Principle which is good as Infinity of Being and Necessity of Existence it unvoidably follows That the Principle of Evil the other Anti-god which is in all things contrary to the former must be an Infinite Non entity which yet exists And if this be not the height of Non-sense nothing can be so Besides this Principle overthrows all Religion as well Natural as Revealed it destroys all Vertue and Goodness For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil then Evil necessarily falls out all Freedom of Will is destroy'd all difference of Good and Evil is taken away For if Evil becomes once necessary it loseth its Nature there can be thâ—n no Government of the World by Laws no Rewards no Punishments for they all suppose Liberty of Action All these must be banished out of the World if this Persian Opinion be true Which according to Mr. Blount may be true if Genesis be a Parable and in his Opinion it is so To such Contradictions Men expose themselves when they take on them the Patronage of such gross Lyes and Falsehoods How important this Question is and of how great Concernment it is to us to fix it on sure grounds no body can be ignorant To which purpose that of Simplicius is remarkable in his Commentary on Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Controversy about the Nature of Good and Evil not being well stated is the cause of great Impiety towards God and perverts the Principle of good Life and casts those Persons into innumerable perplexities who are not able to give a rational account thereof If we consult Origen and Celsus we may soon perceive that the Origin of Evil cannot be discovered by Natural Religion for both own the discovery thereof to be of great difficulty Celsus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a difficult thing to know the Nature of Evil unless a Man philosophises the Vulgar are not capable of it And altho' Origen differs from Celsus lib. 4. and says That Celsus is in an Errour in imputing this to Matter yet in this accords with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any thing in the World be of difficult discovery that which relates to the Origin of Evil is of the number of those things This is affirm'd by Origen with respect to Natural Religion in which all things are of very easy investigation and as Mr. Blount says of the Innate Idea of a Deity p. 178. are soon imprinted on the Minds of Men. Plutarch in his Book de Iside Osiride p. 369 370 and 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Opinion pleaseth many and wise Men some think there are two Gods of contrary Natures one is the Author of all Good the other of Evil. And Diogenes Laertius tells us that this was the Opinion of the Persian Magi who were of greater Antiquity than the Egyptians according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy One of those Gods was call'd Oromasdes the other Pluto or Arimanius And Plutarch says That Mithra was a Mediatour-God whom the Persians plac'd between the other two The Chaldeans made Gods of the Planets two of which they made Good the other two Authors of Evil and the odd three to be promiscuous and middle trimming Gods half good and half evil The Greeks imputed all Good to Jupiter Olympius but Evil to Hades The Egyptians teach that Osiris was the Author of all Good but that Typho was the Author of Evil. And Plutarch says farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Name of Typho is a sufficient Indication of his Nature I shall not trouble my Reader with any more Instances of this Nature because how various and how different the Opinions of Philosophers were as to the Origin of Evil how obscure and confused they were in the Account they gave thereof all Men know that have been any ways conversant in these Controversies And Plutarch's Books de Iside and Osiride and de Procreatione Animae e Timaeo are undeniable and sufficient Evidences thereof In which Books besides the diversities before mentioned the Reader will soon find that the great Admirers of the Philosophers do not seem to understand them on this Subject But this indeed is no wonder since nothing is more plain than that they did not understand themselves Neither could it be otherwise since they were destitute of proper means requisite hereunto And now I appeal to any judicious Reader whether any thing can be more absurd more impious more contradictory to Right Reason than what Mr. Blount hath written concerning the Origin of Evil. And if the right Notion thereof could have been imprinted on Mens Minds by Nature without Scripture and Revealed Religion how is it possible so many Philosophers and whole Nations should have been guilty of such grand Absurdities as we have seen that they were Pag. 193. The Opinion of Plurality of Worlds seem more agreeable to God 's infinite for so must all God 's Qualities be communicative