Chapter XXI: Book IV (12)

The eighth Chapter, _ibid._ begins with the Earth’s _being carried directly under the Equinoctial_, before its Change of Situation; _without any manner of Obliquity in her Site, or Declination towards either of the Tropicks in HER COURSE._ Here you see, when the Earth changed its Situation, it chang’d according to his Astronomy, two Things; its _Site_, and its _Course_; its Site upon its Axis, and its Course in the Heavens: and so he says again in the next Paragraph, _Put the Case the Earth shift her Posture, and also her Circuit about the Sun, in which the persisted till the Deluge_. Here is plainly the same Notion repeated; that the Earth changed not only its _Site_, but also its _Road_ or _Course_ about the Sun: And in consequence of this, he supposes its Course formerly to have been under the Equinoctial, and now under the Ecliptick; it being translated out of the one into the other, at its Change. Yet he seems now to be sensible of the Absurdity of this Doctrine, and therefore will not own it to have been his Sense; and as an Argument that he meant otherwise, he alledges, that he declared before, that by the Earth’s right Situation to the Sun, _is meant that the Axis of the Earth was always kept in a Parallelism to that of the Ecliptick_, p. 61. But what’s this to the Purpose? This speaks only of the _Site_ of the Earth, whereas his Error was is supposing its _Course_ or _Annual Orbit_ about the Sun, as well as its Site upon its own Axis, to have been different, and changed at the Deluge; as his Words already produced against him, plainly testify.

What follows in this Chapter, is concerning the perpetual Equinox: And as to the reasoning Part of what he says in Defence of his Exceptions, we do not grudge him the Benefit of it, let it do him what Service it can. And as to the historical Part, he will not allow a Witness to be a good Witness, as to Matter of Fact, if he did not assign true Causes of that Matter of Fact. To which I only reply, tho’ _Tiverton_ Steeple was not the Cause of _Goodwin Sands_, as the _Kentish_ Men thought, yet their Testimony was so far good, that there were such Sands, and such a Steeple. He also commits an Error as to the Nature of _Tradition:_ When a Tradition is to be made out, it is not expected that it should be made appear that none were ignorant of that Tradition in former Ages; or that all that mentioned it, understood the true Grounds and Extent of it; but is is enough to shew the plain Footsteps of it in Antiquity, as a Conclusion, tho’ they did not know the Reasons and Premisses upon which it depended. For Instance, the Conflagration of the World is a Doctrine of Antiquity, traditionally deliver’d from Age to Age; but the _Causes_ and _Manner_ of the Conflagration, they either did not know, or have nor deliver’d to us. In like manner, the first Age and State of the World was without Change of Seasons, or under a perpetual Equinox: Of this we see many Footsteps in _Antiquity_, amongst the Jews, Christians, Heathens, Poets, Philosophers; but the Theory of this perpetual Equinox, the Causes and Manner of it, we neither find, nor can reasonably expect, from the Antients: So much for the Equinox.

This Chapter, as it begun with an Error, so it unhappily ends with a Paralogism; namely, that, _because thirty Days made a Month at the Deluge, therefore those Days were neither longer nor shorter than ours are at present_. Tho’ we have sufficiently exposed this before, yet one thing more may be added, in answer to his confident Conclusion, in these Words: But to talk, _as the Answerer does, that the Month should be lengthened by the Days being so, is a fearful Blunder indeed: For let the Days (by slackening the Earth’s diurnal Motion) have been never so long, yet (its Annual Motion continuing the same) the Month must needs have kept its usual Length, only fewer Days would have made it up_. ’Tis not usual for a Man to persevere so confidently in the same Error, as if the Intervals of Time, Hours, Days, Months, Years, could not be proportionably increas’d, so as to contain one another in the same Proportion they did before, and yet be every one increas’d as to absolute Duration. Take a Clock, for Instance, that goes too slow; the Circuit of the Dial-plate is twelve Hours, let these represent the twelve Signs in his Zodiack, and the Hand to be the Earth that goes through them all; and consequently, the whole Circuit of the Dial-plate represents the Year. Suppose, as we said, this Clock to go too slow, this will not hinder, but still fifteen Minutes make a Quarter in this Clock, four Quarters make an Hour, and twelve Hours the whole Circuit of the Dial-plate: But every one of these Intervals will contain more Time than it did before, according to absolute Duration, or according to the Measures of another Clock that does not go too slow: This is the very Case which he cannot or will not comprehend, but concludes thus in Effect, that because the Hour consists still of four Quarters in this Clock, therefore it is no longer than ordinary.

