A Conference WITH A THEIST.  
PART I.  
Wherein 

I. Are shown the Absurdities in the pretended Eternity of the World.  
II. The Difficulties in the Mosaic Creation are cleared.  
III. The Lapse of Mankind is defended, against the Objections of the Unbelievers.    
By William nichols, D. D.  
The Second Edition Corrected.  
LONDON, Printed by T. W. for Francis Saunders at the Blue-Anchor in the New-Exchange; and Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1698.   

TO HIS Most Excellent Majesty WILLIAM III. By the Grace of GOD King of Great Britain, etc.  
May it please Your Majesty,  
FOR some part of that time, which you have been exposing Your Sacred Person and affording an unwearied Application for the Good of Christendom and the Advantage of the Reformed Religion, which admirable Endeavours God of his Infinite Mercy has been Pleased to Crown with a suitable Success; I have had the leisure, under Your Majesty's Most Gracious Government and Protection, to the utmost of my poor Abilities to defend the Cause of our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Religion; against the Blasphemous Exceptions, which Atheistical Men do raise against it.  
And now, through the Blessing of God, having Finished this Mean Work, I humble beg leave to lay my Papers at Your Majesty's Feet, imploring Your Royal Acceptance and Patronage of Them; which may be a Means to recommend them to some, who having Thrown off all respect to our Saviour, yet their Worldly Interest may oblige them to retain some for Your Majesty; and perhaps the very name of so Good and so Great a Prince, prefixed to this Book, may occasion them to light upon something therein, which may give them better Thoughts of that Holy Religion, which, Your Majesty does so much reverence and they most unworthily despise. I am not so vain to imagine that my poor Endeavours should ever prove in a like measure successful with Your Majesty's Arms and Conduct; yet by the Blessing of God, I hope, since Your Majesty has so Publicly discountenanced Atheism and Profaneness, I have a fairer Prospect of gaining some Advantage over the Enemies of Religion, than in any other Reign, which it has been my Lot to live under.  
Dread Sir! may the Good God, who has hitherto prospered Your Great Undertake continue to incline Your Heart, zealously to oppose that spreading Infidelity, which unless a stop be put to it, will be the Ruin of these Kingdoms, and force Heaven to pour out the last Vials of its Wrath upon us. Now You have happily procured us Peace Abroad and our Liberties at Home, may You go on in a no less Glorious Design, to Maintain the Cause of our Despised Redeemer, treading in the steps of Your great Predecessor Constantine, who when he had settled the Peace of the Empire and established his Throne against his Opposers, set himself next to the Noble Work of promoting Christianity, and to make the Cross of Christ Triumph over the Blaspheming Infidels.  
God be Thanked, Unbelievers are not so Numerous now as then, but they are not inferior in their Wickedness and their spite to Religion, which if Your Majesty by Your Power and Authority, can under the Blessing of God, happily suppress and reclaim; this will be a new Accession to Your Glories, and will add fresh Laurels to Your Brow; This will render You yet dearer to God and to all good Men of every Persuasion among us, and will reconcile the Affections of Your keenest Enemies.  
Now that Your Majesty may be as Successful in this as in Your other Great Endeavours, that You may enjoy a long and happy Reign in this World, and an Eternal Kingdom in the next, is the Daily Prayer of,  
Your Majesty's Most Dutiful Subject, and Most Obedient, and humble Servant, Will. nichols.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
HAving oftentimes with Grief considered the mighty Progress, which Atheism and Infidelity have made in this Age; I thought it was highly necessary that those who by their Profession had made themselves Teachers and Defenders of the Christian Faith, ought not to spend their whole time in enforcing the Morality of its Precepts, and in confuting Innovations made in its Doctrine and Government; but were obliged sometimes to afford their Aid towards the overthrowing those Principles which tend to the total subversion of our common Christianity. Socinians, Papists, and Schismatics, it is true, are guilty of very grievous and dangerous Errors, but yet the worst of them maintain some part of the Groundwork of Christianity still; but Atheists who deny a God, and Theists who disown a Revelation, make our whole Religion an Imposture, and all that have to do with it either Cheats or Fools. So that we that are Ministers of the Gospel, are highly concerned to use the utmost of our force, against these Opinions, which debauch and damn so many Men, whose Souls we have the charge of, which tend to the discredit and total overthrow of our Profession, and expose our Persons to all the foolish scoffs of idle Men. Nay farther, there is the greatest danger from these Infidel Doctrines, because they are espoused by Men of all Parties, and by many of those who join themselves with some particular Body of Christians; for it is easy to observe, a great many men railing bitterly against Papists or fanatics, when they believe no more of Jesus Christ, than they do of Transubstantiation; and have no more liking to the Gospel, than to a long Canting Sermon. Now because such Infidels lie herded among divers Sects of Christians, as they are not so easily discerned, so they are not so vigorously opposed; and by this means they have of late gained such strength, that now they begin to look formidable. It is dreadful to think what numbers of Men are poisoned by Infidel Principles; for Atheism and Theism are now got from the Court to the Exchange, they begin to talk them in Shops and Stalls, and the Cavils of Spinosa and Hobbs are grown common, even to the very Rabble. But the greatest encouragement which Infidelity meets with, is from some Philosophical Gentlemen, who find that the Scripture seems to contradict some Notions in Philosophy, which they have espoused, or some Experiments which they are persuaded of the Truth of; and therefore for that reason, they will disbelieve that and all Revealed Religion. Now some of these Gentlemen, being Men of Parts and Letters, and able to manage an Argument, they generally set upon some unlearned Christian; they puzzle and confound him with Philosophic Terms and Experiments, and with a Set of Jests and Bantering Expressions against Scripture; and when thus they have beat the poor Man out of his Road, they think they have for ever triumphed over Christianity.  
— Pudet haec opprobria nobis  
Et dici potuisse, & non potuisse refelli.  
These Considerations have put me upon Writing this Dialogue, and have encouraged me to consider the chief of their Arguments, which they are wont to make use of in their Discourse, or which have been published of late in Theistical Writings: to the end that well-meaning and religious Men, whose Leisure or Education will not let them search so narrowly into these Disputes, may from this Treatise be furnished with sufficient Answers to such Infidel Arguments. Now the Objections which are urged in this Dialogue, are part of them taken from the Discourse of some Deists I have casually conversed with; but are mostly taken out of a Book lately published, called Oracles of Reason, the first Book I ever saw which did openly avow Infidelity. This I had some thoughts once to have wrote a set Answer to, but I found it was so sillily and loosely wrote, that upon more serious consideration I could not think it did deserve one. As to that Book, it is a Collection made up of a few Letters wrote between some Sparks at London, and of some Translations made out of one or two Greek and Latin Books. All that is considerable in it, and which carries any face of Argument and Learning, is drawn out of two well-meaning Authors, who I believe had no design against Christianity, but only to advance their two several Hypotheses they were wedded to. The first was the Author of the Hypothesis of the Praeadamites 
* Vid. Oldenburgi Collectanea ad Conringii Thesaur. Rerump. , who seriously repent of his Book and his Error before he died; the other is the Ingenious and Learned Author of the Archaeologiae Philosophicae. And this makes up the far greatest part of the Book. But by the way we cannot but observe the great Disingenuity of Mr. Blount, who is the chiefest of these Epistlers, who takes no manner of notice of the Author of the Praeadamitae, from whom he not only takes, but translates all that is material almost in all his Letters: For in his first Letter to Mr. Gildon, from p. 8. to the end (i. e.) p. 19 there is nothing but a verbal Translation out of that Treatise, save only a word or two p. 15. interposed about Bishop Taylor; and so again p. 218. to p. 226. out of the same Author, and nothing of his own, but some false Latins and Spellings, and ill Translations. But to give the Reader a cast how fit these Gentlemen are to encounter with Christianity, which stands established by its own Evidence, and the Writings of so many Learned Men; let him cast his Eye upon the last Page of that Book, where Mr. Blount has translated a Quotation out of Scaliger de Emend. brought by the Author of the Praeadamitae; now he translates Octingenties' octagies, not eight hundred and eighty, but eight hundred and eightscore; as if the Romans had used to reckon by scores. He might altogether as well have made them number by Bakers-Dozens.  
As for the Objections I have taken out of this Book, I have not always kept myself strictly to the words I found there, but chief to the sense; because otherwise sometimes the Argument would be too long, and sometimes too obscure. I have generally dressed up the Arguments with that little varnish which they usually appear in from the Mouths of Infidels; because for the most part their frothy Wit is the principal Part of their Objection; and therefore I have made Philologus talk all along in their Vein, lest otherways they might pretend the Argument was marred. And this I hope will excuse me to those Pious Ears, for those bold and Irreligious Expressions, they will meet withal in the Mouth of my Deist; which they must consider are not mine, but theirs; and to be repeated in the Person of an Infidel, I hope will not appear Grating or Profane.  
There is one thing in the last place which I would desire the Reader's Candour in, and that is my Explication of the Mosaic Creation of the Stars, a little out of the way of other Interpreters; which I would let him know, I do not deliver as my settled Opinion, by any Dogmatical Assertion, but only propound it Problematically, as a possible way of accounting for the relation of Moses, which destroys the Infidels charge of Impossibility; and which at last I leave to the Reader's Judgement, either to receive or to reject.  
And suppose this Hypothetical Scheme not to be exactly true, which I am not very eager to contend for; the cause of Religion will not suffer by it, nor the Infidels reap any advantage from it. This is only a Point of Philosophy and not Revelation; and if there be any Error in it, I am to suffer for it and not Moses. If this Hypothesis be possible, it proves as much as is aimed at; for any way of showing how Moses his Account may be, is a good proof against those who assert it impossible to be.  
It is my hearty Prayer to God, that these my weak endeavours may contribute something towards the abating the Prevalency of this sort of Infidelity; which if they shall do, I shall then reap an ample Recompense of this small Trouble; and I shall be encouraged to publish the Remainder of this Discourse, which is to vindicate the other parts of Christianity, from the like Exceptions and Blasphemies of the Infidels.   


THE CONTENTS of the First Part OF THE CONFERENCE.  

RUdeness and Danger of Atheistical Discourse. p. 6.  
Religion, tho' Erroneous, not to be scoffed at. 11.  
Particulars of the whole Conference. 13.  
Ground of Deism. 16.   

Of the Eternity of the World.  
Occellus Lucanus not so old as Moses. 19  
Answer to Ocellus' Arguments. 23.  
The Creation of the World not like ordinary Product. 32.  
The Dissolution not Piece-meal, but Instantaneous. 33.  
The Ridiculousness of making the World God. 38.  
God does not change himself by new Exhibitions, but his Creatures by new Productions. 39  
The Change of the Deity not Voluntary. 40.  
Nor Necessary. 42.  
Such a Changeableness, contrary to the Attributes of God. 44.  
No constat of Sphericalness of the Universe. 48.  
That no Argument of a perpetual Motion. 49.  
Motion of Bodies, in Contigguity with Bodies not infinite. 50.  
Sphericalness does not infer infinity of Duration. 52.  
Arguments against the Eternity of the World. 53.  
Argument the First, from the Nature of Petrification. 54.  
Argument the Second from the sinking of Hills. 58.  
No new Hills raised which are considerable. 62.  
Physico. Theol. Discourses concerning the Chaos, &c, 63.  
Argument Third, from the Increase of Mankind. 66.  
The World never depopulated by Plagues. 70.  
Remarks upon the most remarkable Pestilences. 71.  
Essay of the Multiplication of Mankind. 73.  
The probable Number of Men in the World. 75.  
The World Increased more formerly than now, 77.  
This proved by Scripture and Reason. 79.  
Argument Fourth, from History, and the late Invention of Arts. 80.  
more considerable Arts lost and revived again. 85.  
Mankind could not, as the Theists pretend, have been without Writing from all Eternity. 87.  
The Progress in the Art of Writing, and the no extraordinary Difficulty in that Invention. 88  
Excessive Computations, no Argument of the Eternity of the World. 94.   

Of the Mosaical Account of the Creation.  
Answer to the Argument, from the late Communication of the Divine Goodness. 98.  
The Fixed Stars, probably, no part of the Mosaic Creation. 99  
Genesis 3.16. Explained. 100  
Objection against this Interpretation answered. 105.  
This Interpretation not prejudicial to Religion. 107.  
Light before the Sun, is the clearing up of the Chaos. 108.  
Waters above the Firmament; the Waters of the Planets. 114.  
The Seas easily form in one Day. 117.  
Trees and Plants might easily grow before the Sun was made. 119.  
How the Planets are said to be made the Fourth Day. 123.  
Why Moses relates the distinct formation of the Earth alone. 126.  
This Relation agrees with the aforesaid Hypothesis. 129.  
God acted by other Methods in the Creation than now. 135.  
He then took an immediate care of the Species. 137.  
Americans of the same Stock with the rest of the World. 139.  
How Inhabitants got into America, 140.  
How the Blacks might descend from a White Parentage. 143.  
This Blackness caused by the heat of the Sun. 145.  
By the Curse of Cham. 147.  
No Absurdity that Eve should be made of a Rib. 167.  
No Race of Men before Adam. 172.  
The Argument for the Praeadamites answered. 173.  
No confused Huddle in the Relation of the Sixth Day's Work. 181.  
The Fall of Man, not the first day of his Creation. 182.  
The Ridiculousness of other Nations Accounts of the Creation, compared with the Mosaical. 187.  
The Egyptian and Grecian. 187.  
The Mahometan. 188.  
The American. 189.   

Of the Fall of Mankind.  
The Wickedness and Folly of drolling upon Scripture. 192.  
Not unreasonable that the Devil should tempt Mankind in the form of a Serpent. 196.  
The Devil much pleased with Serpent Worship. 199.  
This Serpent not the common viperous kind. 201  
God not obliged to keep Man from Sinning by an  Power. 204.  
This would have destroyed Freewill. 206.  
Man had sufficient Assistance. 208.  
This Miscarriage was repaired by God's Mercy afterwards. 209.  
The Relation of two Trees not ridiculous. 211.  
Difficulties about the Rivers of Eden removed. 215.  
Moses did not give Account of the Rivers to find out Paradise by. 217.  
The Reasonableness of the Probative Precept. 219.  
The prohibition of an Apple, more proper than any thing else. 220.  
The Transgression of our First Parents, no trifling Offence. 225.  
The Difficulties of Original Sin removed. 229.  
The Cursing the Ground, no Reflection upon the Deity. 235.  
Nor the Curse of the Serpent. 237.  
The meaning of Their Eyes were opened. 239.  
No Absurdity in the Relation of the Fig Leaves and the Skins. 244.  
The Difficulties of the Cherubims, and the Flaming Sword removed. 245.  
The History of the Fallnot Allegorical. 250.  
Such a Supposition would destroy all History. 250.  
Moses a plain Writer. 252.  
Had not design, like the Heathen Philosophers, to serve by an Allegory. 253.  
Nor the same design with Allegorical Fathers. 254.  
Moses gives the best Account of the depravation of Man's Will. 256.  
The Miscarriages of the Philosophers in this. 256.  
His Account the best of the Pudor circa Res Veneris. 261.  
Of the pain of Child Birth- 262.  
Of the Barrenness of the Earth. 263.    

THE CONTENTS of the Second Part OF THE CONFERENCE.  

PArticulars of the Conference. p. 4.   

Of Natural Religion.  
The unreasonableness of vilifying the Clergy. 7.  
The People partook of the Ancient Sacrifices. 14.  
Natural Religion not the Tendencies of Nature. 18.  
Priests in all places of the World, and in all Ages. 21.  
The Advantage of a Ministry. 23.  
Pure Natural Religion no where practised. 25.  
What is called Natural Religion, was at first revealed. 32.  
Riddles not the corruption of Natural Religion. 38.  
Heathen Polytheism not the divers Exhibitions of Providence, 41.  
Caused by the Darkness of the Post-diluvian Ages. 45.  
by deifying of Princes. 46.  
by the Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stârs. 49.  
by Deifying Words. 51.  
Morality of the Philosophers grounded upon Pride. 54.  
The Ancient Philosophers mistaken in the nature of God. 56.  
Erroneous in their Moral Doctrines. 58,  
Their Lives Vicious. 61.  
The Lives of the Common Pagan's highly vicious. 64.  
They and the Philosophers wanted a true end of their Actions. 65.  
The Lives of Christians better than the Pagans, in many particulars. 67.  
Idolatry. 68  
Magic. 68  
Augury. 69.  
Human Sacrifices. 69.  
Lewd Worships. 69.  
Unlawful Marriages. 70.  
Cruelty. 70.  
Self Murder. 71.  
Common Swearing. 71.  
Exposing Children. 72.  
 Wars. 72.  
Luxurious Living. 73.  
Enormous Lusts. 74.  
No Devout Worship. 74.  
God more severe to Modern Theists, than Ancient Heathens. 78.  
Heathens do not go to Heaven. 79.  
What other Provision God may make for them. 80.  
Not Indifferent to be of any Religion. 84.  
'Tis Hypocrisy. 85.  
Sometimes Idolatry. 85.  
Morality not the same in all Religions. 86.  
Not always to be of the Religion of our Country. 87.  
Sin outwardly, to comply with a false Religion. 88  
No Folly to suffer for Religion. 89.  
K. of Siam's Argument answered. 90,   

Of Revealed Religion, and the Doctrine of the Mediator.  
No Revelation to the Gentiles, for their Religions. 97.  
Because Idolatrous. 98.  
Immoral. 99  
Melchisedech. 99  
This agreeable to God's usual Providence. 113.  
No Injustice in God. 113.  
Other Instances of Providence as unaccountable. 114.  
Jews not such ill People as pretended. 117.  
Justin, etc. considered. 119.  
Natural Knowledge not Revelation. 128.  
Prophets not only extraordinary Men. 131.  
Spirit of God in Scripture signifies Revelation. 135.  
That Prophecy does not consist in Imagination. 143.  
Prophets had the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 150.  
Prophecy not inconsistent with Wisdom. 153.  
Prophecies not variable, according to the Prophet's Passions. 154.  
Passions not the cause of Prophecy. 155.  
Vain Opinions not mixed with Prophecy. 157.  
More in Prophecy, than Fancy and Well meaning. 159.  
First Notion of Miracles not from the Jews. 164.  
No Immutable Chain of Nature. 165.  
God's Providence better than Fatality. 167.  
God a wise Governor without Fatal Laws. 169.  
Miracles not Occurrences, which the Vulgar do not understand. 169.  
Miracles do not make Men doubt of a God. 171.  
False Miracles, no Argument against True ones. 173.  
Instances of the Jews, and Solomon considered. 175.  
Miracles not naturally come to pass. 178.  
Difficulties of the Deluge accounted for. 186.  
Remarks on the late Theories, etc. 187.  
Tradition in all Nations of a Deluge. 198.  
That the Deluge was possible. 203.  
The Israelites did not pass round the Head of the Sinus. 229.  
The Waters did not stand erect. 230.  
Not beat back by a Natural Wind. 232.  
Alexander's passing the Pamphylian straits not parallel, 233.  
The Egyptian Tradition groundless. 234.  
The Jewish the best of all Political Laws. p. 239.  
The Extraordinary Mercifulness of them. 240.  
The great Wisdom of them. 242.  
Objections against particular Laws answered. 244.  
Jewish Rites not derived from the Egyptians. 255.  
Circumcision not from the Egyptians. 257.  
Nor Vrim, and Thummim. 259.  
Priest's Linen Garments not from Egypt. 263.  
Nor the Cherubin. 264.  
Nor the Ark. 268.  
Feasts of the New Moon not Egyptian. 269.  
Nor Washings. 271.  
Nor the Temple. 272.  
Other Nations have Customs as like the Jewish. 275.  
Jews far from being Anthropomorphites. 280.  
Hebrew Language, as well expresses the Nature of God, as the Scholastical. 282.  
Expiation consistent with the Mercy of God. 292.  
The Origin of Sacrifices from Ancient Revelation. 295.  
God's Honour to be considered in the Mediatorship. 300.  
What is meant by Satisfaction. 303.  
A Vicarious punishment not unjust. 306.  
Christ, tho' God, might Suffer. 307.  
No Incongruity in the Doctrine of Christ's Intercession. 309.    

THE CONTENTS. of the Third Part. OF THE CONFERENCE.  

Of the Predictions concerning Christ.  
THE Objections answered, of Prophecies not to the purpose. p. 10.  
Texts quoted by way of accommodation. p. 10.  
Texts quoted in Mystical Sense. 14.  
Types and Allegories vindicated. 20.  
Gen. 3.15. A Prophecy of Christ. 27.  
Sceptre of Judah. Gen. 44.10. Prophecy of Christ. 36.  
How the Fathers interpreted this Prophecy. 45.  
Balaams' Star, Numb. 24.17. a Prophecy of Christ. 49.  
A Virgin shall conceive, Isa. 7.14. Prophecy of Christ. 53.  
The Jewish way of Exposit. a confirmation of Christianity. 63.  
The Prophetic Excursions Explained. 69.  
2 Psalm, a Prophecy of Christ. 71.  
62 Psalm, a Prophecy of Christ. 76.  
Prophecy of the Call of the Gentiles, verified in Christ. 83.  
Call of the Gentiles, no random Guess of the Prophets. 89.  
Glory of the Second Temple, Hag. 2.7. a Prophecy of Christ. 90.  
52 & 53 cap. Isa. Prophecy of Christ. 96.  
The Monarchies and Weeks in Daniel, Prophecy of Christ. 100  
Micha 5.2. Prophecy of Christ. 115.  
Reason why Prophecies are something obscure. 119.   

Of the Life and Actions of Christ, as they are Recorded in Scripture.  
The Birth of Christ Vindicated. 124.  
The Blasphemy of Celsus and Julian confuted. 127.  
Christ more glorious and great, than Romulus, Numa, &c 132.  
The Vindication of Christ's Anger, Christ a pattern of the greatest Patience. 136.  
Our Saviour's Discourse, agreeable to the Eastern way of Reasoning. 143.  
By making use of the Greek Philosophy and Eloquence, he would not have been understood by the People. 145.  
He avoided by this Prolixity. 146.  
Christ does not speak Parables in his Laws, nor generally, Parables difficult. 448.  
Christ's riding on an Ass, not ridiculous. 150.  
This a Token of his Humility, and the nature of his Kingdom. 150.  
To show him to be a King, as well as a Prophet. 152.  
Jews Interpret this Prophecy of the Messiah. 153.  
Christ no Impostor, but a good Man. 155.  
Because his Miracles were done so often, and before so many. 157.  
His Miracles not capable of Collusion. 158.  
He was no Cheat, because he could get nothing by it. 159.  
Because of the great Penalty on Impostors 162.  
Such Numbers could not conceal a Cheat. 163.  
Christ's Miracles owned by his Enemies. 165.  
The Reason why Christ did so few Miracles in his own Country. 167.  
Christ Preached the Gospel to the Poor, not to deceive such people, but because they were better qualified to receive the Gospel than the Rich. 170.  
The Ignorant better qualified for this than the Learned. 170.  
This Choice made the Progress of the Gospel more miraculous. 171.  
Why Christ required Faith in his Disciples. 173.  
Mean Men as good Judges of Miracles as others. 173.  
Vindication of Christ's Patience. He more courageous and patiented than the Heathen Philosophers. 176.  
Reason of our Saviour's praying that the Cup might pass from him. 177.  
Christ's Death no Collusion. 181.  
Instances of Aristeas, etc. compared with Christ's Resurrection confuted. 182.  
Testimony of Christ's rising from the Dead unexceptionable. 185.  
The Disciples stealing away the Body a foolish Lie. 189.  
Christ's not so generally Conversing with his Disciples after the Resurrection, no Argument against the Truth of it. 193.  
The Comparison of Apollonius with Christ foolish. 199.  
Philostratus set on to forge his History. 202.  
Forged in imitation of Gospel Miracles. 203.  
Apollonius no good Man. 206.  
Apostles more credible than Philostratus, because unlearned. 207.  
Story of Abaris his Miracles, ridiculous. 208.  
The Apostles not Counterfeits. 209.  
Because good Men. 212.  
Because they knew the Matters they related. ib.  
Because not cunning enough, to carry on such a Cheat. 213.  
Because all witnessed the same. 214.  
Because they could get nothing by it. 215.  
Because the Truth of what they said, easily examined. 216.  
Because they Suffered and Died for their Doctrine. 217.  
'tis false, that the Apostles ventured nothing by preaching, for they ventured their Lives and Liberties. 221.  
They did not preach for Vain Applause. 222.  
Got nothing by the Collections. 223.  
Persecuted by the Gentiles, as well as Jews. 224.  
Preached against the Heathen Idolatry. 225.  
False Brethren, not Informers. 226.  
What St. Paul said to the Pharises, no prevarication. 226.  
Case of the Apostolic and Popish Miracles different. 228.  
The Doctrine of the Messiah before the Captivity. 230.  
Not owing to the Jewish Gematria. 232.  
Notion of a Temporal Messiah, did not further the Gospel. 233.  
The Millennium no Apostolic Doctrine. 234.   

Of the Doctrines Contained in the Old Testament.  
Prayer of Christians vindicated, because better than the Heathens. 238.  
No Sauciness to pray to God. 239.  
Prayer for Rain, not for a Miracle. 240.  
Christians think not to weary God by Prayer. 242.  
Nor to flatter him by Thanksgiving. 243.  
Mortification vindicated to be a a reasonable Duty. 246.  
Single Marriage vindicated. Polygamy not lawful from the practice of the Ancients. 249.  
Or Barbarous. 250.  
More Comfort in Single Marriage. 251.  
Affections of the Married, do not naturally wear off by Age. 253.  
Nor by the speedy decay of Feminine Beauty. 254.  
Ob. against Polygamy, from the slavery of such Wives. 255.  
From the equal Number of Males and Females. 256.  
Humility and Meekness vind. against Spinosa and Match. 263.  
Forgiving Injuries Vindicated. 268.  
Doctrine of Repentance Vindicated. 276.  
And that of Grace. 282.  
Reasonableness of the Institution of the Sacraments. 287.  
Reasonableness of the general Resurrection. 296.  
Of the Doctrine of Wicked Spirits. 302.  
Of Hell, and the Eternity of Hell Torments. 307.  
Of Heaven. 315.    

THE CONTENTS of the Fourth Part OF THE CONFERENCE,  

Of the Authenticalness of the Books of Scripture.  
MOses allowed to be the Author of the Pontateuch, by all Antiquity. p. 6.  
Father Simons Supposition Examined. 8.  
No settled Scribes, to write Scripture among the Jews. 10.  
Jewish Scripture not wrote on lose Leaves. 11.  
No Compilers to alter original Scripture. 16.  
Esdras could not forge the Scripture. 18.  
Spinosas Arguments, against Moses being the Author of the Pentateuch answered. 23.  
Isaiah the Author of the Book under his Name. 38.  
Samuel Author of Judges, and beginning of Samuel 41.  
The other parts of Samuel, wrote by Nathan and Gad. 43.  
Kings and Chronicles, a compilation after the Captivity. 45.  
Esra wrote the book of that Name. 46.  
Nehemiah Author of that Book. 47.  
The Book of Job vindicated. 49.  
The Psalms. 52.  
Solomon Author of the Proverbs. 54.  
Ecclesiastes. 56.  
Panticles. 57  
The Authority of the Book of Isaiah. 57  
Jeremiah. 60.  
Ezekiel. 63.  
Daniel. 65.  
Twelve Minor Prophets, 66.  
The Absurdity of Spinosas asserting, that all the Books of the Old Testament, were wrote by the same hand. 67.  
The Authority of the Gospel of St. Matthew. 75.  
Of St. Mark. ib.  
Of St. Luke, and the Acts. 76.  
Of St. John. 77.  
Of his three Epistles, and the Book of Revelations. ib.  
The Authority of the Epistles of St. Paul. 78.  
Of the Epistle of St. James. 79.  
Of those of St. Peter ib.  
Of the Epistle of St. Judas. ib.  
The Authority of the Scriptural Books, more indubitable than others. 81.  
Heretics, not accepting them, no Argum. against them. 84.  
Old Testament, not more inspired than the New. 88  
Apostles not doubting in their Doctrine. 90.  
Want of exactness in the Greek, no Argument against the Apostles Inspiration. 92.  
Nor their Reasoning. 93.  
Nor that St. Paul uses Entreaties. 96.  
Preaching of the Apostles, not after human Art. 96.  
Different Methods of the Apostles, not the cause of Heresies. 98.  
Seeming Contradictions, no Objection against their Inspiration. 99  
Nor want of Exactness, in Time or Number. 100  
Nor St. Paul thinking he had the Spirit of God. 101.  
Different Explications, no argum. against Inspiration. 103.  
Inspiration of Scripture, proved from Reason. 105.  
As much need of Inspirat. in Writing, as in Preach. ib.  
The Apostolic Honour, a Proof of their Inspiration. 106.  
Because Inspirat. the best way to preserve Christianity. 108.  
Proof of Inspiration from Scripture. 109.  
From Ancient Authority. 112.  
How far the Scriptures were Inspired. 114.  
The Apostles generally make use of their own Words and Reason. 115.  
Chief of the Sense of Scripture Inspired. 117.  
Sometimes the Words. 119.   

