I Have in another place endeavour'd to prove (and I hope to the Satisfaction of the Learned and Judicious) that Mo­ses's Narration of the Creation of the World is Literal and Historical, and that it is a true and just Account of the whole Process of that Divine Work. And this I undertook to make good in opposition to the fond No­tions which had possess'd some men's heads, and had been divulg'd by their Pens, viz. that Moses is not to be understood according to the Letter, that he speaks to the capacity of the [Page 2] Blockish Brick-makers that were newly come out of Egypt, and scarcely understood Com­mon Sense, and therefore any Story of a Cock and a Bull would serve them. When Moses speaks of the Creation, we are not to understand him as if he intended to give any True and Real Account of that matter, we must not think that he would trouble the brains (if you can suppose they had any) of a company of Dull Slaves with Natural Philo­sophy. And when he speaks of the formati­on of Adam and Eve and several things apper­taining to it, we must not be so silly as to fancy a Literal meaning of the words, but we must take it all in a Mystical and Allegorical Sense. Thus the known Theorist dictates to the world. Where, by the way, observe how weak and shallow such suggestions are, as if the first Chapters of Genesis were to be read only by the people of that Age in which Mo­ses lived, as if none but Drudges and Slaves were to look into these Writings; or, as if these were so ignorant and stupid that they could not understand a plain and downright Narrative; or, as if these thick skinn'd La­bourers, who were not capable of Natural Philosophy, could judg of Allegories; as if those who could not understand any thing of the plain History of the Creation, were able to comprehend Mysteries, Parables, Hierogly­phicks, Mythologies; in short, as if an Allego­rical and Mystical Sense were easier than a Li­teral one. These things duly weigh'd are sufficient to shew the Vanity of that Writer's Discourse.

[Page 3] Notwithstanding this, another and a New Theorist hath lately so far imbibed his Notions as to shew little regard to the letter of Moses's Writings: which I take to be a very false Step, and a dangerous one, in a person espe­cially that is no Profess'd Deist, and by his Character seems to own the Authority of the Scriptures. It is very strange and ominous that such a one should give so little deference to Revelation and assert things which palpa­bly interfere with the Sacred and Infallible Records of Moses. His Grand Proposition is this, that the Mosaick Creation extends no fur­ther than the Earth, or (as he expresses it at other times) Nothing but the Earth only is the subject of the Mosaick Creation. This every where occurs in his Treatise, so that there is no need of assigning any particular page, as I shall do afterwards when I cite any other pas­sages out of his Book. But who is there that hears this Proposition named, and is not en­clin'd to think that this Learned Theorist de­sign'd to expose the Sacred History of Moses, and to erect a doctrine that absolutely runs counter to the first words of the Bible, In the beginning God created the heaven and Earth? Here is a dichotomy of the Whole Visible World into heaven and Earth, and therefore we cannot but infer thence that the Heavenly Bodies are a portion of that System which Mo­ses here describes. These words are an Epi­tomy and Abstract of the Creation, more par­ticularly and distinctly delineated afterwards in that chapter, and consequently the Mosaick Creation extends to the Heavens as well as to the Earth.

[Page 4] But what saith the New Theorist to this? Why, he grants that in the foremention'd Text the Heaven signifies the Heavenly Bo­dies, viz. the Sun, Moon, and Stars, but he de­nies that it is to be so understood elsewhere, and particularly in any part of this first chapter of Genesis, for according to him heaven here is no more than the Atmosphere of the Earth, or the Region of the Air, p. 11. Which is a very precarious and groundless Interpretation, for though it is true the region of the Air that surrounds the Earth is call'd heaven and the fir­mament of heaven in this chapter, as well as in other places of the Sacred Volume, yet we are to know that both these words heaven and firmament are used here in a Different Sense. There is the Lower or Aerial Firmament, v. 6, 7. and there is the Upper or Etherial one, v. 14, 15, 17. And so heaven is either the Lower Heaven, which is no other than the Re­gions of the Air, or the Atmosphere of the Earth; of the Vpper Heaven, which is the Aether, or Region of the Sun and Stars. The former of these Heavens was the work of the second day, and is distinctly mention'd in v. 8, 9. The latter is expresly named in v. 14, 15. and was the work of the fourth day. The not attending to this distinction of the Two Firma­ments or Heavens in this Chapter hath been one occasion of those Mistakes and Misappre­hensions which this Ingenious Author and some others of late have fallen under. But can there be any thing plainer than this, that there was a Double Firmament or Heaven, one ( viz. the Expanse of Air) to be between [Page 5] the waters and the waters, v. 6. i. e. to be pla­ced between the Seas below and the Clouds above; the other ( viz. the Ethereal Ex­panse) to be the seat and receptacle of the Sun and Stars, v. 16, 17? God made two great lights, he made the stars also, and God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light up­on the earth.

How then can it be true that Moses's de­scription of the Creation reaches no further than the Earth? Doth not this History make particular mention of that Higher Heaven or Expanse where the Luminaries are? doth it not acquaint us what was the design of the Allmighty in making it? Doth not Moses in plain words relate that the Fourth Days Work was the creating of the Heavenly Bo­dies, from v. 14. to 20th? Doth he not men­tion the Celestial Lights in general, v, 14, 15. and then particularly the two great lights, v. 16. that is, the Sun, Moon, and other Planets, for they are all comprehended under these two, as being the most Eminent: which is no unusual way of speaking in Scripture. And the Stars also (in the same verse) i. e. the Fixed Luminaries of Heaven are mention'd in contradistinction to the Other Lights. Is it not strange now that, notwithstanding this Evi­dence, any man should start up, and venture to maintain that Moses in this Chapter speaks only of the formation of the Earth? Could it be expected that one who hath so great a share of Reason and Sense should thus talk? Is it not prodigiously absurd that by Lights in the firmament of the heaven, and Two Great [Page 6] Lights, and the Stars also all of them either by day or by night to give light upon the earth, we should understand the Earth, and no more?

Another late ^* Writer saw how inconve­nient, harsh and incongruous it was to do so, and therefore though he was pleas'd to exclude the Stars, i. e. the Fixed Stars from this Crea­tion, yet he grants that not only the Earth but other Planets, and the Sun it self were the matter of the Creation in this chapter. In­deed as for the Stars, this Gentleman makes sure work with them; for he dashes the word Stars out of the Text, which no Commenta­tor or Critick ever ventur'd to do. But then indeed, as if he repented of his rash act, he refers the word Stars to the verb rule, and forces a strange and unheard of sense on the place. I wish this Ingenious Writer had not too much gratified the Deists, whom he undertook to confute, by flying to so precari­ous and shifting a Gloss on a plain Text of Scripture.

