CHAP. XVII.

There is nothing in this Chapter against the Truth of the Theory; but

the Author is blam’d for believing it to be true: I think it had been

more blame-worthy, if he had troubled the World with a Theory which he

did not believe to be true, and taken so much Pains to compose what he

thought himself no better than a Romance. As to what the Theorist has

said in Reference to his Assurance or Belief of the Theory, which the

Exceptor calls _Positiveness_, upon Examination, I cannot find any Thing

amiss in his Conduct, as to that Particular. For, first, he imposes his

Sentiments upon no Man; he leaves every one their full Liberty of

dissenting. _Preface to the Reader_ at the End. _Lastly, in Things

purely speculative, as these are, and no Ingredients of our Faith, it is

free to differ from one another in our Opinions and Sentiments; and so I

remember St._ Austin _hath observed upon this very Subject of Paradise.

Wherefore, as we desire to give no Offence our selves, so neither shall

we take any at the Difference of Judgment in others; provided this

Liberty be mutual, and that we all agree to study PEACE, TRUTH, and a

GOOD LIFE._ And as the Theorist imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; so,

as to Matter of Certainty, he distinguisheth always betwixt the

_Substance_ of the Theory, and _Particularities_. So, at the latter End

of the _first Book_, this Profession is made, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 207. _I

mean this only_, speaking about Certainty, _as to the general Parts of

the Theory. For as to Particularities, I look upon them only as

problematical; and accordingly I affirm nothing therein, but with a

Power of Revocation, and a Liberty to change my Opinion when I shall be

better inform’d._ And accordingly he says in another Place, _Eng.

Theor._ _p._ 12. _I know how subject we are to Mistakes, in these great

and remote Things, when we descend to Particularities. But I am willing

to expose the Theory to a full Trial, and to shew the Way for any to

examine it, provided they do it with Equity and Sincerity. I have no

other Design than to contribute my Endeavours to find out Truth_, &c.

Lastly, to cite no more Places, he says, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 402. _There

are many particular Explications that are to be consider’d with more

Liberty and Latitude; and may, perhaps, upon better Thoughts, and better

Observations, be corrected_, &c. The Theorist having thus stated and

bounded his Belief or Assurance, and given Liberty of dissenting to all

others, according to their particular Judgments or Inclinations, I see

nothing unfair or undecent in this Conduct. How could the Observator

have made it more unexceptionable? Would he have had the Theorist to

have profess’d Scepticism, and declar’d that he believ’d his own

Theorist no more than a Romance or fantastical Idea? that had been both

to bely his own Conscience, and to mock the World. I remember I have

heard a good Author once with, that there were an _Act of Parliament_,

that whoever printed a Book, should, when he took a License, swear, that

he thought the _Contents of his Book to be true_, as to Substance: And I

think such a Method would keep off a great many Impertinencies. We ought

not to trouble the World with our roving Thoughts, merely out of an Itch

of Scripturiency, when we do not believe our selves what we write. I

must always profess my Assent to the Substance of that Theory; and am

the more confirm’d in it by the Weakness and Inefficacy of these

Exceptions.

We need not take Notice of the particular Citations he makes use of, to

prove this _Positiveness_ of the Theorist; for they only affirm what we

still own: That the Theory is more than an _Idea_, or that it is not an

_imaginary Idea_, or that it is a _Reality_: And, together with its

Proofs from Scripture, especially from St. _Peter_, hath more than the

Certainty of a _bare Hypothesis_, or a _moral Certainty_. These are the

Expressions he cites, and we own all, that, in fair Construction, they

amount to; and find no Reason, either from the Nature of the Thing, or

from his Objections, to change our Opinion, or make any Apology for too

much Positiveness.

I wish the Exceptor had not more to answer for, as to his _Partiality_,

than the Theorist hath, for his _Positiveness_. And now, that we draw to

a Conclusion, it will not be amiss to observe, how well the Exceptor

hath answered that Character, which he gave himself at the Beginning of

his Work. These are his Words, _p._ 43. _This I will endeavour to do_,

namely, To examine the Theory, _with all Sincerity; and that only as a

Friend and Servant to Truth: And therefore, with such Candor, Meekness,

and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a

Character: And also with such Respect to the Virtuoso who wrote the

Theory, as may testify to the World, that I esteem his Learning, while I

question his Opinion._ ’Tis of little Consequence what Opinion he has of

the _Virtuoso_, as he calls him: But let us see with what _Sincerity_

and _Meekness_, he has examin’d his Work. As to his Sincerity, we have

given you some Proofs of it before, (_p._ 26.) both in his defective and

partial Citations; and also, in his never taking Notice of the last

Edition of the Theory; where several Citations he has made use of, are

not extant. Now, by his own Rule, he ought to have had regard to this;

for he says, (_p._ 356.) he will there take Notice only of the _English_

Edition, _as coming out after the other; and so with more Deliberation

and mature Thoughts of Things_. By the same Reason, say I, he ought to

have taken Notice of the last Edition of the Theory, as being the last

Product, and the most _deliberate and mature Thoughts_ of the Author.

But this, it seems, was not for his Purpose.

So much for his Sincerity: Now for his _Meekness_. So impatient he is to

fall upon his Adversary, that he begins his Charge in the Preface, and a

very fierce one it is, (_p._ 3.) _The Theorist hath assaulted Religion,

and that in the very Foundation of it._ Here I expected to have found

two or three Articles of the Creed assaulted or knock’d down by the

Theory. But that is not the Case, it seems, he understands something

more general, namely, our contradicting Scripture: For so he explains

himself in the next Page. _In several Things (as will appear by our

Discourse) it contradicts Scripture; and by too positive asserting the

Truth of its Theorems, makes that to be false, upon which our Religion

is founded._ Let us remember, that this contracting Scripture here

pretended, is only in natural Things; and also observe, how far the

Exceptor himself, in such Things, hath contradicted Scripture. As for

other Reproofs which he gives us, those that are more gentle, I easily

pass over; but somewhere he makes our Assertions, _p._ 78. _too bold an

Affront to Scripture_. And in another Place represents them, as (either

directly, or consequentially) _p._ 286. _Blasphemy against the Holy

Ghost_, which is the unpardonable Sin, _Matt._ xii. 31.

There is no Pleasure in repeating such Expressions, and dreadful

Sentences. Let us rather observe, if the Exceptor hath not made himself

obnoxious to them. But first, we must state the Case truly, that so the

Blame may not fall upon the Innocent. The Case therefore is this,

_Whether_, to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture, in Things that

relate to the natural World, be _destroying the Foundations of

Religion_, _affronting Scripture_, and _blaspheming the Holy Ghost_? In

the Case propos’d, _We_ take the _Negative_, and stand upon that Plea.

But the Exceptor hath taken the _Affirmative_; and therefore, all those

heavy Charges must fall upon himself, if he go contrary to the literal

Sense of Scripture, in his philosophical Opinions or Assertions. And

that he hath done so, we will give you some Instances, out of this

Treatise of his; _p._ 314. He says, _It it most absurd to think, that

the Earth is the Center of the World._ Then the Sun stands still, and

the Earth moves, according to his Doctrine. But this is expressly

contrary to Scripture, in many Places. The _Sun rejoices, as a strong

Man, to run his Race_, says _David_ Ps. xix. 5, 6. _His going forth is

from the End of the Heaven, and his Circuit unto the Ends of it_,

_Josh._ x. 12, 13. 2 _Kings_ xx. 10, 11. _Isa._ xxxviii. 8. No such

Thing, says the Exceptor; the Sun hath no Race to run; he is fix’d in

his Seat, without any progressive Motion. He hath no Course from one End

of the Heavens to the other. In like manner, _Sun, stand thou still

upon_ Gibeon, says the sacred Author, _and the Sun stood still_. No,

says the Exceptor, ’twas the Earth stood still, upon that Miracle; for

the Sun always stood still. And ’tis _absurd_, yea, _most absurd_, to

think otherwise, _p._ 157. And he blames _Tycho Brahe_ for following

Scripture in this Particular. Now, is not this, in the Language of the

Exceptor, to _destroy the Foundations of Religion_, to _affront

Scripture_, and _blaspheme against the Holy Ghost_? But this is not all:

The Exceptor says, (_Chap._ 10.) the Sun rais’d up the Mountains on the

third Day; and the Sun was not in being till the fourth Day, according

to Scripture, _Gen._ i. 14. The Moon also, which, according to

Scripture, was not created till the fourth Day, he says, would hinder

the Formation of the Earth, which was done the third Day. Lastly, in

this new Hypothesis, _p._74. he makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but

fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain, or common Surface of the Earth;

which Scripture affirms expressly to have cover’d the Tops of the

highest Hills, or Mountains, under Heaven, _Gen._ vii. 19, 20. These two

Things are manifestly inconsistent. The Scripture says, _Gen._ viii. 5.

they cover’d the Tops of the highest Mountains: And the Exceptor says

they reached but fifteen Cubits about, or upon the Skirts of them. This,

I think, is truly to contradict Scripture; or, according to his Talent

of loading Things with great Words, _p._ 216. _This is not only flatly,

but loudly contradictory to the most express Word of the infallible

God._

These Observations, I know, are of small Use, unless, perhaps, to the

Exceptor himself. But, if you please, upon this Occasion, let us reflect

a little upon the literal Style of Scripture; and the different

Authority of that Style, according to the Matter that it treats of. The

Subject Matter of Scripture is either such as lies without the

Cognizance and Comprehension of human Reason, or such as lies within it:

If it be the former of these, ’tis what we call properly and purely

_Revelation_; and there we must adhere to the literal Style, because we

have nothing to guide us but that. Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity,

and the Incarnation; wherein we have nothing to authorize our Deviation

from the Letter and Words of Scripture: And therefore the

School-Divines, who have spun those Doctrines into a Multitude of

Niceties and Subtleties, had no Warrant for what they did, and their

Conclusions are of no Authority.

The second Matter or Subject of Scripture is such as falls under the

View and Comprehension of Reason, more or less; and, in the same

Proportion, gives us a Liberty to examine the literal Sense; how far it

is consistent with Reason. and the Faculties of our Mind. Of this Nature

there are several Things in the holy Writings, both moral, theological,

and natural, wherein we recede from the Letter, when it is manifestly

contrary to the Dictates of Reason. I will give some Instances in every

kind: First, as to moral Things. Our Saviour says, _Mat._ v. 29, 30. _If

thy right Eye offend thee, pluck it out: If thy Right Hand offend thee,

cut it off._ There is no Man that thinks himself obliged to the literal

Practice of this Doctrine; and yet it is plainly delivered, you see, in

these Terms in the Gospel. Nay, which is more, our Saviour backs and

enforces the Letter of this Doctrine with a _Reason_: _For it is

profitable for thee that one of thy Members should perish, and not that

thy whole Body should be cast into Hell_: As if he had intended, that

his Precept should have been really executed according to the Letter. In

like manner our Saviour says, _If any Man wilt sue thee at Law, and take

away thy Coat, let him have thy Cloak also._ And yet there is no

Christian so good-natur’d as to practice this, nor any Casuist so rigid

as to enjoy it, according to the Letter. Other Instances you may see in

our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, where we do not scruple to lay

aside the Letter, when it is judg’d contrary to the Light of Nature, or

impracticable in human Society.

In all other Things also, that lie within the Sphere of human Reason, we

are allowed to examine their _Practicability_, or their _Credibility_.

To instance in something theological, the Words of _Consecration_ in the

Sacrament. Our Saviour, when he instituted the last Supper, us’d these

Words: _This is my Body_, taking the Bread into his Hand; which Words,

join’d with that Action, are very formal and expressive; yet we do not

scruple to forsake the literal Sense, and take the Words in another Way:

But upon what Warrant do we this? because the literal Sense contains an

Absurdity; because it contradicts the Light of Nature; because it is

inconsistent with the Idea of a Body, and so destroys it self. In like

Manner, upon the Idea of the Divine Nature, we dispute absolute

Reprobation, and Eternity of Torments, against the Letter of Scripture.

And, lastly, whether the Resurrection Body consists of the same

individual Parcels and Particles, whereof the mortal Body consisted,

before it was putrefied or dispers’d? And, _Phil._ iv. 3. _Apoc._ iii. 5

and xx. 12. whether the _Books of Life_ are to be understood in a

literal Sense?

The last Head is of such Things as belong to the natural World. And to

this may be reduced innumerable Instances, where we leave the literal

Sense, if inconsistent with Science or Experience. And the Truth is, if

we should follow the vulgar Style and literal Sense of Scripture, we

should all be _Anthropomorphites_, as to the Nature of God: And as to

the Nature of his Works in the external Creation, we must renounce

Philosophy and natural Experience, if the Descriptions and Accounts

given in Scripture, concerning the _Heavens_, the _Earth_, the _Sea_,

and other Parts of the World, be received as accurate and just

Representations of the State and Properties of those Bodies. Neither is

there any Danger, lest this should affect or impeach the Divine

Veracity; for Scripture never undertook, nor was ever designed to teach

us Philosophy, or the Arts and Sciences: And whatsoever the Light of

Nature can reach and comprehend, is improperly the Subject of

Revelation. But some Men, out of Love to their own Ease, and in Defence

of their Ignorance, are not only for a Scripture Divinity, but also for

a Scripture Philosophy. ’Tis a cheap and compendious Way, and saves them

the Trouble of farther Study or Examination.

