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 ...

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 Opini∣ons 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 ap∣pear, that many places then well known, may now be wholy unknown to us.

Lastly, I shall make a brief Reply to what the Oracle hath here declared.

The First Consideration relating to the Ancient Jews, is that they always looked on the Book Genesis, as a Book hard to be understood; yet to contain a literal Sense.

St. Jerom in his Preface to his Commentaries on Ezechiel, says, Nisi quis apud eos aetatem Sacerdotalis Ministerii; id est, tricesimum annum im∣plever it, principium Geneseos legere non permittitur. Unless a Man had attained to the Year of the Sacerdotal Ministry, which is the Thirtieth Year compleat, 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 forbid these Four things (because of their Difficulty and Profoundness) to be read by any, but such as attained to Thir∣ty 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 altho 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 unbe∣coming so great an Author.

It was a known rule among the Rabbies, 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 al∣tho 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. If there be no Lite∣ral and Sensible Paradise, then there is no Foun∣tain, no River, no Pison, no Gihon, no Tigris, no Euphrates, no Fruit, no Leaves, no Adam, no eating the Forbiden Fruit; but the whole truth is a Fable, and nothing but Allegory: And c. 54. of the same Ancorate, he calls Origen (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a furious Mad Man, for his obtruding on the World Allegory instead of a Literal Truth.

St. Jerom in his Comentaries on Daniel, c. 10. Writing something with relation to the Mosaical Creation, seems to be much concerned, in these Words, Eorum deliramenta conticescant, qui um∣bras & imagines in veritate quaerentes, ipsam conan∣tur 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 it self; and think

to bring Trees, Rivers, and Paradise it self, un∣der 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,— Nar∣ratio 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 Geo∣graphy. We Read in Plato's Timaeus, of a Discourse between the Egyptian Priests and So∣lon, about Six Hundred Years before our Saviour: Solon is told there, that of old Time without the Streights of Gibraltar, there was a very great Island called Atlantis, bigger then Asia and A∣frica put together, and the said Island was after∣ward 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 Streight of Gibraltar was forcibly broken open by the Sea: The same they affirm of the Thracian Bosphorus and Helle∣spont, 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 Sicu∣lus.

The River Arnus in Tuscany, now falleth in∣to the Sea, Six Miles below Piza: Whereby it it appeareth (saith Dr. Hakewel) that the Land hath gain'd 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 bigg 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 Phylosopher Mr. Ray, is of opinion in the 5th. Chapter of the Consequences of the Deluge.

I shall here add, what we find to this pur∣pose, in that excellent Geographer Maginus, in his Preface; and in Ocellus Lucanus. Certum est, (says Maginus) Insignes variationes in terrae par∣tibus 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 priori∣bus; Verum etiam & fines ipsarum Regionum varian∣tur, & urbes oppidaque senectute delentur. Mare in uno loco Continentem Terrae dilatat, in alio coarctat; & flumina quandoque augescunt, quandoque minuun∣tur 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 Countrys, Citys, 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, some∣times wholy 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 Ʋniversal corruption of the Earth never hath been, nor ever shall be. Now altho 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 diffi∣culties 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 Ʋni∣versal Deluge, and that we cannot therefore be now certain where it was that they formerly broke out of the Earth, and what Countries they past 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 Dreamed of.

And now I return a brief solution to the diffi∣culties 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 Trea∣tise 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 compleat, 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 entred into these Particulars, affirmed, that the first River with which Paradise was watered, was of pure Wa∣ter, the second of Milk, the third of Wine, and the fourth of Honey.

The same great Prelate, Pag. 53. says, Mo∣ses 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 e∣nough, 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 satisfacti∣on 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 In∣jury 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 Fountain-head 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 decei∣ving 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 cor∣rupted and depraved) says, 'tis allegorically to be understood; yet in his Third excellent Book against Celsus, which all the World ac∣knowledges to be Genuine, he hath this Passage worthy of Remark.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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 Wifes Fable; upon which O∣rïgen replies very well by way of Answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That these things were spoken in a figurative Sense. However, Celsus himself does in what follows, acknow∣ledge, that the fairest Interpreters, both among the Jews and Christians, were ashamed of the literal Sense, and therefore accommodated them to Allegories.