But our present Author out doth this Gen­tleman, and will have neither Sun nor any other Planets, nor Stars to be part of the Cre­ation recorded by Moses, although express mention be made in this chapter of the Lights, both greater and lesser, which were set or placed by God at the Creation in the Higher Firmament: and although it be said Gen. 2. 1. thus (i. e. as was described in the former chapter) the heavens and the earth were finished [Page 7] and all the host of them. Than which we could not have plainer words to express the Univer­sal Frame of the World, and every thing whatsoever that belongs to it, for the Inspired Historian assures us that not only the heavens and the earth (which terms themselves com­prehend the whole Mundane Scheme) were finish'd in the six days Creation, but he adds that all the host of them were finish'd likewise, that we might not have any ground of surmi­sing (with this Writer) that Mojes gives us not an Account in the first chapter of Genesis of the Whole System of the Visible World▪ Yet our Author confidently avers that in the foremention'd place the heavens and the earth signify the Terraqueous Globe alone, with its Air or Atmosphere, without including the Whole Universe, or so much as the Solar System, p. 10. To me it seems very wonderful and surprizing that any Man of Learning and lngenuity should so openly and plainly confront the Sacred Writer, and misrepresent his Clear Account of the Creation of the World. I declare I would not have troubled the Reader with any of these Reflections, were it not upon this consideration only, that this Theorist appa­rently shocks the Divine Revelation of the Holy Scriptures, and contradicts the plain Hi­story of the First Inspired Penman. I take it to be a very ill work to deal thus with this part of the Bible, for the rest of it may as well be treated after the same manner, and then in a short time we may give up this Book to the Deists and their fellows.

[Page 8] It is not from want of Deference to Mr. Whiston or his Parts and Worth that I thus speak: I will be of the first that shall applaud his Ingenious Attempts; but that which ex­torts a Censure from me is this, that he hath the boldness to offer to the publick a Theory which is wholly inconsistent with the Histo­ry of Moses. And in this Censure all persons that pay a due reverence to the Scriptures, must needs concur with me. It is ill in a Per­son of his Figure especially to undervalue the Holy Text, and thereby to conciliate in others (who are not so well acquainted with it) a disregard of the Sacred Penmen and their Writings. This will be the natural re­sult of such Undertakings, and I am afraid hath been; for if some men were not Deists before their perusal of such Writings, these will make them so, because they see there is no Respect given to Revealed Truth, and there is no care taken to conform their Notions about the Creation (of which Moses only can give us an account) to the book of Genesis.

But let us hear what the Worthy Author saith in defence of himself and his Interpreta­tion. First, he tells us, that the Capacities of people could not bear an universal account of the origin of things, p. 80. And again, The Capa­cities of the Iews to whom Moses peculiarly wrote were very low and mean, and their Improve­ments very small, or rather none at all in Philo­sophick Matters, p. 82. And so p. 83. The rude and illiteratte Iews were newly come from the Egyptian bondage, and destitute of the very first Elements of Natural Knowledg: and this he [Page 9] gives as a Reason why he asserts that the Nar­rative which Moses gives of the Creation reaches no further than the Earth. Such je­june and childish Arguings can never have any power on Rational Minds, who delight not to be entertain'd with fancy, but solid Truth. But no man can count this Reasoning to be of the latter sort, for the Capacities of the people were able to bear a plain Relation of the formation of the Heavenly Bodies, no less than of the Terrestrial ones. The Jews might as well have understood Moses telling them that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were cre­ated, as when he tells them that the Earth was created. And accordingly we find that he relates the former of these, no less than the latter, though this Theorist pretends (even against the express words of the History) that there is no such thing. And who but this Author and his Brother Theorist could have dreamt that there is any need of Improvements in Philosophick matters to understand that the Sun and other Luminaries of heaven were made by God on the 4th. day of the Creati­on?

And I should here also take notice of a great Mistake, viz. that the Book of Genesis was peculiarly wrote to the Iews who came out of Egypt, as he speaks in the same place. Cer­tainly, the design of penning it was more Ca­tholick, it was intended for all succeeding Iews (to speak of no others at present) not only such as were Illiterate and Rude, but those of sufficient Knowledg and Understanding: and surely these might be of sufficient capacity to [Page 10] bear a plain and short Narration of the making of the Heavens as well as of this Lower World. This shews that there is no foundation for the Opinion which this Ingenious Writer hath es­poused, but I hope will have thoughts of being divorced from by what I have or shall sug­gest?

Secondly, he tells us that though the Sun and other Planets were not part of the Creation which Moses relates, yet they are inserted in­to his Narrative of the Six days Work, because he had a mind to gratify the dull ignorant people, the rude and illiterate Iews he spoke of before. Those Heavenly Bodies are fetch'd in here to comply with the Vulgar Notion, that they are part of the Clouds, or belong to the region of the Air. p. 21, 22 It is true, it is not un­usual in the Holy Scriptures to condescend in some expressions to the Capacity of the Vul­gar, and there is an Instance of it in this very Chapter, v. 16 but this is a quite different thing from giving a Set Narration of a Mat­ter when there is really no such thing as is re­lated. Which is the case here, for this Writer holds that Moses, to condescend to the apprehensions of the people, tells them ex­pressly that the Sun, Moon and Stars were created on the 4th day, and placed in the up­per Firmament, though there was nothing of that nature, nothing created, nothing then made, nothing in that place Set. If it were only Impertinency that was charg'd upon Moses by the Theorist, viz. that he brings into his Diary things that are nothing to the pur­pose, [Page 11] that the hooks in the Solar System into the History that appertains only to the Sub­lunary World, we might bear with it (though it is an ill Imputation, and unworthy of the Inspired Writer) but when he charges him with Deceit and Falsity, it is not to be suffer'd. Moses (as he grants) pretends to speak in this Chapter of Matter of Fact, to relate the distinct time and proper place when and where things were done, and yet this Rela­tion is not True and Real, but a misrepresen­tation, and a false account of things; for whereas Moses mentions a certain Time and particular Day when the Lights of heaven were created, this Author peremptorily denies that they were created at that Time, and on that Day: and whereas Moses tells us that the Luminaries were set in the firmament of heaven, he saith the true place of these bodies is not assign'd them, p. 18. However Moses records it in his Journal, right or wrong, to please (and at the same time to deceive) the dull People. He and his Abettors would excuse themselves by saying, it is only concealing the Truth, but that is apparently false, for here is Actual Deception and Falsifying, because here is a Positive and Downright relating of what was not True, and yet delivering it as True. As to what this Worthy Author saith, that here is a compliance with the Common Notions, viz. that the Sun and Stars are part of the Clouds, or belong to the Region of the Air, he makes the Vulgar more Simple and Igno­rant then they are, to shew himself more wise than others in his interpretation of the place. [Page 12] And especially he forgets here (though he mentioned it before) that the Jewish Rabble were come lately from Egypt, and there we know there were seldom any Clouds, there being constantly a Clear and Serene Sky, so that it was Impossible they should be bred up with this notion, viz. that the Sun was seated in the Firmament of the Air where the Clouds are. This was not thought of by our Author, otherwise he would not have averred that Moses here accommodates himself to the Popular Humour and apprehension, and that he spoke to those of the Iewish Nation who who were unlearned and Ignorant.

