fully and as much to the purpose as either of the two before quoted Thus he says Omnes quos legere potui qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate divinorum librorum vetorum novorum Catholici tractatores hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere quod pater filius spiritus sanctus unius ejusdemque substantiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem All the Authors that I have met with who have written before me of the holy Trinity all the Orthodox Writers and Commentators of the Divine Books of the Old and New Testament proposed this to themselves to prove that according to the Holy Scriptures the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost have one and the same Substance which includes a Divine Unity with an inseparable Equality This last Testimony of St. Austin is very remarkable and as comprehensive as the most zealous Trinitarian could desire And from hence we cannot but observe how blameworthy some very learned Men of the Roman Communion have been who though they sincerely believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity yet by affirming either by mistake or design that this heavenly Doctrine cannot be proved by Scripture nor by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council but only by unwritten Tradition they have given great advantage to the Antitrinitarian to triumph and have confirmed them in their Heterodox Opinion nempe hoc vult Ithacus magno mercantur Achivi Pag. 98. For at that Council the Arians were rather condemn'd by a Party than by the General Consent of the Christian Church because Constantine out of above two Thousand Bishops then Assembled excluded all but Three hundred and Eighteen nor were those perhaps for Accounts vary all Bishops that made up this great Council ANSWER This is a heavy Charge against the Nicene Council it had been but reasonable that the Immortal Deist should have showed the Grounds which he had for this Accusation No Truth nor Innocence can be sufficient if an Accusation goes for Proof He that should read the ancient View of Bishopricks in Aubertus Miraeus or the Sacred
less than two hundred Dissenters and not three only as Mr. Blount bears us in hand that held the contrary As to what is added concerning the Persecutions used by the Arians we own it to be true and the Orthodox frequently inveighed against the Arians for these their Barbarities I shall therefore acquaint my Reader what Grotius says lib 2. De Jur. Pacis Belli cap. 21. sect 5. Athanasius is very vehement against the Arian Heresy for in his Epist ad Solit. they were the first who made use of the Temporal Power to punish dissenters with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscations and Banishments says Mr. Blount Those Bishops were condemned in France by the judgment of the Church which persecuted the Priscillianists to death and in the East that Synod was condemned which consented to the Burning of Bogomilus Page 100. As for the Trinitarians of those times I must confess that I cannot but esteem them as enemies to all Humane Learning for they had Canons forbidding them to read any Ethnick Books ANSWER I have seldom found such Confidence any where as these Oracles do in all places afford us How ridiculous this insulting of Mr. Blount's is will fully appear in handling this Point In prosecution of which I shall First Lay down the Discourse of Father Paul relating hereunto Secondly I shall show what Reasons I have to dissent from that learned and worthy Person Thirdly I shall consult the Opinions of some of the most Learned of the Eastern Church with my Reason for so doing Lastly I shall make plain Inferences which will be sufficient to cramp the Presumption of our Deist and to defend the Trinitarians as he calls them against the Imputation of Ignorance Of what Candor and Learning Father Paul was every Man knows that hath read his History of the Council of Trent where p. 472. he hath this Discourse In the Church of Martyrs there was no Ecclesiastical Prohibition though some godly Men made Conscience of reading bad Books for fear of offending against one of the three Points of the Law of God to avoid the Contagion of Evil not to expose ones self to Temptations without Necessity or Profit and not to spend time vainly These Laws being Natural do remain always and should oblige us to beware of reading bad Books though there were no Ecclesiastical Law for it But these Respects ceasing the Example of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria a famous Doctor did happen who about the Year of our Lord 240. being reprehended by some of his Priests for these Causes and troubled with these Respects had a Vision that he should read all Books because he was able to judge of them yet they thought that there was greater Danger in the Books of the Gentiles than of the Hereticks the reading whereof was more abhorred and reprehended because it was more used by Christian Doctors for a vanity of Human Eloquence For this cause St. Jerom either in a Version or in a Sleep was beaten by the Devil So that about the Year 400 a Council in Carthage did forbid to read the Books of the Gentiles but allowed them to read the Books of Hereticks the Decrees whereof is among the Canons collected by Gratian and this was the first Ecclesiastical Prohibition by way of Canon Thus far Paul And now I come to the second thing The Council of Carthage which Father Paul relates to is that which is commonly called the 4th Carthaginian Council whose 16th Canon is ut Episcopus Gentilium libâ—os non legat Haereticorum autem pro necessitate tempore That a Bishop do not read the Books of the Gentiles but in reading the Books of Hereticks He is to have regard to Necessity and Opportunity Now in this particular I dissent from Paul and joyn with that great Antiquary Justellus who in his Preface to the Code of the African Church says Concilium quod vocant quartum Carthaginense plane repudiandum est nec fides adhibenda Canonibus 104 quos sine auctoritate huic Concilio adscribunt The Council which is commonly called the fourth Carthaginian is to be wholly rejected neither is there any Faith to be given to the 104 Canons which without any good Authority they ascribe to it There is no mention of these Canons in the Collection of Ferrandus nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus nor in the Code of the African Church nor in the Collection commonly called the Afr. Council In a Manuscript that belonged to Cardinal Barberini they are entituled Ancient Statutes of the Eastern Church But these Canons themselves prove the contrary The Ceremonies of the Ordination of the lesser Orders as they are sate forth in this Council are agreeable enough to the Practice of the Western Church where these Orders were conferred by delivering holy Vessels but not to the Eastern Church where these Orders were always conferred by Imposition of Hands In other Manuscripts they are entituled The ancient Statutes of the Church In a word there can be no sufficient reason given why they should