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. IX. Of Augury. Of a God. Origin of Good and Evil, plurality of Worlds, Natu∣ral Religion, Ocellus Lucanus.

PAg. 167.

Augury is a sort of the ancient heathenish Superstition: And Pag. 169. We may see that Superstition, like Fire, endea∣vours to resolve all things into it self.

ANSWER.

Mr. Blount hath given us some Account of the Pagan Superstition of Augury; out of which it appears how insufficient Natural Religion is of it self, and how necessary Revealed Reli∣gion is, to shew the vanity of these Abomina∣tions. To this purpose very remarkable is that of Alexander ab Alexandro, in the end of his last Book Dierum genialium: Quantum debe∣mus Christo Domino Regi & Doctori nostro, quem verum Deum veneramur & scimus, quo praemon∣strante explosa monstrosa ferarum gentium doctrina rituque immani ac barbaro, veram religionem edo∣cti, humanitatem & verum Deum colimus, evi∣ctisque erroribus & infandis ineptiis, quas prisci co∣luere, quid quemque deceat & quibus sacris quaque

mente, Deum colere oporteat noscitamus?

How much do we owe to Christ our King and Ma∣ster, 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, imbrace 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 wor∣shipped.

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 Alex∣ander is the more to be remark'd; forasmuch as Augury, the Art of Divination, Astrology, Southsaying, and the like Superstitions, like a universal contagion, had insected all Mankind (save only where Revealed Religion had ob∣tained) as Tully tells us in his first Book de Di∣vinatione: Qua est autem gens, aut quae civitas, quae non aut extis pecudum, aut monstra, aut ful∣gura interpretantium, aut Augurum, aut Astrologo∣rum, aut Sortium (ea enim fere Artis sunt) aut Som∣niorum, 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 Light∣nings; 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 perswaded he could not think of any thing, which would prove more disadvantagious to his Design in general, than this Subject.

Pag. 170.

From the Pagan Processions, the man∣ner of the Christians going in Procession was thought to be first taken.

ANSWER.

Our Author is much mistaken as to the In∣stitution 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 Ʋrbis, cui & hic eo tempore praeerat, in∣stitutas fuisse, dum Ʋrbs illa multis terreretur pro∣digiis:

Avitus reports in a certain Homily of his, which he writ of Rogations; That Ma∣mertus Bishop of Vienna, instituted those Roga∣tions or Processions, which we celebrate be∣fore our Lord's Asoension.

Out of the said Homily we have this occasion of their Iustitu∣tion; 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, ter∣rible Sounds by night, to the extream terrrour of the People. Wherefore the said Bishop, knowing no better expedient to divert so se∣vere a Chastisement, than Fasting and Humi∣liation, 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 loth 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 Weather; it is therefore ex∣ceeding proper to supplicate God for the with∣holding of his Judgments, 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 Curat sing, or say in English the two Psalms, beginning Benedic ani∣ma

mea, &c. 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: Ejus∣modi Processionum usum jam inde a principio apud nostros fuisse, testimonio est Tertullianus libro ad Ʋxorem, quem forte intermissum Mamertus reno∣vavit; & illos a Judaeis mutuatos esse satis constat:

These Processions were in use among Christi∣ans 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 a∣gain 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 Catholick Church, instituted the Day of Roga∣tion, and the Supplications and Processions be∣fore 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 Ro∣mish 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 supposi∣tion that Mr. Gregory, and Fromondus are not mistaken; which they certainly are, with re∣spect 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 perswade a Mans 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 Prelat, to transcribe a Passage out of Va∣renius, in his Treatise de diversis gentium Reli∣gionibus (p. 238.) De Atheis quidam dubitant, alii omnino existere eos negant, atque cum Cice∣rone putant, nullos dari tam feros homines, qui non aliquem agnoscant & venerentur Deum. Nos illos op∣ponimus manifestam & cui cum iudicio contradicere nequeunt experientiam. Multos ex Graecis Philo∣sophis homines, certe haud quaquam feros, negasse omnes spiritus & Dei existemiam, vel saltem de iis dubitasse testantur antiquitatis Scriptores: & Pro∣tagoram quidem ab Atheniensibus cam ob causam civitate pulsum esse Diogenes Laertius, & alii clare affirmant. Non jam dicam de illis, qui quan∣quam inter Christianos versantur, tamen Athei sunt, sed de remotis populis agemus. In Descripti∣one Religionis Japonensis narravimus, tam ex Je∣suitarum, quam Belgarum annotationibus, quod multi hic reperiantur, qui nullam divinitatem cre∣dant; nempe illos, qui ex Jenxuana haeresi sunt. Praeter bosce dari feros et Sylvestres populos (quo∣rum plerique sunt Anthropophagi et sine ulla Re∣publica) qui nullam Dei cognitionem habeant satis superque per navigationes comprobatum est, nimirum in populis totius Brasiliae, populis circa Fretum Ma∣gellanicum, 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, in∣quit, ex ullis judiciis colligere, quod hic populus ali∣quem Deum colat: vivunt sine omni cura, ut aves in sylvis, neque tendendi, vel emendi illis mos est; neque serunt, neque metunt, nec aliis laboribus fa∣tigantur.

