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
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
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
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
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.
All the old Paraphrasts call Shilo the Messias the Targum of Jerusalem renders it expresly untill the time when King Messiah shall come Jonathan renders it untill the time when Messiah shall come Onkilos untill Messiah come whose is the Kingdom The Talmud also reckons Shilo among the Names of the Messiah Hoornbeck writing of the Conversion of the Jews reckons the Concurrence of divers Rabbies to this Interpretation And to the same purpose Morney du Plessis in his Book of the Truth of Christian Religion cap. 27. all which Authorities assure us that the Ancient Jews understood this Prophesy of the Messias and that this was no Imagination according to a Fantastick Cabbala as is wickedly suggested The truth of this exposition is Confirmed by the Words which follow To him shall the gathering of the People be For this is the same Character by which he was declared to Abraham In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed He was signified also by this Character in the Prophet Isaiah In that day there shall be a Root of Jesse which shall stand for an Ensign of the People to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be Glorious As also in the Prophet Micah The Mountain of the House of the Lord shall be Established on the top of the Mountains and it shall be Exalted above the Hills and the People shall flow unto it And thus the Blessing of Judah is plainly understood Judah thou art He whom thy Brethren shall praise Thy hand shall be in the Neck of thine Enemies thy Fathers Children shall bow down before thee Now this Blessing was to make way for a greater This Government was not to fail until there came a Son out of Judah's Loyns greater than Him For whereas Judah's Dominion reached only to the Tribes of Israel the Dominion of Him who came out of His Loyns should be over the World all Nations shall serve him Seeing then that this Exposition is not only according to the ancient Jews but according to the Scriptures themselves How greatly hath Mr. Blount erred in affirming that this Exposition was occasioned by the introduction of Sects among the Jews Page 158. As for the Messias being of the line of David this was no general Opinion for how then could any have imagined Herod the great to have been the Messias ANSWER If this way of arguing be good there is no general Opinion concerning any thing Leo Modena in his History of the present Jews p. 249. acquaints us that the 12th Article of their Belief is That the Messias is yet to come And Modena pag. 247. says that this is one of those Articles which are generally believed by all Jews without contradiction Yet Isaac Vossius p. 226. of the Sibilline Oracles tells us Ne nunc quidem inter Judaeos desint qui Herodem pro Messia admittant There are not wanting now some among the Jews who affirm that Herod was the Messias Is there any Opinion more general than that of the Existence of God yet some Philosopers have deny'd it Have there not been some Prodigies in Nature who denied that there was any such thing in the World as Motion yet nothing can be more evident Aristotle in his Metaphysicks disputes against some who deny'd that it imply'd a Contradiction for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I presume most men think the contrary to be a general Opinion In a word this Method of Argumentation used by our Author is very ridiculous For what Tully in his Books de nat Deorum speaks is very manifest Nihil tam absurdum quod non dixerit aliquis Philosophorum Nothing contained so great an absurdity but some Philosopher or other would contend for it Pag. 158. How could Josephus fix that Character upon Vespasian as Him who should restore the Empire and glory of Israel to whom all Nations should bow and submit unto his Scepter ANSWER Josephus sought the Favour of the Romans and He was kindly used by them so that 't is not so strange He should interpret Oracles in Favour of Vespasian None of the Jews besides Him did so Philostratus says That Apollonius Tianaeus was familiar with Vespasian and He indeed apply'd the Oracles of the Messias or King promiss'd to Vespasian but He was a vain Sycophant a Magician and in this very ridiculous But notwithstanding their Flatteries Vespasian was of another Mind He was perswaded that the Oracle did belong to one of the Jewish Nation and of David's Family wherefore He made it his Business to destroy the whole Race of that Family as Eusebius informs us lib. 3. cap. 11. and 12. Page 158. I do not read that the Jews harboured any such Exposition during their Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar albeit that the Scepter was at that time so departed from the Tribe of Judah that it was never resetled in it more ANSWER