The ninth Chapter also begins with a false Notion, that _Bodies quiescent_ (as he hath now alter’d the Case) _have a Nitency downwards:_ Which Mistake we rectified before, if he please. Then he proceeds to the _oval_ Figure of the Earth, and many Flourishes and Harangues are made here to little purpose; for he goes on upon a false Supposition, that the Waters of the Chaos were made oval by the Weight or Gravitation of the Air; a Thing that never came into the Words or Thoughts of the Theorist. Yet upon this Supposition he runs into the _Deserts of Bilebulgerid_, Def. _p. 85, 86._ and the Waters of _Mare del Zur_; Words that make a great Noise, but to no Effect. If he had pleas’d he might have seen the Theorist made no Use of the Weight of the Air upon this Occasion, by the Instance he gave of the Pressure of the Moon, and the Flux of the Waters by that Pressure: Which is no more done by the Gravitation of the Air, than the Banks are prest in a swift Current and narrow Channel, by the Gravitation of the Water. But he says, rarified Air makes less Resistance than gross Air; and rarified Water in an Æolipile, it may be he thinks, presses with less Force than unrarified. Air possibly may be rarified to that Degree as to lessen its Resistance; but we speak of Air moderately agitated, so as to be made only more brisk and active. Moreover, he says, the Waters that lay under the Poles must have risen perpendicularly, and why might they not, as well have done so under the Equator? The Waters that lay naturally and originally under the Poles, did not rise at all; but the Waters became more deep there, by those that were thrust thither from the middle Parts of the Globe. Upon the whole, I do not perceive that he hath weaken’d any one of the Propositions upon which the Formation of an oval Earth depended; which were these: _First_, That the Tendency of the Waters from the Centre of this Motion, would be greater and stronger in the Equinoctial Parts, than in the Polar, or in those Parts where they moved in greater Circles; and consequently swifter, than in those where they were moved in lesser Circles and slower. _Secondly_, Agitated Air hath more Force to repel what presses against it than stagnant Air; and that the Air was more agitated and rarified under the Equinoctial Parts, than under the Poles. _Thirdly_, Waters hinder’d and repell’d in their primary Tendency, take the easiest way they can to free themselves from that Force, so as to persevere in their Motion. _Lastly_, To flow laterally upon a Plain, or to ascend upon an inclin’d Plain, is easier than to rise perpendicularly. These are the Propositions upon which that Discourse depended, and I do not find that he hath disprov’d any one of them. And this, Sir, is a short Account of a long Chapter, Impertinences omitted.

_Chapter_ X. Is concerning the Original and Causes of Mountains, which the Exceptor unhappily imputes to the Heat and Influence of the Sun. Whether his Hypothesis be effectually confuted or not, I am very willing to stand to the Judgment of any unconcern’d Person, that will have the Patience to compare the _Exceptions_ and the _Answer_, in this Chapter. Then, as to his _Historical_ Arguments, as he calls them, to prove there were Mountains before the Flood, from _Giants that saved themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion, and Adam’s wandering several hundred of Years upon the Mountains of India_: These, and such like, which he brought to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood, he now thinks fit to renounce, _Def. p. 97._ and says he had done so before by an _anticipative_ Sentence: But if they were condemn’d before by an _anticipative_ Sentence, as Fables and Forgeries, why were they stuff’d into his Book, and us’d as traditional Evidence against the Theory?

_Lastly_, He contends in this Chapter for _Iron_ and _Iron Tools_ before the Flood, and as early as the Time of _Cain_; because he _built a City_, which, he says, could not be built without Iron and Iron-Tools: To which it was answer’d, _Ans. p. 49, 50._ that, _if he fancied that City of Cain_’s, like _Paris_ or _London_, _he_ had Reason to believe that they had _Iron-tools_ to make it: But suppose it was a Number of Cottages, made of Branches of Trees, of Osiers and Bulrushes; or, if you will, of Mud-Walls, and a Roof of Straw, with a Fence about it to keep out Beasts, there would be no such Necessity of Iron-Tools.

Consider, pray, how long the World was without knowing the Use of Iron, in several Parts of it, as in the Northern Countries and _America_, and yet they had Houses and Cities after their Fashion. And to come nearer Home, consider what Towns and Cities our Ancestors, the _Britains_, had in _Cæsar_’s Time, more than two thousand Years after the Time of _Cain: Com. li. 5. Oppidum Britanni vacant, cum Sylvam impeditam vallo atque fossa munierant; quo incarsionis hostium nitandæ causa, convenire consueverunt_: Why might not _Henochia_, _Cain_’s City, be such a City as this?

And as to the Ark, which he also would make a Proof that there were Iron and Iron-Tools before the Flood, _Ibid._ ’twas answer’d, that Scripture does not mention Iron or Iron-Tools in building of the Ark; but only _Gopher-Wood_ and Pitch: To which re replies, _Def._ p. 103. _If Scripture’s Silence concerning Things be a Ground of Presumption that they were not, what then shall we think of an oval and unmountainous Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a paradisaical World, and the like, which the Scripture makes no mention of?_ I cannot easily forbear calling this an _injudicious_ Reflection, tho’ I know he hath been angry with that Word, and makes it a _Brat of Passion’s_. But I do assure him, I call it so coolly and calmly. When a Thing is deduc’d by natural Arguments and Reason, the Silence of Scripture is enough: if he can prove the _Motion of the Earth_ by natural Arguments, and that Scripture is silent in that Point, we desire no better Proof. Now in all those Things which he mentions, an oval and unmountainous Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a paradisaical World, Scripture is at least silent; and therefore ’tis natural Arguments must determine these Cases: And this ill reasoning he is often guilty of, in making no Distinction betwixt Things that are, or that are not prov’d by natural Arguments, when he appeals to the Interpretation of Scripture.

_Chap. XI._ Is to prove an open Sea (such as we have now) before the Flood: All his Exceptions were answered before, _Answ. c._ 11. and I am content to stand to that Answer, reserving only what is to be said hereafter concerning the literal Sense of Scripture. However, he is too lavish in some Expressions here, as when he says, (_p. 115._) That _Adam_ died _before so much as one Fish appeared in the World:_ And a little before he had said, _p. 114._ _For Fishes, if his Hypothesis be believed, were never upon this Earth in Adam’s Time._ These Expressions, I say, cannot be justified upon any Hypothesis: For why might not the Rivers of that Earth have Fish in them, as well as the Rivers of this Earth, or as our Rivers now? I’m sure the _Theory_, or the _Hypothesis_ he mentions, never said any Thing to the contrary, but rather suppos’d the Waters fruitful, as the Ground was. But as to an _open Sea_, whether Side soever you take, that there was, or was not any before the Flood; I believe, however, _Adam_, to his dying Day, never saw either Sea or Sea-fish, nor ever exercis’d any Dominion over either.