not be found in the ancient Collections if they were genuine The ancientest Author Father Paul cites is Gratian whose testimony is of no weight if not strengthen'd by some collateral Evidence For all know He is a perfect Rhapsodist and this is so fully made out by August Tarraconensis in his Book de Emendat Gratiani that there is not any place left for the least doubt Which prejudice together with that of Moderness may be objected against Isidore Burchardus Hincmare Ivo Carnotensis c. and the defence which Schelstrate makes is so weak and dull as that it savours little of a Vaticane Library keeper whereas otherwise in his Ecclesia Africana He discovers much Learning and Reading I am now to consult the Opinions of some in the Eastern Church and to bring my reason for doing so Saint Basil in the first Tome of his Works hath a Homily whose Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Homily was compos'd for young Men not to prohibite them to read the Books of the Gentiles but to direct them and to shew what benefit they might reap thereby Amongst other things He takes notice that Moses was educated in the Learning of the Egyptians and so proceeded to the knowledge of the true God In like manner in following ages Dauiel at Babylon learned the Learning of the Chaldeans and from thence proceeded to Divine Doctrines Gregory Nazianzen ad Seleucum Iambie 3. treats of this matter where he prohibits nothing as touching reading the Books of the Gentiles but only lays down this Rule That from the same Plant Roses may be gathered and Thorns and that we ought to take one and leave the other The reason of these two citations is to stop the mouths of those who pretend that the Apostles prohibited the reading the Books of the Gentiles and for that purpose quote chap. 5. of the Apostolical Constitutions whose Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning reading the Books of such as are
Blount to any Man but to him in Lucian who was half White and half Black or to him in the Comedy that out of the same Mouth blowed both Hot and Cold. But he may in some fashion be excused for he hath really observed Pliny's Rule relating to the Title of his Book That of Cardan in the 19th Book De Subtilitate is here verified and he says demonstrated in his Book De Fato Si Oracula ambigua non essent non essent Oracula If these Oracles are not Ambiguous and Contradictory they would not be Mr. Blount's Oracles And here I cannot but admire that Mr. Blount should be guilty of the same fault of which he accuses Sir Henry Savil for he Translates not much above two Thirds of Tacitus's account of the Jews Shall we say he did this to complement the Jewish and to rob the English Nation of the Spirit behind Was he not obliged to do it for his deservedly Honoured and most Ingenious Major A. as he calls him p. 126 Or shall we say that he only separated the Dregs for his ingenious Major A I am sure he hath been very disingenious in his Translation for he hath not only abused his Major but his Reader also nay Tacitus himself Tacitus says that the Jews did Effigiem animalis quo monstratore errorem sitimque depulerant penetrali sacravere Which place he thus Translates They likewise Consecrated the Effigies of an Ass for being their Guide to the Waters where they satisfied their Thirst Whereas Tacitus makes no mention of an Ass unless Animal be Latin for an Ass And whereas Tacitus says they consecrated an Animal in penetrali that is their Holy of Holies he omitted that Word The Lye was so great that the ingenious Major could not swallow it For my part I cannot conjecture why he should only translate two Thirds and omit the other but that he conceived the Part untranslated would have spoiled his Project For there is a palpable Contradiction in Tacitus which renders his Account Fabulous In the Part untranslated Tacitus says Aegyptii Effigies venerantur Judai sola mente The Egyptians worship Images the Jews abhor them Tacitus also adds Judaei nulla simulachra habent in urbibus nedum in Templis The Jews have no Graven Images nor Idols to be seen in their Cities much less in their Temples The contrary whereof we find in the Translation of Mr. Blount as also in Tacitus Pag. 132. Abraham and Moses seemed first to institute Religious Worship and both of them were well skilled in Egyptian Learning which gave â—ecasion for some to think that Moses and the Jews took divers of their Customs from the Egyptians as for instance their Circumcision because Herodotus says That the Phaenicians and Syrians in Palestine whieh must be the Jews since none else used it in Palestine took their Circumcision from the Egyptians as also says he they confess the fame themselves nor does Josephus deny as much ANSWER We know nothing for certain concerning the Institution of Divine Worship but from Moses And from him Gen. 4. ver 26. we learn That Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord in the Days of Enos That is The number of Families increasing in the Days of Enos they appointed more Publick Places for God's Service in which at set Times they might together and in a more solemn Congregation worship their great Creator This is the Sense of the Chaldeo Interpreter and approved by our present most Reverend Arch-Bishop in his Discourse of Idolatry p. 40. Josephus in the first Book of his Antiquities Chap. 4. says That for seven Generations Men persevered in Worshipping the true God and had a regard to Vertue but in process of Time Men degenerated and forsook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Institutions of their Ancestors If this seems otherwise to Mr. Blount it is not to be wondered at since p. 17. he positively affirms That it is evident that the five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his decease That Moses was instituted in the Egyptian Learning we readily grant he was accounted but some of the Gentiles an Egyptian Priest but the same cannot be affirmed of Abraham Josephus is very plain when in the first Book of his Antiquities Chap. 9. he asserts That the Egyptians learned all the Knowledge they had in Arithmetick and Astronomy from Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Abraham came into Egypt he taught the Egyptians Astronomy and Arithmetick of which they were ignorant before So that the Knowledge of these Sciences came first from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians and from them to the Greeks Whether Moses and the Jews took Circumcision from the Egyptians hath been a Subject of great Dispute The well known place in Herodotus seems to me to say so much although our late great Critick Bisnagius in his Exerc. Hist Critic p. 119. will by no means grant it Grotius in his Annotations on the 1st Book of the Truth of Christ Religion cites Herodotus at large and chargeth Herodotus with reporting an Untruth He doth not deny but that Herodotus says that the Jews confess that they learned the Rite of Circumcision from the Jews but he says Herodotus did them an Injury in saying so Tantum vero abest says Grotius ut Judaei fassi sunt unquam ab Aegyptiis se accepisse hunc ritum ut contra aperte dicunt Aegyptios ab Josepho didicisse circumcidi 'T is so far from Truth that the Jews should confess that they received this Rite from the Egyptians that on the contrary they boldly affirm that the Egyptians learned Circumcision from Joseph And for this Grotius in the place cited refers to Authorities What Mr. Blount writes concerning Josephus the Historian is of no moment Josephus in the 8th Book of his Antiquities ch 4. cites this place of Herodotus He cites the same place also in his first Book against Apian Neither doth he deny in those places what Herodotus affirms but is altogether silent of which Silence Bisnagius Exerc. Hist Crit. p. 120. gives a good Account Because saith he Josephus had long before express'd his Opinion of the Original of Circumcision lib. 1. Antiq. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God commanded that the Posterity of Abraham should be circumcised that they might keep themselves a part and separate from all others And Josephus to the same purpose lib. 1. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham being an hundred years old when Isaac was born who was circumcised the eighth day And the same custom is continued for the Circumcision of Children after the same number of days From which it necessarily follows That Josephus his Opinion of Circumcision was very different from that of Herodotus He says the Jews had it from the Egyptians Josephus says they had it from God and that they might be distinguish'd from other Nations and consequently Circumcision was among the Jews long before the Egyptians had it So that Mr. Blount may justly
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
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
quas prisci coluere quid quemque deceat quibus sacris quaque mente Deum colere oporteat noscitamus How much do we owe to Christ our King and Master whom we acknowledge and worship as true God by whose guidance and direction the monstrous Doctrine and barbarous Rites of these savage Nations being chased away and we being taught true Religion imbrace Civility and the true God and the errors and unspeakable follies which the Ancients had in honour and reverence being brought to light we know what our duty is with what Ceremonies and what mind God is to be worshipped Which is in effect the same with that of the Apostle Colos 1. ver 13. Thanks be to God who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Now this of Alexander is the more to be remark'd forasmuch as Augury the Art of Divination Astrology Southsaying and the like Superstitions like a universal contagion had insected all Mankind save only where Revealed Religion had obtained as Tully tells us in his first Book de Divinatione Qua est autem gens aut quae civitas quae non aut extis pecudum aut monstra aut fulgura interpretantium aut Augurum aut Astrologorum aut Sortium ea enim fere Artis sunt aut Somniorum aut Vaâ—icinationum haec enim duo naturalia putantur praedictione moveatur There could not be named any Nation or City which abounded not with these Abominations and was not moved with the Predictions of those who pretend to interpret Prodigies and Lightnings or with the Predictions of the Augurs or Astrologers or Oracles in these there was something of Art or with the foreboding of Dreams and Accidents which two last may have something Natural What Mr. Blount could promise himself by his Account of Augury I cannot imagine but I am perswaded he could not think of any thing which would prove more disadvantagious to his Design in general than this Subject Pag. 170. From the Pagan Processions the manner of the Christians going in Procession was thought to be first taken ANSWER Our Author is much mistaken as to the Institution of Processions Gregory Turonensis lib. 11. Hist cap. 37. gives us this Account Refert Avitus in quadam homilia quam de Rogationibus scripsit has ipsas Rogationes quos ante Ascensionis Domini triumphum celebrantus a Mamerto ipsius Viennensis Vrbis cui hic eo tempore praeerat institutas fuisse dum Vrbs illa multis terreretur prodigiis Avitus reports in a certain Homily of his which he writ of Rogations That Mamertus Bishop of Vienna instituted those Rogations or Processions which we celebrate before our Lord's Asoension Out of the said Homily we have this occasion of their Iustitution That it was appointed for diverting God's displeasure forasmuch as in those times there were great Earthquakes Incursions of Wolves and wild Beasts frequent Fires terrible Sounds by night to the extream terrrour of the People Wherefore the said Bishop knowing no better expedient to divert so severe a Chastisement than Fasting and Humiliation ordered those Days for that intent and contrived a Litany apt and suitable for such humble Address This pious course taking good effect succeeding times continued it in their Anniversary practice so that the first Council of Orleans established it by a Decree in their 23. Canon Which Custom having had so long footing in the Church our Reformers were loth to be singular in rescinding of it and the rather because they observed that it fell casually and beyond its first intention upon such a Season as might be very agreeable to the Service of those days For this being the Critical time of the Year when all the Fruits of the Earth are in greatest hazard of miscarrying by Frosts and unseasonable Weather it is therefore exceeding proper to supplicate God for the withholding of his Judgments and to implore his Blessing upon the Labours of the Husbandman And altho' our Liturgy hath no set Office yet our Church hath set Homilies for it And in the Injunctions an 1559. and Advertisements an 7. Elizab. it was ordered That in the Rogation Days of Procession the Curat sing or say in English the two Psalms beginning Benedic anima mea c. with the Litany and Suffrages thereunto belonging So that I conceive the greatest Enemies our Church hath cannot blemish our practice with Paganism or Superstition Polydor Virgil de rerum Inventione lib. 6. c. 11. derives their Original somewhat higher Ejusmodi Processionum usum jam inde a principio apud nostros fuisse testimonio est Tertullianus libro ad Vxorem quem forte intermissum Mamertus renovavit illos a Judaeis mutuatos esse satis constat These Processions were in use among Christians from the very beginning of Christianity as Tertulian delivers in one of the Books which he writ for his Wife which custom being long omitted was at last brought into use again by Mamertus and 't is manifest that the Christians borrowed it from the Jews The only Authors that I have read that can give any countenance to this Imputation of Mr. Blount's are Fromondus in his Meteors Book 5. ch 4. Artic. second where we are told That in the place of the Robigalia and Floralia the Catholick Church instituted the Day of Rogation and the Supplications and Processions before Ascension day The other Author is Mr. Gregory in his Notes on Ridley's View of the Civil and Canon Law p. 76. The old