Quality to be continually making new Worlds since otherwise this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted and for infinite duration lie useless and dormant ANSWER The Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds was maintained by several of the ancient Philosophers as Anaximander Anaximenes Democritus Epicurus his Scholar Metrodorus and others who maintained an infinity of Worlds and their great Reason as Elias Cretensis says was from the infinite Power and Goodness of God On the contrary the Stoics would not allow above one World which they call the Universe and Plato endeavours to prove the same by three Arguments as may be seen in Plutarch in his first Book Chap. 5. of the Opinion of the Philosophers Of the same Opinion was his Scholar Aristotle who labours to prove the same in no less then two whole Chapters as to the Validity of his Arguments I shall not write any thing in particular thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject This is notorious that what he takes upon himself to prove he commonly confirms by strong Reasons and indeed a Man shall scarce find any philosophical Subject but may by some means or other be collected out of his Writings Dr. Pearson assures us in his Dedication of Laertius to King Charles the Second that Dr. Harvey was commonly known to have said Nihil fere unquam in ipsis naturae penetralibus invenisse se quin cum Aristotelem suum pensiculatius evolveret idem ab illo aut expâ—icaâ—um aut saltem cognitum reperiret He scarce ever found any thing among the Mysteries of Nature but when he had diligently perused the Books of Aristotle he found the same either explained or known by him So that I conceive that his Authority and Reasons to be a great Prejudice to the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds 'T is reported of Aristotle that when he read the Mosaic Writings that he commended them for the Majesty of the Stile he thought it worthy of a
although if they had then a being yet they made no Figure in the World He fully tells us that the Arians appealed for tryal to the Fathers that they were condemned at Nice by a Party and by the Artifice of the Emperor Where he also gives us a monstrous Account of the Number of the Bishops there assembled And p. 99. he affirms that the Arians had not Freedome to dispute their Cause He represents the Arian Councils of Ariminum very Erroneously He manifests his Malignity when he accuses the Trinitarians of Ignorance and for Proof cites a Canon of the Church and p. 103. he gives many Instances of the same where we have proved that there is no such Canon as far as a Negative is capable of being proved And we have discovered his disingenuity in not mentioning Du Ranckin from whom he borrowed all his Materials word for word The seventh Section is of the Immortality of the soul and of the Original of the Jews In this Section the necessity of revealed Religion is proved from the insufficiency of Philosophical Reasons to this purpose As also with relation to a future State Which as Mr. Blount confesses p. 118. hath so much ruffled and entangled mens Minds The principal philosophic Reason is examined and refell'd From whence it will be evident that the Scriptures alone give a satisfactory Account of those things Sir Henry Savil's translating Tacitus and omiting the Original of the Jews is here defended Institution of Divine Worship proved to be before Moses and Abraham As also that Moses and the Israelites did not learn Circumcision from the Aegyptians and that our Author in this Method followed Celsus and Julian The eighth Section of marrying two Sisters Judaism Christianity Millenaries In which the Scriptures brought to prove it unlawful are defended The Nature of Penal Laws in this case makes more against our Deists then for him his Error proceeds from neglecting the Hebrew and following the Greek Translation The Apostolic Canon in this case considered Dr. Hammond's Mistake discovered about a Woman's leaving her Husband and marrying again As also Mr. Blount's Abuse of the Council of Eliberis where we are necessitated to speak on something concerning Excommunication the Churches great Censure Grotius his Error in his Inference from the Apostolic Canon reproved and his Collection from the Council of Eliberis proved unwarrantable St. Basil's Epistle to Diadorus in this case is considered Mr. Blount's great Falshood and Abuse of the civil Law in this case is laid open the Sects of the Jews and the case of the Messiah is rightly stated Mr. Blount's manner of Arguing is reprehended We have defended the Prophecy of Daniel in this case and have shown the Original of the Millinaries The ninth Section of Augury Origine of Good and Evil plurality of Worlds Ocellus Lucanus c. From his account of Augury I have collected the Necessity of revealed Religion discovered his