I have already made it plain that the authentick Paraphrasts of the Jews understand it in this sense as also God's holy Prophets Our Author takes for granted That there should always be a King of the Tribe of Judah until the Coming of the Messiah which is not affirmed by the Prophesy We readily acknowl'dge that Judah was not a Kingdom till the Coming of the Messiah for there was no kingly Authority in Judah before David nor after Zedekiah Unless you perhaps count the Macchabees of whose Tribe there is some dispute as Du Plessis Morney assures us c. 29. of his book of the truth of the Christian Religion or Herod who was an Idumaean The Meaning therefore of the Prophesy is Not that Judah should have a King till the Messiah came or that it should not cease to be a Kingdom but that it should not cease to be a State a Body Politick having Power of Government within its self until Messiah came Wherefore the Seventy for Sceptrum a Scepter translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Governour should not fail to be in Judah It should not cease to be a Government altho' it had no King of that Title It cannot be said that the Scepter departs from the Poles whether the Elector of Saxony or Prince of Conti enjoy it And to this purpose Episcopius in his Institutions truly asserts Nec dubitandum quin respublica ista quando ei praecrant Levitae Hasmonâ—i aut Herodes Idumaeus aut quicunque alius eamque ex legibus more populi regebant respublica semper manserit populi Judaici eaque nomenclatura ubique venerit ut ex historia temporum manifestum est 'T is not to be doubted but that it was the Republick of Jewry when the Hasmonean Levites presided or Herod the Idumean or whosomever else govern'd according to the Laws and Customs of the People of Jewry This Republick so long continued and it had that Denomination as is manifest out of History
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
whereas he says if we could find out that of which the World was made yet we cannot find into what it is dissolved he is under a great mistake for the Production of a thing hath no necessary Relation to the continuance or discontinuance of its Existence for one thing may begin to be and last but an Hour another may last for a thousand Years another may last for ever yet all three and as many as you please may begin at one and the same instant the difference depending either on the Nature of the things themselves or on the Pleasure and Will of God who made them We acknowledge and firmly believe that the Universe was made by God yet with the same firmness we believe that part of this Universe shall perish part continue to all Eternity as Angels and the Souls of Men by which it appears that some things which had a beginning shall have no end and some shall have an end So that Lucanus's pretended Universal Rule is not only precarious but also false P. 211. Now whatsoever had a beginning of its Production and ought to partake of Dissolution adâ—iteth two Alterations the one from that whiâ—h iâ— less to that which is greater and from that which is worse to that which is better and that Term from whence it beginneth to be altered is called Production as that to which it arriveth is called State the other alteration is from that which is greater to that which is less and from that which is better to that which is worse but the Period of this Alteration is called Corruption and Dissolution Now the Vniverse doth of it self afford us no such Evidence since no one ever saw it produced nor altered either in Ascensu or Descensu but it always remained in the same condition it is now in equal and like it self ANSWER Mr. Blount's Translation of Ocellus Lucanus is not so fair as it ought to be for the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Original ought to be translated Generation and not Production which somewhat alters the case the one being more general then the other which yet I should have taken no notice of did it not seem affected and designed But perhaps he followed the Translation of Ludovicus Nogarola the Italian none of the best Interpreters However this Argument of Ocellus is more gross then the former for he who manageth the Argument this way proves nothing at all save only this which no Man in his right Wits will deny that this Universe and the Parts thereof which are of greater Perfection were not generated in that manner that we see some other Parts thereof were as Trees Plants and living Creatures But that there can be no other way of Production besides these ordinary Generations or that the Universe was not some other way actually produced neither this Argument nor any other of his Arguments prove And he still labours under the Imputation of that Sophism of begging the Question If he had proved that it implies a Contradiction for Almighty God to have produced the Universe after any other manner then those things are produced which we see and observe in this World he had proved something