Mr. BLOUNT's Oracles of Reason, Examined and Answered, In Nine SECTIONS.  
IN WHICH His many Heterodox Opinions are Refuted, the Holy Scriptures and Revealed Religion are Asserted, AGAINST Deism & Atheism.  
By JOSIAH KING, M.A. And Chaplain to the Right Honourable JAMES Earl of ANGLESEY.  
EXETER: Printed by S. Darker, for Philip Bishop, Bookseller, over against the Guild-Hall, Exon, and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster. 1698.   

To the Right Reverend Father in God, JONATHAN, Lord Bishop of Exon.  
May it please your Lordship,  
I Have been for some time in debate with myself, whether I should presume to prefix your Lordship's Great Name before this Treatise. That which at last weighed down the Scales with me, was that of Varius Geminus in Seneca.  
Caesar qui apud te audent dicere, magnitudinem tuam ignorant, qui non audent Humanitatem.  
The principle Motive which I had for Publishing the same under your Lordship's Name and Protection, (besides the Testification of my bounden Duty, as being a Presbyter of your Diocese) owes its Original to your Lordship's great Zeal for the Truth; and your great Aversion from those monstrous and Atheistical Opinions, which are now so common among us.  
Neither can I in the least doubt of your Lordship's gracious Acceptance; provided that the Matter contained in the Book, makes good (as I hope it doth) its Title.  
What other Motives I might truly have, with Respect to your Lordship's good Government, and the great Happiness that we of your Clergy enjoy under the same (as things generally known) I willingly pretermit, lest I may seem too prolix and troublesome. That excellent Saying of Lipsius, having made a deep Impression on my Mind: Breves Sermones apud Daeum saepe, apud magnos viros semper grati & accepti sunt.  
May it Please your Lordship, I am, Your most Humble, And most Obedient Servant, JOSIAH KING.   

A PREFACE TO THE Reader.  
ABout three or four Years since, when these Oracles of Reason appeared in the World, and made so great a Noise, I were desired by a Minister in the Diocese of Exon, to read them; and to conceive in Writing, what I thought most blamable in them: which Request I complied with; not intending then to be concerned with this Controversy in public; as all will believe that know the constant Avocations of a Parochial Charge.  
Neither did I then doubt, but that a set, and formal Answer, would long ago have been made to Mr. Blount's Book, but it proves otherwise: upon which account I were desired, upon an accidental Discourse, to publish this my Answer, which I have now done; not with a design to answer every thing in the Book, but to answer the greatest, and most remarkable Difficulties; and to obviate the principal Design of the Author, in opposing revealed Religion.  
Pliny observes in the Dedication of his natural History to Vespasian, that the Greeks were wont to inscribe their Books with the Titles of the Muses, Honey-combs, the Horn of Amatthea, Pandects, and the like vain Titles, to insinuate with the Reader. The same course Mr. Blount hath taken, who calls his Book, The Oracles of Reason: but it is not the Title I am offended with; he subverts the Title himself, when p. 87. he says, That humane Reason is like a Pitcher with two Ears, and that it may be taken on either side.  
That which gives Offence, is the Impiety contained in it; as, when p. 17. he says, 'Tis evident that the Five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his decease. And p. 58. That he can evince from sacred Oracles, that the fall of Angels was before the Creation of the World. And p. 89. That a Mediator derogates as much from the Mercy of God, as an Image doth from his Spirituality. And p. 162. That they were mean Persons that called our Lord the Son of David; and that it was the Mob who cried Hosanna, when he made his Cavalcade upon an Asinego. And many the like Expressions, which are to be treated of in their places.  
If he uses our Lord thus, we of the Clergy can expect no other Treatment from him; to whom he objects so much Ignorance, and nicknames us Quicunque Men, and Canonical Gamesters, p 97. and 136.  
I do not design to trouble my Reader with a long Ppeface; wherefore I shall briefly acquaint him what I have performed in this Book, which I have divided into Nine Sections for Methods sake, and to avoid that Confusion Mr. Blount is guilty of, as his book sufficiently proves.  
The first Section is of the Mosaic History, and Divine Miracles; where I have manifested his Vanity, in appealing to the Testimony of the Fathers; and have defended the Divine Miracles from his subtle Objections, and sly Insinuations. Mr. Blount is a true Follower of the Author of the Preadamites; who makes use of this Method for weakening the Authority of the Scripture; and suggests his Difficulties without a flat denial, that his Reader may be ensnared unawares. I have also stated the Mosaic Year, a thing of no common Observation, and of good Use in these Controversies, and proved it to be a perfect soler Year.  
The second Section is of Paradise; in which I have defended the literal Sense, and discovered his mistaking the Question; and his fathering on Moses (p. 36) that which he never writ, viz. That four Rivers proceeded from one and the same Fountainhead in Eden: Where is also discovered the Falsehood of Celsus and our Deists, concerning the ancient Jewish and Christian Interpreters of Genesis.  
The third Section is of the Original of things; in which the difficulty concerning the Creation of Angels is discussed; as also their Corporiety; which (p. 59) he falsely declares to be the Opinion of the Catholic Church. We have also shown, that some Particulars are omitted in the Mosaic History of the Creation, and the Reason thereof; from whence Mr. Blount can receive no Advantage. Lastly we have subjoined an Apology for St. Austin's Error.  
The fourth Section is of the modern Brachmins; in which we show how difficult it is to comprehend his Design; that his Arguments are of little Force. And his contradiction in saying (p. 87.) that Deism is a good manuring of a Man's Conscience, if sorted with Christianity.  
The fifth Section concerns the Deist's Religion. We have made it evident how uncertain this Natural Religion is by the Practice of Nations. And that what he adds of the Imitation of God, destroys his own Supposition. We have referred the Rewards and Punishments of another Life to be considered in another Section. And whereas he takes it for granted, that the Deist is no Idolater, we have proved the contrary: and that the same reason which exempts the Deists from that imputation, will exempt Romanists, Reformed, Socinian, Mahometan, etc.  
The sixth Section concerns the Arians, Trinitarians, and Councils. In th●s Section it will appear how perverse he represents the Affairs of those times. P. 98. He makes the Arians to be Mounters of Constantine to the Throne; although if they had then a being, yet they made no Figure in the World. He fully tells us, that the Arians appealed for trial 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 Freedom 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, citys 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 men's Minds. The principal philosophic Reason is examined and refelled: From whence it will be evident, that the Scriptures alone give a satisfactory Account of those things. Sir Henry Savil's translating Tacitus, and omitting 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 Egyptians; and that our Author in this Method, followed Celsus and Julian.  
The eighth Section; of marrying two Sisters, Judaisme, 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 Falsehood 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, etc.  
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 Egyptian 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 refelled, his Age examined; with some uncommon Observations relating to him; and our Author's great Vanity, in making him cotemporary with, or ancienter than 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 llved of all Adam's Posterity: because in his Hypothesis of two distinct Originals of mankind, they have an easy 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 Brevity's 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 myself 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.  
Farewell.   

Mr. BLOUNT's Oracles of Reason, Examined and Answered, In Nine SECTIONS, etc.  