mistake of Christian Processions If what Varenius concerning whole Nations being Atheistical affirms be true the most learned Dr. Stilling fleet seems to be under some mistake Varenius his Assertion argues the Necessity of revealed Religion the Chinensian and Aegyptian account of time proved to be vain and ridiculous as also the Chaldean the main Props of our Author's Hypothesis the Origine of Good and Evil not to be known by natural Religion If Mr. Blount's Supposition be granted concerning the Persians the Deist must be an Idolater his reason for plurality of worlds refuted the principal Arguments of Ocellus Lucanus refell'd his Age examined with some uncommon Observations relating to him and our Author 's great Vanity in making him cotemporary with or ancienter then Moses exposed Mr. Blount's great Argument for a double Creation out of the first and second Chapters of Genesis enquired into and proved ineffectual From hence we may see the reason why in his 5th Page he propounds it as a Difficulty how distinct pieces of the World should be Peopled as America and the like without a miracle and of Mathusalem's being the longest llv'd of all Adam's Posterity because in his Hypothesis of two distinct Originals of mankind they have an easie Solution although they have a truer and a much easier one in ours This method of his is indeed allowable in Philosophy which varies according to every new Phaenomenon but hath no place in matters of Religion His Disingenuity in relation to Cicero reproved the Difference between Ocellus and the Chaldeans is observed There are many other Matters contained in this Book which for Brevities sake I have omited but are perspicuously treated of and I hope to the Readers satisfaction Two things remain which I think fit to acquaint my Reader with one is that these Oracles are many of them transcribed out of modern Authors of whom I have taken no Notice but require all at Mr. Blount's Hands he being the Person that gave them the Title of Oracles neither take I any Notice of others concerned he being the chief Architect The other is that these Controversies depending much on Authority I am necessitated to make frequent appeals to Greek and Latin Authors whom for the Benefit of some Readers I have translated into English where if I have not kept my self strictly to the Words yet I have taken all care not to deviate from tne true sense Lastly As in all Duty bound I humbly submit the censure of what I have written to my Superiors in the Cnurch of England Farewel Mr. BLOUNT's Oracles of Reason Examined and Answered In Nine SECTIONS c. SECT I. Of the Mosaic Creation and the Divine Miracles MR. Blount Page the Second says That many Fathers of the Church have concluded that the whole Mosaic Creation seems to have been but a pious Allegory ANSWER It is worth observing that although the Author of these pretended Oracles of Reason hath little regard for the Holy Scriptures and without all peradventure less for the Fathers of the Church yet upon all Occasions he makes use of their Authorities and frequently quotes them Upon reading this Imputation and his fastning such a Charge upon many Fathers of the Church I forthwith consulted Mr. Dally of the Use of the Fathers Book the second Chapter three and fourth where he treats professedly of the Fathers Errors and I find nothing there that favours this bold Assertion On the contrary I find an Expression of Dally's from the unanimous Consent of the Fathers which if it be true this of the Oracle must necessarily be false None of the ancient Fathers can be charged with this Mistake if Origen his Interpreters I take not into the Number and perhaps St. Ambrose be excepted St. Ambrose Chap. 2. of Paradise speaks not of above One that was of this Opinion and the Margent refers us to Origen Whereas had it been true what these Oracles suggests p. 49. That in the first Ages of the Christian Church the more candid Interpreters deviated from the literal reading of Moses's History
cannot be concluded from this passage For he frequently contradicts Himself in this particular And as Lipsius in the Third Book of His Stoical Physiology observes aliquando accedit aliquando recedit sometimes He affirms it sometimes He denieth it In the 36th Epist where He commends a certain person who removed from unavoidable Troubles in publick Affairs and comforts Him against death he hath these Expressions Mors quam parti mescimus recusamus intermittit vitam non eripit venet iterum qui nos in lucem reponet dies Death which we so much fear may intermit Life it shall not wholly deprive us of it the day will come which shall restore us from Death to Life And if we add what follows quem multi recusarent nisi oblitos reducerent his Contradictions in this place will be both visible and palpable In his 63d Epistle which was a Consolatory one upon the