Thirdly, he offers this as an other ground of his strange Interpretation, that though Moses makes mention of the Sun, Moon and Stars in his Diary of the Creation, yet these great Luminaries of the world were made be­fore, and only now placed, or seem to be placed, in our Firmament, p. 14▪ 15. It is not necessary, saith he, to believe that these bodies were then first created when Moses makes mention of them. p. 14. Which is against the whole tenour, scope and coherence of the Chapter, and con­trary to the Stile and Expressions in every part of it, which all run in the Preter-perfect Tense, not in the more then perfect Tense, as he would have it understood. Who can think that the Narrative concerning the fourth days work is to be Understood in a different way from all the Rest? All things belonging to the other days works are set down exactly, and according to the matter of Fact, but here he fancies it is otherwise, the stile varies, and [Page 13] there was no such thing as this days work: so that there was a Double Sabbath according to him, God rested from the works of Cre­ation on the fourth and on the seventh day. But however to fill up the space, Moses faith something and makes us believe that there was something done. And this he doth to suit himself to the Capacities of the Illiterate and Vulgar. Whence it might be inferred that in the Rest of the Chapter he turns himself to the Learned and Wise, but then the Au­thor differs from himself, for he had inform­ed us before that among the Iews at that time there were no Philosophers, but that they were all Idiots and Blockheads. These are the strange and wild notions of our Theorist and yet they are swallowed down, (though I hope but by few besides himself) rather then the Literal and Plain History of Moses shall take place, rather than he will adhere to the Genuine sense of the Text. And he him­self acknowledges that all the other parts of the Chapter, excepting what relates to the Fourth days work, are to be taken other­wise, that is, they are meant of what was really done on those Particular Days which are spe­cified, and there is no reason imaginable to make any Exception as to the Fourth day. He would come off by suggestions that the Sun, and Moon and Stars are then said to be made or created when they became Conspicuous, and their bodies distinctly Visible, p. 23. so that according to this New Expositor they were not made till there was a clear Day or Night to shew them. The Author of this Conceit [Page 14] is two Learn'd to persist in it, and too ingenu­ous not to blush at it.

Fourthly, an other profound Reason why the Heavenly Bodies are thus placed by Moses was to prevent Idolizing of them. It was to shew us the unreasonableness of all sorts of Idol­atry, or of the worship of any visible beings, though never so useful and glorious. p. 81. Nay, he tells us that the securing of the Iews from the adoration of the host of heaven could not otherwise have been provided for. p. 28. Till the force of this Reason can be apprehended we may truely say, there was poor Provision made a­gainst Idolatry, yea none at all. Unless he means all the stars, Fixed as well as others (which his Hypothesis will not allow of) it could not be designed to obviate or hinder Idolatry: this every one cannot but apprehend. Or, can we imagine that the most Holy God would obviate Idolatry by downright Falsify­ing? Can we think that Moses was inspired to Lye, that the Heavenly bodies might not be worship'd? For so runs the Argumentation of this Gentleman, Moses makes the Jews be­lieve in this chapter that God created the Sun and other Luminaries on the fourth day, and that they belong to the Earth, and a part of this System, though there is no such thing; but this he feigns as an Antidote against the Ado­ation of the Host of Heaven. One would not have expected such a poor way of Reason­ing from a man of Postulata's and Lemmata's. Who would think that one so well vers'd in Hypotheses, Phaenomena's and Solutions should discourse so weakly? But this it is to aban­don [Page 15] the Sacred Text, and not to adhere to the easy and obvious meaning of the Holy Ghost in these Writings, and in this Chapter more particularly. It is this that hath be­trayed our Learned Theorist to such strange and unaccountable fancies; it is this that cau­ses him to defend his Proposition, viz. that the six days Creation extended no further than the bare Earth, and that the whole System of the Heavenly Bodies is excluded from this His­tory of Moses, although in that very History he finds it clearly recorded that the Sun, Moon and Stars, by which day and night are dis­tinguished, are part of the Six days Crea­tion.

Next, I will observe that he is pleased to inform us of a New Calculation of Time: in the primitive state of the world days and years were all one. Book 2. p. 81. And afterwards, Both these Periods are exactly coincident, and both are performed in the same space of time. And then he thinks good to apply it, The Works of Creation were finished in six days, that is six years, he saith. But how will he be able to reconcile this with Gen. I. 5? The evening and the morning were the first day: and the same is said of all the other days of the Creation. Here an evening and a morning are made the just limits of a day, and therefore a day at the Creation of the world was not a Year, for there is a greater number of evenings and morn­ings in the compass of a year. And so when we read that six evenings and six mornings were spent in the works of the Creation, we may rationally infer thence that these amount [Page 16] not to six Years. And this Sagacious Writer would have made this Inference himself if he had not been tempted to the forsaking of the plain, intelligible and obvious sense of the words, and changing the easy and natural in­terpretation of Scripture for a forced one.

Again, he thinks fit to symbolize with his Fel­low-Theorist, and to raise the same Objection against the Mosaick Creation that he did. For thus you hear him objecting, p. 50 51. The length of the days assigned is wholly disproportio­nate to the business done upon it. The Third day hath two quite different, nay incompatible Works assign'd it And the Earth with its furniture takes up four entire days, when the sun, moon and stars are crowded into one single day. And the Improbability, yea and impossibility of the Works ascribed by Moses to the Sixth day are asserted by him, Book 2. p. 89, 90, 91. These Cavils might perhaps have become some pro­fess'd Lay-Deist but they are unworthy of a person that bears and Ecclesiastical Badg, and who is supposed to believe Moses's writing, and not to find fault with Inspired History. Are we to judg of the Proportion of the Days Works at the Creation? Are we to set the Almighty his Task? are shallow heads to cen­sure the Operations of the Omnipotent Cre­ator? Must they measure every Days pro­ceedings at the first formation of the world by certain Rules and Assignations of their own? This is intolerable, and no Pagan Philoso­pher would have acted thus, for he could not but know that the Methods of a Divine and Infinite Agent transcend the conceptions of [Page 17] weak and finite minds, and that the Supreme Being is not confined to our Proportions, but acts as he pleases. Natural and Common Pro­ductions are not the same with those Primary ones. We must not argue from our ordinary Generations to that which was at the begin­ning of all things. There was an other way and method observ'd, and it is irrational and senseless to make these a Pattern to them. Here was the Immediate hand of God, and therefore it is no wonder that the beginning, procedure and finishing of these Days Works were of a different nature from those Works that have been since. There being an Ex­traordinary and Miraculous exertment of Divine Power, it is as unreasonable as it is Irreligious to find fault with the Distribution of them. It is rash folly to expect Mathe­matical Congruity in every Production, and to look for Mechanick Laws in the erecting of the Universe, in the System of the Heavens, in the Planetary Bodies, in the Sun and other Globes of Fire. It is incon­gruous to think that Mechanism was observ'd in the formation of these. But of this I will speak more anon.

Only at present I take notice of the Agree­ment of the Two Theorists as to the Main, (though this latter in one place severely chastises the former for the false steps he hath made in his Theory, p. 76, 77.) There is a perfect Union and Friendship between them in the point of enervating the Mosaick History; only they do it after a different manner. The Old Theorist (now we may [Page 18] call him so, since this hath dubb'd himself the New one) directly and professedly rejects the plain sense of the Mosaick Text, whereas this pretends to own it, but at the same time miserably wrests and perverts it. The one openly declares that what Moses saith is not matter of Fact, but the other comes and ac­knowledges in part that it is an Historical Account, but denies that it is suitable to the Reality of things: it is a History, but False. The former plainly and in downright terms owns his dislike of the Literal meaning of that part of Genesis, but the latter though he admits of the Literal signification, yet craftily and sophistically distorts the sense of the words, and puts a force upon them. The first uses more freedom and ingenuity, telling the world without more ado that the Hi­storical sense is not to be admitted; the second pretends to own the Account of the Creation, as to the very Letter, but baffles it all by un­couth Expositions. Thus though the two Theorists take a different Method, yet they unite in exposing the Mosaick Writings.