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 fastening 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 Father's 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 Margin 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' History; St. Ambrose could not have been supposed to have passed it over in silence.  
But whatever the Sentiments of these two Fathers were; this is certain, that the allegorising Method, and the cabbalistick Strain, so much used by Origen, was condemned in the fifth General Council; as Photius informs us in his Epistle to Michael Prince of Bulgaria. The fifth General Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, condemned and anathematised Origen; and that for this reason, because this his allegorising Method would introduce into the Church Pagan Fables and Greek Muthology. And thus we see how Mr. Blount's many Fathers are dwindled into Two. The Principle censured by the Universal Church; and St. Ambrose hath so compiled his Hexameron, that he seems rather to have followed the Opinion of Hippolytus and Basil, then that of Origen.   
Pag. 3. There are in Scripture, Stories that do exceed the Fables of the Poets; and to a captious Reader, sound like Garagantua or Bevis. 
ANSWER.  
Who can with Patience hear God's Word to be so vilified? a Lucian, a Celsus, or a Julian, could not have more depreciated the Scriptures by any profane Comparison. Lipsius' in his Political Monitions and Examples tells us, that there was one Ochi●us who was wont to say, That Moses & Christus fuerunt insignes Impostores qui genus humanum seduxerant: That Moses and Christ were famous Impostors, and deceivers of Mankind. These few Lines of our Author seem not to be much inferior in Blasphemy. He tells us p. 6. That the Devil dissuaded his belief from the Miracle of the brazen Serpent. And p. 7. That the Devil made him query where the Miracle of the Manna was in the Days of Moses. I think without breach of Charity it may be presumed, that the Devil persuaded him thus reproachfully to derogate from holy Writ. Neither will his salvo subjoined from the Influence of the little Finger of the Almighty, make a sufficient Compensation for so great a Crime.   
Pag. 4. I could show a Catalogue of Doubts never yet imagined nor questioned as I know of; I can read the History of the Pigeon that was sent out of the Ark, and not question how she found out her Male, where Lazarus 's Soul was, before he was raised from the Dead, nor raise a Law Case, whether his Heir might lawfully detain his Inheritance bequeathed to him by his Death; and he, though restored to Life, have no Plea nor Ti●●e to his former Possessions. 
ANSWER.  
I profess I am ashamed to trouble my Reader with such Impertinence; yet I hope I may be excused, because the Repetition of these Whimfeys serve to declare what a Trisler our Deist is; and that he wants solid Reasons to impugn the holy Scriptures. Suetonius in the Life of Tiberius Caesar, Chap. 70. says, That Tiberius was want to exercise Grammarians with these Questions: Quae mater Hecubae? quod Achillis nomen inter virgins fuisser? Quid sirenes cantare sunt solite? Who was the Mother of Hecuba? What was Achilies' Name when under disguise he was conversant with the Virgins? What Songs were the Sirens wont to sing? Which Doubts Suetonius there calls, and deservedly too, Historia fabularis usque ad ineptias atque derisum. Fabulous History, and such as ought to be despised and laughed at. This Censure is applicable to these Doubts; and to use his own Words, p. 4. are fantastic Queries and Atoms in Divinity.   
Pag. 5. How all Kind's of Creatures, not only in their own Bulks, but with a competency of Foo● and Sustenance might be preserved in one A●k, and within the extent of Three hundred Cubits, will not appear very feasible. 
ANSWER.  
This Difficulty puzzled Celsus too; who as Origen says p 191. called the Ark by way of contempt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a Bauble and Scarecrow for Children. 'Tis not strange, that Celsus should thus calumniate, who being an Epicurean Philosopher, and a great Friend of Lucian's, had without Controversy with the rest of that Herd, a great Aversion to the clear and perspicuous Mathematics.  
Plutarch tells us in his Book against the Epicureans, That they accounted those Sciences amongst the Number of them, which contaminated a Man's Mind: and that they wonderfully magnified Apollo's, for that he had kept his Mind pure from these Pollutions. Some Knowledge of which is yet requisite for the understanding the Dimensions of the Ark; as Gerhard Vossius shows in his seventh Chapter of the Mathematical Sciences, p. 30. and to that purpose citys St. Austin. And Gassendus in his Inaugural Orations, hath this Expression, Et cum paires caeteros, tum speciatim beatas Hieronimum & Augustinum passim declarare, quam hae disciplinae necessariae sunt ad Scripturae sacrae interpre●a●ionem.  
And as the other Fathers in general, so in particular, St. Jerome and St. Austin often declare how necessary these Sciences are for understanding the Holy Scriptures. But that Mr. Blount (who, as I am told, had some Knowledge this way) should stumble here, is to me strange.  
He that will take the Pains to read the two little Treatises of Buteo de Arca, and Matthaeus Hostus de Fabrica Arcae, in the Critics at large, will find the Capacity of the Ark for the above mentioned Purposes so fully demonstrated, as will make the Matter feasible. Wherefore with the most learned Dr. Stilling fleet (now Lord Bishop of Worcester) in his Origines Sacra, p. 552. I think it better to refer to the Authors themselves then here to Transcribe them.   
Pag. 5. There is also another secret not contained in Scripture which is more hard to comprehend, and put the honest Father (St. Austin) to the Refuge of a Miracle: and that is, not only how the distinct Pieces of the World, and divided Island, should be first planted by Men, but Inhabited by Tigers, Panthers, and Bears; how America abounded with Beasts of Prey, and Noxious Animals. 
ANSWER.  
St. Austin was never famed for his Skill in Cosmography; lib. 16. de Civit. Dei. c. 7. he makes his Appeal to the Ministry of Angels, by the Command or Permission of God. Had St. Austin lived in our Days, he would not have betaken himself to so remote a Solution. I shall therefore to this purpose cite some of our greatest Geographers, by which it will appear, that this thing is not so hard to be comprehended as our Author bears us in Hand that it is. Keckerman in the second Book of his Geography c. 4. lays down this Position— Incertum est an novus orbis cohaereat Europae & Asiae. And he strengthens the same by the Testimony of Jacob; Chinaeus lib. Paster. Geogr. and by Gemma Frisius, c. 30. Brerewood in his Inquiries, c. 13. some Parts of Asia and America are continent one with the other; or at most, disjoined by some narrow Channel of the Ocean. Dr. Heylin in his Cosmography, p. 1017. the Westside of America, If it be not continent with Tartary, is yet disjoined by a very small Streight, as may be perceived in all our Maps and Cards; so that there is into these Countries, a very quick and easy Passage. Gerard Vossius, de Scientiis Mathematicis, p. 242. says, Ex Asia per fretum Anianum, non difficilem fuisse Navigationem in Mexicanam, atque inde facillimum transitum in pervanum. I must confess nothing pleases me more than the common Saying, Omnia modice & intra mo●um. Yet I must subjoin what Josephus a Costa says relating hereunto, both upon the account of Mr. boil, who in his History of Cold, commends the said a Costa, as a very inquisitive and philosophical Person: as also, upon the said Acosta's own account, who was for a long time a Traveller in America. In his Natural and Moral History of the West-Indies, p. 303. he says, The Old World joins with the New in some Part, by which Men and Beasts may pass. And p. 503. If there be any Sea betwixt the Old World and America, it is so narrow, that wild Beasts may easily swim over, and Men may go over in small Boats. So that without a Miracle, here is a plain Solution of this Difficulty, how the remote Parts of the Earth might be Planted with Men, Tigers, Panthers, Bears, etc.   
Pag. 5. 'Tis a Paradox to me, that Methusalem was the longest lived of all the Children of Adam; and no Man will be able to prove it, while from the Process of the Text I can manifest it may be otherwise. 
ANSWER.  
'Tis no Paradox to believe that which hath been opinioned by most Men, and in most Ages, and is Established on good Grounds; although it may not unexceptionally be Established by the Process of a Text; and such is the Case of Methusalem's long Life. The Instances in Lucian de Longaevis, and in Phlegon Trallian, of the same Subject, come very short of the Age of Methusalem. Josephus indeed, in the first Book of his Antiquities, c. 4. citys Hesiod, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, Ephorus, and Nicolaus; who affirm, that some lived to a Thousand Years. And Pliny in the seventh Book of his Natural Histry, c. 48. confirms the same. But each of those Authors leave us uncertain as to the Point in Hand. Josephus lessens the Authority he produceth, by insinuating the little Credit to be had to his Authorities; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither doth he express how they made their Computation.  
Pliny destroys the Authority he brings, by telling us, that some accou●t six Months to a Year; some three Months, some a Lunar Month; as namely, the Egyptians: and that this is the reason why some were said to live a Thousand Years. Which Latitude should we assume, Methusalem may be said to have lived some Thousands of Years. But the Computation of Time in the Mosaical Writings is most certain: the Years are there according to the Course of the Sun, the Months according to the Course of the Moon; as will plainly appear.  
The time of the Children of Israel's eating Manna is accounted forty Years, in the end of the sixteenth Chapter of Exodus, and reckoned from their departure out of Egypt, Numbers the 33d. Chapter, Verse 38. Which Number from the same Season of the Year, to the same by the Years of the Sun, is most exact; for they came forth of Egypt the fifteenth Day of the first Month, in the beginning of Barley Harvest; and the very same Day of the same Month in Barley Harvest their Manna ceased, Josh. 4. ver. 12. In the 25th Chapter of Leviticus, the Israelites are commanded to sow their Fields, and cut their Vineyard, and gather the Fruits thereof six Years; and to let the seventh rest as a Sabbath Year to the Lord. And seven of those Sabbaths are accounted Forty nine Years; at the end whereof, in the tenth Day of the seventh Month began the Jubilee. These Years were manifestly Years of the Sun; otherwise all the Fruits of those Years could not have been gathered in Harvest and Vintage, as God appointed: for Forty nine Years of the Moon would very near have cut off One and a Half, the last expiring in Winter, before any Corn or other Fruit were ready to be gathered therein.  
St. Austin in his fifteenth Book, de Civitate Dei, cap. 14. writing against the Opinion of some, who were persuaded, that the Years of the Ancient Fathers, which lived in the first Age, were not of the Sun; useth these Words, Tantus tunc dies fuit quontus & nunc est. Tantus tunc mensis, quontus & nunc est quem Luna caepta & finita conclusit. Tantus annus, quontus & nunc est, quem duodecim menses Lunares, addites propter cursum solis quinque diebus & quadrante, consummant.  
The Day was as long then (saith he) as it is now, the Month as long then as now, contained within the compass of the Moon's Course from the beginning to the end. The Year was then as long as now, perfected by twelve Months of the Moon, with five Days and a Quarter added. So that the Year in the Writings of Moses was a solar Year; the same we use at this Day. The Months mentioned by Moses, were lunar Months complete. This is manifest by the History of Noah's Flood, in the seventh and eighth Chapters of Genesis; where we are taught, that the Flood begun the seventeenth Day of the second Month; and the Ark rested on a Mountain of Ararat, in the seventeenth Day of the seventh Month: which Space, by God's holy Spirit, is there counted a hundred and fifty Days; which reckoning giveth to every Month thirty Days apiece, neither more nor less.  
Of this Opinion was St. Austin in hls fourth Book, de Trinitate, chap. 4. Si duodecim menses integri considerentur quos triceni dies complent, talem quippe mensem veteres observaverunt, quem circutius lunaris ostendit. That is, If the whole twelve Months be considered, which contain thirty Days apiece, such was the Month observed by Men of Old Time, even that which the Course of the Moon showeth.  
According to this Measure of Time, the Days of Methusalem were Nine hundred sixty and nine Years; and it doth not appear that any other of Adam's Posterity lived so long. I have been the longer on this pretended Paradox, because this Instance is commonly made use of to invalidate the holy Scriptures; and because the right stating of the scriptural Years and Months is of good Use in these Controversies.   
Pag. 7. I know that Manna is now plentifully gathered in Calabria; and Josephus tells me in his Days it was as plentiful in Arabia; the Devil therefore made me quere, where was then the Miracle in the Days of Moses, since the Israelites saw but that in his time, which the Natives of those Countries behold in ours? 
ANSWER.  
The Authority of Josephus is of little Moment in this case. Mr. Gregory of Christ Church in his Discourse of the seventy Interpreters, p. 33. hath these Words, When Josephus cometh to the Miraculous Passages of holy Writ, he useth a fair way of Dissimulation, still moderating the wonder of a Work, that he bring it down to the Heathens Faith, and make it for ordinary Belief. And of this the said Gregory giveth some Instances; as in the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, of the Sun's standing still in Gibeon, of Nebuchadnezzar's change into a Beast, etc. So that the Devil and our Author have appealed to an incompetent Judge: Yet it must be confessed, that there seems some Foundation for this Doubt; for very great Naturalists have given some Countenance to this Objection. As Valesius in his Sacra Philosophia, c. 57 and Picus Mirandula, and Salmush in his Commentaries on Pancirallus' Res Memorabile s, lib. 2. tit. 6. But he that considers what the Author of Pseudodoxia Epidemica, lib. 7. c. 7. truly says, will be satisfied of the Invalidity of this Quere.  
No one part thereof, saith he, will answer the Qualities of the Israelites Manna, as to fall upon the Ground to breed Worms to melt with the Sun, to taste like fresh Oil to be ground in Mills, to be like Coriander-seed, and of the Colour of Bdellium. And to this purpose in the Margint he citys the learned Chrysost. Magnenus de Manna. Nor will all kinds of Manna have the Properties of the Israelites Manna, mentioned in the sixteenth Chapter of Exodus; he that gathered much had nothing over, nor he that gathered little had any lack; that which was gathered on the sixth Day did not stink as at other times, on the Sabbath Day it was not to be found on the Fields: nor could any other Manna be kept as this was for all Generations. Now if any Person can prove these Properties in the present Manna of Calabria or Arabia, the Quere cannot be Answered.   
Pag. 8. There are great Errors in reading the Scriptures, in relation to Divine Miracles; as the Darkness at the death of our Saviour; which some say, was spread over the Face of the whole Earth: Others, and some able Interpreters, have only Translated it, upon all the Land of the Jews, viz. Palestine, which the Hebrews always meant, when they said the Earth. 
ANSWER.  
That Errors may be committed in reading the Scriptures, is a thing too notorious. But seeing our Author's Design is to disparage Holy Writ, (Quid verba quaero cum facta video, I may say with the Comedian); and by telling the World there are Stories in it, which exceed the Fables of the Poets, and sound like Garagantua and Bevis.  
He plainly insinuates, that little Regard is to be had to Scripture-Miracles. I shall lay down what is sufficient for asserting the most remarkable Instances that he mentions; that the Darkness at the Death of our Saviour was over the Face of the whole Earth, (with relation to the Universality of the Globe) cannot be proved from the Original, nor from our last Translators of the Bible; who render it, Darkness was over all the Land; that is, Judea. So Dr. Hakewill in his Apology, Lib. 5. p. 218.  
The Words in the Original ore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Universality of this Darkness, as to the Globe of the Earth, cannot be from hence concluded, we have the Authority of the most learned Critics in the Greek Tongue. Casaubon in his Annotations on the Greek Testament, hath on these Words, this Remark; Annotant Homeri Interpretes, vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdum apud, bonas auctores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod huic loco convenit. And then he adds, Assentior enim iis, qui sic hunc locum, & marci similem, c. 15. ver. 33. interpretantur. And to the same purpose Erasmus, Nam quod ait Evangelista, tenebras factas super Vniversam terram; ejus regionis terram intellexit assentiente Divo Hieronymo, & asseverante Origene in Homiliis, quas scripsit in Matthaeum. The Sum of which is, that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infers not this Conclusion. And as to the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Earth, our most learned Archbishop Tennison in Hobb's Creed observes, p. 65. doth often signify not the whole Word, but the Land of Palestine.  
Selden in his De jure Naturae & gentium juxta Hebraeos, lib. 6. c. 18. affirms, That the Word Earth, is six hundred times used by the Talmudists, for the Land of Israel. 'Tis used, says he, in this Manner, by the Evangelists; Palam haec terrae notio, c. 15. Marci, ver. 33. tenebre fact suut per totam terram usque in horam nonam. As also by St. Luke, Chap. 4. Ver. 25. Fames facta est magna in omni terra. Which things considered, it will appear, that the Darkness was only over the whole Land of Judea: or to use Mr. Gregory's Words in the Preface to his Reader, The Face of the whole Earth (at our Saviour's Crucifixion) is to be meant, of the Land of Judea; as it is elsewhere. So that Mr. Blount, by Printing those Words in a distinct Character; and intending to persuade his Reader, that this is an Error committed in reading the Scripture, Artificially endeavours the subverting the Veracity of the Miracle.  
There is one Difficulty yet behind, and that is, Whether this Darkness was occasioned by an Eclipse of the Sun, or by the Interposition of Clouds, or by the shrinking in of the Sun Beams, like the Darkness of Egypt? Of this Opinion, were Origen, Tertullian, Hierom, Chrysostom, Theaphylact, Enthymius, and Julius Africanus, who reproves Thallus for calling it an Eclipse, as being an unadvised Speech, and indeed it was so; for one Miracle would suffice for the Darkness; but a total Eclipse, and that for the space of Three Hours, at the full Moon (for it was at the Jewish Passover) would include many great Miracles.  
Wherefore for the better understanding of this Miracle, we will briefly mention what we have met with in good History, concerning the Sun's Darkness, and observe what was peculiar in that, at our Lord's Death.  
Trebellius Polio tells us, That in the days of Gallienus, that there were Earthquakes and a Darkness for many days. St. Jerom ad Pamachiam, that about the days of Pentecost, the Sun was so darkened, that Men thought that the day of Judgement was at hand; which could not be an Eclipse, as Scalliger rightly observes; whether you take it for the Jewish or Christian Pentecost.  
Cederenus says, That in the days of Justinian, the Sun for a whole Year together was of a Duskish Colour, as if it had been in a perpetual Eclipse. The like strange Accidents are reported by Pliny, and Theophanes; but our late Naturalists have made it appear that there is nothing Miraculous in these Effects; but none can presume to say so by this Darkness; That observes, First, that it was only in the Land of Judaea where our Saviour Suffered. Secondly, That it was only between the Sixth and Ninth Hour, nor more, nor less; the precise time of the Crucifixion. Thirdly, That it was accompanied with an Earthquake. Phlegon (in his Cronican cited by Origen Cant. Celsum lib. 2.) says, there were then many Earthquakes, it was accompanied with renting the Veil of the Temple, renting Rocks, opening Graves, etc. enough to extort a Confession from the Centurion that Christ was the Son of God.   
Page 9 That God brought back the Shadow of those Lines, that it had gone down in the Dial of Achaz, back Ten Degrees. Here some affirm, that the Sun went not back in the Heaven (as 'tis generally believed) but only in the Dial of Achaz; For, say they, if the Sun went back in the Zodiac, or that Degree of the Ecliptic stand still, which He was a running that day, the Primum-Mobile came also backwards, and with it all the rest of the Spheres: if we say He went back only in the Zodiac, and a Tenth part of the Zodiac; then say they, the Sun must needs return through a great many Signs of the Zodiac, and bring back with Him past Months, yea, and Seasons of the Year. Besides, that this Sign was seen only in the Land of Judah, and not in Babylon. 
ANSWER.  
What kind of Dial King Ahaz His Dial was is not yet agreed on by the Learned in that Science. Gafferell in his unheard of Curiosities P. 280. hath these words, As for the Figure of it, there is no Man hitherto, that hath Published what it was.  
Mr. Gregory in his Preface, is of opinion, that King Ahaz. His Dial is like none of ours now in use.  
Godwin in His Jewish Antiqities, gives this account, The Dial's in use among the Ancient Jews differ from those in use among us; the time of the day was not distinguished by Lines, but by Degrees. In the Dial of Achaz, the Sun went back Degrees, not Lines; the Prophet Isaiah makes no mention of Lines.  
When our Author therefore speaks of the Shadow of Lines, 'tis no wonder that He misapprehends this Miracle: 'tis not to be doubted, but that the Miracle was in the going back of the Sun, and not in the going back of the Shadow; the latter being the effect of the former.  
All Mathematicians agree in this, that a Dial may be made between the Trophicks, on which the Shadow may naturally go back, And Clavius hath demonstrated that the same may be done on a Dial made without the Tropics. In our Elevation here in Exeter, a Plane may be fitted for such a Poler Altitude, as will make a Retrocession of the Shadow Natural. I Remember a good Mathematician told me, that he made a South Vertical Dial, for the Right Honourable the late Lord Clifford, of Chudleigh in Devon; on which this Phaenomenon of the Shadows going back might be seen: the Degrees mentioned in this Miracle, are primarily to be understood of those in Heaven, for they are the Degrees most properly so called; therefore the Sun with the Primum-Mobile, and the Celestial Spheres, went so far backward in their Diurnal Motion, as made up the space of Ten Degrees in the Equinoctial Line, which answered to Two Third parts of an Hour on the Dial of Ahaz.  
The Difficulties which are suggested, are grounded on great Mistakes; as if Equinoctial Degrees and Signs of the Zodiac were the same thing; and that the Retrocession of the Sun, Ten Degrees in the Polar Altitude of Jerusalem, should bring back with Him Ten Months, or Ten Signs of the Zodiac; an Error inexcusable in the meanest Astronomer.  
Of the like nature is that other, From the Miracles being visible only in the Land of Judah, and not at Babylon. For the Acuteness of this Arch of Ten Degrees was such, with relation even to those in Judaea; that it could not be perceived there, unless Geometrically observed by a Quadrant or Astrolabe. And I am certain that there is no Astronomer but must confess, that although the Miracle consisted in the going back of the Sun; yet it was more apparent, by the going back of the Shadow on the Dial. So that, had there not been a going back of the Shadow, the Miracle might have been lost, and no Man might have observed it. The Arch of the Ten Degrees in the Sun's going back, being (as I have said) so Acute, as that it was not to be perceived, but by the help of such Instruments, which the Jews (as far as I have Read) never had.   
Pag. 10. Others will not allow that the Flood of Noah was upon the whole Earth, but only upon the Land of the Jews; not to destroy all Men, but only the Jews. 
ANSWER.  
If there has been any Authors so absurd, as to limit the Flood to the Land of the Jews (as Mr. Blount says there have been) they are not to be Defended.  
The only Modern Author of any repute, (that I have met with) who bounds it within narrow limits, is Isaac Vossius in His Dissertation de aetate Mundi; where he hath these Words,  
Long absunt a veritate, qui existimant Noachi aetate per Vniversum orbem propagata● fuisse homines, qui ne Syriae quidem & Mesopotamiaes fines forsan excesserant ut vero Diluvii Inundationem ultra Orbis habitati Terminos producamus, nulla jubet ratio: Imo prorsus absurdum ubi nulla hominum sedes, illic etiam viguisse affectus paenae solis hominibus inflictae. That is,  
They are far from truth, who think that in the days of Noah, Mankind was propagated through the whole Earth. Whereas perhaps, there were then no Men, but those, who lived in Syria and Mesopotamia Now that the Deluge should exceed the Bounds of that part of the Earth, where Men were Seated, seems not Rational to believe: Nay, 'tis absurd to conceive, that there should be any effects of Punishment where there were no Offenders.  
And the same Vossius, in His Cassigationes ad Scriptum Georgii Hornii, in Defence of His Opinion, says, Non defuisse omnibus seculis, qui Mosem sic interpretati sunt; olim sic sensit Theodorus, cumque secutus est Theodoretus; & ex Orthodoxis qu●ssionibus que inter opera Justini Martyris extant, clare colligi potest multas Christianas sic sensisse.  
Clare quoque Josephus ostendit, non Vniversam Terram fuisse Inundatam, cum dicit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Continentem in mare mutavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minus est quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive Terra habitata; illam enim in tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine Continentes pa●tiua●ur vetres, quod notissimum. Pro toto vero Terrarum Orb, nu quam ea vox accipitur. That is, There have been some in all Ages, that have Interpreted Moses as I have done: Anciently of this Opinion were Theodore, Mopsuesten, Theodoret; and it appears out of the Orthodox Questions, among the Works of Justin Martyr, that many Christians were of that opinion.  
Josephus clearly shows the Deluge was not over the whole Earth in its utmost Latitude; when he says, The Continent was changed into Sea. A Continent is less than the Habitable World; which the Ancients divide into Three Continents.  
And whereas Andrew Colvius objects to Vossius, The Universality of the Expressions in Scripture, relating to the Flood.  
Vossius makes this Reply: Quis nescit Vocabulum omnis passim in Sacris Literis ambiguae esse significationis, & rarissime, absolute accipi, plurimis vero locis restringi ad subjectum de quo agitur.  apud Mosem, Gen. 41. Cum famem super Vniversam Orbem invaluisse scrib●t, non nisi de aliqua orbis portione intelligendum esse fatentur Theologi, quid abstat igitur quo minus cum Deus d●citu● Inundasse Vniversam Terram; totam Terr●m habitatam, & Omma haebitatae telluris animalia intelligamus?  
Who is so Ignorant as not to know, that the Word (all) is every where in the Holy Scriptures of an ambiguous signification, and very seldom put absolutely; in most places 'tis restained to the Subject Matter: As in Gen. 41. When the Famine is said to prevail over the whole Earth, Divines understand it of some part of the Earth; What should hinder, but that the same may be understood in this case of the Flood, and the destruction of all Creatures?  
This is most certain from the Holy Scriptures. That all Mankind (those in the Ark excepted) were destroyed by the Flood. For the occasion thereof is thus expressed in Genesis. And God saw the wickedness of Man was great upon the Earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually: and the Lord said I will destroy Man whom I have created from the face of the Earth.  
And (again) all Flesh died thot moved upon the Face of the Earth; and every Man, and every living Substance was destroyed that was upon the Face of the Ground, both Man and Cattle; and the Creeping things, and the Fowl of Heaven, and they were destroyed from the Earth, and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with Him in the Ark.  
So that Mr. Blount is very vain, in Mustering up the Arguments he pretends to be brought to prove, that the Flood was only in the Land of the Jews. And Vossius seems to be in a great Error, in limiting the same to Syria and Mesopotamia. For as it seems strange, that in so short an Interval as that was from Adam to the Flood; according to the ordinary Computation 1656 Years, and not much above Two thousand according to the largest, the World should then be fully Peopled: So it also seems no less strange, that in such a space of time Syria and Mesopotamia should only be Peopled. Besides, it cannot be well imagined, that so many Nations should have knowledge thereof, if it were not of a much greater extent; For Vossius confesseth that almost all Nations had knowledge thereof, the Egyptians only excepted. Josephus a Costa Witnesseth for the Americans, and so doth Laet. Martinus for the Chineses; for the knowledge of others, Bochart in his Geogr. Sacra, and Grotius in his Annotata on the First Book of the Truth of the Christian Religion.  
And now we draw towards a Conclusion, I shall not use any other Words, than those which are used by the most Learned Dr. Stillingfleet (now Lord Bishop of Worcester) in his Origines Sacrae, p. 539 and 540.  
I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert, that the Flood did spread itself over all the surface of the Earth.  
It is evident that the Flood was Universal as to Mankind, but from thence follows no necessity at all, of asserting the universality of it, as to the Globe of the Earth, unless it be sufficiently proved; that the whole Earth was Peopled before the Flood: which I despair of ever seeing proved.  
I grant as far as the Flood extended, all Creatures were destroyed; but I see no reason to extend the destruction of these, beyond that compass and space of Earth where Men Inhabited.— All these are the Assertions of that great Man.  
So that I suppose the vanity of Mr. Blount's Suggestion is apparent, by this right the Notion of the Flood.   
Pag. 12. I must ingeniously confess, Original Sin, was ever a difficult Pill with me to swallow; my Reason stopping it in my throat, and not having Faith enough to wash it down.— And p. 15. never did any Church enjoin Penance, or Repentance for Original Sin: wherefore it seems preposterous and unreasonable, that any Man should be Damned for that, which no Man is bound to Repent. 
ANSWER.  
That Mr. Blount hath not Faith to wash down Original Sin, which sticks in his Throat, is a thing to be lamented; this truth being so plainly laid down in Holy Writ, that no Man (who hath any regard for the Scriptures) but will be offended with him, for Writing so contemptably of this Doctrine.  
The chief Argument which he brings for his opinion, taken from Penance and Repentance is of no force But because I think 'tis new, I will consider it.  
In the Primitive Church Penance was only imposed for Three Crimes, viz. Idolatry, Homicide, and Adultery; which is proved at large by Morinus in his fifth Book de Penitentia, cap. 3. out of Fathers and Councils; and he concludes the Chapter thu— To●●ig●●ur & tantis Testimonis freti, recte nobis videmur Colegere, quadringentis prope annis a Christo nato, Patres haec sola tria crimina Penitenta Cassigasse.  
Trusting to so many Testimonies, we think we may truly conclude, that for almost Four Hundred Years after our Saviour, no Penance was Imposed, but only for these Three Crimes.  
Now if Mr. Blount's Negative Argument, with relation to the Practice of the Church be valid; how many Men have lived in the World without Actual Sin? So that his Argument proves too much, a most certain sign of its Weakness.  
As for the Second part of his Argument; That no Church ever required Repentance for Original Sin, is a mistake, and proceeds from not knowing the Church's Practice.  
In the Primitive Church, Repentance was required of all adult Persons, who desired Baptism; which must relate to Original as well as Actual Sin.  
Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo, says, Ingressuras Baptismum, orationibus crebris, jejuniis, & geniculationibus crebris & pervigiliis orare aportet, & confession omnium retro delectorum. Such as intent to be Baptised, must prepare themselves by frequent Prayers, Fast, frequent Humiliations, Watch, with Confession of all their Sins.  
Agreeable to this ancient Practice; our Church gins its Office of Baptism with the Confession of Original Sin; in these Words, Dear beloved, for as much as all Men are conceived and born in Sin— and our Church prays for the Pardon of the same in these Words, We call upon thee for these Infants, that they coming to this Holy Baptism, may receive Remission of their Sins by spiritual Regeneration: And to the same purpose, before Tertullian, we have Justin Martyr, in his second Apology, where he says, That those who were to be Baptised; jejunare docentur, nobis una, cum illis, & orantibus, & jejunantibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They are required to Fast, the Congregation also praying and fasting together with them.  
Now the Church requiring all Catechumen to 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' Ancorate, where Baptism is called 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 Commonwealth 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 inquire 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. 'Tis 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 jews 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, than 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 faced, as to deny openly so important a Truth: yet, by the Difficulties he proposed, and by the manner of his proposing them, (as Mr. Blount doth his Oracles) he plainly enough insinuates to an intelligent Reader, that his design was no other, than to overthrow the Authority of the Pentateuch; out of his Storehouse it is, that Hobbs, Spinosa, and other such Politicians in Mr. Blount's Commonwealth 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' 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  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 happened 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 tastes ill.  
Serpent. If it tastes 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. Farewell 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 Woman's 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 Tailor's Trade; But where had they Needles, and where their Thread, the very first Day of their Creation, since the Th●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 than sufficient to make any Man Nauseate. For what Man that hath but a M●●e of Piety, will not be concerned to read such Expressions? to read the Holy Oracles of God to be thus drolled on, by these pretended ones? and this sacred Book of God to be thus exposed by a scurrilous Libel.  
Our Author often citys 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 Profaneness, Scurrilousness, Fabulousness, Flatteries, Distractions, Superstitions, or too scurrilous Libels.  
The first Council of Milan declares, That their Rashness is very wicked, who absue the Words or Sentences of Holy Scripture, to Flattery, Contumely, Superstition, Impiety, or to any profane 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 itself into four Branches; the Name of the first is Pishon, etc. 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 Fountainhead 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 wholly 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 Ministerii; id est, tricesimum annum implever it, principium Geneseos legere non permittitur. Unless a Man had attained to the Year of the Sacerdotal Ministry, which is the Thirtieth Year complete, they were not permitted to Read the beginning of Genesis; Which Practice appears also out of the Prologue Galeat, and from Origen on the Canticles: we are told by both, that the Jewish Doctors forbidden these Four things (because of their Difficulty and Profoundness) to be read by any, but such as attained to Thirty Years of Age; and those were, the Three First Chapters of Genesis, the beginning and end of the Prophet Ezechiel, and the Book of Canticles: This Decree of the Jewish Doctors is also mentioned by Prosper Aquitanicus, lib. 3. de Vita Contemplativa, c. 6. Where he gives us a good Account thereof; and contends for the literal Sense.  
Now although they account this Book obscure; yet I do not find, that any of the Ancient Jews excluded a literal Sense, Philo Judaeus excepted, whose Arguments are very weak, and unbecoming so great an Author.  
It was a known rule among the Rabbis, that Scripture falls not in with the Midrash, i. e. The Scriptures are to be Interpreted in a literal Sense. And Buxtorf de punct. Antique. tells us, That when the Allegorical or Cabalistick Sense is contrary to the Literal, the Cabalistick is to be rejected; neither must we think otherwise of the Modern Jews, if they will be consentaneous to themselves, and the Eighth Article of their Creed.  
Out of which it necessarily follows, that although the Jews allowed an Allegorical Sense, yet they never allowed any which interfered with the Literal.  
If we consult the Ancient Christians, we shall find; that they were careful to preserve the Literal Sense of Genesis. Epiphanius in Ancorato, c. 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If there be no Literal and Sensible Paradise, than there is no Fountain, no River, no Pison, no Gihen, no Tigris, no Euphrates, no Fruit, no Leaves, no Adam, no eating the Forbidden Fruit; but the whole truth is a Fable, and nothing but Allegory: And c. 54. of the same Ancorate, he calls Origen (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a furious Mad Man, for his obtruding on the World Allegory instead of a Literal Truth.  
St. Jerom in his Commentaries on Daniel, c. 10. Writing something with relation to the Mosaical Creation, seems to be much concerned, in these Words, Eorum deliramenta conticescant, qui umbras & imagines in veritate quaerentes, ipsam conantur subvertere veritatem; ut flumina & Arbores & Paradisum putent allegoriae legibus se debere subruere. Let their follies be gone, who searching after shadows and Images in the Truth, endeavour the subversion of the Truth itself; and think to bring Trees, Rivers, and Paradise itself, under their Rules of Allegory.  
St. Austin lib. 8. de Genesi ad literam, cap. 1. Having delivered His opinion, that some things in Genesis may admit (as he calls it) a Spiritual Sense,— doth then in general declare,— Narratio in his Libris, non genus locutionis figuratarum rerum est, sicut in cantico canticorum; sed omnino gestarum est sicut in Regnorum libris & hujuscemodi Ceteris. The account which we have in the Book of Genesis is not Allegorical or Figurative, as in the Book of Canticles, but it is Historical and Literal, as in the Books of the Kings, and such like Historical Books.  
As to the Second Consideration, which relates to the great Changes which have happened to the Surface of the Earth; I need not say much, since I think it is taken for granted by all, that have any acquaintance with History, or Geography. We Read in Plato's Timaeus, of a Discourse between the Egyptian Priests and Solon, about Six Hundred Years before our Saviour: Solon is told there, that of old Time without the straits of Gibraltar, there was a very great Island called Atlantis, bigger than Asia and Africa put together, and the said Island was afterward by a great Inundation and Earthquake, in one Day and Night wholly overwhelmed and drowned in the Sea.  
Some of the Ancients, as Strato, quoted by Strabo in the first Book of his Geography, say, that the fretum gaditanum or Straight of Gibraltar was forcibly broken open by the Sea: The same they affirm of the Thracian Bosphorus and Hellespont, that the Rivers filling up the Euxine Sea, forced a Passage that way, where there was none before; of the like nature is that account of the Samothracians mentioned by Diadorus Siculus.  
The River Arnus in Tuscany, now falleth into the Sea, Six Miles below Piza: Whereby it it appeareth (saith Dr. Hakewel) that the Land hath gained much upon the Sea in that Coast, for that Strabo in his time reporteth, it was but Twenty Furlongs (that is but Two Miles and a half) distant from the Sea.  
Varenius Conjectures, That all China (which is as big as all Europe) or a great part of it, was raised Originally from the Sea; for that great and impetuous River called the Yellow or Saffron River, coming out of Tartary, and very often overflowing the Country of China, is said to contain in it so much Earth and Sand, as make up a Third part of its Waters; the evenness and level Superficies of the whole Country of China renders this conjectture the more probable, as that great Philosopher Mr. Ray, is of opinion in the 5th. Chapter of the Consequences of the Deluge.  
I shall here add, what we find to this purpose, in that excellent Geographer Maginus, in his Preface; and in Ocellus Lucanus. Certum est, (says Maginus) Insignes variationes in terrae partibus continuo evenire propter aquarum Inundationes; marium praeruptiones ac recessus etenim non solum Regiones, urbis, oppida, flumina, & alia hujusmodi sua nomina pro tempore mutant, amissis prorsus prioribus; Verum etiam & fines ipsarum Regionum variantur, & urbes oppidaque senectute delentur. Mare in uno loco Continentem Terrae dilatat, in alio coarctat; & flumina quandoque augescunt, quandoque minuuntur quandoque cursus variant, quandoque etiam prorsus deficiunt sic quoque fontes, stagna, paludes alibi exiccaentur, alibi vero procreantur.  
'Tis certain there are great variations on the Surface of the Earth, which continually happen by Inundations, the breaking in and recess of the Sea. Nay, not only Countries, Cities, Towns, Rivers, and the like, change their Names, but also Limits and Bounds; the Sea in one place gains on the Land, in another place it loseth. Rivers sometimes grow, sometimes lessen; sometimes change their Channel, sometimes wholly fail: Fountains, great standing Waters and Marshes in some places are dried up, and appear in other places, where they never were before.  
Ocellus Lucanus, (who is an Author much valued by Mr. Blount) p. 21●. of the Oracles, hath these Words, N●w corruptions and violent alterations are made according to the parts of the Earth; sometimes by the overflowing of the Sea: Sometimes with the dilating and parting of the Earth by Winds and Waters imprisoned in the Bowels thereof; but an Universal corruption of the Earth never hath been, nor ever shall be. Now although Ocellus Lucanus be false in his Conclusion, yet he is right in his Premises.  
Of the truth of this Cosideration, Mr. Blount himself seems to be convinced, in pag. 36. where he hath these Words,— But to end all these difficulties or Controversies concerning the Originals and Channels of the Rivers that watered Paradise, you will perhaps at last say, that the Springs as well as the courses of Rivers have been changed by the Universal Deluge, and that we cannot therefore be now certain where it was that they formerly broke out of the Earth, and what Countries they passed through. For my part, I am much of your Opinion, provided you confess there happened in the Deluge such a Fraction and disruption of the Earth, as we suppose there did.—  
This Supposition is that of the late Theory of the Earth, which we can by no means grant, and which the Authors before Cited never Dreamt of.  
And now I return a brief solution to the difficulties proposed pag. 36. He would be told in what part of the Earth this Country of Eden is, where Four Rivers arise from one and the same Spring?  
This is indeed a difficult Question, and not to be Solved: But then I must ask him another Question, of no less difficulty; and that is, in what place of Genesis Moses said this? In the whole History of the Creation, no such thing is affirmed by Moses.  
Huet Bishop of Soissons, in his Learned Treatise of the Situation of Paradise, p. 44. returns this Answer, if by these Words, and a River went out of Eden to water the Garden; Moses had meant, that this River sprung out of the Earth in Eden, 'tis evident his Narative had been defective, and to make this complete, it should have been in these Words, and a River had its spring in the Land of Eden, from whence it run along to water the Garden.  
And p. 48. the same Learned Bishop says, Moses hath marked it plainly enough, that a River went out of Eden to water the Garden; for these words gives us to understand that there was but one River in the Garden, and in Eden, and Consequently that the division did not happen there.  
So that the Idea Mr. Blount hath conceived of Paradise, seems to be as Gross as that of Mahomet's; who when he entered into these Particulars, affirmed, that the first River with which Paradise was watered, was of pure Water, the second of Milk, the third of Wine, and the fourth of Honey.  
The same great Prelate, Pag. 53. says, Moses did not say, whether the Division of the River happened above or below Paradise, or whether it happen far or near. He denoted it plainly enough, when he named the four Channels or Rivers which grew from that Division. Those four Rivers were so well known in the Places where Moses then was, and to those to whom he wrote, that it was enough to name them, that they might be known. Yet he was not contented with it; and as if he had foreseen that future Ages and far Nations, who were also concerned in the Design of this Work, might want some clearing of this Matter, He gave so evident Tokens to make those Rivers known, that no Man can mistake them but for want of Heed. And for the further satisfaction of the Reader, I had rather refer him to the Author before cited, than here to transcribe him.  
Out of all which 'tis evident, what great Injury he hath done to the Truth, by affirming, that it is apparent in the Book of Genesis, that the four Rivers proceeded from one and the same Fountainhead in Eden: Whereas, there is not the least Footstep of any such thing in the Divine History. 'Tis evident what Wrong he hath done to some unwary Readers, by deceiving of them, and misleading them, in a thing of so great Moment, Lastly, 'Tis evident of what Frame and Make of Mind Mr. Blount was, who would not stick at any Methods, right or wrong, to obtain his Point against Moses. Whose History of the Creation, although Origen (in his Commentaries, generally corrupted and depraved) says, 'tis allegorically to be understood; yet in his Third excellent Book against Celsus, which all the World acknowledges to be Genuine, he hath this Passage worthy of Remark.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Moses was a very pious Man, one endued with the Divine Spirit, and wrote his History with Truth and Fidelity.  
Pag. 49. I am angry with Celsus, who calls this Account an old Wife's Fable; upon which Orïgen replies very well by way of Answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That these things were spoken in a figurative Sense. However, Celsus himself does in what follows, acknowledge, that the fairest Interpreters, both among the Jews and Christians, were ashamed of the literal Sense, and therefore accommodated them to Allegories.   