_Chap. XII._ Is concerning the Rainbow, and hath no new Argument in it, nor Reinforcement: But a Question is moved, whether _as well_ necessarily signifies _as much_. The real Question to be consider’d here, setting aside Pedantry, is this _whether_ that Thing (Sun or Rainbow, or any other) could have any Significancy as a Sign, which signified no more than the bare Promise would have done without a Sign: This is more material to be consider’d and resolved, than whether _as well_ and _as much_ signify the same.

_Chap. XIII._ Is concerning Paradise, and to justify or excuse himself why he baulked all the Difficulties, and said nothing new or instructive upon that Subject: But he would make the Theorist inconsistent with himself in that he had said, _Def. p. 125._ that _neither Scripture nor Reason determine the Place of Paradise; and yet determines it by the Judgment of Christian Fathers_. Where’s the Inconsistency of this? The Theory, as a Theory, is not concerned in a _Topical_ Paradise; and says moreover that neither Scripture, nor Reason, have determin’d the Place of it; but if we refer our selves to the Judgment and Tradition of the Fathers, and stand to the Majority of their Votes, (when Scripture and Reason are silent,) they have so far detetmin’d it, as to place it in the other Hemisphere, rather than in this, and so exclude that shallow Opinion of some Moderns, that would place it in _Mesopotamia_: And to baffle that Opinion was the Design of the Theorist, (as) this Author also seems to take notice, _p. 131._

After this, and an undervaluing of the Testimonies of the Fathers, he undertakes to determine the Place of Paradise by Scripture, and particularly that it was in _Mesopotamia_, or some Region thereabouts. And his Argument is this, because in the last Verse of the third Chapter of _Genesis_, the _Cherubims_ and _flaming Sword_ are said to be plac’d מקדם לגן עדן, which he says is, _to the East of the Garden of Eden_. But the Septuagint (upon whom he must chiefly depend for the Interpretation of the Word מקדם in the first Place, _Chap. ii. 8._) read it here ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδεῖσου τῆς τρυφῆς; And the _Vulgate_ renders it, _Ante Paradisum voluptatis_; and according to the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, ’tis render’d _ex adverso_. Now, what better Authorities can he bring us for his Translation? I do not find that he gives any, as his usual Way is, but his own Authority. And as for the Word מקדם in the second _Chapter_ and eighth _Verse_, which is the principal Place, ’tis well known, that except the _Septuagint_, all the antient Versions, _Greek_ and _Latin_, (besides others) render it to another Sense: And there is a like Uncertainty of Translation in the Word עדן as we have noted elsewhere. Lastly, the Rivers of Paradise, and the Countries that are said to run through or encompass, are differently understood by different Authors, without any Agreement or certain Conclusion: But these are all beaten Subjects, which you may find in every Treatise of Paradise, and therefore ’tis not worth the Time to pursue them here.

Then he proceeds to the _Longevity of the Ante-Deluvians_, which, so far as I can understand him to affirm any Thing, he says, _p. 139._ was not _general_; but the Lives of some few were _extraordinary, lengthen’d by a special Blessing; the Elongation being a Work of Providence, not of Nature_. This is a cheap and vulgar Account, (and so are all the Contents of this Chapter) prov’d neither by Scripture, nor Reason, and calculated for the Humour and Capacity of those that love their Ease more than a diligent Enquiry after Truth. He hath indeed a bold Assertion afterwards, that _Moses_ does distinguish as much, or more, betwixt _two Races of Men before the Flood_; the one _Long-Livers_, and the other _Short-Livers_; as he hath distinguish’d the Giants before the Flood, from the common Race of Mankind. These are his Words, _p. 141._ _Is not his Distinction equally plain in both Cases?_ Speaking of this fore-mentioned Distinction: Or, _if there be any Difference, does he not distinguish better betwixt Long-Livers, and Short-Livers, than he does betwixt Men of gigantick and of usual Proportion?_ Let’s see the Truth of this; _Moses_ plainly made mention, _Gen. vi. 4._ of two Races of Mankind: The ordinary Race, and those of a gigantick Race, or _Giants_. Now, tell me where he plainly makes mention of _Short-Livers_ before the Flood: And if he no where makes mention of _Short-Livers_, but of _Long-Livers_ only, how does he distinguish as plainly of these two Races, as he did of the other two; for in the other he mentioned plainly and severally both the Parts or Members of the Distinction, and here he mentions but one, and makes no Distinction.

Then he comes to the Testimonies cited by _Josephus_ for the Longevity of the _Ante-Diluvians_, or first Inhabitants of the Earth: And these he roundly pronounces to be _utterly false_. This Gentleman does not seem to be much skill’d in Antiquity, either sacred or prophane; and yet he boldly rejects these Testimonies (as he did those of the Fathers before) as _utterly false_, _p. 142._ which _Josephus_ had alledged in Vindication of the History of _Moses_. The only Reason he gives is, because these Testimonies say, they liv’d a _thousand Years_; whereas _Moses_ does not raise them altogether so high. But the Question was not so much concerning the precise Number of their Years, as about the Excess of them beyond the present Lives of Men, and a round Number in such Cases is often taken instead of a broken Number. Besides, seeing, according to the Account of _Moses_, the greater Part of them liv’d above nine hundred Years, at least he should not have said these Testimonies in _Josephus_ were _utterly false_, but false in part, or not precisely true.

