to another go to let us make Brick and burn them thoroughly And they made Brick for stone and slime had they had mortar But now this argument methinks may be retorted upon the Excepter with advantage For if there were no dissolutions concussions or absorptions at the Deluge instead of the ruines of Ioppa methinks we might have had the ruines of an hundred Antediluvian 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 abolisht 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 burnt And consequently if Noah understood the conflagration of the World he makes it a vain and trifling thing to Noah also If the Excepter delight in such conclusions let him enjoy them but they are not at all to the mind of the Theorist Chap. 15. Now we come to his new Hypothesis of 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 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 askt 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 askt concerning several parts of the Theory 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 deduc'd from premises 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 premises 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 Hypothesis 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 Excepter hath unhappily said 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 If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak Why will not he defend it as TRVE 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 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 sence that it speaks as plainly as it can speak is not to make bold with it but modestly to follow its dictates and plain sence 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 was spoken by him in an Hypothetick or suppositious way and that it cannot possibly be understood otherwise by men of sence Here are two hard words let us first understand what they signifie and then we shall better judge how Men of sence 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 sence would make or grant such supposition So that I do not see what he gains by his 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 show 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 exprest himself doubtfully as Scripture may admit of that sence 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 subjoyns in the following words Yea tho' it was spoken never so positively it was but to set forth REIPERSONAM 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 sence 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 sence nor good Latin Now he comes to another inconsistency which was charg'd upon him by the Answer Namely that he rejects the Church-Hypothesis concerning the Deluge and yet had said before 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
And as to the Theorist he had often intimated his sence of that Cosmopoeia that it was exprest more humano captum populi as appears in several passages In the Latin Theory speaking of the Mosaical Cosmogonia he hath these words Constat haec Cosmopoeia duabus partibus quarum prima massas generales atque rerum inconditarum statum exhibet sequiturque eadem principia eundem ordinem quem antiqui usque retinuerunt Atque in hoc nobiscum conveniunt omnes ferè interpretes Christiani nempe Tohu Bohu Mosaicum idem esse ac Chaos Antiquorum Tenebras Mosaicas c. hucusque convenit Mosi cum antiquis Philosophis methodum autem illam Philosophicam hic abrumpit aliamque orditur humanam aut si mavis Theologicam quâ motibus Chaos secundum leges naturae divini amoris actionem planè neglectis successivis ipsius mutationibus in varias regiones elementa His inquam post-habitis 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 Cosmopoeia And accordingly in the English Theory the Author says Moses's Cosmopoeia because I thought it deliver'd by him as a Law-giver not as a Philosopher Which I intend to show at large in another Treatise not thinking that discussion proper for the vulgar Tongue The Excepter was also minded of this in the Answer p. 66. Now 't is much that he who hath searcht 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 Cosmopoeia 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 distinguisht 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 busie 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 exprest himself at the end of the first Book Interià cùm non omnes à naturâ ità compositi simus ut Philosophiae studiis delectemur Neque etiant liceat multis propter occupationes vitae iisdem vacare quibus per ingenium licuisset iis jure permittendum est compendiariò to sapere relictis viis naturae causarum secundarum quae saepe longiusculae sunt per causas superiores philosophari idque potissimùm cùm ex piis affectibus hoc quandoque fieri possit quibus velmalè fundatis aliquid dandum esse existimo modò non sint turbulenti Thus the Theorist you see sets two ways before them and 't is 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 Excepter 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 sence of Scripture I find if what was noted before in the Answer 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 Excepter hath made in his Defence upon this doctrine are both shallow partial I say partial in perverting the sence and separating such things as manifestly depend upon one another Thus the Excepter falls upon that expression in the Answer 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 far the Excepter himself in such things hath contradicted Scripture Here he makes an odious declamation as it the Answerer had confest that he contradicted Scripture in natural things whereas the words are contradicting Scripture here pretended and 't is plain by all the discourse that 't is the literal sence of Scripture that is here spoken of which the Excepter 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 sence 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 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 to be literally under stood And this the Theorist does he says and the Excepter does not But who says so besides himself This is fairly to beg the question and can he suppose the Theorist so easie 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 sence 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 that very superficially to say no worse 'T is Ps. 19. where the Sun at his rising is said to be as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber and to rejoyce as a strong man to run his race And his going forth is from the end of the heaven and his circuit to the ends of it Which he answers with this vain flourish Then the Sun must be a man and must be upon his marriage and must be drest in fine cloaths 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 gulf betwixt them yet talking audibly to one another 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 his tongue