Upon the whole, you see, it is no Fault to recede from the literal Sense

of Scripture; but the Fault is, when we leave it without a just Cause:

As it is no Fault for a Man to separate from a Church, or for a Prince

to make War against his Neighbour, but to do the one or the other,

without a just Cause, is a real Fault. We all leave the literal Sense in

certain Cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient Charge against

any Man. But he that makes a Separation, if I may so call it, without

good Reasons, he is truly obnoxious to Censure. The great Result of all,

therefore, is this, to have some common Rule to direct us, when every

one ought to follow, and when to leave, the literal Sense. And that Rule

which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters, is this, _Not_ to

leave the literal Sense, when the Subject-Matter will bear it, without

Absurdity or Incongruity. This Rule I have always proposed to my self,

and always endeavoured to keep close to it. But some inconsiderate Minds

make every Departure from the Letter, let the Matter or Cause be what it

will, to be an Affront to Scripture: And there, where we have the

greatest Liberty, I mean in Things that relate to the natural World,

they have no more Indulgence or Moderation, than if it was an

Intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith. In this Particular I cannot

excuse the present Animadverter; yet, I must needs say, he is a very

Saint in Comparison of another Animadverter, who hath writ upon the same

Subject; but neither like a Gentleman, nor like a Christian, nor like a

Scholar. And such Writings answer themselves.

A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN’S DEFENCE OF HIS

EXCEPTIONS AGAINST THE _THEORY_ of the _EARTH_.

_In a_ LETTER _to a Friend_.

_SIR_,

I have read over Mr. _Erasmus Warren’s_ Defence of his Exceptions

against _the Theory of the Earth_; which, it may be, few will do after

me; as not having Curiosity or Patience enough to read such a long

Pamphlet, of private or little Use. Such Altercations as these, are to

you, I believe, as they are to me, a sort of Folly; but the Aggressor

must answer for that, who makes the Trouble unavoidable to the

Defendant. And ’tis an unpleasant Exercise, a kind of Wild-goose-chase;

where he that leads must be followed, through all his Extravagancies.

The Author of this Defence must pardon me, if I have less Apprehensions

both of his Judgment and Temper, than I had before: For, as he is too

verbose and long-winded ever so make a close Reasoner; so it was

unexpected to me to find his Style so captious and angry, as it is in

this last Paper. And the same Strain continuing to the End, I was sorry

to see that his Blood had been kept upon the Fret, for so many Months

together, as the Pamphlet was a making.

He might have made his Work much shorter, without any Loss to the Sense.

If he had left out his popular Enlargements, juvenile Excursions,

Stories and Strains of Country-Rhetorick, (whereof we shall give you

some Instances hereafter) his Book would have been reduc’d to half the

Compass: And if from that reduc’d half, you takeaway again trifling

Altercations and pedantick Repartees, the Remainder would fall into the

Compass of a few Pages. For my part, I am always apt to suspect a Man

that makes me a long Answer; for the precise Point to be spoken to, in a

multitude of Words, is easily lost, and Words are often multiplied for

that very Purpose.

However, if his Humour be verbose, it might have been, at least, more

easy and inoffensive; there having been no Provocation given him in that

kind. But let us guess, if you please, as well as we can, what it was in

the late Answer, that so much discomposed the Exceptor and altered his

Style: Either it must be the Words and Language of that Answer, or the

Sense of it, without Respect to the Language. As to the Words, ’tis

true, he gives some instances of Expressions offensive to him; yet they

are but three or four, and those, methinks, not very high, _p._ 31. tho’

he calls them the _Brats of Passion_; they are these, _indiscreet_,

_rude_, _injudicious_ and _uncharitable_. These Characters, it seems,

are applied to the Exceptor, in some part of the Answer, upon Occasion

offer’d; and whether those Occasions were just or no, I dare appeal to

your Judgment. As to the Word _rude_, which seems the most harsh, I had

said indeed, that he was _rude_ to _Anaxagoras_; and so he was, not to

allow him to be a competent Witness in matter of Fact, whom all

Antiquity, sacred and prophane, hath represented to us as one of the

greatest Men amongst the Antients. I had also said in another Place,

that _a rude_, and _injudicious Defence of Scripture_, by _Railing and

ill Language_, is the _true way to lessen and disparage it_. This I

still justify as true; and if he apply it to himself, much good may it

do him. I do not remember that it is any where said, that he was _rude_

to the Theorist; if it be, ’tis possibly upon his charging him with

_Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost_, for saying, _the

Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge_. And I appeal to any Man, whether

this is not an _uncharitable_, and a _rude_ Charge. If a Man had cursed

God, or call’d our Saviour an Impostor, what could he have been charg’d

with more, than _Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy_? And if the same things be

charg’d upon a Man, for saying, the Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge,

either all Crimes and Errors must be equal, or the Charge must be rude.

But however it must be rude in the Opinion of the Theorist, who thinks

this neither Crime nor Error.

What says the _Defence_ of the Exceptions to this; _p._ 153. it makes

use of Distinctions for Mitigation of the Censure; and says, it will

_indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively be of blasphemous

Importance_. Here Blasphemy is changed into _blasphemous Importance_,

and _horrid Blasphemy_ into _consequential_, _&c._ But taking all these

Mitigations, it seems however, according to his Theology, all Errors in

Religion are _Blasphemy_ or of _blasphemous Importance_. For all Errors

in Religion must be against Scripture one way or other; at least

consequentially, indirectly, or reductively; and all that are so,

according to the Doctrine of this Author, must be _Blasphemy_, or of

_blasphemous Importance_. This is crude Divinity, and the Answerer had

Reason to subjoin what he cited before, that a rude and injudicious

Defence of Scripture, is the true way to lessen and disparage it.

Thus much for _rude_ and _uncharitable_; as for the other two Words,

_indiscreet_ and _injudicious_, I cannot easily be induc’d to make any

Apology for them. On the contrary, I’m afraid I shall have Occasion to

repeat these Characters again, especially the latter of them, in the

Perusal of this Pamphlet. However, they do not look like _Brats of

Passion_, as he calls them; but rather as cool and quiet Judgments, made

upon Reasons and Premisses. I had forgot one Expression more: The

Answer, it seems, somewhere calls the Exceptor a _Dabler_ in

_Philosophy_, which he takes ill: But that he is a Dabler, both in

Philosophy and Astronomy, I believe will evidently appear upon this

second Examination of the same Passages upon which that Character was

grounded. We will therefore leave that to the Trial, when we come to

those Passages again, in the following Discourse.

These, _Sir_, as far as I remember, are the Words and Expressions which

he hath taken Notice of, as offensive to him, and Effects of Passion.

But, methinks, these cannot be of Force sufficient to put him so much

out of Humour, and change his Style so much, as we find it to be in this

last Pamphlet: And therefore I am inclinable to believe, that ’tis the

Sense, rather than the Words, or Language of the Answer, that hath had

this Effect upon him; and that some unhappy Passages, that have expos’d

his Mistakes, were the true Causes of these Resentments. Such Passages I

will guess at, as well as I can, and note them to you as they occur to

my Memory.

But give me leave, first, upon this occasion of his new way of Writing,

to distinguish and mind you of three sorts of arguing, which you may

call _reasoning_, _wrangling_, and _scolding_. In fair reasoning, Regard

is had to Truth only, not to Victory, let it fall on whether side it

will. But in wrangling and scolding, ’tis Victory that is pursued and

aim’d at in the first Place, with little Regard to Truth. And if the

Contention be managed in civil terms, ’tis but wrangling; if in uncivil,

’tis scolding. I will not so far anticipate your Judgment, as to rank

this Arguer in any of the three Orders: It you have Patience to read

over his Pamphlet, you will best see how and where to set him in his

proper Place.

We now proceed to those Passages in the Answer, which probably have most

exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence, _Exc._ _p._

77, _&c._ In his Exceptions he had said, the Moon being present, or in

her present Place in the Firmament, at the time of the Chaos, she would

certainly trouble and discompose it, as she does now the Waters of the

Sea; and, by that Means, hinder the Formation of the Earth. To this we

answer’d, that the _Moon that was made the fourth Day, could not hinder

the formation of the Earth, which was made the third Day_. This was a

plain intelligible Answer, and at the same time discover’d such a

manifest Blunder in the Objection, as could not but give an uneasy

Thought to him that made it.

However we must not deny, but that he makes some Attempt to silence it

off in his Reply; for he says, _Def._ _p._ 12. _The Earth formed the

third Day was_ Moses’s _Earth, which the Exceptor contends for; but the

Earth he disputes against is the Theorist’s, which could not be formed

the third Day_. He should have added, and therefore _would be hinder’d

by the Moon_, otherwise this takes off nothing. And now the Question

comes to a clear State; for when the Exceptor says, the Moon would have

hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, either he speaks upon _Moses_’s

Hypothesis, or upon the Theorist’s Hypothesis. Not upon the Theorist’s

Hypothesis, for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then;

_Eccl._ _p._ 77, 78. _Def._ _p._ 73. _l._ 12, 13. And if he speaks upon

_Moses_’s Hypothesis, the Moon that was made the fourth Day, must have

hinder’d the Formation of the Earth the third Day. So that the Objection

is a Blunder upon either Hypothesis.

Furthermore, whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of

_Moses_’s Hypothesis to confute his Adversary, but does not follow it

himself: ’Tis so far true, that the Theorist never said that _Moses_’s

six Days Creation was to be understood literally; but however it is

justly urged against those that understand it literally, and they must

not contradict that Interpretation, which they own and defend.

So much for the Moon, and this first Passage, which I suppose was

troublesome to our Author. But he makes the same Blunder in another

Place, as to the _Sun_: Both the Luminaries, it seems, stood in his Way.

In the tenth Chapter of his Exceptions, he gives us a new Hypothesis

about the _Origin of Mountains_, which, in short, is this; that they

were drawn or suck’d out of the Earth by the Influence and

Instrumentality of the Sun: Whereas the Sun was not made, according to

_Moses_, till the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third Day.

’Tis an unhappy Thing to split twice upon the same Rock, and upon a Rock

so visible. He that can but reckon to four, can tell whether the third

Day, or fourth Day came sooner.

To cure this Hypothesis about the _Origin of Mountains_, he takes great

pains in his _Defence_, _pag._ 97, 98, 99, 100, 101. and attempts to do

it by help of a Distinction, dividing Mountains into _Maritime_ and

_Inland_. Now ’tis true, says he, _These maritime Mountains, and such as

were made with the Hollow of the Sea, must rise when that was sunk or

deprest_; namely, the third Day. Yet inland ones, he says, might be

raised some earlier, and some later, and by the Influence of the Sun.

This is a weak and vain Attempt to defend his Notion; for, betides that

this Distinction of _maritime_ and _inland Mountains_, as arising from

different Causes, and at different Times, is without any Ground, either

in Scripture or Reason, if their different Origin was admitted, the

Sun’s extracting these inland Mountains out of the Earth, would still be

absurd and incongruous upon other Accounts.

Scripture, I say, makes no such Distinction of Mountains, made at

different Times, and from different Causes. This is plain, seeing

_Moses_ does not mention Mountains at all in his six Days Creation, nor

any where else, till the Deluge: What Authority have we then to make

this Distinction; or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the

Earth were not made together? Besides, what length of Time would you

require, for the Production of these inland Mountains? Were they not all

made within the six Days Creation? Hear what _Moses_ says at the end of

the sixth Day. _Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished, and all

the Host of them_, Gen. c. xxi. _And on the seventh Day, God ended his

Work which he had made._ Now if the Exceptor says, that the Mountains

were all made within these six Days, we will not stand with him for a

Day or two; for that would make little Difference as to the Action of

the Sun. But if he will not confine their Production to _Moses_’s six

Days, how does he keep to the _Mosaical_ Hypothesis? Or how shall we

know where he will stop in his own Way? For if they were not made within

the six Days, for any thing he knows, they might not be made till the

Deluge; seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood.

And as Scripture makes no Distinction of _maritime and inland Mountain_,

so neither hath this Distinction any Foundation in Nature or Reason: For

there is no apparent or discernable Difference betwixt maritime and

inland Mountains, nor any Reason why they should be thought to proceed

from different Causes, or to be rais’d at different Times. The maritime

Mountains are as rocky, as ruderous, and as irregular and various in

their Shape and Posture, as the inland Mountains. They have no

distinctive Characters, nor any different Properties, internal or

external, in their Matter, Form, or Composition, that can give us any

Ground to believe, that they came from a different Original. So that

this Distinction is merely precarious, neither founded in Scripture nor

Reason, but made for the nonce to serve a Turn.

Besides, what Bounds will you give to these maritime Mountains? Are they

distinguished from inland Mountains barely by their Distance from the

Sea, or by some other Character? If barely by Distance, tell us then how

far from the Sea do the maritime Mountains reach, and where do the

inland begin, and how shall we know the _Terminalis Lapis_? Especially

in a continued Chain of Mountains, that reach from the Sea many hundreds

of Miles, inland; as the _Alps_ from the Ocean to _Pontus Euxinus_, and

_Taurus_, as he says, _Def._ _p._ 143. fifteen hundred Miles in length,

from the _Chinese_ Ocean to the Sea of _Pamphylia_. In such an

uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains, where do the Land-Mountains end, and

Sea-Mountains begin? Or what Mark is there, whereby we may know that

they are not all of the same Race, or do not all spring from the same

Original? Such obvious Enquiries as these, shew sufficiently, that the

Distinction is merely arbitrary and ficticious.