Of the Style of Scripture.  
Charge of want of Eloquence, answered, because Eloquence in Scripture needless. 122.  
Greek and Latin Authors, nor the Standard of Eloquence. 126.  
The Scriptures avoid the Vices in Eloquence, which the Greek and Latin Authors are subject to. 130.  
Seeming uncuothness in Scripture Style, from the literal Translation. 134.  
Scriptures truly Eloquent. 139. Because the Subject verisimilar. 140. The Arguments conclusive. 141. They move the Passions. 143. and because their Eloquence suited to the Capacities they speak to. 145.  
Scriptures not void of Rhetorical Figures. 146. Anaphora. 147. Anadiplosis 148. Climax. ib. Auxesis. 149. Antithesis. 150. Exclamation. ib. Hypotyposis. 151.  
They have sometimes more sublimity than the Heathen Writers. 153.  
Charge of want of Method in Scripture, refuted; because Method and Art invented by the Heathens. 159.  
Method useless. 160.  
Neglect of Method more answerable to Inspiration. 161.  
Method not wholly wanting in Scripture. 163.  
Particular Reasons of the want of Method. 165.  
Charge of Obscurity upon Scripture, refuted; Because History and practical Duties plain in Scripture. 169.  
Some sublime things in Scripture cannot be plain. 171.  
Obscure Passages may be hereafter plain. 172.  
Obscurity arises from want of Exactness in Jewish Language and Customs. 173.  
Reasonableness of some places being obscure. 176.  
Imputation of Trivialness and Impertinence unjust, because the meanest parts of Scripture, is necessary to the perfecti- of the whole. 179. Family Affairs of the Patriarches. 180.  
The Scripture Writers do not pretend to the Heathen exactness of Style. 181.  
Exact writing of History, a Heathen Art. 182.  
What may seem Impertinent, is sometimes Typical. 184.  
Sometimes Prophetical. ib. Or brought to confute Heresies. 185.  
Charge of Repetition removed because that is owing to the different Authors. 186.  
Practical Duties ought to be repeated for inculcation. 187.  
Some things diversely urged, to suit with Mens Inclinat. ib.  
Heathen Authors as much subject to Repetitions. 189.  
The Prophets and Apostles Vind. from this Charge. 191.  
Imputation of the want of Reasoning answered, because Scriptures make use of Rational Argumentation. 194.  
Tho' they have not that need of it as other Books. 196.  
Scriptures vindicated from Contradiction, because no Contradiction in a material point. 199.  
Some slight Contradictions proof of the Genuiness. 200.  
All seeming Contradictions satisfactorily solved. 201.  
There could not but be such seeming Contradictions, arising from ancient Customs. 202. Hebrew Tongue ib. Chronology. 203.  
Pretended Contradictions about the time of Christ's Resurrection solved. ib.  
That about hearing the Voice in St. Paul's Conversion. 204.  
That about the time of the Israelites stay in Egypt. 205.  
Scripture has more Difficulties than other Books, from the strangeness of the Language and Matter, etc. 211.  
From the Multitude of Interpreters. 212.  
From the design of wicked Men to oppose it. 213.  
Unbelievers would like Scripture Style better, if they would forbear drolling upon it. 214.  
If they would study it in the Orig. Languages. 216.  
If they would lead a good Life. 217.   

Of the Truth and Excellency of the Christian Religion.  
Arg. 1. Drawn from the foolish Scheme of Infidel Principles, their groundless Objections against Christianity. 233. and silly system of Moral Principles. 235.  
Arg. 2. Drawn from the Harmony of the parts of Christianity. 238.  
Arg. 3. From the great progress of Christianity in the World. 236. Growth of Christianity against Wit and Learning. 240. Secular Power. ib. Prejudice. 241. Persecution. 242. notwithstanding the meanness of the Propagators. 243. Progress of Mahometanism no parallel. 244. Nor that of Quakerism. 245.  
Arg. 4. Drawn from the Prophecies contained in the Old Testament .. 248. Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem. 249. Increase of Christianity. 254. Of Antichrist. 255. Of Christ's Resurrection, and the Comforter, 257.  
Arg. 5. From the Miracles which confirmed the Christian Religion. 258. Miracles in our Saviour's, and the Apostles time, and in the succeeding Ages of the Church. 259.  
Arg. 6. Drawn from the Excel. of the Christian Doctrines. 267. Speculative. 269. Practical. 271. The Motives to them. 274.  
Arg. 7. Drawn from the comparison of Christianity, with other false Religions. 277. Heathen Religion. ib. Mahometan. 279. Bramins. 280. Traditions of the Talmud. 281. Popish Legends. ib.  
Arg. Drawn from the Influence of the Christian Religion, upon men's Lives. 283.  
Arg. 9 Drawn from the exact Historical Evidence, and indubitable Testimony, of what the Apostles taught and did. 288.  
Conclusion, Containing an Advice to Philologus, 298.     

BOOKS Printed for Tho. Bennet.  

Folio.  
THuidides Greek and Latin, Collated with five entire Manuscript Copies, and all the Editions Extant: also, Illustrated with Maps, large Annotations, and Indices; by J. Hudson, M. A. and Fellow of University Coll. Oxon. To which is added, an exact Chronology, by the Learned Hen. Dodwell; never before Published: Printed at the Theatre. Oxon.   

Octavo and Twelves.  
Sermons and Discourses upon several Occasions; by Dr. straddling, Dean of Chichester: Together with an Account of the Author; by James Harrington, Esq  
Sermons and Discourses upon several Occasions; by Dr, Meggot, Dean of Chichester.  
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antonius the Roman Emperor; Translated out of Greek into English, by Dr. Causabon, with Notes. To this Edition is added, the Life of the Emperor, with an Account of Stoic Philosophy; as also, Remarks on the Meditations: all newly written by Monsieur and Madam Dacier.  
The Inspiration of the New Testament Asserted and Explained, in Answer to the Six Letters of Inspiration, from Holland, etc. by Mr. L. Moth.    

A Conference WITH A THEIST. PART I.  Credentius. Philologus. 
CRedentius was a Gentleman descended from a very Ancient and Honourable Family, whose Father had left him a very plentiful Estate, and what was yet a greater Token of his Kindness, had given him a Virtuous and Learned Education; so that by his good Genius and hard Study, he was accomplished beyond the generality of Persons of his Birth, to defend the Doctrines of his Religion, which he did with so much sincerity profess. Now this Gentleman for the privacy of his studies, and to gratify his Love to Retirement, had withdrawn from the Noise of the Town, which he seldom frequented and never liked; and had for a great while kept close to a Country House of his, not far from the City; which lay at such a convenient Distance from the Town, whereby he could enjoy the Converse of those few Friends he delighted in, and was freed from the Visits of others, who he thought would be apt to give Interruption to his more desired Studies. Besides this, he had something more particularly observable in his Temper; that he never endeavoured to establish any strict Friendship with the Gentlemen about him; but only took care to maintain such a civil Correspondence with them, as might take off all Imputation of Moroseness and Ill-Neighbourhood. Of these Acquaintance Philologus was one, a Gentleman of fine Parts, and very polite Learning; that hated the Town as much and Credentius, as was as great a Lover of Books and Solitude. To this Gentleman Credentius had a liking beyond the rest of his Neighbours; not upon account of his Principles, but his learned and diverting Conversation; and with whom he was wont to enjoy a great deal of entertaining Discourse, when the talk of the other Company was running upon Dogs and Horses. Philologus comes one Afternoon to pay a Visit to Credentius, whom he finds in his study among a very large and choice Collection of Books in most Arts and Sciences; which he had procured for himself with no inconsiderable charge: For he had taken care to be provided, not only with all History, both Ancient and Modern, and with a Collection of Classic and Law-Books; but was also furnished with all the Fathers and Councils of the best Editions, with a variety of the Bibles, Critics and Commentators on the Scripture, and with a considerable number of the best Critical, Casuistical and Controversial Divines. By reason of this, he was very serviceable to his Neighbouring Clergy, by giving them leave oftentimes to study there; and by freely lending them such Books, which their circumstances would not allow them to purchase.  
Philologus entering familiarly upon him, as he was wont to do, sees him busy in writing something out of a Volume of St. Chrysostom's Works, whilst the other Volumes lay by him. Dear Sir, says he, I am glad to see you. What? You are upon securing your Credo? I see you are drawing out from thence some Detatchments to make good some weak place or other in it. Credentius was rising up to make his Compliment, and to bid him Welcome; but Philologus running to him stops him; saying he should not stir, till he had made an end of his Musterroll of Quotations, as he called it; that he did not come to give him disturbance, but that he would wait his leisure till he had done, and that in the mean time he would talk a word or two likewise with the old Constantinopolitan Bishop. Credentius, after some pressing, accepts the offer; who when he had transcribed what he designed, he thus addresses himself to Philologus.  Credentius. 
Well, Sir, I suppose you are weary of this old Father by this time, for your Palate does not serve you for such grave Writers; come we will go down and take a Glass which will relish better.  Philologus. 
In good truth, Sir, this old Gentlemen is very good Company: I did not think these grey beards had had so much Wit; I protest, here is a vein of fine Reasoning and neat Language; honest John would have made something of it, if he had had the luck but to have lighted upon a better subject: had he but made Speeches at the Areopagus, or the Forum, he might have made as good a figure as Demosthenes or Aeschines; but as for Faith and Hope they are deadly dull subjects to play the Orator upon.  Cred. 
How! Sir. What can be a better subject, than the great Creator of all things, his Eternal Son, his Bounty and Mercy, the wonderful mazes and wise contrivances of his Providence; the Miracles and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour, the Peace of a good Conscience, and the Joys of another World? Are not these, think you, as noble Themes, as the little squabbles of Landlords and Tenants, and the putting cases between Caius and Titius?  Phil. 
'Tis true these are fine golden Tales to those whose Throats are wide enough to swallow them; but they lie cross mine presently: I am sick of a Chapter in Mark before it is half done; for I must needs tell you nothing lies so hard upon my stomach, as a Miracle, or a Revelation. My Nurse was a Popish Irish Woman, and she told me such strange stories of the Patrick's, the Bridgets, and the Vrsula's, that I took such a surfeit before I was eight years old, that I never much cared for that sacred food since. After I grew up, it is true, I have been more conversant in Bibles than in Legends; but I find I shall be converted by both alike; for I have a Budget full of Exceptions against the whole story, there seems to be so much of the Sir Bevis in all the Relations; for in almost every page I meet with somewhat which turns my stomach from Genesis to the Revelations. What a work do we make with Moses and the Prophets, with Christ and the Apostles—  Cred. 

Rudeness and danger of Atheistical Discourse.  For God's sake, Sir, hold. If Religion has no Tie upon you, let Civility restrain you from this Talk; although you should not, it may be, be Christian enough, yet you are too much a Gentleman to abuse but my Friend before me, and I think I may bespeak of you as much Civility to my Saviour, which I am sure I have more Reason for. Such Discourse as this may be very edifying in a Club of you Wits; but as much as you laugh at my Credo's, I want Faith to think myself secure amongst those that talk after this rate. You Gentlemen ought to be very secure of your Hand, and your House too, let me tell you, before you venture to talk thus: I think my House is none of the slenderest built, and I take my Walls to be proof against any thing but Blasphemy; but when Men make sport with God and Religion, I am afraid of the Rafters cracking and the Bricks tumbling about my Ears. Therefore pray, Sir, let us go down and talk of something else.  Phil. 
Well, Sir, I see you want not Zeal, and I am sorry I should want good Manners. I beg your pardon heart'ly, since I have offended you; but for the future you shall see I will be as respectful to you upon this account as you can desire. I can bow if you please at the name of Jesus as reverently as a Bishop. I find I can learn a Court Fashion as well as Naman himself; nay, if I should happen to go with them into the House of Rimmon, my Conscience would ne'er read me a Lecture of Idolatry, for I could even scrape a Leg as well as the best of them, and go in Peace. But when you tie up our Tongues from speaking upon this subject, you will hinder us from a just information, so that we poor Infidels will never be able to look Sion-wards. For my part I should be very glad to take a view of the new Jerusalem, if I could but once see it; nay, I would make the best use of mine Eyes, and take the help of a little Optics to discover it; but there seems to me to be so many difficulties in the Belief of revealed Religion, that I cannot fancy any Man of sense does really believe it. I know you have too much Reason to be imposed upon by such gross fallacies; and if we were to measure I imagine your Creed and mine are much of the same length: You only are the silent, and I the Talking Unbeliever. I have a little more Impudence to keep me from blushing when I appear singular, and I have a back broad enough to bear the ill names the Parsons give me; but you lie snug and keep your own Counsel, you set in with the Mob, and do as they do, only for fear of being hooted at. So that when all is done, I fancy Credentius and Philologus are Believers both alike.  Cred. 
I am sorry you should conceive so ill an Opinion of me, seeing I am not conscious I have given you any just occasion for it. For I will assure you, as I have not taken up my Religion upon Trust, so I do not profess the least Article of it upon account of Popularity. I am so fully persuaded of all the parts of the Truth of the Christian Religion, I think it so admirable a System of Morality, so excellently contrived for the good of Mankind, the Rewards it promises and the Punishments it threatens, are founded upon such firm and unshaken grounds; that I would venture to maintain it against the Contradictions of all Mankind; and singularity should be so far from discouraging me, that I would profess the Doctrine of the Cross by myself alone against the whole Infidel World. As for your Discoursing upon this subject, it is so far from being ungrateful to me, that I think it the greatest comfort and happiness I can enjoy; to run over those blessed Truths, which are the Comfort of my Life, and the Hopes of my Salvation; nay, I can easily hear what Objections you have to raise against them, if so be you will be pleased to urge them with Modesty or with a Design to receive satisfaction; but I have no patience to hear you only expose and ridicule those Doctrines, whilst you are resolved never to be convinced of their Truth.  Phil. 
I might very well deserve this Reprimand of yours, if I should pretend to laugh at that Religion I did believe; but I must needs tell you as far as my Creed goes, I am a very strong and Orthodox Believer, and a very strict Observer of it. I only laughed at some other silly Opinions, which I fancy the rest of the World are gulled with; and why should not I laugh at them, as well as they laugh at me? They call me Atheist, and make me their Fool, and I call them Bigotts and give them the same Livery. I have as much respect, Sir, for Natural Religion as you can have for the Christian, and I hope if I live up to that to be as happy hereafter; therefore I presume I may make bold to be merry a little with your Religion, as your Gentlemen are with mine. I am sure mine is of the ancienter House; and Natural Religion is God's Law most certainly, whether your Revealed one, as you call it, be so or no. So that if I do not believe your Tenets, why should not I make as much sport with you, as you do with the Moon in Mahomet's Sleeve?  Cred. 
I confess I never liked making sport with any Man's Religion, 
Religion though erroneous not to be scoffed at.  for it is not only a piece of Rudeness, but a very inhuman Cruelty; for it sets a Man's Soul upon the Rack, to see that ridiculed, which he accounts most Sacred. And perhaps that Precept in the Mosaic Law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Gods of the People, is to be understood in this sense. For when the Jews were going into a strange Country it was the most probable way to gain Proselytes to their Law, rather to demonstrate the Truth of their own, than to rail at the Heathens Religion. Suppose that I was about to convert a Turk at Canstantinople, can you think it was the most prudent way to railly upon Mahomet's Pease and his Pigeon, and his falling Sickness? I'll warrant you, I should catch a Tartar instead of converting a Turk: 'tis ten to one, but the outrageous Infidel revenged his Prophet's Quarrel with his Scimeter; so that I should make myself a Martyr, instead of making him a Convert.  Phil. 
I beg your Pardon hearty, if I have spoken my thoughts a little too freely upon this subject, for I will assure you I did not in the least design to offend you; my only aim was to pursue the Truth, and to hear what you can say upon this subject, wherein I promise myself a great deal of satisfaction; for than I am sure I shall hear no common place Talk, but something new and solid of your own stock. If you are convinced of the Truth of the Christian Religion, I am certain it is upon strong Arguments and weighty grounds; for as you are too wise to be imposed upon by fallacy, so you are too honest to be biased by Interest; therefore I may expect to hear something more considerable from you, than from the Parsons, who are too well paid for making Speeches upon this Subject, to be Impartial in it. But I protest, Sir, I am no hardy, resolved Infidel, nor such an one that has nothing to say against Christianity, but only to call it names; for I have so many considerable Objections to urge against it, that I must needs suspend my Faith till I can see them answered. Nor are these my Objections only leveled against a word or two in the Bible, or some few seeming Contradictions, which may perhaps be accounted for by different acceptations and variety of Transcribers; but against the whole Compass and Tenor of Christianity, which all seems to be Contradictious and contrary to Reason. For as far as ever I could perceive, Christianity seemed to consist, or at least was bottomed upon the Truth of these Particulars. 1. 
The Particulars of the Conference.  The Account of the Creation which Moses gives us. 2. The Fall of Man presently after that Creation. 3. His Redemption from the Calamities of that Fall, by Jesus Christ. And lastly, The Truth of the Scripture upon whose Authority all this rests. But if I have good reason to believe, that the World was long before this pretended Creation, that there are a great many Contradictions and Improbabilities in Moses his Relation of it, that there is no likelihood of such a Lapse of Mankind, nor is there need of any such Redemption, nor that the Books which are brought to prove all this, are of that Divine Authority they pretend to; you may then very well conclude, that I have something more to say against your Religion, than some few flourishes of Wit and gay Periods, which your Clergy would make you believe, is all that Men of my Persuasion have to encounter it. Nay, I will add further if you can satisfy me in these Particulars, and clear up these Difficulties, I will profess Christianity to Morrow; for it is not my Vices, but my Objections, as I told you, which hinder me from joining Communion with you; and I do not know but that I may live as virtuously and honestly as those who go so gravely to Church, with black Caps and broad Bibles. And therefore if you please, Credentius, we will take a Walk in your Garden, and talk over a Point or two of this Subject; for the Wether is too hot, either to drink, or to stay within.  Cred. 
I did not think, Philologus, to entertain you after this Philosophical Manner. But pray, Sir, how long have you been in love with the Peripatum? I thought you were too much of Epicurus his Party, to take Example after Aristotle's Sect. I should think some other jolly Philosopher were a more agreeable Pattern for you to take, than those stingy Speculatists, who give their Friends a Walk to save their Wine. But if it is resolved that you and I must enter the Lists of a Disputation this Evening, I think it will not be inconvenient to walk abroad, for if we shall grow too warm there, we shall have Air to cool us. And so, Sir, at your pleasure, I follow.  Phil. 
This delicate Walk of Orange Trees, Credentius, puts me in mind of your Paradise, and consequently of the Mosaic Creation; which is the first point which you and I must clear up. But I would not have you think that I find fault with this account, because I am persuaded with Epicurus, that the World was not made by God. For Epicurus was a Blockhead to entertain such a silly thought as this; and no Man of common sense, that ever thought, could be of his Opinion. I am as impatient as you can be, at the ridiculousness of his Philosophy; for his Doctrine of the Eternity, the weight and falling of Atoms, is but a System of Nonsense. For those weighty Atoms of his would be always falling and falling through the infinite space, and would never be able to meet together to frame a World; and one Atom could be no more able to join with another, than the Hind-wheel can overtake the foremost. And as for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Side-Motion, which was afterwards added, I look upon to be but a pitiful Botch, to patch up this foolish Hypothesis. I am fully satisfied that the World had its Origin from a Wise or Powerful. Being, the first Cause of all things, from whose Eternal Womb all things have sprung up, and whose Power and Goodness still preserves the World in the same state in which it always was. So that I espy two principal faults in the account of the Mosaic Creation. 
The Ground of Theism.  The first is, Because he gives the World too late a being, it having a subsistence infinite Ages before he says it had; the second is, That supposing the World was Created in Time, and at the time he supposes, his account is so extravagant, that it cannot satisfy any reasonable man. And these two points in the first place, I think I shall be able to make out.  Cred. 
Well! Sir, I see you have ranged your Exceptions very Methodically: You are resolved to find me work enough before you have done; for these Heads I presume are teeming with an abundance of Objections, so that you will make me run through a Body of Divinity before I have answered them all. For my part I must maintain the ground of Christianity as well as I can, and I am sorry it is like to suffer so much by so ill a Defender. But God be thanked I have a good Cause to set against your Wit and Parts; for I take every thing which can be said against our Religion, to be so inconsiderable, that very weak Parts, and a slender stock of Learning, will be able to encounter the most doughty Arguments which can be urged against it. And therefore will you be pleased to proceed upon your first Head.  

Of the Eternity of the World.  Phil. 
Why, Sir, the first thing I have to say against the History of the Creation, as it is related by Moses, is that he makes the World to begin but between five and six Thousand years ago, when it is demonstrable it has continued from all Eternity. And this has been the Doctrine of the wisest Philosophers heretofore. For to omit Aristotle and others of later date, I find Ocellus Lucanus 
* Oracles of Reason, p. 216. , who was almost cotemporary with Moses, if not before him, to have been of this Opinion; and he is so admirable a Philosopher, that in a Question of this nature, I would take his word before that of the Jewish Lawgiver. But his Book of the Nature of the Universe, which is still extant, gives us so many demonstrative Arguments of the Truth of this Opinion, that we need go no farther than that Excellent Treatise to confute the History of the Creation.  Cred. 
But before you proceed give me leave to remind you of a very great Error, in asserting, that Ocellus the Author of that Treatise, was Precedent, or any thing nigh Co-temporary with Moses. But supposing that Treatise to be wrote by Ocellus Lucanus, that ancient Pythagorean, there was no less than eleven hundred years' distance between his Writing and Moses his. For say that Moses wrote ten Years after the Israelites coming out of Egypt, which was An. Mundi, 2470. the Book of the Creation will then be wrote An. Mundi, 2480; but I will make it appear that Ocellus Lucanus, wrote but much about the year of the World 3580. which is eleven hundred years later. Now Ocellus Lucanus lived much about the time when Plato wrote, or perhaps a little before, being both Cotemporaries, but Ocellus the elder Man. For Plato's School was in its most flourishing Condition in the 102 Olympiad when he was about fifty years old, 
Diog. L●●. Vit. Plat.  but he was born (as Laertius informs us from Apollodorus' Chronics) in the 88th Olympiad (i e.) about An. Mundi, 3525; and it is as plain that Ocellus lived much about the same time. For Laertius in the Life of Archytas gives us two Letters between Archytas and Plato, about Ocellus, who was lately Dead: Wherein Archytas tells Plato, that he had undertaken the Business of Publishing some Posthumous Pieces of Ocellas, and upon that account had been with the Family of the Lucani, and particularly with Ocellus his grandchildren, and had obtained the Papers of them, viz. his Book of Laws, of Monarchy, of Sanctity, of the Generation of the Universe; and adds, that he will send the other Pieces to him as soon as they should be found. To which Plato answers, that this was a very acceptable present, that he very much admired the Writer, and that he was worthy of that most ancient descent from the Trojans. Now if Ocellus were so ancient a Writer as Moses, how should Plato never have seen his Books before? How should it come into his Head to put Archytas upon search after Books, which were wrote eleven hundred Years before? Or how could they be supposed to have lain dormant in the Family for so many Ages? If he had been as old as Moses, Plato would never have mentioned his most ancient Descent from the Trojans; for Moses lived long before those Trojan Ancestors were born. But the Letter is express that Archytas had this Book from his grandchildren, which were probably his Heirs, and who had the right of disposal of his Papers when he was Dead. So that it appears that this Ocellus was so far from being a Writer as old as Moses that he was but a late Grecian Writer. For not to mention Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod, who lived six or seven Centuries before; most of the Greek Books which are most commonly read were much Ancienter than this Author. All the celebrated Dramatical Poets, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles; all the Lyric ones, Stesichorus, Alcaeus, Pindar, Sapph, Simonides, Anacreon; and other moral Poets Ancienter than these, Tyrtaeus, Theognis, Phocylides; besides the famous Historians Herodotus and Thucydides. But in respect of the Jewish Books he was but a writer of yesterday; for he was so far from being able to vie with Moses for Antiquity, that the very last Writer of the Old Testament wrote before him: for the Canon was completed, and the Prophecies sealed up in Malachy who wrote almost 40 years before this Writer. For Malachy flourished in the first year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ocellus not till about the 35th. So that we have proved not only Moses, but the whole Bible, to be ancienter than this Old Writer.  
But after all, I believe I can make it appear, that this Book, which you mention, is not so ancient as the Author it lays claim to; but was composed by some modern in imitation of that Ancient piece of Ocellus' which Archytas in his letter mentions. For there are some manifest marks which make it appear, that it is a piece of much later date than Ocellus Lucanus: 1. For it is known to all that the Ancient Pythagoreans wrote always in the Doric Dialect, as appears by the works or fragments yet exstant of Timaeus, Locrus, etc. But this Treatise is wrote in common Greek; nay it is evident, that Ocellus himself wrote in Doric, 
Stob. Ecl. Phys. Lib. 1. Cap. 16.  as does appear from what is quoted from him by Stobaeus in his Ecloges; viz. a fragment out of his Book of Laws, which Archytas says he wrote. In which fragment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. shows plainly the Dialect in which this Author wrote. 2ly, We may observe that the Author of this Piece was an Aristotelian Philosopher, who goes all along upon Aristotle's Principles, viz. The four Elements: talks much of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the other Elementary qualities, of the Transmutation of the Elements, of Antiperistasis, etc. almost in the very words of Aristotle in his Books of Natural Auscultation. So that instead of being as old as Moses, 'tis probable he may not be much older than Simplicius or Philoponus.  Phil. 
Let this be as it will, the weight of the Arguments, he produces, does not depend upon the Antiquity of the Author; 
Ocell. §. 2. Or. Reas. p. 210.  and those I am sure are too strong to be baffled by a little Criticism and Chronology. The sum of his first Argument is this. If the World or Universe be generated or had a beginning, 'tis generated out of Nothing or Something. But all Men agree that Nothing can be produced from Nothing. To say it was produced out of Something is as unreasonable; for that something must be a part of the Universe or the Whole Universe (because there is nothing besides the Universe) and that would be to make a thing produced out of itself, which is of all the most palpable Contradiction.  Cred. 
I know this Doctrine of the World's being form out of Nothing sat so cross in Epicurus his Brains, 
Answ. to Ocellus his I. Argument.  that it set him upon the sent of his Atheistical Opinions, to get rid of it. For as the story tells us, when he heard a Grammarian whom he was Scholar to, explaining those famous Verses of Hesiod in his Theogonia.  