Romans instituted three yearly Solemnities in the honour of their Gods for the Fruits of the Earth These also the Romish Church observed having first moderated their Superstition and directed them to a more sacred end How malicious then is this Suggestion of Mr. Blount's His Argument is no more than this That the Christians who appointed Processions and Seasons to pray to God for his Blessing on the Fruits of the Earth are guilty of Paganism because the Gentiles were wont also to pray to their Idols for the like Blessing This I say is the strength of his Argument upon supposition that Mr. Gregory and Fromondus are not mistaken which they certainly are with respect to their original Institution Pag. 178. I must beg Mr. Lock 's Pardon if I very much question those Authorities he quotes from the Travels of some Men who affirm some Nations to have no notions of a Deity since the same has been said of the Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope which the last Account of that place proves to be false ANSWER I must confess 't is very difficult to perswade a Mans self That the Idea of God is not innate And if we respect Authority with relation to some Nations having no notion of a Deity My Lord Bishop Stillingfleet is enough to stagger any Man's Belief to the contrary who in his Origines Sacrae p. â—94 positively asserts That of any whole Nation which hath consented in the denial
Principle which is good as Infinity of Being and Necessity of Existence it unvoidably follows That the Principle of Evil the other Anti-god which is in all things contrary to the former must be an Infinite Non entity which yet exists And if this be not the height of Non-sense nothing can be so Besides this Principle overthrows all Religion as well Natural as Revealed it destroys all Vertue and Goodness For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil then Evil necessarily falls out all Freedom of Will is destroy'd all difference of Good and Evil is taken away For if Evil becomes once necessary it loseth its Nature there can be thâ—n no Government of the World by Laws no Rewards no Punishments for they all suppose Liberty of Action All these must be banished out of the World if this Persian Opinion be true Which according to Mr. Blount may be true if Genesis be a Parable and in his Opinion it is so To such Contradictions Men expose themselves when they take on them the Patronage of such gross Lyes and Falsehoods How important this Question is and of how great Concernment it is to us to fix it on sure grounds no body can be ignorant To which purpose that of Simplicius is remarkable in his Commentary on Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Controversy about the Nature of Good and Evil not being well stated is the cause of great Impiety towards God and perverts the Principle of good Life and casts those Persons into innumerable perplexities who are not able to give a rational account thereof If we consult Origen and Celsus we may soon perceive that the Origin of Evil cannot be discovered by Natural Religion for both own the discovery thereof to be of great difficulty Celsus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a difficult thing to know the Nature of Evil unless a Man philosophises the Vulgar are not capable of it And altho' Origen differs from Celsus lib. 4. and says That Celsus is in an Errour in imputing this to Matter yet in this accords with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any thing in the World be of difficult discovery that which relates to the Origin of Evil is of the number of those things This is affirm'd by Origen with respect to Natural Religion in which all things are of very easy investigation and as Mr. Blount says of the Innate Idea of a Deity p. 178. are soon imprinted on the Minds of Men. Plutarch in his Book de Iside Osiride p. 369 370 and 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Opinion pleaseth many and wise Men some think there are two Gods of contrary Natures one is the Author of all Good the other of Evil. And Diogenes Laertius tells us that this was the Opinion of the Persian Magi who were of greater Antiquity than the Egyptians according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy One of those Gods was call'd Oromasdes the other Pluto or Arimanius And Plutarch says That Mithra was a Mediatour-God whom the Persians plac'd between the other two The Chaldeans made Gods of the Planets two of which they made Good the other two Authors of Evil and the odd three to be promiscuous and middle trimming Gods half good and half evil The Greeks imputed all Good to Jupiter Olympius but Evil to Hades The Egyptians teach that Osiris was the Author of all Good but that Typho was the Author of Evil. And Plutarch says farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Name of Typho is a sufficient Indication of his Nature I shall not trouble my Reader with any more Instances of this Nature because how various and how different the Opinions of Philosophers were as to the Origin of Evil how obscure and confused they were in the Account they gave thereof all Men know that have been any ways conversant in these Controversies And Plutarch's Books de Iside and Osiride and de Procreatione Animae e Timaeo are undeniable and sufficient Evidences thereof In which Books besides the diversities before mentioned the Reader will soon find that the great Admirers of the Philosophers do not seem to understand them on this Subject But this indeed is no wonder since nothing is more plain than that they did not understand themselves Neither could it be otherwise since they were destitute of proper means requisite hereunto And now I appeal to any judicious Reader whether any thing can be more absurd more impious more contradictory to Right Reason than what Mr. Blount hath written concerning the Origin of Evil. And if the right Notion thereof could have been imprinted on Mens Minds by Nature without Scripture and Revealed Religion how is it possible so many Philosophers and whole Nations should have been guilty of such grand Absurdities as we have seen that they were Pag. 193. The Opinion of Plurality of Worlds seem more agreeable to God 's infinite for so must all God 's Qualities be communicative Quality to be continually making new Worlds since otherwise this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted and for infinite duration lie useless and dormant ANSWER The Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds was maintained by several of the ancient Philosophers as Anaximander Anaximenes Democritus Epicurus his Scholar Metrodorus and others who maintained an infinity of Worlds and their great Reason as Elias Cretensis says was from the infinite Power and Goodness of God On the contrary the Stoics would not allow above one World which they call the Universe and Plato endeavours to prove the same by three Arguments as may be seen in Plutarch in his first Book Chap. 5. of the Opinion of the Philosophers Of the same Opinion was his Scholar Aristotle who labours to