De Brasilianis Anthropophagis narrant hi∣storiae, cum Europaei aliquando sumpta occasione a vehementi tonitru, existentiam Dei huic genti per∣suadere conarentur, illos non erubuisse impudenter re∣spondere, talem Deum nequam esse oportere, utpote cui volupe esset, hominibus terrorem incutere. Con∣sidering 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 ac∣knowledge and venerate a GOD. But we op∣pose to such manifest Experience, which no judicious Person can contradict. Many of the Greek Philosophers, and certainly not barba∣rous, have deny'd 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 Annota∣tations of the Jesuites, 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 Go∣vernment) who have no knowledge of God at all; as is over and above proved by Naviga∣tors: 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 Ma∣dagascar, and the Hornane Isles, about New Guinee. Truly he who described the Naviga∣tion of Le Maire about the whole Earth, thro' the Sea, call'd from him Le Maire, and tarried in those Isles many days, thus writes, We could not by any signs gather that this People wor∣shipp'd 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 perswade this Na∣tion to the Belief of a God: They were not ashamed impudently to answer, Such a God must needs be a wicked one, who took plea∣sure 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 Hypo∣thesis of Natural Religion is destroy'd, whose principal Foundation (page 195.) as he pre∣tends, is, That there is one Infinite Eternal God, Creator of all things, and knowable by Innate Idea's, or else he says Nothing to the purpose.

Pag. 182.

But since our correspondence with China, we have found they have Records and Hi∣stories 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 Bramins of Gu∣zarat said the Year 1639. that there had past 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 shews they were not Lunar Years.

ANSWER.

It may seem strange that Mr. Blount makes no mention of Dyrerius, the Author of the Prae∣adamites, 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 Vos∣sius 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 Histo∣riam, Mathesin, Astronomiam, Musicam, & com∣plures alias Scientias, exceptis tamen iis qui ad Agri∣culturam, & 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 Chineses, which contain Mathematicks, Astronomy, Musick, and many other Arts and Sciences (excepting such only as belong to Agriculture and Medicine) were burnt a thou∣sand and nine hundred Year since, by the com∣mand of their King Chingi, who was celebra∣ted for his many great Works; and especially for the great Wall, the fame of which hath fill'd 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 ob∣literate, and blot out of Men's Remembrance all the noble Acts of his Predecessors.

The same Vossius, in his Castigations ad Scri∣ptum Hornii, ch. 12. cites 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 ni∣hil 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 Peo∣ple, 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 Go∣vernment 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 Chineses among those, Qui veris historiae monumentis destituti hinc multa annorum millia, & quaedam immania temporum in∣tervalla 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 affecta∣tion 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 observ'd concerning the Mosaic History.

The Computation of the Egyptians is obno∣xious 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 per∣ceive, 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 it self, they may be well enough reconciled. We shall therefore speak of the Egyptian Year, for∣asmuch 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 skill'd in Chronology of any Nations. For others, altho' in a different manner, yet they all err much in this particu∣lar.

Wherefore if we demonstrate the great variety and uncertainty that is among the Egy∣ptians

in this point, we do (according to Macro∣bius) subvert the whole Pagan Chronology, and the Dreams of the Preadamites.

Plutarch, in the Life of Numa Pompilius, af∣firms, 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 facie, sed multiplici sorte variarunt, ut quandoque trium, sae∣pius 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 in∣finitely good, and without whom nothing is, If evil be not? And if Genesis be a Parable, the Per∣sians 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 certain∣ty 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 sup∣poses 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 dis∣covered 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 consi∣stencies.