Death of a Friend and in the end of that Epistle he says Et fortasse si modo sapientum vera fama est recipitque nos locus aliquis quem putamus periisse praemissus est And perhaps our Friend whom we fear is lost for ever is only gone before us Some wise men are of Opinion that there is a common Receptacle for us all And this makes Lipsius in his Commentaries on this place to say Dubie trepide super immortalitate animae alias Seneca philosophizes doubtfully of the Immortality of the Soul as he doth also in other places And although Mr. Blount would in this page perswade us that Senecae is for the Mortality of the Soul yet p. 124. he confesses the Contradiction himself where he writes When I hear Seneca the Philosopher and others preaching up the doctrine of the Souls Immortality with a quid mihi cura erit transfuga tackt to the end of it nothing under Heaven seems to me more unaccountable and contradictory By which we see what little regard is to be had to the Stoical Philosophers if you consider them without their moral Sentences He that hath but the least Skill in Natural Philosophy cannot but perceive how grosly erroneous they are therein They who make the great God Corporeal they who make the Stars to feed on the Vapours of the Earth in which absurd Notion Seneca with his Rhetorical Flourishes seems to boast they who make the Sun to drink up the Waters of the Sea to quench his Thirst and the Moon to drink up the Rivers they I say who discourse so unphilosophically in these Physical Matters if they err in the momentous point of the Souls Immortality it cannot be accounted strange Natural Religion being according to our Author grounded on the immortality of the Soul and yet as it will appear hereafter that this immortality cannot certainly be known but by Scripture and the Parsons harangues as He by way of contempt says p. 118. and not by the Reasons of Philosophers The necessity of Revealed Religion must be very evident which our Deists Hypothesis will not allow P. 118. No Subject whatever has more entangled and ruffled the thoughts of the wisest men than this concerning our future State it has been controverted in all Ages by men of the greatest Learning and Parts ANSWER The Method Mr. Blount proceeds by in concluding from the Immortality of the Soul to future Rewards and Punishments is very good and I think the Reciprocal Consequence to be equally true The Sadduces as Josephus tells us lib. 18. Antiq. c. 2. affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Souls of men perish together with their Bodies And the same Josephus de bello Judaico p. 788. affirms that the Sadduces did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did deny the Immortality of the Soul and consequently Rewards and Punishments in the world to come And in this the Sadduces were agreeable to their Principles Ludovicus Vives in his excellent Book De veritate fidei chap. 5. lays it down for certain that whatsomever was affirmed by Philosophers with respect to a future State ita sunt leviter dicta ac frigide ut non satis videantur credere quae affirmabant Whatever they affirmed with respect to Rewards for Vertue or Punishments for Vice was so slightly and coldly delivered as that they seem not to believe themselves And the same Author speaks to the same Purpose chap. 6. What the Philosophers declare as to Remunerations after this Life they do it timide quasi diffidentur They declare their Opinions with Fear and Diffidence This Censure of Ludovicus seems to be too mild as I will exemplifie in some Particulars Cicero in his Oration pro Cluentio speaking of the Death of a certain Person says Quid mali mors illi attulerit Nisiforte ineptiis ac fabulis ducimur ut existimemus illum apud inferos impiorum supplicia sufferre What Evil did Death bring to him certainly none at all unless we give credit to such Fables and Fooleries as we are told befal impious Persons in another World And in the first Book of his Tusculane Questions Quae anus tam delira quae timea ista Aehcrontia templa alta orâ—i pallida Leti obnubila obsira â—enebâ—is loca Non pudet Philosophum in eo gloriari quod haec non timeat quod falsa esse cognoverit What dreaming Old Woman can be so delirious as to be afraid of Acheron's Temples of the Principalities of Hell of pale Death of the cloudy and dark Palaces below It is a shame for a Philosopher to boast that he doth not fear these things for he knows that they are meer Cheats As for Pythagoras we have his Opinion in Ovid's Metamorphosis Quid Styga quid tenebras quid nomina vana timemus Why should we be so vain as to be afraid of Styx Acheron and such ridiculous Trifles And Plato alone seems only to speak doubtingly when in his Phaedon speaking of the Rewards of good Men concludes with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot positively determine in this matter To