Sext. Empir. count. Math. Lib. 9 Diog. Laert. vit. Epic.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Chaos was first formed by th' Eternal Mind,  
Next the wide Earth, the Seat of every kind.   
He very pertly asked if the Earth was made out of the Chaos, what the Chaos was made out of? At which question the Grammarian being confounded, made answer that it was not his Province to teach such things, but that of the Philosophers. With this Answer Epicurus being unsatisfied, he left the Grammarian, and betook himself to the study of Philosophy. But notwithstanding this, I cannot see any thing in this Philosophical Axiom, Ex nihilo nil fit, that should any ways make against God's Creation of the World out of nothing. Indeed this has been an Axiom in the mouths of Philosophers of all sorts, the Aristotelian and Pythagorean, Platonist, and Stoic; but then a great many of them meant no more by it, than that it has no place in natural productions; but that it ought not to be extended to the primary production of things. For Empedocles his Verses quoted by Plutarch and Aristotle, are the most ancient Piece in the Grecian Philosophy, where this Axiom is urged: and he only makes use of it to prove, that matter is not produced in the Generation of Things, nor destroyed in their Corruption.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Children in Knowledge! vainly to suppose  
That all that's Born from Nothing has arose:  
Or when in Death the scattered parts do fly,  
To think that Aught does into Nothing die.  
And we find that the Corpuscularian Philosophers, who made Atoms the first Principles of things, were those that did chief make use of this Axiom; to confute the Doctrines of Forms and substantial Essences, which Aristotle and some others before him did explain the Phaenomena of Nature by. And indeed this Axiom was very conclusive against that Opinion; for when by that Philosophy it should be asserted, that a Room was enlightened by the Generation of the Form of Light, or that Fire was extinguished by the corruption of the form of Fire; it was very seasonably replied in the words of this Maxim, Ex nihilo nil fit, nothing is produced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but from something which was before; a thing is not produced by annihilation of the old Form and the Production of a new Substance, which was not before, out of nothing; for the course of Nature allows of no such supernatural Productions; all these Phaenomena are to be accounted for by the alteration of the Figure and Motion of the Parts, and the different appearances they produce in the Mind of Man. 
Intel. Syst. Cap. 1. p. 30, etc.  And this Dr. Cudworth in his Intellectual System has proved at large, to be the meaning of this Assertion of the Ancient Atomick Philosophers. But then, Sir, be pleased to consider, what this Axiom has to do to confront the Omnipotent Power of God, in the first Creation; unless it can be proved that it implies an absolute Impossibility, for God to create any thing out of nothing; which not one can reasonably assert. Now no one can say it implies an absolute Impossibility; for then such Impossibility must arise either from want of Power in God to do it, or from some natural Repugnancy in the thing itself. It cannot proceed from want of Power in God, for he is the Origin of all Power, and every thing that is possible to be done can be done by him. To say the Impossibility arises from the part of the Subject is as incongruous. For such Impossibility must be caused from a Power of resisting in that thing, or from a Contradiction, which the doing thereof would imply. But there can be no Power of resisting in any thing which is able to resist the Divine Activity; because that and all other Power came from Him, which argues in Him a greater Power. But as for the Subject of Creation, that is Nothing, and therefore, that to be sure cannot give any Resistance. There remains only to prove, that it implies no Contradiction to produce something out of Nothing. Indeed to be and not to be at the same time implies a Contradiction, but to be and not to be at divers times does not; and the reason is obvious. Because the Existence of a Thing in any one Instant does perfectly exclude all possibility of nonexistence for that Instant; but the not being of a Thing in any Instant does not exclude any possibility of its being afterward, when God Almighty pleases. Now it is so far from being a Contradiction for a Thing to be produced out of nothing by God-Almighty, that we find it (according to the Philosophy of some) in some measure done even by finite Being's. For they account Accidents a sort of Being's, which are produced by Creatures themselves, out of nothing, by a kind of subordinate and delegated Creation, which God has given them the Power of, by Virtue of their Being's. Thus the Mind produces Thought, the Fire produces Heat, the Sun produces Light, which are all distinct from the Substances which produce them, and yet are generated out of nothing. But however both Thought and Light and Heat, are real Being's, and do properly Exist, and are composed out of no Pre-existent Matter, and therefore must be produced out of Nothing; either by the immediate Power of God continually acting, which is most reasonable; or by a subordinate Power communicated to the Creature with its Being. Now, why is it not as easy for the Deity to produce Substance out of nothing by his Almighty Power, as it is for a Creature to produce Accidents by his finite and limited One? Or why could not God-Almighty produce all things out of nothing at first, as well as to produce these Accidents, Modes, or Appearances every moment? All the Difficulty which makes some Men unwilling to allow this power to God is, because we do not see any Instance of this before our eyes, being used only to Natural and Artificial Productions. We see Blood produced out of Food, and Flesh out of Blood; we see the Juices of the Earth turned into Wood, the Wood into Smoak and Flame, whilst the matter remains the same after those so many alterations; and therefore we conclude that no production or Corruption can be made any other way than this. We experience that a Carpenter cannot build a Ship or a House without pre-existing materials, and therefore we are apt sillily to conclude that God himself can do no more; because we cannot conceive how he should do it, or because he must do it by other Methods, than those which we are used to. But I pray, is not this as unreasonable, as for a blind Man to deny, that any one can perceive Colours, because he cannot possibly conceive, how they should be distinguished? And if there be other good Arguments to prove, that God has Created the World out of nothing, it is in vain to deny it; because it is inconceiveable by us, or contrary to the course of nature, since the Creation.  Phil. 
Well! but what say you to Ocellus' second Argument? 
Ocellus Luc. Tex. 3. Oracl. Reas. p. 211.  If the World be made or produced, it must follow the Laws of other productions; it must grow from worse to better, from its infirm Estate to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vigour, and so decline to its old Age and Dissolution. But we find that the World always was as it is now, there has never been the least decay in i● nor the least improvement of its perfection; it always stands at the same stay; and so always must continue.  Cred. 
Argum. TWO Ans. To this Argument, Sir, be pleased to take this Answer. 1st, That it is a thing somewhat uncertain, whether or no the World continues in the same state it was in at the beginning, most learned Men for many Ages have been of the contrary opinion, that it grows old and doth every day verge towards its final Destruction; and Dr. Hackwell, who wrote his Book of Providence about Threescore Years ago, was the first Man that had the Boldness to encounter with the received opinion, and he raised himself not a small number of Adversaries upon it. But truly I am so far of that learned Man's opinion, as not to think any very remarkable decay is to be found in the World; for the Heavenly Bodies do observe the same motions, and when we espy any difference between the Ancient and Modern Accounts, it ought to be attributed to want of exactness in the old Calculations; the Bodies of Men are of the same magnitude as is manifest by the Ancient measures of Digits, Feet, etc. and their natural parts or ingeny seem not at all to be impaired, as appears from the Modern Writings and Inventions. But if we consider the primitive fecundity of the Earth, and its barrenness now adays; of which I will discourse more by and by; which natural fruitfulness is so celebrated in Ancient Writers under the name of the Golden Age; and if we further add the Longaevity of our Antediluvian Progenitors, and others for a considerable time after the Flood; one would be inclined to think, that nature has lost much of its primitive strength it enjoyed, when the Earth was impregnated with its juvenile vigour.  

Creation of the World not like ordinary Productions.  2ly, There is no necessity, because the World is produced in time, that this primary production should in all respects answer to our natural and common productions. I confess I have always took it to be not only an immodest but an ignorant way of arguing, to say God must act such a way, because nature so requires it, that other-ways it would not be a natural way of acting and the like; as if God was not the God of nature, as well as of every thing else; or that the power of God must be bounded by that of nature. So in the present case, because Men see that we are first Infants, than Children, afterwards Men, and lastly Old Men, which is the series from our Production to our Dissolution; therefore some conclude, that the like must follow from the Production of the World. I remember there is a notable Dispute in Macrobius, which was oldest, a Hen, or an Egg. And I think that Question might be easily solved, by saying, that naturally the Egg is before the Hen, because she is generated out of it; but in the first Creation the first Hen was produced supernaturally, otherways than from an Egg, because there was no preceding Hen to lay it. And the Answer is the same to the matter in hand. All natural Productions do proceed in the aforesaid Method from worse to better, etc. but the Creation of the World is a supernatural Production, precedent to all the Laws of Nature, which were to be observed after the first Production, but were impossible to be observed before.  
3ly, 
The Dissolution not piece-meal but Instantaneous.  But though there be no visible decay in the World, it is no sufficient Argument to evince the Eternity of it; especially to those who have Revelation against it; for nothing, but a downright Contradiction, can make them believe the contrary. But did never any thing come to an end, but what had some visible decay before it? Was never any Man killed or did die, but only by a lingering Sickness? Is not an House as liable to be destroyed by Fire or Earthquake, as by Dilapidations? For we do not expect that the World should be destroyed, from the defect of some internal Principle thereof; but by the Will of God, and by the withdrawing his preserving Power, which keeps it in its frame and order. We do not think, that the World shall decay like an old House, piece by piece; but just like the stopping of a Clock all of a sudden, when the Weights are down: For when it shall please God to withdraw that Divine Energy, which informs this great Machine and sets it a moving; all the Wheels of Nature will be checked in an Instant, and move no more for ever; and if he does likewise deny his preserving Power, which keeps the parts in their being, even the very matter of them must crumble and sink into nothing.  Phil. 
Well, Sir, let this be as it will, I have another knotty piece of Work for you, and that is another Argument of Ocellus'; which is this. If the World be created, then is the Universe created, for I call the World by the name of the Universe, being a perfect Collection of all Natures, for besides the Universe there is nothing, and if there be any thing it is contained in the Universe, either as a part or an excrescence thereof; now to make the Universe, or every thing to be Created implies a Contradiction; for if every thing be Created, there will be nothing left to create so that it must upon this score be asserted, that something must create itself, which of all contradictions is the most absurd. Does not this Objection pinch a little?  Cred. 
Arg. III Answ. And a very little too; for indeed it is nothing else but a Childish Fallacy, grounded upon the doubtful signification of the Word Universe; which sometimes may be used to signify the whole series of Being's, whether create or uncreate, so as to take in God himself; or else to signify the whole compages of natural Bodies consisting of Earth, Sea, Heaven, Stars, or sometimes together with these Spirits, Angels, and the whole Intellectual World, and in short every thing besides God. Now when we say that the Universe or every thing was created, we take the Universe in its latter signification exclusively of God, who being an eternal Mind was self-subsistent and uncreate, but of his infinite bounty did communicate a Being to all those other things which before had none of their own; which Communication we call Creation.  Phil. 
Again proceeds that Excellent Philosopher. 
Ocellus Oracles of Reason, p. 213.  The World is the cause of all perfection to other things, but is of itself perfect, and that which is the cause of safety to others must of its self be safe and permanent. 
Cum Microcosmus à mundo trahit, vivit Microcosmus: cum Mundus à Microcosmo trahit desicit Microcosmus. H. Blount de Anima Mund.  Also that which is the cause of compactedness to others, must of itself be compacted: but the World is to all other things the cause of Being, Safety and Perfection; wherefore of its self it must needs be eternal, perfect and permanent for ever.  Cred. 
Arg. IV Ans. I grant this Argument would be conclusive, if the World was the cause of all perfection; because no perfection can produce itself, and therefore must have an eternal cause: which ways of proof we make use of, in demonstrating the necessity of a Deity. But here we deny the World to be the cause of all perfection; and say whatever perfections it enjoys, it received them from some superior cause, namely God.  Phil. 
But pray why may not the World itself be God? And then it will be all one to say that the World is the cause of all perfection, or that God is the cause of it. And this notion does not seem at all to entrench upon the Majesty of the Deity, for we shall secure all his attributes this way, as well as you can yours: For I look upon the World both to be Eternal and Infinite, which are the two great Foundations of the Notion of a Deity: For there never was a time in which there was not this vast extension of matter regularly ordered as it is now, and there is no part of space but what is possessed by some Beautiful Machine or other, which its Inhabitants esteem a World: Now the Collection of these Wonderful Being's, The All, or the Universe, is what I call God. 'Tis he in whom we live, move, and have our being, and the writer of your Pentateuch calls him very well the JAM or the Being, because nothing else besides him is; we are nothing but some little pulvisculi of his immense nature, which appear in this or that Figure according to his pleasure; who himself is one eternal Proteus exhibiting himself sometimes in this form, and sometimes in that. Now you may call this great infinite Being either Matter, or the Universe, or God, or what you please, it is much the same; and it is all one whether you say God is Eternal, or the World, or Universe is so.  Cred. 

The ridiculousness of making the World God.  I find this is an Argument, which takes mightily with some Atheistical Men of late, who rather than own such a God as all Pious and Wise Men in all Ages have Worshipped; they will make a God of Stocks and Stones, and of all the vilest things in Nature. But we will prove that this All or the Universe cannot be God from those Affections or Properties, which we generally call Attributes, which all Men that have believed the Deity have acknowledged to be in him. I shall argue first from his Immutability; which all Philosophers and Wise Men have attributed to him; because a Whimsical, Changeable God, are terms incompatible, the Idea of one of which does perfectly destroy the other. Now if we make the World to be God, we must make him to vary and change every moment; to be turned into this thing and that thing, to have this and that quality, to be Hot and Cold, and Moist and Dry, to be High and Low, and Little and Great; to be a Man and a Horse, to be a Tree and a Fish; this would be to render God the sport of every Wise Man, who must needs laugh at the shift of such an odd Capricious Deity. For if all things, be God what need of this Spectrous Fantastic Exhibition of himself; he can make himself known to no body but himself; and therefore he had as good keep himself to his own Original Nature.  Phil. 
But pray, Sir, why should it argue more Imperfection and Inconstancy for God thus to change the Representation of his Nature, and to exhibit himself in a new manner, than for him to Create things a new, or to produce them? The one is a change made by God as well as the other; and then the Whimsy and Caprice will lie hard upon you too.  Cred. 
The difference is very wide, Sir, in these two Cases; in the one God changes, in the other he is changed. It implies no imperfection in the Deity, 
God does not change himself by new Exhibitions, but his Creatures by new Productions.  to make a change in his Creatures; because there is no real alteration made in him, but only a new exercise of his Power, which is Perfection and not Imperfection. But for God himself to be changed, implies weakness; for all change is either for better or for worse; to change for the better argues the Deity Imperfect before, and to change for worse implies both a weakness in his former Knowledge, and a Diminution in his Subsequent Power. But it is not so when a change is made by the Divine Nature in its Creatures; for that is but agreeable to the Excellence of that Admirable Being, whose Goodness and Bounty seem necessarily to require it. For if there were no change to be made in the Creatures, it would hinder that large communication of the Divine Goodness to his Creatures, and would hedge in God's Bounty within narrow bounds. For if there never was to be but one set of Individuums in the World, and they only were to live along to Eternity; not the thousandth part of Being's would enjoy that communication of Happiness, which now they do. So that I conclude, a change in the Creature is consonant to the Wisdom and Goodness of God; but a change in God himself would be Weakness and Folly.  

Such change of the Deity not voluntary.  But I will charge this yet homer upon you. For when you say that God is changed into this variety of Figures we behold in the World, you must either assert, that this mutation is caused by the Will of God; or by Necessity, both which Assertions are equally absurd. For to make the World God, and to say these alterations are caused voluntarily by him, is to make the nature of God to depend upon his Will; which all Men, who understand what they say, must make necessary. For who ever said that God was because he would be? They rather say God is, because he must be; there is a necessity, that there should be some primary Cause of things, which was necessarily of himself, and could not but be, but all other things depend upon his Will, and are because he would have them be. And so it is in all the attributes of the Divine Nature. God-Almighty is necessarily omnipotent, not because he has a mind to be so. He is Pure, and Just and Merciful because he cannot be otherways. But to make the nature of God consist in this series of Voluntary Mutations, is to be guilty of the most absurd and manifest contradiction, because it is to assert an Effect Prior to its Cause. For to say the nature of God is so, because he will have it so, is to make an Act of Volition, which is the Effect of the Divine Nature or Understanding, to be the cause of it: the act of Willing supposes an understanding nature before, and the nature Willed supposes it yet not to be.  
Neither can these changes of the Deity, or this successive nature of God (which is here asserted) be necessary neither. 
Nor necessary.  There is but one thing in the World of itself necessary, and that is God, and all other things which are necessary are so, because his Will has determined them. God necessarily is because he can have no cause, but we cannot say so of any thing else. We cannot say that such particular Men, or Horses or Trees are necessarily because we can assign a cause of their production, namely God, who might (if he pleased) not have produced them. Nay though 'tis only probable that God produced them, or if 'twere only possible they might not have been produced by him, it were argument enough against the necessity of their Being. But farther, to make all these Being's to be only the necessary Emanations of the Deity, is not only to destroy all Religion, but even  and common sense. For why should I praise God and honour him for this noble Being I enjoy and for the comforts of this Life, which (according to this opinion) he could not but afford me; any more than I should thank the Clouds, for letting down those Rains, which they could not keep up? I am as sure, that I have a Free will, as I am sure of any conclusion in the World; and therefore I am sure that any Argument, which shall go about to prove a necessary Fatality is false. I am sure I have a Liberty to walk or to sit, and therefore to say these actions are but the necessary productions or emanations of the Deity, is to say what I know to be false; which will be so far from persuading a Man, that it will only serve to enrage him. And lastly this opinion contradicts the common-sence and experience of all Mankind. For if these continual mutations, which we behold in the World, (as Generations, Corruptions, etc.) are but the necessary Exhibitions of the Deity, than they cannot be promoted or hindered by the interposition of any thing else; the contrary of which is manifestly evident. For how many Men are killed in Wars or Duels by the Ambition or Malice of others? How many Animals (as Sheep, Hens) have their Breed encouraged by Men, and many (as Wolves and Lions) diminished or destroyed? How many contribute to the Decrease of Mankind by a Voluntary Celibacy, and how many towards the Increase of it by Marriage, or Polygamy? To say nothing of the Devastations made by God himself in Plagues, Earthquakes, Famines and the like. So that these successive Generations are so far from being the necessary Effects of the Deity which he cannot alter himself; that they are liable to the alterations of thousands of his Creatures.  

Such a Changeableness contrary to the Attributes of God.  Nor is this Opinion of yours less repugnant to the other Attributes of God, his Impassibility, his Goodness, Wisdom, etc. we can never conceive a notion of a God, that is subject to Passion, or Pain, or Sickness, or Infirmity. But if we make the World to be God, and all us Creatures to be parts of him, we must make him liable to all these Weaknesses and Misfortunes. God must be Sick, and God must be Lame, God must be Angry, and Hungry, and Thirsty, when any poor Men or Beast are under these circumstances. So it is impossible to think of a Deity, without being Wise and Good. But your notion of God will make him guilty of all the Folly and Wickedness in the World. God must be circumvented and imposed upon, when any designing Creatures put tricks upon their Fellows; God must be guilty of all those sillinesses and inadvertencies, which foolish Men commit, and wise Men deride. Besides, this notion will charge all the wickedness in the World upon God; it will not only make him to lend assistance, but himself to commit all the Perjuries, Rapines, Whoredoms, and other Lewdnesses which 'tis a shame to mention. For if God be every thing, than God does every thing, not only those virtuous Actions which are the subject of History and Panegyric, but also those wicked and infamous ones which are known only in Jails and Stews. But to attribute these things to God, which the most profligate Villains themselves are ashamed of, is a Blasphemy so loud and daring, that it shocks humane nature but to think of; it sets a Man a trembling but to hear such an impious assertion, tho' he should not consider all the horrid consequences of it.  Phil. 
Pray, Sir, don't grow too warm upon a Point of Philosophy, for I have a great deal more of it for you yet. Have a care you do not fret yourself too much upon the first Heat, for if you do, I foretell, I shall win the Prize. Well! but farther, says your old Philosopher, the circular Figure and Motion of the World do demonstrate its Eternity; for what is composed of a Spherical Figure is on every side equal, and consequently without beginning and ending, and if the motion be circular it is consequently 
* It is very comical to observe how Mr. Blount has translated these two words in Ocellus. He translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stable; but a Stable Motion is a Bull, for 'tis as much as to say a Motion which stands, or is at rest. He renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by never shifting its former place. But who ever said Motion was in a place before? for Place is only an affection of Body, and 'tis as incongruous to say motion changes its place, as to say a white or a green motion. But besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can never signify never shifting place, but that which has no Exit, or End. 'Tis a Metaphor taken from the wind in a Wood, which Strangers go round and round in, and think they can never find their way out. Which is a very apt Simile of an Eternal Motion.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, never to be gone through, and never to have an end. Here is Logic for you.  Cred. 
Arg. V Answ. Logic! Sir, no 'tis very poor Sophistry, 'tis mere quibbling upon Words. For what tolerable consequence is there in your first Argument from the Spherical Figure of the World? Because a Sphere is without beginning, or ending, therefore the World which is Spherical is so too. Does not every one know, when we say a Sphere is without beginning or ending, we mean one thing, and when we say God or the World is so, we mean another? The one we say, has no beginning or end in respect of Mensuration; It is not of a long Figure, the Extremities of which we call the two ends, at one of which we begin when we measure it; but the parts thereof lie equally distant from the Centre, it is neither long nor broad, and if you measure it there is no assigned part or end to begin at, but you may begin your computation where you please, and so in this sense we say it has no beginning or end. But when we say God or the World has no beginning nor end, we mean it in respect of Duration; that there shall be no period of Time, to bond their Being; or their Nature, or Existence never had a beginning; which is quite another thing.  
But granting you mean by this, that the Spherical Figure of the World does infer the perpetuity of its motion, or duration, the Argument is weak on all sides. 
No constat of the Sphericalness of the Universe.  For 1st, that the Figure of the World is Spherical is more than most will allow, or indeed any Body, but those who stick to the old Mumpsimus of Solid Orbs. The Figure of the World or Universe may be square or oval, or any other Figure for aught that we know, as well as Spherical. The Figure indeed of so much of it, as appears to us, is a Sphere, but that is no more Argument that it is so, than that the Moon is a white, yellowish shining Plate, about the bigness of the Crown of ones Hat, when she is at full. We see in the Day time, that Arch of ragged Clouds hover over our Heads equally to the Eye distant from the Superficies of the Earth; which, with the refracted Rays of Light that with a bluish Colour fill up the Interstices, seem to form the half of a Sphere. And in the Night time, we view a mighty number of Stars, which, considering their remoteness from the Earth, seem all equally distant, and so form an imaginary Sphere; as when by pricked lines, we represent a square or a circle, as well as by continued ones. And this especially is represented more livelily and seemingly real when the Interstices, between the Stars, are filled up with a pale scattered light. And upon this account it is, that we have in our eyes, the Image of a great white Hemisphere, studded with Stars. But this does no more conclude the World to be a Sphere, than the nine Pins set up by three and three, make a real square, tho' we may conceive it to be one; or that Figure of the part of any Object, which lies next to the eye, and is seen by it, is the Figure of the whole. part of which lies behind undiscerned. 2ly, 
That no Argument of a perpetual Motion.  But granting the Universe was Spherical, it would not from thence acquire a perpetual motion. A Spherical Figure makes a thing move more easily, but it does not make it always move. For otherways, Tops and Balls once put in motion would never cease. Nay, should you only assert, that the motion of the parts of the Universe, the Earth, Planets, Sun and Stars, is circular, and therefore they move Eternally, the consequence would be very false. And this opinion is more rationally maintained by some modern Theists, who embrace the Corpernican and Cartesian Hypothesis. But first, it will not be granted, that all the parts of the Universe do move in a circle; for 'tis plain that many of them move in an Ellipsis, and Comets in a Parabola. But secondly, though they did move circularly, they could not naturally move infinitely.  Phil. 
But give me leave to interupt you, before you go any further. I thought you had been too much a Philosopher, to deny, that a thing once in motion, without impediment would move infinitely. I know a Stone or an Arrow cannot move on infinitely, because of the renitency of a gross Medium which hinders it; but what should hinder the Earth, the Sun, or any one of the Planets from doing so?  Cred. 
The thing which you take for granted, 
Motion of Bodies in contiguity with Bodies not Infinite.  that a thing once in motion without external impediment will always move, will remain a Question till we know what motion is, which we never shall. Indeed I will not absolutely deny, that a Body once moving in a vacuum would ever cease. But this I will deny, that a body moving in contiguity with other Bodies can naturally and of itself move infinitely. Now this Earth of ours, as all the other Planets and Stars; move or swim in the liquid Aether, which how fine and subtle soever it be, is still a Body. 'Tis needless to go to prove the reality of this fluid Body, because (not to mention the explosion and crepitancy of nitro-sulphureous Bodies, Accension, and Fermentation, etc.) the communication of Light from the remotest Stars do necessarily infer it; for go upon whatever Hypothesis you will to explain Illumination by, you must agree upon such an Intermediate Body to convey it in. But it is most probable that Light is nothing else, but this Intermediate Body, or the Aether, the Trepidation of which arising from the Original Luminous Body, and communicated from one particle to another all along the space, strikes at last upon the Organ, and makes in us the Idea of what we call Light. Now since this is a Body, it has the Property of Body and that is Impenetrability, and consequently Resistability, and whatsoever resists another Body in Motion, either changes the term of its Motion and returns it back again; or else absorbs part of its Motion; both which are inconsistent with an equable Eternal Motion. Now since the Earth, and every Planet, moves in the Aether, the Aether must some way or other retard the motion of it: For since it is not of solidity enough to drive the Earth back, it must by continual, though little impulses weaken its Motion; and therefore the Motion of the Earth can never be Eternal. It will not avail to say, that these checks or impulses of this fine matter are but small and insignificant, for though they be never so small, they will in an infinity of time perfectly absorb the whole Motion of the Earth, or any other Planets, and leave them at last dead moveless heaps of matter. So that such a circular motion is not naturally Eternal; nay that it is of any very long continuance, it must be beholding to the conservative Providence of God which we can give no natural Reason for.  

Sphericalness does not infer Infinity of Duration.  2. Neither does a circular Figure contribute to the Duration of the Substance or the Bulk of the World. Indeed in a hurly-burly of matter, the jagged angular pieces are more apt to be broken, and their parts knocked off than the round ones, all whose parts are equally supported. But the case is otherways in matter regularly modelled, and where the motion is methodically terminated. For we see that an Apple or an Orange is much sooner corrupted than a Flint, and yet generally the one is far more circular than the other.  Phil. 
Indeed this is plausible Talk, but though this you have said should be sufficient to overthrow the Arguments I have urged for the Eternity of the World; yet it is no sufficient Proof, that the World is not Eternal; for there may be better Arguments than these I have produced to establish this Opinion; or if there were not, I should expect to hear something from you, to prove it to be otherways. For we find the World as it is, and we are like so to leave it; so that we must conclude it always was such, until we see good reason to think the contrary. Therefore the Proof, Sir, lies on your side, and pray let us see if you can defend your Opinion better, than I have done mine.  Cred. 
You should not miscall that my Opinion which is my Faith: 
Arguments against the Eternity of the World.  but that shall break no squares between us; I will endeavour to defend this, as well as I can, by those Arguments, which together with God's Grace confirm me in it. You must not, Sir, expect I should produce all those Arguments which are urged by Divines and Philosophers upon this subject, I shall only bring some few choice ones, which seem to have most weight and solidity. And  

Arg. I. From the nature of Petrification.  1st, I shall prove the World is not Eternal from the nature of Petrification, or the Growth of Stones and other Osseous Substances. It is granted by all that Stones do grow, and Philosophers have made it clear, that the way of their Augmentation is by the concretion of saline particles, which according to their commixture with more or less terreous matter, make them either Fine as Adamants, or Course as Pebbles and Freestone. Now by experience we find it; that these concretions are so strangely durable, that hardly any time is able to dissipate and dissolve them; for the Marbles in the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which lie inwards and are not exposed to the washings of the Rains, and the frettings of the nitrous Air, are not in the least decayed for all they have stood there so many thousand years. Now if Stones do continually increase and there be no sensible Decay of them; upon supposition that the World has continued from Eternity, the whole World would be turned by this time into one Massy Rock by this Eternal Petrification, for many Ages ago the Earth would have been incultivable, at least Men must have made use of Crows and Mattocks, instead of Ploughs. And we may further observe the inclination of the Earth to Petrification in places uninhabited or dispeopled, as particularly in Palestine, which formerly was a place luxuriantly fruitful, but since by the Ravage of the Romans and the Turks the Inhabitants are so much thinned, the Ground is grown stony and Barren for want of Cultivation. I say for want of Cultivation, for Tillage does macerate and break the Stony Earth again into a fine and kind soil, which is fit for vegetation; and therefore, in these Cultivated parts of the World, we are not so sensible of the increasing Petrification, as we are in the uncultivated ones. Besides I am apt to fancy that the subsidency of the Sea in most parts of the World is in some measure owing to the employing a great part of its saline Particles in the production of Stones which are partly concreted out of them; for these thin salts, which are from thence drawn up with the Mists and Rains, are the principles of Petrification. Now this Argument may be further improved if we consider the Duration of Osseous and Testaceous substances far exceeding the time of their Production. The Bones of Animals are produced in a little time, and are not dissolved in a very great one. The shells of Oysters, Mussels, etc. are concreted in one Year, and yet last many thousands; as appears by those Beds of shells we find in the Tops of Hills which have lain there at least ever since the Deluge. So that to any Inquisitive Man it is plain, that Nature is every day more and more overtaking herself, and as it were treading upon her own heels. For if the World had continued an Infinity of time, we should have been all overrun with these Osseous and Conchous substances, and no matter left among us proper for Vegetation. And indeed we cannot but observe a kind of a Parsimony in Nature, as if she was afraid of this, by the speedy corruption and resolution of most Animals and Vegetables, by a natural principle which we generally call Fermentation: For there is an active spirituous Matter lodged in the composition of Plants, Flowers, Flesh, etc. which after the vital Principle is gone, does, by an agile, internal motion, shatter the compages in pieces, that Nature may make use of the parts again for another Work: just as Printers are used to knock their Letters asunder, when the Sheet is wrought off. Now unless Nature was afraid of wanting a sufficient stock of this fine matter, and being reduced to the saxeous and unpliable, which she sees every day to grow upon her, she cannot be supposed to make such precipitate haste, in the dissolution of her former Productions; especially when Animals and Vegetables are so inconsiderable a part of the bulk of the Earth. I do not say, that this increase of saxeous matter is any great inconvenience to the Earth already, or ever shall be if it continues but some few thousand years more, or that this is any imperfection in this great Work of the Deity; for it is well enough contrived for a World of some thousand years' Duration, but not for an Eternal one; the World will keep very well in repair for so short a time, and therefore God Almighty does not see sufficient reasons to amend these small decays; just as we when we have but a short time in a House or Estate, we take little care to repair it, if it be like to last well enough out our time.  Phil. 
Very Philosophic Divinity! what is your next Argument?  Cred. 