If the Persians (laying aside the Book of Ge∣nesis) may be in the right, our Author's Dis∣course of Natural Religion is ridiculous: For he supposes, Page 195. the first Article of Na∣tural

Religion to be, That there is one GOD Infi∣nite, Eternal, and Creatour of all things. Whereas the Persians make two Anti-gods, equally Infinite and Eternal, and that one of them is the Au∣thor 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 Prin∣ciple 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 Non-sense, nothing can be so. Besides, this Principle overthrows all Religion, as well Na∣tural as Revealed: it destroys all Vertue and Goodness: For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil, then Evil necessarily falls out: all Freedom of Will is destroy'd: 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 Lyes and False∣hoods.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

The Controversy about the Nature of Good and Evil, not being well sta∣ted, is the cause of great Impiety towards God, and perverts the Principle of good Life, and casts those Persons into innumerable perplexi∣ties, who are not able to give a rational ac∣count thereof.

If we consult Origen and Celsus, we may soon perceive that the Origin of Evil cannot be dis∣covered by Natural Religion: for both own the discovery thereof to be of great difficulty.

Celsus says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

'Tis a diffi∣cult thing to know the Nature of Evil, unless a Man philosophises; the Vulgar are not ca∣pable of it.

And altho' Origen differs from

Celsus, lib. 4. and says, That Celsus is in an Er∣rour in imputing this to Matter, yet in this ac∣cords with him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

If any thing in the World be of diffi∣cult discovery, that which relates to the Ori∣gin of Evil is of the number of those things.

This is affirm'd by Origen, with respect to Na∣tural 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 im∣printed on the Minds of Men.

Plutarch in his Book de Iside & Osiride (p. 369, 370, and 371.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

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 Magi, who were of greater Anti∣quity than the Egyptians, according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy: One of those Gods was call'd Oromasdes, the other Pluto, or Arimanius. And Plutarch says,

That Mithra was a Mediatour-God, whom the Persians plac'd 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 trim∣ming Gods, half good and half evil.

The Greeks imputed all Good to Jupiter Olym∣pius, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

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 im∣pious, 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 Mens Minds by Nature, without Scripture and Revealed Reli∣gion, 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 Phi∣losophers, as Anaximander, Anaximenes, Demo∣critus, 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 then two whole Chapters; as to the Validity of his Argu∣ments

I shall not write any thing in particular, thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject. This is noto∣rious, that what he takes upon himself to prove, he commonly confirms by strong Rea∣sons; 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 penetra∣libus invenisse se, quin cum Aristotelem suum pensicu∣latius 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 explain∣ed, 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 commend∣ed them for the Majesty of the Stile, he thought it worthy of a God. The fault he found was, that the Method was Unphilosophical, which doth not command, but perswades a Belief in the Reader; without all Controversie, 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 ex∣ceeds 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 Du∣ration lie Dormant and Useless.

If this manner of Argumentation be al∣lowed of, into what absurdities may we fall? Tully, in his first Book, De Finibus, speaking of the difference between Epicurus and Demo∣critus (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 ridi∣culous Assertion with our Author's Method?

The minute Declination of Atomes with∣out an efficient Cause is absurd and unbecom∣ing a Philosopher: Yet 'tis agreeable to this Method; for this Declination is more accord∣ing with God's Goodness, then a constant na∣tural 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's Natural Philosophy but may be defended; although Tully hath abun∣dantly 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 Scri∣pture. Certainly Moses's Relation of the Cre∣ation, must needs be thought to be deficient, if this Opinion be true; for he menrions on∣ly one World, which comprehended all Things. This Opinion was also for some time accounted Heretical; for Virgilius, Bi∣shop of Zalzburg, was cast out of his Bisho∣prick, excommunicated, and condemned for a Heretick, by Pope Zachary, for this Opini∣on, 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 gi∣ven great Offence; as may probably be ga∣thered 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 Mathema∣tical Sciences.

I hope it may not be unpleasing to the Rea∣der, 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 Re∣putation of a great Philosopher. He thinks the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds not to be Heretical, nor against the Faith; be∣cause (as he says) it doth not contradict any express place of Holy Scripture, nor the de∣termination of the Universal Church. Yet he thinks it to be a very rash Opinion, foras∣much as it repugns the Consent of the Fathers; whose Authority, notwithstanding, he thinks to be of no such Weight in Matters Philoso∣phical.

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, prophane, and unbecoming a Christian.

