or STARV'D to death The thing is this in the story of the Deluge it is no where said of men and living creatures that they were drown'd but they dyed or were destroyed Those that are drown'd are destroy'd I imagine as well as those that are starv'd so this proves nothing But that the destruction here spoken of was by drowning seems plain enough both from God's words to Noah before the Flood and by his words after the Flood when he makes his Covenant with Noah in this manner I will establish my Covenant with you neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a Flood Now to be cut off or destroy'd by the waters of a Flood is methinks to be drown'd And I take all flesh to comprehend the Animal World or at least all mankind Accordingly our Saviour says Matt. 24. 39. in Noah's time the flood came and took them all away namely all mankind This is one Expedient our Author hath found out to help to bear off the inconveniences that attend his fifteen-cubit Deluge namely by converting a good part of it into a Famine But he hath another Expedient to joyn to this by increasing the Waters and that is done by making the Common Surface of the Earth or the highest parts of it as he calls them to signifie ambiguously or any height that pleases him and consequently fifteen Cubits above that signifies also what height he thinks fit But in reality there is no surface common to the Earth but either the exteriour surface whether it be high or low or the ordinary level of the Earth as it is a Globe or convex Body If by his common surface he mean the exteriour surface that takes in Mountains as well as Low-lands or any other superficial parts of the Earth And therefore if the Deluge was fifteen Cubits above this common surface it was fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains as we say it was But if by the common surface he mean the common level of the Earth as it is a Globular or convex Body then we gave it a right name when we call'd it the ordinary level of the Earth namely that level or surface that lies in an equal convexity with the surface of the Sea And his fifteen Cubits of water from that level would never drown the World Lastly If by the common surface of the Earth he understand a 3d. surface different from both these he must define it and define the height of it that we may know how far this fifteen-cubit Deluge rise from some known basis One known basis is the surface of the Sea and that surface of the Land that lies in an equal convexity with it tell us then if the waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the surface of the Sea that we may know their height by some certain and determinate measure and upon that examine the Hypothesis But to tell us they were fifteen Cubits above not the Mountains or the Hills but the Highlands or the highest parts of the common surface of the Earth and not to tell us the height of these highest parts from any known basis nor how they are distinguisht from Hills and Mountains which incur our sences and are the measures given us by Moses This I say is but to cover his Hypothesis with ambiguities when he had made it without grounds and to leave room to set his Water-mark higher or lower as he should see occasion or necessity And of this indeed we have an instance in this land Pamphlet for he has rais'd his Water-mark there more than an hundred Cubits higher than it was before In his Exceptions he said not that the waters were no where higher than just fifteen Cubits above the ground they might in most places be thirty forty or fifty Cubits higher But in his Defence he says the Waters might be an hundred or two hundred Cubits higher than the general ordinary plain of the Earth Now what security have we but that in the next Pamphlet they may be 500 or a 1000 Cubits higher than the ordinary surface of the Earth This is his 2d Expedient raising his Water-mark indefinitely But if these two methods be not sufficient to destroy Mankind and the animate World he hath yet a third which cannot fail and that is Destroying them by Evil Angels Flectere si nequeo This is his last refuge to which purpose he hath these words When Heaven was pleas'd to give Satan leave he caus'd the fire to consume Job's sheep and caused the wind to destroy his Children And how easily could these spirits that are ministers of God's vengeance have made the waters of the Flood fatal to those Creatures that might have escaped them if any could have done it As suppose an Eagle or a Faulcon The Devil and his crue catcht them all and held their moses under water However methinks this is not fair play to deny the Theorist the liberty to make use of the ministery of good Angels when he himself makes use of evil Spirits These Sir and such like passages where the notions of the Excepter have been expos'd were the causes I imagine of his angry reply Some Creatures you know are more fierce after they are wounded and some upon a gentle chase will fly from you but if you press them and put them to extremities they turn and fly in your face I see by our Author's example how easily in these personal altercations reasoning degenerates into wrangling and wrangling into scolding However if I may judge from these two Hypotheses which he hath made about the rise of Mountains and a fifteen-cubit Deluge of all trades I should never advise him to turn Hypothesis-maker It does not seem at all to lie to his hand and things never thrive that are undertaken Diis iratis genioque sinistro But as we have given you some account of this Author 's Philosophical notions so it may be you will expect that we should entertain you with some pieces of his wit and eloquence The truth is he seems to delight and value himself upon a certain kind of Country-wit and popular eloquence and I will not grudge you the pleasure of enjoying them both in such instances as I remember Speaking in contempt of the Theory and the Answer which is one great subject of his wit he expresses himself thus But if arguments be so weak that they will fall with a fillip why should greater force be used to beat them down To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider I think would be preposterous I think so too in this we 're agreed In another place being angry with the Theorist that he would not acknowledge his errours to him he hath these words 'T is unlucky for one to run his head against a post But when he hath done if he will say he did not do it and stand in and defend what he