But suppose this Distinction was admitted, and the maritime Mountains

made the third Day, but inland Mountains I know not when: The great

Difficulty still remains, _How_ the Sun rear’d up these inland

Mountain’s afterward? Or if his Power be sufficient for such Effects,

why have we not Mountains made still to this Day? Seeing our

Mountain-maker, the Sun, is still in the Firmament, and seems to be as

busy at Work as ever. The _Defender_ hath made some Answer to this

Question, in these Words, _Def. p._ 99. _The Question is put, why have

we no Mountains made now? It might as well have been ask’d_, says he,

_Why does not the Fire make a Dough-bak’d Loaf swell and puff up?_ And,

he says, _this Answer must be satisfactory to the Question propounded_.

It must be, that is, for want of a better; for otherwise this

Dough-comparison is unsatisfactory upon many Accounts. First, there was

no Ferment in the Earth, as in this Dough-cake: at least it is not

prov’d, or made appear, that there was any. Nay, when this Hypothesis

was propos’d, there was no Mention at all made of any Ferment or Leaven

in the Earth; but the Effect was wholly imputed to _Venus_ and the

_Sun_. But to supply their Defects, he now ventures to add the Word,

_fermentive_, as he calls it. A _fermentive, flatulent Principle_, which

heav’d up the Earth, as Leaven does Dough. But, besides, that this is a

mere groundless and gross _Postulatum_, to suppose any such Leaven in

the Earth; if there had been such a Principle, it would have swollen the

whole Mass uniformly, heav’d up the exterior Region of the Earth every

where, and so not made Mountains, but a swollen bloated Globe.

This, Sir, is a second Passage, which I thought might make the Defender

uneasy. We proceed now to a third and fourth in his Geography and

Astronomy. In the 14th Chapter of his Exceptions, _p._ 289. speaking of

the Change of the Situation of the Earth, from a right Posture to an

oblique, he says, _according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the

primitive Earth, was its Equinoctial now_. This, he is told by the

Answer, is a great Mistake; namely, to think that the _Earth, when it

chang’d its Situation, chang’d its Poles and Circles_. What is now

reply’d to this? _He speaks against a Change_, says the Defence, _in the

Poles and Circles of the Earth; a needless Trouble, and occasioned by

his own Oversight. For had he but looked into the Errata’s, he might

have seen there, that these Parentheses, upon which he grounded what he

says, should have been left out._ So this is acknowledg’d an _Erratum_

it seems, but an _Erratum Typographicum_; not in the Sense, but only in

the _Parentheses_, which, he says, should have been left out. Let us

then lay aside the Parentheses, and the Sentence stands thus: _For under

the Ecliptick, which in the primitive Situation of the Earth, according

to the Theory_, was its _Equinoctial, and divided the Globe into two

Hemispheres, as the Equator does now. The dry Ground, &c._ How does this

alter or mend the Sense? Is it not still as plainly affirm’d, as before,

that according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the primitive Earth was

equinoctial? And the same thing is suppos’d throughout all this

Paragraph, _Exc._ p. 289, 290. And if he will own the Truth, and give

Things their proper Name, ’tis downright Ignorance, or gross Mistake in

the _Doctrine of the Sphere_, which he would first father upon the

_Theory_, and then upon the _Parentheses_.

And this leads me to a fourth Passage, much-what of the same Nature,

where he would have the Earth to have been translated out of the Æquator

into the Ecliptick, and to have chang’d the Line of its Motion about the

Sun, when it chang’d its Situation. His Words are these, _Exc._ p. 158,

159. _So that in her annual Motion about the Sun, she_, namely the

Earth, before her Change of Situation, _was carried directly under the

Equinoctial_. This is his Mistake; the Earth mov’d in the Ecliptick,

both before and after her Change of Situation; for the Change was not

made in the Circle of her Motion about the Sun, but in her Posture or

Inclination in the same Circle: Whereas he supposes that she _shifted

both Posture, and also her Circuit about the Sun_, Ibid. _p._ 159. as

his Words are in the next Paragraph. But we shall have Occasion to

reflect upon this again in its proper Place. We proceed now to another

astronomical Mistake.

A fifth Passage, which probably might disquiet him, is his false

Argumentation at the end of the eighth Chapter concerning _Days_ and

_Months_, _Exc._ p. 187. He says there, if the natural Days were longer

towards the Flood than at first, (which no body however affirms) fewer

than thirty would have made a Month; whereas the Duration of the Flood

is computed by Months, consisting of thirty Days a-piece; _Therefore_,

says he, _they were no longer than ordinary_. This Argumentation the

_Answer_ told him, _was a mere Paralogism, or a mere Blunder_: For

thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or shorter; and

Scripture does not determine the Length of the Days. There are several

Pages spent in the _Defence_, to get off the Blunder: Let’s hear how he

begins, _p._ 78, 79, 80, 81. _Tho’ Scripture does not limit or account

for the Length of Days expresly, yet it does it implicitly, and withal

very plainly and intelligibly._ This is deny’d: And if he makes this

out, that Scripture does very _plainly_ and _intelligibly_ determine the

Length of Days at the Deluge, and makes them equal with ours at present,

then, I acknowledge, he hath remov’d the Blunder; otherwise it stands

the same, unmov’d and unmended. Now observe how he makes this out:

_For_, says he, _Scripture gives us to understand, that Days before the

Flood, were of the same Length, that they are of now, BY INFORMING US,

that Months and Years, which were of the same Length then that they are

of at present, were made up of the same Number of Days_. Here the

Blunder is still continued, or, at best, it is but transferr’d from Days

to Months, or from Months to Years. He says, _Scripture informs us that

Months and Years were of the same Length then, that they are of at

present_. If he mean by the _same Length_, the same _Number of_ Days, he

relapses into the old Blunder, and we still require the Length of those

Days. But if Scripture informs us that the Months and Years at the

Flood, were of the same Length that they are of now, according to any

absolute and known Measure, distinct from the _Number of Days_, then the

Blunder is sav’d. Let’s see therefore by whether of these two Ways he

proves it in the next Words, which are these: _For how could there be

just twelve Months in the Year, at the time of the Deluge; and thirty

Days in each of those Months, if the Days then had not consisted, as

they do now, of twenty four Hours a-piece?_ We allow a Day might then

consist of twenty four Hours, if the Distinction of Hours was so

ancient. But what then? the Question returns concerning the Length of

those _Hours_, as it was before concerning the Length of the _Days_; and

this is either _idem per idem_, or the same Error in another Instance.

If you put but _Hours_ in the place of _Days_, the Words of the _Answer_

have still the same Force: _Twenty four Hours were to go to a Day,

whether the Hours were longer or shorter, and Scripture does not

determine the Length of the Hours._ This, you see, is still the same

Case, and the same Paralogism hangs upon both Instances.

But he goes on still in this false Tract, in these Words: _And as

Providence hath so ordered Nature, that Days (that depend upon its

diurnal Motion) should be measur’d by Circumgyrations of the Earth——So

it hath taken Care that each of these Circumrotations should be

performed in twenty four Hours; and consequently that every Day should

be just so long, that thirty of them (in way of round reckoning) might

complete a Month._ Admit all this, that thirty Days complete a Month;

still if Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Days, nor the

Slowness or Swiftness of the Circumgyrations that make them, it hath not

determin’d the Length of those Months, nor of the Years that depend upon

them. This one would take to be very intelligible; yet he goes on in the

same Maze, thus: _But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown

more slow towards the Deluge (by such Causes as the Exceptor suggested)

so as every Day had consisted of thirty Hours_, &c. But how so, I pray?

This is a wild Step; why thirty Hours? Where does Scripture say so, or

where does the _Theorist_ say so? We say the Day consisted then, as now,

of twenty four Hours, whether the Hours were longer or shorter; and that

Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Hours, nor

consequently of those Months, nor consequently of those Years. So after

all this ado, we are just where we were at first, namely, that Scripture

not having determin’d the absolute Length of any one, you cannot by that

determine the Length of any other. And by his shifting and multiplying

Instances, he does but _absurda absurdis accumulare, ne perpluant_.

We offer’d before, in our Answer, to give the Exceptor some Light into

his Mistake, by distinguishing in these Things, what is _absolute_ from

what is _relative_: The former whereof cannot, under these or any such

like Circumstances, be determin’d by the latter. For Instance: A Man

hath ten Children, and he will not say absolutely and determinatively

what Portion he will give with any one of them; but he says, I will give

my eldest Child a tenth Part more than my second; and my second a ninth

Part more than my third; and my third an eighth Part more than my

fourth; and so downwards, in proportion to the youngest: Not telling

you, in any absolute Sum, what Money he will give the youngest, or any

other; you cannot, by this, tell what Portion the Man will give with any

of his Children. I leave you to apply this, and proceed to a nearer

Instance, by comparing the Measures of _Time_ and _Longitude_. If you

know how many Inches make a Foot, how many Feet a Pace, how many Paces a

Mile, _&c._ you cannot by these Numbers determine the absolute Quantity

of any one of the aforesaid Measures, but only their relative Quantity

as to one another. So if Scripture had determin’d, of how many Hours a

Day consisted; of how many Days a Month; of how many Months a Year; you

could not by this alone determine the absolute Duration or Quantity of

any one of these, nor whether they were longer or shorter than our

present Hours, Days, Months, or Years. And therefore, I say still, as I

said at first, thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or

shorter; and thirty Circumgyrations of the Earth are thirty, whether

they be slower or swifter: And that no Scripture-Proof can be made from

this, either directly or consequentially, that the Days before the Flood

were, or were not, longer than they are at present. But we have been too

long upon this Head.

We proceed now from his Astronomy to his Philosophy. ’Twas observ’d in

the _Answer_, p. 38. that the Exceptor in the Beginning of the ninth

Chapter, suppos’d terrestrial Bodies to have _Nitency inwards, or

downwards, towards the Center_. This was noted as a false Principle in

Philosophy, and to rectify his Mistake, he now replies, _Def._ p. 82.

That he understood that Expression only of _self-central_ and _quiescent

Bodies_: Whereas, in truth, the Question he was speaking to, was about a

fluid Body turning upon its Axis. But however, let us admit his new

Sense, his Principle, I’m afraid, will still need Rectification; namely,

he affirms now, that _quiescent earthly Bodies_ are _impregnated with a

Nitency inward, or downward towards the Center_. I deny also this

reform’d Principle; if Bodies be turn’d round, they have a Nitency

upwards, or from the Center of their Motion. If they be not turn’d

round, nor mov’d, but quiescent, they have no Nitency at all, neither

upwards nor downwards, but are indifferent to all Lines of Motion,

according as an external Impulse shall carry them, this Way or that Way.

So that his _Impregnation with a Nitency downwards_, is an occult and

fictitious Quality, which is not in the Nature of Bodies, whether in

Motion or in Rest. The Truth is, the Author of the Exceptions makes a

great Flutter about the _Cartesian Philosophy_, and the _Copernican

System_, but the frequent Mistakes he commits in both, give a just

Suspicion that he understands neither.

Lastly, we come to the grand Discovery of a _fifteen-cubit Deluge_,

which, it may be, was as uneasy to him upon second Thoughts, as any of

the rest; at least one would guess so, by the Changes he hath made in

his Hypothesis. For he hath now, in this _Defence_, p. 181, 182. reduc’d

the Deluge to a Destruction of the World by _Famine_, rather than by

_Drowning_. I do not remember in Scripture any Mention made of _Famine_

in that great Judgment of Water brought upon Mankind; but he thinks he

hath found out something that favours his Opinion; namely, _that a good

Part of Mankind at the Deluge, were not drown’d, but starv’d for want of

Victuals_. And the Argument is this, because in the Story of the Deluge,

Men are not said to be _drown’d_, but to _perish_, _die_, or be

_destroy’d_. But are they said any where in the Story of the Deluge, to

have been _famish’d_? And when God says to _Noah_, Gen. vi. 17. _I will

bring a Flood of Waters upon the Earth, to destroy all Flesh_; does it

not plainly signify, that that Destruction should be by _drowning_? But

however, let us hear our Author; when he had been making use of this new

Hypothesis of _starving_, to take off some Arguments urged against his

fifteen-cubit Deluge, (particularly, that it would not be sufficient to

destroy all Mankind) he adds these Words by way of Proof: _Def._ p. 182.

_And methinks there is one Thing which seems to insinuate, that a good

Part of the animal World might perhaps came to an End thus; by being

driven to such Straights by the overflowing Waters, as to be FAMISH’D or

STARV’D to Death. The Thing is this, in the Story of the Deluge, it is

no where said of Men and living Creatures, that they were drown’d, but

they died, or were destroyed._ Those that are _drown’d_ are _destroy’d_,

I imagine, as well as those that are _starv’d_; so this proves nothing.

But that the Destruction here spoken of, was by drowning, seems plain

enough, both from God’s Word to _Noah_ before the Flood, and by his

Words after the Flood, when he makes his Covenant with _Noah_, in this

Manner: _I will establish my Covenant with you, neither shall all Flesh

be cut off any more by the Waters of a Flood_, Gen. ix. 11. Now, to be

cut off, or destroy’d by the Waters of a Flood, is, methinks, to be

drown’d; And I take _all Flesh_ to comprehend the animal World, or, at

least, all Mankind. Accordingly our Saviour says, _Matth._ xxiv. 39. in

_Noah_’s Time, _the Flood came and took them all away_; namely, all

Mankind.