Now, he comes to his Reasons against the ante-diluvian Longevity, which have all had their Answers before, and those we stand to. But I wonder he should think it reasonable, _p. 144, 145._ that Mankind throughout all Ages, should increase in the same Proportion as in the first Age: And, if a decuple Proportion of Increase was reasonable at first, the same should be continued all along; and the Product of Mankind, after sixteen hundred Years, should be taken upon that Supposition. I should not grudge to admit that the first Pair of Breeders might leave ten Pair; but that every Pair of these ten should also leave ten Pair, without any Failure: and every Pair in their Children should again leave ten Pair; and this to be continued, without Diminution or Interruption, for sixteen hundred Years, is not only a hard Supposition, but utterly incredible. For still the greater the Number was, the more Room there would be for Accidents of all Sorts; and every Failure towards the Beginning, and proportionably in other Parts, would cut off Thousands in the last Product.

_Chap._ XIV. Is against the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge, such as the Theory represents. Here is nothing of new Argument, but some Strokes of railing Wit, after his Way: He had said in his _Exceptions_, that the _Dissolution of the Earth was horrid Blasphemy_: Now he makes it _reductive Blasphemy_, as being _indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively_, p. 153, 154. contrary to Scripture. By this Rule, we told him, all Errors in Religion would be Blasphemy; and if he extend this to Errors in Philosophy also, ’tis still more harsh and injudicious. I wonder how he thinks the Doctrine which he owns, about the Motion of the Earth, should escape the Charge of _Blasphemy_; that being not only indirectly, but directly and plainly contrary to Scripture. We thought that Expression, _the Earth is dissolved_, being a Scripture Expression, would thereby have been protected from the Imputation of _Blasphemy_, and we alledged to that Purpose, (besides _Psal._ lxxv. 3.) _Isa._ xxiv. 19. _Amos_ ix. 5. He would have done well to have proved these Places in the Prophets _Isaiah_ and _Amos_, to have been _figurative_ and _tropological_, as he calls it; for we take them both to relate to the Dissolution of the Earth, which literally came to pass at the Deluge: And he not having proved the contrary, we are in Hopes still that the _Dissolution of the Earth_ may not be _horrid Blasphemy_, nor of _blasphemous Importance_.

Then having quarrell’d with the Guard of Angels, which the _Theorist_ had assign’d for the Preservation of the Ark, in the Time of the Deluge, he falls next into his Blunder, that the _Equator_ and _Ecliptick_ of the Earth were interchang’d, when the Situation of the Earth was chang’d. This Error in the Earth is _Cousin-German_ to his former Error in the Heavens, _viz._ that the Earth chang’d its Tract about the Sun, and leap’d out of the _Equator_ into the _Ecliptick_, when it chang’d its Situation. The Truth is, this _Copernican System_ seems to lie cross in his Imagination: I think he would do better to let it alone. However, tho’ at other Times he is generally verbose and long-winded, he hath the Sense to pass this by in a few Words; laying the Blame upon certain _Parentheses_ or _Semicircles_, whose Innocency not withstanding we have fully clear’d, and shew’d the Poison to be spread throughout the whole Paragraph, which is too great to be made an _Erratum Typographicum_.

Then after, _p. 160, 161._ _Hermus, Caister, Menander and Caius; Nile and its Mud, Piscenius Niger, who contended with Septimus Severus for the Empire, and reprimanded his Soldiers for hankering after Wine; Du Val, an ingenious French Writer, and Cleopatra and her admired Anthony_: He concludes, that the Waters of the Deluge raged amongst the Fragments, with _lasting_, _incessant_, and _unimaginable Turbulence_.

And so he comes to an Argument against the Dissolution of the Earth, _p. 162._ That, _all the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been shaken down at that Time, or else overwhelmed_. He instanc’d in his _Exceptions_ in _Seth’s Pillars; Henochia, Cain’s City; and Joppa_: These he suppos’d such Buildings as were made before, and stood after the Flood. But now, _Seth_’s Pillars and _Henochia_ being dismiss’d, he insists upon _Joppa_ only, and says, this must have consisted of _such Materials, as could never be prepared, formed and set up, without Iron-Tools_. Tho’ I do not much believe that _Joppa_ was an ante-diluvian Town, yet whatever they had in _Cain_’s Time, they might, before the Deluge, have Mortar and Brick, which, as they are the first stony Materials, that we read of, for Building; so the Ruins of them might stand after the Deluge. And that they had no other Materials is the more probable, because after the Flood, at the Building of _Babel_, _Moses_ plainly intimates that they had no other Materials than those. For the Text says, _Gen._ xi. 3. _They said one to another, Go to, let us make Brick and burn them thoroughly; and they made Brick for Stone, and Slime had they for Mortar._ But now this Argument, methinks, may be retorted upon the Exceptor with Advantage: For, if there were no Dissolutions, Concussions, or Absorptions, at the Deluge, instead of the Ruins of _Joppa_, methinks we might have had the Ruins of an hundred ante-diluvian Cities; especially, if, according to his Hypothesis, they had good Stone, and good Iron, and all other Materials, fit for strong and lasting Building: And, which is also to be consider’d, that it was but a fifteen-cubit Deluge; so that Towns built upon Eminences or high Lands, would be in little Danger of being ruin’d, much less of being abolish’d.