Arg. II. From the sinking of Hills.  My next Argument I shall draw from the subsidency of Hills, and the daily landing up the Sea; which are things inconsistent with the Eternity of the World. For if the World has been from all Eternity there could no where have been found such a thing as a Hill, for millions of Ages ago the highest Hills would have been all washed down into the Sea, and the Earth would have been reduced to an absolute Level; so that the Waters would have totally overflowed it, and rendered it unhabitable. That the Hills are continually a sinking, being washed down by the Rains, and oftentimes vast Rocky parts of them tumbled into the Vales by Storms, is undeniable to those that have seen the many great Stones, which lie at the Bottoms of Hills in Wales and Switzerland; to those that have observed some parts of the Walls of old Rome to lie thirty or forty foot under ground, and other higher parts of the City, as the Capitol, to have their foundations wholly extant above ground, and at the bottom of the same Mountain, the Triumphal Arch of Septimius almost wholly overwhelmed in the Earth. Again, it is plain by observation, that the Tops of many Towers of Churches have been seen of late from some places, which they have formerly been hid from, by the interposition of an high Hill, which since it has been partly washed down by the Rains, has discovered the Steeple which for some Ages before lay hid; nay we can hardly see any old building, of but an hundred Years standing, that is built in low ground, but we may observe the foundations to lie much deeper than they were at first laid; which can be nothing, but the Earth washed from the Hills and lodged there. So that we must needs grant, that the World is so far from having continued an Eternity of time or being like to continue so, that it is every day more and more hastening to its ruin by an inundation; if it had been Eternal, long ago the Hills would have been all sunk into the Valleys, the subsiding Earth would have choked up the very Channels of the Seas, so that the whole World would have been one circumfused Ocean, or at least a noisome uninhabitable Marsh. To say this would be millions of Ages coming to pass is nothing, for the longest time bears no proportion to Eternity: if a Dish of Water only once in a thousand years were thrown upon Mount Caucasus so as to come down just dirty, in an Eternity of time it would have fetched done all that Prodigious Mountain, and laid it as plain as a Bowling-Green. Now this one Argument is so plain and so demonstrative, that it is enough for ever to silence your Theistical Eternity of the World.  Phil. 
'Tis time enough to triumph, when you have gained the Victory; this Thunder bolt has not struck us so perfectly dumb, but we have something to say for ourselves yet. We will readily grant you, that an Eternity of time would wash down all the Hills into a Level, but then that would not hinder the Rise of new ones to supply the Defect of the old. For the Earth has a Quality of lifting up itself, or at least is elevated by Earthquakes, or Subterraneous Flatus' into new Hills when the ancient ones are leveled; so that there have been never wanting Mountains and Hills to drain off Rain from, to afford matter for Fountains and Springs. Nor is this only a random Bolt without ground, but is founded upon very good Authority. For Ovid. Met. Lib. 15. gives an account out of the Pythagorick Writers of a Hill by Trezen, in the Peloponnese, that was raised out of the plain ground; and in the last Age, in the Year 1538. a Hill now called Monte de Cinere, not far from Puzzuolo, the old Puteoli, was raised by an Earthquake; and both 
* Strab. Geo. Lib. 1. Plin. nat. Hist. Lib.  Strabo and Pliny give an account of several Islands being in the like manner raised in the Sea, which if they had been upon the Land, would have been esteemed Hills. 'Tis true these Elevations are but seldom, because there is no need in nature that they should be more frequent, because a Hill is many Ages a washing down, and therefore if a supply of a new one happen once in an Age, it is abundantly sufficient.  Cred. 
It is a great sign of a through Confutation, when Men take shelter in such mere Possibilities, that there is not the least grain of Probability in. Because a small Hill or two have been raised by an Earthquake, 
No new Hills raised which are considerable.  why should we suppose all the Hills and Mountains in the World were so? Because some Men die violent Deaths, therefore we may as well conclude none die natural: because there are some Monstrous Births, there are none born in the genuine species. This is really, Sir, a mad random way of arguing, which none will make use of, that have any thing else to say. But to speak to your Instances, as to Ovid's Instance of the Hill by Trezen, that might in all probability be nothing but a hear-say story of the Neighbouring People; many hundreds of such like we have amongst us here in England, and yet we should make mad work of it, if we should go to Philosophise upon them. The Poet does not give any greater proof of this than he does of his other fictions, and therefore it does not deserve any great Authority. Besides he calls this but Tumulus a Hillock, on which not so much as a Tree grew, 
Est prope Pitthaeam cumulus Trezona sine ullis  
Arduus arboribus—  and what is this to the Productions of such vast Mountains as Caucasus and the Alps? as to the other Instances out of Strabo and Pliny, every one knows what trust those Author's repose in relations of common fame, to say nothing of the sincerity of the Authors themselves. But granting them true, they will not be able to support your Hypothesis as you shall see by and by. The Instance of the Hill by Puzzuolo is unexceptionable, and perhaps several others have been raised by the same means. But then this is no very great Hill, 
Physico-Theol. Discourses on the Chaos, etc.  it is but a 100 foot perpendicular at the most, and makes a great sound under a Man's feet that stamps upon it, as Mr. Ray who has been upon it does testify. So that this is but a thin Tapering Hill, the sides of which are so very slight, that it discovers the Hallowness within, which is not to be perceived in any other Hills; and therefore ought not to be brought as a Precedent, to prove the like Production of them. But granting this your Hypothesis true of the successive rising of new and great Hills, and that subterraneous Accensions were of force sufficient to raise up the Alps and Pyrenees; this will by no means agree to common Experience and Reason. For if this be the way, by which the World maintains its Eternity, than all the Mountains in the World must millions of times have been washed down and blown up again into the form we see them, so that they can be none of them absolutely solid, but the Sides and Tops supported in manner of an Arch. Upon this it follows that the more Copped and Pyramidical any Hill is, the more Hollow it is, and the Sides the thinner; for if the accension be made very deep in the Earth and an elevation follows, it will make a large rise of mighty circumference and imperceptible ascent of the nature of an Island, rather than a Hill. So that every Hill so generated must be very hollow, and the Rains by long washing, will at last wash away the Top and discover the Hollow. If this Hypothesis were true, to be sure some time or other we should hear of Horses and Carriages breaking through the worn Crusts of some old mouldering Mountains, and being absorbed in their Hollows; if this were true, we should in many places of the World, see only the sides of the hollow Hills with their Tops dilapidated, which would appear nothing like a Hill, but like the ragged Walls of an old Roman Amphitheatre, open at Top, and enclosed round with its sides. Now because we see no such Appearances as these, in any part of the World, which would most certainly come to pass, if this Hypothesis was true; we must therefore in all reason conclude, the Hypothesis is false, and that Mountains do not in this manner decay, and rise as is here supposed.  Phil. 
Perhaps we may live in such Ages, when no such dilapidations happen; or the Hills might all or most rise together some few thousand years ago, and so may not be out of repair since.  Cred. 
And this is all but a perhaps. But we know the productions and Reparations of nature are not all together; Men, Beasts and Trees, are born, flourish and die one after another continually, and so 'tis incredible to think so many thousand Hills were produced so many thousand years ago, and never an one since. Had not a Man better acquiesce in the Mosaic Account, than to involve himself in an Hypothesis which is attended with all these absurdities, and must be defended with such mere possibilities? Credat Judaeus Apella.  Phil. 
I will think more of this. What is your next Argument?  Cred. 
My next Argument is drawn from the Increase of Mankind. If we look back into History, we shall find the World much thinner stocked with People than it is now. It appears by the Books of so late Writers as aHomer and Hesiod, that Mankind generally in those days led a sort of a Pastoral Life, and oftentimes changed their abode from one Country or one part of a Country to another; which could not so frequently happen, if the World had been as populous as it is now; for then every parcel of Land would be possessed by distinct Proprietors, who would not give place to any new comers. But in those dayd, Countries had so thin a stock of inhabitants, that there was Land sufficient, not only for single persons, but also for vast Colonies of Men; which before it was occupied by them lay pro derelicto, for any body that would take it, there is nothing more famous in American History, than these transmigrations of Inhabitants from one Country to another. Every one knows of Cadmus' Plantation in Boeotia, of his Brother Cilix his in Cilicia, of Dido's in Africa; of the Colonies settled by Evander, Aeneas, and Diomedes in Italy; to say nothing of our English Brute and the swarming Invasions of the Saxons and Danes, and a hundred other Instances. For there is hardly any Nation almost, but owes their Original to some Colony planted there, within the reach of History. We may consider further, what vast Woods have been destroyed to make room for Inhabitants, as the World has Increased; the vast Hercynian Wood in Germany which took up so great a part of that might Country, and that of Arduena in Gaul. To consider further, how mightily this Nation of ours has increased within a Century or two; notwithstanding the many Civil and External Wars, and those vast drains of People that have been made into our Plantations since the discovery of America; how the City of London has doubled itself within these 40 years notwithstanding the last great Plague, and how the Country has increased, tho' not in the like, yet in a considerable proportion. Now to lay all this together, it is no less than Demonstration, that there has been a gradual Increase of the World for these 3000 Years, that it is far more populous now, than it was then, and that nature inclines still more and more to Augment the stock; so that, tho' we should not grant the World a Being from all Eternity, but only suppose it was four or five thousand years before the Mosaical Account; Mankind by this time would have been perfectly wedged together, we should have swarmed every where with nothing but men, most other species would in all probability, have been eaten up for food, and Men themselves would have lived, like fishes, by snapping up one another.  Phil. 
By your good leave, Sir, I cannot be brought to believe all this. For nature does in a very prudent manner provide against the excessivest ock of Mankind, by cutting off the exuberant Increase by Wars, Famines, and especially Plagues, and for aught I know, by Deluges, such as they tell us of Deucalion and Noah. So that tho' Mankind does for some years seem to increase, yet it is always brought to the Level again, by some such mighty devastation. For a great Plague or a Famine might destroy as much in one year, as the World had increased in five thousand. And 'tis my Opinion, that the Eternity of the World is kept up by these successive Increases and Desolations. And there is very good Reason for this Opinion; because this gives a fair account of the use of Plagues and Famines in the World; for such prodigious corruptions in the Air do not seem to be the pure Errors and Blunders of nature; but to be wisely contrived to obviate the Inconveniencies, which would arise from an overgrown stock; besides such Methods of Nature would seem cruel and unmerciful, unless she had a design to serve, which was so very necessary which Imputation is fairly taken away by this Hypothesis.  Cred. 

The World never depopulated by Plagues.  But then your Hypothesis ought to be grounded upon some Reason or Experience, before you advance it; but it is so far from being founded on them, that it is contrary to the Reason and Experience of all Mankind. We have very good History of what has happened, for 3000 years' last, and yet we never heard of any Devastation like this. The great Plague of Athens, that unparallelled one in the sixth Century, which raged so all over the Roman Empire, for the space of fifty years, and that which happened in our City of London thirty years ago, were indeed very severe Judgements of God, and made great desolation among men; but they were far from making any such Epidemical Devastation, as is here supposed, that they did not so much as overpoise the gradual Increase of one Generation. The Ancient Histories are not so very punctual, to let us make a Demonstrative proof of this, but yet from these we may gather arguments enough, to convince you of the unreasonableness of this your supposition. For what signified that great Plague in one City, and a few neighbouring territories, to the mighty Increase of People, from Cadmus his time? We find by Thucydides his History, that the Athenians carried on the Pelponnesian War vigorously, for all that; 
Remarks upon the most remarkable Pestilences.  that they were far more annoyed by the yearly incursions of the Spartans' into Attica; and probably had as many Men lost, as by the Plague, which lasted but a short time; but their War continued seven and twenty years. We have no particular account, what number died of that Plague, or what proportion of the People it swept away. It is probable, the Army suffered most when it was infected; because of their hardfare and lodging, and lack of Attendance and Conveniencies. 
Thucrá. Hist. Li. 2.  And Thucydides gives us a particular account, what proportion of that died by the Infection. For the Army under Agnon and Theopompus, which took Infection at the Siege of Potidaea was in all 4300; whereof 1500 died of the Plague, which is but about a third part; and we cannot suppose, that of the Citizens, who had better care taken of them, there died half so many. So that Plague so rare as this was, and so remarkable to all Ages, cutting off no greater a number of Men, in so small a Circuit, could tend little to our Universal Devastation. Indeed the Plague in the sixth Century, which was called the Lues Inguinaria, or the swelling in the Groin, was more Epidemical and of longer Continuance, for it lasted fifty years, 
Evang. Hist. Eccl.  and swept away multitudes of People, all over the Roman Empire; and yet Mankind was very inconsiderably lessened by it, as appears by the swarming Incursions of Hunns, Lombard's, Saxons, Saracens, etc. in divers parts of the World, about that time. As for our late Plague in London, we are able to make more particular remarks upon that. There died in that dreadful Visitation according to the weekly accounts of the Plague, in the years 1665 and 1666. 70,544. Now the number of inhabitants at that time were about 510,000; for the common bills of mortality, at that time, were yearly 17000 (since, by the Increase of the City; they are come to three or four and twenty thousand) which multiplied by 30 years, the middle Computation of Life, gives the foresaid 510,000. of which the 70,544 which died, is about an eighth part. Now London has been a place, that has been mightily subject to Plagues, and if we consult our Histories we shall find one there once in about five and twenty years, tho' perhaps none so prodigiously sweeping as this last; but granting them all like this to take away the eighth part of the Inhabitants, once in 25 years; let us see what this will do, towards hindering the Increase of Mankind. 
Essay of the Multiplication of Mankind.  Sir William Petty has very handsomely proved, that Mankind doubles itself once in 360 years. Now 25 being found 14 times in 360 the City of London must every five and twenty years (the Period of the Plague) increase a 14th part; but then the Plague cuts off an eight part, which is a great deal more than it gains; but then that 14th part helps very considerably to make up the loss. But when on the other side, we consider the whole Country of England to contain ten times as many People as the City, the Increase of the whole Nation, in five and twenty years, will be a 14th part complete (as being free from those Plagues) and in 360 years will absolutely double; so that here will be this prodigious Increase of ten parts of the Nation, and the inconsiderable Decrease of but one, which is supplied by all the rest. So that the whole Nation lacks but 3/7 of 1/11 (which is not a twentieth part) of doubling in the 360 years. And pray now, Sir, what are the Plagues of London, to this Augmentation? What is this inconsiderable loss of one part, to the gain of all the rest? I am sure, Sir, if you were a Trader, you would look upon this as considerable improvement, to have your Gains twenty, and your Losses but one.  Phil. 
I am afraid, Sir, that the Defenders of your Faith, will not thank you, for this fine Arithmetical Argument; for if once you come to this, we Infidels shall be too many for you. For settle the Increase of Mankind how you will, make the Period of Doubling as large or as narrow as you please, you will find your Mosaical Account will stand miserably lose, upon that Bottom. Pray, Sir, for once, let me ask you a Question. How many Men do you probably conjecture, may there be now in the World? Guess how you will, more or less, and then you shall hear what I have to reply upon you.  Cred. 
The Ingenious Gentleman, 
The probable number of men in the World.  I before mentioned, reckons 230 millions; upon what grounds I know not, for he does not mention them; but I compute there are 3 times as many, and I think upon pretty good grounds. The yearly Bill of Mortality, now at London, are about four and twenty thousand, which multipled by 30, the middle term of life, gives 720 thousand, the number of the Inhabitans of the City; now London being by common Computation the eleventh part of the Nation, that 720 thousand, multiplied by 11, 

Lond. 720,000.  11.  720,000.  720,000. Eng. 7,920,000.  or,  8,000,000.  2. Brit. Isles 16,000,000.  60. The World 960,000,000.   giveth 7,920,000. for the Inhabitants of the whole Nation, which is nigh 8 Millions. Now I reckon moderately, that Scotland and Ireland, with all our adjacent Isles, are equal to England, so as to make in all, about 16 millions. The Inhabitants of our Isles may by a moderate computation be about a sixtieth part of the World; but Sir William Pettyt's Computation makes them a twentieth, which is monstrously unproportionable, as will appear to any one, that thinks but upon China and Tartary and the Empire of the Mogul; and I am afraid my number is something of the least. Now multiply the former 16 Millions by 60, and the Inhabitants of the World will be 960 millions; which is just three times as much as Sir Will. Pettyt's 320 millions.  Phil. 
Indeed, Sir, I think your computation may be pretty exact; and now be pleased to see, what horrible work this Computation and your doubling Period will make together. Suppose you go backwards nine of your Periods of 360 years reckoning this year to be in the World 960 millions; 360 years before this viz. A. D. 1335. 480 millions; 360 years before that A. D. 975. 240 millions, etc. the ninth Period will fall upon the year of the World 1404. not long before the return of the Children of Israel from Egypt, and then there were in the World according to this Computation, 3 millions seven hundred and fifty thousand, which does but very ill agree with your Book of Numbers. For Moses Numb. 12.32. reckons of all the Tribes of the Children of Israel, that were able to bear Arms, 603, 550, to which if we add the old Men, the Women and the Children, they will treble the number, so as to make 1, 810, 650; which is almost half the number of the People then in the World, viz. 3, 750. 000, which it is pretty strange, that a parcel of Fugitives out of Egypt, so inconsiderable a Corner of the World, should do. Besides, let us run back two Periods farther, and then we shall come within twenty or thirty years of the Deluge, so that then there must be in the World nine hundred thirty seven thousand five hundred; a good round Company of Noah's Grandchilds, all to be born in nine and twenty years at the most. I will not tease you any further, to find out Armies for Belus and Ninus, so nigh the Flood; for upon this computation, I am confident you will be hard put to it, to do it for Xerxes and Hannibal.  Cred. 
Sir, 
The World increased more formerly than now.  You go now upon a very great mistake, as if I asserted that 360 years was the common Period of Doubling; for the increase of the World, for all Ages of it. It is plain from History, that the increase proceeds slower now than it did formerly. Greece increased more between the Trojan and the Peloponnesian War, than it has done since. So did Italy from Aeneas his time to the first Consuls. And if profane History would suffer us to go much higher, we should find the increase still the quicker. 360 years, I believe is the term of doubling now, it was formerly but half the time, and at first not a quarter. Indeed it is very difficult to make an exact Table of this, and accurately to fix each different Period of Doubling; but Sir Will. Pettyt has attempted it in the aforesaid Essay, and for your further satisfaction thither I refer you.  Phil. 
Nay pray, good Sir, excuse me now. This seems to be all Banter, a perfect Popish Nose of Wax. You make your Periods as you please, and Mankind must either double or triple as you have a mind to it, to serve your Hypothesis. Sir, I believe the Generation, like the Age and stature of Mankind, is governed by a steady unalterable Law, and is not to be turned about to go either fast or slow like a Dukes-Place Clock. I find all of you when you have but a new Hypothesis to advance, will take Nature as well as your Bibles by the Nose, and lead them which way you please, to serve a turn.  Cred. 
This is not, Sir, an empty Hypothesis, but a necessary Truth to confute the Calumnies of Unbelievers against the Mosaical Books; 
This proved by Scripture and Reason.  which is not only consonant to the tenor of those Writings themselves, but to experience and good reasoning. There was a peculiar Blessing of Increase given to those first Ages after the Flood. God Blessed Noah and his Sons, and said unto them be Fruitful and Multiply, and Replenish the Earth, Gen. 9.1. And therefore we Christians, who acknowledge the Authority of Divine Writ, are bound to believe this blessing took effect. Besides this is agreeable to all the reason in the World, that the first Ages should be most prolific, the World being to be stocked by a few Persons: For the World lay waste, till there were a considerable number of Inhabitants born to cultivate it; Men wanted sufficient Associates and Assistants, and the benefit of mutual kindnesses and Artifices; but when Mankind arrived to a competent frequency, when the Earth was divided into distinct Proprieties, and Men were of sufficient number to be serviceable to one another, there was not such need of a multitudinous Production as was before; and therefore, as the World was more Peopled, the Increase did proportionably slacken. Besides if the World had kept on its former Increase without abatement, the Earth must have been over-stocked before this time, or at least before the time which God had allotted for it. Your instances of Famines, Wars, and Deluges are only assertions without proof, and therefore I shall forbear speaking to them; especially since we find they have done no great mischief to the increase of Mankind, as far as History goes.  Phil. 
Have you any thing further to urge upon this point?  Cred. 

Arg. IU. From History and the late Invention of Arts.  Yes, Sir, The late Invention of Arts, and the shortness of the History of the World, are invincible Arguments against its Eternity. If the World was from Eternity, you must needs make them an Eternal Race of the most stupid Blockheads imaginable, without the least dram almost of Wit, or Contrivance, or indeed common Sense; and that none of these qualifications ever were known in the World, till within these two or three thousand years last passed. For there is hardly any useful Art or Science, but we know its Original and Progress, and its first Inventor, or at least its first Introducer into such a part of the World; which were absolutely impossible to do, if there had been Eternal Inhabitants there. For who can imagine, that amongst an infinity of Rational Men, after so many Millions of hints and opportunities, none should, before these last Ages, have lighted upon those ordinary Arts, which it was so uneasy to be without, and were so easy and apposite to be found? Can the World, or at least Greece, be from all Eternity without the common Tools of the Carpenter, the Saw, the Augre, the Plain, and the Plumb Line, till Daedalus had the happiness to invent them? Did Mankind for ever live upon Roots and Herbs, till Ceres, or (which is all one) the Egyptian Isis found out the sowing Wheat and Barley! How could they be strangers to such easy Inventions as those of Wine and Honey, till Bacchus showed them to the World? Should no one know how to cut and polish Stone till Cadmus taught it? How should the Art of Dialling be so late found out, to mention nothing of Clocks and Watches? The Romans had not so much as a Sundial, till the second Punic War, and when they had one, they were forced to make use of that alone, 
Plin. Nat. Hist. Lib. 7. Cap. 60.  being placed in the Forum, for a hundred and one years; although Pliny tells us it never went right all the time. What a sad shift was poor King Alfred put to, to measure the Hours by the burning of a Candle marked into twelve parts; 
Spelman in Vit. Alfr.  and to be forced to invent the Lantern to secure it from the Wind of the Windows, because Glazing was not then in use? I shall not trouble you with the Invention of Guns, Printing, etc. for to be short, if the World be Eternal, as you pretend, to be sure most of our Arts would have an higher Original than you see they have; but it is monstrously incredible, that Mankind should have continued so many millions of Ages, and never found out any thing useful to themselves, but only in these latter times.  
Then as to the second part of the Argument, who can imagine, if the World was Eternal, that we should have no History above 3000 years standing; but that all the remarkable Acts of so many millions of Ages should be buried in Eternal Oblivion, and not the least memoirs in History concerning them? What unhappy Men were those Eternal Inhabitants, to have all their actions forgot, whilst History is crowed up with so many minute inconfiderable Actions, which have been done in a few Ages last passed? How should it come to pass, that only in so many Myriad of Ages, Greece itself should have afforded us nothing of History but a little Poetic Banter, till the time of Herodotus and Thucydides? That Egypt, the School of Greece, not long before knew nothing, but a silly Hyperbolical Chronology, and some Mystical Hieroglyphics; This is so strangely inconsistent with your pretended Eternity of the World, that it affords most evident marks of the lateness of it.  Phil. 
Your Argument from the late Invention of vulgar Arts is not so conclusive as you would make it: For those Arts which are supposed to be invented in these last times, were in all probability only revived after a long time of disuse, or they might have several times been lost, and as many times re-invented. Just as Painting in Glass has been lost for an Age or two, and now is by some Artificers, as is reported, regained in its ancient perfection. So we have lost the Art of making Napkins which would burn off their Soil in the Fire instead of washing, made of the famous Asbestos, mentioned by Pliny. Lib. 19 Cap. 1. We know nothing of the Art of making Glass malleable, which was invented in Tiberius his time, mentioned by the same Author, Lib. 36. Cap. 26. Therefore when they tell us of the Inventions of Cadmus, and Ceres, and Daedalus, we must esteem them only, as the Retrievers of some former, although long disused Invention. As for your History-Argument, it is true Lucretius has bestowed some handsome Verses upon it; 
Praeterea si nulla fuit genitalis origo  
Terrarum & Coeli, semperque aeterna fuere;  
Curio supra bellum Thebanum & funera Trojae  
Non alias alij quoque res cecinere Poetae? etc.  
If of the World there's no Original,  
And if there always was this spacious All;  
How should we never hear a Poet's Lyre  
Beyond the War of Thebes and Trojan Fire?  
What has of such renowned Acts became  
Ne'er to be entered in the Books of Fame?   
But then this is a better Argument for a Poet than a Controvertist. Because we know well enough the reason, why History describes but a few of those innumerable Ages to us; which is, because the use of Letters is but a late Invention, and therefore it is no wonder, that Men should not write Histories when they could not write at all. Had but the Inhabitants of the World, in those last Ages, been so happy as to have found out writing before, the World would have been filled with History and Chronology; we should have had Aeras upon Aeras for thousands of years, even beyond your Julian period; nay your whole Epoch ab An. Creationis, would not have taken up so great a part of that long account, as that from the late great Frost does in the Almanac Chronology.  Cred. 
I will agree with you, Sir, 
No considerable Arts lost and revived again.  that several Arts in the World have been lost, and others after a time again revived, but then these have been such Arts as have been more curious than useful, and have rather been Ornamental, than Beneficial to Mankind; and there has been some good reason to be given of their disuse, either by their growing out of fashion, or by some more easy and commodious Invention. Thus the Art of Glass-painting was lost, about the time of the Reformation, when the Images of Saints were not so highly esteemed, and Churches began to be more gravely adorned. Thus the use of Archers in an Army has been laid aside, since the Invention of Pikes and Guns. But who can imagine, that the Art of the Smith and the Carpenter should ever be forgot after the first Invention; unless we could suppose that Houses and all sorts of Utensils and Conveniences should grow out of fashion, and it should be the mode for Men to live like Colts and Wild Asses. Unless Men could be supposed, to forget the use of Eating and Drinking, I am confident they could never forget the Art of Ploughing and Sowing, and Pressing the Grape.  
But as for what you say, that the late Invention of Letters was the occasion of the shortness of History, 
Mankind could not, as the Theists pretend, have been without Writing from all Eternity.  and the little account we have of your supposed Infinite Time, I desire you would be pleased to take this Answer. I look upon the Invention of Writing, or Letters, to be one of the most happy and noble Inventions which ever the World was blessed with; and the Person, who ever he were, that first lighted upon this admirable Art, I look upon, to have been a Man of a peculiar Genius and Wit, and to have made more Observation than all that had gone before him in some Ages. But then I look upon it next to impossible, that Mankind should have continued from all Eternity without the Invention of Writing, be it never so happy, or if you please so fortuitous an Invention: For if the World be Eternal, all things must be as they are now, I mean Mankind must have been as sagacious an Animal as it is now, and as capable of finding out and improving Inventions; and if so, there being in an Eternity of time all manner of possible combinations of matter, and casual hit of Accidents which are the ground of all Inventions, no Art could possibly be uninvented in all that time. So that if the Art of Writing were never so casual an Invention, there must millions of millions of hints be given for it, in all that time; but to say Mankind, all that while, never took notice of them, is to make them, instead of the most sagacious, to be the most stupid Animals in the World. Which you will better assent to, when you consider that the Invention of Letters is not so much a fortuitous hit, as a Natural Deduction of good Reasoning. And, if you please, I will enlarge upon this something more than ordinary; because I find, your Theists use to be mighty triumphant upon this Argument.  
I take Writing only to be a species of Painting or Imagery; and the Greeks very well express them both by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
The progress in the Art of Writing, and the no Extraordinary Difficulty in its Invention.  For as Painting or Imagery is a Representation of Shapes and Actions, so Writing is a Representation of Words. Now these things are all that are naturally to be represented of Mankind, by outward Delineations, and the latter still is more difficult than the former. The first Essay of Imagery was in all probability the simple shapes of Men, Beasts, Flowers, etc. by a rude and imperfect Delineation, or Sculpture, either in a Plane, which the Greeks call Sciography, or a solid which we generally call Carving. The next Progress was to represent the Actions of the Body, as a Man running, Striking, Walking, Kneeling, and of this, among the Greeks, Daedalus is reported to be the Author; for before him Statues were made with Hands falling down by the sides, with Eyes shut, with Legs and Feet joined in the nature of Pillars rather than Statues. Hence came the Aera spirantia, and the Animare figuras, etc. in the Poet's Descriptions of Daedalus. The next and most sublime Progress in the Graphical Art was to represent Words, which we call Writing. And this sort of representation was much more difficult than the rest. For this was a Representation of an Image, or the Picture of another Representative; for as Letters are the Representation of Words, so Words are the Representation of Thoughts; and therefore it was a matter of greater difficulty, and required more niceness and exactness to carry on the Imagery upon the Reflection. But this was not all, Shapes and Actions were to be seen by the Eye, and therefore their Images being painted were easily discerned by the same faculty. But words were things to be heard and not to be seen, and therefore it was far more difficult to paint them. They therefore, that made the first Essay to paint or write words, must needs find it a very discouraging Task, to find figures or marks for so many thousand words in a Language; that would be too hard for Invention, and too troublesome for Memory. The Ingenious therefore first found out the Heroglyphical way of writing, which did represent whole sentences, as a Crowned Lion did represent a Bold, strong Victorious King, a Fox a Cunning one; an Ass did denote servitude, and a Sheep folly. To these when there were added some few notes for common terms of acting, such as giving, taking, buying, selling, etc. and this was the sum and acme of the Hieraglyphical way of writing. Now this was a way of writing very troublesome and uncertain; for the figures and marks must needs be very numerous, and yet not represent one quarter of the words in a Language, and therefore consequently very difficult to be unlocked. The only way therefore to get rid of this trouble, was to invent a few marks which might represent all manner of words. And this was not very difficult to be attempted by those, who had made any Observation upon the nature of words. For such could easily determine, that although words were never so numerous, yet the Elementary parts which did compose them were but few. They might soon perceive that all words were but four or five sounds diversely modulated by the Organs of the Mouth and Throat. The five Vowels are far easier to be distinguished than the notes in Music; and the Consonants are not much more difficult. In the word A-mo, any one way perceive the first Syllable is only a clear plain sound of the Breath through the Mouth; and more is only a hollow sound modulated by the Lips. Amor is a sound made by the same Organs, with a regurgitation of the last Vocal sound to the Throat. From hence an ingenious person may observe, that by the modulation of these sounds fourteen or fifteen ways, by the repeating or transposing them all manner of words are made. And then he may very well conclude (when he has sufficiently distinguished these sounds and modulations) that by applying particular Marks or [Letters] to each of these, he may represent all manner of words, or write what he will with those few Characters. And I doubt not but this, or something very like, was the reasoning of that admirable Person who first thought upon this noble Art. Indeed it is far easier to run along with this thread of Thought after the Invention than before; but to say that amongst so many Millions of Ingenious Men in millions of Ages, no one should ever have reasoned after this manner, or have prosecuted this hint successfully, is a thing so very incredible, that we Christians have not Faith to believe. And this is all I have to say to you about the Eternity of the World; so that now I am ready for your other exceptions, if you have no more to reply upon this Head.  Phil. 
I think we have bandied this subject about long enough, and I thank you kindly for your Arguments, which as you have urged them have had that force upon me as to make me abandon my former Opinion of the World's Eternity, which indeed I never before thought so absurd as you have made it. But still, my dear Friend, I have some dregs of a Doubt behind, whether it may not be many thousand of years, or perhaps Ages, older than you look upon it to be, if you go upon the Mosaical account. For if we look into the ancient computations of other Nations besides the Jews, we shall find prodigious accounts of Time. For Scaliger (in his Book de Emendat. Temp.) says, that then (A. D. 1594. 
O. R. p. 226. ) the Chineses reckoned the World to have been eight hundred eightscore thousand and seventy three years old, and the 
* Id. 182.  Bramins of Gauzrat said, that in the years 1639. there had passed 326669 Ages. To this if we add the excessive computations of the Egyptians and Chaldaeans, and the Inscriptions of Ancient Marbles in some ancient Language which is now forgot, we cannot in any probability allot the World so late an Original as the Mosaical account does.  Cred. 
The Argument I urged before from the Increase of Mankind is good against these excessive Computations, as it is against the Eternity of the World; 
Excessive Computations no Argument of the Eternity of the World.  for granting the World so old as is here pretended, it would have been overpeopled long before now, as much as it would have been in an Eternity. So that if you allow the Cogency of the Argument in one case, you must likewise in the other. But besides, the pure assertions of Nations as to their Antiquity, without good History to support them, have always been very little regarded; because it has been a constant Vanity in all Nations, to appear as old as they could. Hence the Inhabitants of every Country endeavoured what they were able, to be esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indigenae, born out of their own ground, or perpetual Inhabitants of it. And with how great a Zeal Nations have carried this concern, we may make an Estimate of, by that pleasant contention of the Scythians and Egyptians in the second Book of Justin. As for the Egyptians, Diodorus Siculus who lived among them, interprets their vast accounts of time by Months or Lunary years; and so may the other be esteemed if there be any truth in them at all. As for your old Inscriptions, such as that which they tell us is to be seen at Caxumo in Aethiopia; that is easily to be accounted for, by the great alteration of Kingdoms and Languages. For if the Romans after a few hundred years could hardly read or understand their old Laws, what more can we expect from a few Barbarous Africans, shut up from the rest of the World?   