prove the same in no less then two whole Chapters as to the Validity of his Arguments I shall not write any thing in particular thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject This is notorious that what he takes upon himself to prove he commonly confirms by strong Reasons and indeed a Man shall scarce find any philosophical Subject but may by some means or other be collected out of his Writings Dr. Pearson assures us in his Dedication of Laertius to King Charles the Second that Dr. Harvey was commonly known to have said Nihil fere unquam in ipsis naturae penetralibus invenisse se quin cum Aristotelem suum pensiculatius evolveret idem ab illo aut expâ—icaâ—um aut saltem cognitum reperiret He scarce ever found any thing among the Mysteries of Nature but when he had diligently perused the Books of Aristotle he found the same either explained or known by him So that I conceive that his Authority and Reasons to be a great Prejudice to the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds 'T is reported of Aristotle that when he read the Mosaic Writings that he commended them for the Majesty of the Stile he thought it worthy of a
of this Treatise was is not agreed among the Criticks He seems to be an Author of some Antiquity for Bellarmine De Scrip oribus Ecclesiasticis p. 72. in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers gives this account of this Question De reprehensione dogmatum Aristotelis meminit Photius in Bibliotheca neque extat evidens judicium falsitatis ideo nihil habeo quod dicam Photius in his Bibliothec makes mention of the Book entituled A Refutation of the Opinions of Aristotle of which there is no Proof of its being supposititious wherefore I will determine nothing thereof Which Author having written something very material to our present purpose I have thought fit not to pass it over in silence The design of the Treatise as he tells Paul the Presbyter was to gratifie him in writing some Collections and Annotations of the Opinions of the Greek Philosophers concerning God and his Creatures Not as he saith that Paul should learn any truth from them but to make it plain to him that the Proofs of those Philosophers were not grounded on Science and Demonstration as they vainly boasted but on uncertain Conjectures According to those who have received their Doctrines from God and know the difference between the Creator and the Creature there is only one God unbegotten according to any Notion of that Word who had no God nor Gods before him nor any Coeternal with him who had no Subject on which to Operate nor any to repugn or oppose his Pleasure having an incorruptible Nature and Essence and no Impediment in his manner of operating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He hath nothing coeval with him he needs no Materials to work on no Adversary to withstand him And then having laid down Aristotle's Opinion as to the necessary Existence of Matter out of his first Book of natural Auscultations thus reasons against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Matter be as necessarily existent and as unbegotten as God himself and if God out of this eternal Matter can make any thing 't is manifest that the same God can make something out of nothing for the same Contradiction if there be any will be as much in the oneas the other This Observation is of great Value and pulls up by the very Root all the Hypothesis of Aristotle Ocellus Lucanus and all other Abettors and Fautors of this wicked Assertion of the World's Eternity For if Matter have its Original from it self how can it be subject to the Power of another Whatsoever hath infinite Power in it self hath a Power upon something beyond it self but if God and Matter have it both they can never have a Power upon each other or without themselves Besides if God's Power be infinite it cannot be confined to Matter for then we conceive the Bounds of infinite Power which is a greater Absurdity then to assert a Power which is able to produce something out of nothing It is commonly said in the Schools that modus operandi sequitur modum essendi such as the thing is such are its Operations And this I conceive to be an Axiom received by all Men. For if some real and Material Being must be presupposed by indispensable Necessity without which God could not cause any thing to be then God is not independent in his Actions nor of infinite Power and absolute Activity which is contradictory to the Divine Perfection Vain therefore is this Oracle of our Author's of the World's Eternity or which is all one the Opinion of a real Matter coaeval with God Pag. 216. Now it is very much that this Author Ocellus Lucanus who for his Antiquity is held almost a Cotemporary with Moses if not before him should have so different a Sentiment of the World's Beginning from that which Moses had methinks if Moses 's History of the Creation and of Adam's being the first Man had been a general received Opinion at that time Ocellus Lucanus who was so ancient and so eminent a Philosopher should not have been altogether ignorant thereof ANSWER What Origen observes of Celsus lib. 4. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he objected Ignorance and Illiterature to Christians whereas he himself was a great Ignoramus in History in making Hesiod ancienter than Moses who was much ancienter than the Trojan War The same I have observed of Mr. Blount who in his Oracles hath objected the same to a Learned Clergy and yet is far more absurd in his Chronology relating to Ocellus Lucanus than Celsus was in the case of Hesiod Hornius in his Historia Philosophica lib. 3. c. 11. makes Ocellus one of Pythagoras his Scholars Ex ejus discipulis qui ante Platonem floruerunt Architas Philolaus Ocellus Lucanus Among his Scholars who were before Plato are Architas Philolaus Parmenides Mr. Selden in his Book de Jure Naturae Gentium lib. 5. c 11. Ex Pythagoreorum Schola vetustissimus Autor Ocellus Lucanus In the School of the Pythagoreans was that most ancient Author Ocellus Lucanus And to the same purpose our most Famous Men Bishop Pearson and Bishop Stillingfleet The eldest account I can find of Him in Diogenes Laertius is in the Life of Archytas Tarentinus who in his Epistle to Plato says That when he came to Lucania he met with some of the Posterity of Ocellus and that what Commentaries he had met with of Empire Laws Sanctity and the Generation of all things he sent to him This then is the greatest Antiquity that can be pretended for Ocellus which if granted to be true yet he comes several Centuries short of Moses Yet with all due submission to so great Authority I have some reason to think this may be a mistake for the Writings of Ocellus savour nothing of Pythagorism He Philophizes without regard of numbers and after the manner of the Peripateticks he useth the word Antiperistasis which is not to be found in any of the Ancient Philosophers no not in Plato and some accurate Persons assure us that Aristotle was the Inventor thereof Neither can I think what Scaliger in his 28. Exercit. affirms concerning Plato's Antiperistasis can invalidate this Presumption As to the Dialect in which it was first written I can affirm nothing for certain it is extant both in the Attic and Doric in the latter those of the Italic Family always writ as Architas Tarentinus Timaeus Locrus and others and 't is Suspicious that this Book was first written in the polite Attic and afterward to conciliate some Authority it was changed into the obsolete Doric But I leave this to the Criticks and make use of better Arguments altho' I cannot deny but that this Method is frequently made use of by Gerhard Vossius and particularly in the 12. and 13. chap. of his Book de Philosophia in the case of that great Physician Aretaeus the Cappadocian Plutarch lib. 2. of the Opinion of Philosophers says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World was made by God and if we respect its Nature it was corruptible