This is one Expedient our Author hath found out, to help to bear off the

Inconveniencies that attend his fifteen-cubit Deluge; namely, by

converting a good Part of it into a _Famine_. But he hath another

Expedient to join to this, by increasing the Waters; and that is done by

making the _common Surface_ of the Earth, or the _highest Parts_ of it,

as he calls them, _Def._ 165 and 180, to signify ambiguously, or any

Height that pleases him; and consequently fifteen Cubits above that,

signifies also what Height he thinks fit. But in reality, there is no

Surface common to the Earth, but either the _exterior Surface_, whether

it be high or low; or the _ordinary Level_ of the Earth, as it is a

Globe or Convex Body. If by his _common Surface_ he mean the _exterior

Surface_, that takes in Mountains as well as Lowlands, or any other

superficial Parts of the Earth. And therefore, if the Deluge was fifteen

Cubits above this common Surface, it was fifteen Cubits above the

highest Mountains, as we say it was. But, if by the common Surface he

mean the common Level of the Earth, as it is a Globular or Convex Body,

then we gave it a right Name, when we call’d it the _ordinary Level_ of

the Earth; namely, that Level or Surface that lies in an equal Convexity

with the Surface of the Sea: And his fifteen Cubits of Water from that

Level, would never drown the World. Lastly, if by the common Surface of

the Earth, he understand a third Surface, different from both these, he

must define it, and define the Height of it; that we may know how far

this fifteen-cubit Deluge rise, from some known Basis. One known Basis

is the Surface of the Sea, and that Surface of the Land that ties in an

equal Convexity with it: Tell us then, if the Waters of the Deluge were

but fifteen Cubits higher than the Surface of the Sea, that we may know

their Height by some certain and determinate Measure; and upon that

examine the Hypothesis: But tell us they were fifteen Cubits above, not

the Mountains or the Hills, but the Highlands, or the _highest Parts of

the common Surface of the Earth_, and not to tell us the Height of these

highest Parts from any known Basis; nor how they are distinguish’d from

Hills and Mountains, which incur our Senses, and are the Measures given

us by _Moses_: This, I say, is but to cover his Hypothesis with

Ambiguities, when he had made it without Grounds, and to leave room to

set his Water-Mark higher or lower, as he should see Occasion or

Necessity. And of this indeed we have an Instance in his last Pamphlet;

for he has rais’d his Water-Mark there, more than an hundred Cubits

higher than it was before. In his _Exceptions_, he said, _p._ 300. _not

that the Waters were no where higher than just fifteen Cubits_ above the

Ground, they might in most Places be _thirty_, _forty_, or _fifty Cubits

higher_. But, in his _Defence_, he says, _p._ 180. the Waters might be

an _hundred_ or _two hundred Cubits higher_ than the _general ordinary

Plain_ of the Earth. Now what Security have we, but that, in the next

Pamphlet they may be five hundred or a thousand Cubits higher than the

ordinary Surface of the Earth?

This is his second Expedient, raising his Water-Mark indefinitely. But

if these two Methods be not sufficient to destroy Mankind, and the

animate World, he hath yet a third, which cannot fail; and that is,

_destroying them by evil Angels_, Def. p. 90. _Flectere si nequeo_—This

is his last Refuge; to which Purpose he hath these Words, _When Heaven

was pleas’d to give Satan leave, he caus’d the Fire to consume_ Job_’s

Sheep, and caused the Wind to destroy his Children. And how easily could

these Spirits, that are Ministers of God’s Vengeance, have made the

Waters of the Flood fatal to those Creatures that might have escaped

them, if any could have done it?_ As suppose an Eagle, or a Faulcon; the

Devil and his Crew catch them all, and held their Noses under Water:

However, methinks, this is not fair Play to deny the Theorist the

Liberty to make use of the Ministry of _good Angels_, when he himself

makes use of _evil Spirits_.

These, Sir, and such like Passages, where the Notions of the Exceptor

have been exposed, were the Causes, I imagine, of his angry Reply. Some

Creatures, you know, are more fierce after they are wounded; and some,

upon a gentle Chase, will fly from you; but if you press them, and put

them to Extremities, they turn, and fly in your face. I see, by our

Author’s Example, how easily, in these personal Altercations, Reasoning

degenerates into Wrangling, and Wrangling into Scolding. However, if I

may judge from these two Hypotheses which he hath made, about the _Rise

of Mountains_, and a _fifteen-Cubit Deluge_, of all Trades, I should

never advise him to turn _Hypothesis-Maker_. It does not seem at all to

lie to his Hand; and Things never thrive that are undertaken, _Diis

iratis, Genioque sinistro_.

But as we have given you some Account of this Author’s philosophical

Notions, so it may be you will expect that we should entertain you with

some Pieces of his Wit and Eloquence. The Truth is, he seems to delight

and value himself upon a certain kind of Country-Wit and popular

Eloquence, and I will not grudge you the Pleasure of enjoying them both,

in such Instances as I remember. Speaking in Contempt of the Theory and

the Answer, (which is one great Subject of his Wit) he expresses himself

thus, _Def._ p. 48. _But if Arguments be so weak, that they will fall

with a Phillip, why should greater Force be used to beat them down? To

draw a Rapier to stab a Fly, or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider, I

think would be preposterous._ I think so too; in this we are agreed. In

another Place, being angry with the Theorist, that he would not

acknowledge his Errors to him, he hath these Words, p. 128. _’Tis

unlucky for one to rest his Head against a Post; but when he hath done,

if he will say he did not do it, and stand in, and defend what he says,

’tis a Sign he is as senseless as he was unfortunate, and is fitter to

be pitied than confuted._ This Wit, it may be, you’ll say is downright

Clownery. The Truth is, when I observ’d, in reading his Pamphlet, the

Coarseness of his Repartees, and of that sort of Wit wherein he deals

most, and pleases himself, it often rais’d in my Mind, whether I would

or no, the Idea of a _Pedant_, of one that had seen little of the World,

and thought himself much wittier and wiser than others would take him to

be: I will give you but one Instance more of his rustical Wit. Telling

the Theorist of an Itch of Writing, _p._ 214. _Methinks_, says he, _he

might have laid that prurient Humour, by scratching himself with the

Briars of a more innocent Controversy, or by SCRUBBING SOUNDLY against

something else than the Holy Scripture._ He speaks very sensibly, as if

he understood the Disease, and the Way of dealing with it: But I think

_Holy Scripture_ does not come in well upon that Occasion.

All this is nothing, Sir, in comparison of his popular Eloquence: See

with what Alacrity he runs it off-hand, in a Similitude betwixt _Adam_

and a Lord Lieutenant of a County, _p._ 113. _When the King makes a

Gentleman Lord Lieutenant of a County, by virtue of his Commission is he

presently the strongest Man that is in it? Does it enable him to

encounter whole Regiments of Soldiers in his single Person? Does it

impower him to carry a Cannon upon his Neck? Or when the great Gun is

fired off, to catch the Bullet as it flies, and put it up in his Pocket?

So when God gave_ Adam _Dominion over the Fowls, did he mean that he

should dive like a Duck, or soar like a Falcon? That he should swim as

naturally as the Swan, and hunt the Kite or Hobby, as Boys do the Wren?

Did he mean that he should hang up Ostriches in a Cage, as People do

Linnets, or fetch down the Eagles to feed with his Pullen, and make them

perch with his Chickens in the Henroost?_

So much for the Fowls; now for the Fish. _Ibid._ When God _gave_ Adam

_Dominion over the Sea, was he to be able to dwell at the Bottom, or to

walk on the Top of it? To drain it as a Ditch, or to take all its Fry at

once in a Drag-Net? Was he to snare the Shark, as we do young Pickarels;

or to bridle the Sea-Horse, and ride him for a Pad; or to put a Slip

upon the Crocodile’s Neck, and play with him as with a Dog?_ &c. Sir, I

leave it to you, as a more competent Judge, to set a just Value upon his

Gifts and Elocution. For my Part, to speak freely, dull Sense, in a

phantastick Style, is to me doubly nauseous.

But lest I should cloy you with these luscious Harangues, I will give

you but one more; and ’tis a Miscellany of several Pieces of Wit

together. _Def._ p. 68. _Should twenty Mariners_, says he, _confidently

affirm that they sailed in a Ship from_ Dover _to_ Calais, _by a brisk

Gale out of a Pair of Bellows? Or if forty Engineers should positively

swear, that the Powder-Mill near_ London _was late blown up, by a Mine

then sprung at_ Great Waradin _in_ Hungary, _must they not be grievously

perjur’d Persons?——Or if the Historian that writes the_ Peloponnesian

_War, had told that the Soldiers who fell in it, fought only with

Sun-beams, and single Currants which grew thereabouts, and that hundreds

and thousands were stabb’d with the one, and knocked on the Head with

the other; who would believe that ever there were such Weapons in that

War, that ever there was such a fatal War in that Country? Even so_, &c.

These, Sir, are Flights and Reaches of his Pen, which I dare not

censure, but leave them to your Judgment.

Thus much is to give you a Taste only of his Wit and Eloquence; and if

you like it, you may find more of the same Strain, here and there, in

his Writings. I have only one Thing to mind him of, _that_ he was

desired by the Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 401. to _write in Latin (if he

was a Scholar) as being more proper for a Subject of this Nature_. If he

had own’d and follow’d that Character, I’m apt to think it would have

prevented a great many Impertinences: His Tongue, probably, would not

have been so flippant in popular Excursions and Declamations, as we now

find it. Neither is this any great Presumption or Rashness of Judgment,

if we may guess at his Skill in that Language by his Translations here

and there: _Except,_ _p._ 293. _Cum plurima Religione_ is rendered _with

the Principle of their Religion_. And if he say he followed Sir _W.

Rawleigh_ in his Translation, he that follows a bad Translator, without

Correction or Notice, is suppos’d to know no better himself: And this

will appear the more probable, if we consider another of his

Translations, in this present Work. _Rei Personam_ he translates _the

Representation of the Thing_, instead of the _Person of the Guilty_, or

the Person of him that is _Reus_ not _Actor_: And in this, I dare say,

he was seduc’d by no Example. But lest we should be thought to

misrepresent him, take his own Words, such as they are, _Def._ 168, 169.

_Yea, tho’ it was spoken never so positively, it was but to set forth

REI PERSONAM, to make the more full and lively Representation of the

supposed Thing._ Here, you see, he hath made a double Blunder; first, in

jumbling together _Person_ and _Thing_; then, if they could be jumbled

together, _Rei Persona_ would not signify the _full and lively

Representation of the Thing_, but rather a Disguise or personated

Representation of the Thing. However, I am satisfied from these

Instances, that he had good Reason, notwithstanding the Caution or

Desire of the Theorist to the contrary, to write his Books in his

Mother’s Tongue.

Thus we have done with the first Part, which was to mark out such

Passages, as we thought might probably have enflam’d the Author’s Style

in this Reply: When Men are resolved not to own their Faults, you know

there is nothing more uneasy and vexatious to them, than to see them

plainly discovered and expos’d. We must now give you some Account of the

Contents of his Chapters, so far as they relate to our Subject. _Chap._

i. _Nothing._ _Chap._ II. is against _extraordinary Providence_; or that

the Theorist should not be permitted to have Recourse to it upon any

Occasion. This Recourse to extraordinary Providence being frequently

objected in other Places, and of use to be distinctly understood; we

will speak of it apart at the latter end of the Letter. _Chap._ III. is

about the _Moon’s hindring the Formation of the Earth before she was

formed herself, or in our Neighbourhood_, as we have noted before.

Another Thing in this Chapter, is, his urging _oily_ or _oleaginous_

Particles not to have been in the _Chaos_, but made since: I’ll give a

short Answer to this; either there was or was not _oleaginous_ Matter in

the new-made Earth, (I mean in its superficial Region,) when it came

first out of a _Chaos_? If there was, there was also in the _Chaos_, out

of which that Earth was immediately made: And if there was no oleaginous

Matter in the new-made Earth, how came the Soil to be so fertile, so

fat, so unctuous? I say not only _fertile_, but particularly _fat_ and

_unctuous_: For he uses these very Words frequently in the Description

of that Soil, _Exc._ p. 211. _Def._ p. 69, and p. 98. And all fat and

unctuous Liquors are _oleaginous_; and accordingly we have used those

Words promiscuously, in the Description of that Region: (_Eng. Theor._

_Chap._ V.) understanding only such unctuous Liquors as are lighter than

Water, and swim above it, and consequently would stop and entangle the

terrestrial Particles in their Fall or Descent: And seeing such unctuous

and oleaginous Particles were in the new-made Earth, they must certainly

have been in the Matter out of which it was immediately formed, namely,

in the _Chaos_. All the rest of this Chapter we are willing to leave in

its full Force; apprehending the Theory, or the Answer, to be in no

Danger from such Argumentations or Reflections.

The fourth Chapter is very short, and hath nothing argumentative. The

fifth Chapter is concerning the Cold in the circumpolar Parts, which was

spoken to in the Answer sufficiently, and we stand to that: What is

added about extraordinary Providence, will be treated of in its proper

Place. The sixth Chapter is also short, against this Particular, _that

it is not safe to argue upon Suppositions actually false_. And I think

there needs no more to prove it, than what was said in the Answer. Chap.

