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.