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
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
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
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
be accused of Incogitancy and of not Reading the Authors he cites Of this Opinion or not much differing from it was Photius that Learned Patriarch of Constantinople in his 205th Ep. to Theod. Hegumenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Circumcision of Abraham and his Posterity was instituted as an Emblem of Restraint from Incestuous Copulations The Chaldeans did lie with their Mothers Daughters and Sisters by a wicked and abominable Custom Wherefore that neither Abraham nor his Posterity should be polluted with these their wicked Practices God instituted Circumcision The circumcising his own Flesh importing the dividing and averting him from those of his Consanguinity or Affinity in respect of Conjugal Conversation Whereas the Chaldeans Impurity and Incest continued a long while after Abraham's time without either Fear or Shame And here it must not pass unobserv'd That Mr. Blount makes use of the same Method that the profest Enemies of Christianity did of old Julian the Apostate affirmed that the Jews learned to Circumcise from the Egyptians as we are told by St. Cyril Book the Tenth contra Julianum p. 354. And Celsus affirms the same thing to whom Origen Lib. 2. p. 17. returns this Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Abraham was the first of all Mankind that was Circumcised SECT VIII Of Marrying two Sisters Judaism Christianity Millenaries PAg. 136. It is lawful to marry two Sisters The first Text of Scripture which is commonly urged in this case is that of marrying a Brother's Wife which seems to be forbidden where by a side wind they would bring in that of marrying a wife's Sister as parallel saying Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem Jus but with their Pardon the Simile doth not run upon four feet the reason is not the same for the words in Leviticus 18. and 16. which forbid the marrying a Brother's Wife say Because a Man thereby uncovers his Brother's nakedness which seems not at all to be a good reason against marrying the Wife's Sister because every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness before any such Marriage with her Sister ANSWER Our Author's Opinion concerning Marrying two Sisters seems to me grounded on that which He calls in the 106 p. of his Book the bewitching smiles of a Woman whom he there unhandsomly denominates The most lovely Brute of the Vniverse And I doubt not but his Friend Torismond as he calls him p. 135. looks on it as his best Argument We do not say that Similies always run on four feet but I am sure the present Similies do The reason of the Law is the same both as to Brothers and Sisters And whereas he says Every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness He seemeth not to understand the Scripture Phrase which is only used with relation to a turpitude committed by an unlawful Marriage If a Woman marries her Father she discovers the nakedness of her Mother in a Scriptural sense tho' in our Author 's Unscriptural sense Her Mother's nakedness was discovered before by Her Father Mr. Selden in his Vxor Hebraica Book first Chap. 6. tells us that whereas we read in the 16th Verse of the 18th Chapter It is thy Brother's nakedness in a most ancient Copy of the Greek Version in the King's Library at Saint James's Instead of Turpitudo est fratri tui the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 She is thy Brother's Wife Quasi says Selden ipso nomine seu turpitudinis seu nuditatis fratris foemina seu uxor ejus expressim nominaretur As if says he he by the words turpitude or nakedness of this Brother his Woman or his Wife was expresly named If this Remark of Mr. Selden's be well it is of good use So that the Reason of the Law is the same in marrying of two Sisters as marrying a Brother's Wife The Sense of the Law with Relation to Brothers is Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Brother's Wife for it is thy Brother's nakedness And by a parity of reason Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy wife's Sister for it is thy Wife's nakedness What our Author says concerning Penal Laws that they are ty'd up to the very Letter is true but it hath no place ubi eadem oratio Where there is the same reason And therefore the Karans or Scripturians among the Jews who are opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals that bind themselves most to the Scripture Rule have resolved this matter First that there is place for Argument and Deduction from the words of the Law Secondly that whatsoever can be deduced thence either a fortiori or a pari either because the remoter degree is prohibited or that which is equally remote is to be deemed piously and rightfully concluded Thus when ver 7. the Father and Mother are both named and v. 12. The Father's Sister And v. 13. The Mother's Sister And v. 14. The Father's Brother yet the Mother's Brother is not named nor the Sister's Daughter which would be equivalent with that And yet this being the Marriage of the Uncle on the Mother's side with the Neece which is of the same distance with the Uncle of the Father's side with the Neece and the Aunt on the Mother's side with the Nephew from the naming and prohibition of these ver 13 and 14. by the parity of reason that which is not named is by all resolved to be prohibited And as Dr. Hammond p. 436. hath observ'd just thus it is in this matter The Wife's Sister which is not named is directly in the same degree of Propinquity with the Brother's Wife which is named and prohibited Pag. 138. The Canon of Scripture which seems more nearly to concern this case is Leviticus 18. ver 18. where it is said Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her life time But this doth not therefore seem to restrain or prohibit the marrying of two sisters one after the other for the first being dead the other cannot be a Rival or vexation as the Text calls it to her dead sister And then how shall the Prohibition be urg'd if the reason of it be removed it is rationally apparent that there is great stress placed in those Expressions during her life and to vex her in uncovering her shame upon her as doth more fully appear in our Translation of the Bible in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign printed An. Dom. 1599. ANSWER If as Mr. Blount says p. 137. all Penal Laws are straitly ty'd up to the express Letter of the Law where there is par ratio the like or same reason and no where to be construed by Parallels he hath lost more for his purpose in this place of holy Scripture than he got by the former For then nothing can be concluded from this place of Leviticus for marrying a Wife's Sister after her death the express Letter of the Law mentions nothing of it All that can