VII. is chiefly about Texts of Scripture, concerning which I see no

Occasion of saying any more than what is said in the _Review of the

Theory_. He says, (_p._ 49.) that the Theorist catches himself in a

Trap, by allowing that _Ps._ xxxiii. 7. is to be understood of the

ordinary Posture of the Waters, and yet applying it to their

extraordinary Posture under the Vault of the Earth: But that was not an

extraordinary Posture according to the Theorist, but their natural

Posture in the first Earth: Yet I allow the Expression might have been

better thus, in _a level or spherical Convexity, as the Earth_. He

interprets גן יהוה (_p._ 53.) which we render _the Garden of the Lord_,

Gen. xiii. x. not to be Paradise, but any pleasant Garden; yet gives us

no Authority either of ancient Commentator or Version, for this novel

and paradoxical Interpretation. The Septuagint render it παράδεισος τοῦ

θεοῦ: The _Vulgate_, _Paradisus Domini_, and all ancient Versions that I

have seen, render it to the same Sense. Does he expect then that his

single Word and Authority should countervail all the ancient Translators

and Interpreters? To the last Place alledged by the Theorist, _Prov._

viii. 28. he says, the Answerer charges him unjustly, that he

understands by that Word חון no more than the _Rotundity_ or _spherical

Figure_ of the Abyss; which, he says, is a _Point of Nonsense_: I did

not think the Charge had been so high however, seeing some Interpreters

understand in so: But if he understand by תונ the _Banks_ or _Shores_ of

the sea, then he should have told us how those Banks or Shores are על

פבי תהום _super faciem Abissi_, as it is in the Text.

_Page_ 59. He says the Exceptor does not misrepresent the Theorist when

he makes him to affirm the Construction of the first Earth to have been

merely mechanical; and he cites to this purpose two Places, which only

prove, that the Theorist made use of no other Causes, nor see any Defect

in them; but never affirm’d that these were the only Causes. You may see

his Words to this purpose expressly, _Eng. Theor. p._ 88. whereof the

Exceptor was minded in the _Answer_, p. 3. In the last Paragraph of this

Chapter, _p._ 60. if he affirms any Thing, he will have _the Pillars of

the Earth_ to be understood _literally_. Where then, pray, do these

Pillars stand that bear up the Earth? Or if they bear up the Earth, what

bears them up? What are their Pedestals, or their Foundations? But he

says Hypotheses must not regulate Scripture, though in natural Things,

but be regulated by it, and the by the Letter of it: I would gladly know

then, how his Hypothesis of the Motion of the Earth, is regulated by

Scripture, and by the Letter of it? And he unhappily gives an Instance,

just contrary to himself, namely, of the Anthropomorphites; for they

regulate natural Reason and Philosophy, by the Letter or literal Sense

of Scripture, and therein fall into a gross Error: Yet we must not call

the Author _injudicious_, for fear of giving Offence.

The eighth Chapter, _ibid._ begins with the Earth’s _being carried

directly under the Equinoctial_, before its Change of Situation;

_without any manner of Obliquity in her Site, or Declination towards

either of the Tropicks in HER COURSE._ Here you see, when the Earth

changed its Situation, it chang’d according to his Astronomy, two

Things; its _Site_, and its _Course_; its Site upon its Axis, and its

Course in the Heavens: and so he says again in the next Paragraph, _Put

the Case the Earth shift her Posture, and also her Circuit about the

Sun, in which the persisted till the Deluge_. Here is plainly the same

Notion repeated; that the Earth changed not only its _Site_, but also

its _Road_ or _Course_ about the Sun: And in consequence of this, he

supposes its Course formerly to have been under the Equinoctial, and now

under the Ecliptick; it being translated out of the one into the other,

at its Change. Yet he seems now to be sensible of the Absurdity of this

Doctrine, and therefore will not own it to have been his Sense; and as

an Argument that he meant otherwise, he alledges, that he declared

before, that by the Earth’s right Situation to the Sun, _is meant that

the Axis of the Earth was always kept in a Parallelism to that of the

Ecliptick_, p. 61. But what’s this to the Purpose? This speaks only of

the _Site_ of the Earth, whereas his Error was is supposing its _Course_

or _Annual Orbit_ about the Sun, as well as its Site upon its own Axis,

to have been different, and changed at the Deluge; as his Words already

produced against him, plainly testify.

What follows in this Chapter, is concerning the perpetual Equinox: And

as to the reasoning Part of what he says in Defence of his Exceptions,

we do not grudge him the Benefit of it, let it do him what Service it

can. And as to the historical Part, he will not allow a Witness to be a

good Witness, as to Matter of Fact, if he did not assign true Causes of

that Matter of Fact. To which I only reply, tho’ _Tiverton_ Steeple was

not the Cause of _Goodwin Sands_, as the _Kentish_ Men thought, yet

their Testimony was so far good, that there were such Sands, and such a

Steeple. He also commits an Error as to the Nature of _Tradition:_ When

a Tradition is to be made out, it is not expected that it should be made

appear that none were ignorant of that Tradition in former Ages; or that

all that mentioned it, understood the true Grounds and Extent of it; but

is is enough to shew the plain Footsteps of it in Antiquity, as a

Conclusion, tho’ they did not know the Reasons and Premisses upon which

it depended. For Instance, the Conflagration of the World is a Doctrine

of Antiquity, traditionally deliver’d from Age to Age; but the _Causes_

and _Manner_ of the Conflagration, they either did not know, or have nor

deliver’d to us. In like manner, the first Age and State of the World

was without Change of Seasons, or under a perpetual Equinox: Of this we

see many Footsteps in _Antiquity_, amongst the Jews, Christians,

Heathens, Poets, Philosophers; but the Theory of this perpetual Equinox,

the Causes and Manner of it, we neither find, nor can reasonably expect,

from the Antients: So much for the Equinox.

This Chapter, as it begun with an Error, so it unhappily ends with a

Paralogism; namely, that, _because thirty Days made a Month at the

Deluge, therefore those Days were neither longer nor shorter than ours

are at present_. Tho’ we have sufficiently exposed this before, yet one

thing more may be added, in answer to his confident Conclusion, in these

Words: But to talk, _as the Answerer does, that the Month should be

lengthened by the Days being so, is a fearful Blunder indeed: For let

the Days (by slackening the Earth’s diurnal Motion) have been never so

long, yet (its Annual Motion continuing the same) the Month must needs

have kept its usual Length, only fewer Days would have made it up_. ’Tis

not usual for a Man to persevere so confidently in the same Error, as if

the Intervals of Time, Hours, Days, Months, Years, could not be

proportionably increas’d, so as to contain one another in the same

Proportion they did before, and yet be every one increas’d as to

absolute Duration. Take a Clock, for Instance, that goes too slow; the

Circuit of the Dial-plate is twelve Hours, let these represent the

twelve Signs in his Zodiack, and the Hand to be the Earth that goes

through them all; and consequently, the whole Circuit of the Dial-plate

represents the Year. Suppose, as we said, this Clock to go too slow,

this will not hinder, but still fifteen Minutes make a Quarter in this

Clock, four Quarters make an Hour, and twelve Hours the whole Circuit of

the Dial-plate: But every one of these Intervals will contain more Time

than it did before, according to absolute Duration, or according to the

Measures of another Clock that does not go too slow: This is the very

Case which he cannot or will not comprehend, but concludes thus in

Effect, that because the Hour consists still of four Quarters in this

Clock, therefore it is no longer than ordinary.

The ninth Chapter also begins with a false Notion, that _Bodies

quiescent_ (as he hath now alter’d the Case) _have a Nitency downwards:_

Which Mistake we rectified before, if he please. Then he proceeds to the

_oval_ Figure of the Earth, and many Flourishes and Harangues are made

here to little purpose; for he goes on upon a false Supposition, that

the Waters of the Chaos were made oval by the Weight or Gravitation of

the Air; a Thing that never came into the Words or Thoughts of the

Theorist. Yet upon this Supposition he runs into the _Deserts of

Bilebulgerid_, Def. _p. 85, 86._ and the Waters of _Mare del Zur_; Words

that make a great Noise, but to no Effect. If he had pleas’d he might

have seen the Theorist made no Use of the Weight of the Air upon this

Occasion, by the Instance he gave of the Pressure of the Moon, and the

Flux of the Waters by that Pressure: Which is no more done by the

Gravitation of the Air, than the Banks are prest in a swift Current and

narrow Channel, by the Gravitation of the Water. But he says, rarified

Air makes less Resistance than gross Air; and rarified Water in an

Æolipile, it may be he thinks, presses with less Force than unrarified.

Air possibly may be rarified to that Degree as to lessen its Resistance;

but we speak of Air moderately agitated, so as to be made only more

brisk and active. Moreover, he says, the Waters that lay under the Poles

must have risen perpendicularly, and why might they not, as well have

done so under the Equator? The Waters that lay naturally and originally

under the Poles, did not rise at all; but the Waters became more deep

there, by those that were thrust thither from the middle Parts of the

Globe. Upon the whole, I do not perceive that he hath weaken’d any one

of the Propositions upon which the Formation of an oval Earth depended;

which were these: _First_, That the Tendency of the Waters from the

Centre of this Motion, would be greater and stronger in the Equinoctial

Parts, than in the Polar, or in those Parts where they moved in greater

Circles; and consequently swifter, than in those where they were moved

in lesser Circles and slower. _Secondly_, Agitated Air hath more Force

to repel what presses against it than stagnant Air; and that the Air was

more agitated and rarified under the Equinoctial Parts, than under the

Poles. _Thirdly_, Waters hinder’d and repell’d in their primary

Tendency, take the easiest way they can to free themselves from that

Force, so as to persevere in their Motion. _Lastly_, To flow laterally

upon a Plain, or to ascend upon an inclin’d Plain, is easier than to

rise perpendicularly. These are the Propositions upon which that

Discourse depended, and I do not find that he hath disprov’d any one of

them. And this, Sir, is a short Account of a long Chapter, Impertinences

omitted.

_Chapter_ X. Is concerning the Original and Causes of Mountains, which

the Exceptor unhappily imputes to the Heat and Influence of the Sun.

Whether his Hypothesis be effectually confuted or not, I am very willing

to stand to the Judgment of any unconcern’d Person, that will have the

Patience to compare the _Exceptions_ and the _Answer_, in this Chapter.

Then, as to his _Historical_ Arguments, as he calls them, to prove there

were Mountains before the Flood, from _Giants that saved themselves from

the Flood upon Mount Sion, and Adam’s wandering several hundred of Years

upon the Mountains of India_: These, and such like, which he brought to

prove that there were Mountains before the Flood, he now thinks fit to

renounce, _Def. p. 97._ and says he had done so before by an

_anticipative_ Sentence: But if they were condemn’d before by an

_anticipative_ Sentence, as Fables and Forgeries, why were they stuff’d

into his Book, and us’d as traditional Evidence against the Theory?

_Lastly_, He contends in this Chapter for _Iron_ and _Iron Tools_ before

the Flood, and as early as the Time of _Cain_; because he _built a

City_, which, he says, could not be built without Iron and Iron-Tools:

To which it was answer’d, _Ans. p. 49, 50._ that, _if he fancied that

City of Cain_’s, like _Paris_ or _London_, _he_ had Reason to believe

that they had _Iron-tools_ to make it: But suppose it was a Number of

Cottages, made of Branches of Trees, of Osiers and Bulrushes; or, if you

will, of Mud-Walls, and a Roof of Straw, with a Fence about it to keep

out Beasts, there would be no such Necessity of Iron-Tools.

Consider, pray, how long the World was without knowing the Use of Iron,

in several Parts of it, as in the Northern Countries and _America_, and

yet they had Houses and Cities after their Fashion. And to come nearer

Home, consider what Towns and Cities our Ancestors, the _Britains_, had

in _Cæsar_’s Time, more than two thousand Years after the Time of _Cain:

Com. li. 5. Oppidum Britanni vacant, cum Sylvam impeditam vallo atque

fossa munierant; quo incarsionis hostium nitandæ causa, convenire

consueverunt_: Why might not _Henochia_, _Cain_’s City, be such a City

as this?

And as to the Ark, which he also would make a Proof that there were Iron

and Iron-Tools before the Flood, _Ibid._ ’twas answer’d, that Scripture

does not mention Iron or Iron-Tools in building of the Ark; but only

_Gopher-Wood_ and Pitch: To which re replies, _Def._ p. 103. _If

Scripture’s Silence concerning Things be a Ground of Presumption that

they were not, what then shall we think of an oval and unmountainous

Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a paradisaical World, and the like, which the

Scripture makes no mention of?_ I cannot easily forbear calling this an

_injudicious_ Reflection, tho’ I know he hath been angry with that Word,

and makes it a _Brat of Passion’s_. But I do assure him, I call it so

coolly and calmly. When a Thing is deduc’d by natural Arguments and

Reason, the Silence of Scripture is enough: if he can prove the _Motion

of the Earth_ by natural Arguments, and that Scripture is silent in that

Point, we desire no better Proof. Now in all those Things which he

mentions, an oval and unmountainous Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a

paradisaical World, Scripture is at least silent; and therefore ’tis

natural Arguments must determine these Cases: And this ill reasoning he

is often guilty of, in making no Distinction betwixt Things that are, or

that are not prov’d by natural Arguments, when he appeals to the

Interpretation of Scripture.