His last Argument, (_p. 163._) proves, if it prove any Thing, that God’s Promise, that _the World_ should not be _drown’d_ again, was a _vain and trifling Thing_ to us, who know it must be burn’d: And consequently, if _Noah_ understood the Conflagration of the World, he makes it a _vain and trifling Thing_ to _Noah_ also. If the Exceptor delight in such Conclusions, let him enjoy them, but they are not at all to the Mind of the Theorist.

_Chapter_ XV. Now we come to his new Hypothesis of a _fifteen-cubit Deluge_; and what Shifts he hath made to destroy the World with such a diminutive Flood, we have noted before: First, by raising his Water-Mark, and making it uncertain: Then by converting the Deluge, in a great Measure into a _Famine_: And, Lastly, by destroying Mankind and other Animals, with _evil Angels_. We shall now take notice of some other Incongruities in his Hypothesis. When he made _Moses_’s Deluge but _fifteen Cubits deep_, we said that was an _unmerciful Paradox_, and ask’d whether he would have it receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_. All he answers to this, is, that the same Question may be ask’d concerning several Parts of the Theory; _p. 166._ Particularly, that the primitive Earth had no _open Sea_. Whether is that, says he, to be receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_? The Answer is ready, as a _Conclusion_, deduced from Premisses, and a Series of antecedent Reasons. Now, can he make this Answer for his fifteen-cubit Deluge? Must not that still be a _Postulatum_, and an unmerciful one? As to the Theory, there is but one _Postulatum_ in all, _viz._ that the _Earth rise from a Chaos_. All the other Propositions are deduc’d from Premisses, and that one _Postulatum_ also is prov’d by Scripture and Antiquity. We had noted further in the Answer, that the Author had said in his Exceptions, that he would not defend his Hypotheses as _true_ and _real_; and we demanded thereupon, _Why_ then did he trouble himself or the World with what he did not think _true_ and _real_? To this he replies, _Many have written ingenious and useful Things, which they never believ’d to be true and real_. Romances suppose, and poetical Fictions: Will you have your fifteen-cubit Deluge pass for such? But then the Mischief is, where there is neither Truth of Fact, nor Ingenuity of Invention, such a Composition will hardly pass for a Romance, or a good Fiction. But there is still a greater Difficulty behind. The Exceptor hath unhappily said, _Exc. p. 302. Our Supposition stands supported by Divine Authority, as being founded upon Scripture; which tells us as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth_. Upon which Words the Answerer made this Remark, _Ans. p. 67. If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture, and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak, why will he not defend it as TRUE and REAL? For to be supported by Scripture, and by plain Scripture, is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith_. To this he replies now, _Def. p. 168._ that he _begg’d Allowance at first, to make bold with Scripture a little_: This is a bold Excuse, and he especially, one would think, should take heed how he makes bold with Scripture, lest, according to his own Notion, he fall into _Blasphemy_, or something of _blasphemous Importance, indirectly, consequentially,_ or _reductively_, at least: However, this Excuse, if it was a good one, would take no Place here; for to understand and apply Scripture, in that Sense that it speaks _as plainly as it can speak_, is not to make bold with it, but modestly to follow its Dictates and plain Sense.

He feels this Load to lie heavy upon him, and struggles again to shake it off with a Distinction. When he said his fifteen-cubit Deluge was _supported by Divine Authority_, &c. this, he says, _ibid._ was spoken _by him, in an hypothetick or suppositious Way, and that it cannot possibly be understood otherwise by Men of Sense_. Here are two hard Words: Let us first understand what they signify, and then we shall better judge how Men of Sense would understand his Words. His _hypothetick_ or _suppositious Way_, so far as I understand it, is the same Thing as by _way of Supposition_: Then his Meaning is, he _supposes_ his fifteen-cubit Deluge is _supported by Divine Authority_; and he _supposes_ it is _founded upon Scripture, as plainly as it can speak_: But this is to suppose the Question, and no Man of Sense would make or grant such a Supposition; so that I do not see what he gains by this _hypothetick_ and _suppositious Way_. But to draw him out of this Mist of Words, either he affirms this, that his _Hypothesis is supported by Divine Authority, and founded upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak_, or he denies it, or he doubts of it: If he affirm it, then all his Excuses and Diminutions are to no purpose, he must stand to his Cause, and shew us those plain Texts of Scripture; if he deny it, he gives up his Cause, and all that Divine Authority he pretended to; if he doubt of it, then he should have express’d himself doubtfully: As, _Scripture may admit of that Sense, or may be thought to intimate such a thing_, but he says with a Plerophory, _Scripture speaks it as plainly as it can speak_: And to mend the Matter, he unluckily subjoins in the following Words, _p._ 168, 169. _Yea, tho’ it was spoken never so positively, it was but to set forth REI PERSONAM: To make a more full and lively Representation of the supposed thing._ He does well to tell us what he means by _Rei Personam_; for otherwise no Man of Sense, as his Phrase is, would ever have made that Translation of those Words. But the Truth is, he is so perfectly at a Loss how to bring himself off, as to this Particular, that in his Confusion, he neither makes good Sense nor good _Latin_.