so much Assistance in this Point It is to be lamented that such a Person should give any Countenance to so great an Error Pag. 142. Canon Elibertinus 61. Si Quis post obitum uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit ipsa fuerit fidelis per quinquennium cum a communione abstinere eo ipso ostendens manere vinculum Matrimonii ut jam diximus in Canonibus qui Apostolici dicuntur qui duas sorores duxerit aut fratris filiam tantum Clericus fieri prohibetur This Mr. Blount hath out of Grotius lib. 2. cap. 5. de Iure pacis Belli and he thus Translates it If any one after the Death of his Wife Marries her Sister and she proves faithful to him he must during five Years abstain from the Communion which plainly shews that the Bond of Matrimony still remains inviolable And as we have already said in those Canons which are called Apostolical whosoever Marries two Sisters or his Brothers Daughter is only forbid to be a Priest ANSWER Mr. Blount in his Translation hath changed the ipsa She into ipsi Him the Nominative into the Dative He hath changed the Sense of Fidelis which here signifieth a Christian and is opposed to Gentilis a Gentile into a Womans Chastness and Fidelity to her Husband which as Gabriel Albaspine sometimes Bishop of Orleance in his Notes on this Council shews alters the Case much I much admire how Grotius could gather out of this Council that the Bond of such a Matrimony should remain inviolable since the Canon makes no mention thereof 't is very illogical to conclude so peremptorily from the silence of tne Council and from a Negative to infer such an Affirmative which we have reason to think repugnant to the Opinion of the Council If a Man commits Incest by Marryng his Daughter the highest Spiritual Punishment the Church can inflict is Excommunication how unreasonable would it be to conclude from hence that the Church did adjudge the Bond of such a Matrimony to be inviolable That Mr. Blount did err in this Conclusion is a thing not much to be wondred at Grotius's Authority is a probable Apology for an Error Would to God he had followed him in all things But in this Mr. Blount is blameable that he is not agreeable to himself His Rule p. 137. is That Penal Laws are straitly to be tied to the express Letter of the Law If this be true he hath transgressed his own Rule in his Reduction and Inference from this Canon which is purely Penal the greatest Punishment in the Old Canon Law is Excommunication as Duarenus hath it in his Body of the Canon Law And the same is asserted by Petrus de Marca in his Book de Concordia by Widdrincton in his Apology for Princes by Richerius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Authority and others who are reputed most Learned in the Roman Communion This Punishment is inflicted on Incest Homicide Adultery and other grievous Crimes St. Austin in his first Book Contra advers Legis Prophet says that to be Excommunicated is Gravius quam ferro puniri quam flammis consumi quam feris subjici it is a greater Punishment than to be Beheaded than to be consumed by Fire than to be thrown before Wild beasts to be devoured Tertullian in his Apol. Sect. 39. calls it Censura Divina God's Censure Summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis ita deliquerit ut a communicatione orationis Conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur The Excommunicating of a Man and separating of him from the Benifit of the publick Prayers and the holy Communion and the holy Assemblies is a representation of the final judgment of Condemnation at the last Day This is Religiously to be considered of by such Persons who in our Days make a Mock at and contemn Ecclesiastical Authority What concerns the Apostolical Canons in this Paragraph hath been before examined He that impartially weighs the weakness of Mr. Blount's Inference from the silence of the Canon in this place and the weakness of his other Arguments must think him over bold when p. 136. he declares That in the Defence of Marrying two Sisters he will enter the Lists of Argument against any Levitical or Canonical Gamester whatever The Queries and other things which in this Controversie are made use of by Mr. Blount in the following Pages being only Corallaries and Conclusions of what hath been examined and refuted we wholly pretermit as unnecessary and inconsiderable I purposed here to have concluded this Subject but considering two things relating thereunto and that one serves for the better illustrating what hath been already written and the other discovers the great Disingenuity of Mr. Blount I shall try my Readers Patience a little longer whilst I lay them down in order The first is this There are several learned Men in the World who prefer the Greek Version of the 70 before the present Hebrew which they account as a Copy not an Original And whereas the contrary Hypothesis is the Ground of our Answer to that place of the 18th of Leviticus Ver. 8. which is the principal place in the whole Controversie I think it convenient to wave this Priviledge and to joyn Issue upon the contrary Hypothesis I shall therefore lay down the Argument as it is in the Oracles and subjoyn an Answer Pag. 139. The Translation of the Bible in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign Printed Anno Dom. 1599. reads that of Leviticus after this manner Thou shalt not take a Wife with her Sister during her Life to vex her in uncovering her Shame upon her Which seems to be very suitable to the Greek Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Prohibition running upon these Terms or containing these Conditions That a Man shall not take a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with her Sister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 during her Life because it would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Vexation to her but she being dead all those Inconveniencies expire with her and so it may probably be imagined Cessante ratione cessat prohibitio ANSWER This Case of Marrying two Sisters was much agitated in the Primitive Times the Apostolical Canons and the Council of Eliberis are sufficient Proofs hereof In the times of St. Basil this Question was Controverted especially between him and one Diodorus or by one under his Name as appears out of St. Basil Epist 197. and as great brags were then made as now by Mr. Blount And this Oracle was then carried about as a Trophy over that eminent Father The excellent Reply St. Basil made may make us cease to wonder why Grotius did not cite it To be sure his Silence is a sufficient Shield for Mr. Blount we will therefore translate what is there written and pass over the Original which is very long Because says he the Writer of the Epistle by corrupt Argumentation hath endeavoured to induce Men into the Commission of so grievous a Sin
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