He that should go about thus to expose our Saviours 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 perswade the Theorist that he hath excused the Excepter for his receding from the literal sence as to the motion of the Earth Because he hath granted that in certain cases we may and must recede from the literal sence 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 priviledge of receding from the literal sence upon occasion as well as the Excepter 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 sence But he that accuses another of blasphemy for receding from the literal sence of Scripture in natural things and does himself at the same time recede from the literal sence of Scripture in natural things one would think quoad hoc either had not or would not exercise common sence 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 sence which is not to leave the literal sence 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 sence If this be his rule to what Texts 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 sence 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 't is like hearing two instruments play that are not in tune and consort 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 trouble I am ready to receive your commands upon more acceptable subjects Your most Humble Servant c. FINIS P. 31. p. 1â— Exe. p. 77. c. Def. p. 12. Exâ— p. 77 78. Def. p. 73. lin 12 13. P. 97 98 99 100 101 Gen. c. 21. Def. p. â—â—â— Def. p. 99. Ibid lin 19. P. 289. Exâ— p. 289 290. Exâ— p. 158 159. Ibid. p. 159. Exc. p. 187. P. 78 79 80 81. P. 38. Def. p. 82. P. 181 182. Gen. 6. 17. Def. p. 182. Gen. 9. â—â— Def. 165. 180. P. 300. P. 180. Def. p. 90. Def. p. 48. P. 108. P. 214. P. 113. 〈◊〉 Def. p. â— Eng. Theo. p. 287. Excep p. 293. Def. p. 168 169. Exc. p. 211. Def. p. 69 p. 98. Gen. 13. 10. P. 60. Ibid. P. 61. Def. p. â—â— 86. Def. p. 9â— Ans. p. 49 50. Com. li. 5. Ibid. Def. p. 103. Answ. c. 11. P. 114. Def. p. 125. P. 131. P. 139. P. 141. Gen. 6. 4. P. 142. P. 144 145. P. 153 154. P. 160 161. P. 16â— Gen. 11. 3. P. 166. Exc. p. 302. Answ. p. 67. Des. p. 168. Ibid. P. 16â— 16â— Exc. p. 300. See the Citations in the Answ. p. 68. Def. p. 170. P. 171. 〈◊〉 Exc. p. 312. Def. p. 171. Exc. p. 325. Def. p. 136. Def. p. 183 184 185 c. Def. p. 191. Exc. p. 312. Ib. p. 105. Engl. Th. p. 81 c. Def. p. 215. Eng. The. p. 105. c. Eng. The p. 18 19. The. Lat. p. 53. Eng. p. 107 108. Theor. li. 2. c. 8. P. 288. C. 12. P. 82 83. c. Def. p. 202. Def. p. 206. P. 207. Luk 16. Def. p. 208. p. 215.
A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF Mr ERASMVS WARREN's DEFENCE of his EXCEPTIONS Against the THEORY of the EARTH SIR I Have read over Mr. 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 inavoidable to the Defendant And 't is an unpleasant exercise a kind of Wild-goose-chase where he that leads must be followed through all his extravagances 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 to 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 bloud 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 Sence 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 take away 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 easie 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 Excepter and altered his style Either it must be the words and language of that Answer or the Sence of it without respect to the Language As to the Words 't is true he gives some instances of expressions offensive to him yet they are but three or four and those methinks not very high tho' he calls them 〈◊〉 of passion they are these indiscreet rude injudicious and uncharitable These characters it seems are applyed to the Excepter in some part of the answer upon occasion offer'd And whether those occasions were just or no I dare appeal to your judgement 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 ancients 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 justifie 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 't is possibly upon occasion of 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 change 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 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 Answer had reason to subjoyn what we 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 premises I had forgot one expression more The answer it seems somewhere calls the Excepter a Dabbler in Philosophy which he takes ill But that he is a dabbler 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 't is the sence 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 't is victory that is pursued and aim'd at in the first place with little regard to truth And if the contention be manag'd in civil terms 't is but wrangling if in uncivil 't is scolding I will not so far anticipate your
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 oleagineous 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 And all fat and unctuous liquors are oleagineous and accordingly we have us'd those words promiscuously in the description of that Region Eng. Theor. Chap. 5. 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 oleagineous particles were in the new-made Earth they must certainly have been in the matter out of which it was immediately form'd 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 4th Chap. is very short and hath nothing argumentative The 5th Chap. 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 6th Chap. 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. 7. 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. 33. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 53. which we render the Garden of the Lord 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Vulgate Paradisus Domini and all ancient Versions that I have seen render it to the same sence 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. 8. 28. he says the Answerer charges him unjustly that he understands by that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss Which he says is a point of nonsence I did not think the charge had been so high however seeing some Interpreters understand it so But if he understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the banks or shores of the Sea then he should have told us how those banks or shores are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super faciem Abyssi as it is in the Text. Pag. 59. He says the Excepter does not misrepresent the Theorist when he makes him to affirm the construction of the First Earth to have been meerly 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 expresly Engl. Theor. p. 65. whereof the Excepter was minded in the Answer p. 3. In the last Paragraph of this Chapter 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 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 sence of Scripture and therein fall into a gross errour Yet we must not call the Author injudicious for fear of giving offence The 8th Chap. begins with the Earths 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 COVRSE Here you see when the Earth chang'd 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 CIRCVIT about the Sun in which she persisted till the Deluge Here is plainly the same notion repeated that the Earth chang'd 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 sence and as an argument that he meant otherwise he alledges that he declar'd before that by the Earths ritght situation to the Sun is meant that the axis of the Earth was always kept in a parallelism to that of the Ecliptick But what 's this to the purpose This speaks only of the site of the Earth whereas his errour was in supposing its course or annual orbit about the Sun as well as its site upon its own axis to have been different and chang'd at the Deluge as his words already produc'd against him plainly testifie 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 errour as to the nature of Tradition When a