It is Melancholy Reflection when we con­sider how men are hereby taught to vilify the Scriptures, to dispute the Mosaick Verity, to quarrel with the Creation, to look upon the several Stages and Processes of it as feigned, and because they are not adjus [...]ed to such Measures and Proportions as these persons fancy, to vote them to be false and counter­feit What can a well meaning and sober Rea­der think when he finds our present Author disparaging and traducing the Mosaick Cre­ation [Page 19] as unreasonable, unequal; irregular, in­decent, disproportionate, disagreeable to the Di­vine Wisdom, unsuitable to the nature of things? for these are the Epithets he bestows upon it, p. 57, 65. What can he think when he finds him professedly Ridiculing of it, p. 57. and representing it as unbecoming the simplest Artificer? What can any man think and imagine, I say, but this, that our Theorist hath a mind to null the Authority of Moses's Writings, to lessen the esteem of other parts of Scripture, to set Revelation and Rea­son at odds, to vacate all Reveal'd Truth, and in a word, to gain Proselytes to Deism? I am exceedingly troubled to let such words as these go abroad into the World; but I should be much more so, if I did not upon this occasion deliver my thoughts, If I did not freely tell the world what my Resent­ments are as to this matter. I never taught my Pen to write either for Ostentation, or for Preferment, but I have labour'd to bring it up an obedient servant to Truth, and I hope it will never be ashamed of so Honour­able a Master. In so Sceptical an Age as we live in it becomes us not to be Indifferent; yea, we are obliged to be very Warm and Concern'd, and not to let Temper (as 'tis now fashionably call'd) chill our Religion, and betray the Truth. And I use this Free­dom the rather because I deal with a Person of Ingenuity, who approves of a due Liberty in Discourse, and will both give and take it. I only suggest what Standers-by may think concerning his way of Writing, not what [Page 20] he designs, for I will not entertain an ill thought concerning him as to that. I only remonstrate against his unwary giving occasion to his Rea­ders to cavil at the Mosaick Account of the Creation, and thereby to open a door to the e­vacuating of all the Historical part of Scripture.

But what are the Reasons that are assigned by this Ingenious Gentleman and his Associates why they reject the Mosaick doctrine about the Formation of the World? They are these four especially, which I will briefly touch upon.

First, They oppose Moses's Account of the Creation because it favours not their Opinion and Conceit of the existence of some Other People in the World besides those of Adam's race. This Author talks of the Inhabitants, not only inanimate but animate and Reasonable in the other Planets, p. 40, 41. And he is at it again p. 58. There may be millions of other Species of Noble Creatures not inferiour to Man, p. 91. And therefore the Mosaick History is a poor mean thing, because it takes not in those other Inhabitants of the World, it brings us no tidings of the people that dwell in the Moon. But they should rather argue thus, the Adamick race, and no other is mentioned by Moses, and thence we may ra­tionally conclude that there is no other, for it being Moses's business to set down the Origin and Rise of Mankind, if there had been another stock of them, he would certainly have told us of it. But he doth no such thing; yea, on the contrary, he assures us that Adam and Eve were the first Persons that were created, and particularly that Eve [Page 21] was the Mother of all living, Gen. 3. 20. i.e. the source and Original of all men and wo­men that are in the world: and therefore an Other Generation of Humane kind is a mear dream and fiction. But it is probable, say they, that the Moon and other Planets are furnish'd with Animals like our selves, seeing they are as capable of Inhabitants as our Earth. I answer, No man can tell that. Though they be gross and solid bodies, and therein be like our Terrestrial Globe, yet they may not be a fit dwelling for any sort of Living Creatures, for Man especially. And indeed why should any man think that Men like our selves were originally placed in the Planets, when we are assured that these Hea­venly Bodies were made for the Use of Men upon Earth only? But of this afterwards.

Secondly, they fancy that Moses's Descrip­tion of the Creation is not suitable to the Greatness and Vast Extension of the World: they are of opinion that he talks too much of the Earth, and gives too Magnificent a Character of it, whereas the Smallness of it deserves no such thing. Accordingly this Author insists a long time upon this, p. 54, 55, 56. And urges that it is an Inconsider­able Spot in respect of the Vast Heavenly Bodies, which stand Still till that wheels about. For this reason they discard Moses, and are not a little displeased with him be­cause he is no Copernican. But these Gentle­men are to be told that they weakly argue from the Vast Proportion of the rest of the World in comparison of the Earthly [Page 22] Globe, for 'tis not Greatness and Bulk that give a value to things. They discourse idly and injudiciously who extol the Orbs of Heaven merely because they are Vast and Spa­tious, and despise the Earth because it is but a Point in regard of them. No man of true and generous Philosophy can argue thus: No, it is impossible he should, unless he can first prove that Bulk is Worth. Iudea was but a spot in respect of the Whole Earth (the same that the Earth is in respect of the World) yet God made choice of this small inconsiderable portion of ground to be the Scene of the most Glorious things that ever happen'd since the Crea­ation. Why then may we not think, or rather why do we not believe it (seeing it is so Evident and Bright a Truth) that the Supreme Being created this Pittance of Earth for great and glorious ends, to be the Stage of the Worthiest transactions in the world, and consequently to dignify it above all other parts of the Universe, be they never so Great and Large? And it is certain he did so, and we may see it plainly in the First Chapter of Genesis. It is observable that the Whole Material World is divided into heaven and earth, V. 1. and therefore this latter, the Earth, can be no mean part of it. And we cannot but take notice that this poor Pightel, this Moaicum of Earth (as you may call it) is described and repre­sented by Moses as the Main and Principal Work and Concern of the All-Mighty, and [Page 23] preferable to all the Heavenly Bodies, and the Whole Universe.

Therefore we have no reason to quit Moses for Copernicus, but to believe that the Earth, though so small a Globe, is of greater dignity than all the Celestial System, than all the Planetary and Fixed Lights. They that dis­course otherwise betray a great Narrow­ness of Soul and Meanness of Spirit, because they set a value upon Space and Quantity, and dote upon Roomth and Magnitude, which are of no real worth and esteem: but at the same time they undervalue the Order and Appointment of the Soveraign Marker and Disposer of the World, who plainly shews us the Transcendent Dignity and Su­perlative Excellencey of the Terrestrial System in his allotting more Time for the creating of that and what belongs to it than all the rest of the World, and would thereby convince us that the Earth, as small as it is, the Noblest and Choicest Part of the World.

Thirdly, They can't be brought to acknow­ledge that the Heavenly Bodies, yea and the Whole World were made for the use of Man: and on this account likewise (as well as those before mention'd) they cast off the Mosaick History of the Creation, because it favours not his Opinion of theirs, but represents Man as the Lord of all the Creatures, and him for whom (next to the Divine Being) all things were made, and more particularly the Heavens round about him. Our New Theorist can't indure to hear of this: it is a doctrine which he utterly explodes, and in [Page 24] order to that depretiates and vilifies Man­kind, p 89▪ debasing him to the nature of a File or a Worm, in the Works of the Creati­on. So low, so ignoble, so groveling is he in his thoughts, and so injurious to his own kind. It is true, he would seem to ap­plaud Mankind as a Noble and Glorious Creature, p. 90, and he takes notice of the Dignity of Man, Book 4. Chap. 1. p. 253: but then we are to remember that it is usual with this Author to clash with himself: what he asserts in one Part of his Book he renounces in another, as might be evidenc'd in several Instances, but that is not my busi­ness at present. Though 'tis highly impro­bable that there are any other Creatures of humane kind that receive any advantage and profit from the Creation, yet he declares that it is not wise and rational, it is not worthy to be believ'd of the All-Wise God that he chief­ly or solely created the World for our use, p. 70. He pronounces it inconsistent with the Divine Wisdom to make thousands of glorious bo­dies for the sole use of a few fallen and rebellious creatures, p. 69. And after he had enlarg'd upon it, he concludes that it argues the most extravagant degree of folly, p. 71. But softer terms would have become him, when he was speaking of so high a matter: and I question not but he would have used them if he had Thought before he spoke, that is, if he had thought and consider'd how Noble a Being Man is, and that he was design'd by his Maker to be the Flower and Top of the Cre­ation, and the Glory of the Visible World, [Page 25] and that he hath the peculiar honour to have his Nature united to the Deity: He that hath such apprehensions of Man, can't think it strange that even the Sun, Moon, and other Planets which more nearly environ him, and even the Fixed Globes of Light and Fire, though at a vast distance from him, were created for his Use and Service in some manner or other. They were made to shed their Influences on Mankind here on earth, (which is express'd by their Ruling the day and the night, Gen. 1. 16, 18.) and to give light upon the Earth, which also is twice men­tion'd, v. 15, 17. Even the vast multitude of Fixed Lights, which are meant by the Stars, v. 16. or at least are comprehended under the host of heaven, Chap. 2. V. 1. were made for this very purpose, and consequent­ly for the Service of Man.