these I must add many more Testimonies together with that large Quotation of Pliny with which our Author fills two whole Pages and more but these may suffice to make it appear that we can have no certainty of a future State but from the Scriptures And that Natural Religion Mr. Blount's Diana can give no satisfaction in this Point controverted as he says by Men of the greatest Learning and Parts It would be now worth knowing what are the Expectations of a Deist with relation to this future State To which Mr. Blount replies Pag. 91. That there is a probability of such a Deist's salvation before the Credulous and ill living Papists which in truth is no more then this the Deist hath more probability of his salvation then he that hath none at all Especially if he be in earnest when he writes Pag. 92. That the Popish Religion stands on the same Foundation with Heathen Idolatry I say if he be in earnest for in his Notes
God The fault he found was that the Method was Unphilosophical which doth not command but perswades a Belief in the Reader without all Controversie he committed not that pretended Error in Moses And therefore I doubt not but the Reader will find more satisfaction in his Oracles of Reason for the Unity of the World then in Mr. Blount's for the plurality of Worlds But whatsomever liberty might be allowed Philosophers in this point because perhaps it may not plainly contradict any Principle of Reason which was the Rule they walked by The same ought not to be allowed to us for this Opinion certainly deserves a Censure in all who pretend to Christianity The Arguments made use of are very weak the Power of God is infinite his goodness is infinite and communicative yet his Power and his Goodness does not extend themselves beyond his Will and Pleasure This would make God a necessary Agent and deprive him of those Perfections he hath been pleased to bestow on some of his Creatures But that which exceeds all bellef is that Mr. Blount who makes this World we live in eternal and consequently uncreated and a God should yet in this place contend for a Plurality of Worlds and that upon a pious pretence for fear forsooth that the Act of Creating should only be once exerted and for an infinite Duration lie Dormant and Useless If this manner of Argumentation be allowed of into what absurdities may we fall Tully in his first Book De Finibus speaking of the difference between Epicurus and Democritus and that Epicurus corrupts and depraves what he pretends to correct in Democritus observes that he makes innumerable Worlds to have their Original and to perish daily Innumerabiles mundi qui oriantur interiant quotidie How agreeable is this false and ridiculous Assertion with our Author's Method The minute Declination of Atomes without an efficient Cause is absurd and unbecoming a Philosopher Yet 't is agreeable to this Method for this Declination is more according with God's Goodness then a constant natural Descent of Atoms in parallel Lines But this favour must not be afforded here since Mr. Blount by his approving Ocellus Lucanus hath banished with Epicurus and Descartes all final Causes from these Speculations Nay if this Method be allowed I know nothing in Epicurus's Natural Philosophy but may be defended although Tully hath abundantly proved him to be as bad a Naturalist as he was a Moralist or a Logician This Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds seems not to be so agreeable to Holy Scripture Certainly Moses's Relation of the Creation must needs be thought to be deficient if this Opinion be true for he menrions only one World which comprehended all Things This Opinion was also for some time accounted Heretical for Virgilius Bishop of Zalzburg was cast out of his Bishoprick excommunicated and condemned for a Heretick by Pope Zachary for this Opinion as the great Annalist Baronius acquaints us in the Year of our Lord 748. What Aventinus and others affirm of his Deprivation and Excommunication for holding there were Antipodes proves a mistake Although I doubt not but that Assertion would have given great Offence as may probably be gathered from Lactantius in the third Book of his Instit chap. 24. and from St. Austin of the City of God Book 16. Chap. 9. and from many others after them As also from the little Skill that Pope Zachary and the Popes about those Days had in the Mathematical Sciences I hope it may not be unpleasing to the Reader If I give him here a short account of the Resolution of this Question by Mersenus a late learned Jesuit and one that had the Reputation of a great Philosopher He thinks the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds not to be Heretical nor against the Faith because as he says it doth not contradict any express place of Holy Scripture nor the determination of the Universal Church Yet he thinks it to be a very rash