What follows in Mr. Blount's Oracles, touching revealed and natural Religion, hath been often treated of in the foregoing Dis∣course; in which I have proved the insuffici∣ency 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 Ʋniverse to have been made, he would not be able to find into what it should be corrupted and dissol∣ved; since that out of which it was made, was before the Ʋniverse, as that into which it shall be corrupted, was after the Ʋniverse.

ANSWER.

That which made Ocellus Lucanus, and Ari∣stotle, 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 Corrupti∣on. 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 con∣clude — sola religione mihi persuadetur mundum coepisse atque finem incendio habiturum. Nothing but revealed Religion could induce me to be∣lieve, that the World had a beginning, and that it should have an end.

Pag. 210.

Ocellus Lucanus says, his Opi∣nion is, that the Ʋniverse admitteth neither Ge∣neration nor Corruption, forasmuch as it ever was, and ever shall be.

ANSWER.

It is very evident, that our Naturalist pro∣ceeds (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 Mat∣ter; 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 ta∣king 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 un∣der a great mistake; for the Production of a thing hath no necessary Relation to the con∣tinuance 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 Eter∣nity, as Angels, and the Souls of Men; by which it appears, that some things which had a beginning shall have no end, and some shall have an end. So that Lucanus's pretended Universal Rule is not only precarious, but al∣so false.

P. 211.

Now whatsoever had a beginning of its Pro∣duction, and ought to partake of Dissolution, ad••it∣eth 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 Dis∣solution. Now the Ʋniverse doth of it self af∣ford us no such Evidence, since no one ever saw it produced nor altered, either in Ascensu or De∣scensu, but it always remained in the same con∣dition it is now in, equal, and like it self.

ANSWER.

Mr. Blount's Translation of Ocellus Lucanus is not so fair as it ought to be; for the Greek Word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is in the Original, ought to be translated, Generation, and not Produ∣ction, which somewhat alters the case, the one being more general then the other; which yet I should have taken no notice of, did it not seem affected and designed. But perhaps he followed the Translation of Ludovicus No∣garola, the Italian, none of the best Interpre∣ters. However, this Argument of Ocellus is more gross then the former; for he who ma∣nageth the Argument this way, proves no∣thing 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 man∣ner

that we see some other Parts thereof were, as Trees, Plants, and living Creatures.

But that there can be no other way of Pro∣duction 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 Uni∣verse after any other manner, then those things are produced, which we see and observe in this World, he had proved something to the purpose.

We assert one infinite and eternal Being, who produced all things out of nothing, and preserves them in their Beings; and this we call not Generation, but Creation; which is a Production excluding all Concurrence of any material Cause, and all Dependence of any kind of Subject, as presupposing no Pri∣vation, nor including any Motion. So that the proper and peculiar Sense of the Word, Creation, is expressed, when we conceive something that is made, and not any thing preceeding out of which it was made. It must be granted, that the Word used by Moses in the beginning of Genesis, requires not such a peculiar acception, for it is often used to sig∣nifie 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 some∣times imports doing some new and wonderful Work, the producing some strange and admi∣rable 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 whatsoe∣ver), but we collect it from the Testimony of God's Word. The Opinion of the Church of the Jews, will sufficiently appear in that zealous Mother to her seventh and youngest Son, 2d. Macchabees, Chap. 7. Ver. 28. I beseech thee my Son, look upon the Heaven and Earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that are not. Which is a clear Description of Creation, that is, Production out of nothing. But because this is not Canonical Scripture, we shall therefore evince it by the undoubted Testimony of St. Paul, who expressing the Nature of Abraham's Faith, propoundeth him whom he believed, as God who quickneth the Dead, and cal∣leth 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 cau∣sed all this Evil to come upon them, the Original may be thought to speak no more then this, Thou hast called this Evil to them; he therefore calleth those things that be not, as if they were, who maketh those things which were not, to be, and produceth that which hath a Being, out of that which had not, that is, out of nothing. This Reason generally per∣suasive 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place, is e∣quivalent to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Book of Macchabees; and this manner of Speech is according to the best Greek Authors, as our Doctor Pearson hath observed. The Sense of the Apostle then is, that those things which are seen; that is, that are, were made of those things which did not appear, that is, which were not.