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 o◠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 Ancestros the Britains had in Caesar's time more than two thousand Years after the time of Cain Oppidum Britanni vocant cùm Sylvam impeditam vallo atque follâ munierant quò incursionis hostium vitandae causâ convenire consueverunt Why might not 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 't was answer'd that Scripture does not mention Iron or Iron-tools in building of the Ark but only Gopher wood and Pitch To which he replies If Scriptures 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 Paradisiacal 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 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 Paradisiacal world Scripture is at least silent and therefore 't is 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. 11. Is to prove an Open Sea such as we have now before the Flood All his Exceptions were answer'd before and I am content to stand to that answer reserving only what is to be said hereafter concerning the literal sence 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 appear'd in the world And a little before he had said For fishes if his Hypothesis be believ'd 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 'am 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 see either Sea or Sea-fish nor ever exercis'd any dominion over either Chap. 12. Is concerning the Rainbow and hath no new argument in it nor reinforcement But a question is mov'd 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 resolv'd than whether as well and as much signifie the same Chap. 13. Is concerning Paradise and to justifie or excuse himself why he baulkt 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 that neither Scripture nor reason determine the place of Paradise and yet determines it by the judgment of the Christian Fathers Where 's the inconsistency of this The Theory as a Theory is not concern'd 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 determin'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 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 3d. chap. of Genesis the Cherubims and flaming sword are said to be place'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first place ch 2. 8. read it here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Vulgate renders it ante Paradisum voluptatis and according to the Samaritan Pentateuch 't is rendered 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2d chap. and 8th ver which is the principal place 't is well known that except the Septuagint all the ancient Versions Greek and Latin besides others render it to another sence And there is a like uncertainty of translation in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have noted elsewhere Lastly the Rivers of Paradise and the countreys they 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 't is not worth the time to pursue them here Then he proceeds to the longevity of the Ante-diluvians which so far as I can understand him to affirm any thing he says was not general but the lives of some few were extraordinarily length'ned by a special blessing the elongation of them being a work of Providence not of nature This is a cheap and vulgar account and so are all the contents of this Chap. prov'd neither by Scripture nor reason and calculated for the humour and capacity of those that love their case 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 Floud the one long-livers and the other short-livers As he hath distinguisht the Gyants before the Flood from the common race of mankind These are his words Is not his distinction equally plain in both cases speaking of this formentioned 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 of two races of mankind the ordinary race and those of a Gigantick race or Gyants Now tell me where he plainly makes mention of short-livers before the Flood And if he no where make 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 mention'd 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 Iosephus 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 profane and yet he boldly rejects these Testimonies as he did those of the Fathers before as utterly false which Iosephus had alledg'd 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 Iosephus 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 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. 14. 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 stroaks of new 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 contrary to Scripture But this rule we told him all errors in Religion would be blasphemy and if he extend this to errors in Philosophy also 't is 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 dissolv'd being a Scripture expression would thereby have been protected from the imputation of blasphemy and we alledg'd to that purpose besides Ps. 75. 3. Isa. 24. 19. Amos 9. 5. He would have done well to have prov'd these places in the Prophets Isaiah and Amos to have been figurative and tropological as he call 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 prov'd the contrary we are in hopes still that the Dissolution of the Earth may not be horrid blasphemy nor of blasphemous importance Then having quarrel'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-germain to his former error in the heavens viz. that the Earth chang'd its tract about the Sun and leapt out of the Equator into the Ecliptick when it chang'd its situation The truth is this Copernican Systeme seems to ly 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 sence to pass this by in a few words laying the blame upon certain parentheses or semicircles whose innocency notwithstanding 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 Hermus Caister Menander and Caicus Nile and its mud Piscenius Niger who contended with Septimus Severus for the Empire and reprimanded his Souldiers for hankering after wine Du Val an ingenious French writer and Cleopatra and her admired Antony 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 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 Ioppa these he suppos'd such buildings as were made before and stood after the Flood But now Seth's pillars and Henochia being dismist he insists upon Ioppa 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 Ioppa was an Antediluvian 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 ruines 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 They said one