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 ...

P. 118.

No Subject whatever has more entang∣led and ruffled the thoughts of the wisest men, than this concerning our future State; it has been con∣troverted in all Ages by men of the greatest Learn∣ing and Parts.

ANSWER.

The Method Mr. Blount proceeds by in con∣cluding 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Souls of men perish together with their Bodies. And the same Josephus, de bello Judaico, p. 788. affirms, that the Sadduces did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They did deny the Immortality of the Soul, and consequently Re∣wards 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 re∣spect to Rewards for Vertue, or Punishments for Vice, was so slightly and coldly delivered, as that they seem not to believe themselves. And the same Author speaks to the same Pur∣pose, chap. 6. What the Philosophers declare as to Remunerations after this Life, they do it, timide & quasi diffidentur. They declare their Opinions with Fear and Diffidence.

This Censure of Ludovicus seems to be too mild, as I will exemplifie in some Particu∣lars.

Cicero in his Oration pro Cluentio, speaking of the Death of a certain Person, says, Quid mali mors illi attulerit? Nisiforte ineptiis ac fabu∣lis ducimur, ut existimemus illum apud inferos impi∣orum supplicia sufferre. What Evil did Death bring to him? certainly none at all, unless we give credit to such Fables and Fooleries as we are told befal impious Persons in another World. And in the first Book of his Tuscu∣lane 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 meer Cheats.

As for Pythagoras, we have his Opinion in Ovid's Metamorphosis; — Quid Styga, quid te∣nebras, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 fu∣ture State but from the Scriptures: And that Natural Religion, Mr. Blount's Diana, can give no satisfaction in this Point controverted (as he says) by Men of the greatest Learning and Parts.

It would be now worth knowing, what are the Expectations of a Deist, with relation to this future State? To which Mr. Blount replies.

(Pag. 91.) That there is a probability of such a Deist's salvation, before the Credulous and ill living Papists: which in truth is no more then this, the Deist hath more probability of his sal∣vation then he that hath none at all. Especial∣ly 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 Philo∣stratus, (p. 84.) speaking of Cato's Sarcasm (in Tully's second Book De Divinatione) with Re∣spect to the Pagan Southsayers, and blaming his prophane Acquaintance, he seems to be of ano∣ther mind. Very miserable and sad must the condition of Mankind be, if there be no cer∣tain 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 justifie it out of the very Scri∣ptures 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 know∣eth 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 pre∣eminence above a Beast.