There is an excellent Treatise among the Works of Justin Martyr, entituled (Eversio dogmatum Aristotelis) a Refutation of Aristotle's Opinions, directed to one Paul, a Presbyter of great Note, as it seems from the Compel∣lation given him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. O most honourable Presbyter Paul. Who the Author of this Treatise was, is not agreed among the Criticks. 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 ac∣count of this Question; De reprehensione dog∣matum Aristotelis meminit Photius in Bibliotheca, neque extat evidens judicium falsitatis, ideo nihil habeo quod dicam. Photius, in his Bibliothec, makes mention of the Book entituled, A Re∣futation 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 gratifie him, in writing some Collections and Annotations of the Opinions of the Greek Philosophers con∣cerning 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 ground∣ed

on Science and Demonstration, as they vain∣ly boasted, but on uncertain Conjectures.

According to those, who have received their Doctrines from God, and know the dif∣ference between the Creator and the Crea∣ture; there is only one God unbegotten, accor∣ding to any Notion of that Word; who had no God, nor Gods, before him, nor any Co∣eternal 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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 Exi∣stence of Matter out of his first Book of na∣tural Auscultations, thus reasons against him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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 Con∣tradiction (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 Asserti∣on of the World's Eternity.

For if Matter have its Original from it self, how can it be subject to the Power of ano∣ther? Whatsoever hath infinite Power in it self, hath a Power upon something beyond it self; 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 can∣not be confined to Matter, for then we con∣ceive the Bounds of infinite Power; which is a greater Absurdity, then to assert a Power which is able to produce something out of no∣thing. 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 Necessi∣ty, without which, God could not cause any thing to be; then God is not independent in his Actions, nor of infinite Power, and abso∣lute Activity; which is contradictory to the Divine Perfection. Vain therefore is this O∣racle of our Author's, of the World's Eter∣nity; 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 Anti∣quity, is held almost a Cotemporary with Moses, if not before him) should have so different a Sen∣timent 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 e∣minent a Philosopher, should not have been altoge∣ther ignorant thereof.

ANSWER.

What Origen observes of Celsus, lib. 4. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

That he objected Ignorance and Illiterature to Christians, whereas he him∣self was a great Ignoramus in History, in mak∣ing 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. Hor∣nius, 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: A∣mong his Scholars, who were before Plato, are Architas, Philolaus, Parmenides. Mr. Sel∣den

in his Book de Jure Naturae & Gentium, lib. 5. c 11. Ex Pythagoreorum Schola vetu∣stissimus Autor 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 Tarenti∣nus; 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 Ocel∣lus savour nothing of Pythagorism: He Philo∣phizes without regard of numbers, and after the manner of the Peripateticks, 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 An∣tiperistasis, 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 Criticks, 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 Philoso∣phers, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: That the World was made by God, and if we respect its Nature, it was corru∣ptible. 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 dissent from his Master in a point of so considerable moment.

Aristotle lib. 1. de Coelo, c. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: All Philoso∣phers say the World was made, and not eter∣nal: And to the same effect he speaks lib. 3. c. 2. Now altho' we may suppose that Ari∣stotle

was so disingenuous as not to own, that he had his Arguments from Ocellus ('tis certain he no where mentions him) yet it overcomes all belief, that he should be so impudent as to affirm, as he did, that all Philosophers be∣fore him held the World to have had a be∣ginning, if this Book of Ocellus Lucanus had been extant in his days, as it is now, especi∣ally had it been of that Eminence and Anti∣quity as Mr. Blount pretends, who hath dis∣coursed subtilly, 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 shews 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 Wo∣man 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 Para∣dox, that I have at any time met with.

Vincentius Li••inensis (cap. 17.) accuses Ne∣storius, That, inaudito scelere duos vult esse Fi∣lios Dei, duos Christos—with an unheard of wickedness he affirmed, That there were two Christs, two Sons of God: one who was be∣gotten of his Father, the other of his Mother. Wherefore the Virgin Mary ought not to be call'd the Mother of God, but of Christ: be∣cause 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 Messiah's. Duos sibi Messias fingunt, vel somniant, alterum Messiam Ben Joseph, alterum vero Messiam Ben David: They perswaded themselves, that one of their Messias's 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 Conquerour.

Tertullian (lib. 4. cont. Marcion, c. 6.) gives us this Account, Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum, qui Tiberianis temporibus: Marcion held that there were to be two Christs; 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 Creatour, 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 curst 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 de∣stitute 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 Wo∣man before Adam and Eve, if the Mosaic Hi∣story of the Creation be a meer Allegory.

This is a Knot to be unty'd by Friend To∣rismond, 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 Ta∣citus) ex se nasci, to be descended from Them∣selves.