Of the Mosaic Account of the Creation.  Phil. 
Well, Sir, I shall trouble you no more upon this Head, which has already taken up too great a part of our Discourse. But I would fain see how you will get over our Objections against the Mosaic History of the Creation, which your Bibles begin with. For it seems to me to be such a Fardel of Unphilosophical contradictious talk, as is fit only for the Chimney Corner, instead of Witches and Apparitions. One would expect that when an inspired Prophet should go about to give an account of the Origin of things, he should do it in a noble Philosophic manner, as Virgil tells us of old Silenus.  

— Vti per inane coacta  
Semina terrarum, animaeque marisque fuissent  
Et liquidi simul ignis: ut his exordia primis  
Omnia, & ipse tener mundi concreverit orbis, etc. Ecl. 6.   

— Shows how the Earth  
By Atoms meeting in the Void had Birth:  
What formed the Soul, and what the Ocean made,  
And how the liquid Flames a Being had:  
From whence all these their native Forms had boar;  
And how the tender Globe was crusted over.   
But instead of this he only Magisterially tells us things were so, which any thinking Man, that does not suffer every thing to pass upon him, is assured of the contrary of. For though your Arguments have convinced me of a temporary production of the World, and that God some time or other, perhaps not many thousand years ago, did make it; yet I can never believe it was made in that sort he would have it. For he makes the whole Universe as well as this World, or Earth of ours, to be made at the same time; as if those prodigious Bodies of the Stars, and all the innumerable furniture of those infinite spaces, were made only to spangle round this little speck of ours. He gins with a in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth; as if the Heaven bore any proportion to this little poor Earthy Atom. And again God made two great Lights, etc. he made the Stars also; bringing in those innumerable prodigious Bodies, with a poor also, which are millions of times bigger than all the rest of the Creation. No, Sir, I have much more august conceptions of the Deity than to think he made such numerous and glorious Productions to dance attendance to such a puny point. For I look upon God to be a Being of infinite Power and Goodness (especially) as well as Duration; and therefore I cannot suppose he should lie snug within his own happiness from all Eternity, and never display a vein of his good nature and communicative kindness till within a few thousand years last passed. That Men should have such abject and narrow-spirited thoughts of so diffusive a goodness, raises in me such a transport of Passion or Zeal, or what you please to call it; that the names of Atheistical, Heretical, Papistical, and a hundred others, which your Folks are scared at, don't seem to me half so impious and reflecting upon the Deity as this one Heterodoxy.  Cred. 

Answer to the Argument from the late Communication of the Divine Goodness.  I am glad to find you have this concern for God-Almighty's honour, as to appear thus Zealous for it. But you should not be too outrageous at the Sacred Prophet, for a matter it is hard to prove him guilty of. For I look upon this his History of the Creation, to be the most noble piece of Philosophy, which ever the World was acquainted with, and whenever there appear any blemishes in it, it is only the sully it has contracted from bad Interpreters. I confess the generality of Divines, both Ancient and Modern, have thought the whole Universe was created in the Hexaemeron; because God is said to have then created the Heaven and the Earth, and because the Stars are mentioned in the fourth days work. This Opinion has given indeed mighty advantage to Atheistical Men, especially those who had any taste of Philosophy, and had considered what a little pittance of the Universe this Earth of ours was, for the sake of which all things seemed, by this account, to be framed at the same time; nay this point is supposed, to have busied the Deity, more than all the rest. Now I shall take off the force of this prejudice when I shall have proved, that Moses does not assert the Stars to be any part of the Adamical Creation; but that in all probability that Creation was not extended beyond the Sun and the Planets. 
The fixed Stars probably no part of the Mosaic Creation.  As for the first Verse in Genesis, where God is said to have created the Heaven and the Earth; it is plain that frequently in Scripture Language the word Heaven does not signify more than the Regions of the Air, as when in the 20. v. of this Chapter, the Fowls are said to fly in the Firmament of Heaven. The Windows of Heaven, Gen. 7.11. The Bottles of Heaven, Job 38.37. (i. e.) the Clouds; The hoary frost of Heaven, Job 38.29. and in a hundred other places; where Heaven can be extended no further than the Air. So that when God is said here to create the Heaven and the Earth, we cannot from hence conclude, that he then created every thing in the vast extramundane spaces; though the vulgar do sometimes call all this, by the name of Heaven. But this is not the knot of the Difficulty, the greatest stress of the Objection lies upon the 16 Verse, where, among other parts of the Creation, God is positively said to have made the Stars. And God made two great Lights the greater Light to rule the Day, and the lesser Light to rule the Night: he made the Stars also, 
Gen. 3.16. explained  Gen. 3.16. But the Text does not necessarily denote so much. Our English Translation interpolates the words [he made] which are not in the original; for the simple Translation of the Hebrew is only this. And God made two great Lights, the greater Light to rule the Day, and the lesser Light to rule the Night, and the Stars. So that here the word Stars seems to come in so very abruptly, and by the buy, that one would be apt to think, that it was clapped in by somebody else, after Moses his time, who had a mind to be mending his Hypothesis; or else was added as a marginal note by some Rabbi, and so at length crept into the Text, as Father Simon has proved several others have done. And there might be the more countenance for this, when the Jews found themselves, to have been so horribly plagued, for worshipping the Host of Heaven for Gods, when they were Creatures, tho' at the same time they could not find any account of their Creation among the other parts of the Universe. This might be to afford a Covert to such Idolaters, who might from hence infer the Stars to be uncreated Being's, which was fairly taken way, by adding such a Gloss in the Margin, or by taking it from thence into the Text, where the Transcriber could not think it reasonable it should be omitted. Now this is no very improbable account, to any one who considers, how much by head and shoulders and the Stars comes in; if we take the common Interpretation of the words. But I think we may give a better Interpretation of them, and that is this. The words and the Stars are not to be referred to the word made in the beginning of the Verse, but to the word Rule which immediately goes before, and are to be coupled not with the Sun and Moon, but the night. The lesser Light to rule the Night and the Stars. Whereby is denoted the peculiar usefulness and predominancy of the Moon, above all other Stars and Planets, in this Earth of ours. For this shines out when they do but twinkle, and affords a mighty influence in the production and growth of all Vegetables. So that upon this account, she may very well be called the Ruler of the Night, and as it were Prince among the Stars. For as it appears to us, it is a glorious Planet and a Princely Light; and it is no absurdity in the divine Legislator (as some will have it) in the literal sense to call it a Great Light. 
O. R.  For the Admired Plato himself goes a pitch or two higher, and calls these two Luminaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Great Gods, the Sun and the Moon, Plat. Leg. Dial. 7. Now this notion of the words seems more rational, because the Moon's being Prince or Ruler among the Stars, or Governess of the night is the common language of all people, and what every old Author almost is full of. Tully says, she was called Diana, because she made a Day of the Night, whilst all the other Stars did not make a Twilight, Cic. de nat. Deorum. Lib. 2. Aeschylus calls her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Ancient, the Governess, or Mother of the Stars. Aesc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apollinaris upon the Psalms calls her, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Queen of the nightly Paths. And Synesius in his Hymns styles her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Princess of the Nocturnal Gods. Which is agreeable to Horace his Lucidum coeli decus— 
Syderum regina bicornis audi  
Roma puellas. Hor. Ep. 18.  Virgil calls her likewise Astrorum Decus, The Ornament of the Stars. Virg. Aen. 6. Seneca in his Hippolytus terms her  
— obscuri Dea clara mundi, The bright Goddess of the obscure World; and presently after, Clarumque Coeli sydus & noctis Decus, The bright Star of Heaven, and the Grace of the night. Statius terms her, 
— arcanae moderatrix Cynthia noctis.  
— The Moon the Governess of silent Night. Theb. Lib. 10.   
So Manilius Astr. Lib. 2.  

— Phoeben imitantem lumina Fratris,  
Semper, & in proprio regnantem tempore noctis.   

— Phoebe that imitates her Brother's light,  
And reigns with her own Sceptre of the Night.   
Now if we lay all this together, we can hardly suppose any other sense of the Words, than that God made this lesser Light, the Moon, to be to us the Governess of the night, and the Chief or Principal of the Stars. So that, Sir, now you see, here is no complaint to be made of the narrow spirited doctrine of us Friends to Moses, and the Deity's chewing the Cud upon his own happiness from all Eternity, as a Friend of yours unmannerly expresses it. 
O. R.  You see now you are not stinted for Worlds, for the communication of the Divine Goodness; so that you may make half a dozen out of every fixed Star if you think fit.  Phil. 
I thank you kindly for your offer, but I never design to set up for a World-maker, for it is a very difficult Trade; and I am sorry there are so many Pretenders to it. But by the way I am afraid that this little piece of Criticism of yours will not hold Water. I do not pretend to be any great Critic in the Hebrew Tongue, but I think I am one good enough to understand that Text you have mentioned. The words you have descanted upon are Veeths hacocavim. Now I suppose any one that understands Hebrew, knows that the particle Eth is a sign of the Accusative Case, and  Eth hacocavim must follow the Verb jangash, made, which goes before, and not have any Relation to lemem sheleth, which is a substantive and signifies to the dominion, Now the construction is very natural lemem sheleth halailah; for the dominion of the night; but the particle Eth makes the word Hacocavim quite of another case, so that it must be referred to another part of the sentence; which can be no other than the verb [made]; therefore the Stars are here said to be made and not to be governed, as you would have them.  Cred. 
Well, Sir, 
Objection against this Interpretation answered.  I see you have raised the only Objection which I was ware of. And I will endeavour toward off the blow as well as I can. It is very true that the particule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth most commonly signify the person suffering, or is a sign of the Accusative Case, but not always, for it is very often used otherways. Sometimes the word Eth is perfectly redundant and signifies just nothing: As, Jer. 2.37. you shall go (meeth-ze) from hence, which is the same as mizze. Sometimes it is joined with the Nominative Case, as Jer. 38.4. Let (eth-haish) that man die. Sometimes it has the signification of the Preposition To. As Job 26.4. Eth-mi, To whom hast thou uttered words? Sometimes it signifies From, as Gen. 44.4. They were gone (eth-hangir) out of (or from) the City. Often-times is signifies with, as 2 Sam. 15.11. Eth-Absalom, With Absalon there went two hundred men. So Is. 7.17. With the King of Assyria. And Is. 23.17. Shall commit fornication [eth] with all the Kingdoms of the World. And in this last sense I take the Particle to be used, in the Text. For the government of the night [veeth-hacocavim] together with the Stars; or and the Stars. Which answers exactly to the like Construction, Neh. 9.33. We have done wickedly (veeth-malachenu) together with our Kings, or, We and our Kings have done wickedly. This seems to me to be an Interpretation natural enough, and I doubt not but ancient Interpreters would have made use of it, had they been acquainted with those improvements which have been made by modern Philosophy.  Phil. 
I find, Credentius, you entertain some nostrums in Divinity, as well as I do. Well! I would not be in your Coat for a good deal, if you should vent these notions to the World. And yet I could not choose but laugh, to see what a pack of Systematical Divines you would have about your Ears. They would worry you into as Arrant an Atheist, as they do me. The Stars no part of the Mosaic Creation! Bless us! here is Divinity enough to raise up the Ghosts of old Zanchy, and John Calvin. 'Tis well, Credentius, you live in a Philosophic Age, and a time of Free-Thinking, or else we should see you in as sorrowful a pickle, as the poor Bishop that was a Martyr for asserting the Antipodes.  Cred. 
Pray, Sir, 
This Interpretation not prejudicial to Religion.  leave off your Banter, we may be pleasant upon a more proper Subject. I do assure you, Sir, I abhor advancing any notion, which should do the least disservice to Religion, or which should turn to the least diminution of God's Glory; but I think this interpretation does neither, but rather the contrary: if it does not please others I cannot help it, and if they will give me better information, I am ready with all humbleness and submission to receive it.  Phil. 
The next thing which dislikes me in the Mosaical account, is this. That he makes Light before the Sun, which is a monstrous absurdity: For the first thing which he makes the Deity do, is to give out his Fiat for Light; upon this notable contrivance 
* O. R. p. 68  I'll warrant you, for fear God should be thought to work great part of the Week in the dark. But how unintelligible a thing is this Light without a Sun. We may as well talk of Colours without Light, of Shadow without a Body, of an Accident without a Subject, of an Effect without a Cause, as to make Light in the World without a Sun. But to what manner of purpose should it be? Certainly God knew how to work without a Candle, and there was nothing else made (according to this account) to see by it. Pray, Sir, unriddle this for me; for I assure you this is one of the greatest prejudices I have against the Mosaic account.  Cred. 

Light before the Sun is the Clearing up of the Chaos.  Indeed this difficulty has horribly puzzled Interpreters. The Rabbins who are used to be very fruitful for Invention, tell us the Sun was created the first day, when the Light is said to be Created, but is mentioned by way of repetition in the fourth Day. Others will have this Light to be a Lucid Cloud, like that which went before the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, and moved round the World like the Sun, till that was created. But our Prophet need not be holp off with such silly shifts as these: You know that Darkness has been in all Ages the chief Idea Men have had of a Chaos. Hence Nox, and Erebus, and Tartarus have been the principal part of the Description of it in the Poets and Philosophers. Therefore it should seem very agreeable to the Reason of Mankind, that the first remove from the Chaos should be a tendency to Light. Either all Mankind have been out in their notion of a Chaos, or the Mosaic Hypothesis is very well contrived, to be so conformable to it. But by Light, as it was produced the first day, must not be understood the darting of Rays from a luminous Body, or the trepidation of the Intermediate Corpuscles between that and the Eye, which is the actual Light we enjoy now: But only the forming and adapting such tenuious parts in such a figure and manner, as when such a Luminous Body should be afterwards created they should convey Light to us, or raise that agreeable sensation in us. Which I will the better explain to you by this Scheme, which I desire your favour to look upon. It is my Opinion that upon the first formation, the whole space of the Magnus Orbis, which is all that space which is comprehended within the circle which Saturn describes about the Sun, was the Bounds of the Chaos. For the other Planets, Jupiter, Mars, etc. which are contained within this Circle, bear so many similitudes and relations one to the other and to our Earth, have the same common Luminary, the same Centre, alike form and gravity, with many other Affections, which may be demonstrated of them, that to any reasonable Man they seem to be the production of one Creation. If the Sun was not created till your Creation, as Moses says positively it was not, we cannot imagine that all the other Planets, till that was created, went rolling all in the dark round an imaginary point, to no purpose. We must therefore assign them all one common time of Creation, which must be the Mosaical. The Chaos therefore must be of equal extent to the Creation, that is to take up all the Room within the aforesaid Circle. Now it seems most agreeable to Scripture, that this Chaolick matter was then first created out of nothing by God, Heb. 11.3. compared with 2 Mac. 7.28. That Original Creation therefore is represented in the Figure I. Wherein is comprehended all the Matter in this solar World unformed and indigested, without Light or Motion. Either the matter was not broke and attenuated, into those fine Corpuscles, which compose Light, or else they lay irretited and entangled with the parts of dissimilar gross Substances mixed with them; so as to make the whole Expansion resemble a Great Dark Muddy Globe. So that by its opakeness it hindered the Light of the Stars, or any Luminous Body, from passing through it. In this Condition, I suppose, the Chaos to have stood, when the Fiat for Light was given. And then when the Divine Spirit, or the Wind of God made its Incubation, or motion upon the Abyss, all the confused stagnating principles of matter began to range into order and form; the dull, heavy terreous parts, which overclouded the Expansum, had their summons to retire to their respective Centres; and they presently obeyed the Almighty Orders, and part thereof subside to the Centre of the Earth, some to Jupiter, some to Saturn, and others to Venus, etc. till the Globes of those respective Planets were completed; and till the whole Expansum was cleared of these gross and opake parts of matter, and of a muddy dark Chaos, became a Tenuious, Pellucid Globe. This was the first Days Work, and the Effect of that Divine Effate, Let there be Light. Vid. Fig. II.  Phil. 
Ay, this is Divinity which agrees with my Tooth. Do but go on at this rate, and I, like King Agrippa, shall be half a Christian at first dash. I wish you could help out Moses at other straits, as well as you have done here. But what say you to his Waters above the Firmament? 
O. R.  Is not this a pretty imaginary Utopian Ocean? There is as much of the Philosophy of a Countryman in this as you would expect to see. Poor Prophet! he understood nothing of the elevation of vapours from the Sea, and the Condensation of them into Rains; but very artificially makes a Repository-Pond for them, (like the New-River Water) in the Heavens, from whence the divers Inhabitants of the World may be supplied with Rain, according as God pleases. Doth this look like Inspiration, or indeed like common sense. And yet we find a whole day attributed, to this Imaginary work. Indeed it sometimes makes me laugh to think, how the poor Interpreters sweat, under this Difficulty. Some place these super-celestial Waters only in the Clouds, but then they know not how to get them thither; for as yet there was no Sun to exhale them. Others carry them as high as the Celestial Orbs, and make use of them there, for refrigerating the heat of the Sun, and Moon; for fear they should melt the solid Orbs. Thus Theodoret and Procopius, two very learned Men. Bede will have them there, to keep the heat of the Sun from being too intense, and scorching us too much. But Cornelius à Lapide, has found out a most admirable use for them, which is this; to make Canals and Waterworks, for the Blessed in the Empyrean Heaven.  aquis hisce Chrystallinis & variegatis oculos eorum pascat; aquae enim omnis formae, decoris, coloris & ornatus sunt capacissimae, ut patet in Iride. And for this he quotes the Revelations, shall lead them unto living fountains of Water, Rev. 7.17. And he showed me a pure River of Water of life, clear us Crystal, Rev. 22.1. Have not these Men, think you, pleasant work of it, to be making such ropes of sand, and to go about to interpret that, which can have no tolerable sense put upon it?  Cred. 
Your prejudices transport you too far, Philologus; and Gentlemen of your persuasion are too hasty, when they go about to dispute that out of the World which they cannot assign the use of. 
Waters above the Firmament the Waters of the Planets.  There are a many Plants and Drugs in the World, which we do not know the use of, and yet it would be a madness to deny their Existence. If by God's word we are assured, there are such Celestial Waters, it is to no purpose to dispute the use of them; for tho' we do not know it, God may. But perhaps there may be another sense of the words, than what is usually apprehended. And God made the Firmament, and divided the Waters, which were under the Firmament from the Waters which were above the Firmament. v. 7. Now by the Firmament is generally, and I think very well understood, the Atmosphere of the Earth, or the Regions of the Air. All the difficulty is, to find out what these Celestial Water or Waters above the Air be. Now there is no need to seek out Pools in the Empyreum; if we can find Waters nigher home. Then, tell me, Sir, why may not the Waters which belong to each Planet be these Waters above the Firmament? That the Moon has Waters analogous to our Seas is demonstrable from the divers Reflection of Light from her different parts, nay from the very shape of Seas and Islands we observe in her: and that the other Planets have the same, is highly probable from their similitude to one another. Now I suppose, that before the Work of the second Day, all this Planetary Water lay undistinguishably dispersed throughout the Expansum, and together with the Aether, made up that Pellucid Globe; which was left by the secession of the opake and terreous parts, that subsided to the seven respective Centres and form the Bodies of the Planets. The work therefore of the second Day was, to make a Division of these Waters, to distribute them in proper proportions to the several Planets: and in obedience to God's command, all the Aqueous parts of the Great Pellucid subsided towards the Centres of the Planets, and were circumfused about their Globes. Thus the Expansum was cleared off a second time by the subsidency of the Aqueous and uninflammable parts; and left the Pellucid to consist of a still finer and purer substance, as you see described in the Figure III. Now this subsidency of the Aqueous parts to the different Centres Moses calls dividing the Waters under the Firmament from the Waters which are above the Firmament. The Waters under the Firmament are the Waters of the Earth, the Waters above the Firmament are those of the Moon and other Planets, which since the second days work are distinguished, but lay confusedly dispersed in the Expansum before.  Phil. 
I protest, Sir, I am very well pleased with this Explication of yours; this has engaged me to have a better Opinion of the Mosaic Hypothesis, than ever I had in my Life; for it now seems to have something of Reason and Philosophy in it. But still there seem to be some Difficulties in this third days Work. For it is not easy to conceive, how all the Channels of the Seas should be hollowed out in one days time, or what should be done with the Earth which was digged out of those hollows. 
O. R. P.  It should seem to require more than one days time, for the Waters which covered the most inland Countries to run off from thence into those Oceanal Channels. Pray, Sir, how do you get over these Difficulties?  Cred. 
This is, Sir, 
The Seas easily form in one Day.  in Scirpo nodum quaerere, to raise doubts where there is not the least appearance of any: For what a mighty difficulty is it for God Almighty to hollow out the Channels of the Seas in one Day? If you and I were to get Workmen to do it in such a time it would be a very difficult Enterprise. But for God-Almighty to do that in four and twenty Hours time, by an Almighty Power, which he might, if he had pleased, have done in an instant, is such a wonder as no wise man should be startled at. You see here this little bit of Earth which I take out of this border, I can in a minute's time mould it into what form I will; I can make it round or oval, convex or hollow, or how I please, and may not we very well suppose, that God-Almighty might, in as little time, have form Earth into what Figure he pleased. The Earth was then very flexible, its parts being not then settled into its present hardness, and therefore might easily be moulded into any Figure whatsoever. But to wonder how God could bring the Waters which covered the Inland Countries in one days time into the Channel of the Sea, is to me very strange: For why should God in his Creation be tied to the dull sluggish motion of his Creatures, since Motion is demonstrated to be infinitely fast or slow, as God pleases? And why should we oblige him in his works to any determinate degree of it? We see the Waters move just such a pace now, and therefore God must necessarily forsooth wait their motions, and protract the time of his Creation because of that. This I am sure is something of the Philosophy of a Countryman as you call it: This is a true Plebeian Hypothesis, and something of Kin to that of Horace.  
Rusticus expectat dum labitur amnis; at ille  
Labitur, & labetur in omne volubilis aevum.  Phil. 
Pray, Sir, have a care of insulting; for you are not got so clear off from this days Work yet. I am afraid you will have a deadly rub in your way, when I shall ask you, if it be not a little inconsistent in the Mosaic Philosophy, to make the Trees and Herbs before the Sun? Upon this Hypothesis we may very well expect to find Orange Trees and Melons in Greenland, when all manner of Plants could grow where there never had been any Sun at all. Your Prophet had been a better Botanist, if he had but contrived to have postponed his Herbage for one day at least, for then the Sun might have brought them out thick and threefold; but for this cold, dark, watery ground to be so prodigiously prolific, is so strangely unnatural, that methinks you should be ashamed to think of it.  Cred. 
I wonder, Sir, 
Trees and Plants might easily grow before the Sun was made.  you should expect, or talk of nature in the Creation; for God was then producing nature and not acting according to it. He was then forming those Laws and Methods of Nature, but he could not be supposed to act by them, before he had form them. But nevertheless, what unnaturalness I pray was there in creating Plants before the Sun? If they had been created some years before it, there would have been something in the Objection; but all this time was but one poor day. Now few Plants are so tender, but they will live as long a time as that, without either Sun, or Water, or Earth. But these, being form in the Earth the third day, cannot be supposed to have died before the fourth, when the Sun began to shine upon them. But I cannot imagine what need there should be of the Sun for the Creation of Plants. Indeed there is very great need of it in the natural production of them, to open the Fibres, to elevate the Juices, to unfold the Coats and Leaves of the Embryon Plant in the seed. But here were no precedent Coats and Leaves to be unfolded, for God then form the Plants immediately out of the common Matter, so that the seed was the production of those first Plants and not the Parent of them. And God said let the Earth bring forth Grass and Herb, yielding seed after his kind, and the Tree yielding Fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind, Gen. 1.12. But granting a vital warmth should be requisite, for the production of these primitive Plants; it could not be wanting in the new Earth: For the Terreous parts of matter having been agitated in the Chaos, by such a rapid motion, and having subsided to the Centre from such distant parts of the Expansum with so great a Celerity, they must needs have contracted an extraordinary heat much more than is requisite for the ordinary Production of Plants; nay, as we may probably conjecture, a Heat nigh to an Inflammation. Which perhaps might have been the Cause, why the Waters were circumfused first round the Globe, when God might as easily have made them at first to settle into their Channels; but only to temper the heat of the Agitated Particles. Now, Sir, if one was to measure the method of the Creation by the Vertuoso's Rules, methinks we should never have any recourse to the Sun for the Production of Plants; for he produces them at a slow tedious rate, the Herbs once in a year, and the Trees in a much longer time. But here was to be a Plantation of the whole World in half a days time, and therefore there was need of a more speedy Production. Now the new Earth, warm yet by its late agitation, and impregnated with the moisture of the circumfused Waters, would make a kind of a warm Bed (to speak in your way) for the hasty Production of Plants, and might raise up all the Herbage of the World as quick as Jonah's Gourd, or a Chemical Salad. So that I should rather think, the Gentlemen of your way, instead of finding fault with Moses for a Plebeian Philosopher, should admire him for an excellent Vertuoso.  Phil. 
Now I have something to say to the fourth days work, according to Moses his Hypothesis, the Deity must bestir himself this day more than ordinary: For Sun, Moon, and Stars are a very considerable job of work for one day, especially when the Furniture of our poor Earth took up so many. Indeed you have handsomely removed the difficulty of the fixed Stars, but then even each of those six Planets which remain, would require as long a time for their Formation as this our Earth, 
O R. p. 72.  because they are of the same form, and as we have reason to believe their Equipage is not very unlike. Therefore I cannot be reconciled to your Prophet, for crowding the Formation of all these into one day. Besides, I cannot see how the Relation of this days work agrees, with the Explication in your Scheme. For if the Planets were form, by the first secretion of matter upon the first day, how can they be made the fourth? The Expansum before this time seems to be drained of all matter but the Aether; and therefore I am at a loss to find what the Sun could be made of. This does to me seem something dark and mysterious, and requires a little of your Art, Credentius, to clear it up.  Cred. 
This Objection, Sir, is a little complicated, and therefore I shall answer to the parts of it distinctly.  
1. 
How the Planets are said to be made the fourth day.  Whereas you suppose that all the Planets were form this fourth day, and had all those Ornaments they are probably endowed, with then bestowed on them; this is more than can from Scripture be inferred. It is not improbable, that God Almighty wrought them all off one as soon as the other, and that they grew on to perfection by the same degrees; so that the work of each of them was going forwards, from the first to the sixth day. For all these Planets are so mutually linked to one another, and are so much of the same piece that one cannot easily suppose the formation of either of them was distinct from that of another. Now though the bulk of these Planets were form before this day, and in all probability some of their Ornamental Parts as perhaps their Seas and their Plants; yet they are said to be made the fourth day, because they are made the Moon and the Erratic Stars to us. They were before only Invisible Globes, but by the Light of the Sun, which was this day Created, they became Conspicuous and Reflected upon the Earth a bright shining Light, which they borrowed from thence. Thence they are very properly said to be made, because though their substance was before, yet they were not a Moon, or Stars. For the formal reason which does constitute a Moon is its reflection of light in such constant vicissitudes, its different Phases, etc. which is the notion the generality of Mankind frames of the Moon, now this it had not till the fourth day, and therefore is very properly said to be made. For facere in the Latin Tongue has its derivation from novam faciem endure; so that a thing is then said to be made when it has another appearance than it had before. Neither is the original word, gnasah, which is used here much different. For that signifies not only any new formation, but any new use or outward appearance of a thing. For sometimes it signifies to sacrifice, as the Latin Verb facere, so Exod 10.25. that we may make or sacrifice unto the Lord our God. So Psal. 66.15. I will make to thee an Ox with Goats. Which is a much bolder Metaphor, than that of Virgil, Cum faciam vitulâ pro frugibus. Now it is plain here, that the sacrifice was made before, only the new offering it up, or dedicating it to a Religious use, is termed making. So Numbers the 9.10. it is termed making a Passover unto the Lord, where only the Observation of a time already made is termed making. So 1 King. 12.32. Jeroboam is said to make the high places, and Chap. 25.32. Ahab made a Grove. Now God-Almighty had made those Hills and Groves before, only those wicked Princes dedicated them to those Idolatrous uses. The Planets therefore, and especially the Moon, are very properly said to be made this fourth day; because they made their first appearance upon this day to the Earth, they had then their first use put upon them of being Luminaries to this World.  