_Chap. XI._ Is to prove an open Sea (such as we have now) before the

Flood: All his Exceptions were answered before, _Answ. c._ 11. and I am

content to stand to that Answer, reserving only what is to be said

hereafter concerning the literal Sense of Scripture. However, he is too

lavish in some Expressions here, as when he says, (_p. 115._) That

_Adam_ died _before so much as one Fish appeared in the World:_ And a

little before he had said, _p. 114._ _For Fishes, if his Hypothesis be

believed, were never upon this Earth in Adam’s Time._ These Expressions,

I say, cannot be justified upon any Hypothesis: For why might not the

Rivers of that Earth have Fish in them, as well as the Rivers of this

Earth, or as our Rivers now? I’m sure the _Theory_, or the _Hypothesis_

he mentions, never said any Thing to the contrary, but rather suppos’d

the Waters fruitful, as the Ground was. But as to an _open Sea_, whether

Side soever you take, that there was, or was not any before the Flood; I

believe, however, _Adam_, to his dying Day, never saw either Sea or

Sea-fish, nor ever exercis’d any Dominion over either.

_Chap. XII._ Is concerning the Rainbow, and hath no new Argument in it,

nor Reinforcement: But a Question is moved, whether _as well_

necessarily signifies _as much_. The real Question to be consider’d

here, setting aside Pedantry, is this _whether_ that Thing (Sun or

Rainbow, or any other) could have any Significancy as a Sign, which

signified no more than the bare Promise would have done without a Sign:

This is more material to be consider’d and resolved, than whether _as

well_ and _as much_ signify the same.

_Chap. XIII._ Is concerning Paradise, and to justify or excuse himself

why he baulked all the Difficulties, and said nothing new or instructive

upon that Subject: But he would make the Theorist inconsistent with

himself in that he had said, _Def. p. 125._ that _neither Scripture nor

Reason determine the Place of Paradise; and yet determines it by the

Judgment of Christian Fathers_. Where’s the Inconsistency of this? The

Theory, as a Theory, is not concerned in a _Topical_ Paradise; and says

moreover that neither Scripture, nor Reason, have determin’d the Place

of it; but if we refer our selves to the Judgment and Tradition of the

Fathers, and stand to the Majority of their Votes, (when Scripture and

Reason are silent,) they have so far detetmin’d it, as to place it in

the other Hemisphere, rather than in this, and so exclude that shallow

Opinion of some Moderns, that would place it in _Mesopotamia_: And to

baffle that Opinion was the Design of the Theorist, (as) this Author

also seems to take notice, _p. 131._

After this, and an undervaluing of the Testimonies of the Fathers, he

undertakes to determine the Place of Paradise by Scripture, and

particularly that it was in _Mesopotamia_, or some Region thereabouts.

And his Argument is this, because in the last Verse of the third Chapter

of _Genesis_, the _Cherubims_ and _flaming Sword_ are said to be plac’d

מקדם לגן עדן, which he says is, _to the East of the Garden of Eden_. But

the Septuagint (upon whom he must chiefly depend for the Interpretation

of the Word מקדם in the first Place, _Chap. ii. 8._) read it here

ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδεῖσου τῆς τρυφῆς; And the _Vulgate_ renders it, _Ante

Paradisum voluptatis_; and according to the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, ’tis

render’d _ex adverso_. Now, what better Authorities can he bring us for

his Translation? I do not find that he gives any, as his usual Way is,

but his own Authority. And as for the Word מקדם in the second _Chapter_

and eighth _Verse_, which is the principal Place, ’tis well known, that

except the _Septuagint_, all the antient Versions, _Greek_ and _Latin_,

(besides others) render it to another Sense: And there is a like

Uncertainty of Translation in the Word עדן as we have noted elsewhere.

Lastly, the Rivers of Paradise, and the Countries that are said to run

through or encompass, are differently understood by different Authors,

without any Agreement or certain Conclusion: But these are all beaten

Subjects, which you may find in every Treatise of Paradise, and

therefore ’tis not worth the Time to pursue them here.

Then he proceeds to the _Longevity of the Ante-Deluvians_, which, so far

as I can understand him to affirm any Thing, he says, _p. 139._ was not

_general_; but the Lives of some few were _extraordinary, lengthen’d by

a special Blessing; the Elongation being a Work of Providence, not of

Nature_. This is a cheap and vulgar Account, (and so are all the

Contents of this Chapter) prov’d neither by Scripture, nor Reason, and

calculated for the Humour and Capacity of those that love their Ease

more than a diligent Enquiry after Truth. He hath indeed a bold

Assertion afterwards, that _Moses_ does distinguish as much, or more,

betwixt _two Races of Men before the Flood_; the one _Long-Livers_, and

the other _Short-Livers_; as he hath distinguish’d the Giants before the

Flood, from the common Race of Mankind. These are his Words, _p. 141._

_Is not his Distinction equally plain in both Cases?_ Speaking of this

fore-mentioned Distinction: Or, _if there be any Difference, does he not

distinguish better betwixt Long-Livers, and Short-Livers, than he does

betwixt Men of gigantick and of usual Proportion?_ Let’s see the Truth

of this; _Moses_ plainly made mention, _Gen. vi. 4._ of two Races of

Mankind: The ordinary Race, and those of a gigantick Race, or _Giants_.

Now, tell me where he plainly makes mention of _Short-Livers_ before the

Flood: And if he no where makes mention of _Short-Livers_, but of

_Long-Livers_ only, how does he distinguish as plainly of these two

Races, as he did of the other two; for in the other he mentioned plainly

and severally both the Parts or Members of the Distinction, and here he

mentions but one, and makes no Distinction.

Then he comes to the Testimonies cited by _Josephus_ for the Longevity

of the _Ante-Diluvians_, or first Inhabitants of the Earth: And these he

roundly pronounces to be _utterly false_. This Gentleman does not seem

to be much skill’d in Antiquity, either sacred or prophane; and yet he

boldly rejects these Testimonies (as he did those of the Fathers before)

as _utterly false_, _p. 142._ which _Josephus_ had alledged in

Vindication of the History of _Moses_. The only Reason he gives is,

because these Testimonies say, they liv’d a _thousand Years_; whereas

_Moses_ does not raise them altogether so high. But the Question was not

so much concerning the precise Number of their Years, as about the

Excess of them beyond the present Lives of Men, and a round Number in

such Cases is often taken instead of a broken Number. Besides, seeing,

according to the Account of _Moses_, the greater Part of them liv’d

above nine hundred Years, at least he should not have said these

Testimonies in _Josephus_ were _utterly false_, but false in part, or

not precisely true.

Now, he comes to his Reasons against the ante-diluvian Longevity, which

have all had their Answers before, and those we stand to. But I wonder

he should think it reasonable, _p. 144, 145._ that Mankind throughout

all Ages, should increase in the same Proportion as in the first Age:

And, if a decuple Proportion of Increase was reasonable at first, the

same should be continued all along; and the Product of Mankind, after

sixteen hundred Years, should be taken upon that Supposition. I should

not grudge to admit that the first Pair of Breeders might leave ten

Pair; but that every Pair of these ten should also leave ten Pair,

without any Failure: and every Pair in their Children should again leave

ten Pair; and this to be continued, without Diminution or Interruption,

for sixteen hundred Years, is not only a hard Supposition, but utterly

incredible. For still the greater the Number was, the more Room there

would be for Accidents of all Sorts; and every Failure towards the

Beginning, and proportionably in other Parts, would cut off Thousands in

the last Product.

_Chap._ XIV. Is against the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Disruption

of the Abyss at the Deluge, such as the Theory represents. Here is

nothing of new Argument, but some Strokes of railing Wit, after his Way:

He had said in his _Exceptions_, that the _Dissolution of the Earth was

horrid Blasphemy_: Now he makes it _reductive Blasphemy_, as being

_indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively_, p. 153, 154. contrary

to Scripture. By this Rule, we told him, all Errors in Religion would be

Blasphemy; and if he extend this to Errors in Philosophy also, ’tis

still more harsh and injudicious. I wonder how he thinks the Doctrine

which he owns, about the Motion of the Earth, should escape the Charge

of _Blasphemy_; that being not only indirectly, but directly and plainly

contrary to Scripture. We thought that Expression, _the Earth is

dissolved_, being a Scripture Expression, would thereby have been

protected from the Imputation of _Blasphemy_, and we alledged to that

Purpose, (besides _Psal._ lxxv. 3.) _Isa._ xxiv. 19. _Amos_ ix. 5. He

would have done well to have proved these Places in the Prophets

_Isaiah_ and _Amos_, to have been _figurative_ and _tropological_, as he

calls it; for we take them both to relate to the Dissolution of the

Earth, which literally came to pass at the Deluge: And he not having

proved the contrary, we are in Hopes still that the _Dissolution of the

Earth_ may not be _horrid Blasphemy_, nor of _blasphemous Importance_.

Then having quarrell’d with the Guard of Angels, which the _Theorist_

had assign’d for the Preservation of the Ark, in the Time of the Deluge,

he falls next into his Blunder, that the _Equator_ and _Ecliptick_ of

the Earth were interchang’d, when the Situation of the Earth was

chang’d. This Error in the Earth is _Cousin-German_ to his former Error

in the Heavens, _viz._ that the Earth chang’d its Tract about the Sun,

and leap’d out of the _Equator_ into the _Ecliptick_, when it chang’d

its Situation. The Truth is, this _Copernican System_ seems to lie cross

in his Imagination: I think he would do better to let it alone. However,

tho’ at other Times he is generally verbose and long-winded, he hath the

Sense to pass this by in a few Words; laying the Blame upon certain

_Parentheses_ or _Semicircles_, whose Innocency not withstanding we have

fully clear’d, and shew’d the Poison to be spread throughout the whole

Paragraph, which is too great to be made an _Erratum Typographicum_.

Then after, _p. 160, 161._ _Hermus, Caister, Menander and Caius; Nile

and its Mud, Piscenius Niger, who contended with Septimus Severus for

the Empire, and reprimanded his Soldiers for hankering after Wine; Du

Val, an ingenious French Writer, and Cleopatra and her admired Anthony_:

He concludes, that the Waters of the Deluge raged amongst the Fragments,

with _lasting_, _incessant_, and _unimaginable Turbulence_.

And so he comes to an Argument against the Dissolution of the Earth, _p.

162._ That, _all the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been

shaken down at that Time, or else overwhelmed_. He instanc’d in his

_Exceptions_ in _Seth’s Pillars; Henochia, Cain’s City; and Joppa_:

These he suppos’d such Buildings as were made before, and stood after

the Flood. But now, _Seth_’s Pillars and _Henochia_ being dismiss’d, he

insists upon _Joppa_ only, and says, this must have consisted of _such

Materials, as could never be prepared, formed and set up, without

Iron-Tools_. Tho’ I do not much believe that _Joppa_ was an

ante-diluvian Town, yet whatever they had in _Cain_’s Time, they might,

before the Deluge, have Mortar and Brick, which, as they are the first

stony Materials, that we read of, for Building; so the Ruins of them

might stand after the Deluge. And that they had no other Materials is

the more probable, because after the Flood, at the Building of _Babel_,

_Moses_ plainly intimates that they had no other Materials than those.

For the Text says, _Gen._ xi. 3. _They said one to another, Go to, let

us make Brick and burn them thoroughly; and they made Brick for Stone,

and Slime had they for Mortar._ But now this Argument, methinks, may be

retorted upon the Exceptor with Advantage: For, if there were no

Dissolutions, Concussions, or Absorptions, at the Deluge, instead of the

Ruins of _Joppa_, methinks we might have had the Ruins of an hundred

ante-diluvian Cities; especially, if, according to his Hypothesis, they

had good Stone, and good Iron, and all other Materials, fit for strong

and lasting Building: And, which is also to be consider’d, that it was

but a fifteen-cubit Deluge; so that Towns built upon Eminences or high

Lands, would be in little Danger of being ruin’d, much less of being

abolish’d.

His last Argument, (_p. 163._) proves, if it prove any Thing, that God’s

Promise, that _the World_ should not be _drown’d_ again, was a _vain and

trifling Thing_ to us, who know it must be burn’d: And consequently, if

_Noah_ understood the Conflagration of the World, he makes it a _vain

and trifling Thing_ to _Noah_ also. If the Exceptor delight in such

Conclusions, let him enjoy them, but they are not at all to the Mind of

the Theorist.