Now he comes to another Inconsistency which was charg’d upon him by the _Answerer_: Namely, that he rejects the _Church Hypothesis_ concerning the Deluge, and yet had said before, _Exc._ _p._ 300. _I cannot believe (which I cannot well endure to speak) that the Church hath ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_: That he does reject this Church Hypothesis, was plainly made out from his own Words, because he rejects the _common Hypothesis_; (_see the Citation in the Answer_, _p._ 68.) the _general standing Hypothesis_; the _usual Hypothesis_; the _usual Sense they put upon Sacred Story_, &c. These Citations he does not think fit to take Notice of in his Reply; but puts all upon this general Issue, which the _Answerer_ concludes with: _The Church Way of explaining the Deluge, is either rational or irrational: If he say it is rational, why does he desert it, and invent a new one: And if he say it is irrational, then that dreadful thing, which he cannot well endure to speak, that the Church of God hath ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge, falls flat upon himself._ Let’s hear his Answer to this Dilemma. _Def._ p. 170. _We say_, says he, _that the Church Way of explaining the Deluge_, (by creating and annihilating Waters for the Nonce) _is very rational_. Then say I still, why do you desert it, or why do you trouble us with a new one? Either his Hypothesis is more rational than the Church Hypothesis, or less rational: If less rational, why does he take us off from a better, to amuse us with a worse? But if he say, his Hypothesis is more rational than that of the Church: Then Woe be to him, in his own Words, _p._ 171. that so _black a Blemish should be fasten’d upon the wisest and noblest Society in the World_, as to make himself more wise than they, and his Hypothesis more rational than theirs. The Truth is, this Gentleman hath a mind to appear a _Virtuoso_, for the new Philosophy, and the _Copernican_ System; and yet would be a Zealot for Orthodoxy, and the Church-Way of explaining Things: Which two Designs do not well agree, as to the natural World; and betwixt two Stools he falls to the Ground, and proves neither good Churchman, nor good Philosopher.

But he will not still be convinc’d that he deserts the Church Hypothesis, and continues to deny the Desertion in these Words. _Ibid._ _We say we do not desert or reject the Church-Way of explaining the Deluge._ Now, to discover whether these Words are true or false; let us observe, _First_, What he acknowledges to have said against the Church Hypothesis: _Secondly_, What he hath said more than what he acknowledges here. He acknowledges, that he said, the Church Hypothesis _might be disgustful to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_; and this is no good Character. Yet this is not all, for he hath fairly dropp’d a principal Word in his Sentence, namely, _justly_, _Exc._ p. 312. His Words in his _Exceptions_, were these, _such Inventions_ (which he applies to the Church Hypothesis) _as have been, and JUSTLY may be disgustful, not only to nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_. Now judge, whether he cited this Sentence before, truly and fairly, and whether in these Words, truly cited, he does not disparage the Church Hypothesis, and justify those that are disgusted at it.

He farthermore acknowledges, that the usual Ways of explaining the Deluge _seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligible to others, and unsatisfactory to the most_: But, it seems, he will neither be of these, _some_, _others_, or _most_. Lastly, He acknowledges that he said, _Def._ p. 171. _The ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were covered with Waters in the Deluge, brings on a Necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood._ If so, what was this _ordinary Supposition_? was it not the Supposition of the Church? And was that such, as made it necessary to set up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood? then the old Hypothesis was insufficient or irrational.

Thus much he acknowledges; but he omits what we noted before, his rejecting or disapproving the _common Hypothesis_, the _general standing Hypothesis_, the _usual Sense they put upon the Sacred Story_, &c. And do not all these Phrases denote the Church Hypothesis? He farther omits, that he confess’d, (_Excep._ _p._ 325.) _he had expounded a Text or two of Scripture about the Deluge, so as none ever did; and, deserting the common receiv’d Sense, puts an unusual Gloss upon them_. And is not that _common receiv’d Sense_ the Sense of the Church, and his _unusual Gloss_ contrary to it? Lastly, he says, by his Hypothesis, we need not fly to a _new Creation of Waters_, and gives his Reasons at large against that Opinion; which you may see, _Except._ _p._ 313. Now, those Reasons he thought either to be _good_ Reasons or _bad_ Reasons; if _bad_, why did he set them down, or why did he not confuse them? If good, they stand good against the Hypothesis of the Church; for he makes that _new Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of Waters at the Deluge to be the Hypothesis of the Church, _Def._ _p._ 170. I fear I have spent too much Time in shewing him utterly inconsistent with himself in this Particular. And I wonder he should be so sollicitous to justify the Hypothesis of the Church in this Point, seeing he openly dissents from it in a greater; I mean in that of the _System of the World_. Hear his Words, if you please, to this Purpose, _Def._ _p._ 136. _And what does the famous_ Aristotelian _Hypothesis seem to be now, but a Mass of Errors; where such a System was contriv’d for the Heavens, and such a Situation assign’d to the Earth, as neither Reason can approve, nor Nature allow. Yet so prosperous and prevailing was this Hypothesis, that it was generally receiv’d, and successfully propagated for many Ages._ This prosperous prevailing Error, or Mass of Errors, was it not espoused and supported by the Church? And to break from the Church in greater Points, and scruple it in less, is not this to strain at Gnats, and swallow Camels?