ANSWER.  
No Man who hath read Mr. Blount's Oracles can believe him, when he says, he is angry with Celsus, for exposing and ridiculing Moses' Narration.  
Origen in his Answer observes, that Celsus speaks in this place, neither of Paradise nor of Eden, nor of the Tree of Life, nor of that of Good and Evil; but that he calls Moses' Account of the Serpent, an Old Wife's Fable.  
To which Origen answers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (a word omitted by Mr. Blount) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a Man may not be thought immodest, that conjectures there may be something of Figure. Something that may move the Reader to seek for some considerable Matter under a figurative Expression.  
It is evident that Celsus was wont often to say, that the more modest Jews and Christians in these Difficulties, had Recourse to Allegory; and to avoid Shame renounced the Letter.  
But Origen says, this was a Calumny, and made use of on purpose by Celsus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bring forth Jews and Christians into Hatred and Contempt.    

SECT. III. Concerning the Original of Things.  
MR. Blount in this Section, discourseth of the Centre of the World, of the Phaenomena's of the Heavens, of the Company of the erring and fixed Stars, the Original of the Ocean; and many such like Subjects of Philosophical Consideration; which, because they are things purely speculative, and may be disputed pro and con in infinitum, I shall pass them over, and leave them to be considered on by the Reader at his leisure.  
Pag. 56. Many Fathers of the Christian Church were of Opinion, that before the Earth or Moses 's World, there had been Angels for many Ages unknown to us. 
ANSWER.  
Mr. Blount hath enumerated many Fathers, who were of Opinion, that before the Earth was made, Angels had a Being: And yet every one knows, that as many Fathers can be produced for the contrary Opinion. I know no general Council hath concerned itself in this Controversy; that of the Lateran, under Innocent the Third (which defines the Creation of the Angelical, as well as Mundane Substances in the beginning of Time) is not accounted general by many learned Persons, both of the Pontifician and Protestant Communion. From whence it follows, that this is a Matter of Opinion, and not an Article of Religion. 'Tis only required of us to believe that the Angels were created by God, and that they are not Coeternal with him; which is the true Reason of this Difference among the Fathers.  
St. Austin, lib. 11. De Civitate Dei, c. 32. says, proinde ut volet unusquisque accipiat— dum a regula fidei non aberrat ut angelos sanctos, in sublimibus coeli sedibus, non quidem Deo Coaeternos nemo ambigat. As to this Matter which relates to the Creation of Angels, whether before or after the Creation of the visible World, let every Man enjoy his own Opinion, only take care you do not err from the Rule of Faith, and think that the holy Angels now in the heavenly Places, are Coeternal with God.  
Sixtus Senensis (to whom Mr. Blount seems to be beholding, although he names him not) Lib. 5. Annot. 5. tells as, that the learned Father Theodoret was of St. Austin's Opinion, having disputed this Point against St. Bazil; and that Theodoret concludes, that if you grant that the Angels were created, it matters not whether before or after the Mosaic Creation; verbum pietatis non offendet; he will violate no Rule of Faith.  
St. Jerome in his Epist. ad Cyp. thinks that in the Mosaic History of the Creation, there is no express Mention of the Creation of Angels, because the common illiterate People, were not so capable as to apprehend their Natures.  
Perenius on Genesis propounds this Question, Why Moses did not mention the Creation of Metals and Minerals, as well as that of Plants and Herbs?  
To which he gives this Answer; Because Metals and Minerals are hid in the Bowels of the Earth, and not so commonly known as Plants and Herbs; and that Moses did not design to report all things in Particular, but first in General, to relate that all things in the Beginning were Created by God, whether in Heaven or Earth: and in Particular, such things as were most common and evident to all Men.  
Thomas Aquinas hath also remarked, That in Moses 's Writings we have no mention of the Creation of the Air, for that the same not being visible, it was difficult to have a right Notion of that Body.  
Yet methinks if Men have no mind to be contentious, there is reason to believe, that the Angels were not created before the Heavens, the place of their Residence and Abode.  
The Jews will tell us, that Moses understood these Words of his; especially of Angels, when he said of God. In the Beginning he created the Heavens. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its Exposition of the Articles of the Creed, lays down the same Opinion; where it says, Coeli & terrae nomine, quicquid Coelum & terra complectitur intelligendum est. Moses under the general Terms of Heaven and Earth, comprehended all things in both; Angels, as well as other Being's.   
Pag. 54. We can evince the same by the sacred Oracles and Authorities of the Fathers, as well as by Reason and Arguments, the Fall of the Angels was before the Creation of the World. 
ANSWER.  
Mr. Blount may evince from his own Oracles, that the Angels fell before the Creation of the World; but to prove it from the sacred Oracles, he will find it difficult.  
As to the Fathers, I have not observed above Two, who speak clearly as to this Matter, and they are, St. Cyprian and Arnoldus Bonae Vallis. St. Cyprian in his Book, De Zelo & Livore, hath these Expressions, Diabolus inter initia statim mundi, & perit primus, & perdidit. Ille Deo carus, & acceptus postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit in Zelum malevolo livore prorupit. Et dum stimulante livore, homini gratiam datae immortalitatis eripit, ipse quoque id quod prius fuerat amisit. St. Cyprian is very plain, that the Devil did not fall before the Creation. He says, the Devil in the beginning of the World perished himself, and destroyed Man. He who was dear to God, and accepted by him, after he saw Man was made in the Image of God, he was moved with great Envy and Malevolence, and being stirred up by these Affections, robs Man of the Grace and Immmortality, and himself lost that which he enjoyed before.  
Some think that St. Cyprian contradicts himself, for as much as he writes in the Book De Cardinalibus Christi operibus (which goes under his Name) ante hoc temporale initium ipse in principio, imo ipse principium existens apud Deum ante hominis conditionem superbientis Diaboli ruinam videt & affectatae dominationis ambitionem. Where writing concerning our Lord, he says, Before the Beginning of this World he was in the Beginning; nay, he was the Beginning himself, being with God before Man was created; he saw the ruin of the Devil, and of the Domination he affected.  
It must be confessed that this place comes home, and is to the purpose. But than it must be confessed, that not St. Cyprian, but Arnaldus, Abbot of Bonae Vallis, was Author of those Books.  
Bellarmine de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, proves St. Cyprian could not be the Author of that Book; because he affirms, Diabolum cecidisse de coelo ante hominis creationem, cujus sententiae contrarium habet Cyprianus in Tractatu de Zelo & Livore. That the Devil fell from Heaven before Man was created; whereas St. Cyprian teacheth the contrary in his Book, De Zelo & Livore.  
Which Observation of Bellarmine is allowed of by Dalle in his Book, De Libris suppositis Dionysio & Ignatio, p. 468.  
Dr. Thomas James, in his Treatise of the Corruption of Fathers, informs us, That in an ancient Manuscript in All Soul's Library, the Author of this Book is of much later Date, written by one that lived in St. Bernard's time, to whom he wrote one or two Epistles, and that he was called Arnoldus Bonae villacensis.  
We learn also from the foresaid Manuscript, that the Book was Dedicated not unto Cornelius the Pope, who lived Anno. 254. but unto Adrian the Pope, the Fourth of that Name, who was created Pope Anno. 1154. and succeeded Eugenius the Third, to whom Bernard wrote his Books of Consideration. And agreeable hereunto is Mr. Dalle, who in his Book before cited acquaints us, that the same is to be found in a Manuscript in the French King's Library.  
So that Mr. Blount's Authority from the Fathers, is reduced only to One that delivers his Mind plainly, and he a very late one too, who lived some hundreds of Years after St. Cyprian.  
And now we will see his Reason and Arguments.  
He says, p. 58, and 59, Really 'tis not at all probable, that the most excellent Creatures were made of so frail a Nature, as that the very day of their Birth they should fall into Misery and Evil.  
Where we see, that after all those Brags of Sacred Oracles, and Authority of Fathers, our Author with all his Reason and Arguments is forced to conclude with probability.   
Pag. 59 The Second Nicene Council, would have this Doctrine proposed out of the Book of John Bishop of Thessalonica to be confirmed, these are the Words, concerning the Angels, Arch-Angels, and their Powers, to which I also join our own Souls; this is the Opinion of the Catholick-Church; that they are, 'tis true, intelligible, yet not wholly incorporeal and invisible. 
ANSWER.  
Supposing that it were true (as it is not) what Mr. Blount hath delivered concerning the Second Nicene Council 's Confirming the Opinion of John Bishop of Thessalonica; yet it cannot be concluded that this was the Opinion of the Catholick-Church, as to the Corporiety of Angels and Souls.  
Who knows not that the Conditions commonly required to make a General Council which (only can Represent the Catholick-Church) were wanting to the Second Nicene?  
Petrus de Marca, lib. 2. de Concordia c. 17. gives us this Account,— Secunda Synodus Nicaena, ab Ecclesia Gallicana in Concilio Francofordiensi repudiata est; The Gallicane Church Assembled in the Council of Francford hath rejected the Second Nicene Council: And he subjoins this excellent Reason, Secundam Synodum Nicenam Oecumedicam dici posse negarunt, quod occidentis provinciae per Epistolas more Ecclesiastico sententiam rogatae non fuissent. The Second Nicene Synod was denied by them to be Ecumenical because no regard was had to the Provinces of the Western Churches in order to their consent, according to the Custom received in the Church.  
And the same De Marca, lib. 6. c. 25. adds; In Synodo Francofordiensi,— agitatum an Secunda Synodus Nicene recipienda foret tanquam septima Synodus oecumenica— decretum autem in Canone Secundo, Synodum illam repudiandam esse & damnandam. In the Synod held at Fracford it was Debated whether the Second Nicene Synod should be received, as the Seventh General Council— but it was Decreed in the Second Canon, that it should be rejected and Condemned.  
Agreeable hereunto is that of Launey, some time a most Learned Doctor of the Sorbon, in his Epistles, Par. 8. Epist. 11. Antiquiores & Gallia Scriptores Nicaenam Secundam Vniversalibus non accensent conciliis. The more Ancient French Writers do not enumerate the Second Nicene Council, among those which they account Universal: And Launey then descends to Particulars, proving the same by the Ancient French Annals and many Historians.  
If we consult the Church here in Britain in those times, we shall find that they Rejected it also.  
Simeon Dunelmensis an Ancient and good English Historian, in his Book de Gestis regum Anglorum ad annum 792 says, That Charles King of France seut a Synodal Book into Britain which he received from Constantinople, in which Book were contained the Decrees of the Second Nicene Council. Now, how our Church in those days was pleased, or rather displeased therewith, the fame Dunelmensis tells us.  
In quo Libro, hu, proh Dolour! Multa inconvenientia, & verae fidei contraria reperiunt, maxim quod ibidem confirmatum imagines adorare debere, quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur. In which Book, alas! Many inconvenient things were found, and repugnant to the true Faith; especially that which relates to the Worship of Images, which the Church of God doth utterly abominate. This Testimony is the more to be regarded, for that it appears from hence, that in those days our Church abhorred Image Worship.  
This Testimony is Recorded also by Roger Hoveden, Matthew Westminster, and other our Ancient and best Historians: And so much confounded the Romanists in the beginning of the Reformation, that their great Advocate Harpsfield could make no other Reply, but that it was commentitia & insulsa fabula, a foolish, and an invented Fable, and that it was not Written by Simeon Dunelmensis or Matthew Westminster (He makes no mention of Roger Hoveden, nor of the Manuscript History of Rochester in the Cottonian Bibliothec) whereas the same is now to be found in the Manuscript of Dunelmensis in Bennet College Library in Cambridge: And those who have been conversant in those things, assure us that the same is to be seen in divers Manuscripts of Matthew Westminster and Hoveden, and that all old and uncorrupted Copies testify the same thing. Of what Quality Dunelmensis was, I need not say much, since the Preface to the Decem Scriptures, is very full to this purpose; I shall only here say, that he is accounted one of our best Historians, by the Pontifician and Reformed Parties. He was Chantour of the Church of Saint cuthbert's in Durham, and continued his History to the Days of King Henry the First.  
But, Supposing that this Synod was Universal, (or that which is all one) that the Opinion of the Catholick-Church might be gathered from it, as touching the Corporiety of Angels and Souls, Doth it appear that such was the definition of that Synod in any of its Decrees? Or, doth it appear that they Confirmed the Opinion of John Bishop of Thessalonica in this Point? No certainly, nothing less.  
And for this we appeal to Edmund Richer, a Doctor of the Sorbon, in his Learned History of General Councils, in his First Book p. 655. where we Read,— Angelos & animas esse Corporeas nequaquam approbavit Synodus, sed fuit peculiaris opinio Episcopi Thessalonicensis;— The Second Nicene Synod did not approve of the Doctrine of the Corporiety of Angels or Souls, but it was the peculiar and private opinion of the Bishop of Thessalonica. And the same Richer, farther adds,— Accedit in Synodis, non attendi oportere ad ea quae privatus aliquis narrat, sed ad solam Synodi definitionem, ut alias observatum est.  
Besides, in Reading Councils, little regard is to be had to what a private Doctor or Bishop may declare or say, we ought only to look to the Decree or Definition of the Synod. And this (says Richer) I have Observed in another Place.  
And now I may, without doing any wrong, Conclude; that Mr. Blount hath Read the Councils very negligently, and makes use of them at Second Hand. The same may be said of the Fathers he quotes. He hath injuriously imputed Heresy to the Catholic Church; and hath fastened an untruth on the Second Council of Nice.   
Pag. 73. St. Austin Would have all things that are said to be the Work of Six Days, to have been Created in one moment, although Moses divided them into Classes and different times, that he might the better help the Imagination of the People, to Comprehend the Fi●st Originals of things. God Almighty did in my Opinion Create out of nothing in one Moment, and by one individual Act, all Substances, whether Intellectual or C●●●●●al; nor did St. Austin in that come wide of 〈…〉. 
ANSWER.  
I Remember that I have Read somewhere in Maldenate, that Gregory Nazianzen Compares Heretics in Reading the Fathers, to Flies; if they happen on any place that is sound they pass it over, if putrid or rotten, there they suck.  
It must be Confessed, that St. Austin was here, in a mistake, and that in this Point he came wide of the mark, to use Mr. Blount's expression. St. Austin was indeed of this Opinion in lib. 5. de Genesi ad literam, and lib. 6. c. 5. but the occasion of his mistake was Reading the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Latin. And for the satisfaction of my Reader, I shall cite a place out of Gerhard Vossius in his Pars altera de Creatione thesis. 16. Where he takes notice of this Mistake of St. Augustine's, and the occasion of it; and from whom we have a satisfactory Answer.  
Hoc Siracidae illo Ecclesiastici 18. adstrui posse censent. Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul, sed praeterquam quod apocrypha canonicis opponi non debent, Graece est non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est pariter: ut sententia sit, omnia unum agnoscere creatorem sive communiter, ut in complutensi, transfertur, hoc est, communi lege, ut Junius vertit, & accipi debere sequentia inibi ostendunt: quod si vidisset Augustinus, non tantoper● 〈◊〉 eo loco torsisset in Genesi ad literam, lib. 5. 〈…〉 lib. 6. c. 5.  
By that place of Sirac●des, in the 18th. of Ecclesiasticus, some think it may be proved, That God created all things not in any Intervals of time, but in one and the same Instant. The place of Ecclesiasticus is commonly, but falsely translated.— He that liveth for ever, created all things together, or at once,— but that besides Apoeryphal writings are not to be opposed to Canonical Scripture: The Greek hath another meaning; for in Greek the sense is— He that liveth for ever, hath created all things in like manner. So that the sentence in Ecclesiasticus is, All things in like manner have one and the same Creator. Thus 'tis translated in the Complutensian Bible: or else, as Junius hath translated it, All things were created after the same method, as it were by a common Law. And this is the genuine sense of the place, as the following places in Ecclesiasticus will convince us: Which if St. Austin had seen, he had not been misled, nor had been put to so much trouble by this place.  
No Man can have a greater deference for St. Austin, than myself; yet I must confess, that both those great Men, and the Governor of the African Churches, were but meanly skilled in the Greek. St. Austin confesses the same in his 8th. Epistle to St. Jerom: Petimus ergo & nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum Ecclesiarum studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Graece Scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non graveris: We desire, and together with us desires all the Studious Society of the African Churches, that he would not think it burdensome to bestow some pains in interpreting those Books which were written in Greek upon the holy Scriptures. And Father Simon in his Critical History on the Old Testament, Book 3. says, That Austin did not understand Greek well enough to read the Greek Fathers Commentaries upon the Bible; and therefore He desired St. Jerom to translate them into Latin, that he might read them.  
Yet it must be granted. That although he was no Critic, He had yet some skill in that Language; for he makes sometimes mention of the Greek Codes, as Ep. 59 and in his Retractations: but his skill therein was so ordinary, as it often occasioned some mistakes. Upon the whole, 'tis very surprising, that such a Critic in the Greek, as our Deist would be thought to be; when He saw St. Austin's slip (as He must unavoidably observe it, if he read Him of these matters) should yet make use of His Authority: it being certain, that the false Latin translation misguided that great Father. All the Question seems to be about the particular matter of the Creation, when God was pleased to make the World. And that this may be a thing of some difficulty, I think few men will deny that have well considered it. I am sure Gassendus in his Physics, was of this opinion, when he says, Majus est mundi opus, quam ut assequi mens humana illius molitionem possit. The creation of the World is so great a work, that a Man can scarce comprehend it after a diligent intention. And I have often thought that this of Gassendus is not much abhorrent from that of Solomon, Ecclesiastes 8th. ver. 16. and 17. When I applied my heart to Wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth (for also there is that neither day nor night seethe sleep with his eyes) ver. 17. Then I beheld all the work of God, that a Man cannot find out the work that is done under the Sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea further, tho' a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. Maimonides (who was in great Reputation among the Jews) determines the Question thus, Omnia simul creata aberant, & postea successive invicem separata; all things were created at once, and afterwards divided into separate Classes and Times.  
However it be, 'tis certain St. Austin had a firm Veneration for the Mosaic History; he never ridiculed it, as our Author does; and if he mistook in the Interpretation of a place of Genesis, he may be excused, who submitted himself to the Rule of Faith, and constantly believed that the World had a Beginning.  
And although our Author in this place thinks St. Austin came not wide of the Mark, yet I suppose he will not thank him for what he says in his 43d Chaprer of Heresies, where he accounts the Origenists for Heretics, for interpreting Paradise Allegorically, and not according to the Letter.    