judgment as to rank this Arguer in any of the three orders if you have patience to read over his Pamphlet you will best see how and where to set him in his proper place We now proceed to those passages in the answer which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence In his Exceptions he had said The Moon being present or in her present place in the Firmament at the time of the Chaos she would certainly trouble and discompose it as she does now the waters of the Sea and by that means hinder the formation of the Earth To this we answer'd that the Moon that was made the 4th day could not hinder the formation of the Earth which was made the 3d. day This was a plain intelligible answer and at the same time discover'd such a manifest blunder in the objection as could not but give an uneasie thought to him that made it However we must not deny but that he makes some attempt to shift it off in his Reply For he says the Earth formed the 3d. day was Moses's Earth which the Excepter contends for but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist's which could not be formed the 3d. day He should have added and therefore would be hinder'd by the Moon otherwise this takes off nothing And now the question comes to a clear state for when the Excepter says the Moon would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth either he speaks upon Moses's hypothesis or upon the Theorist's hypothesis Not upon the Theorist's Hypothesis for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then And if he speaks upon Moses's Hypothesis the Moon that was made the 4th day must have hinder'd the formation of the Earth the 3d. day So that the objection is a blunder upon either Hypothesis Furthermore whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of Moses's hypothesis to confute his adversary but does not follow it himself 'T is so far true that the Theorist never said that Moses's six-days Creation was to be understood literally but however it is justly urg'd against those that understand it literally and they must not contradict that interpretation which they own and defend So much for the Moon and this first passage which I suppose was troublesome to our Author But he makes the same blunder in another place as to the Sun Both the Luminaries it seems stood in his way In the 10th Chapter of his Exceptions he gives us a new Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains which in short is this that they were drawn or suckt out of the Earth by the influence and instrumentality of the Sun Whereas the Sun was not made according to Moses till the 4th day and the Earth was form'd the 3d. day 'T is an unhappy thing to split twice upon the same rock and upon a rock so visible He that can but reckon to four can tell whether the 3d. day or 4th day came sooner To cure this Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains he takes great pains in his Defence and attempts to do it chiefly by help of a distinction dividing Mountains into Maritime and Inland Now 't is true says he These maritime Mountains and such as were made with the hollow of the Sea must rise when that was sunk or deprest namely the 3d. day Yet Inland ones he says might be raised some earlier and some later and by the influence of the Sun This is a weak and vain attempt to defend his notion for besides that this distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains as arising from different causes and at different times is without any ground either in Scripture or reason if their different origin was admitted the Sun 's extracting these Inland Mountains out of the Earth would still be absurd and incongruous upon other accounts Scripture I say makes no such distinction of Mountains made at different times and from different causes This is plain seeing Moses does not mention Mountains at all in his six-days Creation nor any where else till the Deluge What authority have we then to make this distinction or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together Besides what length of time would you require for the production of these Inland Mountains were they not all made within the six-days Creation hear what Moses says at the end of the 6th day Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished and all the host of them And on the 7th day God ended his work which he had made Now if the Excepter say that the Mountains were all made within these six-days we will not stand with him for a day or two for that would make little difference as to the action of the Sun But if he will not confine their production to Moses's six days how does he keep to the Mosaical Hypothesis or how shall we know where he will stop in his own way for if they were not made within the six days for any thing he knows they might not be made till the Deluge seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood And as Scripture makes no distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains so neither hath this distinction any foundation in Nature or Reason For there is no apparent or discernible difference betwixt Maritime and Inland Mountains nor any reason why they should be thought to proceed from different causes or to be rais'd at different times The Maritime Mountains are as rocky as ruderous and as irregular and various in their shape and posture as the Inland Mountains They have no distinctive characters nor any different properties internal or external in their matter form or composition that can give us any ground to believe that they came from a different Original So that this distinction is meerly precarious neither founded in Scripture nor reason but made for the nonce to serve a turn Besides what bounds will you give to these Maritime Mountains are they distinguisht from Inland Mountains barely by their distance from the Sea or by some other Character If barely by distance tell us then how far from the Sea do the Maritime Mountains reach and where do the Inland begin and how shall we know the Terminalis Lapis Especially in a continued chain of Mountains that reach from the Sea many hundreds of miles Inland as the Alpes from the Ocean to Pontus Euxinus and Taurus as he says fifteen hundred miles in length from the Chinese Ocean to the Sea of Pamphylia In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains where do the Land-Mountains end and the Sea-mountains begin Or what mark is there whereby we may know that they are not all of the same race or do not all spring from the same original Such obvious enquiries as these shew sufficiently that the distinction is meerly arbitrary and fictitious But suppose this distinction was admitted and the Maritime Mountains made the 3d. day but Inland Mountains I know not
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