So much for his Inconsistency with himself: The rest of this Chapter in the _Answer_, shews his Inconsistency with _Moses_, both as to the Waters covering the Tops of the Mountains, which _Moses_ affirms, and the Exceptor denies; and as to the Decrease of the Deluge, which _Moses_ makes to be by the Waters retiring into their Chanels, after frequent Reciprocations, _going_ and _coming_. But the Exceptor says, the Sun suck’d up the Waters from the Earth, just as he had before suck’d the Mountains out of the Earth: These Things are so groundless, or so gross, that it would be tedious to insist longer upon them. And whereas it is not reasonable to expect that any others should be idle enough, as we must be, to collate three or four Tracts, to discern where the Advantage lies in these small Altercations; I desire only, if they be so dispos’d, that they would collate the _Exceptions_, _Answer_, and _Defence_ in this one Chapter, which is our Author’s Master-Piece: And from this I am willing they should take their Measures, and make a Judgment of his good or bad Success in other Parts.

What Shifts he hath us’d to make his _fifteen-cubit Deluge_ sufficient to destroy all Mankind, and all Animals, we have noted before; and here it is (_p._ 181, 182.) that he reduces them to _Famine_. And after that he comes to a long Excursion of seven or eight Pages, about the Imperfection of _Shipping_ after the Flood, _Def._ _p._ 183, 185, _&c._ a good Argument for the Theorist, that they had not an open Sea, Iron-Tools, and Materials for Shipping before the Flood: For what should make them so inexpert in Navigation for many Years and Ages after the Flood, if they had the Practice and Experience of it before the Flood: And what could hinder their having that Practice and Experience, if they had an open Sea, and all Iron and other Materials, for that Use and Purpose?

Lastly, he comes to his Notion of the _great Deep_, or _Tehom-Rabbah_, _Def._ _p._ 191. which he had made before, in express Words, to be the Holes and Caverns in the Rocks; I say, in express Words, such as these, _Exc._ _p._ 312. _Now supposing that the Caverns in the Mountains were this great Deep_, speaking of _Moses’s great Deep_, according to this new Hypothesis. He says farther, (_p._ 105.) _In case it be urg’d, that Caverns, especially Caverns so high situate, cannot properly he called the great Deep._ Where you see his own Objection supposes that he made those Caverns the _great Deep_. And in the same Page, speaking of the Psalmist’s _great Deeps_, (in his own Sense of making them Holes in Rocks,) and _Moses_’s _great Deep_, he says, _the same Thing might be meant by both_. By all these Expressions one would think it plain, that by his _great Deep_ he meant his _Caverns_ in Rocks; yet now, upon Objections urged against it, he seems desirous to fly off from that Notion, but does not yet tell us plainly what must be meant by _Moses_’s _great Deep_: If he, upon second Thoughts, would have the Sea to be understood by it, why does he not answer the Objections that are made by the Theorist against that Interpretation? _Engl. Theor._ p. 110, _&c._ Nay, why does he not answer what he himself had objected before (_Except._ p. 310.) against that Supposition? He seems to unsay now, what he said before, and yet substitutes nothing in the Place of it, to be understood by _Moses’s Tehom. Rabbah_.

_Chap._ XVI. is a few Words concerning these Expressions of _shutting the Windows of Heaven_, and the _Fountains of the Abyss_, after the Deluge: And these were both shut alike, and both of them no less than the _Caverns_ in the Mountains.

_Chap._ XVII. hath nothing of Argumentation or Philosophy, but runs on in a popular declamatory Way, and (if I may use that forbidden Word) injudicious. All amounts to this, _whether_ we may not go contrary to the Letter of Scripture, in natural Things, when that goes contrary to plain Reason. This we affirm, and this every one must affirm, that believes the _Motion of the Earth_, as our Virtuoso pretends to do: Then he concludes all with an harmonious Close, that he follows the great Example of a Reverend Prelate, _Def._ p. 215. and _militates under that Episcopal Banner_. I am willing to believe that he wrote at first, in hopes to curry Favour with certain Persons, by his great Zeal for Orthodoxy; but he hath made such an Hotch-potch of new Philosophy and Divinity, that I believe it will scarce please the Party he would cajole; nor so much as his Reverend Patron. I was so civil to him in the Answer, as to make him a Saint in comparison of the former Animadverter; but, by the Stile and Spirit of this last Pamphlet, he hath forfeited with me all his Saint-ship, both absolute and comparative.

Thus much for his Chapters; and as to his Reflections upon the _Review of the Theory_, they are so superficial and inconsiderable, that I believe he never expected that they should be regarded: I wonder however, that he should decline an Examination of the second Part of the _Theory_: It cannot be for want of good Will to confute it; he hath shewn that to the Height, whatsoever his Power was: Neither can it be for want of Difference or Disagreement in Opinion, as to the Contents of this latter Part; for he hath reckon’d the _Millennium_ amongst the Errors of the antient _Fathers_, (_Def._ p. 136) and the _Renovation of the World_ he makes _Allegorical_, (p. 214, _&c._) It must therefore be for want of some third Thing, which he best knows.