This is confirmed from what we are told concerning those Glorious Creatures, the Angels, viz. that they are Ministring Spirits, sent forth to minister for Mankind, more especi­ally them who shall be heirs of salvation, Heb. 1 14. It is no wonder that the Heavens and all the Glorious Bodies in it are Servants to Men, when the very Celestial Inhabitants are so. It would have been accounted a wild and extravagant Notion that those Superiour Beings should be Waiters and Tenders on the inferiour ones, unless the Infallible Wri­tings had assured us of it: but now being as­sured of this, we may be reconciled to that other Truth, that the Heavens serve Man, and that the Sun and all the Luminaries are [Page 26] Servants to the Earth, and officiously roll about it, whilst it stands to receive their In­fluence. This is congruous to the Divine Greatness and Majesty, who hath made Man his Vice-gerent in this lower world, and hath constituted the Earthly Globe the place of his Residence, in which respect it is more excel­lent than all the Heavenly Bodies. But I have spoken something of this in an ^* other place, and therefore shall add no more now.

Fourthly and lastly, they hold that the Formation of the World was according to the strict laws of the Mechanick or Corpuscular Philosophy; and therefore seeing Moses repre­sents it not as such, they give no credit to his Writings about this matter. It is particular­ly alledged by our present Author that his New Hypothesis of the Earth is exactly ac­cording to the laws of Mechanism, and thence he concludes it to be Authentick. But the Consequence ought to be denied for this reason, because he can never prove that the Creation of the World was comformable every ways to the Mechanism to bodies and the laws of Common Nature. We must not think that the Origin of all things was in the same manner with the After-productions. Rather we are to conceive that the ordinary way and method which have been observ'd in Nature ever since, were not observ'd at the Creation; for Common and Second Causes [Page 27] had nothing to do then, the Divine Power and Influence peculiarly interposed, and the Creation was a work of Infinite and Miracu­los Power and Wisdom. An Immediate and Extraordinary Hand set things on work at the first erecting of the World, ayd conse­quently no Mechanical Laws can explain it. [...] know our Author seems to agree to this, ^* The change of the Chaos, saith he, into an habitable world was not a mere result from any necessary laws of Mechanism independently on the divine power, but is the proper effect of the in­fluence and interposition of Providence. Nay, that the Whole Work and Process of the Creation was not from mere Mechanick Laws, but from the immediate operation of the All mighty, and an Extraordinary and Miraculous Power, he asserts in some pages together, Book 4. Chap. 1. where he in­stances in several Particulars of the Creati­on.

But so it is, this Gentleman hath a faculty of jarring with himself, for in other places he disowns all this in three whole pages (36, 37, 38) he argues about the Mosaick Chaos from the Properties of bodies, from the manner of their productions, from the law of Gravitati­on, and expresly avers that at the first Crea­tion of the Earth all was done according to the known laws of matter and motion, and therein mistakes and misinterprets the Mosaick Creation. Besides, he would not have com­plain'd [Page 28] that in the Scheme of the Mosaick Creation bodies alike in nature have an unlike original, and again, bodies unlike in nature have a like original, p. 65 and that the Light appeared be­fore the creation of the Sun from whence it is de­rived, &c. he could not possibly with any consistency of Sense have discours'd thus, un­less he had supposed that all that was done in the six days was according to the Ordinary Process of Nature. Again, when he finds fault with the disproportion of the Days Works (as hath been observ'd before, and as you may see p. 41. The Time of the Creation of each body was so disproportionate to the Work it self as is perfectly irreconcilable to the divine wisdom of its Creator, and the accounts of the Works themselves as they are set down by Mo­ses.) It is apparent to every intelligent man that he proceeds upon the Laws of Mecha­nism, and verily thinks that these were exact­ly observ'd in the making of the World: which false Notion is one Cause of his False Hypothesis. We have mean conceptions of the System of the World if we think it is no more than a Clock or a Watch. The Su­preme and All-mighty Being doth not confine himself to Mechanism and the Common Principles of Natural Motion. And there­fore it is vain to undertake to solve all the Phaenomena's of bodies by them, and to at­tribute all their effects to the common force and operation of Mechanick Powers, which, as I apprehend, is the fault of this Learned Theorist and some others.

[Page 29] Thus I have briefly touch'd upon the Rea­sons and Grounds why these persons relin­quish the Mosaick Account of the Creation, and consequently the System of the World founded upon it, and why they take Coperni­cus or Cartes to be better Writers than Moses. In the First Reason that they assign they are Fantastical, and dream of a World of Inhabi­tants in the Moon and the other Planetary Bodies. In the Second they are Childish, and esteem things by their Bulk and Shew. In the Third they are Sneaking, and debase themselves, and take no notice of their No­ble Nature. In the Last they debase the All-mighty himself by tying him to Mecha­nick Laws. And in all four they seem to discourse unreasonably, unphilosophically, unscripturally. They fly to precarious Evasi­sions of Scripture, and give such a fanciful account of the Inspired Writers words (which are plain and intelligible of them­selves) that the Theists, and some in a Form above them, cannot but confess themselves deeply obliged to them. The number of those that undervalue the Holy Oracles is great already, and I fear such Treatises as these incourage them, especially when pen­ned by persons of that Character and Order. Those of the Sacred Function, above all others, should be very Cautious lest they of­fend in this kind. They ought to take care that they interfere not with the Letter of Scripture, that they distort not the sense of the Sacred Text, and prevaricate with the Book of God; and particularly that they re­ject not the plain History of Moses, that they [Page 30] attempt not to run down his Account of the Creation.

Our Theorist, I conceive, hath been ex­tremely delinquent as to these things, he hath thrown down Moses to erect himself, he hath made bold with the First Chapter of Genesis to introduce and establish his own Theorems and Hypotheses, such as These, that the Cha­os was the Atmosphere of a Comet, that a Comet pass'd by the Earth at the De­luge, &c▪ and others about the Revolution of the Earth not till Adams Fall, about the Change of its Figure, about Paradise, about the Abyss, about the Planets, &c. which are Precarious Notions, and have no solid foun­dation in Reason, Nature, or Scripture to sup­port them. All which a ^* late Writer of a free and brisk Genius hath thought fit to ex­pose, and even to ridicule. But it is not my business to treat this Gentleman at that rate: I only observe that he seems to have no re­gard to the Sacred History whilst he is giv­ing an Account of the Phaenomena of the Earth.

