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 ...

SECT VII. Of the Immortality of the Soul, and the Original of the Jews.

THese Oracles of Reason have nothing re∣markable from p. 106 to p. 116. save on∣ly this, That he borrows whole pages, without any acknowledgment. The Epistle to Mr. Wil∣wood 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 ground∣ed 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 begins with—Post mortem nihil est, ipsa & mors nihil: There is nothing after death, and Death it self is no∣thing.

And pag. 128. he says, This is Seneca's Opi∣nion.

ANSWER.

What Seneca's Opinion was of the Immorta∣lity of the Soul, cannot be concluded from this passage. For he frequently contradicts Him∣self in this particular. And as Lipsius in the Third Book of His Stoical Physiology ob∣serves, aliquando accedit, aliquando recedit; sometimes He affirms it, sometimes He denieth it. In the 36th Epist. where He commends a certain person who removed from unavoidable Troubles in publick Affairs, and comforts Him against death, he hath these Expressions, Mors quam parti mescimus & recusamus intermittit vi∣tam non eripit; venet iterum, qui nos in lucem re∣ponet 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 reduce∣rent) 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, recipit{que} nos locus aliquis) quem putamus peri∣isse, praemissus est. And perhaps our Friend, whom we fear is lost for ever, is only gone be∣fore 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 immortali∣tate animae & alias. Seneca philosophizes doubt∣fully of the Immortality of the Soul, as he doth also in other places. And although Mr. Blount would in this page perswade us, that Senecae is for the Mortality of the Soul, yet p. 124. he confesses the Contradiction himself; where he writes,

When I hear Seneca the Philosopher, and others, preaching up the doctrine of the Souls Immortality, with a quid mihi cura erit transfuga? tackt to the end of it, nothing un∣der Heaven seems to me more unaccountable and contradictory?

By which we see what little regard is to be had to the Stoical Philosophers, if you consider them without their moral Sentences. He that hath but the least Skill in Natural Philosophy, cannot but perceive how grosly erroneous they are therein. They who make the great God Corporeal; they who make the Stars to feed on the Vapours of the Earth (in which absurd Notion Seneca, with his Rhetorical Flourishes, seems to boast), they who make the Sun to drink up the Waters of the Sea to quench his Thirst, and the Moon to drink up the Rivers; they (I say) who discourse so unphilosophically in these Physical Matters, if they err in the momentous point of the Souls Immortality, it cannot be accounted strange.

Natural Religion being, according to our Author, grounded on the immortality of the Soul; and yet, as it will appear hereafter, that

this immortality cannot certainly be known but by Scripture and the Parsons harangues (as He, by way of contempt, says, p. 118.) and not by the Reasons of Philosophers; The ne∣cessity of Revealed Religion, must be very evi∣dent, which our Deists Hypothesis will not al∣low.

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.

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 En∣quiry, 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 tryals 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 judgment, and calleth Men off from the World, to the

thoughts of the day of Account, and to the ear∣ly Remembrance of their Creatour; 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 world∣ly Men, that when the wheel shall be broken at the cistern, and the circle of our Blood ut∣terly 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) concern∣ing some Men, who have misapply'd those fore∣cited places of holy Writ, to the Anima Mundi of Pythagoras; and which hath been revived by Averroes, and Avicenna: And to what end (p. 125.) he refers his Lordship the Right Honou∣rable 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 Au∣thors are.

Averroes (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 par∣ticular Soul of his own. So that this Doctrine of Averroes tends to the subversion of all Reli∣gion and Piety: a Doctrine fit for the Devil. For as Cardan (in his 19. Book de Subtil) 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. de 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 referr'd 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 gene∣rally 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 tendred 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

cites, Josephus, saying, He was Lentiginosus in facie.

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 Pre∣tended Oracles of Reasons) are obtruded to the World.

Lastly, it must not pass unobserved, That this Cardan, who has so wickedly derogated from our Lord, hath also falsly fathered on Jo∣sephus 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 Scri∣ptures, as also the innumerable other arguments, which may be deduced as well from Philosophy as Reason, to prove the Immortality of the Soul, to∣gether with its Rewards and Punishments (tho' I determine not their Duration) yet there is no argu∣ment of greater weight with me, than the absolute necessity and convenience that it should be so; as well to compleat 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 here∣unto. 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 Blasphe∣my, 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 Scri∣ptures being positive, as well in the one, as in the other; and the Duration of them is of ab∣solute necessity to compleat 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 Common-wealth.