_Chapter_ XV. Now we come to his new Hypothesis of a _fifteen-cubit

Deluge_; and what Shifts he hath made to destroy the World with such a

diminutive Flood, we have noted before: First, by raising his

Water-Mark, and making it uncertain: Then by converting the Deluge, in a

great Measure into a _Famine_: And, Lastly, by destroying Mankind and

other Animals, with _evil Angels_. We shall now take notice of some

other Incongruities in his Hypothesis. When he made _Moses_’s Deluge but

_fifteen Cubits deep_, we said that was an _unmerciful Paradox_, and

ask’d whether he would have it receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a

_Conclusion_. All he answers to this, is, that the same Question may be

ask’d concerning several Parts of the Theory; _p. 166._ Particularly,

that the primitive Earth had no _open Sea_. Whether is that, says he, to

be receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_? The Answer is

ready, as a _Conclusion_, deduced from Premisses, and a Series of

antecedent Reasons. Now, can he make this Answer for his fifteen-cubit

Deluge? Must not that still be a _Postulatum_, and an unmerciful one? As

to the Theory, there is but one _Postulatum_ in all, _viz._ that the

_Earth rise from a Chaos_. All the other Propositions are deduc’d from

Premisses, and that one _Postulatum_ also is prov’d by Scripture and

Antiquity. We had noted further in the Answer, that the Author had said

in his Exceptions, that he would not defend his Hypotheses as _true_ and

_real_; and we demanded thereupon, _Why_ then did he trouble himself or

the World with what he did not think _true_ and _real_? To this he

replies, _Many have written ingenious and useful Things, which they

never believ’d to be true and real_. Romances suppose, and poetical

Fictions: Will you have your fifteen-cubit Deluge pass for such? But

then the Mischief is, where there is neither Truth of Fact, nor

Ingenuity of Invention, such a Composition will hardly pass for a

Romance, or a good Fiction. But there is still a greater Difficulty

behind. The Exceptor hath unhappily said, _Exc. p. 302. Our Supposition

stands supported by Divine Authority, as being founded upon Scripture;

which tells us as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters prevailed but

fifteen Cubits upon the Earth_. Upon which Words the Answerer made this

Remark, _Ans. p. 67. If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture, and

upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak, why will he not defend it as

TRUE and REAL? For to be supported by Scripture, and by plain Scripture,

is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith_. To this he

replies now, _Def. p. 168._ that he _begg’d Allowance at first, to make

bold with Scripture a little_: This is a bold Excuse, and he especially,

one would think, should take heed how he makes bold with Scripture,

lest, according to his own Notion, he fall into _Blasphemy_, or

something of _blasphemous Importance, indirectly, consequentially,_ or

_reductively_, at least: However, this Excuse, if it was a good one,

would take no Place here; for to understand and apply Scripture, in that

Sense that it speaks _as plainly as it can speak_, is not to make bold

with it, but modestly to follow its Dictates and plain Sense.

He feels this Load to lie heavy upon him, and struggles again to shake

it off with a Distinction. When he said his fifteen-cubit Deluge was

_supported by Divine Authority_, &c. this, he says, _ibid._ was spoken

_by him, in an hypothetick or suppositious Way, and that it cannot

possibly be understood otherwise by Men of Sense_. Here are two hard

Words: Let us first understand what they signify, and then we shall

better judge how Men of Sense would understand his Words. His

_hypothetick_ or _suppositious Way_, so far as I understand it, is the

same Thing as by _way of Supposition_: Then his Meaning is, he

_supposes_ his fifteen-cubit Deluge is _supported by Divine Authority_;

and he _supposes_ it is _founded upon Scripture, as plainly as it can

speak_: But this is to suppose the Question, and no Man of Sense would

make or grant such a Supposition; so that I do not see what he gains by

this _hypothetick_ and _suppositious Way_. But to draw him out of this

Mist of Words, either he affirms this, that his _Hypothesis is supported

by Divine Authority, and founded upon Scripture as plainly as it can

speak_, or he denies it, or he doubts of it: If he affirm it, then all

his Excuses and Diminutions are to no purpose, he must stand to his

Cause, and shew us those plain Texts of Scripture; if he deny it, he

gives up his Cause, and all that Divine Authority he pretended to; if he

doubt of it, then he should have express’d himself doubtfully: As,

_Scripture may admit of that Sense, or may be thought to intimate such a

thing_, but he says with a Plerophory, _Scripture speaks it as plainly

as it can speak_: And to mend the Matter, he unluckily subjoins in the

following Words, _p._ 168, 169. _Yea, tho’ it was spoken never so

positively, it was but to set forth REI PERSONAM: To make a more full

and lively Representation of the supposed thing._ He does well to tell

us what he means by _Rei Personam_; for otherwise no Man of Sense, as

his Phrase is, would ever have made that Translation of those Words. But

the Truth is, he is so perfectly at a Loss how to bring himself off, as

to this Particular, that in his Confusion, he neither makes good Sense

nor good _Latin_.

Now he comes to another Inconsistency which was charg’d upon him by the

_Answerer_: Namely, that he rejects the _Church Hypothesis_ concerning

the Deluge, and yet had said before, _Exc._ _p._ 300. _I cannot believe

(which I cannot well endure to speak) that the Church hath ever gone on

in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_: That he does reject this

Church Hypothesis, was plainly made out from his own Words, because he

rejects the _common Hypothesis_; (_see the Citation in the Answer_, _p._

68.) the _general standing Hypothesis_; the _usual Hypothesis_; the

_usual Sense they put upon Sacred Story_, &c. These Citations he does

not think fit to take Notice of in his Reply; but puts all upon this

general Issue, which the _Answerer_ concludes with: _The Church Way of

explaining the Deluge, is either rational or irrational: If he say it is

rational, why does he desert it, and invent a new one: And if he say it

is irrational, then that dreadful thing, which he cannot well endure to

speak, that the Church of God hath ever gone on in an irrational Way of

explaining the Deluge, falls flat upon himself._ Let’s hear his Answer

to this Dilemma. _Def._ p. 170. _We say_, says he, _that the Church Way

of explaining the Deluge_, (by creating and annihilating Waters for the

Nonce) _is very rational_. Then say I still, why do you desert it, or

why do you trouble us with a new one? Either his Hypothesis is more

rational than the Church Hypothesis, or less rational: If less rational,

why does he take us off from a better, to amuse us with a worse? But if

he say, his Hypothesis is more rational than that of the Church: Then

Woe be to him, in his own Words, _p._ 171. that so _black a Blemish

should be fasten’d upon the wisest and noblest Society in the World_, as

to make himself more wise than they, and his Hypothesis more rational

than theirs. The Truth is, this Gentleman hath a mind to appear a

_Virtuoso_, for the new Philosophy, and the _Copernican_ System; and yet

would be a Zealot for Orthodoxy, and the Church-Way of explaining

Things: Which two Designs do not well agree, as to the natural World;

and betwixt two Stools he falls to the Ground, and proves neither good

Churchman, nor good Philosopher.

But he will not still be convinc’d that he deserts the Church

Hypothesis, and continues to deny the Desertion in these Words. _Ibid._

_We say we do not desert or reject the Church-Way of explaining the

Deluge._ Now, to discover whether these Words are true or false; let us

observe, _First_, What he acknowledges to have said against the Church

Hypothesis: _Secondly_, What he hath said more than what he acknowledges

here. He acknowledges, that he said, the Church Hypothesis _might be

disgustful to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_; and this is

no good Character. Yet this is not all, for he hath fairly dropp’d a

principal Word in his Sentence, namely, _justly_, _Exc._ p. 312. His

Words in his _Exceptions_, were these, _such Inventions_ (which he

applies to the Church Hypothesis) _as have been, and JUSTLY may be

disgustful, not only to nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest

philosophick Judgments_. Now judge, whether he cited this Sentence

before, truly and fairly, and whether in these Words, truly cited, he

does not disparage the Church Hypothesis, and justify those that are

disgusted at it.

He farthermore acknowledges, that the usual Ways of explaining the

Deluge _seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligible to others, and

unsatisfactory to the most_: But, it seems, he will neither be of these,

_some_, _others_, or _most_. Lastly, He acknowledges that he said,

_Def._ p. 171. _The ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were

covered with Waters in the Deluge, brings on a Necessity of setting up a

new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood._ If so, what was this _ordinary

Supposition_? was it not the Supposition of the Church? And was that

such, as made it necessary to set up a new Hypothesis for explaining the

Flood? then the old Hypothesis was insufficient or irrational.

Thus much he acknowledges; but he omits what we noted before, his

rejecting or disapproving the _common Hypothesis_, the _general standing

Hypothesis_, the _usual Sense they put upon the Sacred Story_, &c. And

do not all these Phrases denote the Church Hypothesis? He farther omits,

that he confess’d, (_Excep._ _p._ 325.) _he had expounded a Text or two

of Scripture about the Deluge, so as none ever did; and, deserting the

common receiv’d Sense, puts an unusual Gloss upon them_. And is not that

_common receiv’d Sense_ the Sense of the Church, and his _unusual Gloss_

contrary to it? Lastly, he says, by his Hypothesis, we need not fly to a

_new Creation of Waters_, and gives his Reasons at large against that

Opinion; which you may see, _Except._ _p._ 313. Now, those Reasons he

thought either to be _good_ Reasons or _bad_ Reasons; if _bad_, why did

he set them down, or why did he not confuse them? If good, they stand

good against the Hypothesis of the Church; for he makes that _new

Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of Waters at the Deluge to be the

Hypothesis of the Church, _Def._ _p._ 170. I fear I have spent too much

Time in shewing him utterly inconsistent with himself in this

Particular. And I wonder he should be so sollicitous to justify the

Hypothesis of the Church in this Point, seeing he openly dissents from

it in a greater; I mean in that of the _System of the World_. Hear his

Words, if you please, to this Purpose, _Def._ _p._ 136. _And what does

the famous_ Aristotelian _Hypothesis seem to be now, but a Mass of

Errors; where such a System was contriv’d for the Heavens, and such a

Situation assign’d to the Earth, as neither Reason can approve, nor

Nature allow. Yet so prosperous and prevailing was this Hypothesis, that

it was generally receiv’d, and successfully propagated for many Ages._

This prosperous prevailing Error, or Mass of Errors, was it not espoused

and supported by the Church? And to break from the Church in greater

Points, and scruple it in less, is not this to strain at Gnats, and

swallow Camels?

So much for his Inconsistency with himself: The rest of this Chapter in

the _Answer_, shews his Inconsistency with _Moses_, both as to the

Waters covering the Tops of the Mountains, which _Moses_ affirms, and

the Exceptor denies; and as to the Decrease of the Deluge, which _Moses_

makes to be by the Waters retiring into their Chanels, after frequent

Reciprocations, _going_ and _coming_. But the Exceptor says, the Sun

suck’d up the Waters from the Earth, just as he had before suck’d the

Mountains out of the Earth: These Things are so groundless, or so gross,

that it would be tedious to insist longer upon them. And whereas it is

not reasonable to expect that any others should be idle enough, as we

must be, to collate three or four Tracts, to discern where the Advantage

lies in these small Altercations; I desire only, if they be so dispos’d,

that they would collate the _Exceptions_, _Answer_, and _Defence_ in

this one Chapter, which is our Author’s Master-Piece: And from this I am

willing they should take their Measures, and make a Judgment of his good

or bad Success in other Parts.

What Shifts he hath us’d to make his _fifteen-cubit Deluge_ sufficient

to destroy all Mankind, and all Animals, we have noted before; and here

it is (_p._ 181, 182.) that he reduces them to _Famine_. And after that

he comes to a long Excursion of seven or eight Pages, about the

Imperfection of _Shipping_ after the Flood, _Def._ _p._ 183, 185, _&c._

a good Argument for the Theorist, that they had not an open Sea,

Iron-Tools, and Materials for Shipping before the Flood: For what should

make them so inexpert in Navigation for many Years and Ages after the

Flood, if they had the Practice and Experience of it before the Flood:

And what could hinder their having that Practice and Experience, if they

had an open Sea, and all Iron and other Materials, for that Use and

Purpose?

Lastly, he comes to his Notion of the _great Deep_, or _Tehom-Rabbah_,

_Def._ _p._ 191. which he had made before, in express Words, to be the

Holes and Caverns in the Rocks; I say, in express Words, such as these,

_Exc._ _p._ 312. _Now supposing that the Caverns in the Mountains were

this great Deep_, speaking of _Moses’s great Deep_, according to this

new Hypothesis. He says farther, (_p._ 105.) _In case it be urg’d, that

Caverns, especially Caverns so high situate, cannot properly he called

the great Deep._ Where you see his own Objection supposes that he made

those Caverns the _great Deep_. And in the same Page, speaking of the

Psalmist’s _great Deeps_, (in his own Sense of making them Holes in

Rocks,) and _Moses_’s _great Deep_, he says, _the same Thing might be

meant by both_. By all these Expressions one would think it plain, that

by his _great Deep_ he meant his _Caverns_ in Rocks; yet now, upon

Objections urged against it, he seems desirous to fly off from that

Notion, but does not yet tell us plainly what must be meant by _Moses_’s

_great Deep_: If he, upon second Thoughts, would have the Sea to be

understood by it, why does he not answer the Objections that are made by

the Theorist against that Interpretation? _Engl. Theor._ p. 110, _&c._

Nay, why does he not answer what he himself had objected before

(_Except._ p. 310.) against that Supposition? He seems to unsay now,

what he said before, and yet substitutes nothing in the Place of it, to

be understood by _Moses’s Tehom. Rabbah_.

_Chap._ XVI. is a few Words concerning these Expressions of _shutting

the Windows of Heaven_, and the _Fountains of the Abyss_, after the

Deluge: And these were both shut alike, and both of them no less than

the _Caverns_ in the Mountains.

_Chap._ XVII. hath nothing of Argumentation or Philosophy, but runs on

in a popular declamatory Way, and (if I may use that forbidden Word)

injudicious. All amounts to this, _whether_ we may not go contrary to

the Letter of Scripture, in natural Things, when that goes contrary to

plain Reason. This we affirm, and this every one must affirm, that

believes the _Motion of the Earth_, as our Virtuoso pretends to do: Then

he concludes all with an harmonious Close, that he follows the great

Example of a Reverend Prelate, _Def._ p. 215. and _militates under that

Episcopal Banner_. I am willing to believe that he wrote at first, in

hopes to curry Favour with certain Persons, by his great Zeal for

Orthodoxy; but he hath made such an Hotch-potch of new Philosophy and

Divinity, that I believe it will scarce please the Party he would

cajole; nor so much as his Reverend Patron. I was so civil to him in the

Answer, as to make him a Saint in comparison of the former Animadverter;

but, by the Stile and Spirit of this last Pamphlet, he hath forfeited

with me all his Saint-ship, both absolute and comparative.