But yet this is not said as if I were so strait-laced as to abridg this Excellent Wri­ter in any thing of an Indifferent nature, or to debar him of a Philosophical Freedom, or to lay restraint upon him as to any Disquisitions that are Ingenious, and in the least Probable. But all this might be done without entrench­ing upon Moses. He might, and ought to [Page 31] have adjusted his Notions to the Text, and made them comport with Moses's History, and built thereupon a Rational Theory, and a Scheme of Philosophy consistent with Genesis. But it was his Infelicity to take a Contrary Method, to usurp upon the Holy Writ, wantonly to oppose the natural and obvious meaning of it, to offer such Interpretations as give occasion to persons to slight the Sa­cred Volume, and to disregard that sense and meaning of it which lie plain before them.

To conclude, I consider'd the Mischief and Danger which might accrue to the world by that extravagant Liberty which I apprehend­ed Mr. Whiston had indulg'd himself in: I consider'd that such daring Flights as these might prove fatal to Young Students in Philo­sophy and Divinity, and teach them to erect their own Hypotheses upon the ruines of the Sacred Text: I consider'd how injurious these Attempts are to the Scriptures in gene­ral, and how derogatory to the Spirit of God who indited them: and the sense of this alone (without any other Inducement what­soever) moved me to use this Plainness and Freedom with so Worthy and Learned an Author.

A Learned Gentleman was lately pleas'd to do me the honour to frame some Objections against the Second Chapter of the First Part of my Treatise, wherein I endea­vour'd [Page 33] to evince the Being and Providence of God from the Works of the Creation. First, he censures that passage Page 25. The Sun measures about a thousand miles in an hour. He thinks I have not used the right method of calculating the Sun's motion. I must confess to him I was not very Studious about that, being disheartn'd by the great Difference of Computations which I observ'd in the Authors I met with. It is well known how discre­pant the Calculations of Astronomers are. I have seen in my time a good many Writers on that subject, but I could never light upon any one that satisfies that Point: wherefore I chose rather to pitch upon a Common and Vulgar Computation than to trouble the Reader with the several Opinions of Astro­nomers, or to offer one that might seem in­credible. Herein I conceive I have done nothing amiss. And truly if the Objector had been Impartial, i. e. had consulted one part of my Discourse as well as the other, he would not have found any occasion for an Exception against the foresaid passage. If he had been pleas'd to take notice of p. 60. l. 15, &c. these words would have silenc'd his Scruples, As to the motion of them (viz. the Planets) there is a great disagreement among Writers: therefore what hath been said before as to this, must be submitted to those that are able to judge of the different Hypotheses. Here is submission, but it is not regarded: here was a modest acknowledgment of the Author's insufficiency to give a just and accurate Ac­count of the Motion of those heavenly bo­dies [...] and a Candid and Ingenuous Reader [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34] could not but infer that the like was supposed in the Case before us. We are not able to determine in a matter where there are so Va­rious Sentiments. My design was to repre­sent to the Reader the All-mighty Power and Infinite Wisdom of the Supreme Being in or­dering the Course of the Celestial Lumina­ries, and especially of the Solar Globe: and this design I thought sufficiently accomplish'd by a General Computation of the Suns Moti­on and not by descending to Nice Calculati­ons, which would rather amuse and distract than give any Satisfaction.

Next, as to what I had offer'd against the Motion of the Earth, he objects that I have not dealt fairly with the Copernicans, for I have produced their trifling and less weighty Reasons, but have conceal'd the strongest. If this be so, then I must tell him, that Kepler and Galilaeo (Great Names in Astronomy) were Triflers, then Lansbergius, Varenius, Gilbert had no weight in their Arguments; then Copernicus himself was a very easy and mean Arguer, and defended his Post but slightly. I could mention a Learned Writer who is now alive, the Worthy Mr. Ray, one of whose Arguments for the Copernican hy­pothesis is ^* the vast disproportion in respect of Magnitude that is between the Earth and the Heavens, and the great unlikelyhood that such an infinite number of vast bodies should move about so inconsiderable a spot as the Earth: and this is the Chief Argument he propounds. And this, with others which I produced, [Page 35] were made use of, and earnestly urged by other Learned Writers of great Note and Re­pute. Now, who would have thought that the Modern Copernicans would confess that the Arguments which the First Founders of the Opinion made use of, and which the Chiefest Writers produc'd to bring men off from the other perswasion, were so Light and Tri­fling? Or if they were Strong Reasons at first, how came they now, by my exposing them, to be weak? Or, if the Worthy Per­sons before mention'd thought fit to insist up­on them, can any man give any reason why I might not propound them as the Topicks made use of for that Cause? It will be diffi­cult to return a satisfactory Answer to these Queries. No, saith this Gentleman; for though those foresaid Philosophers found out, or retrieved the Earths Circumrotation, yet we of late found out the True Reason of it. And what is that, I pray? The true Reason of this Hypothesis is this, its suitableness to the laws of Mechanism. This is the Great Arcanum which our late Worthies boast they have had the happiness to bless the world with.

But I desire these two things may be consi­der'd.

First, this is a Reason which was never in­sisted upon by Copernicus, the first Reviver of this Hypothesis, nor so much as mention'd by some of the Greatest Followers and Asserters of his doctrine, as I'm ready to prove out of the Authors themselves, if it be denied. Those things which I alledg'd, and which this Gentleman calls trifling, are the Princi­pal Arguments which the generality of Coperni­cans [Page 36] urge for their Opinion. They did not so much as understand the word Mechanism, they had never heard of such a term. Gassen­dus, who gives a summary account of all the Reasons produced for this Hypothesis, reck­ons up those very ones which I gather'd out of the Authors themselves: only he argues in­deed from the Motion of the Planets, which is uncertain and dubious; but he hath not a syllable about the laws of Mechanism. Tell me then, is it credible that the First Inven­ters and Establishers of an Hypothesis should not be acquainted with the True Reason why they threw off the receiv'd Opinion, and em­brac'd another?

Secondly, They that at this day use these Terms know not how to apply them to the present purpose. I deny not the Excellent Use and Advantage of the Mechanick Philo­sophy (of which I have spoken in another place) for most of the Great and Brave Dis­coveries of this Age in Physiology, Me­dicks, &c. are owing to this: but that which I assert at present is, that it is no ways applica­ble to the matter in hand, viz. the Hypothe­sis of the Copernicans: for there is not one of them, so far as I can judg, that hath solidly shew'd and prov'd the agreeableness of the Earths Circumgyration to the Laws of Mecha­nism. There is a late Writer that talks as much of the Mechanical Laws of Motion as any man, but though he asserts the Diurnal Circumvolution of the Earth, yet ^* he holds that in the time of Mans Innocence there was [Page 37] no such thing, but that it was the effect of Man's Fall, and immediately follow'd upon the Curse on the Earth, and is part of its Curse. Whence it follows that the Earths Motion was not the Primitive state and pro­perty of it; it was not Natural to it, but pre­ternatural, inordinate and irregular, and con­sequently not according to the stated laws of Mechanism. And as for the Other Authors who endeavour to solve the Earths Motion in a Mechanical way, it is evident that they are not able to effect what they have undertaken. And how indeed can we expect they should do it, when we find them disagreeing about the Mechanick Laws? There never was a greater dissen [...]ion among Natural Pilosophers than there is about this one thing, as appears from comparing the Writings of Des Cartes (who was the First Substantial Author of Mechanism) Dr. More, Dr. Burnet, Mr. Newton, Dr. Woodward, Mr. Whiston, and other Philosophical Men of this age, who have built their respective and different Hypo­theses and Theories on their different notions of Mechanick Principles and Agents. They all pretend to proceed upon Mechanical Laws: their Solutions are founded on the Na­tural Tendency of Matter: and yet we see how wide their Notions are from one ano­ther, and how their Hypotheses are contra­dictory to each other. Which plainly shews how fallacious an Argument Mechanism is. And if we speak particularly of the matter now before us, who sees not how differently these Principles and Laws are applied? Some Wri­ters (as this present Objector himself acknow­ledges) [Page 38] making out the Copernican Hypothe­sis by the notion of Vortices, others by that of Mutual Gravitation about a Common Center.