SECT. iv Of the Modern brahmin's.  
PAG. 77. Having spoken already of the Modern brahmin's in the Indies, whom besides the near Resemblance of their Studies and Customs, we have several other Arguments to show they are descended of the ancient Race. 
ANSWER.  
There is a Treatise amongst the Works of St. Ambrose, whose Title is, de Moribus Brachmanorum; this Treatise is in three Libraries in Italy, viz. the Vatican, the Milan, and Medicean, under the Name of St. Ambrose; but there are good Arguments to induce us to believe this Treatise to be Spurious. In this Treatise are several commendable Qualities of the brahmin's represented: and the Dialogue between Dandamis and Alexander, contains good Morality. But the Account we have here is so different from that in ancient Authors, as that it may easily induce us to conceive a vast difference between the Ancient and Modern brahmin's.   
Pag. 78. Now their Body of Learning doth not teach nor treat of each little Point or Nieity in Philosophy, as our Modern 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 brahmin's philosophise in these things, as the Ancient brahmin's did; the Modern could not philosophise 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 worshipped 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 Universe; 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 philosophise 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 brahmin's, 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 Philosophy in all kinds, besides the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And it must be confessed that these two Opinions were entertained by the ancient brahmin's; for there is plain Proof thereof in Porphury, and in Philostratus in Photius' Bibliothec.  
The Account we have in Quintus Curtius, lib. 8. is, That they approved of Self-murder, 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 worshipped 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 Mediator, 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 virtue; that which in this Country is accounted a virtue, 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 Lacedæmonians it is not only accounted lawful, but honourable to commit theft; but with us 'tis punished with death.  
Diogenes Laertius vita Pyrrhonis,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— And so he goes on, instancing in particulars, that which is allowed by those to be just, is condemned by others as unjust; that which by some is accountde good, by others is accounted evil: The Persians think it lawful to lie with their own Daughters; the Greeks detest it. The Massagetes have Wives in common, etc. the Greeks abhor it: The Cilicians think Robberies to be lawful; 'tis otherwise with the Greeks: And much more is to be found in the same Laertius to this effect.  
Out of which 'tis manifest, what a blind guide Nature is in matters of Religion: how vain the Religion of the Deist is, and what necessity there is of Divine Revelation.  
What our Author adds of the Imitation of God in all His imitable Perfections, and especially in His Goodness, and believing magnificently of it, destroys His Hypothesis, and supposes revealed Religion: And I appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. Blount can think magnificently of the Goodness of God, when He and His Deist affirm, That a Mediator derogates from the Infinite Mercy of God, equally as an Image doth from His Spirituality and Infinity. And that not by the by, but openly in the Chapter where the Articles of the Religion of the Deist are treated of, there it is where this Position is laid down: for this is the third Article;— Not by a Mediator, for it is unnecessary, and derogates as much from God's Mercy, as an Image doth from His Spirituality and Infinity. The Repugnancy of which to Holy Scripture, appears from the First of Timothy, 2. Chap. v. 5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus: Our Lord is also called Mediator of a better Covenant, Hebr. 8.6. the Mediator of the New Testament, Heb. 9 v. 15. And the Mercy of God is frequently declared by His sending a Mediator. So that the Deist's Religion bids defiance to Christian Religion; and yet now and then He expresses some regard for the same; which overcomes all Impudence, unless He owns that the Deist's Religion is made up of Contradictions.   
Pag. 91. To be sure the Deist is no Idolater; the Jew and the Mahometan accuse the Christian of Idolatry; the Reformed Churches, the Roman; the Socinian, the other Reformed Churches; the Deists, the Socinian for his Deus factus: but none can accuse the Deist for Idolatry, for He only acknowledges one supreme everlasting God, and thinks magnificiently of Him. 
ANSWER.  
The Immortal Deist (as our Author calls him, p. 95.) had good reason thus to boast, if He alone were free from Idolatry.  
His Position may be true; His Logical Inference is faulty: For there is not one here mentioned, neither Romanist, Reform, or Socinian, but will acknowledge one Supreme everlasting God, and thinks magnificently of him. So that if any of the forenamed may be Idolaters, notwithstanding this ackowledgment, what should hinder but that our immortal Deists may be so too?  
Dr. Pearson in his Exposition on the Creed, Article the first, says, That to imagine the Universe to be infinite, and eternal, is to imagine it to be God; the Consequence is unavoidable.  
That great Deist Pliny, gins his Natural History in these words, Mundum numen esse credi par est, aeternum, immen sum, neque genitum, neque interiturum unquam; It is fit to be believed that the World is God, eternal, immense, having neither beginning, nor end.  
That this is the opinion of our Modern Deists, these Oracles of Reason prove: for in the Title Page of the Book we find it laid down as the the 16th. Oracle, That the World is eternal.  
So that 'tis easy to be perceived, how ungrounded this Vaunting of our Deist is: and that He will find it more difficult to purge Himself of Idolatry, than to fasten it on others.  
Doctor More indeed in his Apologetical Epistle for the Cartesian Philosophy, (p. 4.) peremptorily asserts, That there were always, and even now, that there are some, who seriously conjoin this Opinion of the Independency and Eternity of Matter, with the Religious Worship of God: But then the Dr. adds, That this is inconsistent with the true Notion of God: and in truth it is in Scripture language, halting between God and Baal, which include Idolatry.  
That the Infinity of the World introduces a Duality of God, is rightly inferred by the great Scaliger in his 359. Exerc. count. Cardanum— Infiniti mensura nulla est; duo infinita nequeunt esse; neque in natura, neque extra naturam, essent enim duo principia prima: An Infinite cannot be measured, wherefore there cannot be two Infinites; Equality is the formal Reason of Commensuration. And yet the Deist makes both God and the World Infinite.  
The Deist acknowledges here in words, That there is one Supreme God; yet He cannot say this upon any firm Principle, because (p. 192.) He says, If Genesis be but a Parable, the Persians may be in the right, as well as the Jews; Which is in effect to say, That they who believe and worship two contrary Gods, with two contrary Services, as the Persians did, according to the appointment of their Zoroaster (who was 5000 Years ancienter than the Trojan War, if you will believe their fabulous Chronology) may be as much in the right as those, who believe one only God. To such Repugnances Men are obnoxious, who defend untruths: and to those may be applied that of the Apostle (in the 2 Ep. Thes. c. 2. ver. 11.) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie.  
Saint Austin in the fourth of his Confessions, chap. 7. speaking of the miserable condition He was in, when a Manichee, breaks out into this Expression,— Non enim tu eras, sed tantum phantasma, & error meus erat Deus meus: Not thou, O Lord, but a vain phantasm, and my error was then my God.— How appositely and truly this may be applied to the Deist, the Reader cannot but perceive; and would to God it might be applied, not only to them, with respect to their Error; but also with respect to their Conversion.    