If the Book of Genesis be a meer 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 other∣wise. The utmost that can be collected is, That in the first Chapter of Genesis, the crea∣tion of Male and Female is laid down in ge∣neral, ver 27. but in the second Chapter it is laid down in particular, as ver. 7. The Lord God formed 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 be∣fore Adam, I cannot perceive how the Scri∣pture can be true. I will therefore demon∣strate first out of the Mosaic Writings, and secondly out of other places of Scripture, that this a meer Fiction. Moses in his second Cap. v. 3. says, That God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it He had re∣sted from all his works which God had crea∣ted 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 nat & gent. 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 rationa∣lia:

For also in the third Chapter of Ge∣nesis 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 Mo∣ther 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 ne∣cessitated 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 effe∣ctual 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 de∣claration of that of the second of Exodus, He was formed 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Erasmus (who loves sometimes to be singular) says, Verum haud scio, an perperam a librariis haec Scriptu∣ra:

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Grotius on this place in the Criticks, 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 Natu∣ral bond of Consanguinity.

And in truth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Odysses,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 'My dear Son, thou art well descended.

And Theocritus, in his Heracliscus,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: '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 Daugh∣ter.

And not only among the Poets, but also among the Oratours 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 Opi∣nion, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

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 ab∣surdum, tam comicum, tam ridiculum, tam mon∣strosum, atque ab omni fide, & probilitate ab∣horrens, ad quod probandum statim praesto non sit illis e sacra Scriptura testimonium:

There is nothing so absurd, so comical, so ridicu∣lous, 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, an∣tiquitatum suarum prorsus ignari:

The Jews are strangers in their own Histories, are ig∣norant of their own Antiquities.

And cer∣tainly this Character is justly applicable to all such of them, as collect from the Wr••t∣ings

of Moses, That there were two Crea∣tions; and that Adam was not the first Man.

Scaliger, in his sixth Book of the Emenda∣tion of times, acquaints us, Manifesta est Ju∣daeorum inscitia, & mnlta quae ad eorum sacra et historiam pertinent, longe 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 Te∣stimonies which I have borrow'd from Learn∣ed 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 contradi∣ction, 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 begin∣ning 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 Autho∣rity of the Scriptures, which were cast by the Au∣thor

of that Fiction, and his endeavouring on all occasions to derogate from the Miracles recorded in it, may easily suspect the Design of that Au∣thor, 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 Dia∣logue between Eve and the Serpent? With what levity p. 44. doth he write of the Tay∣lor's Trade, and the Thread-maker's Art, which he makes use of to disparage the Mo∣saic 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 to∣gether with the Impostor Mahomet, to be Po∣liticians? And how like the Author of Pre-adamitism, he derogates from Divine Mi∣racles, 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 follow∣ing Heterodoxies. Wherefore we have con∣sidered

this at large in the first Section of Ge∣nesis, 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 Alex∣ander, they reckoned Four hundred and se∣venty thousand Years. Likewise Cicero, (who was cotemporary with Diodorus) menti∣ons the very same Account of Time, and Num∣ber of Years.

ANSWER.

The Opinion of the Chaldeans, as to the Original of the World, is laid down by Di∣odorus Siculus, Book the second, in these Words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Chaldeans (says Diodorus) affirm the World to be eternal, that it had no Beginning of its Production,

neither hereafter shall it have any Corrupti∣on. But the Order and Beauty of the Uni∣verse must be acknowledged to proceed from Divine Providence; and all the glorious things which we see in Heaven, owe 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 desti∣tute of it, this Instance of the Chaldeans ful∣ly 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 eter∣nal 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; un∣less he had proved by what kind of Years they computed, as we have done in the Mo∣saic 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 conside∣rably.

The Chaldeans make some of their first Kings to Reign above Forty thousand Years, which is so incredible, that Anianus and Pa∣nodorus 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 de∣sired of Callisthenes, that he would certifie him of the Chaldean Observations, which Callisthenes did, and gives an Account not ex∣ceeding Two thousand Years. Callisthenes 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 Soluti∣on; 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 unparallell'd

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 cites 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 remark∣ed, 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; Condemne∣mus hos aut stultitiae, aut vanitatis, aut impru∣dentiae qui quadringenta & septuaginta millia an∣norum ut ipsi dicunt, monnmentis comprehensa continent, & mentiri jndicemns— We cannot but cnndemn the Chaldeans of Folly, Vani∣ty, and Imprudence, who boast that they have Antiquities of 470000 Years; and in our Judgment they are guilty of Falshood.