Opinion forasmuch as it repugns the Consent of the Fathers whose Authority notwithstanding he thinks to be of no such Weight in Matters Philosophical If the Jesuit had plainly proved this matter to be purely Philosophical he had not been wide of the Mark But the Method of Moses and his Silence in so great a Point makes his Reproof to be too mild this Opinion therefore to say the least of it is impious prophane and unbecoming a Christian What follows in Mr. Blount's Oracles touching revealed and natural Religion hath been often treated of in the foregoing Discourse in which I have proved the insufficiency of natural Religion as to the great ends of Man's Happiness and Misery in another World and other things incident to that Question Wherefore not being willing to trouble my Reader with long Repetitions I proceed to that which follows in this Section and relates to Ocellus Lucanus Pag. 210. If any Man should conceive the Vniverse to have been made he would not be able to find into what it should be corrupted and dissolved since that out of which it was made was before the Vniverse as that into which it shall be corrupted was after the Vniverse ANSWER That which made Ocellus Lucanus and Aristotle and others to fall into this great Error as to the World's Eternity were two great Mistakes which they looked on as undoubted Principles The one was that out of nothing something could not be produced and that whatsoever had a beginning must have an end and reciprocally whatsoever shall have no end had no beginning Whereas these pretended Maxims are not grounded on general Reason but only upon particular Observations of such things here below which are produced by the ordinary ways of Generation and Corruption Yet so difficult it is for a Man to retrieve himself from such Observations that it must be confessed that among all the Hypothesis of them who would destroy our holy Faith none is so plausible as that of the Eternity of the World And this made Scaliger in his sixty first Exercitation against Cardan Sect. 6. where he rejects the Arguments of Philoponus as frivolous for so he calls them to conclude sola religione mihi persuadetur mundum coepisse atque finem incendio habiturum Nothing but revealed Religion could induce me to believe that the World had a beginning and that it should have an end Pag. 210. Ocellus Lucanus says his Opinion is that the Vniverse admitteth neither Generation nor Corruption forasmuch as it ever was and ever shall be ANSWER It is very evident that our Naturalist proceeds in asserting his Principle of the usual Course of Generation and Corruption which is obvious to our Senses or on the Works of Art which always suppose pre-existent Matter which if we deny all his Arguments vanish And in truth he is guilty of that Sophism which the Logicians call Petitio Principii a begging of his Principle in taking that to be granted which is the thing to be proved And
the Front that he may poison his Reader 's Mind first of all and so prepare it for Reception of the following Heterodoxies Wherefore we have considered this at large in the first Section of Genesis and Divine Miracles Pag. 224. Diodorus Seculus was famed for his great Learning Reading Enquiring speaking of the Chaldeans he relates ' That they thought very long ago that the World according to its own Nature was eternal having no Beginning nor that it should have Corruption in order to an End And p. 225. Before the Expedition of Alexander they reckoned Four hundred and seventy thousand Years Likewise Cicero who was cotemporary with Diodorus mentions the very same Account of Time and Number of Years ANSWER The Opinion of the Chaldeans as to the Original of the World is laid down by Diodorus Siculus Book the second in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chaldeans says Diodorus affirm the World to be eternal that it had no Beginning of its Production neither hereafter shall it have any Corruption But the Order and Beauty of the Universe must be acknowledged to proceed from Divine Providence and all the glorious things which we see in Heaven owe not their Glory to Chance and Accident but to the firm and unalterable Determinations of the Gods Of what Necessity Revealed Religion is and of what Benefit to Mankind and under what great Errors men labour who are destitute of it this Instance of the Chaldeans fully evinces The Reader cannot but observe the Art of our Deist in relating the Opinion of the Chaldeans for he hath wholly concealed what they say of Divine Providence that being not for his design As also their great difference from his beloved Ocellus Lucanus The Chaldeans make the World only eternal as to the Matter of it the Form they own to be from Providence whereas Ocellus makes it eternal not only with respect to its Matter but also with respect to its Form What he writes as to their