the Front that he may poison his Reader 's Mind first of all and so prepare it for Reception of the following Heterodoxies Wherefore we have considered this at large in the first Section of Genesis and Divine Miracles Pag. 224. Diodorus Seculus was famed for his great Learning Reading Enquiring speaking of the Chaldeans he relates ' That they thought very long ago that the World according to its own Nature was eternal having no Beginning nor that it should have Corruption in order to an End And p. 225. Before the Expedition of Alexander they reckoned Four hundred and seventy thousand Years Likewise Cicero who was cotemporary with Diodorus mentions the very same Account of Time and Number of Years ANSWER The Opinion of the Chaldeans as to the Original of the World is laid down by Diodorus Siculus Book the second in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chaldeans says Diodorus affirm the World to be eternal that it had no Beginning of its Production neither hereafter shall it have any Corruption But the Order and Beauty of the Universe must be acknowledged to proceed from Divine Providence and all the glorious things which we see in Heaven owe not their Glory to Chance and Accident but to the firm and unalterable Determinations of the Gods Of what Necessity Revealed Religion is and of what Benefit to Mankind and under what great Errors men labour who are destitute of it this Instance of the Chaldeans fully evinces The Reader cannot but observe the Art of our Deist in relating the Opinion of the Chaldeans for he hath wholly concealed what they say of Divine Providence that being not for his design As also their great difference from his beloved Ocellus Lucanus The Chaldeans make the World only eternal as to the Matter of it the Form they own to be from Providence whereas Ocellus makes it eternal not only with respect to its Matter but also with respect to its Form What he writes as to their Computation of Four hundred and seventy thousand Years before Alexander amounts to nothing unless he had proved by what kind of Years they computed as we have done in the Mosaic Computation which we have proved to be Solar Diodorus observes that the Chaldeans in things pertaining to their Arts made use of Lunar Years of Thirty Days which will make this monstrous Account shrink considerably The Chaldeans make some of their first Kings to Reign above Forty thousand Years which is so incredible that Anianus and Panodorus interpret those Chaldean Years to be but Days That which will for ever cramp these vain Pretences of the Chaldeans is that we have from Simplicius on Aristotle's second Book de Coelo where he tells us that Aristotle desired of Callisthenes that he would certifie him of the Chaldean Observations which Callisthenes did and gives an Account not exceeding Two thousand Years Callisthenes was a grave Person not to be imposed on by the vain Brags of the Chaldeans he would believe nothing that they could not make to appear out of good Monuments of Antiquity This Argument will admit of no Solution the Authority of one single Manuscript to the contrary mentioned by Sir Henry Savil in his second Lecture on Eucleid is not to be opposed to all the vulgar Codes What our Author says concerning Cicero's mentioning the same Account of Time and Number of Years proves nothing but this That Mr. Blount is a Man of unparallell'd Boldness and abuses good Authors 'T is true that Cicero mentions this monstrous Account of the Chaldeans in two places in his first and second Books of Divination but then he explodes the same as false and ridiculous 'T is to be noted that Mr. Blount cites Cicero in general and refers to no Book he well knowing that all his Readers were not conversant in Cicero and that if he had mentioned the place where this was remarked the Reader would have cried shame on his Disingenuity Both these places being to the same purpose I will relate only that in the first Book where Cicero writing of the Babylonians who are the same with the Chaldeans hath these Words Condemnemus hos aut stultitiae aut vanitatis aut imprudentiae qui quadringenta septuaginta millia annorum ut ipsi dicunt monnmentis comprehensa continent mentiri jndicemns We cannot but cnndemn the Chaldeans of Folly Vanity and Imprudence who boast that they have Antiquities of 470000 Years and in our Judgment they are guilty of Falshood AN Appendix To the ANSWER I Have some reason to fear that the Reader of this Discourse may think that I have been too brief in my Preface wherefore I have thought fit to annex this Appendix I have already acquainted the Reader that I have pretermitted the Examination of some things in these ORACLES OF REASON viz. Things purely Philosophical and which may be problematically disputed on either side What those other things are which I have pretermitted I think it reasonable to acquaint my Reader with least he may conjecture that I have passed over some Material Difficulties I shall therefore give in this Appendix a particular Account I have not examined nor any ways concerned my self with those things that are purely Political as when our Deist in the Letter directed to Sir W. L. G. to be left in the Speaker's Chamber p. 137. calls the Regulators of Corporations and the Surrenderers of Charters Impudent if without Blushing they call themselvrs Protestants As also when p. 174. he says If the Church of England can be supported by such ill Men the Lord have Mercy on her And p. 174 Of how great Importance an Honest Impartial and duly Elected House of Commons is to this Nation every body knows and the ill Effects of the contrary I think is unknown to no body my old Lord Burleigh used to say we can never be throughly ruined but by a Parliament And in the same Page he writes I confess I cannot but couple these Regulators and Surrenderers together with those Judges and other Geâ—tlemen of the long Robe who were for the Annihilating or Dispencing Power I have not concerned my self with these Political Matters because I have not been conversant in that sort of Learning and because they are without my Sphear and proposed Design Neither have I concerned my self in discovering those Errors which are obvious to every Man viz. His illogical Inferences or his great Confidence in abusing good Authors We have an Example of the first p. 196. where when he is to prove the Minor of his first Syllogism viz. That no Rule of Revealed Religion ever was or could be made known to all Men he only proves that the large Continent of America was not discovered till within these Two hundred Years a Matter of Fact incontrovertible Whereas unless he had proved that Revealed Religion never was nor never could be discovered to America he hath not proved his Minor In like manner when p. 224. he is to prove rhat