SECT. VI Concerning the Arrians, Trinitarians, and Councils.  
PAg. 97. How grateful this Discourse of yours will be to the Quicunque Men, I shall not presume to determine, since I am sure Mr. Hobbs is as much above their Anger, as they are below his Resentments. 
ANSWER.  
With what Contempt doth He here treat the ecclesiastics of the Church of England? These are the Quicunque Men that here meant.  
As to His Opinion of them, in this His odious Comparison between Mr. Hobbs (whom He so much honours, as p. 16. to call Him the great Modern Philosopher of this Nation) and them; I need say no more than this,— That the most partial Reader must be convinced, that no Man can, or hath been more plainly refuted, than Mr. Hobbs hath been by our Quicunque Men: to omit others, our most Reverend Archbishop's Book, called Hobbs His Creed, and Dr. Templer's Idea of the Theology of the 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 passed 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 tried 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. citys our Bishop Tailor 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, etc. 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 Judgements 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 apologise 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 allege none but your Father the Devil, who was the sole Author of this Heresy and Defection from the Truth.  
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, a Person in nothing inferior to Athanasius; one that had all the Qualifications  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 yourselves, 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 yourselves 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 condemned 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 Bishoprics in Aubertus Miraeus, or the Sacred Geography of Carolus a Sancto Paulo, would give little Credit to this Charge, for he would not find half that number of Bishoprics in the Christian World.  
We confess there is some difference among ancient Authors as to the precise Number of Bishops in the Nicene Synod, but then the difference is very inconsiderable, not so portentous and extravagant, as it is here represented; nor a Word of this pretended Project of Constantine's.  
Athanasius, Hilary, Hierom Ruffin, Socrates, and others affirm the Number of the Council to be 318. 'Tis true, there were many Presbyters and Deacons that accompanied these Bishops, of whom these Authors make no particular mention, there being no such regard had of them, as there was of the Bishops.  
I am verily persuaded, that what Mr. Selden says in his Commentary on Eutychius, p. 81. will obtain Belief among all unprejudiced Persons; I will therefore report in his own Words, Nemo mihi Sancto Athanasio aequiparandus, is scilicet Archidiaconus tunc Ecclesiae Alexandrinae cum Alexandro patriarcha suo, cui proxime successit; testis interfuit oculatus. Atque diserte is in Epistola ad Episcopos Africanos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
No one in my Opinion, as to this Matter, is to be compared to Athanasius; he was Archdeacon of the Church of Alexandria, an Eye Witness, and immediate Successor to Alexander the Patriarch, and he expressly writes in an Epistle of his to the African Bishops, That in the Synod held at Nice, there were assembled Three hundred and eighteen Bishops.  
There is an ancient Author, who wrote a Book about the time of the fourth general Council held at Chalcedon, One hundred and twenty Years after that at Nice. The Title of the Book is, An Exposition and Collection of all the said Synods.  
This Book was brought into England in Manuscript, together with many other Manuscripts of great Value, by Christian Ravius, a Germane, a Man very well versed in the Oriental Learning: This Book gives us an account much differing from Mr. Blount's. He says, There were 232 Bishops in the Council, Presbyters and Monks 86, in all 318. Here is no mention of 2000 Bishops, nor of any Artifice of Constantine's.  
And this is the more to be regarded, if it be true what Sandius the Arian Historiographer imagines, p 166. that the Author of this Collection was Sabinus the Macedonian, who wrote a Book of the same Title. Socrates assures us that this History was written with great Partiality, being an Enemy to that Council, and one that accused the Fathers thereof, as simple and ignorant Persons, for which he is reproved by the same Socrates, lib. 1. c. 6. and lib. 2. c. 13. How glad would Sabinus have been to have laid hold on this occasion to blacken Constantine and this Synod, had there been the least Colour of Truth for so horrid a Calumny.  
Perhaps some may think that Mr. Blount had somd good Grounds for laying this Imputation on Constantine and the Council, although he did not produce them, and would therefore be willingly satisfied, what Conjectures may be made in order thereunto.  
For the satisfaction of such, I make this Answer, That I believe Mr. Blount had no Grounds, but such only as we find cited in Sandius and Selden. In the first we find out of Hottinger in his Oriental History, viz. That Petricides and Elma Cinus, Arabian Writers, have delivered to Posterity, that there were at Nice 2300, which in truth can make nothing for Mr. Blount, the Question was of Bishops only, not of Others For Socrates, lib. 1. c. 5. Eccles. Hist. says, that there were at this Council Presbyters, Deacons, and of other inferior Orders innumerable. And I find this of Socrates to be very agreeable with that which is delivered by other Historians of that Age; and which peradventure might give the first occasion of this exorbitant number of Bishops. And if we may be allowed to consult Reason in historical Matters, I cannot do better than to cite Nicetas Coniates, lib. 5. c. 9 where he gives this Reason why no more Bishops met in so venerable an Assembly, because Age and Sickness detained many, and that Bishoprics were then thin sowed, every little City being not then advanced into an Episcopal See.  
In Selden we find Eutychius affirming, that in the City of Nice were assembled 2400 Bishops. According to Dr. Pocock's Translation, Josephus Aegyptius affirms the number to be 2048. And the same is affirmed by Ishmael Ibn Ali, the Mahometan Historian. These are the only Authors that I have any where observed to have been made use of by learned Men to this purpose.  
To all which the Novelty of the Author is a sufficient Answer. Certainly those Historians who lived in the Age when things are transacted, and are Eye-witnesses, and are a great part of the Affairs themselves, are to be believed before others, that lived some hundred of Years after the things were done.  
But since Ishmael Ibn Ali the Mahometan, seems more full to Mr. Blount's purpose than the others, I will here translate him.  
About the End of the twentieth Year of Constantine the Emperor, there were gathered together in Council 2048 Bishops; then the Emperor chose out of that number 318. And they did Excommunicate Arius of Alexandria, because he did assert that Christ was a Creature. The foresaid Bishops were consenting to the Emperor's Pleasure, and so they innovated and published a New System of Christian Religion.  
Eusebius, who lived in those Days, and was a Member of the Council, says in his Chronicle, that the Vicennalia of Constantine were Celebrated at Rome, Anno 330. and that the Council was assembled Anno 325. So that this Trip of the Mahometans is an Argument that he made use of bad Records in compiling his History. And whereas he says the Council innovated as to Religion, he writes like a Mahometan indeed, and not like a Man acquainted with the Mysteries of our Sacred Religion.  
We have therefore reason to believe, that as the Arabic Canons, falsely fathered on this Council, are exploded by all that have any Gust of Criticism; so likewise will these Modern Arabic Pamphlets be rejected by all such as will take the Pains to examine them.   
Pag. 99 The Arians had not the Freedom to dispute their Cause in the Council of Nice. 
ANSWER.  
If this could be made appear, then farewell to the Authority of the Nicene Council; but if this be false (as undoubtedly it is) what a horrid injury is done to this most Venerable Assembly? This is one of the greatest Objections the Protestants have against the Council of Trent, and that the Catholics of old had against the Arian Synods: but who can believe this, that knows with what fervency and zeal Saint Athanasius declaims against this perverse Method? And this Method He says is repugnant to the Law of God, and the Blessed Apostle. Athanasius Apol. ad Const. Imper. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The divine Law, and the Blessed Apostle require and Command all parties to be heard: And to this purpose He quotes Acts 24 ver. 19 who ought to have been before thee, and object if they had aught against me— or else let these same here say if they have found any evil doing in me, whilst I stood before the Council. And he quotes the 25.  
About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief Priests, and the Elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgement against him.— to whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused, have the accuser's face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.  
Can it now be possibly conceived, that Athanasius should thus expose himself, and the Sacred Synod, as He must of necessity have done, if either He or they had been obnoxious to the same charge?  
Sozomen, lib. 1. c. 15. Eccles. Histor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When the Bishops were assembled together, they sent for Arius, and proposed his Opinion to be disputed and discussed.  
Socrates, lib. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Opinion of Arius was defended by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomede, by Theagnis Bishop of Nice, by Maris Bishop of Chalcedon in Bythinia; who were opposed with great zeal by Athanasius a Deacon of the Church of Alexandria.  
Theodoret lib. 1. c. 7. I have formerly made mention of some who in the Council defended the cause of Arius: besides those, Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognis of Nice, Narcissus of Neroniad (this Neroniad is a City of the other Cilicia, now called Irenopolis) ' Theonas of Marmarita, Secundus of Ptolemais, a City of Egypt, opposed the Catholiek Faith, and took on them the Defense and Patronage of Arius.  
Ruffinus lib 1. c. 2. For many days there was a great dispute in the Council, where some vehemently favoured Arius, and contended for his Doctrines.  
Who can now believe, after such a cloud of of Witnesses, that there should be the least Mite of truth in this Position of Mr. Blount's, That the Arians had not the freedom to dispute their cause at the Council of Nice.  
What should occasion this grand Mistake in our Deist, may without great difficulty be conjectured: I do not find any ground for it in the Arabian Historians before mentioned: but in that impudent Writer Sandius, pag 167. I find the whole charge: For there He affirms, That Arius and his Complices were censured, judged, and condemned, causa inaudita multo minus rationibus expensis: They were condemned, says He, without being heard; much less had they permission to produce their Arguments and Reasons. And that which overcomes all Impudence, is, that the said Sandius for proof, citys Socrates, Theodoret, and Athanasius himself; whereas there is nothing in those Authors but makes against Him; for the places I have cited, I have viewed in the Original.  
Upon the whole, this plainly appears, that Arius was cited before the Fathers in the Council, His Propositions were debated, His cause was espoused by some in the Council with much zeal; every thing on either side was weighed with great deliberation, that nothing might be rashly concluded in so weighty and important an Affair.   
Pag. 99 The Arian Doctrine was not only confirmed by eight Councils, several times assembled at Tyre, Sardis, Syrmium, Milan, Seleucia, Nice, Tarsis, and particularly at Ariminum (where six hundred Bishops were of their opinion, with only three which held the contrary) they also punished others who were of a contrary opinion, with Confiscations, Banishments, and other grievous Punishments. 
ANSWER.  
The Arian Doctrine, according to Athanasius, was confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Arian Doctrine was confirmed by ten Synods, and more: Neither is this any wonder, for the Arians had for a long time the Sunshine of the Secular Power. The Question than is not of the Number of Synods, but of the Methods by which they did proceed: As to the Arian Methods, we have this account from Athanasius; All their Councils were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All the Methods they took were irregular; they were grounded on Hatred, Ambition, and Violence: and this made their Councils void to all intents and purposes.  
And as to the Council of Ariminum, He says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Things were there determined by ambition and violence. Nay He is so positive, as to this of Ariminum, that he plainly says, That the Advocates thereof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That if the Advocates of that Council did but know how irregular the Proceed at Ariminum were, they would be silent, and not plead for it. So charitable was this good Man, that altho' the Arians persecuted Him causelessly, with all imaginable malice and wickedness, yet He could not think that they would proceed to such boldness, as openly to defend such notoriously unjustifiable courses.  
As to the Number of Bishops pretended to be present at the Council of Ariminum, there is some difference between our Author, and Sandius: the latter making the Number to be a thousand or more: Interea qui Arimini convenerunt Pontifices numero millenarium excedente fuerunt. And this Hunerick testifies in Victor. Vticen. lib. 3. I have consulted the place, and can avouch for Sandius, that he hath rightly cited Victor. Utic. For thus it is in the Bibliotheck of the Fathers: But the Authority of Hunerick is of no moment. He was an Arian Prince, a Vandal; and one who to carry on designs, would not confine himself to numbers: and peradventure the consideration thereof might move Mr. Blount to make allowance, and to confine Himself to six hundred; a very competent number and more than I am willing to acknowledge. For I cannot but think that they are both out of the way; since Sulpitius Severus, an ancient Author, and one that had many conveniences of knowing the truth, much better than either of them, assures us that there were very few above four hundred; Quadringenti & aliquot amplius, are the words of Sulpitius Severus, lib. 2. Hist. Sacra. And whereas Mr. Blount says, That out of the number of six hundred, there were only three that dissented; he is under a great mistake: and to make it very plain, I shall cite Theodoret lib. 2. Eccles. Hist. cap. 23. where we find what here follows.  
The Great Athanasius in his Epistle to the Africans, writes after this manner of the Council of Ariminum, Who can bear with them who prefer the Council of Ariminum before that of Nice? or rather who cannot but hate such, as reject the Decrees of those at Nice, and are in love with such as were extorted by force and violence at Ariminum? It happens to such as it happened to the Jews, accordingly as it is written by the Prophet, They have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and have digged to themselves broken cisterns, that cannot hold water. So these Men leaving the Sacred Nicene Council, have betaken themselves to many Synods, which are in themselves vain, and of no effect. And yet at Ariminum there were no less than two hundred Dissenters; and not three only (as Mr. Blount bears us in hand) that held the contrary.  
As to what is added concerning the Persecutions used by the Arians, we own it to be true; and the Orthodox frequently inveighed against the Arians for these their Barbarities. I shall therefore acquaint my Reader what Grotius says, lib 2. De Jur. Pacis & Belli, cap. 21. sect. 5. Athanasius is very vehement against the Arian Heresy; for in his Epist. ad Solit. they were the first who made use of the Temporal Power to punish dissenters with Stripes, Imprisonments, Confiscations and Banishments, says Mr. Blount, Those Bishops were condemned in France by the judgement of the Church, which persecuted the Priscillianists to death; and in the East that Synod was condemned, which consented to the Burning of Bogomilus.   
Page 100 As for the Trinitarians of those times, I must confess that I cannot but esteem them as enemies to all Humane Learning; for they had Canons forbidding them to read any Ethnic Books. 
ANSWER.  
I have seldom found such Confidence any where, as these Oracles do in all places afford us. How ridiculous this insulting of Mr. Blount's is, will fully appear in handling this Point. In prosecution of which, I shall  
First, Lay down the Discourse of Father Paul relating hereunto.  
Secondly, I shall show what Reasons I have to descent from that learned and worthy Person.  
Thirdly, I shall consult the Opinions of some of the most Learned of the Eastern Church, with my Reason for so doing.  
Lastly, I shall make plain Inferences, which will be sufficient to cramp the Presumption of our Deist, and to defend the Trinitarians (as he calls them) against the Imputation of Ignorance.  
Of what Candour and Learning Father Paul was, every Man knows that hath read his History of the Council of Trent; where p. 472. he hath this Discourse,  
In the Church of Martyrs there was no Ecclesiastical Prohibition, though some godly Men made Conscience of reading bad Books, for fear of offending against one of the three Points of the Law of God; to avoid the Contagion of Evil, not to expose one's self to Temptations without Necessity or Profit; and not to spend time vainly. These Laws being Natural, do remain always, and should oblige us to beware of reading bad Books, though there were no Ecclesiastical Law for it. But these Respects ceasing, the Example of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, a famous Doctor did happen, who about the Year of our Lord, 240. being reprehended by some of his Priests for these Causes, and troubled with these Respects, had a Vision that he should read all Books, because he was able to judge of them; yet they thought that there was greater Danger in the Books of the Gentiles, than of the Heretics; the reading whereof was more abhorred and reprehended, because it was more used by Christian Doctors for a vanity of Human Eloquence. For this cause St. Jerom either in a Version, or in a Sleep, was beaten by the Devil: So that about the Year 400, a Council in Carthage did forbid to read the Books of the Gentiles, but allowed them to read the Books of Heretics, the Decrees whereof is among the Canons, collected by Gratian, and this was the first Ecclesiastical Prohibition by way of Canon. Thus far Paul. And now I come to the second thing.  
The Council of Carthage which Father Paul relates to, is that which is commonly called the 4th Carthaginian Council, whose 16th Canon is,— ut Episcopus Gentilium lib●os non legate, Haereticorum autem pro necessitate & tempore: That a Bishop do not read the Books of the Gentiles; but in reading the Books of Heretics, He is to have regard to Necessity and Opportunity.  
Now in this particular, I descent from Paul, and join with that great Antiquary Justellus, who in his Preface to the Code of the African Church, says,— Concilium quod vocant quartum Carthaginense, plane repudiandum est, nec fides adhibenda Canonibus 104 quos sine auctoritate huic Concilio adscribunt: The Council, which is commonly called the fourth Carthaginian, is to be wholly rejected, neither is there any Faith to be given to the 104 Canons, which without any good Authority they ascribe to it.  
There is no mention of these Canons in the Collection of Ferrandus; nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus; nor in the Code of the African Church; nor in the Collection commonly called the Afr. Council. In a Manuscript that belonged to Cardinal Barberini, they are entitled Ancient Statutes of the Eastern Church. But these Canons themselves prove the contrary. The Ceremonies of the Ordination of the lesser Orders, as they are sat forth in this Council, are agreeable enough to the Practice of the Western Church, where these Orders were conferred by delivering holy Vessels; but not to the Eastern Church, where these Orders were always conferred by Imposition of Hands. In other Manuscripts they are entitled, The ancient Statutes of the Church. In a word, there can be no sufficient reason given, why they should not be found in the ancient Collections, if they were genuine. The ancientest Author Father Paul citys is Gratian, whose testimony is of no weight, if not strengthened by some collateral Evidence: For all know He is a perfect Rhapsodist, and this is so fully made out by August. Tarraconensis, in his Book de Emendat. Gratiani, that there is not any place left for the least doubt. Which prejudice, together with that of Moderness, may be objected against Isidore, Burchardus, Hincmare, Ivo Carnotensis, etc. and the defence which Schelstrate makes is so weak and dull, as that it savours little of a Vatican Library keeper: whereas otherwise in his Ecclesia Africana, He discovers much Learning and Reading.  
I am now to consult the Opinions of some in the Eastern Church, and to bring my reason for doing so.  
Saint Basil in the first Tome of his Works, hath a Homily, whose Title is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Homily was composed for young Men, not to prohibit them to read the Books of the Gentiles, but to direct them, and to show what benefit they might reap thereby. Amongst other things He takes notice that Moses was educated in the Learning of the Egyptians; and so proceeded to the knowledge of the true God. In like manner in following ages, Daviel at Babylon learned the Learning of the Chaldeans, and from thence proceeded to Divine Doctrines.  
Gregory Nazianzen, ad Seleucum jambie. 3. treats of this matter, where he prohibits nothing as touching reading the Books of the Gentiles, but only lays down this Rule, That from the same Plant Roses may be gathered and Thorns, and that we ought to take one, and leave the other.  
The reason of these two citations is, to stop the mouths of those, who pretend that the Apostles prohibited the reading the Books of the Gentiles: and for that purpose quote chap. 5. of the Apostolical Constitutions; whose Title is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; concerning reading the Books of such as are 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 Emperor Julian the Apostate, from Theodoret Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. c. 8. He first of all prohibited the use of Rhetoric, Poetry, and Philosophic 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 Emperor 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 show 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 Legates 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 Legates had almost made a controversy of it, fearing lest the Papal Authority should have been prejudiced by such an Act: alleging therefore, how it was the ancient custom to propose the Bulls of the See Apostolic 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 Legates 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 fy ingeniously confesseth to the Bishop of Thessaly, that h● 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 Clergyman? He that hath been in the least concerned 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 madness 〈◊〉 refute 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 acknowledgement. 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 gins with— Post mortem nihil est, ipsa & mors nihil: There is nothing after death, and Death itself is nothing. And pag. 128. he says, This is Seneca 's Opinion. 
ANSWER.  
What Seneca's Opinion was of the Immortality of the Soul, 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 public 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 persuade 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? tacked 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 grossly 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 Parson's 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 Virtue, 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 exemplify 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 befall impious Persons in another World. And in the first Book of his Tusculane Questions, Quae anus tam delira quae timea ista.  
Aehcrontia templa, alta or●i, pallida  
Leti, obnubila, obsira ●eneb●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 mere 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 than this, the Deist hath more probability of his salvation than 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 on Philostratus, (p. 84.) speaking of Cato's Sarcasm (in Tully's second Book De Divinatione) with Respect to the Pagan Soothsayers, and blaming his profane Acquaintance, he seems to be of another mind. Very miserable and sad must the condition of Mankind be, if there be no certain Rules whereby Salvation may be obtained. Yet such is the Condition into which Deism would bring us, although we live according to its Principles.  
Pag. 118. Seneca hath not wanted Advocates for the assertion of his Opinion; nay, even such who would pretend to justify it out of the very Scriptures themselves: as when Solomon says (Eccl. 7.12.) Then shall the Dust return to Dust as it was, and the Spirit to God that gave it— And Eccles. 3.20, 21. All go to the same place, all are of Dust, and all turn to Dust again; who knoweth the Spirit of Man that goeth upward, and the Spirit of the Beast that goeth downward to the Earth. Again, Eccles. 3.19. That which befalleth the Sons of Men, befalleth Beasts, even one thing befalleth them both; as the one dieth, so doth the other; yea, they have all one Breath, so that a Man hath no preeminence above a Beast.   

ANSWER.  
Our Author takes it for granted, that Seneca was of opinion that the Soul was mortal, the contrary hath been proved be to questionable. These places of holy Scripture have been made use of by Mr. Hobbs in his Leviathan, p. 303. The great Art in managing this Argument, consists in confounding the Sense of those several places of holy Scripture, which are to be interpreted a part from each other; as is observed in Hobbs his Creed, p. 223. the Preacher in this Book sets forth the beginning, progress and ripeness of his Disquisition, concerning the Happiness of man: Wherefore in the beginning of his Enquiry, he setteth down his raw Apprehensions; and he relateth in the first and second Chapters, how he once thought Folly equal with Wisdom, and that there was nothing better than to eat, and drink; and what adventures and trials he made towards the better understanding of what was good for the Sons of Men. In his third Chapter, he declareth how full of Mystery he found the works of God (ver. 11.) and how little was manifest, especially to sensual Men, of the future State: But in the 11 and 12 Chapters, wherein he declareth his advanced judgement, and calleth Men off from the World, to the thoughts of the day of Account, and to the early Remembrance of their Creator; to the Fear of God, and the Observance of his Commands: He layeth it down as a positive Doctrine (a Doctrine apt to promote such Observance, Fear, and Remembrance) which at first was delivered by him as a Problem, or as the mistake of worldly Men, that when the wheel shall be broken at the cistern, and the circle of our Blood utterly disturbed; then the Dust shall return to the Earth as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it.  
This is a full and satisfactory Answer to the Advocates of this Opinion; yet we might say wi●h good Reason and good Authority; That Solomon in the forecited places, personates the Atheist, Raimundus Pug. Fid. p. 155.  
What our Author affirms (p. 119) concerning some Men, who have misapplyed those forecited places of holy Writ, to the Anima Mundi of Pythagoras; and which hath been revived by Averro, and Avicenna: And to what end (p. 125.) he refers his Lordship the Right Honourable Strephon to Pomponatius, and especially to Cardan, is here to be considered; because we may see from hence, in what Authors our Deists are conversant, and how dangerous those Authors are.  
Averro (as Richer asserts, lib. 4. Hist. Gen. Concil. par. ult. p. 22.) was condemned in the Lateran Council, under Leo the X. because he held, That there was one only Soul in all Men; which is the Universal Soul, the Anima Mundi. Whereas 'tis certain that every Man hath a particular Soul of his own. So that this Doctrine of Averro tends to the subversion of all Religion and Piety: a Doctrine fit for the Devil. For as Cardan (in his 19 Book de Subtle) tells us, the tallest of the Daemons that talked with his Father, Palam Averroistam se profitebatur, told him plainly, That he was an Averroist.  
Pomponatius (as Dr. More lib. 3. the Immortal. anim. c. 16. informs us) was of opinion, that there were not as many particular Souls, as Men. He acknowledged the Wisdom and Miracles of Christ, but referred all to the Stars. This was the Petrus Pomponatius, who was (as Richer says in the forecited place) Preceptor to Pope Leo the X. and by whose command he writ the Book De Immortalitate Animae: which was then generally read, as Books of that nature commonly are; but thanks be to God, such Books are forbidden amongst us by Proclamation.  
Cardan (to whom he especially refers the most Ingenious Strephon, p. 117.) affirms the Law of Christ to be from Jupiter and Mercury: that Jupiter being in the Ascendant was the cause of his so soon disputing with the Doctors in the Temple: that it was Saturn tendered him sad; whence Josephus took occasion to say,— Visus est saepius flere, ridere nunquam. That Jupiter meeting with Venus, was the cause of our Lord's having red Specks in his Face; for which he citys, Josephus, saying, He was Lentiginosus in fancy.  
Out of what hath been said, it clearly appears That Impious and Blasphemous Authors are in repute with our Deists, and that consequently 'tis no wonder, that such Oracles (as these Pretended Oracles of Reasons) be obtruded to the World.  
Lastly, it must not pass unobserved, That this Cardan, who has so wickedly derogated from our Lord, hath also falsely fathered on Josephus the two forecited Assertions; neither is there the least footsteps of either of them in any of the Works of Josephus.   
Pag. 124. Besides the authority of the holy Scriptures, as also the innumerable other arguments, which may be deduced as well from Philosophy as Reason, to prove the Immortality of the Soul, together with its Rewards and Punishments (tho' I determine not their Duration) yet there is no argument of greater weight with me, than the absolute necessity and convenience that it should be so; as well to complete the Justice of God, as to perfect the Happiness of Man, not only in this World, but in that which is to come. 
ANSWER.  
That the Arguments which are brought from the Holy Scriptures, are only sufficient to prove the Immortality of the Soul; and the Rewards and Punishments of a Future State, hath been proved already: and it will appear to be so, by what remains to be said, with respect hereunto. Yet our Author, altho' he appeals to their Authority, can have no benefit thereof: Forasmuch as he makes our Saviour and Moses Politicians, p. 121. And perhaps these Lawgivers established the Immortality of the Soul, not so much out of regard to Truth, as to Honesty, hoping thereby to induce Men to Virtue, p. 123.  
His 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 complete 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 Commonwealth.  
Plato is always preferred 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 itself; that which never deserts itself, 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 Platonic 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 brahmin's of India, the Magis 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 Generate. 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 than 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 Supreme 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 Expenses 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 Prelate 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 Judgement, as Sir Henry Savil was, should so far compliment 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 poured out of one Language into another; lest in separating him from the Dregs, you ●●a●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' 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' account of the Jews is full of Slanders, Falsehoods, 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. Blount to any Man but to him in Lucian, who was half White and half Black; or to him in the Comedy, that out of the same Mouth blowed both Hot and Cold.  
But he may in some fashion be excused, for he hath really observed Pliny's Rule, relating to the Title of his Book. That of Cardan in the 19th Book, De Subtilitate, is here verified (and he says, demonstrated in his Book, De Fato) Si Oracula ambigua non essent, non essent Oracula. If these Oracles are not Ambiguous and Contradictory, they would not be Mr. Blount's Oracles.  
And here I cannot but admire that Mr. Blount should be guilty of the same fault, of which he accuses Sir Henry Savil, for he Translates not much above two Thirds of Tacitus' account of the Jews. Shall we say he did this to compliment the Jewish, and to rob the English Nation of the Spirit behind? Was he not obliged to do it for his deservedly Honoured, and most Ingenious Major A. as he calls him, p. 126? Or shall we say that he only separated the Dregs for his ingenious Major A? I am sure he hath been very disingenuous in his Translation, for he hath not only abused his Major, but his Reader also; nay, Tacitus himself.  
Tacitus says that the Jews did, Effigiem animalis, quo monstratore errorem sitimque depulerant, penetrali sacravere.  
Which place he thus Translates, They likewise Consecrated the Effigies of an Ass, for being their Guide to the Waters where they satisfied their Thirst. Whereas Tacitus makes no mention of an Ass, unless Animal be Latin for an Ass.  
And whereas Tacitus says they consecrated an Animal in penetrali, that is, their Holy of Holies— he omitted that Word. The Lie was so great that the ingenious Major could not swallow it.  
For my part I cannot conjecture why he should only translate two Thirds, and omit the other, but that he conceived the Part untranslated would have spoiled his Project. For there is a palpable Contradiction in Tacitus, which renders his Account Fabulous. In the Part untranslated, Tacitus says, Aegyptii Effigies venerantur, Judai sola ment. The Egyptians worship Images, the Jews abhor them. Tacitus also adds, Judaei nulla simulachra habent in urbibus nedum in Templis. The Jews have not Graven Images nor Idols to be seen in their Cities, much less in their Temples. The contrary whereof we find in the Translation of Mr. Blount, as also in Tacitus.  
Pag. 132. Abraham and Moses seemed first to institute Religious Worship, and both of them were well skilled in Egyptian Learning, which gave ●ecasion for some to think, that Moses and the Jews took divers of their Customs from the Egyptians: as for instance their Circumcision, because Herodotus says, That the Phaenicians and Syrians in Palestine (which must be the Jews, since none else used it in Palestine) took their Circumcision from the Egyptians; as also (says he) they confess the fame themselves; nor does Josephus deny as much.   

