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
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
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