Why Moses relates the distinct formation of the Earth alone.  2. Although each of these Planets might take up as much time in its formation as our Earth, yet Moses is not to be blamed for not relating distinctly the formation of them. It is enough for his purpose to give an account exactly of the sublunary Creation, and not to trouble the People's Heads with Astronomical niceties. His business was to give them an account of their Original from God, the better to keep them from Idolatry, and to relate to them the Creation of the World, so far as was agreeable to Truth and Conformable to their Capacities. To give them a false System of the Creation, such as simple people are apt to fancy; is to make God a Liar, nay, to confirm with his Authority the Idle Dreams of Men. And to give them a full account of the true System, was to confound their Thoughts, and it may be to destroy their Faith; to make them disbelieve those plain notions, they did understand, for the sake of those others, they could have no apprehension of. To have given them a false System of the World to comply with their simple Capacities, would have been to have declared himself an Impostor, to all understanding men; and to have particularly unfolded all the Phaenomena of the true one, would have been only to have appeared frantic, to such an illiterate Generation. For it was Moses his business, to establish a True Religion agreeable to the Divine Will, and to conduct the Israelites into the Land of Canaan, where they might have a free exercise of it; but it was the least of his design, to perplex them with Physiological notions; so that for him to have talked of Planetary Vortices, of the Centrality of the Sun and a World in the Moon, would have made the poor Jews have suspected, the Land of Promise was but some such kind of Philosophical Romance. God-Almighty when he dictated this most admirable History to his Prophet Moses, foresaw that this was to be the Groundwork of his future Revelations, that upon the belief of this Creation by God, the fall by Adam, and the Reparation made by Jesus Christ all Mankind was to be saved; so that if he had descended to the particulars of Philosophy, and sided with any distinct Sect of it, he would have laid a very great stumbling block in the way of Salvation; if he had explained the particulars of the Creation in the Ptolemaick way, all the refractory Copernicans and Tycho Braheans, must have been damned; or if he had took part with Copernicus, all the old fashioned Gentlemen, that are advocates for the roundabout Stars and the Solid Orbs, would be in as evil a Condition. Moses therefore, by God's direction, took the middle and the wisest Course, to speak exact Truth, but seasonably and cautiously; neither to confound the Minds of the ignorant Jews, nor to expose himself to Philosophising Christians. I doubt not, but Moses, being educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, was well versed in the vulgar, or what is usually called the Ptolemaick Hypothesis; for that came into Greece from Egypt; but that he should not explain his History of the Creation according to this System, and show some particular marks of his notions lying this way, is a thing very unaccountable, and does seem to denote a particular providence of God, overruling this inspired Person, in relating matters almost contrary to his own sentiments, for reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom.  
3. But lastly, 
This relation agrees with the foresaid Hypothesis.  to make this agree with the Scheme I showed you, I think no very great labour is requisite: For I supposed in the first days work, that the Expansum, or the space of the Magnus Orbis, was drained of all its Opake and Terreous matter; in the second day it was fined again, by drawing off all its aqueous uninflammable matter; but besides these, in all natural Bodies we find an unctuous inflammable substance, which did here remain still diffused throughout the whole Expansum; which upon the command of the Divine Word, subsided to the Central point of the whole Magnus Orbis; all which vast quantity of unctuous Matter, being compacted together into one Globe, broke out that day into the Solar Flame. Vid. Fig. V.  
And now the Expansum was reduced to a pure liquid Aether, being utterly devested of all gross and heterogeneous parts of Matter, and tightly fitted for the Planets to swim about in; and not only so, but was perfectly cleared of all clogging, irretiting Particles, so that it could communicate a tremor throughout its whole Diameter with the greatest velocity. It is probable, that before this third refining of the Expansum and the draining it of the unctuous Matter, which made the solar Globe, the Aether was in some measure clogged with those unctuous Particles, so that it could not so easily communicate a Light from a slender, or a remote Luminary, for want of a quick trepidation; which when they were removed to the Globe of the Sun, it could then do with very great readiness. So that I very much question, if upon the third day, an Eye had been placed in any part of the Expansum, although it should be out of the thick steams of the Planets, it could have seen the fixed Stars; because the slender force of the Light of such distant Bodies could hardly have made force enough, to communicate a trepidation through so much space, where the matter did not seem enough fined for it: For to produce the communication of Light, matter must be framed to a peculiar contexture and admirable fineness, and set to a sort of an equilibrium, so as to be moved by the least touch; which it could not well be, before this third refining upon the fourth day. As soon as which was done, the light of the Stars appeared in all parts of the Expansum, wherever it was not overpowered by the vigorous Rays of the nigher Sun; so that henceforward they constantly shone in their proper vicissitudes, throughout all the Cones of the shadows of the several Planets. Therefore upon this account, in some sense likewise, the fixed Stars might be said to be made this day because of their first appearance to the Earth, though they had their formation many Ages before. Although some perhaps will think the Metaphor is something hard strained this way, and therefore I apply it principally to the Moon, who received her first Phasis from the Sun this day which may be very properly termed her formation, because they are those Phases which do denominate her a Moon in respect of us. It was this day that the Moon began her Nocturnal Regency, it was now that by her borrowed light from the Sun by reason of her vicinity to the Earth, she out-shone to us all those fixed Stars at a distance, which shine with such prodigious Globes of their own Light.  Phil. 
I do assure you, Credentius, I can receive either of your Explications, concerning the formation of the Stars, as well as what I find in your Commentators upon the points; for there is some degree of probability in either. But I had rather take any thing for granted, than own the fixed Stars to come in for one job of Work, in this puny Creation. As for the fifth days Work I shall pass over that, for I do not find any great absurdity therein; but there are several things in the sixth day which will never go down with me: For Moses then seems to make the whole World to be stocked with one pair of Animals of each sort, or to be sure he makes but one Man and one Woman to People all the Earth, which is monstrously absurd: For any common Observer of Nature may take notice, how careful she is for the propagation of Kind's; that she is rather guilty of a superfoetation, than a Parsimony this way. How many millions of Acorns doth one single Oak produce, during the time of its standing, any one of which is capable of renewing its Species? Not to mention the Polypodium, and such other super-abundantly fruitful Plants, there is not an Apple, or a Pear-Tree, but what produces ten thousand times more Kernels, than what is absolutely necessary. And if the Hypothesis of Mr. Lewenhoeck be true, as I never saw any good reason to the contrary, that the Foetus is produced from an Animalcule in the sperm of the Male, what myriads of these are produced every concoction? Therefore whereas Nature is so over and above careful in the propagation of kinds, when she is in a manner profuse in the production of Seeds, that she may be sure to obviate all manner of Contingencies and Lets which could possibly happen; how can we suppose, that she acted by such contrary Methods, in the first formation of things? If there were but two of a sort created, upon what miserable uncertainties did the perfection of the Universe depend? If any one Male or Female had died before it had produced its kind, there had been a species lost for ever. Nay a Lion, a Bear, or a Wolf, might have eaten up half a score of some Species, for a Breakfast. If Adam had been as much a Villain as his Son Cain, he might have served his Wife as Cain did his Brother. They might each or both, have been devoured by some wild Beast, they might have fell from a Tree, or a Precipice, or into a River, they might have been Poisoned by some venomous Plant, or Animal, or lastly Eve might have died in her first Childbirth. Now if any of these things had happened, the Deity had been put to the trouble of a new Creation. Most certainly therefore, since God-Almighty does take such abundant care for the propagation of each single Individuum, he would never leave a whole species to such a number of Casualties. If such a number of superfluous Animalcules are produced for the formation of one Foetus, when nature takes such mighty care to produce, with the more certainty one single Effect; how can we suppose, that she should leave the whole human species liable to be destroyed by so many Accidents? This is not at all reasonable, Credentius, let your Bible's say what they will. Besides, I cannot imagine, how all the World should be Peopled by these two. How could their Progeny get into America, whose Inhabitants seem coaeval with the Land itself? How could the Blacks and Whites have one common Parent? They seem to be divers kinds of Men, and a White can no more beget a Black, than a Bull can beget a Boar. Pray, Sir, afford us a Cast of your subtlety, to evade these Difficulties.  Cred. 
I confess, Philologus, there is in this Argument a Philosophical prettiness, and that is all, such as will take with some of the Vertuoso part of the World, who prefer an Experiment to a Revelation, but it does not so with me; for I have learned to make my Philosophy strike sail to my Faith, and to think that Omnipotency can do that, which ordinary nature is at a loss for. But, as I have observed before, you Philosophical Gentlemen do not argue justly, when you argue from the ordinary and Conservative, 
God acted by other Methods in the Creation than now.  to the Creative Power of God; that God must have done so and so in the Formation of the World, because he does so in the Conservation of it: For the Reasons of both these are very different. Then Omnipotence chief employed itself, but here is the Province for Wisdom: then God acted absolutely by an  Power, but now he has in some measure given the reins out of his own Hand, he has in many degrees made over his Original Power to his Creatures, and left it to the Determination of , and oftentimes to the lets and impediments of what we call Casual Events. So that it was very wisely contrived of the Deity, after the Alienation of this Original Power, to be more abundantly cautious in the Production of Species, when the Power of Production was delivered up to other hands. Whilst God-Almighty made all things by his Absolute Creative Power, his Almighty Fiat could not but produce a necessary Effect; but when he delivered this over to second Causes which acted but weakly, and sometimes corruptly, there was then need that he should make more ample provision for the propagation of Species, and for the prevention of miscarriages in their Production, when the immediate causes were not Omnipotent. To make this plainer yet to you, by a familiar Instance. You know, Sir, you have the happiness to be an exquisite Mathematician, and particularly you understand the Art of Gunnery, 
He then took an immediate care of the Species.  so as you can, unless some extraordinary chance does intervene, hit, or come very nigh the mark you shall design, by the discharge of a piece of Ordnance. Now you being so excellent this way, you would not perhaps provide for yourself more than one single Ball for this purpose; but if you was to order a young Practitioner, or one perfectly ignorant of this Art, to do this, one that knew nothing of the Boar, or the length of his Piece, or the strength of his Powder; one that could make no estimate of the distance, or height of the object, or the renitency of the Medium; you must allow him a far larger quantity of Ball and Powder, that he by random shots may effect that, which you do at once by demonstration. The application is easy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God is the Mathematician, he in the first Creation of the World, acted himself in lieu of nature, till nature came to be settled, and was able to shift for itself; his Omnipotent  Power did not withdraw itself, but continued with a particular overruling Providence, to take care of the Species, till such time as, by their numbers, they were able to encounter with extraordinary contingencies. And this is evident from the great care God took of the first Pair of Mankind, Adam and Eve, by placing them before the Fall in a Garden so delicately adorned, and afterwards by providing them Coats of Skins, Gen. 3.21. Now when God-Almighty designed to take such particular care of the Archetypal Pair, he might easily enough secure their productions from all casualties, and stock the World as well by one pair, as by ten thousand; but when he thought fit to withdraw this peculiar Providence, and leave Generation to second causes, there was then a more especial need of a superfoecundity, than there was before. But after all, it is no way apparent from the Mosaic Relation, that God produced but one pair of all kind of living Creatures, besides Man; the Scripture says, Male and Female created he them; but how many Males and how many Females is uncertain. It does not follow they were but two, because Mankind were no more; for there might be very weighty reasons in the divine foreknowledge relating to our Redemption, why Mankind should proceed from one original; which does no ways hold as to Brutes. Therefore to deduce Absurdities from what Moses does not say, is to do great injury to the Character of this sacred Person, without any the least ground.  
2. As to what you object, 
Americans of the same stock, black with the rest of the World.  concerning the Americans, I cannot see why that should be any more an Argument against the common Parentage of Mankind, than the Inhabitants of Britain, Madagascar, or any other Islands are. For I suppose the Inhabitants came thither in Ships and Boats, as they did into Islands more adjacent to the shore. I think there is no need, with the learned Mr. Fuller in his Miscellanies to allow the Ancients the knowledge of the Compass, 
Misc. Lib. 4. Cap. 19  so that the the first Colonies might have a more easy and ready Voyage thither; for it's plain, this is a very modern Invention, and it is possible enough that people might get into America from any part of the Continent, without this Art. It is probable, that the Northern part of America, at least, was peopled (as Grotius supposes) by Colonies from the Northern parts of Europe, by way of Iseland and Greenland; 
How Inhabitants got into America.  the West and some part of the South as California, Peru, Chili, etc. had its Inhabitants from the East-Indies, the many intermediate Islands facilitating their passage, without any great skill in Navigation; the remaining part might be stocked from Spain and Africa, by way of the Canaries, Azores, or Hesperides. To think it impossible for any such Voyage to be made without the help of the Compass, is very absurd, for the Ancients made many as difficult ones some thousands of years before that Instrument was thought of. For I look upon Navigation to be an Art rather revived than improved in these two last Centuries. It was the Roman Conquest throughout the World, that put a stop to this noble Art; for the Phoenicians and Carthaginians were more expert in this, than ever the Romans could pretend to. Nor did they ever indeed in good earnest bend their minds to this Art; for their chiefest aim was to advance their Empire in the Continent, and the Fleets they fitted out were chief Transports for their Forces, except once or twice, when they were forced to Naval fights by some potent Enemies at Sea; but they rarely, or never employed Ships for foreign Negotiations, and Discoveries. So that it is no wonder, we should have been deprived of all Intercourse with America, during the Power of that Empire, and those Ages of Barbarity which ensued it. But long before Caesar the Phoenicians made Voyages for Tin and Lead into Britain, which is so vast a Distance from your Country, whence the British Isles got the name of Cassiterides. The Navigations and the Periplus of Hanno the Carthaginian are sufficiently famous, who coasted round afric by the Order of the Carthaginian Senate; and he lived considerably before the time of Darius Nothus, as Isaac Vossius has made appear. It is plain, that the Ancients Sailed up the African Sea, as far as Madagascar, called Menuthias, or the Greater Cerne, as some will have it; but I believe as far as Ceylon or Summatra; for 'tis most probable, that Pliny means one of those Islands, and not Madagascar, by the name of Cerne. For he describes Cerne an Island over against the Bay of Persia, off from Aethiopia, whose Greatness and distance is not manifest from the Continent. But Madagascar is a vast distance, some matter of 800 Leagues off from the Bay of Persia. Besides, Pliny says, that this Island could not be come to by way of the Red Sea, by reason of the excessive heat among the small Islands; So that it is plain, they coasted round afric to come at Cerne; which if it be Ceylon, or Summatra, as 'twas probably one of them, what a prodigious Voyage was this for the infancy of Navigation? For we do little more, in one of our longest East-India Voyages. Upon the whole therefore it is no Argument, that America was not peopled from the other parts of the World, because the latter Ages wanted skill to sail thither, or because History says nothing of it. For all our History comes from the Greeks and Romans, and they were too ignorant in Navigation, to mention or to credit such a relation, though they might have it from other Nations. 
Diod. Sic. Lib. 5. Arist. de reb. Mir.  And yet that Account of Aristotle and Diodorus, concerning the Carthaginians going to a vast desert Island, in the Atlantic Ocean with navigable Rivers, wondrously fertile, many days sail from the Gades, or Cadiz, can hardly agree to any thing but America, for no Island between Cadiz, and America, has any thing like a navigable River. But setting aside all this, and supposing there was never any settled Navigation to America before Columbus, one or two casual Vessels drove thither by storm in the earlier Ages of the World, might have well peopled that Continent, before Columbus his Discovery. For if these three parts of the World could be stocked so full, with the progeny of but two persons, in less than four thousand years, the other fourth part might be peopled from as small a stock, in a shorter time. Besides, it seems to me a plain Argument that the Americans are but a later Drain from the Inhabitants of the other parts of the World, because America is thinner peopled than the rest; to mention nothing of the Tradition they have in common with other Nations of a Deluge which is a very clear proof of their Descent from Noah.  
3. Nor do I see any reason, 
How the Blacks might descend from a White Parentage.  why you reckon it impossible for a Black to be produced from a White; perhaps the usual saying Lavare Aethiopem, and that of the Prophet Can the Aethiopian change his skin? has made you hale in this for an Impossibility too. I own with you it is a natural Impossibility for a Bull to beget a Boar, or a Lion a Wolf; for though, by unnatural commixtures, we may produce several hybridous kinds for one Generation, yet after that nature recoils upon herself and starts back, she never lets them fructify again, and go on with the monstrous Breed; which is the Reason Mules are always barren. But Blacks and Whites Breed as genuinely, as either of these with themselves, nay the colour of each will be absorbed and lost in a generation or two. The Posterity of a White Woman, in Aethiopia, will in a generation or two be all Negro; and the great grandchildren of a Black Man and a White Woman with us, will hardly be distinguished from other Europeans. So that from hence it does appear, that Blacks may Beget Whites, and Whites Blacks: but then this, you will say, supposes a commixture of both sorts, but how could it come to pass that, when all the World was Whites, any such thing as a Black could come into the World? why, If I my Philosophise in this matter, and call in second Causes, I think there is some reason for it. You know, Philologus, the complexion of Mankind does strangely diversify according to the nature of the Climate; the Hair and Skin of the Inhabitants of the divers parts of the World alter, as they are farther or nearer from the Sun; the Danes and Swedes, English and Scotch, being much Northern, have generally a Brown, White, or Yellowish Hair, and somewhat Lank; the Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Arabians, etc. have black hair somewhat curled, and so proportionably all other more Southern Nations; the Europeans generally have a clear White Skin, the asiatics a more Tawny one, as being much nigher the Sun. 
This blackness caused by the heat of the Sun,  But the Aethiopians living in a Country where the Sun is more scorching than in any place of the World, it is necessary, they should be more black than any Nation. For they live not only directly under the line, but in the midst of a mighty Continent, where they are refreshed by no cool breezes from the Sea, where the Air is continually heated by sweeping along over fiery Sands, were the Sun receives a double force by being reflected from such prodigious Mountains; now if the warmth of Asia is of efficacy enough to make the skin of its Inhabitants tawny, and to curl their Hair; we may easily suppose, the intense heat of Aethiopia is sufficient to make its Inhabitants much blacker in their complexion; and to crisp their hair into a sort of frizzes. Therefore we may very well conclude, that the first Colony, which settled in a Country of that extraordinary heat, received a very great change in their skins proportionably to the Heat of their Country and became mighty Tawny, much beyond the Arabians, and inclinable to Blackness, as the Sun is more intense upon them. Hence, in a Generation or two, that high degree of Tawniness became the nature, and from thence the Pride of the Inhabitants; the Men began to value themselves chief upon this complexion, and the Women to affect them the better for it; from thence by the love to the Male so complexioned, the daily conversation with him and the affectation of his hue, there was caused a considerable Influence upon the Foetus' which the Females were pregnant with; so that, upon this account, the Children in Aethiopia became more and more black, according to the fancy of the Mother. Thus we find Jacob multiplied the spotted kind in Laban's herd, and thus Heliodorus in his Aethiopicks, makes his fair Chariclea to be born of Blackamoor Parents, only by her Mother's contemplating the Picture of Andromede, in her Bedchamber. The Children thus produced must be supposed to come nigher and nigher to an absolute blackness; but when the tender bodies of such Children were exposed to the scorching heat of the African Sun, and naked too as is the custom of the Country, their thin skins must needs be more than ordinary burnt by so great a heat, and be made more black than their Parents. And so by these degrees they might very well come to be such perfect Negroes as we find them. Thus far we may Philosophise upon the point, by pure Natural Reason. But the Holy Scripture gives us a farther light into this matter. 
By the Curse of Cham.  This Curse which God laid upon Cham and his Posterity is manifest from Gen. 9.25. Cursed be Canaan, a Servant of Servants shall he be unto his Brethren. Whence there is no reason to think with many Interpreters, that God designed by this curse only to punish one branch of Cham's Family, namely Chanaan, the Progenitor of that Country, which bore his name; but 'tis most probable, that Canaan was but another name of Ham, which was common in Antiquity, as, Gideon was called Jerubbaal; Daniel, Belteshazzar; Ascanius, julus, etc. and there is a good reason to be assigned why Moses should call him here by the name of Chanaan and not Cham, namely to keep the Israelites in Heart against the Canaanites, when they saw, he, from whom their Country received its Origin and name, was so especially accursed. But there is the same reason to believe, that the other Sons of Cham shared his misfortunes as well as Chanaan, and other Branches of his Posterity underwent part of his Curse, of which were chief the Aethiopians, which were doubtless the Progeny of that undutiful Son. So that the unnatural Blackness was probably the Curse upon Cham's Posterity, as the Leprous Whiteness was upon Gehazi's. That this Colour was a great Curse upon these Countries, and the ground of a very great Aversion, is manifest from the common experience of Mankind, and the remarks of all Ages. For the Prophet when he would describe how hated the Jews had become to God by their Sins, expresses it thus, Are ye not as Children of the Aethiopians unto me, O Children of Israel? Am. 9.7. So were other Nations used to express any thing hateful and evil by blackness.  
— Niger est, hunc, tu Roman, caveto.  Hor. Ser. Sat. 4. 
Now as it is unreasonable to think, that God Almighty should create a race of men, without any previous demerit, to be the Scorn and Aversion of their Fellow-Creatures; so it is highly rational to believe, that this people are the unhappy Race of that accursed Cham. For unless we assert this, there is no tolerable reason to be given, of the Names of those Places, and that famous Deity, which was anciently worshipped in Africa. There was the City Ammonis upon the Banks of the African River Cinyphus, in the Island Meroe, the Temple of Hammon. In Marmarica the City 
* Plin. Lib. 6. Cap. 29.  Ammonia, otherways named Paretonium. There was the Ammoniaca Regio, so famous throughout all the World, for the Temple of Jupiter Hammon. And Stephanus quotes the Authority of Alexander Polyhistor, 
Steph. de urb. Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that all Africa was called Ammonia from Hammon their chief Deity. Now it being thought by most learned men that the three Sons of Noah, were the three famous Deities of the Heathens, and more particularly, that Ham was Jupiter; it is not improbable that afric was the Original seat of Ham, by reason that he is chief worshipped there, and so many places are called in honour of his name, nor is it any objection against this, that afric is so remote from the first settling of Noah, because in all probability Ham, after the Curse, being out of favour with his Father and Brethren, would remove as far out of the way as he could.  Phil. 
This discourse of yours, concerning the Origin of these Nations, is fine plausible Talk; but I can never be brought to believe, that the Americans (especially) are descended from any other part of the World; because their Language and Customs are so perfectly different from any thing we observe among the rest. The Customs of the Europeans and asiatics are pretty conformable, the modern Northern Languages are very nigh the same, and so are the Spanish, Italian, and French; and as for the ancient Eastern Tongues, they seem to be but different Dialects (as the Learned that way say) of the Hebrew or Chaldee. But, as for the Americans, they do toto coelo distare, in all their Customs from us; and if you do look upon an American Vocabulary, as you may see several of them in De Laet's History of America, you can hardly pick out one word that sounds any thing like those, in any other Language ancient or modern. Grotius, with all his Wit, was not able to pick out above three or four, neither of which will hold water, 
De Laet de Orig. Amer.  which De Laet taking advantage of, has horribly exposed that Learned Man for. So that, if the Americans had descended from any of these parts of the World, they would most undoubtedly have retained some of their Customs and Words, and not have stood at so vast a distance from us, in every thing, as we find they do.  Cred. 
It is no Argument that the Americans were not derived from the Europeans, or other Inhabitants of the World, because their Language does not so well agree with ours. For Languages altar mightily in time, even where they maintain a correspondence with those people of the first Original Tongue; but must needs vary vastly more in the Americans, who were perfectly cut off from all such conversation. And besides, it is not true that all Languages, besides the American one's, seem to be derived from some other, and have a nigh resemblance to one another; for as far as ever I was able to remark, Irish and Welsh, and several of the Languages of the East-Indies, are as different from the learned, or the other European Languages, as the American Tongues are. So that, by this Argument, the Britain's and Irish, and most of the Eastern Nations must be Aborigines too, as well as the Americans.  
And as for the Customs of the Americans, they are not so very different as you would pretend; nay they retain in many things such an uniformity of practice with us, as affords an indubitable proof, that they are of the same Original. I will not instance in such actions, which are natural and common to all men, such as are the result of humane passions, or are so easy of invention, as they can hardly be avoided, as Singing, Dancing, Bowing, Leaping, etc. but in such actions as are owing to some one lucky Invention, or transcribed from others by imitation; which they cannot all be supposed to have lighted upon themselves, but must have them communicated to them by others. It would be no Argument to prove this Original, because I did see an American capering an odd kind of Jig; but if I should see two Americans playing a Game at Tennis, or Baggamon, or writing an Italian hand, I should be confident, they learned this from some European. And many Customs of this sort we find among them, learned from other parts of the World, which are an unanswerable Argument for their Descent from them.  
To begin first with some of their Religious Rites, and particularly Sacrifice. Though it should be granted, that natural Religion was common to all men, yet what reason can be assigned, that the Americans who are by you supposed to have no communication with the rest of the World, should worship God with just such positive Rites, as the far greatest part of the World did? There are several ways of worshipping God, which they might have took, and a thousand Religious Rites they might have made use of; but why they should just jump upon sacrifice with the rest of the World, is unaccountable. But granting sacrifice as an easy deduction from natural reason, as it is not, and that all men must think it reasonable, that their sins must be expiated by the blood of Beasts, which was a sort of vicarious life taken away, in lieu of their own which was forfeited. How came they to be acquainted with this Adamical punishment, and to know that the Wages of Sin was Death? This must be all grounded upon Scripture or ancient Tradition, which the Heathens all over the World stuck fast to, though they could give no reason for it; and which the Americans could never have come to the knowledge of, unless they had been derived from other Nations, and had had the same universal Original. But though this vicarious punishment of Beasts should be allowed to be natural, how should they come to perform it just the same way, as the other parts of the World did, which they had no converse with. One would have thought, that in this case strangling, or jugulation should be the most natural and proper way of dispatching the vicarious Victim, and appeasing the Deity, and the sacrifice should terminate here; but what reason can be given, why they with the rest of the World should burn the Flesh of the Victim, and that they should think, that God was to be reconciled by the smell of broiled Meat? There is no manner of rational account to be given for this, and they might as well have raised a smoke to the Deity by wet Straw, or Water and Lime, or any other way, had they been left free to their own Invention. 'Tis plain therefore, that they received this manner of Sacrificing from the other parts of the World, who had it by Tradition delivered down to them from the first Parents.  
Besides this there are several other Rites and Arbitrary ways of Worship, which they must be supposed to have received from the Europeans or asiatics. The Children of Mexico, and Jucatan, are circumcised. And the Mexican Priests, like the Vestals, keep a constant and unextinguished F●●e. They celebrate a Jubilee every fiftieth year like the Jews, and as some writ a Sabbath every seventh day. They lance their Bodies and let out their 〈◊〉 like the Priests of Baal, to show the earnestness of their Devotion. The Caribbeans observe the New-Moons, as the Jews did, with the sound of Trumpets and great Shouts. The Peruvians observe a kind of a Mock-Passover, by colouring the Threshold of their Houses with a kind of Pulse mixed with Blood. I omit the Relations which some Spanish Authors have made concerning the use of Baptism amongst some of them, and signations with the Cross, because some have questioned these Authorities; but these other Relations are indubitable and agreed to by all, as may be seen in the Histories of Josephus, Acosta, Herrera, Garcilassus de Vega, Johannes de Laet and Purchas. Now it cannot be supposed, that these Americans should hold such a wondrous uniformity with other Nations, with whom they never had any converse, but had a perfect different Original.  
And so again, at the time of the Spaniards discovery of these People, they found them exercising an abundance of Arts and Inventions, which owed their Original to the Europeans or asiatics, which they could never have come to the knowledge of, unless by a commerce with them, or a descent from them. And if we were to instance in no other, the Art of Numbering so exactly conformable to ours, were a sufficient Argument of their Descent from us. Now why should the Americans, if they had not learned numbering from us, reckon by Ten? why should Ten still be their Climacterical, or Gradual Number, and why should they make their ascent by Ten to the highest Number, as by so many Steps? Why might they not as well have made either 8, or 9, or 15, the terminative number, and given names to the doubling, or trebling of these, instead of Thirty, Forty, & c? Why might they not have taken up with the Gothick way of reckoning by Dozen, or a thousand other ways, they might have made use of, besides Decimals? Now because we find the Americans reckon just our way, have invented names only for the decimal Numbers, viz. 10, 20, 100, 1000 (with the nine small Numbers or Units) and whereas there were many other ways of reckoning besides, some of which would be more convenient as being more capable of Division, viz. 8, 12, etc. that they have made use only of our way by Decimals; it can never be supposed but they must have learned their Art of Numbering from us. And so likewise their Fight with Bows and Arrows, their Arts of Spinning, Weaving, etc. do most strongly confirm their Origin from our Parts. The Invention of Bows and Arrows seem altogether as Fortuitous and as Odd, as that of Guns; and a Man that was ignorant of both the Arts would take a Bullet to be a better offensive Weapon than an Arrow. How should they come to feather and barb their Arrows, and wear their Quivers upon their Shoulders, just like the ancient Europeans, had they not learned it from them? So that I conclude, the Americans could no more have had the Art of Archery; unless from this part of the World, than they could have that of Gunnery. The like may be said of Spinning and Weaving, which are wonderful Inventions, which Mankind might have been without for many thousands of years, unless they had been beholding to some lucky hit for the Invention of them. Now we cannot suppose, that the same lucky hits should happen, in so different parts of the World, that had no communication with each other, and that they should improve these hints, by the very same Artificial Methods; and therefore we must conclude that those first Colonies, which planted America, learned those Arts among us here.  
And now lastly, Philologus, by this observation we may learn, how very anciently America was Peopled, it may be a very short time after the Flood. For the Americans have only, among them, those Arts, which were of the earliest Invention, as those which we have before mentioned; but as for Writing, which was later, they are perfectly ignorant of. So that, in all probability, America was Peopled, before the Invention of Writing; for they cannot be supposed to have lost so useful an Art, or that all, who came thither, were perfect strangers to it. Writing I suppose was invented about Abraham's time, so that the first Colonies into America must precede that; which was in so very early an Age of the World, that a small number of Persons would be stock sufficient for it.  Phil. 
Some things in this Argument indeed look pretty probable, but there are two things in your supposition, which I cannot digest; for you suppose that these first Colonies came over thither by chance in Boats, which is the most common opinion, and which I find you are most inclined to; but then say I in the first place, how got the Women over? I can well enough fancy a Boats Crew of tarpaulins blown over thither, but that would be Florus' Res unius aetatis, Populus Virorum, they would have dropped off by degrees and left no breed behind them. So that you must have recourse to some Female Navigators to make good your Opinion, which, being a thing so very unusual, makes it altogether Incredible. And then again in the second place, I cannot imagine How America should be stocked with Beasts and other Animals, having no Communication with the Rest of the World. I suppose, you will not make Foxes, and Lions, and Dogs, and Hares, and the rest of the Quadrupeds turn Navigators too, and send out their Colonies from these parts of the World. Or if you say the first Planters of America brought them over with them, this might pass well enough with us, as to the useful Animals and those proper for food; but Lions and Bears, methinks, should be the last thing Men should carry on Shipboard with them; for truly they do not seem to be such good natured Creatures, that men should be so in love with them, as to endeavour to increase their Breed. How should men ever come to carry over such Noxious Creatures, as Lions and Tigers, and yet omit such useful ones as Horses and Sheep? Nay how should several whole Species of Animals, all run into America; for there are several sorts of Creatures there, which are to be found in no part of the World besides. Pray get over this, Credentius, and then we may possibly allow America to be peopled from this part of the World.  Cred. 
When there are demonstrative Arguments for any thing, it is not every difficulty, should make us disbelieve it; for we see every day things come to pass, which we cannot assign a reason for. Though we should not be able to give an account, how Women and Quadrupeds were transplanted there, yet the certainty we have of their Descent from these parts of the World, by the Arts and Customs they enjoy in common with us, are sufficient motives to incline us to believe, that its first Inhabitants came from these parts. But however these difficulties, which you have started, are not so unanswerable as you would pretend. For as for the strangeness of carrying Women on Shipboard, I think that may be easily accounted for, if we allow that the Ancients made any Voyages to America, as some pretend; for then the Phoenicians, or others, might carry over Women thither, as well as we do now adays to our Plantations there. Or if we assert that chance brought the first Inhabitants thither, as it did to Alphonso Sanctio, who first informed Columbus of America; there might be probably Women on board such a Vessel, for in those early Ages of the World, the Women were more Masculine and Robust, and less bred up to delicateness; they frequently attended their Husbands in Warlike Expeditions, and in other actions of Difficulty and Danger. 
Ant. Knivet. Relat.  Nay 'tis usual still among the Americans to have their Wives follow them into the Camp, and to carry their Provisions for them. So that it is nothing improbable, to think that the first Vessel which came to America, had in it Persons of both Sexes. But the greatest difficulty is about the transportation of the Animals; especially those of the wild Kind, and such as are not to be found in these parts. As for Lions and Bears, I do not think, they were brought over in Ships, they probably got thither by the way of Greenland, where the passage is but narrow; and 'tis incredible to think, how far such Creatures will swim; for Travellers tell us, they have seen Bears, etc. swim nine or ten Leagues together. As for the Fowls, observations of Navigators tell, what vast Tracts of Sea they can fly over, by their discovering them over their Heads, in the midst of the Ocean; which is done without any difficulty and with prodigious swiftness by those Birds, that fly so high, as to get out of the vehement attraction of the Earth, and can push on without the renitency of the grosser Atmosphere. Others of their Animals are amphibious, such as the Morsh, a great sort of deformed Sea-Calf, and the Tatu, or Armadillo, 
Vid. Laet. Hist. Amer. Lib. 15. Cap. 6.  a Scaly Animal about the bigness of a Pig; as also many others of the Serpentine kind the Boytiopua, Giboya, Ibiboboca, etc. And these without doubt, might easy enough have been preserved in the Waters of the Flood. The greatest difficulty is about such terrestrial Animals, as are to be found in no other part of the World besides; how they should escape being destroyed in the Deluge, or if they were destroyed, how the Breed came to be restored, when this part of the World had no Animals like them. To obviate this objection, some have asserted Noah's Deluge to be only Topical, and as far as the World was Inhabited; but those Beds of Shells, petrified Bones of Fish, etc. found in America, are undeniable Arguments, of the universality of it. Therefore, one of these two things must be asserted, either that God-Almighty, after the Noaical Deluge, created anew the Creatures in America; or else that he preserved them in an extraordinary manner, as he did those in this part of the World in Noah's Ark. And if I were left to myself, I should think this latter was the way which God took; and this fairly answers all the difficulties which arise upon any other supposition, and seems agreeable to the Divine practice in other matters.  
But however if we cannot be so fanciful as to believe this, yet it is not incredible to think how variously Creatures may be altered by being transplanted to different Climates, and by commixtures of the same, or analogous Species. Of which the innumerous kinds of Dogs are a remarkable instance. And how great a difference the alteration of the Climate will create may be judged, from the Opinion of those who assert, that the same Crocodile of Egypt is the Lizzard in Italy, and the Eff in our Country.  Phil. 
There is I confess, Credentius, something of probability in this; but can you say as much for the Formation of Eve out of her Husband's Side. I have nothing to say to the Creation of Animals, for I do not observe any absurdity in Moses' account of them. But methinks, this making of Womankind out of a Rib, outdoes by many degrees the Poetical Fables of Pyrrha, and Cadmus. 
O.R. p. 32.  I protest this is the oddest piece of Matter to make a Woman of, which could be thought of. But to let this pass. Had Adam more Ribs than other People or no? If you say no, then to be sure he wanted a Rib of one side or other; then we had had a maimed Progenitor, a very sad sample for the Archetypal Man. If you say, he had a Rib to spare, this would have made a Monster of the Glorious Adam; for it would have been as prodigious, as three Hands, or four Eyes. But though I could swallow all this, yet I can never beat it into my Head, how a Woman's Body could be made of a little Rib, which does not equal the hundredth, or perhaps the thousandth part of it. To say that bulk was supplied by borrowed matter, will not much avail; for then Eve had more truly been said to have been made out of that larger portion of borrowed matter, whatever it was, than out of the Rib. Come, Credentius, set your shoulders to this difficulty.  Cred. 
Indeed, Sir, 
No absurdity that Eve should be made of a Rib.  I think I need hardly set my finger to it. For we need not so much as grant you, that the Original word, which we translate Rib, does signify so there; for it generally signifies a Side, and the Septuagint translate it in this place by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies so, and so in most other places; but never render it by any word which denotes a Rib. So that, if this oddness of the Rib sticks so much with you, you may render it Side, so that God form the Woman out of one of the Sides of Adam, or of both the Sides, which the Original may imply. That is, God took some part of the Substance of Adam's Body about his Side, he closed up the Orifice again, and out of this Substance he form Eve. Or if the meaning be, that he took the Rib with the Flesh, I do not see how that mars the matter: For if it was the will of God, to form the Woman out of Man, for my part I do not see how in all the whole Body he could take it from a more proper place. If God designed any mystical meaning by it, it is the properest, to have form her, like Minerva of the Poets, out of the Head, would have entitled her to a Superiority, which God did not intent; to have made her from any inferior, or more dishonourable part, would not have agreed with their Equality and Partnership which she was allotted for. I doubt not but if Mankind should propagate, as the Religio Medici would have them, like Trees, and if Moses had related the Production of the first Woman in the ordinary way of generation now; you Theistical Wits would have exposed it, as being altogether as ridiculous as the Rib: For that oddness, which you laugh at, is only the unusualness of it, which if it were more common, would look natural enough. So again, for my part, I do not see, how that if Adam had wanted a Rib after this formation, he would have been such a maimed Creature as you would make him, for why might not God have supplied him with another, having taken this from him? Neither can I apprehend him to have been such a three-handed Monster, altho' he should have had this Rib superfluous in him. For, to use Thomas Aquinas his comparison, this Rib was like the seed of Animals and Vegetables, superfluous for the Perfection of the Individuum, but necessary for the Generation of the Offspring. The Rib, was superfluous to Adam, as a private person, but necessary, as the Origin from which the Woman, and all Mankind, was to be produced. As for the Absurdity you would infer, from the smallness of the quantity of matter in a Rib, to make a Woman of; if you will be pleased to think but of an Acorn, or a Mustardseed, you will never use that Argument more.  Phil. 
But supposing, Credentius, we grant you all you require, as to the supernatural formation of this Couple, yet methinks it does not appear from your Mosaical History, that these two were the primogenial Parents of the whole World. I am rather apt to think they were but only the first of the Holy Race forsooth, the Original Parents of the Jews, who could not deign to proceed from that stock which the common herd of Mankind came from, and therefore they must have an Origin more immediately from the Deity, to imprint a more peculiar 〈…〉 of Dignity and Holiness up 〈…〉 Just like s●me of th● Anci●●● 〈…〉 would pretend to be Bastards to sourwood, or other, that they might ride top gallant upon the necks of other people. 
Praadamitae Lib. 3. Cap. 4. O. R.  And for my part, I cannot see, that the Jewish Legislator had any other design in this relation; for he intimates that there were more Men in the World than the two that were thus miraculously created. For he perfectly relates two Creations of Mankind, one of the common Race of men within the six days, Gen. 1.27. and another of the sacred Race of the Jews, Gen. 2.9. Before God created Eve, he said there was not a Meet help for him, that is none of the wicked Ante-Adamical race were fit Wives for that Holy Man. When Moses said Cain was a tiler of the Ground, he must needs suppose, there were at that time all the Artificers which have relation to Tillage, not only Smiths, and Carpenters, but Millers, and Bakers. So when Cain murders his Brother Abel, he entices him into the field for fear any body should see him; which supposes that they dwelled in some Town where there were too many Eyes to watch him, where note the word field does plainly answer to Town or City. When Cain says every one that findeth me shall slay me, he supposes a great number of men in the World. And when God set a mark upon this Parricide for fear any one should slay him, it supposes there were many men in the World which might accidentally do it. Besides, Moses says Cain went into the Land of Nod, and married a Wife, and builded a City, where it must be thought, there were Women for him to marry, and Men to inhabit his City. But Josephus is more plain, for he says he struck in with a pack of rascally Robbers and became their Head. Now it is plain from all this, that Moses would not have it presumed, that he wrote here of the primitive Parents of all the World; seeing that within a few lines he let's fall so many Expressions which denote the contrary. He designed only to give an account of the Origin of the Jews, as other Legislators have given out of other Countries; but the later Jews, out of partiality to their Country, mistook his meaning, as if he had delivered the History of the Universal Creation; and they have lead the Christians by the Nose ever since.  Cred. 
Well, I see there is nothing so plain and literal, but men of a Paradoxical humour will strain to an odd meaning. 
No Race of Men before Adam.  One would think, the Mosaical Writings were so plain in making Adam and Eve the first of Mankind, that no one could either mistake or pervert their meaning till the contrary was maintained from them by the Author of the Praeadamitae, or Men before Adam. And yet all that that Author could do with the assistance of a great deal of Wit and a considerable degree of Learning, was only to put some odd glosses upon a few Texts of Scripture, to make them look to his purpose; which though they may seem a little surprising as he has dressed them out, make nothing at all for him, when seriously attended to; nay he is so far from proving Praeadamites from Moses, that not only the express Assertion of that holy Writer, but the whole Tenor of his Book contradicts it. It is needless to cast about for Arguments and Passages of Scripture to confute such a wild Paradox; for that one passage, Gen. 3.20. Must for ever overthrow it. And Adam called his Wife's name Eve, because she was the Mother of all Living. Now if this be Scripture, the Hypothesis of the Praeadamites, as grounded upon Scripture, is necessarily false, unless the Scripture can be at the same time false and true. So that I strangely wonder at the ingenious Author of that odd Book, that he should take no notice of this Text that confutes his whole Hypothesis; for he was a Man of too much Scripture learning to be ignorant of the place, and one would think, of too much sense to be guilty of so palpable a disingenuity. 
The Arguments for the Praeadamites answered.  But to speak to the Arguments you have urged out of him. As for the two several Creations which is pretended in the first and second of Genesis, there is nothing like it. Not that we need have recourse to Father Simon his Whim of the Scribe-Offices, 
Simon. Crit. His. V T. Lib. 1. Cap. 8.  as if this was (as he pretends a Repetition, occasioned by the scattered or mixed Copies out of these Repositories. But Moses having given an account of the six days Creation in gene●●●●●y in the second Chapter, he reas●… the Argument, and treats of the 〈…〉 in particular. Now to con●… 〈…〉 of Man, whom God designed 〈…〉 of the Creation the more particular concern we must needs have to be informed of our own rise, and the great importance this bears in order to a holy Life, and a Religious gratitude; I think this is no more, than might well be expected in this Case. But however to defer a remarkable passage in History, and to reassume it to speak more largely of it in another place, is a thing common to all Historians. But they that ground a new Creation upon that Reassumption or Repetition, may as well make as many Creations as they find the old one mentioned in the Psalms, or Prophets, or New Testament. As for the next Argument of Adam's not finding a help meet for him, that does not in the least imply that there were a number of other Men and Women in the World; but it only denotes, that there was as yet no Woman in the World. Which is an expression not unlike that of Ovid.  
Sanctius his Animal mentisque capacius altae, etc.  
Deerat adhuc—  
Now one might with as good a Colour pretend, that the Poet allowed with the Author of the Praeadamites, there was a wicked Generation of Men before, and his Description is the Creation of the Holy one. But to be short, methinks this expression, considering the circumstances, is very apposite in the ordinary sense. Adam had just before all the Animals, Male and Female, brought before him, to name them; now he might very well think it strange, that he of all the Creation should be the single species, and so might the Reader of this Relation, as well as he; and therefore Moses subjoins, but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him, for God had deferred the Creation of the Woman, till some time afterwards. And I don't see, how any other tolerable sense can be put upon the words. As for your next Objection of Cain's being a tiler of the Ground, which requires the Assistance of many other precedent Arts; this is easily to be answered by saying, that this Art of Tillage was not in its full perfection in Cain's time, that he might be a tiler of the Ground without all those Instruments we use for our Convenience now; he might make use of wooden Ploughs or Spades; and form his Tools with sharp flints or shells instead of Knives and Hatchets, which were the first Instruments of cutting, 
Devolvit ipse acuto sibi pondera silice. Catul. de At.  and were retained in Religious uses in latter Times, as in Circumcision, Exod. 4.25. Jos. 5.3. Herod. Lib. 2. and in Castration of the Cybelline Priests, Plin. Lib. 35. Juv. Sat. 6. so when Cain is said to have slain his Brother in the Field; the word Field is not opposed to City, but to the place of Abode, the House or Tent where they dwelled. And again, as for Cain's saying, every one that findeth me shall slay me, God's setting a mark upon him, his marrying a Wife and building a City in the land of Nod, it does by no means suppose a former Generation of Praeadamites. For the word Nod does not necessarily signify a Country, but it may signify a fugitive; so that the sense may be, he lived a Fugitive, or Vagabond in the Land. Neither, if we should grant, there were a considerable number of Men in the World at that time, would it make for this Praeadamitical Hypothesis; for they might all be descended from Adam. For this Murder of Abel happened, in all probability, in the 129 year of Adam. For the Scripture says expressly that Seth was born in the 130th year, Gen. 5.3. and Seth was given in the lieu of Abel. For Eve says Gen. 4.25. God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew. Therefore it is most probable, that he was born the year after the murder, to be a Comfort to the first Parents after so sad an affliction, having never seen the death of any of their Offspring before. So that then Cain must be 129 years old, when he took his flight, at least. Now 'tis no wonder that then there should be a considerable number of Inhabitants in the World; for it is not likely that Adam and Eve had no Children all that time; it is probable they had a great many, and that there was a competent stock of Mankind by this time, to the number it may be of an hundred thousand, considering the primitive fecundity. For if the Children of Israel from 70 Souls in the space of 210 years became 600,000 fight men, whereas a great number of them died during the Increase, we may well enough suppose that the Children of Adam might amount to 100,000 in 130 years, 