there were divers othor Authors who wrote before Moses he thinks it sufficient to follow an Annotator on Dr. Browne who cites a Passage out of Apuleius whom the Pagans opposed to our Lord as they did Apollonius which proves nothing but that there were some Men before Moses But as for Writings we find not one Syllable in that place of Apuleius which was the thing to be proved As also when p. 219. he was obliged by the Procedure of the Subject insisted on to compare the Jews with the Egyptians Chaldees and Phaenicians in point of Antiquity or to compare the Writings of those respective Nations with each other he changeth the Terms of the Comparison and compares the Nation of the Jews with the Writings of the Egyptians Chaldeans and Phaenicians This is that which Aristotle justly condemns in Argumentations and Comparisons and calls it the passing from one Genus to another If this Method had been used and allowed of in the well known Controversie between the Scythians and the Egyptians the Scythians would have been vanquished and the generally received Opinion of the Scythians Antiquity would upon no good Grounds have been banished out of the World I have taken no notice of these or of such like weak Sophisms in the foregoing Discourse because they are in themselves very Childish and are easily to be observed by a considering Reader I have also pretermitted his palpable abusing good Authors if the Abuse be very obvious an Example of which I shall here produce Pag. 219. He thus writes What Josephus speaks of the Greeks and other Nations may with the same reason be applied to Moses and the Jews viz. That all Founders and Establishers of new Estates have each of them supposed in their own behalf that whosoever was of theirs he was the first of the World Contra Apionem lib. 1. Now howover Josephus boasts so much of the Antiquity of his Country-men the Jews yet he himself confesses that he nevertheless durst not presume to compare the Nation of the Jews with the Antiquity of the most Ancient and Infallible Writings of the Egyptians Chaldeans and Phaenicians who dwell in such Countries as are not subject to the Corruption of Air and are carefully provided that whatsoever has been done by them should not sleep in Obscurity but be kept in Memory in the publick Writings of the most learned Men Contra Apionem lib. 1. And Pag. 220. Which is as if Josephus had said forasmuch as no other Nations but the Egyptians Phaenicians and Chaldeans have certain Records of their Original therefore will I pretend my own Nation of the Jews to be ancienter then them who cannot disprove me but because the Egyptians Phaenicians and Chaldees have more ancient Records of their Country in being therefor to prevent being confuted I think it more convenient to yeild to them in Antiquity And this is the Secret meaning of what Josephus says Thus far Mr. Blount To whom I return this ANSWER He that will but take some pains to read over the two Books which Josephus wrote for the sake of his Epaphroditus and for such as he was lovers of Truth in opposition to Apion of Alexandria will soon perceive the perverseness of our Author to exceed that of this malapert and petulant Grammarian The design of Josephus in these two Books was to show that Apion's Negative Argument from the silence of the Greek Authors with respect to the Jews was of no moment forasmuch as the Egyptians the Chaldeans and Phaenecians who had ancienter and more sure Histories and had better ways and means of Writing then the Greeks make mention of his Country-men the Jews And this in effect is the Sum of all that Josephus writes on this Matter in his Books against Apion Josephus seems to make an Apology for the bragging Greeks in point of Antiquity when He says that all their Greek Writers supposed in their own behalf that whosoever was of theirs was the first of the World but Josephus also adds what our Deist omits and alters the case that this was for want of letters the ancient use of which came to the Greeks from the Phaenicians and Cadmus and that at that time the Greeks had no certain Records That Homer's Poem was the ancientest Book which they had and this was written after the Trojan War Nay that this Poem was not at first written but was preserved by Tradition and the People's Songs And that this was the cause of that great Dissonancy and Difference which appeared in Original Copies when it was first committed to Writing It was for want of Letrers they had no ancient Histories and that their Cadmus Milesius and their Acusilaus Argivus did not long preceed the Expedition of the Persians against the Greeks Whereas nothing is nor can be more evident to him that reads Josephus than this that the same Prejudice doth not affect Moses and therefore our Author hath with great Incogitancy affirmed that what Josephus speaks of the Greeks and other Nations may with the same reason be applied to Moses and the Jews Our Author by this Assertion overthrows his own Supposition for if Adam and Eve were the first Man and Woman in the World according to Moses or at least must be supposed to be such according to our Author's Method in this place then there could not be two Creations one in the first and another in the second Chapter of Genesis there could be no Praeadamites as is pretended and Adam and Eve were created in the first Chapter of Genesis Which yet Mr. Blount can by no means allow of without being repugnant to himself and contrary to his own Method in another place Josephus no where affirms that the Egyptians Chaldeans and Phenicians had more ancient Records than the Jews He no where affirms That he dares not compare the Writings of Moses so it ought to have been written and not the Nation of the Jews as I observed in another place with the most ancient and infallible Writings I use our Author's words of the foresaid Nations Josephus indeed says He will not enumerate the Jews with those Barbarous Nations with respect to the advantages of writing History but then he determines the advantage on the behalf of the Jews For in that Book he plainly asserts That Moses was the most ancient of all Legislators and that the Jews had a more certain way of transmitting their Memoirs to Posterity than the Egyptians Chaldeans or Phoenicians That Moses was a more ancient Historian than Berosus the Chaldean or Manetho the Egyptian or Sanchoniathon the Phenician is an unquestioned Truth among all such as know any thing of these matters nothing being more evident than this That Berosus and Manetho lived after the time of Alexander the Great and that Sanchoniathon wrote after the Trojan War Josephus no where affirms That the Writings of the forenamed Historians are infallible he only prefers them before the Greeks in point of Verity and Antiquity as for Infallibility