ANSWER.  
We know nothing for certain concerning the Institution of Divine Worship but from Moses. And from him, (Gen. 4. ver. 26.) we learn, That Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord in the Days of Enos. That is, The number of Families increasing in the Days of Enos, they appointed more Public Places for God's Service, in which at set Times they might together, and in a more solemn Congregation, worship their great Creator. This is the Sense of the Chaldeo Interpreter, and approved by our present most Reverend Archbishop in his Discourse of Idolatry, p. 40.  
Josephus in the first Book of his Antiquities, Chap. 4. says, That for seven Generations Men persevered in Worshipping the true God, and had a regard to Virtue; but in process of Time Men degenerated and forsaken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Institutions of their Ancestors. If this seems otherwise to Mr. Blount, it is not to be wondered at, since, p. 17. he positively affirms, That it is evident that the five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his decease.  
That Moses was instituted in the Egyptian Learning we readily grant; he was accounted but some of the Gentiles an Egyptian Priest; but the same cannot be affirmed of Abraham. Josephus is very plain, when in the first Book of his Antiquities, Chap. 9 he asserts, That the Egyptians learned all the Knowledge they had in Arithmetic and Astronomy from Abraham.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When Abraham came into Egypt he taught the Egyptians Astronomy and Arithmetic, of which they were ignorant before. So that the Knowledge of these Sciences came first from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians, and from them to the Greeks.  
Whether Moses and the Jews took Circumcision from the Egyptians, hath been a Subject of great Dispute. The well known place in Herodotus seems to me to say so much, although our late great Critic, Bisnagius, in his Exerc. Hist. Critic. (p. 119.) will by no means grant it. Grotius in his Annotations on the 1st Book of the Truth of Christ Religion, citys Herodotus at large, and chargeth Herodotus with reporting an Untruth. He doth not deny but that Herodotus says, that the Jews confess, that they learned the Rite of Circumcision from the Jews: but he says Herodotus did them an Injury in saying so. Tantum vero abest (says Grotius) ut Judaei fassi sunt unquam ab Aegyptiis se accepisse hunc ritum, ut contra aperte dicunt Aegyptios ab Josepho didicisse circumcidi; 'Tis so far from Truth, that the Jews should confess that they received this Rite from the Egyptians; that on the contrary they boldly affirm that the Egyptians learned Circumcision from Joseph. And for this Grotius in the place cited refers to Authorities.  
What Mr. Blount writes concerning Josephus, the Historian, is of no moment. Josephus in the 8th. Book of his Antiquities, ch. 4. citys this place of Herodotus. He citys the same place also in his first Book against Apian. Neither doth he deny in those places what Herodotus affirms, but is altogether silent: of which Silence, Bisnagius Exerc. Hist. Crit. p. 120. gives a good Account: Because (saith he) Josephus had long before expressed his Opinion of the Original of Circumcision, lib. 1. Antiq. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
God commanded that the Posterity of Abraham should be circumcised, that they might keep themselves a part, and separate from all others. And Josephus to the same purpose, lib. 1. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abraham being an hundred years old, when Isaac was born, who was circumcised the eighth day: And the same custom is continued for the Circumcision of Children, after the same number of days.  
From which it necessarily follows, That Josephus his Opinion of Circumcision, was very different from that of Herodotus: He says the Jews had it from the Egyptians; Josephus says, they had it from God, and that they might be distinguished from other Nations; and consequently Circumcision was among the Jews long before the Egyptians had it. So that Mr. Blount may justly be accused of Incogitancy, and of not Reading the Authors he citys.  
Of this Opinion, or not much differing from it, was Photius, that Learned Patriarch of Constantinople, in his 205th. Ep. to Theod. Hegumenos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Circumcision of Abraham and his Posterity, was instituted as an Emblem of Restraint from Incestuous Copulations: The Chaldeans did lie with their Mothers, Daughters, and Sisters, by a wicked and abominable Custom. Wherefore that neither Abraham, nor his Posterity should be polluted with these their wicked Practices, God instituted Circumcision. The circumcising his own Flesh, importing the dividing and averting him from those of his Consanguinity, or Affinity, in respect of Conjugal Conversation. Whereas the Chaldeans Impurity and Incest, continued a long while after Abraham's time, without either Fear or Shame.  
And here it must not pass unobserved, That Mr. Blount makes use of the same Method, that the professed Enemies of Christianity did of old. Julian the Apostate affirmed that the Jews learned to Circumcise from the Egyptians; as we are told by St. Cyril, Book the Tenth, contra Julianum, p. 354. And Celsus affirms the same thing; to whom Origen, Lib. 2. p. 17. returns this Answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That Abraham was the first of all Mankind that was Circumcised.    

SECT. VIII. Of Marrying two Sisters, Judaisme, Christianity, Millenaries.  
PAg. 136. It is lawful to marry two Sisters: The first Text of Scripture which is commonly urged in this case, is that of marrying a Brother's Wife, which seems to be forbidden; where by a side wind, they would bring in that of marrying a wife's Sister, as parallel, saying, Ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem Jus; but with their Pardon, the Simile doth not run upon four feet; the reason is not the same, for the words (in Leviticus 18. and 16.) which forbidden the marrying a Brother's Wife, say, Because a Man thereby uncovers his Brother's nakedness; which seems not at all to be a good reason against marrying the Wife's Sister; because every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness before any such Marriage with her Sister. 
ANSWER.  
Our Author's Opinion concerning Marrying two Sisters, seems to me grounded on that which He calls (in the 106 p. of his Book) the bewitching smiles of a Woman; whom he there unhandsomely denominates, The most lovely Brute of the Universe. And I doubt not but his Friend Torismond (as he calls him p. 135.) looks on it as his best Argument.  
We do not say that Similes always run on four feet, but I am sure the present Similes do. The reason of the Law is the same, both as to Brothers and Sisters: And whereas he says, Every Man is supposed to have discovered his first Wife's nakedness; He seemeth not to understand the Scripture Phrase, which is only used with relation to a turpitude committed by an unlawful Marriage. If a Woman marries her Father, she discovers the nakedness of her Mother in a Scriptural sense; tho' in our Author's Unscriptural sense, Her Mother's nakedness was discovered before by Her Father.  
Mr. Selden in his Vxor Hebraica, Book first Chap. 6. tells us (that whereas we read in the 16th. Verse of the 18th. Chapter, It is thy Brother's nakedness) in a most ancient Copy of the Greek Version, in the King's Library at Saint James': Instead of Turpitudo est fratri tui, the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, She is thy Brother's Wife: Quasi (says Selden) ipso nomine seu turpitudinis, seu nuditatis fratris foemina, seu uxor ejus expressim nominaretur: As if (says he) he by the words turpitude, or nakedness, of this Brother, his Woman, or his Wife, was expressly named. If this Remark of Mr. Selden's be well, it is of good use: So that the Reason of the Law is the same in marrying of two Sisters, as marrying a Brother's Wife.  
The Sense of the Law with Relation to Brothers, is, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Brother's Wife, for it is thy Brother's nakedness. And by a parity of reason, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy wife's Sister,; for it is thy Wife's nakedness. What our Author says concerning Penal Laws, that they are tied up to the very Letter, is true; but it hath no place, ubi eadem oratio, Where there is the same reason. And therefore the Karans, or Scripturians among the Jews (who are opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals) that bind themselves most to the Scripture Rule, have resolved this matter: First, that there is place for Argument and Deduction, from the words of the Law: Secondly, that whatsoever can be deduced thence, either a fortiori, or a pari; either because the remoter degree is prohibited, or that which is equally remote, is to be deemed piously and rightfully concluded.  
Thus when ver. 7. the Father and Mother are both named; and v. 12. The Father's Sister: And v. 13. The Mother's Sister: And v. 14. The Father's Brother: yet the Mother's Brother is not named; nor the Sister's Daughter, which would be equivalent with that. And yet this being the Marriage of the Uncle on the Mother's side with the Niece, which is of the same distance with the Uncle of the Father's side, with the Niece, and the Aunt on the Mother's side, with the Nephew, from the naming and prohibition of these, ver. 13 and 14. by the parity of reason, that which is not named, is by all resolved to be prohibited.  
And as Dr. Hammond p. 436. hath observed, just thus it is in this matter. The Wife's Sister, which is not named, is directly in the same degree of Propinquity, with the Brother's Wife, which is named and prohibited.   
Pag. 138. The Canon of Scripture, which seems more nearly to concern this case, is Leviticus 18. ver. 18. where it is said, Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time: But this doth not therefore seem to restrain or prohibit the marrying of two sisters one after the other; for the first being dead, the other cannot be a Rival or vexation (as the Text calls it) to her dead sister: And then how shall the Prohibition be urged, if the reason of it be removed? it is rationally apparent that there is great stress placed in those Expressions (during her life) and (to vex her, in uncovering her shame upon her) as doth more fully appear in our Translation of the Bible in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign, printed An. Dom. 1599 
ANSWER.  
If, as Mr. Blount says p. 137. all Penal Laws are straight tied up to the express Letter of the Law (where there is par ratio, the like or same reason) and not where to be construed by Parallels; he hath lost more for his purpose in this place of holy Scripture, than he got by the former. For than nothing can be concluded from this place of Leviticus, for marrying a Wife's Sister after her death, the express Letter of the Law mentions nothing of it. All that can be said for it from this place, is by deduction and consequence.  
I shall therefore give a full Solution in the words of the foresaid Learned Doctor: p. 437. if by the English reading of our Bibles, Leviticus 18. ver. 18. (Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life-time) it be thought that the marrying the Wife's Sister in her life time, be the only thing forbidden, that will presently be answered from the margin of our Translation, where the Hebrew word is fitly and truly rendered [Not a wife to her sister] but [one wife to another] and so is a direct Prohibition of Polygamy; at least, when the first is deprived and vexed, by taking in of the second, but not a Permission to marry, that was otherwise prohibited.   
Pag. 140. By the Apostolical Canons, a Person marrying two Sisters, was not to be a Priest; but that was the only punishment laid upon him: but doth not prejudice a layman, such as my Friend Torismond, who I presume never designs to enter into the Priestly Office, unless it were to be a Confessor to the Fair Sex. 
ANSWER.  
I am glad to hear Mr. Blount's Friend Torismond doth not design to enter into holy Orders: God forbidden that such principled Men should have any benefit of the Clergy.  
The mistake of Grotius (mentioned p. 139.) proceeds from his not consulting the Hebrew, as appears from what hath been written before, from the Margin of our Translation.  
The Apostolical Canon, so much used in this Controversy, is the 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He who hath married two Sisters, or the Brother's Daughter, ought not to be admitted into holy Orders.  
Now as Grotius, and after him our Author, were mistaken, by following the vulgar Greek Translation, so they are both here mistaken in their Inference from this Canon. And forasmuch as Doctor Hammond's Answer to this Difficulty, is most excellent; I will set it down in his own words: Where if it be thought, that this is no mark of the unlawfulness of the thing, but only an Interdict to the Clergy, that they shall not marry thus, leaving it free to others: this will be the same strange way of arguing, as if from the Qualifications of the Bishop, set down by St. Paul, that he should be no drunkard, no covetous person, etc. i. e. that such as are so, should not be admitted to holy Orders, we should conclude that these Qualities might be free and lawful for other Men, who were not ecclesiastics; or because the Bishop must be one that hath not married after such divorces, as are forbidden by Christ; and the Widow is to be the Wife but of one Husband in like manner, it were therefore lawful for all other Christians to use such divorces, and marry again, which we know was prohibited by Christ; or that other Christian Women might have more Husbands, or leave one, and marry another; which we know was never lawful among any Civil, tho' Heathen People. The plain of it is, that the only thing conclusible from the Interdicts of the Church Canons, is the frequency of such practices among Unbelievers, which made it necessary to revive and refresh the Prohibition to Christians: To whom, under Christ, such Marriages were reputed so foul, and the state of such sins being permanent, did so muchen hance them above the nature of single acts of greater sins; that, altho' for every commiston of any known sin, a Man were not made uncapable of any Dignity in the Church (or rendered irregular, if after the receiving Orders, he were found guilty) yet of these sins he that were once guilty, should for ever remain under a brand, and be counted uncapable of Holy Orders, which he that were otherwise worthy, would not surely have been, had it not been accounted unlawful, before that Canon inflicted that punishment on the offender. And then it being acknowledged that Christ hath not descended to the specifying of such particulars; and that the Apostle that speaketh of one such sin, saith it was not named among the Gentiles; the result will be, that this brand of the Apostolical Canon, is founded in the Universal Prohibition, obliging all Men, and so the Christians of all Nations, as well as the Jews; and that not abrogated, but confirmed, and by stricter Precepts of Continence, and Denunciations against the Incontinent, continued on the Christian by Christ  
I know nothing in this account of this Great Man, but will pass muster, save only that passage; in which he affirms, That it was never lawful among any Civil, tho' Heathen People, that a Woman might leave one Husband, and marry another.  
For I am persuaded there was such a Law among the Athenians. Plutarch in the Life of Alcibiades says, That His Wise Hipparete, being a very chaste woman, and being provoked by his Adulteries, would have divorced him; and that the Law was, that she should depose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that she should depose the Bill of Divorce with the Archon, according to Law. But Alcibiades by slight of hand prevented it, by tearing the Bill in pieces. However this shows what the Law was among the Athenians.  
Whether there was such a Law among the Romans, I do not remember; but their practice is manifest.  
Sic fiunt octo Mariti  
— quinque per Autumno. Juven. Sat. 6.  
It was grown a Custom among the Women to have eight Husbands in five Years.  
Et nubet decimo jam Telesina viro.  Martial lib. 6. 
Telesina is resolved to marry the tenth Husband.  
And Seneca lib. 3. the Benefic. cap. 16. Non consulum, sed maritorum numero annos computant; The Women now a-days do not compute their Years by the Consuls, but by their Husbands.  
Joseph Scaliger in his Animadvesions on Eusebius, gives us this short, but pertinent Account, Apud Romanos & Graecos, tam mulier quam vir, potest alter alteri dicere, ut res suas sibi habeat, quin nomina rei illius propria jure Attico prodita erant, ut si vir discederet ab uxore hoc diceretur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, si mulier diceretur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is,  
It was a Practice both among the Romans and Greeks, for Women as well as Men, to Divorce each other. And there are proper Words in the Laws of the Athenians, whereby both these Divorces are expressed. If the Divorce be on the Man's side, it is called a Dismission, if on the Woman's side a Dereliction.  
Had Friend Torismond been Confessor to the fair Sex (p. 140.) in those Days, he would have been much pestered with those lovely Brutes, (p. 160.)  
But I must beg Pardon for dealing thus rudely with the Ashes of one of the learnedst Men of his time; and if I should say one of the exactest Critics in Europe, I should say but a precise Truth. And perhaps (as I truly believe) it was but a slip of the Pen. But I shall now take my Leave of him, and meet Mr. Blount and Grotius, who hath afforded him so much Assistance in this Point. It is to be lamented that such a Person should give any Countenance to so great an Error.  
Pag. 142. Canon Elibertinus 61. Si Quis post obitum uxoris suae, sororem ejus duxerit & ipsa fuerit fidelis, per quinquennium cum a communione abstinere; eo ipso ostendens, manere vinculum Matrimonii; & ut jam diximus in Canonibus qui Apostolici dicuntur, qui duas sorores duxerit aut fratris filiam tantum Clericus fieri prohibetur. This Mr. Blount hath out of Grotius, lib. 2. cap. 5. de jure pacis & Belli, and he thus Translates it; If any one after the Death of his Wife, Marries her Sister, and she proves faithful to him, he must, during five Years, abstain from the Communion; which plainly shows that the Bond of Matrimony still remains inviolable: And as we have already said, in those Canons which are called Apostolical, whosoever Marries two Sisters or his Brother's Daughter, is only forbid to be a Priest.   

ANSWER.  
Mr. Blount in his Translation, hath changed the ipsa, She, into ipsi, Him; the Nominative into the Dative. He hath changed the Sense of Fidelis, which here signifieth a Christian, and is opposed to Gentilis, a Gentile, into a Woman's Chasteness and Fidelity, to her Husband; which, as Gabriel Albaspine, sometimes Bishop of Orleans,, in his Notes on this Council shows, altars the Case much.  
I much admire how Grotius could gather out of this Council, that the Bond of such a Matrimony should remain inviolable, since the Canon makes no mention thereof, 'tis very illogical to conclude so peremptorily from the silence of tne Council, and from a Negative to infer such an Affirmative, which we have reason to think repugnant to the Opinion of the Council. If a Man commits Incest by Marring his Daughter, the highest Spiritual Punishment the Church can inflict is Excommunication; how unreasonable would it be to conclude from hence, that the Church did adjudge the Bond of such a Matrimony to be inviolable?  
That Mr. Blount did err in this Conclusion, is a thing not much to be wondered at; Grotius' Authority is a probable Apology for an Error. Would to God he had followed him in all things. But in this Mr. Blount is , that he is not agreeable to himself. His Rule, (p. 137.) is, That Penal Laws are straight to be tied to the express Letter of the Law. If this be true, he hath transgressed his own Rule in his Reduction and Inference from this Canon, which is purely Penal; the greatest Punishment in the Old Canon Law is Excommunication, as Duarenus hath it in his Body of the Canon Law.  
And the same is asserted by Petrus de Marca, in his Book, de Concordia, by Widdrincton, in his Apology for Princes, by Richerius, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Authority, and others who are reputed most Learned in the Roman Communion.  
This Punishment is inflicted on Incest, Homicide, Adultery, and other grievous Crimes. St. Austin in his first Book, Contra advers. Legis & Prophet. says, that to be Excommunicated, is, Gravius quam ferro puniri, quam flammis consumi, quam feris subjici; it is a greater Punishment than to be Beheaded, than to be consumed by Fire, than to be thrown before Wild beasts to be devoured. Tertullian in his Apol. Sect. 39 calls it, Censura Divina, God's Censure. Summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, & Conventus, & omnis sancti commercii relegetur. The Excommunicating of a Man, and separating of him from the Benefit of the public Prayers, and the holy Communion, and the holy Assemblies, is a representation of the final judgement of Condemnation at the last Day. This is Religiously to be considered of by such Persons, who in our Days make a Mock at, and contemn Ecclesiastical Authority.  
What concerns the Apostolical Canons in this Paragraph hath been before examined. He that impartially weighs the weakness of Mr. Blount's Inference from the silence of the Canon in this place, and the weakness of his other Arguments, must think him over bold; when (p. 136.) he declares, That in the Defence of Marrying two Sisters, he will enter the Lists of Argument against any Levitical or Canonical Gamester whatever.  
The Queries and other things which in this Controversy are made use of by Mr. Blount in the following Pages, being only Corollaries and Conclusions of what hath been examined and refuted, we wholly pretermit as unnecessary and inconsiderable.  
I purposed here to have concluded this Subject, but considering two things relating thereunto, and that one serves for the better illustrating what hath been already written; and the other discovers the great Disingenuity of Mr. Blount: I shall try my Readers Patience a little longer, whilst I lay them down in order. The first is this,  
There are several learned Men in the World who prefer the Greek Version of the 70, before the present Hebrew, which they account as a Copy, not an Original. And whereas the contrary Hypothesis is the Ground of our Answer, to that place of the 18th of Leviticus, Ver. 8. which is the principal place in the whole Controversy: I think it convenient to wave this Privilege, and to join Issue upon the contrary Hypothesis. I shall therefore lay down the Argument as it is in the Oracles, and subjoin an Answer.  
Pag. 139. The Translation of the Bible in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign, Printed Anno Dom. 1599 reads that of Leviticus after this manner— Thou shalt not take a Wife with her Sister, during her Life to vex her, in uncovering her Shame upon her.  
Which seems to be very suitable to the Greek Translation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the Prohibition running upon these Terms, or containing these Conditions, That a Man shall not take a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with her Sister, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, during her Life, because it would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Vexation to her; but she being dead, all those Inconveniencies expire with her, and so it may probably be imagined, Cessante ratione cessat prohibitio.   