First, some think the Motion of the Earth demonstrable from the Vortices. So the Great Des Cartes, and the famous Dr. More in one of his Epistles; and there are others that es­pouse this part of the Cartesian Physicks. But it were easie to shew how improbable an Hy­pothesis this is on several accounts: for it puts a Force upon Nature, because according to Des Cartes's own Principle all bodies moving Circularly endeavour to get free of that mo­tion, and to alter the Center: so that there is nothing like Natural Motion in the hypothesis of Vortices, but all is Violent, and against the easie known laws of Mechanism. The Vorti­ces are impetuous Torrents of fluid matter continually emptying and discharging them­selves: the Poles of every one of them are made forcible Dreiners for the Eclipticks, and there is a constant disgorging and evacuating of such and such a Set of Particles, accompa­nied always with a violent emission, impulse, and protrusion. So that without Revelation we may tell that there is War in heaven, per­petual justing and tilting, jarring and fight­ing. Among the Vortical Orbs, Celestial and Planetary, there are Commotions and Tumults, and the World is in a Continual Hurly-burly, a Pell-mell, a Confusion. That the Vortices keep their Station, and are not swallow'd up of one another is a Miracle. One would think that it is impossible but that they should encroach upon one another, ac­cording to the nature of that violent and ra­pid [Page 39] motion which the Author of them hath described. The truth is, no considerate and thoughtful man can apprehend how the World hath been able to subsist so long as it hath, on the supposition of that make and composition of the Vortices

Moreover, it might be proved that the do­ctrine of Vortices destroys the common notion of Gravity, i. e. the descent of heavy bodies to the Center, that it must necessarily hinder the Sun and Stars from being seen, that it is utterly inconsistent with the Steadiness of their motions, and the certainty of their Revolu­tions, that it is irreconcileable with the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, &c. This and much more may be made good concerning the Vor­tices; which renders Des Cartes's System pre­carious.

And indeed the Excellent Author himself thought it to be no other: in his Philosophical Principles, part 3. Sect. 45. and in two or three other places of his Writings (as those that are acquainted with them know very well) he confesses it to be but a bare Hypo­thesis, he lets us know that he took the liberty to feign and invent this. And indeed any man of castigate thoughts can't but perceive that it is a mere Romantick strain that this Earth of ours was once a Sun, and that all the World was Heavens at first. This is Ingeni­ous and Fine, but not Solid. The World of Whirl-pools is a World of Monsieur Des Cartes's own making. He intended it only for a Philosophical Expedient, which might serve to give an account of the Phaenomena in the Heavens and the Earth: but it is all Sup­position, [Page 40] and you can't build a Body of Natural Philosophy upon it, nay you can't evince the Earth's Motion (which is the thing contended for) from this supposal. Hence it is that some Great Philosophers of this Age labour to esta­blish this doctrine on another Hypothesis: which they would not do if they thought the laws of Mechanism as grounded on the Opini­on of Vortices, were true and solid. They would acquiesce in this, and not look out for some other way to give a Solution of the Pro­blem: but we see they are dissatisfied, and fly to some other way of solving this doctrine of theirs.

Secondly then, it Vortices cannot do it, Gra­vity must. This is another Principle of Me­chanism that is relied upon. The Chief Per­son of late that manages this is the Learn­ed and Profound Mr. Newton, who in his Princip. Philos. Math. tells us that there is Rest in the Common Center of Gravity, and if the Sun be the Center then it rests, and the Earth moves about it. But first, who is there that, weighing the several Systems of the World, (the Ptolemaick, Tychonick, &c.) sees not how difficult it is to determine what part of the Universe is its Center? They Learned Brahe thought the spoke and argued like a Mathema­tician and Astronomer when he defended the Earths Gentreity. Again, Mr. Newton himself seems not to hold that the Sun is the Center of the Mundane System: nay he owns expresly in his 10th Proposit. the distance of the Solar body from the Center of Gravity, which re­spects it self, and all the Planetary bodies, with the Earth. Besides, this Mechanical Prin­ciple [Page 41] which is stiled Vis Gentripeta, or Gravity, is very obscure and doubtful, and therefore un­satisfactory, because of the Different (if not contrary) hypotheses it is built upon, accor­ding to the Various apprehensions of Philoso­phical heads. From the discrepancy of their notions, and their ways of solving this Phoe­nomenon we are able to gather only this, that the Problem of Gravitation or Non-gravitation, and the suppositions and solutions about it have puzzled the Wits of the profoundest Vertuo­so's, and consequently we have no Sure foot­ing here.

Further, the Laws of Gravity can scarcely be said to be Mechanical: for Gravitation is not a Mechanick Principle, because it flows not from the Nature of Bodies, they being in themselves of a Passive nature, and therefore cannot tend towards other Bodies, or draw them to them. There is no such Activity in mere Corporeal and Material Beings, and con­sequently the laws of the Universal Tendency or Attraction of Matter, which are supposed, must have another Spring. Dr. More in his Metaphysicks will let you know that they pro­ceed from an Higher Principle, that they can't be solv'd in a mere Mechanical way, that they are above and beyond all the force of Mecha­nism, and depend wholly and entirely on the Divine Omnipotent Mover. But then you will say, the Gravity of bodies is a Miracle: for the notion we have of a Miracle is, that it is some Occurrence which is above or contrary to the fix'd course of Nature. To which I an­swer, tho' it is true the main and chief thing which constitutes a Miracle, is that is surpasses [Page 42] finite power, and is the result of an Omnipo­tent Agent, yet there are other Properties which must concur to denominate a Miracle, as Rarity and Wonder; but these two are want­ing here, for Gravity, and the Effects of it are common and usual, and (as the consequent of that) beget not Admiration and Amazement, and for these reasons we stile them not Mira­culous. But notwithstanding this, we may hold that they are things that exceed the power of mere Nature, they are not from the efficicien­cy of Matter, in what manner soever moved, but are immediately from a Divine hand. Gra­vity, saith a late ^* Learned Writer, is above, besides and contrary to the nature of Matter, and is the effect of a Divine Power and Efficacy which governs the whole world; nay, he sticks not to say, of ^† a Supernatural and Miraculous Influence. And an ^‡ other Ingenious Gentleman speaks to the same purpose.

Lastly, as to Mechanism it self, the laws and rules of it are very disputable, and therefore we can't solidly argue from it. The Renown­ed Cartesians (that Great and Mighty Genius of Mechanism, whom all the Learned World admires and applauds) proceeds upon and proves all by Mechanick Principles in his Theo­ry of the Celestial and Terrestrial Bodies, but yet we find that several of his Principles and Maxims have been rejected since by very Wise heads, and great Judges in Mathematicks. Let One speak for all, ^* Des Cartes's Rules, saith he, concerning the transferring of motion from one body [Page 43] in motion to another in motion or in rest, are the most of them by Experience found to be false, as they affirm who have made Trial of them. Here then is no Certainty, there is no proceeding on Mechanical Laws in the present Controver­sy: which was the thing to be proved.