Computation of Four hundred and seventy thousand Years before Alexander amounts to nothing unless he had proved by what kind of Years they computed as we have done in the Mosaic Computation which we have proved to be Solar Diodorus observes that the Chaldeans in things pertaining to their Arts made use of Lunar Years of Thirty Days which will make this monstrous Account shrink considerably The Chaldeans make some of their first Kings to Reign above Forty thousand Years which is so incredible that Anianus and Panodorus interpret those Chaldean Years to be but Days That which will for ever cramp these vain Pretences of the Chaldeans is that we have from Simplicius on Aristotle's second Book de Coelo where he tells us that Aristotle desired of Callisthenes that he would certifie him of the Chaldean Observations which Callisthenes did and gives an Account not exceeding Two thousand Years Callisthenes was a grave Person not to be imposed on by the vain Brags of the Chaldeans he would believe nothing that they could not make to appear out of good Monuments of Antiquity This Argument will admit of no Solution the Authority of one single Manuscript to the contrary mentioned by Sir Henry Savil in his second Lecture on Eucleid is not to be opposed to all the vulgar Codes What our Author says concerning Cicero's mentioning the same Account of Time and Number of Years proves nothing but this That Mr. Blount is a Man of unparallell'd Boldness and abuses good Authors 'T is true that Cicero mentions this monstrous Account of the Chaldeans in two places in his first and second Books of Divination but then he explodes the same as false and ridiculous 'T is to be noted that Mr. Blount cites Cicero in general and refers to no Book he well knowing that all his Readers were not conversant in Cicero and that if he had mentioned the place where this was remarked the Reader would have cried shame on his Disingenuity Both these places being to the same purpose I will relate only that in the first Book where Cicero writing of the Babylonians who are the same with the Chaldeans hath these Words Condemnemus hos aut stultitiae aut vanitatis aut imprudentiae qui quadringenta septuaginta millia annorum ut ipsi dicunt monnmentis comprehensa continent mentiri jndicemns We cannot but cnndemn the Chaldeans of Folly Vanity and Imprudence who boast that they have Antiquities of 470000 Years and in our Judgment they are guilty of Falshood AN Appendix To the ANSWER I Have some reason to fear that the Reader of this Discourse may think that I have been too brief in my Preface wherefore I have thought fit to annex this Appendix I have already acquainted the Reader that I have pretermitted the Examination of some things in these ORACLES OF REASON viz. Things purely Philosophical and which may be problematically disputed on either side What those other things are which I have pretermitted I think it reasonable to acquaint my Reader with least he may conjecture that I have passed over some Material Difficulties I shall therefore give in this Appendix a particular Account I have not examined nor any ways concerned my self with those things that are purely Political as when our Deist in the Letter directed to Sir W. L. G. to be left in the Speaker's Chamber p. 137. calls the Regulators of Corporations and the Surrenderers of Charters Impudent if without Blushing they call themselvrs Protestants As also when p. 174. he says If the Church of England can be supported by such ill Men the Lord have Mercy on her And p. 174 Of how great Importance an Honest Impartial and duly Elected House of Commons is to this Nation every body knows and the ill Effects of the contrary I think is unknown to no body my old Lord Burleigh used to say we can never be throughly ruined but by a Parliament And in the same Page he writes I confess I cannot but couple these Regulators and Surrenderers together with those Judges and other Geâ—tlemen of the long Robe who were for the Annihilating or Dispencing Power I have not concerned my self with these Political Matters because I have not been conversant in that sort of Learning and because they are without my Sphear and proposed Design Neither have I concerned my self in discovering those Errors which are obvious to every Man viz. His illogical Inferences or his great Confidence in abusing good Authors We have an Example of the first p. 196. where when he is to prove the Minor of his first Syllogism viz. That no Rule of Revealed Religion ever was or could be made known to all Men he only proves that the large Continent of America was not discovered till within these Two hundred Years a Matter of Fact incontrovertible Whereas unless he had proved that Revealed Religion never was nor never could be discovered to America he hath not proved his Minor In like manner when p. 224. he is to prove rhat