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.

FINIS.