Plato is always preferr'd by Tully before Ari∣stotle, and is called by him The God of Philoso∣phers. And now let us see how he proves the Soul's Immortality, on which depend Future

Rewards and Punishments: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 al∣ways in Motion; that which is always in Mo∣tion, is Self-moving; that which is Self-moving, is never deserted of it self; that which never deserts it self, 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 Platonick 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 Antisthe∣nes, 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 Philoso∣pher among the Greeks, who did dare (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Pytha∣goras. 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 accoun∣ted 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 ge∣neral Opinion amongst the Ancients. Of this Opinion were the Gymnosophists, and other wise Men of Egypt, the Brachmans of India, the Magi 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 Generat. Ani∣mal. c. 3. where his Opinion of the Immorta∣lity of the Soul and Pre-existence are so con∣nected, as if the one did suppose the other. Now the Arguments made use of were exclu∣sively drawn from the Soul's Operations in∣communicable 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 then Esta∣blisheth 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 Re∣presentation of the State and Condition of the Soul of Man. The World was almost lost in Disputes concerning the Nature, Con∣dition, and Immortality of the Soul, before Divine Revelation was made known to Man∣kind 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 Supream Disposal of Souls, and therefore best knows and understands them. The

Scriptures plainly and fully reveal a Judge∣ment 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 Expences 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 In∣strument of the Discovery of the certainty of the future State of the Soul, and the con∣ditions which abide it, upon its being dis∣lodged from the Body.

This Passage of that excellent Prelat 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 Judgment, as Sir Henry Savil was, should so far complement the Jewish, as to rob the En∣glish World of the fifth Book of Tacitus's Hi∣story, 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 generous∣ly and freely p••ured out of one Language into ano∣ther; least in separating him from the Dregs, you ••••a••e the Spirit behind you.

ANSWER.

I do not remember Sir Henry Savil gives a∣ny Reason (why he omitted the Translation of the fifth Book of Tacitus's 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's account of the Jews is full of Slanders, Fal∣shoods, 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 con∣trary to the Holy Scriptures, so that our Au∣thor may cease his Admiration, if he be in earnest in the 134th Page of his Book, where he thus writes; The Relations of Trogus Ta∣citus, and the rest, are only the uncertain Ac∣counts 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 Chri∣stian ought to believe by the Holy Spirit.

Whosomever considers that Deism is repug∣nant 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 Co∣medy,

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 Tran∣slates not much above two Thirds of Tacitus's account of the Jews. Shall we say he did this to complement the Jewish, and to rob the En∣glish Nation of the Spirit behind? Was he not obliged to do it for his deservedly Ho∣noured, and most Ingenious Major A. as he calls him, p. 126? Or shall we say that he only separated the Dregs for his ingenious Ma∣jor A? I am sure he hath been very disinge∣nious 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 ani∣malis, quo monstratore errorem sitimque depulerant, penetrali sacravere.

Which place he thus Translates, They like∣wise Consecrated the Effigies of an Ass, for being

their Guide to the Waters where they satisfied their Thirst. Whereas Tacitus makes no men∣tion 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 Lye 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 un∣translated 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 Effi∣gies venerantur, Judai sola mente. The Egypti∣ans worship Images, the Jews abhor them. Tacitus also adds, Judaei nulla simulachra habent in urbibus nedum in Templis. The Jews have no Graven Images nor Idols to be seen in their Cities, much less in their Temples. The con∣trary 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, be∣cause Herodotus says, That the Phaenicians and Syrians in Palestine (whieh must be the

Jews, since none else used it in Palestine) took their Circumcision from the Egyptians; as al∣so (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 Publick Places for God's Service, in which at set Times they might together, and in a more solemn Con∣gregation, worship their great Creator. This is the Sense of the Chaldeo Interpreter, and approved by our present most Reverend Arch-Bishop in his Discourse of Idolatry, p. 40.

Josephus in the first Book of his Antiqui∣ties, Chap. 4. says,

That for seven Gene∣rations Men persevered in Worshipping the true God, and had a regard to Vertue; but in process of Time Men degenerated and for∣sook 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ano∣ther 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 Arithmetick and Astronomy from Abra∣ham.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. When Abraham came into Egypt he taught the Egyptians Astronomy and Arith∣metick, 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 Cir∣cumcision 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 Critick, 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, cites Herodotus at large, and chargeth Herodotus with reporting an Untruth. He doth not de∣ny but that Herodotus says, that the Jews con∣fess, that they learned the Rite of Circumcisi∣on 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 Ae∣gyptiis 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 Circumcisi∣on 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. cites this place of Herodotus. He cites the same place also in his first Book against Apian. Neither doth he deny in those places what Herodotus af∣firms, but is altogether silent: of which Si∣lence, Bisnagius Exerc. Hist. Crit. p. 120. gives a good Account:

Because (saith he) Josephus had long before express'd his Opinion of the Original of Circumcision, lib. 1. Antiq. c. 11.

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

God commanded that the Posterity of Abra∣ham 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Abraham being an hun∣dred 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 Jose∣phus his Opinion of Circumcision, was very diffe∣rent 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 distin∣guish'd 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 cites.

Of this Opinion, or not much differing from it, was Photius, that Learned Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, in his 205th. Ep. to Theod. Hegumenos. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

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 nei∣ther Abraham, nor his Posterity should be pol∣luted with these their wicked Practices, God instituted Circumcision. The circumcising his own Flesh, importing the dividing and avert∣ing him from those of his Consanguinity, or Affi∣nity, 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 unobserv'd, That Mr. Blount makes use of the same Method, that the profest 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That Abraham was the first of all Mankind that was Circumci∣sed.