But before we conclude, Sir, we must remember that we promised to speak apart to two Things, which are often objected to the Theorist by this Writer, and to little Purpose; namely, his flying to _extraordinary Providence_, and his flying from the _literal Sense_ of Scripture. As to extraordinary Providence, is the Theorist alone debarr’d from recourse to it, or would he have all Men debarr’d, as well as the Theorist? If so, why doth he use it so much himself? And if it be allow’d to others, there is no Reason it should be deny’d the Theorist, unless he have disown’d it, and so debarr’d himself that common Privilege: But the contrary is manifest, in a multitude of Places, both of the first and second Part of the _Theory_, Eng. Theor. _p._ 144, _&c._ For, besides a Discourse on Purpose upon that Subject, in the eighth _Chapter_ of the first Book, in the last Chapter, and last Words of the same Book (_Latin_) he does openly avow, both Providence (Natural and Moral) and Miracles; in these Words, _Denique cum certissimum sit à divina Providentia pendere res omnes, cujuscunque ordinis, & ab eâdem vera miracula edita esse_, &c. And as to the second Part of the _Theory_, the Ministry of Angels is there acknowledg’d frequently, both as to natural and moral Administrations. From all which Instances it is manifest, that the Theorist did not debar himself, by denying either _Miracles_, _angelical Ministry_, or _extraordinary Providence_: But, if the Exceptor be so injudicious (pardon me that bold Word) as to confound all extraordinary Providence with the _Acts of Omnipotency_, he must blame himself for that, not the Theorist. The _Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of Waters is an Act of pure Omnipotency: This the Theorist did not admit of at the Deluge; and if this be his Fault, as it is frequently objected to him, (_Def._ p. 9, 66, 170, _&c._) he perseveres in it still, and in the Reasons he gave for his Opinion, which are no where confuted: _Eng. Theor._ p. 25, 26. But as for Acts of angelical Power, he does every where acknowledge them in the great Revolutions, even of the natural World: _Theor. Lat._ p. 73. _Engl._ p. 146, 147. If the Exceptor would make the Divine Omnipotency as cheap as the Ministry of Angels, and have recourse as freely and as frequently to that, as to this; if he would make all extraordinary Providence the same, and all Miracles, and set all at the Pitch of infinite Power, this may be an Effect of his Ignorance or Inadvertency, but is no way imputable to the Theorist.

In the next Place it may be observ’d, that the Theorist hath no where asserted, that _Moses_’s _Cosmopœia_ (which does not proceed according to ordinary Providence) is to be literally understood; and therefore what is urg’d against him from the Letter of that _Cosmopœia_, is improperly urg’d and without Ground. There are as good Reasons, and better Authorities, that _Moses_’s _six Days Creation_ should not be literally understood, than there are, why those Texts of Scripture that speak about the _Motion of the Sun_, should not be literally understood: And as to the Theorist, he had often intimated his Sense of that _Cosmopœia_, that it was express’d _more humano, & ad captum populi_, as appears in several Passages in the _Latin_ Theory: Speaking of the _Mosaical Cosmogonia_, he hath these Words, _Theor._ _lib._ 2. _c._ 8. _Constat hæc Cosmopœia duabus parcibus quarum prima, massas generales atque rerum inconditarum statum exbibet; seqniturque eadem principia, & eundem ordinem, quem Antiqui usque retinuerunt. Atque in hoc nobiscium conveniunt omnes fere interpretes Christiani; nempe_, Tohu Bohu _Mosaicum idem esse ac Chaos Antiquorum_. _Tenebras Mosaicas_, &c. _bucusque convenit Mosi cum anfiquis Philosophis,——methodium autem illam Philosophicam hic abrumpit, aliamque orditur, bumanam, aut, si mavis, Theologicam; quo, motibus Chaos, secundum leges natura, & divini amoris actionem, plane neglectis, & successivis ipsius mutationibus in varias regiones, & elementa: His inquam posthabitis, popularem narrationem de ortu rerum hoc modo instituit: Res omnes visibiles in sex classes_, &c. This is a plain Indication how the Theorist understood that _Cosmopœia_: And accordingly in the _English Theory_ the Author says, _p._402. &c. _I have not mention’d_ Moses_’s_ Cosmopœia, _because I thought it deliver’d by him as a Law-giver, not as a Philosopher; which I intend to shew at large in another Treatise, not thinking that Discussion proper for the vulgar Tongue_. The Exceptor was also minded of this in the Answer, _p._ 66. Now, ’tis much that he, who hath search’d all the Corners, both of the _English_ and _Latin_ Theory, to pick Quarrels, should never observe such obvious Passages as these, but still make Objections from the Letter of the _Mosaical Cosmopœia_, which affect the Theorist no more than those Places of Scripture that speak of the Motion of the Sun, or the Pillars of the Earth.

In the last Place, the Theorist distinguish’d two Methods for explaining the natural World, that of an _ordinary_, and that of an _extraordinary Providence_: And those that take the second Way, he said, might dispatch their Task as soon as they pleas’d, if they engag’d Omnipotency in the Work. But the other Method would require Time, it must proceed by distinct Steps, and leisurely Motions, such as Nature can admit; and, in that Respect, it might not suit with the busy Lives, or impatient Studies of most Men, whom he left notwithstanding to their Liberty, to take what Method they pleas’d, provided they were not troublesome in forcing their hasty Thoughts upon all others. Thus the Theorist hath express’d himself at the End of the first Book, _c._ 12. _Interea cum non omnes a natura ita compositi simus, ut Philosophia studiis delectemur: Neque etiam liceat multis, propter occupationes vitæ, iisdem vacare, quibus per ingenium licuisset; iis jure permittendum est, compendiario sapere, & relictis viis naturæ & causarum secundarum, quæ sæpe longiusculæ sunt, per cansas superiores philosophari; idque potissimum, cum ex piis affectivus hoc quandoque fieri possit; quibus, vel male fundatis, aliquid dandum esse existimo, modo non sint turbulenti._ Thus the Theorist, you see, sets two Ways before them; and ’tis indifferent to him whether they take, if they will go on their Way peaceably. And he does now, moreover, particularly declare, That he hath no Ambition, either to make the _Exceptor_, or any other of the same Dispositions of Will, and the same Elevation of Understanding, Proselytes to his Theory.