to the purpose We assert one infinite and eternal Being who produced all things out of nothing and preserves them in their Beings and this we call not Generation but Creation which is a Production excluding all Concurrence of any material Cause and all Dependence of any kind of Subject as presupposing no Privation nor including any Motion So that the proper and peculiar Sense of the Word Creation is expressed when we conceive something that is made and not any thing preceeding out of which it was made It must be granted that the Word used by Moses in the beginning of Genesis requires not such a peculiar acception for it is often used to signifie any kind of Production as the making of one Substance out of another pre-existing as also for the renovating or restoring any thing to its former Perfection for want of Hebrew Words in Composition nay it sometimes imports doing some new and wonderful Work the producing some strange and admirable Effect We do not therefore collect the true Nature of Creation from the Force of any Word The Words Creation and Annihilation in the Modern Sense are not used either with the Jews the Greeks or the Latins they are factitious Words neither that I know of are they so used in any Tongue whatsoever but we collect it from the Testimony of God's Word The Opinion of the Church of the Jews will sufficiently appear in that zealous Mother to her seventh and youngest Son 2d Macchabees Chap. 7. Ver. 28. I beseech thee my Son look upon the Heaven and Earth and all that is therein and consider that God made them of things that are not Which is a clear Description of Creation that is Production out of nothing But because this is not Canonical Scripture we shall therefore evince it by the undoubted Testimony of St. Paul who expressing the Nature of Abraham's Faith propoundeth him whom he believed as God who quickneth the Dead and calleth those things which be not as if they were For as to be called in the Language of the Scripture is to be behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed on us that we should be called the Sons of God saith St. John in his first Epistle who in his Gospel told us He hath given us Power to become the Sons of God so to call is to make or cause to be as where the Prophet Jeremy saith Thou hast caused all this Evil to come upon them the Original may be thought to speak no more then this Thou hast called this Evil to them he therefore calleth those things that be not as if they were who maketh those things which were not to be and produceth that which hath a Being out of that which had not that is out of nothing This Reason generally persuasive unto Faith is more peculiarly applied by the Apostle to the belief of a Creation For through Faith saith he Heb. 11. ver 3. we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is equivalent to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Book of Macchabees and this manner of Speech is according to the best Greek Authors as our Doctor Pearson hath observed The Sense of the Apostle then is that those things which are seen that is that are were made of those things which did not appear that is which were not There is an excellent Treatise among the Works of Justin Martyr entituled Eversio dogmatum Aristotelis a Refutation of Aristotle's Opinions directed to one Paul a Presbyter of great Note as it seems from the Compellation given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O most honourable Presbyter Paul Who the Author
And if we consult Timaeus Locrus or any other of the Pythagoric School we shall find their Sentiments very different from those of Ocellus And in a word 't is very strange he should dissent from his Master in a point of so considerable moment Aristotle lib. 1. de Coelo c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Philosophers say the World was made and not eternal And to the same effect he speaks lib. 3. c. 2. Now altho' we may suppose that Aristotle was so disingenuous as not to own that he had his Arguments from Ocellus 't is certain he no where mentions him yet it overcomes all belief that he should be so impudent as to affirm as he did that all Philosophers before him held the World to have had a beginning if this Book of Ocellus Lucanus had been extant in his days as it is now especially had it been of that Eminence and Antiquity as Mr. Blount pretends who hath discoursed subtilly but very injudiciously of so weighty a Subject Page 218. It plainly appears out of the Bible that there were two Creations both of Man and Woman and that Adam was not the first Man nor Eve the first Woman only the first of the Holy Race and this divers of the Jews believe For in the first Chapter of Genesis ver 27. it is said So God created Man in his own image in the image of God created He him Male and Female created He them Bidding them increase and multiply and have dominion over all things Which plainly shews that Man was then created and that the other Creation