This is what I had briefly to suggest con­cerning the Two Mechanick Principles which the Learned Objector founds the Motion of the Earth upon▪ And now I appeal to himself whether he can alledg these as a grand and weighty reason (as he expresses it) of the Phaenomenon he defends, seeing they are so Uncertain and fickle, seeing Naturalists so widely differ about them, and can't agree in assigning the Mechanism. Any rational man will infer hence that we can not rely upon this doctrine in the present Case. This I think is very clear and plain, and therefore let not the grand and weighty reason of Me­canism be brought to prove the Circular motion of the Earth, till there be an agreement about the Nature of it. Though Dr. More and Mr. Newton (who are the worthy persons our Objector cites) make the Motion of the Earth the necessary effects of Mechanism, yet they do it upon different grounds, they proceed on Mechanick laws of Motion which are diverse from one an other, and depend on different Hypotheses; therefore a third person cannot build upon either of them. How can a man found the Earths Circulation on Vortices or Gravity, when the Authors and Founders themselves prove it not from the same Mechanical Principles, but such as contradict each other? for such are Gravity [Page 44] or the subsiding of bodies, and the Whirling them round. If we had a mind to make use of these Hypotheses of those Great Men, we can't (if we would) adhere to both of them, because they so vastly differ; therefore One of them only can be pitch'd upon, but which of them is hard to determine, and this Gentleman himself doth not assign which of them he intends to own as the True Prin­ciple.

If you stick to the Vortices, you will be liable to the Witty Atheist you mention, for the Vortices are look'd upon by the Judicious as only an Ingenuous Invention. If you rely upon the Principles of that other Worthy Gentleman you quote, he will fail you as to any thing that looks like Demonstration, for he is oblig'd first to prove and demon­strate his supposed notion of Gravity, and the Cause of it (wherein he differs from very Great Philosphers and Vertuoso's) before he can maintain that Point. And I need not tell you that if his Principles be question­able, then your Inferences from them (which are the Main of your Argument) must be so too. You proceed upon some Suppositions which that Excellent Person hath espoused, he be­taking himself to a Particular way of Philo­sophizing which most pleases him: but unless you can absolutely prove that what he sup­poses concerning the nature of Gravity is certainly True, in my opinion you effect no­thing, I mean nothing that is certain and in­dubitable: for otherwise I grant that you have most elaborately established the New­tonian Hypothesis, and the Earths Motion on [Page 45] that foot: but if that foot be infirm, as I conceive it is, then all your Arguing is of that nature also and you still want a [...] to move this Globe. The short of all is, if you strike in with Cartes and More, you must re­nounce the Lucasian Professor: if you make choice of this last, you must cashier the other two.

Where then is this Demonstration of the Co­pernican hypothesis from Mechanical Principles which is talk'd of? I grant what this Gentle­man saith, that upon supposition of Vortices the motion of the Earth is proved as fully agreeable to Mechanism as a Boats swiming down the stream, if left at liberty: but then it must be prov'd that there is this Stream in the make of the Earth and of the Heavenly Bodies too, which he attempts not to prove. And as for Gravitation, as it is represented by that Celebrated Mathematician he quotes, and the laws of Mechanism consequent upon that, which he infers from the dimensions of the Planetary System, I need not inform him (he being so well acquainted with it) that there hath been, and is at this day a great a disagreement among the Learnedest Astro­nomers about the distance of the Planets from the Earth, and from one an other; there have been profess'd Disputes and Quarels about this, and accordingly there must be a dissention about the Dimensions of those bodies: and consequently if their Calculations be various, there is no Arguing from thence; we can't judg of the Mecha­nism of the Plannets because we are strangers [Page 46] to their just Dimensions, and the laws of their Motion depending thereupon.

When I consider'd these things, when I observed how obscure, uncertain and pre­carious the Principles are on which the Earths Motion is grounded, I thought it best (in my Discourse of the Existence and Providence of God) to lay aside this New Hypothesis. Because I was not well satisfied with the Account which the Moderns give of it, I chose rather to retain the Tychonick System, as being least incumber'd with Objections and Difficulties. Of which an Intelligent Phi­losopher of this Age (whom I mention'd be­fore) was sensible, and therefore declares him­self no Stickler for the Copernican Hypothesis, but very fairly and ingenuously professes that ^* he doth not positively assert it, but only pro­poses it as an Hypothesis not altogether improba­ble. But as to what I have offer'd, the A­theist (be he as Witty as this Gentleman can make him) hath no advantage by it, (what­ever he seems to suggest:) nay rather, it would have made for him if I had founded the Providence of the Almighty on so totter­ing a basis as the laws of Mechanism. The Cause would have receiv'd a great prejudice from the using of an Argument so weak and dubious. Then it would have been disputed, whether the Penman of the Book of Genesis or Monsieur Cartes, or whether he or Mr. Newton were the better Author: or rather it would have been plainly seen that there is a greater deference given by some men to the latter then to the [Page 47] former, and that the Philosophical Principles of the one are prefer'd to the Inspired Writings of the other.

But the Truth of the matter is this, the Merits of that Cause I undertook, viz. the Proof of the Divine Providence, were not concern'd in this Controversy, For whether one or the other hypothesis (viz. the Rest or the Motion of the Earth) be true is not materi­al as to the Main Business: and so much I in­timated in that Discourse, p. 57. l. 7. &c. After all, if the Copernican hypothesis should be true, that is, if the Earth rolls about on its Center, and so turns it self to the Sun in its various positions, yet still there are the same Effects of this that there were of the other Revolution, viz. that of the Sun; the good and benefit of mankind are promoted, and the Power and Goodness of the Great Benefactor are declared. And I had said before, p. 49. The motion of the Earth is a precarious Opinion, so far as I have hitherto discerned. By which words I shut not out future Convictions, and I let the World see that I am not Peremptory in my determination, but that I believe the Power and Wisdom of God may be evidenc'd from both hypotheses. Yet it was and is my per­swasion that the doctrine of the Earths Rest is more probable and accountable then that of its Moving: there is more to be said for its standing Still then for its taking a Turn about the Sun. At least I shall continue in this Opinion till the Writers who are of the other side agree upon a better way of ex­plaining and proving what they assert. Ar­chimedes was modest who demanded a Place [Page 48] to set his foot on, an to plant his Engines, and then he would undertake to move the Earth: but some of the Gentlemen of the Copernican way pretend to do this without any solid Footing, and without any Machins but those of their own Ingenious Brains, which it must be confessed are very strong and powerful, but not powerful enough to effect this Business they Undertake. I hope then I may without of [...]ence retain my Perswasion, till I see it confuted by Solid Arguments, and such as as are founded upon unshaken Prin­ciples. Seeing this Learned Objector, who is of so deep a Comprehension, is not pleas'd to produce such, I am apt to think that none else can.

I only observe in the last place, that he is for a Neutrality, and would have me treat both hypotheses with indifferency: but he sets me a Task which he is not willing to perform himself, for he hath shew'd himself in what he writes to be a great favourer of the Copernicans, in direct Opposition to the other side. We can prescribe that to o­thers which we take no care to observe our selves.