A M 30 10. 60 100 90 1000 120 10,000. 130 100,000.  111,110. Subtract 1.  111,109.   which is almost five Generations. So that Cain might very well build a City, or grow out of the knowledge of many, when there were such a number of People in the World.  Phil. 

O. R. p. 46. 47. From Gataker's Cinnus.  Another thing, which makes my Faith strain a little, is the making Adam give names to all the Animals in the World in one bit of a day, and this upon mature consideration of their nature and faculties, and playing the Philosopher upon each of them, as the Divines will have it. And indeed he must be a very expedite Philosopher, and they must be very nimble Creatures, to come and go in that little time of this day allotted by Moses, for this purpose. For a small pittance of time must serve for this, when the day was taken up with so many other matters. This believe me is the busiest day of all the rest, for Moses then makes the Deity bestir himself to some purpose, as if he began to grow weary of his Creating, and was resolved to have his work over by the Week's end. For, to set aside this naming of the Animals, which, to consider the nature of each and to adapt them a name to it, would require no small time; let us see what a hurry there must be, for the transaction of other matters. In the first place, there were so many thousand of Animals created, then there was a counsel called for the Creation of Man, who had at first a Body form out of Clay, and a Soul Breathed into it by God; then Adam falls a sleep, and had a Mistress form out of one of his Ribs; when he wakes, he performs (as must be supposed) some Ceremonies of Courtship to the newfound Lady, gains her Affections, and celebrates an Extemporary Marriage; the Woman leaves her new Husband and falls a parlying with an ugly Serpent, or the Devil, about an Apple; after a deal of arguing pro and con, the Woman yields to the Beast, eats the Apple, tempts her Husband, makes his mouth water, and he eats too; then their nature is altered, they lose their Glory and their sense, find out one another's blind side, are ashamed of their nakedness, commence Tailors extempore, sew Fig-leaves together and make themselves fine green Aprons. Then God in the Evening comes into the Garden, the Guilty Criminals hid themselves in the Thickets, God summons them, they appear, there is a fair hearing of the Cause, they make their excuses, and after a full Examination God decrees to the Man, Woman and Serpent the Punishments they had merited. Then they are driven out of Paradise, two Angels with brandished Swords are set Sentinels at the Garden door, and poor Adam and Eve are forced into the Woods, to take up their Lodging among the Beasts. So that here is almost the whole Opera of the Creation of the World performed this day; and there is but a very little time left, for Adam's making his Vocabulary, and reading his Philosophy Lectures. I am unwilling to tease you with absurdities I could raise from all these Particulars, but one thing I must needs tell you lies cross my Throat mightily, which I can never swallow; and that is to consider what a nimble March the grave Elephants must make from India to Eden; and what a strange Randezvouz there must be of Getulian Lions and Greenland Bears, of Guinean Monkeys and English Mastiffs, and all to travel so far at so short a warning and in so little a time. Pray good, Credentius, help out a poor Unbeliever, in the midst of these difficulties.  Cred. 
But supposing, Philologus, 
No confused huddle in the Relation of the sixth day's work,  we should deny all this which you take for granted, that the matter of all this Relation was transacted in one day, and that the Animals took so long a journey to wait on Adam; then all this fine Harangue falls to nothing. And indeed I do not see any thing in Scripture to countenance it, it is only the general Opinion of the Schools, who suppose the Fall of Man to have happened the first day of his Creation; and this is grounded upon an Argument, which I see nothing in; which is, because otherwise Adam might have begotten a Child in his Innocency, and then would not have traduced his Gild to his Posterity. I shall not trouble myself to confute this Argument, because it is only a wild supposition, and which may be answered by twenty suppositions as probable on the other side. My business I undertook with you is to vindicate the Authority of the Scripture, and not the Schoolmens Hypotheses; and I do not here find any absurdity in that, whatever your supposition may bring along with it. For  