ANSWER.  
This Case of Marrying two Sisters was much agitated in the Primitive Times; the Apostolical Canons, and the Council of Eliberis, are sufficient Proofs hereof. In the times of St. Basil this Question was Controverted; especially between him and one Diodorus, or by one under his Name; (as appears out of St. Basil, Epist. 197.) and as great brags were then made, as now by Mr. Blount. And this Oracle was then carried about as a Trophy, over that eminent Father.  
The excellent Reply St. Basil made, may make us cease to wonder why Grotius did not cite it. To be sure his Silence is a sufficient Shield for Mr. Blount, we will therefore translate what is there written, and pass over the Original which is very long.  
Because (says he) the Writer of the Epistle by corrupt Argumentation hath endeavoured to induce Men into the Commission of so grievous a Sin: It is a necessary Duty incumbent on us to prevent the same by true Ratiocination. The Epistle says 'tis written in Leviticus, Thou shalt not Marry thy Wife's Sister to vex her, whilst she is living. From whence (saith the Epistle) 'tis manifest, you may Marry her Sister when your Wife is dead.  
We are asked, Whether it is not written, That a Man may Marry his Wife's Sister? We say it is a certain Truth, that no such thing is written. No Person but the Legislator ought by virtue of any Consequence to infer any thing from the silence of a Law. For if this Liberty be allowed, a Man may Marry his Wife's Sister tho' his Wife be Living. For this, Sophism will serve that turn too; 'tis written, Thou shalt not take thy Sister, that she may not vex thy Wife; therefore where there is no Vexation in the case, the thing is lawful. They who are for this Opinion may soon pretend, that there will be no Vexation nor Jealousies between the two Sisters. Wherefore the Cause being removed, for which the Legislator prohibited a Man to have two Sisters to Wife at one time, What should hinder it? But you will say this is not written in the Law; neither (say I) is the other there written. But, I say, if Consequences be allowed, the Consequence is equal on either side, it grants equal Licence and Liberty.  
How much this sort of Marriage was abominated by the Ancient Christians, St. Basil abundantly declares, when in his Epistle he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Uncleanness to be the cause of it, and the Marriage itself he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an unlawful dwelling together, and no Marriage.  
You may see how effectually Basil hath refuted this pretended Oracle without Recourse to the Hebrew; for he makes use only of the Translation of the 70. and Quotes the place of Leviticus in the same manner our Deist doth; the Septuaginta having suffered no Alteration in this place.   
Pag. 144. Whether the Solution of Justinian in the like cases of Affinity, in the first Book of his Institutions (Tit. 10. de Nuptiis) be not properly applicable to Leviticus 18. Ver. 18. Si una tibi nupta est, ideo alteram uxorem ducere non poteris, quia duas sorores eodem tempore habere non licet— If you are Married to one, you cannot Marry the other, because you cannot, that is, you ought not to be Married to two Sisters at one time. 
ANSWER.  
I do not remember that I have met with a greater Disingenuity in any Author, than I have here found in this place of Mr. Blount's. I have consulted Justinian's Institutes, with the Commentaries of Antonius Contius, Jacobus Gothofredus, and Franciscus Acoursius, and I cannot find the place cited in any of these Editions. There is a place or two (Tit. de Nuptiis) concerning Marrying two Wives, but not a Word of Marrying two Sisters. So that I have reason to think, that Mr. Blount wilfully and fraudulently changed these Words, duas uxores, (twice used in that Title) into duas sorores; two Wives into two Sisters; although the present case is wholly omitted. And I am verily persuaded that nothing can excuse him, unless perhaps some invisible Manuscript, or some Edition never heard of before.  
It is not to be passed over in silence, that our Deist in this Page proposes a Query concerning the Canons of the Church of England, viz. Whether if any of the Canons of the Church of England be dubious, it may not be proper and convenient to consult the ancient Canons for Explanation and Illustration?  
What he designs by this Query (his other Queries have either nothing to the purpose, or have been already answered) I cannot conjecture; considering his Concessions relating to the 99th Canon, and the Table of Marriage set forth by Authority, 1563. Wherefore to put all out of doubt, and to vindicate the Perspicuity of the forementioned Canon, and that the Illustration it receives from former Canons, makes more against Mr. Blount then otherwise: I will set down the Opinion of our Church concerning these Marriages, out of the Book Entitled— Liber quorundam Canonum disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Anno 1581. in which Book we find these Words— Omnia Matrimonia, quae uspiam contracta sunt intra gradus cognationis aut affinitatis prohibitos in 18 Levitici, autoritate Episcopi diss●lventur: maxim vero si quis priore uxore demortua, ejus sororem uxorem duxerit: hic enim gradus communi Dostorum virorum consensu & judicio pu●atur in Levitico prohiberi. That is, All Marriages which have been at any time contracted within the Degrees of Cognation or Affinity, prohibited in the 18th of Leviticus, shall by Episcopal Authority be dissolved: Especially if a Man marries his deceased Wife's Sister. It is the Opinion of the Learned, that this Degree is prohibited in the forenamed Book of Leviticus. The Conclusion is very obvious, and our Author's wont Subtlety hath proved a Disadvantage to his Design.   
Pag. 157. I cannot find any Authentic Ground to believe, that the Sects among the Jews were more Ancient than the Days of the Maccabees. 
ANSWER.  
It is a common Opinion among learned Men, that all the Sects of the Jews had their Beginning after the Death of their Prophets. And this is substantially proved by Cunaeus, lib. 2. c. 17. de Repub. Hebraeorum; But how long after their Deaths, is a very great Question; as Pfeiffer says, Exercit. 4ta. speaking of the Pharisees.  
Casaubon in his first Exercit. against Baronius, quotes Josephus, lib. 13. c. 9 for mentioning the Pharisees, Sadduces, and Essenes', in the Affairs of Jonathan Asmonaeus, 140 Years before the Nativity of Christ. The same Josephus, lib. 18. c. 2. affirms, that those three Sects, or as he calls them, Philosophies, were known to the Jews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Translator renders, multis retro saeculis, many Ages past.  
Of all their Sects the Sadduces are the most ancient, and Casaubon in the place cited thinks the Pharisees to be soon after them. Antigonus Sochaeus (whose Disciple Zadoch, the Author of the Sect of the Sadduces was) succeeded Simeon the Just, whom the Jews commonly, and among them Abraham Zacuth, makes to be the same with Jaddus that went out to meet Alexander 330 Years before Christ. So that Mr. Blount seems to be somewhat mistaken as to the Antiquity of these Sects.   
Pag. 158. The Introduction of those Sects, and of that Caballa, occasioned that Exposition of the Prophecy of Jacob, viz. The Scepret shall not departed from Judah, nor a Lawgiver between his Feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the People be, from whence they did (according to that fantastic Caballa) imagine, that whensoever the Sceptre should departed from Judah, and the Dominion thereof cease, that then there should arrive a Messiah. 
ANSWER.  
The Exposition of this Place with respect to the Messiah is evident from the Consent of the Ancient Jews, who never understood it in any other manner. All the old Paraphrasts, call, Shilo the Messiah; the Targum of Jerusalem renders it expressly until the time, when King Messiah shall come. Jonathan renders it until the time when Messiah shall come. Onkilos until 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 Rabbis 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 Prophecy of the Messiah; and that this was no Imagination, according to a Fantastic 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 Father's 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 Loins greater than Him. For whereas Judah's Dominion reached only to the Tribes of Israel; the Dominion of Him who came out of His Loins 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 Messiah 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 Messiah? 
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 Messiah 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 Messiah. Is there any Opinion more general than that of the Existence of God, yet some Philosophers have denied 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 Metaphysics disputes against some, who denied that it employed 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 the 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 Sceptre? 
ANSWER.  
Josephus sought the Favour of the Romans, and He was kindly used by them; so that 'tis 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 applied the Oracles of the Messiah, or King promised 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 persuaded 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 Nabuchadnezzar, albeit that the Sceptre was at that time so departed from the Tribe of Judah, that it was never resettled in it more. 
ANSWER.  
I have already made it plain, that the authentic 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 Prophecy. 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 Prophecy 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 Politic, having Power of Government within its self, until Messiah came. Wherefore the Seventy, for Sceptrum, a Sceptre, translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Ruler, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a King. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a Governor 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 Sceptre 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 Hasmon●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: 'Tis not to be doubted but that it was the Republic of Jewry, when the Hasmonean Levites presided, or Herod the Idumean, or whosomever else governed according to the Laws and Customs of the People of Jewry. This Republic so long continued, and it had that Denomination, as is manifest out of History. 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 Sceptre in the Captivity under Nabuchadnezzar, so departed from the Tribe of Judah, as that it was never resettled 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 indefinitely expressed, 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 Prophecies of the Prophet Daniel, which expressly point at the time of the Messiahs Coming, and concur with our JESUS, are very considerable. The Prophecy 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 prophecy, 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 Prophecy 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 Messiah. 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,  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 Prophecy, 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 Prophecy. 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 Emperor: and altho' they were obnoxious to many miseries and labours, yet notwithstanding they always placed their hope in the Messiah 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 Messiah then to come, because they thought Daniel's Period was then ended; and tho' (by mistake) they expected a temporal Prince, yet 'tis evident they thought this Prophecy did concern the time, when the Messiah should come. That which is most difficult here, is, the direct time of the Messias' 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 Prophecy, 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 Politics, 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 entered 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 Profane 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 likelihood of Truth.  
The greatest Difficulty is about the Beginning of those Weeks, concerning which we need not say any thing, considering that those must 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 easy 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 foretell 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 Prophecies 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 Carpenter's 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 jesus 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 shows 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 Union 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 examine 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 Scribbler, 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 Heretic, 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 ; 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 stopped 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 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' 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 Heretic, 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.  
'Tis very surprising 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 Preceded 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 publicly. 'Tis no wonder then if the Opponents of this Opinion were not so numerous. 'Tis 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 Coration, 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 Controversy; 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 myself, & 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 Heretics.  
The Article is as followeth:  
They that go about to renew the Fable of the Heretics, 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, etc. (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 Prelate 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 itself. 
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 itself, and how necessary Revealed Religion is, to show 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, quas prisci coluere, quid quemque deceat & quibus sacris quaque ment, Deum colere oporteat noscitamus? How much do we owe to Christ our King and Master, whom we acknowledge and worship as true God, by whose guidance and direction, the monstrous Doctrine, and barbarous Rites of these savage Nations being chased away; and we being taught true Religion, embrace Civility and the true God: and the errors and unspeakable follies which the Ancients had in honour and reverence, being brought to light, we know what our duty is, with what Ceremonies, and what mind God is to be worshipped. Which is in effect the same with that of the Apostle, Colos. 1. ver. 13. Thanks be to God, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. Now this of Alexander is the more to be remarked; forasmuch as Augury, the Art of Divination, Astrology, soothsaying, and the like Superstitions, like a universal contagion, had infected all Mankind (save only where Revealed Religion had obtained) as Tully tells us in his first Book de Divinatione: Qua est autem gens, aut quae civitas, quae non aut extis pecudum, aut monstra, aut fulgura interpretantium, aut Augurum, aut Astrologorum, aut Sortium (ea enim fere Artis sunt) aut Somniorum, aut Va●icinationum, haec enim duo naturalia putantur praedictione moveatur: There could not be named any Nation or City, which abounded not with these Abominations, and was not moved with the Predictions of those who pretend to interpret Prodigies and Lightnings; or with the Predictions of the Augurs, or Astrologers, or Oracles (in these there was something of Art) or with the foreboding of Dreams, and Accidents, which two last may have something Natural.  
What Mr. Blount could promise himself by his Account of Augury, I cannot imagine; but I am persuaded he could not think of any thing, which would prove more disadvantageous to his Design in general, than this Subject.   
Pag. 170. From the Pagan Processions, the manner of the Christians going in Procession was thought to be first taken. 
ANSWER.  
Our Author is much mistaken as to the Institution of Processions. Gregory Turonensis, lib. 11. Hist. cap. 37. gives us this Account: Refert Avitus in quadam homilia, quam de Rogationibus scripsit, has ipsas Rogationes quos ante Ascensionis Domini triumphum celebrantus, a Mamerto ipsius Viennensis Vrbis, cui & hic eo tempore praeerat, institutas fuisse, dum Vrbs illa multis terreretur prodigiis: Avitus reports in a certain Homily of his, which he writ of Rogations; That Mamertus Bishop of Vienna, instituted those Rogations or Processions, which we celebrate before our Lord's Asoension. Out of the said Homily we have this occasion of their justitution; That it was appointed for diverting God's displeasure, forasmuch as in those times there were great Earthquakes, Incursions of Wolves and wild Beasts, frequent Fires, terrible Sounds by night, to the extreme terrrour of the People. Wherefore the said Bishop, knowing no better expedient to divert so severe a Chastisement, than Fasting and Humiliation, ordered those Days for that intent; and contrived a Litany apt and suitable for such humble Address. This pious course taking good effect, succeeding times continued it in their Anniversary practice; so that the first Council of Orleans established it by a Decree, in their 23. Canon: Which Custom having had so long footing in the Church, our Reformers were loath to be singular in rescinding of it: and the rather because they observed that it fell casually and beyond its first intention, upon such a Season as might be very agreeable to the Service of those days. For this being the Critical time of the Year, when all the Fruits of the Earth are in greatest hazard of miscarrying, by Frosts and unseasonable Wether; it is therefore exceeding proper to supplicate God for the withholding of his Judgements, and to implore his Blessing upon the Labours of the Husbandman. And altho' our Liturgy hath no set Office, yet our Church hath set Homilies for it. And in the Injunctions an. 1559. and Advertisements an. 7. Elizab. it was ordered, That in the Rogation Days of Procession, the Curate sing, or say in English the two Psalms, beginning Benedic anima mea, etc. with the Litany, and Suffrages thereunto belonging.  
So that I conceive the greatest Enemies our Church hath, cannot blemish our practice with Paganism or Superstition.  
Polydor Virgil de rerum Inventione, lib. 6. c. 11. derives their Original somewhat higher: Ejusmodi Processionum usum jam inde a principio apud nostros fuisse, testimonio est Tertullianus libro ad Vxorem, quem forte intermissum Mamertus renovavit; & illos a Judaeis mutuatos esse satis constat: These Processions were in use among Christians from the very beginning of Christianity, as Tertulian delivers in one of the Books, which he writ for his Wife: which custom being long omitted, was at last brought into use again by Mamertus; and 'tis manifest that the Christians borrowed it from the Jews.  
The only Authors that I have read, that can give any countenance to this Imputation of Mr. Blount's, are Fromondus in his Meteors, Book 5. ch. 4. Artic. second, where we are told, That in the place of the Robigalia and Floralia, the Catholic Church, instituted the Day of Rogation, and the Supplications and Processions before Ascension day.  
The other Author is Mr. Gregory, in his Notes on Ridley's View of the Civil and Canon Law, p. 76. The old Romans instituted three yearly Solemnities, in the honour of their Gods, for the Fruits of the Earth: These also the Romish Church observed, having first moderated their Superstition, and directed them to a more sacred end.  
How malicious then is this Suggestion of Mr. Blount's: His Argument is no more than this, That the Christians who appointed Processions and Seasons, to pray to God for his Blessing on the Fruits of the Earth, are guilty of Paganism; because the Gentiles were wont also to pray to their Idols for the like Blessing. This, I say, is the strength of his Argument, upon supposition that Mr. Gregory, and Fromondus are not mistaken; which they certainly are, with respect to their original Institution.   
Pag. 178. I must beg Mr. Lock 's Pardon, if I very much question those Authorities he quotes from the Travels of some Men, who affirm some Nations to have no notions of a Deity; since the same has been said of the Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope, which the last Account of that place proves to be false 
ANSWER.  
I must confess 'tis very difficult to persuade a Man's self, That the Idea of God is not innate: And if we respect Authority, with relation to some Nations having no notion of a Deity, My Lord Bishop Stillingfleet is enough to stagger any Man's Belief to the contrary; who in his Origines Sacrae (p. ●94.) positively asserts, That of any whole Nation, which hath consented in the denial of a Deity, we have no evidence at all.  
I must beg Pardon, with all deference to so great a Prelate, to transcribe a Passage out of Varenius, in his Treatise de diversis gentium Religionibus (p. 238.) De Atheis quidam dubitant, alii omnino existere eos negant, atque cum Cicerone putant, nullos dari tam feros homines, qui non aliquem agnoscant & venerentur Deum. Nos illos opponimus manifestam & cui cum iudicio contradicere nequeunt experientiam. Multos ex Graecis Philosophis homines, certe haud quaquam feros, negasse omnes spiritus & Dei existemiam, vel saltem de iis dubitasse testantur antiquitatis Scriptores: & Protagoram quidem ab Atheniensibus cam ob causam civitate pulsum esse Diogenes Laertius, & alii clare affirmant. Non jam dicam de illis, qui quanquam inter Christianos versantur, tamen Athei sunt, sed de remotis populis agemus. In Descriptione Religionis Japonensis narravimus, tam ex Jesuitarum, quam Belgarum annotationibus, quod multi hic reperiantur, qui nullam divinitatem credant; nempe illos, qui ex Jenxuana haeresi sunt. Praeter bosce dari feros et Sylvestres populos (quorum plerique sunt Anthropophagis et sine ulla Republica) qui nullam Dei cognitionem habeant satis superque per navigationes comprobatum est, nimirum in populis totius Brasiliae, populis circa Fretum Magellanicum, ad Promontorium Bonae Spei, parte Insulae, Sumatra Australi, item in Madagascare insula et Hornanis insulis ad Novam Guineam. Etenim qui navigationem Navarchi Le Maire circa totam tellurem per fretum ab eodem Le Maire dictum descripsit, atque in hisce insulis multos dies commoratus est, ita loquitur: Non potuimus, inquit, ex ullis judiciis colligere, quod hic populus aliquem Deum colat: vivunt sine omni cura, ut aves in sylvis, neque tendendi, vel emendi illis mos est; neque serunt, neque metunt, nec aliis laboribus fatigantur.  
De Brasilianis Anthropophagis narrant historiae, cum Europaei aliquando sumpta occasione a vehementi tonitru, existentiam Dei huic genti persuadere conarentur, illos non erubuisse impudenter respondere, talem Deum nequam esse oportere, utpote cui volupe esset, hominibus terrorem incutere. Considering that this Treatise of Varenius speaks pertinently to our present purpose, and that this Book is not in every Man's hand, I have transcribed this Passage at large; and I here translate it.  
Some doubt, others absolutely deny that there are any Atheists; and are of Cicero's mind, that no Men are so barbarous, but that they acknowledge and venerate a GOD. But we oppose to such manifest Experience, which no judicious Person can contradict. Many of the Greek Philosophers, and certainly not barbarous, have denied all Spirits, and the Existence of a God, or at least have doubted thereof, as Historians bear witness. And Protagoras was banished by the Athenians for that cause, as Diogenes Laertius and others testify.  
I will say nothing of such as live among Christians, and yet are Atheists; but of remote People, in the Description of the Religion of Japan, we have delivered out of the Annotatations of the Jesuits, and the Hollanders, that there are many among them to be found, who deny the being of any God; viz. those who are of the Jenxuan Heresy. Besides those there are many barbarous People (many of whom are Man-eaters, and without any form of Government) who have no knowledge of God at all; as is over and above proved by Navigators: to wit, the People of all Brasile, the People who live about the Magellanick Sea, part of the People that live about the Cape of Good hope, South Sumatra, in the Isle of Madagascar, and the Hornane Isles, about New Guinee. Truly he who described the Navigation of Le More about the whole Earth, through the Sea, called from him Le Maire, and tarried in those Isles many days, thus writes, We could not by any signs gather that this People worshipped any God: They live without any care, as Birds in the Woods; they neither buy nor sell, they neither sow nor mow; neither are they wearied with any labour.  
Histories tell us concerning those of Brasil, That when the Europeans took an occasion, from a terrible Thunder, to persuade this Nation to the Belief of a God: They were not ashamed impudently to answer, Such a God must needs be a wicked one, who took pleasure to terrify poor Mortals  
What Mr. Lock hath written of this Subject I have not read: I am sure if what Varenius writes be true, That Mr. Blount's whole Hypothesis of Natural Religion is destroyed, whose principal Foundation (page 195.) as he pretends, is, That there is one Infinite Eternal God, Creator of all things, and knowable by Innate Ideas, or else he says Nothing to the purpose.   
Pag. 182. But since our correspondence with China, we have found they have Records and Histories of four or six thousand Years date, before our Creation of the World; and who knows but that some other Nations may be found out hereafter, that may go farther, and so on. Nay, the Chinese themselves in a Traditional account tell us, That the Posterity of Panzon, and Panzona inhabited the Earth 90000. Years. The Brahmins of Guzarat said the Year 1639. that there had passed 326669. Ages; each Age consisting of a number of Years, and if I mistake not, Centuries. Nay, the Egyptians in the time of their King Amasis, Contemporary with Cyrus, had the Records and Story of 13000. Years, and a succession of 330. Kings, which shows they were not Lunar Years. 
ANSWER.  
It may seem strange that Mr. Blount makes no mention of Dyrerius, the Author of the Praeadamites, to whom he is so much beholden; as he also was to Salmasius de Annis Climactericis: The reason whereof I cannot think to be other than this, That he retracted his Opinion, as Isaac Vossius tells us in his Book de Aetate Mundi, cap. 12.  
'Tis a wonderful thing indeed the Chinese should have Records of six thousand Years date, before the World began: For Vossius assures us in his Book in his Treatise de Artibus Sinam. pag. 83. Omnes Sinensium libri continentes Historiam, Mathesin, Astronomiam, Musicam, & complures alias Scientias, exceptis tamen iis qui ad Agriculturam, & rem Medicam pertinerent, combusti fuere jam ante mille et nongentos annos jussu Regis Chingi, multis quidem aliis celebrati operibus, et praesertim constructione vasti istius muri, cujus fama implevit totum terrarum orbem: All the Books of the Chinese, which contain Mathematics, Astronomy, Music, and many other Arts and Sciences (excepting such only as belong to Agriculture and Medicine) were burnt a thousand and nine hundred Year since, by the command of their King Chingi, who was celebrated for his many great Works; and especially for the great Wall, the fame of which hath filled the whole World. But peradventure their Records were incombustible, or reserved in the great Wall, for the Pre-adamites alone to consult.  
But the mischief of all is, That this King Chingi was an ambitious Prince, and for this end burnt all those Histories, that he might obliterate, and blot out of Men's Remembrance all the noble Acts of his Predecessors.  
The same Vossius, in his Castigations ad Scriptum Hornii, ch. 12. citys Martinius, who gives us an Account of their Traditional Antiquity: Sciendum itaque extremam hanc Asiam primum septem habuisse Imperatores, quorum ab Electione per suffragia ab anno nimirum ante Christum natum 2846, usque ad annum 2207, ante quae tempora nihil veri se habuisse in suis Historiis fatentur Sinae, deinde hareditaria fuit successio: We must therefore know that this extreme Eastern part of Asia, had first of all seven Emperors, who were created by the Election of the People, before our Christian computation 2846, even to the Year 1205. before which time the Chinenses have no true Historical Account, as they confess themselves, and then their Government began to be hereditary. How vastly wide and different is this Account, from the Traditional account our Author gives us of the Posterity of Panzon and Panzona, and from that of the Bramins of Guzarat?  
Joseph Scaliger, in his fifth Book de Emendat. Tempor. reckons the Chinese among those, Qui veris historiae monumentis destituti hinc multa annorum millia, & quaedam immania temporum intervalla expressit ab illis tam temporum inscilia quam vetustatis affectatio: They were destitute of the true Monuments of Antiquity; and from hence it is that they boast of so many thousand Years, and those wonderful Intervals of time, which their Ignorance of History, and their affectation of Antiquity occasioned.  
From this Ignorance and Affectation, sprang those infinite Dynasteis of the Egyptians, and those monstrous Traditions of the Chinenses, as have heard.  
Besides 'tis to be noted, we have no certain knowledge what kind of Year they used; which is necessary to be known, as before we observed concerning the Mosaic History.  
The Computation of the Egyptians is obnoxious to the same Objection: And whereas our Author says, They were not Lunar, 'tis not material; for each of the 330 Kings might reign a competent number of Solar Years, upon this his Supposition: And this any Man may perceive, that knows the difference between a Solar and a Lunar Year, as they are vulgarly understood. He that will defend the Egyytian Chronology, must of necessity understand some form of Years different from the Mosaic; as when they report of their ancient Kings, that some of them lived 300, some 1000 Years, and more, as we find in Varro, cited by Lactantius, Book 2. Orig. Error. c. 12. where altho' Lactantius differs somewhat from Varro, yet as to the thing itself, they may be well enough reconciled. We shall therefore speak of the Egyptian Year, forasmuch as Macrobius, lib. 1. cap. 12. Satur. says, Anni certus modus ap●ld solos Aegyptios, aliarum gentium dispari modo, pari errore mutantur: The Egyptians are the best skilled in Chronology of any Nations. For others, altho' in a different manner, yet they all err much in this particular. Wherefore if we demonstrate the great variety and uncertainty that is among the Egyptians in this point, we do (according to Macrobius) subvert the whole Pagan Chronology, and the Dreams of the Preadamites.  
Plutarch, in the Life of Numa Pompilius, affirms, That before Numa, who added January and February, the Roman Year contained but ten Months. Among some Barbarous People, the Year contained but three Months: In Greece among the Arcadians, but four Months: Among the Acarnanes, six. Among the Egyptians a Month was a Year; and aftewards their Year contained four Months. The Egyptians are thought to be most ancient, and to compute an infinite number of Years in their Annals; the reason of which proceeds from their using Months for Years.  
Alexander ab Alexandro, Book 3. c. 24. Dier. Gen. writing of the variety of Years used by the Ancients, says of the Egyptians, Non una fancy, sed multiplici sorte variarunt, ut quandoque trium, saepius quatuor mensium annum efficerent, plerumque mensis spatio ad cursum Lunae metiebantur: The Egyptians did not use one kind of Year: for sometimes their Year consisted but of three Months, more often of four, and for the most part it was but a Lunar Month. From whence it follows, that nothing was more uncertain than their Account of time; which yet is the basis of all true History: and that in things so remote, we can have no sure footing but in the Mosaic History, of whose Chronology and the certainty thereof we have discoursed at large.   
Pag. 192. As to the Origine of good and evil, methinks 'tis less contradictory and unreasonable to believe as the ancient Persians did, That there were two Beginnings of things; the one good, the other evil. For how can Evil proceed from a Being infinitely good, and without whom nothing is, If evil be not? And if Genesis be a Parable, the Persians may be in the right as much as the Jews. 
ANSWER.  
The Origin of Evil hath much exercised the Philosophers of old; nor can we have any certainty thereof, without Revealed Religion. For how otherwise could we come to the right notion of sin; or a deviation from Good in all Men, a lapse from our first estate, wherein God, who is all good, created us?  
How perplexed our Author is about this Question! for in this Page he affirms, That if the Book of Genesis be a Parable (and he supposes it to be so) the Persians may be in the right as much as the Jews. And yet Page 205. He affirms, That this lapse of Nature, may be discovered by Natural Reason, if the opinion of the Jews be according to Natural Reason (as Mr. Blount bears us in hand) how can the Opinion of the Persians, which is diametrically opposite to it, be in the right? these are great in consistencies.  
If the Persians (laying aside the Book of Genesis) may be in the right, our Author's Discourse of Natural Religion is ridiculous: For he supposes, Page 195. the first Article of Natural Religion to be, That there is one GOD Infinite, Eternal, and Creator of all things. Whereas the Persians make two Anti-gods, equally Infinite and Eternal, and that one of them is the Author of Good, and the other of Evil. So that the Sentiments of the Persians is repugnant to the Notion of a Deity: For while they make two Gods, they make none at all. And consequently he is guilty of Idolatry and Atheism; and the great Contradictions in the Opinion of the Persians are very palpable. If this Persian Principle of Evil be absolutely contrary to the other Principle of Good, it must in all its Perfections be contrary to it. Now since all Perfections belong to that 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 Nonsense, nothing can be so. Besides, this Principle overthrows all Religion, as well Natural as Revealed: it destroys all Virtue and Goodness: For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil, then Evil necessarily falls out: all Freedom of Will is destroyed: all difference of Good and Evil is taken away. For if Evil becomes once necessary, it loseth its Nature: there can be th●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 Lies 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 'Tis 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 Error 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 affirmed 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.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 Magis, who were of greater Antiquity than the Egyptians, according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy: One of those Gods was called Oromasdes, the other Pluto, or Arimanius. And Plutarch says, That Mithra was a Mediatour-God, whom the Persians placed 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 men's 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 than 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 exp●ica●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.  
'Tis reported of Aristotle, that when he read the Mosaic Writings, that he commended them for the Majesty of the Style, he thought it worthy of a God. The fault he found was, that the Method was Unphilosophical, which doth not command, but persuades a Belief in the Reader; without all Controversy, 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 Atoms without an efficient Cause is absurd and unbecoming a Philosopher: Yet 'tis agreeable to this Method; for this Declination is more according with God's Goodness, than 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' 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' 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 Bishopric, excommunicated, and condemned for a Heretic, 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, profane, 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 Universe 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 Universe, as that into which it shall be corrupted, was after the Universe. 
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 Universe 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 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' pretended Universal Rule is not only precarious, but also false.   
P. 211. Now whatsoever had a beginning of its Production, and aught to partake of Dissolution, ad●iteth two Alterations; the one from that whi●h i● 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 Universe doth of itself 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 itself. 
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, aught to be translated, Generation, and not Production, which somewhat altars the case, the one being more general than 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 than 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, than 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 Being's; 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 preceding 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 signify 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 quickeneth 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 than 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 than 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, entitled (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 of this Treatise was, is not agreed among the Critics. 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 entitled, 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 gratify 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, 'tis 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 itself, how can it be subject to the Power of another? Whatsoever hath infinite Power in itself, hath a Power upon something beyond itself; 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 than 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 Author 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 Peripatetics, 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 'tis 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 Critics, 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. 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, 'tis very strange he should descent 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 ('tis certain he not 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 subtly, 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 shows 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 Li●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 Christ's, two Sons of God: one who was begotten of his Father, the other of his Mother. Wherefore the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 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 Messiahs. Duos sibi Messiah fingunt, vel somniant, alterum Messiam Ben Joseph, alterum vero Messiam Ben David: They persuaded themselves, that one of their Messias' 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 Conqueror.  
Tertullian (lib. 4. cont. Martion, c. 6.) gives us this Account, Constituit Martion alium esse Christum, qui Tiberianis temporibus: Martion held that there were to be two Christ's; 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 Creator, 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 cursed 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 mere Allegory.  
This is a Knot to be untied 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 mere 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, for 27. but in the second Chapter it is laid down in particular, as ver. 7. The Lord God form 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 mere 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 ●he Mother of all Living, that is, of all Men, as Mr. Selden well observes in his 1. Book De jure not & gentleman 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 manner, The Mother of all those living Creatures who are rational.  
To this concurrent Consent, we are necessitated to add this Remark, viz. That if the Hypothesis of the Preadamites be true, Adam had been very ridiculous, in calling Eve the Mother of all living; when she was (according to them) but the Mother of the Jewish Nation. And Moses had been very incongruous in his History, which I suppose no good Man will say or think.  
If we consult other Scriptures, how effectual to this purpose is that of the first Epist. to the Corinthians, Chap. 15. The first man Adam was made a living Soul: To what end (I pray) should the Apostle write this, but to denote that he was the Root and Original of all Mankind. As also that the first Man is of the Earth earthy, which is a formal declaration of that of the second of Exodus, He was form of the dust of the earth.  
In the 17. Chapter of the Acts ver. 26. 'tis said that God hath made of one Blood all Nations of Men, for to dwell on the face of the Earth. How inconsistent is this with a double Creation, and the proceeding of the Jewish Nation alone from the latter? I know it is pretended that some Gr. Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Erasmus (who loves sometimes to be singular) says, Verum haud scio, an perperam a librariis haec Scriptura: Truly I do not know whether this place of Scripture may not be changed by the Copiers. But here it is with an haud scio: Erasmus cannot tell us on his word; and Suspicions signify nothing.  
I am sure St. Chrysostom Homil. 38. on the Acts of the Apostles, reads according to our vulgar Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Grotius on this place in the Critics, seems fully to express the Sense, when he writes, That God made all Men. Ex semine unius Adami, ut eo quoque modo, cognationis naturali vinculo colligaret: God made all Men out of the Seed of one Adam, and bound them as it were with one Natural bond of Consanguinity. And in truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Blood, is taken in this place for the Stock or Lineage, out of which Men came. And so it is frequently taken in Greek and Latin Authors. Homer in the fourth Book of his Odysseys, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  
‛ My dear Son, thou art well descended.  And Theocritus, in his Heracliscus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  
‛ Thou art of the Stock of Perseus.  Among the Latins, we have Virgil, Aeneid 6.  
Projice tela manu sanguis meus:  
‛ Cast thy darts, my Son.  
And Tibullus ad Matrem de Filia, Quicquid agit sanguis est tamen illa tuus: Let her do what she will, she will be still your Daughter. And not only among the Poets, but also among the Orators too: As Quintilian in his Declamation pro Milite, Abdicandus & ejurandus est non sanguis tuus: You may abdicate and abjure him if you please, he is neither your Son, nor your Relation.  
What Mr. Blount affirms concerning the Jews, That divers of them are of this Opinion, amounts not to much; for all Men know how illiterate, and how monstrous the Rabbins have been in their Opinions, since our Saviour's time. Origen in his 2d. Book against Celsus, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: We have nothing now from the Jews, but Trifles and Fables. Morinus in his third part and 7th. Exercit. gives this Censure of them, Nihil est tam absurdum, tam comicum, tam ridiculum, tam monstrosum, atque ab omni fide, & probilitate abhorrens, ad quod probandum statim praesto non sit illis e sacra Scriptura testimonium: There is nothing so absurd, so comical, so ridiculous, so monstrous, so abhorrent from all faith and likelihood, which they are not ready to prove, out of some place of Holy Writ. This seems to be a Description of our Deists and Pre-adamites, in their abuse of the Scriptures: however it demonstrates the little advantage Mr. Blount can promise himself, from the countenance they give to his Opinion.  
Capellus in his Arcannm Punctuationis, Book 2. c. 3. Judaei in propria historia peregrini, antiquitatum suarum prorsus ignari: The Jews are strangers in their own Histories, are ignorant of their own Antiquities. And certainly this Character is justly applicable to all such of them, as collect from the Wr●tings of Moses, That there were two Creations; and that Adam was not the first Man.  
Scaliger, in his sixth Book of the Emendation of times, acquaints us, Manifesta est Judaeorum inscitia, & mnlta quae ad eorum sacra et historiam pertinent, long melius nos teneamus quam illi: The ignorance of the Jews is very manifest, and we Christians know their Sacred Rites, and their Histories much better than they themselves. These are Testimonies which I have borrowed from Learned Men, who were very conversant in all the Jewish Learning. And yet after all, we have reason to believe this is a mistake in Mr. Blount: For the 4th. Article of the Jewish Faith (believed by all Jews without contradiction, as L. Modena tells us in his Hist. p. 245.) is, That God was from all eternity; and that all other other things besides had a beginning at some time. And Article 9th. That Moses was wholly dictated by God, and put not one syllable in of himself. Which as they plainly repugn the Opinion of Ocellus Lucanus, so I think it not very reconciliable with the Consequences of Pre-adamitism, which open so wide a door to Atheism. The words of the most Learned Bishop Stillingfleet (in his Origines Sacrae, p. 537.) are worthy of consideration: Whosoever, says he, seriously considers the frequent Reflections on the Authority of the Scriptures, which were cast by the Author of that Fiction, and his endeavouring on all occasions to derogate from the Miracles recorded in it, may easily suspect the Design of that Author, That his Opinion in time would undermine the Scriptures themselves.  
This seems to be the Character of Mr. Blount; for his Method is the same. How wickedly p. 25 and 26. doth he feign a Dialogue between Eve and the Serpent? With what levity p. 44. doth he write of the Taylor's Trade, and the Thread-maker's Art, which he makes use of to disparage the Mosaic History? With what Blasphemy doth he discourse of our Lord, p. 162. where he writes, that some mean Persons called Him the Son of David; and the Mobb by that Title did cry, Hosanah to him, when he made his Cavalcade upon an Asinego? How unbecomingly doth he speak of our Lord and Moses; when p. 121 he makes them together with the Impostor Mahomet, to be Politicians? And how like the Author of Pre-adamitism, he derogates from Divine Miracles, the beginning of his Book sufficiently proves: where he uses all his Art to subvert these Divine Demonstrations; and well knowing that his main strength lies in those Difficulties, he places them in 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, own 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 calisthenes, that he would certify him of the Chaldean Observations, which calisthenes did, and gives an Account not exceeding Two thousand Years. calisthenes 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 unparallelled Boldness, and abuses good Authors. 'Tis 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. 'Tis to be noted, that Mr. Blount citys 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 Judgement they are guilty of Falsehood.     