Thus much for his Chapters; and as to his Reflections upon the _Review

of the Theory_, they are so superficial and inconsiderable, that I

believe he never expected that they should be regarded: I wonder

however, that he should decline an Examination of the second Part of the

_Theory_: It cannot be for want of good Will to confute it; he hath

shewn that to the Height, whatsoever his Power was: Neither can it be

for want of Difference or Disagreement in Opinion, as to the Contents of

this latter Part; for he hath reckon’d the _Millennium_ amongst the

Errors of the antient _Fathers_, (_Def._ p. 136) and the _Renovation of

the World_ he makes _Allegorical_, (p. 214, _&c._) It must therefore be

for want of some third Thing, which he best knows.

But before we conclude, Sir, we must remember that we promised to speak

apart to two Things, which are often objected to the Theorist by this

Writer, and to little Purpose; namely, his flying to _extraordinary

Providence_, and his flying from the _literal Sense_ of Scripture. As to

extraordinary Providence, is the Theorist alone debarr’d from recourse

to it, or would he have all Men debarr’d, as well as the Theorist? If

so, why doth he use it so much himself? And if it be allow’d to others,

there is no Reason it should be deny’d the Theorist, unless he have

disown’d it, and so debarr’d himself that common Privilege: But the

contrary is manifest, in a multitude of Places, both of the first and

second Part of the _Theory_, Eng. Theor. _p._ 144, _&c._ For, besides a

Discourse on Purpose upon that Subject, in the eighth _Chapter_ of the

first Book, in the last Chapter, and last Words of the same Book

(_Latin_) he does openly avow, both Providence (Natural and Moral) and

Miracles; in these Words, _Denique cum certissimum sit à divina

Providentia pendere res omnes, cujuscunque ordinis, & ab eâdem vera

miracula edita esse_, &c. And as to the second Part of the _Theory_, the

Ministry of Angels is there acknowledg’d frequently, both as to natural

and moral Administrations. From all which Instances it is manifest, that

the Theorist did not debar himself, by denying either _Miracles_,

_angelical Ministry_, or _extraordinary Providence_: But, if the

Exceptor be so injudicious (pardon me that bold Word) as to confound all

extraordinary Providence with the _Acts of Omnipotency_, he must blame

himself for that, not the Theorist. The _Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of

Waters is an Act of pure Omnipotency: This the Theorist did not admit of

at the Deluge; and if this be his Fault, as it is frequently objected to

him, (_Def._ p. 9, 66, 170, _&c._) he perseveres in it still, and in the

Reasons he gave for his Opinion, which are no where confuted: _Eng.

Theor._ p. 25, 26. But as for Acts of angelical Power, he does every

where acknowledge them in the great Revolutions, even of the natural

World: _Theor. Lat._ p. 73. _Engl._ p. 146, 147. If the Exceptor would

make the Divine Omnipotency as cheap as the Ministry of Angels, and have

recourse as freely and as frequently to that, as to this; if he would

make all extraordinary Providence the same, and all Miracles, and set

all at the Pitch of infinite Power, this may be an Effect of his

Ignorance or Inadvertency, but is no way imputable to the Theorist.

In the next Place it may be observ’d, that the Theorist hath no where

asserted, that _Moses_’s _Cosmopœia_ (which does not proceed according

to ordinary Providence) is to be literally understood; and therefore

what is urg’d against him from the Letter of that _Cosmopœia_, is

improperly urg’d and without Ground. There are as good Reasons, and

better Authorities, that _Moses_’s _six Days Creation_ should not be

literally understood, than there are, why those Texts of Scripture that

speak about the _Motion of the Sun_, should not be literally understood:

And as to the Theorist, he had often intimated his Sense of that

_Cosmopœia_, that it was express’d _more humano, & ad captum populi_, as

appears in several Passages in the _Latin_ Theory: Speaking of the

_Mosaical Cosmogonia_, he hath these Words, _Theor._ _lib._ 2. _c._ 8.

_Constat hæc Cosmopœia duabus parcibus quarum prima, massas generales

atque rerum inconditarum statum exbibet; seqniturque eadem principia, &

eundem ordinem, quem Antiqui usque retinuerunt. Atque in hoc nobiscium

conveniunt omnes fere interpretes Christiani; nempe_, Tohu Bohu

_Mosaicum idem esse ac Chaos Antiquorum_. _Tenebras Mosaicas_, &c.

_bucusque convenit Mosi cum anfiquis Philosophis,——methodium autem illam

Philosophicam hic abrumpit, aliamque orditur, bumanam, aut, si mavis,

Theologicam; quo, motibus Chaos, secundum leges natura, & divini amoris

actionem, plane neglectis, & successivis ipsius mutationibus in varias

regiones, & elementa: His inquam posthabitis, popularem narrationem de

ortu rerum hoc modo instituit: Res omnes visibiles in sex classes_, &c.

This is a plain Indication how the Theorist understood that _Cosmopœia_:

And accordingly in the _English Theory_ the Author says, _p._402. &c. _I

have not mention’d_ Moses_’s_ Cosmopœia, _because I thought it deliver’d

by him as a Law-giver, not as a Philosopher; which I intend to shew at

large in another Treatise, not thinking that Discussion proper for the

vulgar Tongue_. The Exceptor was also minded of this in the Answer, _p._

66. Now, ’tis much that he, who hath search’d all the Corners, both of

the _English_ and _Latin_ Theory, to pick Quarrels, should never observe

such obvious Passages as these, but still make Objections from the

Letter of the _Mosaical Cosmopœia_, which affect the Theorist no more

than those Places of Scripture that speak of the Motion of the Sun, or

the Pillars of the Earth.

In the last Place, the Theorist distinguish’d two Methods for explaining

the natural World, that of an _ordinary_, and that of an _extraordinary

Providence_: And those that take the second Way, he said, might dispatch

their Task as soon as they pleas’d, if they engag’d Omnipotency in the

Work. But the other Method would require Time, it must proceed by

distinct Steps, and leisurely Motions, such as Nature can admit; and, in

that Respect, it might not suit with the busy Lives, or impatient

Studies of most Men, whom he left notwithstanding to their Liberty, to

take what Method they pleas’d, provided they were not troublesome in

forcing their hasty Thoughts upon all others. Thus the Theorist hath

express’d himself at the End of the first Book, _c._ 12. _Interea cum

non omnes a natura ita compositi simus, ut Philosophia studiis

delectemur: Neque etiam liceat multis, propter occupationes vitæ, iisdem

vacare, quibus per ingenium licuisset; iis jure permittendum est,

compendiario sapere, & relictis viis naturæ & causarum secundarum, quæ

sæpe longiusculæ sunt, per cansas superiores philosophari; idque

potissimum, cum ex piis affectivus hoc quandoque fieri possit; quibus,

vel male fundatis, aliquid dandum esse existimo, modo non sint

turbulenti._ Thus the Theorist, you see, sets two Ways before them; and

’tis indifferent to him whether they take, if they will go on their Way

peaceably. And he does now, moreover, particularly declare, That he hath

no Ambition, either to make the _Exceptor_, or any other of the same

Dispositions of Will, and the same Elevation of Understanding,

Proselytes to his Theory.

Thus much for _Providence_: As to the _literal Sense_ of Scripture, I

find, if what was noted before in the _Answer_, _p._ 82, 83, _&c._ had

been duly consider’d, there would be little need of Additions upon that

Subject. The Matter was stated freely and distinctly, and the Remarks or

Reflections which the Exceptor hath made in his _Defence_ upon this

Doctrine, are both shallow and partial. I say _partial_, in perverting

the Sense, and separating such Things as manifestly depend upon one

another. Thus the Exceptor falls upon that Expression in the _Answer_,

_Def._ _p._ 202. _Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture,

here pretended, is only in natural Things_, where he should have added

the other Part of the Sentence, _and also observe how for the Exceptor

himself, in such Things, hath contradicted Scripture_. Here he makes an

odious Declamation, as if the Answerer had confess’d that he

_contradicted Scripture in natural Things_; whereas the Words are

contradicting Scripture, _here pretended_; and ’tis plain by all the

Discourse, that ’tis the literal Sense of Scripture that is here spoken

of, which the Exceptor is also said to contradict. Such an unmanly

Captiousness shews the Temper and Measure of that Spirit, which, rather

than say nothing, will misrepresent the plain Sense of an Author. In

like manner, when he comes to those Words in the Answer, The Case

therefore is this, whether _to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture in

Things that relate to the natural World, be destroying the Foundation of

Religion, affronting Scripture, and blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Def. p._

206. He says, This is not to state the Case truly, for it is not, says

he, _going contrary to the Letter of Scripture that draws such evil

Consequences after it, but going contrary to the Letter of Scripture,

where it is understood_: And _this the Theorist does_, he says, and the

_Exceptor does not_. But who says so besides himself? This is fairly to

beg the Question; and can he suppose the Theorist so easy as to grant

this without Proof? It must be the Subject Matter that determines, what

is, and what is not, to be literally understood. However, he goes on,

begging still the Question in his own behalf, and says, Those Texts of

Scripture, that speak of the Motion and Course of the Sun, are not to be

understood literally. But why not? Because the literal Sense is not to

his Mind? Of four Texts of Scripture which the Theorist alledg’d against

him, for the Motion of the Sun, he answers but one, and that very

superficially, to say no worse. ’Tis _Psal._ xix. where the Sun at his

rising is said to be as a _Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, and to

rejoice as a strong Man to run his Race: And his going forth is from the

end of the Heaven, and his Circuit to the end of it_, p. 207. which he

answers with this vain Flourish: _Then the Sun must be a Man, and must

be upon his Marriage, and must be dress’d in fine Clothes, as a

Bridegroom is: Then he must come out of a Chamber, and must give no more

Light, and cast no more Heat, than a Bridegroom does_, &c. If a Man

should ridicule at this rate, the Discourse of our Saviour concerning

_Lazarus_ in _Abraham_’s Bosom, and _Dives_ in Hell, with a great Gulph

betwixt them, yet talking audibly to one another; _Luk._ xvi. and that

_Lazarus_ should be sent so far, as from Heaven to Hell, only to _dip

the Tip of his Finger in Water_, and cool _Dives_’s Tongue. He that

should go about thus to expose our Saviour’s Parable, would have a

thankless Office, and effect nothing: For the Substance of it would

stand good still; namely, that Mens Souls live after Death, and that

good Souls are in a State of Ease and Comfort, and bad Souls in a State

of Misery. In like manner, his ridiculing some Circumstances in the

Comparison made by the Psalmist, does not at all destroy the Substance

of that Discourse; namely, that the Sun moves in the Firmament, with

great Swiftness and Lustre, and hath the Circuit of its Motion round the

Earth. This is the Substance of what the Psalmist declares, and the rest

is but a Similitude, which need not be literally just in all

Particulars.

After this, he would fain persuade the Theorist, that he hath excused

the Exceptor for his receding from the literal Sense, as to the Motion

of the Earth; _Def._ p. 208. Because he hath granted, that in certain

Cases, we may and must recede from the literal Sense. But where, pray,

hath he granted, that the Motion of the Earth was one of those Cases?

Yet suppose it be so, may not the Theorist then enjoy this Privilege of

receding from the literal Sense upon occasion, as well as the Exceptor?

If he will give, as well as take this Liberty, let us mutually enjoy it;

but he can have no Pretence to deny it to others, and take it himself.

It uses to be a Rule in Writing, that a Man must not _stultum fingere

Lectorem_. You must suppose your Reader to have common Sense. But he

that accuses another of _Blasphemy_ for receding from the literal Sense

of Scripture in natural Things, and does himself at the same Time,

recede from the literal Sense of Scripture, in natural Things; one would

think, _quo ad hoc_, either had not, or would not exercise common Sense,

in a literal Way.

Lastly, he comes to the common known Rule, assign’d to direct us, when

every one ought to follow, or leave the literal Sense; which is, _p.

215. not to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject Matter will bear

it, without Absurdity or Incongruity_. This he repeats in the next Page

thus. The Rule is, _when no kind of Absurdities or Incongruities accrue

to any Texts, from the literal Sense_. If this be _his_ Rule, to what

Text does there accrue any Absurdity or Incongruity, by supposing the

Sun to move? For Scripture always speaks upon that Supposition, and not

one Word for the Motion of the Earth. Thus he states the Rule; but the

_Answerer_ supposed, that the Absurdity or Incongruity might arise from

the _Subject Matter_. And accordingly he still maintains, that there are

as just Reasons, (from the Subject Matter,) and better Authorities, for

receding from the literal Sense in the Narrative of the six Days

Creation, than in those Texts of Scripture, that speak of the Motions

and Course of the Sun: And to affirm the _Earth to be mov’d_, is as much

_Blasphemy_, and more contrary to Scripture, than to affirm it to have

been _dissolv’d_, as the Theorist hath done.

Sir, I beg your Excuse for this long letter, and leave it to you to

judge whether the Occasion was just or no. I know such Jarrings as these

must needs make bad Musick to your Ears: ’Tis like hearing two

Instruments play, that are not in Tune, in Concert with one another: But

you know Self-Defence, and to repel an Assailant, is always allow’d; and

he that begins the Quarrel, must answer for the Consequences. However,

Sir, to make amends for this I trouble, I am ready to receive your

Commands upon more acceptable Subjects.

_Your most humble Servant_, &c.