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
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
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
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
of this Treatise was is not agreed among the Criticks He seems to be an Author of some Antiquity for Bellarmine De Scrip oribus Ecclesiasticis p. 72. in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers gives this account of this Question De reprehensione dogmatum Aristotelis meminit Photius in Bibliotheca neque extat evidens judicium falsitatis ideo nihil habeo quod dicam Photius in his Bibliothec makes mention of the Book entituled A Refutation of the Opinions of Aristotle of which there is no Proof of its being supposititious wherefore I will determine nothing thereof Which Author having written something very material to our present purpose I have thought fit not to pass it over in silence The design of the Treatise as he tells Paul the Presbyter was to gratifie him in writing some Collections and Annotations of the Opinions of the Greek Philosophers concerning God and his Creatures Not as he saith that Paul should learn any truth from them but to make it plain to him that the Proofs of those Philosophers were not grounded on Science and Demonstration as they vainly boasted but on uncertain Conjectures According to those who have received their Doctrines from God and know the difference between the Creator and the Creature there is only one God unbegotten according to any Notion of that Word who had no God nor Gods before him nor any Coeternal with him who had no Subject on which to Operate nor any to repugn or oppose his Pleasure having an incorruptible Nature and Essence and no Impediment in his manner of operating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He hath nothing coeval with him he needs no Materials to work on no Adversary to withstand him And then having laid down Aristotle's Opinion as to the necessary Existence of Matter out of his first Book of natural Auscultations thus reasons against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Matter be as necessarily existent and as unbegotten as God himself and if God out of this eternal Matter can make any thing 't is manifest that the same God can make something out of nothing for the same Contradiction if there be any will be as much in the oneas the other This Observation is of great Value and pulls up by the very Root all the Hypothesis of Aristotle Ocellus Lucanus and all other Abettors and Fautors of this wicked Assertion of the World's Eternity For if Matter have its Original from it self how can it be subject to the Power of another Whatsoever hath infinite Power in it self hath a Power upon something beyond it self but if God and Matter have it both they can never have a Power upon each other or without themselves Besides if God's Power be infinite it cannot be confined to Matter for then we conceive the Bounds of infinite Power which is a greater Absurdity then to assert a Power which is able to produce something out of nothing It is commonly said in the Schools that modus operandi sequitur modum essendi such as the thing is such are its Operations And this I conceive to be an Axiom received by all Men. For if some real and Material Being must be presupposed by indispensable Necessity without which God could not cause any thing to be then God is not independent in his Actions nor of infinite Power and absolute Activity which is contradictory to the Divine Perfection Vain therefore is this Oracle of our Author's of the World's Eternity or which is all one the Opinion of a real Matter coaeval with God Pag. 216. Now it is very much that this Author Ocellus Lucanus who for his Antiquity is held almost a Cotemporary with Moses if not before him should have so different a Sentiment of the World's Beginning from that which Moses had methinks if Moses 's History of the Creation and of Adam's being the first Man had been a general received Opinion at that time Ocellus Lucanus who was so ancient and so eminent a Philosopher should not have been altogether ignorant thereof ANSWER What Origen observes of Celsus lib. 4. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he objected Ignorance and Illiterature to Christians whereas he himself was a great Ignoramus in History in making Hesiod ancienter than Moses who was much ancienter than the Trojan War The same I have observed of Mr. Blount who in his Oracles hath objected the same to a Learned Clergy and yet is far more absurd in his Chronology relating to Ocellus Lucanus than Celsus was in the case of Hesiod Hornius in his Historia Philosophica lib. 3. c. 11. makes Ocellus one of Pythagoras his Scholars Ex ejus discipulis qui ante Platonem floruerunt Architas Philolaus Ocellus Lucanus Among his Scholars who were before Plato are Architas Philolaus Parmenides Mr. Selden in his Book de Jure Naturae Gentium lib. 5. c 11. Ex Pythagoreorum Schola vetustissimus Autor Ocellus Lucanus In the School of the Pythagoreans was that most ancient Author Ocellus Lucanus And to the same purpose our most Famous Men Bishop Pearson and Bishop Stillingfleet The eldest account I can find of Him in Diogenes Laertius is in the Life of Archytas Tarentinus who in his Epistle to Plato says That when he came to Lucania he met with some of the Posterity of Ocellus and that what Commentaries he had met with of Empire Laws Sanctity and the Generation of all things he sent to him This then is the greatest Antiquity that can be pretended for Ocellus which if granted to be true yet he comes several Centuries short of Moses Yet with all due submission to so great Authority I have some reason to think this may be a mistake for the Writings of Ocellus savour nothing of Pythagorism He Philophizes without regard of numbers and after the manner of the Peripateticks he useth the word Antiperistasis which is not to be found in any of the Ancient Philosophers no not in Plato and some accurate Persons assure us that Aristotle was the Inventor thereof Neither can I think what Scaliger in his 28. Exercit. affirms concerning Plato's Antiperistasis can invalidate this Presumption As to the Dialect in which it was first written I can affirm nothing for certain it is extant both in the Attic and Doric in the latter those of the Italic Family always writ as Architas Tarentinus Timaeus Locrus and others and 't is Suspicious that this Book was first written in the polite Attic and afterward to conciliate some Authority it was changed into the obsolete Doric But I leave this to the Criticks and make use of better Arguments altho' I cannot deny but that this Method is frequently made use of by Gerhard Vossius and particularly in the 12. and 13. chap. of his Book de Philosophia in the case of that great Physician Aretaeus the Cappadocian Plutarch lib. 2. of the Opinion of Philosophers says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World was made by God and if we respect its Nature it was corruptible