not within the pale of the Church To which there needs no other Reply than the Testimonies of these two learned and pious Bishops If there had been such Constitutions in their times they could never have written as they did Besides the Authority of these pretended Constitutions as to this point is so fully refuted by Mr. Dalle in his Book de Pseudopigr Apostolicis pag. 326. that there is no place left for a Reply I may add hereunto the Law of the Emperour Julian the Apostate from Theodoret Eccles Hist lib. 4. c. 8. He first of all prohibited the use of Rhetoric Poetry and Philosophick Arts to the children of the Galileans so he called the Christians and the reason of the Law is in these words They wound us with our arrows as it is in the Proverb for out of our own Books they borrow arguments which they make use of to our confusion And all know this to be true who have read Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and others in their Controversies with the Gentiles The Corollaries and Inferences I shall make are very plain First I affirm that there is no good Evidence for such a Canon anno 400. much less Canons as Mr. Blount says The Second is That this pretended Canon was made 75 years after the holding of the Nicene Council and therefore our Deist could not gather from this Canon the Ignorance of the Trinitarians of those times The Third is That it cannot be presumed that the Canons of the Church should be conform to the Decree of the Emperour Julian which was made on purpose to eradicate the Christian Religion no more can it can be presumed that Basil and N zianzen would impugn an Apostolical Constitution Lastly The Learning of the Gentiles was so amply treated of by the Fathers of the 4 first Centuries their Philosophy and Theology was so fully examined and refuted by them that unless these Books had been prohibited it was impossible for the Trinitarians of those times to have been ignorant of all the solid Learning contained in the Books of the Gentiles Pag. 103. And to shew how ignorant the Clergy were in the time of the Emp. Marcian we find the Greek Tongue so little understood at Rome and the Latin in Greece that the Bishops in both Countries in all 630. were glad to speak by Interpreters Nay in this very Council at Chalcedon the Emperor was fain to deliver the same speech in Greek to one party and in Latin to the others so that both might understand him the Council of Jerusalem for the same reason made certain Creeds both in Greek and Latin at the Council of Ephesus the Pope 's Legats had their Interpreter to expound the words and when Celestine 's Letters were there read the Acts tells us how the Bishops desired to to have them translated into Greek and read over again insomuch that the Romish Legats had almost made a controversy of it fearing least the Papal Authority should have been prejudiced by such an Act alledging therefore how it was the ancient custom to propose the Bulls of the See Apostolick in Latin only and that that might row suffice Whereupon those poor Greek Bishops were in danger not to have understood the Pope 's Latin till at length the Legats were content with Reasons when it was evidenced to them That the major part could not understand one word of Latin But the pleasantest of all is Pope Celestine 's Excuse to Nestorius for his so long delay in answering his Letters because he could not by any means get his Greek construed sooner Also Pope Gregory the Fiest ingeniously confesseth to the Bishop of Thessaly that hâ— understood not a jot of his Greek ANSWER Mr. Blount hath discovered much malignity against the Clergy in this and the next Page the great Imputation of their not being good Grecians cannot be charged on the present Clergy Besides we are not so ignorant as He is disingenuous who hath taken all those choice Remarks word for word out of Du Ranchin's Review of the Council of Trent p. 151 and 152. and yet makes no mention of the Author to whom he was so much obliged What our Author proposes to Himself by this Method is not very material for since the Latin and Greek are the Learned Languages why may not one of them be sufficient for a Clergy-man He that hath been in the least concern'd in the Popish Controversies cannot be ignorant that Casaubone Rainolds Dalle and others have sufficiently demonstrated how unskilful Baronius and Bellarmine have been in the Greek Tongue and yet who can doubt but that they were deservedly reputed great Clerks Who can doubt but that St. Austin and the African Bishops were very Pious and Learned Men and yet how meanly they were skilled in the Greek Tongue I have shown in another place If our Author be delighted with such Instances He might have brought some more pertinent to His purpose For Alphonsus a Castro tells us there were some Popes so illiterate as they were totally ignorant of Grammar Saint Amour tells us of a Pope who said He was a Canonist and no Divine The Learned Bishop of Sarum in the Preface to his Regale acquaints us with a Report at Rome at the Election of a Pope that Cardinal Albici should say For the Love of God let us at least have a Pope that is so learned that He may be able to read the Gospel in the Mass However it be none of Mr. Blount's Instances affect us of the Reformed Church whom yet I think he purposely designs to derogate from in his Paragraph For p. 97. he writes very contemptibly of them and says ' The Quicunque Men by which he understands the Clergy of England are as much below Mr. Hobbs his Resentments ' as he is above their Anger And this he writes near the beginning of this Chapter where these his Proofs are of the Ignorance of the Clergy but how unjust this charge is with respect to them is so manifest that it would be a madneâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—fute him SECT VII Of the Immortality of the Soul and the Original of the Jews THese Oracles of Reason have nothing remarkable from p. 106 to p. 116. save only this That he borrows whole pages without any acknowledgment The Epistle to Mr. Wilwood is a translation out of Gassendus third and fourth Chapters of the third part Syntag. Epic. Philos his Treatise of Beneficence to Madam and his preference of Plato and Pythagoras to Aristotle are either purely Moral or else grounded on the Sentiments of those Philosophers with whom we have no mind to contest at present about those Points of Fate and Fortune Pag. 117. Your incomparable Version of that passage of Seneca where he begins with Post mortem nihil est ipsa mors nihil There is nothing after death and Death it self is nothing And pag. 128. he says This is Seneca 's Opinion ANSWER What Seneca's Opinion was of the Immortality of the Soul