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, lest 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 myself, 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 themselurs' Protestant's: 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 Gentlemen of the long Robe, who were for the Annihilating or Dispencing Power— I have not concerned myself with these Political Matters; because I have not been conversant in that sort of Learning, and because they are without my Sphere, and proposed Design.  
Neither have I concerned myself 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 there were divers othor Authors who wrote before Moses; he thinks it sufficient to follow an Annotator on Dr. Browne, who citys 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 Controversy 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 Countrymen 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 public 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 than them, who cannot disprove me; but because the Egyptians, Phaenicians, and Chaldees, have more ancient Records of their Country in being;  to prevent being confuted, I think it more convenient to yield 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, than the Greeks make mention of his Countrymen 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 altars 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 preceded 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 Phoenicians, 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, he allows it to no Historian but Moses, whom alone he makes to be divinely inspired. As to the point of Antiquity, we appeal to our Author himself, who (notwithstanding what he hath here written of this matter) page 224. confesses, That we have no Writer extant at this time more ancient than Moses, unless it be Ocellus.— His exception of Ocellus is of no moment, as we have proved in the foregoing Discourse.  
After all my Search, I can no where find Josephus absolutely affirming, That the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phoenicians had any certain Records of their Original; but only Comparatively with the Greeks: He no where affirms, directly, or indirectly, that the forenamed Nation, had more ancient Records of their Country to refute him; and that therefore he thinks more convenient, to yield to them in Antiquity: and therefore our Deist is forced to use this Device,— This is the secret meaning of what Josephus says.  
What Josephus says is clear and perspicuous: there is no colour for so slanderous an Insinuation; and I think I may affirm without any Calumny, or Controversy, That not Josephus, but our Deist had a Secret meaning, to impose on credulous Readers, by abusing good Authors.  
We may bid Farewell to all Evidence in Matters of Fact, if Secret meanings be allowed of: but perhaps our Deist had herein a regard to Himself; hoping that at a dead lift, This Secret meaning might gloss, and varnish over some of his monstrous, and incredible Tenants. I am sure that by this Hocuspocus Trick, he might have cited The Hind and Panther (which he quotes pag. 150.) for the Antiquities of his Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phoenicians; and have quoted Josephus for the Frauds and Imposing of the Priest.  
And now I am making towards a Conclusion; I hope I may do a thing grateful to the Reader, and be not thought to deviate from my Subject, if I here present him with the great Aversion that our Church hath for Deism.  
The Church of England (Article 18.) declares in these words, They are also to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every Man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his Life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature; for Holy Scripture doth set out unto us, only in the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby Men must be saved.  
This Article plainly declares (as Mr. Rogers on the Articles, p. 87. collects) that the Profession of every Religion cannot save a Man, live he never so virtuously. It also follows from this Article, That no Man ever was, or shall be saved, but only by the Faith and Name of JESUS CHRIST.  
The Opinion of the Deist is diametrically opposite hereunto: For (pag. 199. and 200.) he affirms, That Natural and Unrevealed Religion, is sufficient to make us happy in a future State. And he affirms (p. 201.) That this his Opinion is Charitable; forasmuch as it doth not exclude any Dissenters from Eternal Happiness; and that God may be pleased with different Worships.  
St. Austin in his Book of Heresies (cap. 72.) reckons that of the Rhetorians to be one: Forasmuch as they believe, that all heretics hold the Truth, and walk uprightly. Which Heresy St. Austin calls a Heresy of wonderful vanity, and such as seems to him incredible: my own part I cannot perceive any great difference between the Rhetorians and the Deists.  
And whereas our Deist seems to value his Opinion upon the pretended Charitableness thereof, and thinks that a Recommendation: He is much mistaken; for this Opinion is rather Turkish than Charitable.  
We read in Busbequius (Epist. 3.) that Rustan, the Prime Vizier, persuaded that excellent Ambassador to turn Musselman; and that if he would do so, he should receive great Honours and Rewards, from Solyman his Lord and Emperor: To whom Busbequins makes this Reply.  
Mihi certum est manere in ea Religione, in qua natus essem quamque Dominus meus profitetur. Pulchre, inquit Rustanus, sed tamen de anima quid fiet? Et de Anima, inquam, bene spero. Tum ille cum paulisper intercogitasset, ita est profecto: neque ego ab hac absum sententia, aternae beatitudinis consortes fore, qui sancte innocenterque hanc vitam traduxerint quamcunque illi Religionem secuti sunt.— I am resolved, says Busbequius, to continue in that Religion in which I were born, and which my Lord professes: Very well, says Rustan, but what will become of your Soul in another World? I am, says Busbequius, very confident of its welfare. Then Rustan, after some pause, makes this Answer, I am of your Mind; this is my Opinion, That all Persons shall be eternally happy, that lead an innocent life, notwithstanding their differences in Religion.  
The Prime Vizier's Opinion seems to me to be the same with Mr. Blount's; it is altogether so charitable: And if our Deist had been present at that Interview, 'tis apparent enough with whom he would have sided: And if the same Offers had been made to him (which were made to that incomparable Ambassador, 'tis plain enough what he would have done. So that if I should assert, That Deism is a direct Road to Turcism, I think I should not be mistaken.  
Our Deist must have more Confidence, and (all things considered) better luck than Polus had in Erasmus his Exorcisms, if he can persuade any Persons who seriously consult their own Salvation, To behold any Happiness in his Heaven.  
It's worth our observation, in what detestation and abhorrence our Church of England hath the Opinion of the Deists; for it affixes an Accurse to it: which I think is not very usual for Provincial Councils.  
Mr. Pool indeed, in his Appendix to the Nullity of the Romish Faith (pag. 240.) 〈◊〉 these words:— If we look into the Records of Councils, we shall find, That this Practice of Anathematising was not only in use in general, but also in particular, and Provincial Councils. I doubt not but this Learned Man had good grounds for his Assertion: Yet I must confess for my own part, I have not observed this Method in Particular Councils; if we except that Orthodox Council held at Gangra, in Paphlagonia, about the Year of our Lord 324. in every one of whose Canons, about twenty in number, we find an Accurse affixed: a sufficient Instance In Antiquity to justify our Church 's Method.  
And since we have had an occasion to mention this Synod, and that we live in an Age, in which Atheism and Deism abounds to that degree, that the Churches set apart for GOD's Service, and our Religious Assemblies, are slighted and contemned: I shall conclude with the Judment of that Pious Synod (Can. 5) Si quis docet domum Dei contemptibilem esse ut conventus qui in ea celebrantur, Anathema sit.  
How nearly this concerns our Deists, and other despisers of GOD's Public Worship, who frequently abuse GOD's Ministers, and make no Religion of traducing and ridiculing them, is very plain and palpable: and there is here NO SECRET MEANING.  
EXEQUIAS DEISTAE, QUIBUS IRE COMMODUM EST JAM TEMPUS EST.   
FINIS.   

Books Printed for, and Sold by Charles Yeo, John Pearce, and Philip Bishop, Booksellers in Exon.  

SElect Hymns, each fitted to two Tunes, to be sung in Churches.  
The Beauty of Holiness: or, a short Defence and Vindication of the pious Decency, Regularity, and Order, of Reading the Communion-Service, at the Communion-Table; offered to a dissatisfied Neighbour, from his Minister.  
A Form of Prayer for Married Persons, for the most part taken out of the Liturgy.   

In the PRESS.  
A Practical Treatise concerning Evil Thoughts; wherein are some Things more especially useful for Melancholy Persons. By William Chiloot, M. A.  
Danmonii Orientales Illustres: or, the Worthies of Devon; Printed by way of Subscription, Price in Sheets Sixteen Shillings and Six Pence; the first Payment Eight Shillings. All Gentlemen that are willing to take the Advantage by Subscribing, are desired to send in their first Payment with all speed to the Undertakers, Charles Yeo, John Pearce, and Philip Bishop.