of Adam and Eve spoken of in the second Chapter ver 2. and 22. were of the first Man and Woman of the Holy Race and not the first Man and Woman that ever was in the World ANSWER This seems to me to be the greatest Paradox that I have at any time met with Vincentius Liâ—inensis cap. 17. accuses Nestorius That inaudito scelere duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos with an unheard of wickedness he affirmed That there were two Christs two Sons of God one who was begotten of his Father the other of his Mother Wherefore the Virgin Mary ought not to be call'd the Mother of God but of Christ because that Christ who was God was not born of the Virgin but He only who was Christ Buxdorf in his Synagoga Judaica cap. 36. affirms That the Modern Jews believe that there are to be two Messiah's Duos sibi Messias fingunt vel somniant alterum Messiam Ben Joseph alterum vero Messiam Ben David They perswaded themselves that one of their Messias's was to be the Son of Joseph the other the Son of David That one was to be of the Tribe of Ephraim a poor simple Man the other to be of the Tribe of Judah a King and a Conquerour Tertullian lib. 4. cont Marcion c. 6. gives us this Account Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum qui Tiberianis temporibus Marcion held that there were to be two Christs one who was revealed in the time of Tiberius by an unknown God for the Salvation of the Gentiles the other was to be sent from the Creatour for the restitution of the Jewish state A Man might think that there was some mischief in this number Two and that the Philosophers who curst it had good grounds for so doing Yet among all the Two's I find none to be more absurd and more ungrounded than this of the Two Creations For it is destitute of the least colour of Reason I think it not unreasonable to query from which of the two Creations our Deists descend They will not pretend to descend from Adam for the Holy Race descended from him Neither do I know how they could descend from the First Creation or from the Man and Woman before Adam and Eve if the Mosaic History of the Creation be a meer Allegory This is a Knot to be unty'd by Friend Torismond or Ingenious Major A. For my part I know no way but to cut it And that our Deists may be said like Curtius Rufus in Tacitus ex se nasci to be descended from Themselves If the Book of Genesis be a meer Parable and an Allegory as our Author bears us in hand that it is his Argument falls to the ground But as we are of another Opinion so we shall answer his Argument upon a truer Principle Mr. Blount here follows the Author of the Preadamites who makes a double Creation the one in the first Chapter of Genesis the other in the second Chapter and that the first may relate to the first Peopling of the World but the second relates to the first Man and Woman of the Jewish Nation Whosoever consults Moses will find it otherwise The utmost that can be collected is That in the first Chapter of Genesis the creation of Male and Female is laid down in general ver 27. but in the second Chapter it is laid down in particular as ver 7. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and ver 22. That the rib which the Lord God had taken from man he made a woman This is a matter of great Consequence because if there were Men and Women before Adam I cannot perceive how the Scripture can be true I will therefore demonstrate first out of the Mosaic Writings and secondly out of other places of Scripture that this a meer Fiction Moses in his second Cap. v. 3. says That God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it He had rested from all his works which God had created and made can it then be imagined that Moses should write thus if the first Parents of the Jewish Nation were not then created Can it be imagined he should thus contradict himself in the next words certainly no Man in his right wits can think so Genesis the 3. ver 20. we read that Adam called his Wife's Name Eve because she was â—he Mother of all Living that is of all Men as Mr. Selden well observes in his 1. Book De jure nat gent. ch 5. whose words being very pertinent I shall here recite them Nam etiam in Genesi capite tertio versu vicesimo omne vivens Onkelos Chaldaeus expressim Mater omnium filiorum hominum Cui consona est illa Judaeorum Mauritaniensium Mater omnium viventium quae rationalia sunt Et Arabica illa altera Saudiae ubi adjicitur quae rationalia mortalia sunt etiam in Tawasii Persica ibi vertitur Mater omnium viventium quae rationalia For also in the third Chapter of Genesis ver 20. all living signifies every Man as where Eve is called the Mother of all Living The Chaldean Orkelos renders it The Mother of all the Sons of Men. The Version of the Mauritanian Jews The Mother of all living Creatures who are rational The Arabic of Saudia adds a word and reads Rational and Mortal The Persian Version of Tawus renders it in like
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