The lapse of Man, not the first day of his Creation.  1st, Here is not a word in Scripture of the Lapse happening the sixth day of the World's Creation, or the first of Man's, and therefore you ought not to impute any absurdities to the Mosaical account, which may follow from that Opinion. Indeed those Difficulties, which you have urged out of Mr. Gataker, show, that all these things could not be transacted in one day; but if they were done in many the Authority of the Scripture remains entire; and truly the Arguments of that Learned Man (which he has brought to confute the Opinion of the Schools, and you have borrowed to expose the Mosaical account) to me seem very conclusive. But besides, I have other reasons to think that the Lapse of Mankind did not happen the first day; but that there did a considerable time intervene before this unhappy miscarriage. I doubt not but that Adam before the fall was endowed with an extraordinary degree of Knowledge, for I can never agree with the Socinians, that he was such a poor ignorant Idiot as they would make of him. But then I am apt to believe, that this Knowledge inclined more to the Angelical and Intuitive, than to the Experimental and Discursive one. For it proceeded only from the extraordinary Influence of the divine grace, and not from his own deductions, experiments and discourse. So that though Adam were never so wise a Creature I much question whether he had the inspired power of speaking, as the Apostles had. For words are pure placitory things, and depend upon the mutual Agreement of the Speaker, and the Hearer; and therefore 'tis most reasonable to think that Adam and Eve coined their own words themselves. The difference between the Apostles and them, was very wide; because the Apostles spoke to men who understood those Languages; but if Adam had spoke to Eve Hebrew, or Greek, she could have no more understood him, than if he had held his Tongue. They, that maintain this Opinion must have recourse to Inspiration upon Inspiration, and Miracle upon Miracle; there must be one Inspiration for Adam to speak, and another for Eve to understand; there must be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost for every word and syllable, and that too with a double efficacy, not only for the Information of the Hearer, but to make the Speaker understand his own words. It remains therefore, that the first Parents framed a language for themselves, which must be a considerable time a composing; so that whereas we find them readily discoursing at the time of the Lapse both with God, the Serpent, and themselves, it must follow that not only the fall, but the naming of the Animals must be at such a convenient distance of time from the Creation, as might give them leisure to frame the language. Which time cannot be supposed to be overlong because their extraordinary Intellectual Capacity, they were then endowed with, would mightily facilitate their Invention of words, and proper adapting them to things. And 2ly, We may draw another Reason, that the Lapse did not happen upon the first day from Gen. 3. v. 8. from their being acquainted with the voice of God walking in the garden in the cool of the Day, which implies they were used and much accustomed to the divine presence, or Shechinah, that they were able to know it so readily, which they could not be supposed to do in one day. And lastly, the same Verse informs us, that they hide themselves among the Trees of the Garden, which shows they were better acquainted with it, than they could be in an hour or two, so as to find out the darkest thickets and umbrages of it.  
2. There is another thing which you take for granted in this supposition, that is not so very certain; and that is, That in the sixth day's Creation there were Animals created all over the World, and placed in those divers parts of it, we find them in now. The World might be very well stocked by a pair or two of each kind created about Eden, and their breed might increase as Mankind multiplied. And if so (as the Scripture says nothing for it, or against it) Adam might name all those Animals with ease enough, and not trouble them to take such long Journeys as you suppose.  
3. If we should grant that the Animals were scattered at first all over the Earth, some peculiar to one Country, and some to another; yet it does not follow from the words of Moses, that Adam must give names to all these. It is sufficient, that he named those Anmals, that were seated in that part of the World where Eden stood. For it was to all intents and purposes sufficient for him to know, what to call those Creatures, which he was to be conversant with, and was to make use of; but it would signify very little, for him to make a Vocabulary of a number of Animals, that were to reside so many thousand miles from him, and which he was never like to see again, after his Nomination. So that truly, Philologus, I do not see any of these formidable difficulties you imagine in this Objection; unless we allow all those suppositions you have a mind to pin upon the Scripture, without any warrant from it. And now let us see, if you have any more to say against the Mosaical Creation.  Phil. 
I think, Sir, enough has been said upon this point; and you have been pleased to afford me better reasons, for defence of the Mosaical Relations, than ever I have happened to meet withal before.  Cred. 
I thank you for your Compliment. But I will beg leave, 
The ridiculousness of other Nations account of the Creation, compared with the Mosaical.  to add a word or two more, in favour of the Mosaic account of the Creation. And that is, that of all the accounts which in all Nations have been pretended to be given of the Origin of the World, this is the wisest and most Philosophical. Which to me is a considerable proof of its divine Revelation; especially considering at what a low ebb Letters and Philosophy ran in the Jewish Nation: So that I am apt to believe the Jews were no more able to invent such a wise and intelligible System of the World, than they were able to make the World itself. And this we may be the better convinced of, if we reflect a little upon accounts which other Nations give of it. What a wretched account was that of the Egyptians, 
The Egyptian and Grecian.  and which the Epicureans borrowed from them, of Men growing out of the Earth, like Pumkins and Onions? What strange stories does the Grecian Theology tell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Jupiter and Saturn? What sad work do their ancient Writers make when they form Men out of projected Stones, and a Crop of Dragon's Teeth? Neither are other Nations more happy, in their pretended Originations of the World. No one can with patience read the absurdities in the Mahometan Physiology and account of the World. 
The Mahometan.  They tell us of the first Man's being created, like a Magpie, black and white; and this gave the different Colour to Men in the divers parts of the World. That God made at first the Throne of God, Adam, Paradise, and a great Pen, with which he wrote his Decrees. That this Throne was carried about upon Angels necks, whose Heads were so big, that Birds could not fly in a thousand years from one Ear to the other. That this great Pen is a Journey of five hundred years long, and one of eighty years broad. That the Stars are firebrands, thrown against the Devils, that would invade Heaven. That the Heaven is propped up by the Mountain Kaff, which is made all of Emerald. That the Moon is as big as the Sun, only the Angel Gabriel laps his Wing over a part of it. That the Earth stands upon the tip of a great Cows-Horn, that this Cow stands upon a white Stone, and that Stone upon a Mountain, and that Mountain upon God knows what. That it is a Journey of a thousand years from one Horn of this Cow to the other: with a deal more of this stuff. Now if you could find such Farce as this is in the Mosaical account, you might very well expose it; but I am sure you have little reason to do it, when the whole tenor of it is so reasonable and judicious.  
I should seem too long, and it may be too ludicrous, if I should pick out all the simple Tales, from the Books of Travels into several parts of the World; of the first Origin of things. It shall content me only to instance in two great and different parts of it, and that is in the Americans, and the Chinese.  
The Americans (especially the Harons') make all things proceed from a Spirit called Cudovangi, 
The American.  who shot several Arrows into the ground, which grew to be Men; that this God begot a very good Son, but had a very wicked Mother, that spoilt all the good, her Son and Grandson did; with a deal of this miserable Banter. And as for the Chinese, that knowing Nation, which you Theists are wont to cry up for the standard of Primitive Learning, and Genuine Antiquity, let us see how they mend the matter in their account. And they tell us that one Tayn who lived in Heaven, famous for his Wisdom, disposed the parts of the World into the order we find them. That he created out of nothing the first Man Panson, and his Wife Pansone. That Panson by a deligated Power from Tayn, created another Man called Tanhom, who was a great Naturalist and Physician, and understanding the nature of things gave names to them; and this Tanhom had 13 Brethren so created, and so the World was Peopled at first: Then after a while the Sky fell down upon the Earth, and destroyed them; and then the wise Tayn created another Man called Lotzizam who had two Horns, and a Body of an odoriferous smell; from him proceeded many Men and Women who stocked the World with its present Inhabitants; who when he had left Breed enough disappeared and went I know not where. Now certainly, when we compare the Mosaic History of the Origination of things with these lame and silly accounts, we must be so far from exposing, that we must highly admire the Wisdom and Judgement of this excellent Writer; or rather conclude him to be divinely inspired, who alone of all Legislators, and Philosophers, has given us so wise and rational account of his Creation.   

Of the Fall of Mankind.  Phil. 
We are now come to another Class of Difficulties, Credentius, which seem to arise from Moses his account of the Fall of Man; and indeed there is nothing here but what looks wild and staring: For I can hardly be serious when I see what a number of odd things are here jumbled together. Here is God and the Woman, the Man and the Snake, Trees and Rivers, and Angels and Flaming Swords. Here is a farce of—  Cred. 
I am forced to interrupt you, Philologus, now you are running upon this strain; and I am ashamed at the disingenuity of the Gentlemen of your way, they first dress up the Scripture in a Monstrous shape, and then bait it when you have done. You may make any thing ridiculous by an odd management of it, 
The wickedness and folly of drolling upon Scripture.  if you please. One may make a Fool's Cap out of an Altar-Cloth, and turn the words of an Act of Parliament into a Droll: For there is nothing so grave and serious but a witty Man may make ridiculous, by an odd management of it; by clapping together strange and incoherent Ideas; by expressing sacred things in vulgar Terms; by laughing at that, which other People admire; by a bold treatment of those things which other Men approach with Reverence; by making use of words and Metaphors which are generally used in a ludicrous sense. Now these things being unusual and consequently surprising, they tickle a sort of Levity which is in human nature; they make most People laugh at them, and Fools to admire them. They are a kind of ignes fatui, collusive glympses of Wit, which blind People's understandings at first sight, make them take that for Wit which is nothing but Boldness, and make them admire that for a fine saying which is only an unusual one; for men, that talk after this manner, do not speak what other men cannot say, but what they dare not. Now wise men presently discern this false light and the little Arts which are used in the management of it, and consequently do not suffer themselves to be deceived by it; they consider these holy things as they are, and not as they are wantonly represented: all the mischief that this Discourse is like to do, is among your little unthinking Things, that set up for Wit without common Sense, and cry up every thing for extraordinary reason, which, has nothing in it but Clinch and Jingle. I desire therefore the favour of you, Sir, that you would make use of Argument instead of Raillery, whilst we are disputing of these sacred Truths, that you would propose your objections with all the strength you can; that you would conceal no difficulty you can espy in this divine Relation, but I can never endure you should rack and tenter the passages of it, clap one part of it incongruously and ridiculously with another, only to make sport and banter with it. For I am sure, Philologus, you can find nothing ridiculous in the whole Relation, but what you make so. Nor do I reprimand you for the only Man, that are delinquent this way; but it is the general fault of all the Gentlemen of your persuasion; who are wont especially to muster up all their Raillery and Malice too, to expose the Relation of this unfortunate miscarriage of our first Parents, and to ridicule the belief of it out of the World. Here I find lies the Masterpiece of your Irreligion; and a Man must not pretend to set up for Theism, without variety of Blasphemy upon this subject.  Phil. 
I perceive, dear Credentius, that this is touching you in a tender place, and therefore I shall forbear all reflections, which are not necessary to my Argument. But I must needs tell you that there are a great many things in this relation of the Fall which you call difficult and we call ridiculous; but let them be what they will, they are such, that will keep a thinking Man from hearty believing your Religion, till he sees them handsomely cleared up. And the first of these is the Temptation of Eve by the Serpent. Now is it not a little odd, Credentius, that such an ugly Beast as a Serpent, should venture to accost such a fine Lady, in all her Supralapsarian Beauty? 
O. R. p. 39, 40, etc.  I pray what kind of Language did Serpents than speak, for we find they have no other than that of hissing now? Methinks Eve should have run away from such a speaking Beast, faster than from an Apparition, and never have entered into a Conference with it. Why should a Serpent, I pray, of all the Beasts of the field, have all this Reason and Elocution bestowed upon it? Methinks a Lion, or a Bull would have made a good full-mouthed Orator; but for a pitiful Snake to have such mighty Talents of Rhetoric and Persuasion, is really very surprising. But supposing you say, that the Devil possessing the Organs of this Serpent tempted the Woman. I answer, I think he made as silly a choice of a Body as ever Devil did, to perform this Temptation in. To have seen such an odd kind of stupid Beast of a sudden turned rational, to hear that speak which was dumb before, would probably have scared the poor Woman out of her Wits: she would quickly, I suppose, have left the Devil and the Apple together, and have betook herself to her Heels and her Husband to secure her. Besides, here is not a word of the Devil's possessing the Body of the Serpent in the Relation of Moses; for he imputes the Woman's being circumvented wholly to the Subtlety of the Serpent; this is only a shift of your Divines to bring in the Devil, as the Poets used to do the Gods, to help them out at a dead lift. Come, Credentius, what do you say to all this?  Cred. 

Not unreasonable that the Devil should tempt Mankind in the form of a Serpem.  Say! Sir, the best thing I can say, is to say my Prayers for you to God, to deliver you from this hardened infidelity. But, in the mean time, I will answer this terrible Argument of yours, as satisfactorily as I can.  
1. Therefore I assert, that the Tempter which deceived our first Parents, was the Devil, some wicked malicious Spirit that envied the good of Mankind, and those extraordinary favours, which God has so plentifully bestowed on our first Parents; which inclined him to tempt them to disobedience, thereby to bring them into the same forlorn condition with himself, and the other fallen Angels. That the Serpent is only mentioned, whose Body the Devil made use of, is owing to a Metonymy common in the Hebrew Tongue, which uses the Instrumental for the Efficient Cause, and the Efficient for the Instrumental; of which multitude of Instances may be given, out of the Scripture. Thus the Angels, which God employed about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, are called by the name of the Lord. Gen. 1. and what they say and do, is said to be done by the Lord. So on the other side the Divine Predictions of God-Almighty are said to be the words of the Prophets, which he employed as Instruments to speak them. Thus, Amos 1. 1. The Words of Amos, who was among the Herdsmen of Tekoa, etc. So Jer. 1. what is called, v. 2. The Word of the Lord, is called, v. 1. The Words of Jeremiah the Son of Hilkiah. So by the Word, by Faith, and by the Sacraments, we are said to be saved; whereas these are only the Instruments God makes use of in our Salvation. So the Ministers of the Gospel are said to bind and to lose; whereas 'tis God only which does it by their Ministry. Therefore it is no wonder, if by the same Metonymy, what is spoken or done by the Devil is said to be spoken or done by the Serpent, whose Organs he usurped. But further it is plain, that it was the Devil which managed this Deceit, not only from the Incongruousness of a Brute Beast's overreaching Mankind in his highest pitch of Reason, but from the Attestation of the Holy Scripture itself. The Author of the Book of Wisdom, who well understood the Doctrines and Traditions of the Jewish Church, and the sense of the holy Scripture, tells us expressly that by the Envy of the Devil Death came into the World, Wisd. 2.24. And our blessed Saviour who was a better Explainer of the Scriptures, tells us, the Devil was a Murderer from the beginning, or the first Creation, alluding to his mischievous destruction of Mankind; that he is a Liar and the Father of Lies, both in the first and all the following Temptation of Mankind. Nay, farther than this, the Devil is expressly in Scripture called the Serpent, and the Dragon was cast out, that old Serpent called the Devil and Satan, Rev. 12.9. and he laid hold on the Dragon that old Serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, Rev. 20.2. All which places are undoubted references to his first Deception of Mankind, under the form of a Serpent, which is Evident in the word old, which supposes him to be that first Serpent, which has been deceiving Mankind, ever since their first Original.  
2ly. 
The Devil much pleased with Serpent Worship.  You have no reason to expose this Divine Writer, for his relating the Devil to have taken the Form of a Serpent more than that of any other Creature: For this is but consonant to his other practice in divers places of the World; for we find him mightily delighted with Serpents, both in his Oracles and his Idolatrous Worships. It is known to all, how that the Great Oracle of Delphos was delivered by the Pythonissa, or the Priestess of the Serpent, and Heinsius 
* Aristarch.  has observed that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, comes from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Serpent, so that the Pythius Apollo is nothing else but the Hebrew Ob, or Abaddon, which the Hellenistical Jews render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Apollo. 
† Lib. 17. Cap. 5.  Aelian in his various History says, that Serpents among the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are zealously worshipped; and Maximus Tyrius 
* Dissert. 38.  says, that the Serpent was the great Symbol of the Deity to most Nations, and as such was worshipped by the Indians. And Grotius out of ancient Authors has made appear, that in the old Greek Mysteries, they used to carry about a Serpent and cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which seems to be a perfect Triumph of the Devil, exulting as it were over the unhappy deception of our first Mother. Sigismundus in his History of Moscovia relates, that the Samogithae there worship a Serpent, which they keep by them, and tells a story of a poor Man that was horribly abused by the Devil for relinquishing the worship of his Serpent. The like Guaginus in his Sarmatia Europea tells of the Lithuanians; as also Scaliger in his Exercitations, and that they sacrifice to them Milk and Cocks. The like Serpent-worship the same Scaliger relates of the People of Calcutta in the Indies, in his notes upon Aristotle's Book of Animals. And Philip Melancthen tells a strange story, of some Priests somewhere in Asia, that carry about a Serpent in a brazen Vessel, which they attend with a great deal of Music and charms in verse, the Serpent lifts up himself and opens his Mouth, and thrusts out the head of a beautiful Virgin; the Devil thereby glorying, in this miscarriage among those poor Idolaters. And some Books of Travels into the West-Indies give the like account there. Now since the Devil has made use of these viperous Animals in his service in so many parts of the World; why should men find fault with Moses his History, for asserting a thing, so agreeable to the experience of all Mankind?  
3dly. Neither is it necessary to assert, 
This Serpent not the common viperous kind.  that the Serpent was of the common creeping Serpentine kind. It is most probable something like that flying fiery sort, which are bred in Arabia and Egypt, that are of a shining yellowish Colour, like that of Brass; which by the motion of their Wings and the vibration of their Tails reverberating the Sun Beams, do afford a most glorious appearance. Now if the Serpent, whose Body the Devil abused, was of this sort, though perhaps it was a species far more glorious, it was a very proper Creature for him to make use of for this design. For these Serpents were called 
* Deut. 8.15.  Saraphs, or Seraphim, which gave the name to those bright lofty Angels, which were frequently in ancient Times employed by God Almighty, to deliver his will to Mankind; which were wont to take a splendid Form upon them, something like those shining Saraphs. Now the Devil, who is used to imitate the divine actions by an artificial mimicry, observing, that good Angels did minister to Adam and Eve in this bright appearance, he usurps the Organs of one of these shining Serpents, which he rendered so artificially glorious, as to represent to Eve the usual Schechinah, or Angelical appearance she was accustomed to; and by this means, renders himself more successful in his accursed project. Now unless the Angels did appear in such a kind of Form, which we suppose here the Devil to imitate, there can be no account given of the Seraphim and Cherubin, which were the only Symbolical Imagery allowed of in the Jewish Church; and which seem to be nothing else, but the Representation of those divers appearances of Angels, some in the form of Cherubin, beautiful, flying Oxen; others in the shape of Seraphim, winged and shining Serpents. Now when the Devil had taken this Angelical Representation upon him, it was no wonder that he did more easily deceive our first unhappy Mother, who might then probably take him to be some good Angel come from Heaven to assist her, as she might often have experienced before, during their stay in Paradise. And if this be so, which I take to be the most probable account of it; then all that Banter, which your Gentlemen make use of, about the speaking Snake, and the fright of the Woman, will fall to the ground; and this Relation of Moses will be built, not only upon a firm, but a very rational Bottom. But if you have a mind to be satisfied more in this matter, I refer you to Archbishop Tenison's learned Treatise of Idolatry, Cap. 14.  Phil. 
But granting all this to be true, that the Devil appeared to Eve in the shape of an Angel of Light, or, as you will have it, like one of the flying lucid Saraphs, and thus deceived Eve; 
O. R. p. 41.  yet methinks it would have been but just, that some good Angels should have succoured a poor Ignorant weak Woman; surely those just Guardians of humane affairs would not have permitted so unequal a Conflict. Certainly a Person, who had so great a Price set upon her head, as the Salvation of all Mankind, might well have deserved a Guard of Angels. Nay, farther it seems to reflect upon the Wisdom and Goodness of God himself, to suffer his whole Creation, which he had been so many days a working, to be ruined in a moment's time by a malicious Spirit. I can never think, but that God Almighty would have contrived some way or other, to have hindered such a fatal miscarriage, when he so easily might; he would never have left a poor young Creature open to all the Wiles of an old crafty Devil, and have damned all her Posterity, for not being so cunning as he.  Cred. 

God not obliged to keep Man from sinning by an irresistible Power.  This Objection of yours, Philologus, is grounded upon a mistake common to you and some of the ancient Heathens, that a good and a just God could not permit Evil among Free Agents. For when any Evil action came to affect them nighly, they were presently up with their An Dii sint? And so would choose to be Atheists, rather than own a God who would permit any thing to cross their humour. Now you make use of the Inverse of that Argument, and would prove that because there is a good God, therefore he would never suffer such a wicked action of the Devil. But, that which is the ground of both these Arguments, is an unreasonable mistake, viz. the opinion that a Just and Wise God cannot permit Evil. Now it is true, that there are some part of natural Evils which God could not permit, such as might happen to the inanimate parts of the Creation, as any blundered irregular formation of their parts, any defect in their nature or constitution. For all such Evil as this must then needs proceed from God, who gave them this irregular nature, in which they could have no hand themselves. Therefore we freely own, that God cannot permit Evil of this kind; because such permission were tantamount to the doing it. All the question is whether he cannot permit moral Evil among free Agents, and such natural Evils which are the punishments of them. Now unless we grant that he could it is impossible there should be any such thing as a free Agent, which is to act on either part. For if God could not permit Evil then Man could do nothing but Good, than his actions would all be determined on one side; and so could be no more said to be free, than a Stone is such, which necessarily falls downwards Nor does this permission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reflect upon God's goodness; for God only gives this  and Power to his Creatures, which is an act of goodness; but it is owing to their ill use of it, that they commit Evil. But you'll say it is not the Difficulty how to reconcile God's Holiness with the permission of Evil; but how to think he should permit an Evil of so vast a consequence. Now to this, I answer,  

This would have destroyed .  1st, It must be granted, that Adam and Eve, who together with the Devil committed this Evil, were free Agents; and therefore all the restraints God could lay upon them to resist the Devil's Temptations must be such as were consonant to their . For God to have given them such powerful Influxes of his Spirit, as to have made it impossible for them to Sin, would have been in effect to have altered their natures, and to have changed them from free to necessary Agents. For that would have been to have overruled them by as absolute an Impulse, as he does Stones and Trees. All that we can suppose reasonable for God to do is, to dispense to them such abundantly sufficient measures of his Grace, as might enable them to encounter with the strongest Temptation, but yet in such a way, as might be consistent with their Reason and . Now if such an Angelical Guard, as you would have had to keep them from Sinning, had been so continually about them, as to hinder the Devil from proposing any Temptation, or our first Parents from harkening to any; if they had supernaturally overruled the Organs of their Bodies, or the Inclinations of their Minds upon the least Tendency to Evil; God then would not have dealt with them as with Men, but as with Brutes. Besides, God had then put them upon a state of Probation, but to have overruled their actions and determined them only on one side, would have been to have run counter to his own Design; it would have been to have put them upon a Trial, and at the same time to have rendered them impossible to be cried. So ●hat let the Miscarriage be of never so great consequence, we cannot suppose that God should act contrary to his Wisdom and Eternal Reason, for the prevention of it.  

Man had sufficient assistance.  2ly, There is no reason God should have interposed his Omnipotence to have hindered this Sin, because they had Power of their own superabundantly sufficient to avoid it. We, alas! in this lapsed condition of ours, find a great deal of difficulty to encounter with our Temptations; we feel a great blindness in our Understandings and a Crookedness in our Wills, we experience often an inclination to do Evil, even before the Temptation comes. But our first Parents in their primitive rectitude of nature stood possessed of every thing as advantageous the other way; they had an understanding nuturally large and capacious and fully illuminated by the Divine Spirit; their Will was naturally inclined to the supreme good, and could not without Violence to its nature, make choice of any other. Now when God had made such ample provision for Mankind, to secure them from Sin; we can never suppose it necessary, for God to employ his Almighty Power besides, for this would be in a manner actum agere, to do that for them again which he had sufficiently done for them before. But if notwithstanding all these mighty advantages towards a state of Impeccancy, they would resolutely break through them all, their unparallelled Stubbornness and Disobedience is to be blamed, and not the insufficiency of God's Grace, or the defect of his Almighty assistance.  
3ly, 
This Miscarriage was repared by God's mercy afterwards.  What God did not by his absolute Power hinder before, he did by his Mercy sufficiently repair afterwards. For presently after the Fall, God the Father agreed to the Mediatorship propounded by God the Son; and then Eternal Life, through the blood of our Saviour, was given (upon our sincere, though not unsinning Obedience) after Death, as it was without Death before. And by this wonderful mercy, after so great a provocation, the Goodness of God is more abundantly manifested, than by hindering the Sin at first; as men are more sensibly affected, with a Pardon graciously offered after the conviction of a Disobedience, than they are by a Dispensation for it, or a Connivance at it.  Phil. 
As for this matter, Credentius, of the Mediatorship, we shall talk more hereafter, but let us go through the Garden first. And the first thing, we meet withal, is the two Trees, of singular qualities indeed; such as silence all the strange relations, in the Pliny's and Theophrastus'. I mean the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life. Now what tolerable sense can be put upon the relation of these two Trees? The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil! Why, can ever any one thing that Morality grew upon Trees? This, I'll warrant you, is such a kind of an Ethical Tree, as Porphyry's is in Logic. It is very strange, Credentius that we should take so much pains for a little Science, when our first Parents could get to be so knowing only by eating of Apples. And I am as much perplexed too, about your other Tree, The Tree of Life. Now I can never beat it into my dull Brains, how Eternity should grow upon the Tops of Trees; for my part, I should as soon believe that Lobsters and Red-Herrings grew there. Nor if it be asserted, 
O.R. p. 42.  that this Tree was to make men long lived, that were to eat of it, and for this reason was called the Tree of Life: I do not see how this one Tree had been sufficient for all the Progeny of Adam, in case they had not sinned; or however it would have been very inconvenient for men to have come from America to Eden for these Vivifical Apples. All this looks very surprising, Credentius, and is too much like a piece of the old Poetical Divinity.  Cred. 
It is true, 
The Relation of the two Trees not ridiculous.  things look very strange and odd that are unusual; which makes us we can hardly forbear laughing at an old Fashion, after some time of disuse; though we liked it well enough, when it was common. Now the State of Innocence and the lapsed State of Mankind, being so very different, we must suppose, that there were some things consonant to the first State very disagreeable to our present one; and this is but reasonable to imagine. Now of a great number of these Moses has reckoned but a few, amongst which are these Trees. As for the Tree of Life, I cannot imagine any thing more agreeable to such a State of Innocence. Now a State of Innocence supposes Immortality, for Death came by Sin; and something was requisite to make men Immortal, when their Bodies naturally were not so. Indeed God might have done this, by his immediate Almighty Power; but he generally cooperates with second causes. Now what fit means can we suppose, for the continual renovation of men's Bodies, without any manner of decay, than the fruit of such a Tree? If some Food of an extraordinary quality be requisite, why not the Fruit of a Tree, as well as the Flesh of an Animal; as well as an Herb, a Root, or any thing else? When God had designed, that men's Bodies should never yield to decay, or Death, methinks it was very reasonable, for him to direct them to the eating a certain fruit of a Tree, whose juice was of that spirituous nature, as to impregnate their blood with an indefectible vigour, and to keep them in a constant Youth, without pain, or disease, or imbecility, till such time as he should translate them to a better World. And this I take to be the use of the Tree of Life. It is uncertain whether or no this Tree was but one single one, and always to be continued in Eden, if there had been no lapse; it is most probable many of them would have been transplanted to other parts of the World, as the innocent Offspring had increased: but when Mankind had sinned, it is probable that God destroyed this species out of the World as being now grown useless, and inconsistent with the Curse and Punishment of Man. And this the Heathens seem to have some traditional notion of, when they speak of the Nectar and Ambrosia, which maintained the Immortality of their Gods, and Moly which was the great Panacea, celebrated by the Heathen Poets. As for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it was I suppose called so, not because it had a virtue to confer any such knowledge; but because the Devil pretended in his Temptation of the Woman it had, it receiving its name from that unfortunate Deception. And tho' God calls it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, before the Fall, yet that is related by Moses by way of Anticipation; as if I should say the Romans Encamped in Essex, or Middlesex, though neither of those places were then known by that name. And as for that other place, v. 22. Behold the Man is become as one of us to know good and evil. I look upon that to be only a bitter Irony to upbraid Man with his foolish disobedience and disappointment.  Phil. 
I suppose you will hardly be able to get off so well with your four Rivers, as you have done with your Two Trees. I find here, that your inspired Author was as bad at Geography, as the Turks are at Chronology. They have both a good will to their cause, and therefore will garnish it out with all the fine things they ever heard of. Thus the Turks, when they would make King Solomon as brave a Man as they can, make Alexander the Great the Master of his Horse, and twenty other great Men Lackeys and Footboys to him. And thus Moses, when he would describe a curious Garden, makes four of the greatest Rivers in the World, to be in lieu of Canals in it. He does not matter the great distance of place, and the different sources of the Rivers; but jumbles together all Asia, and afric, 
O.R. p. 35, etc.  to make a pretty little Garden for Adam to dress. Here is Tigris, and Euphrates, and Nilus, and Ganges, as the Interpreters explain them, which have their Origin in this spot of ground; so that it must reach at least, from the Fountain of Nile (i e.) from the Midland of Africa, to India. All this is very strange, Credentius.  Cred. 
To this we answer, Philologus, 
Difficulties about the Rivers of Eden removed.  1st, It is not certain from the Mosaical Relation, of what extent this Gan-Eden, or Paradise was. It might be, for aught we know, a very considerable part of the habitable Earth; which the the Antediluvians were kept out of, or at least were so for a considerable time. Now, if Eden was of so large a circumference, it might afford an origin to several very distant Rivers. So that Adam might only cultivate that part of it, which he was first placed in. 2ly, It is likewise very uncertain, what Rivers are meant by these Hebrew names. As for the Interpreters, they are so various in their Conjectures, that it would be tedious to recount them. It seems most probable to me, that these Rivers are only some branches of the River Euphrates, if so be the Channel of the River had a being before the Flood. 3ly, It can never be exactly known where these Rivers were, because of the great alteration made in the World by the Deluge, which has mightily altered, or it may be obliterated their Course. For I believe, that at the Flood, the mighty confluence of Waters over the Face of the Earth, and the breaking open the Deep or Subterraneous Waters, turned the Earth into something like its Chaotick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that Mud it was at the first Creation; so that the Course of Rivers must be altered, by the washing away their Banks and the choking up their Channels. And therefore it is in vain, to seek for these Ante-diluvian Rivers, in those Courses of Waters, that trickle over the Earth now. And therefore you do very ill, to censure the Mosaical Writings, because you cannot find those Rivers now a days, which he speaks of before the Flood.  Phil. 
But by the way, Sir, if Moses describes these Rivers as they were before the Flood, which you suppose to be different from what they are now; this will render it a very idle and superfluous Description. 
O. R. p. 37.  For he describes these Rivers of Paradise, only to find out the situation of it; but if these Rivers were such, as were defaced in the Deluge, one can no more find out the situation of Paradise by this, than if he had only mentioned the Man in the Moon.  Cred. 
You are much mistaken, 
Moses did not give account of the Rivers to find out Paradise by.  Philologus, to think, that the aim of Moses, in this description of the Rivers, was for men to find out Paradise by; for the Holy Scripture does not use to condescend, to satisfy men's Inquisitive Curiosities. It was the design of the Holy Ghost, in this relation, to acquaint Posterity with the Beauty of that happy place, which our first Parents unfortunately forfeited; but, I dare say, it was not the least of his Intention, to leave minutes for Witty Men to write Books, and draw Maps by. But, I pray, was there never a Description made of any thing, but only to teach men how to find it by? Some things are described, that are past and gone, as the relation of the actions of Men, Sieges, Battles, Tumults, etc. and so are impossible to be found; other things are related in a shorter manner, when they need not be found, as Paul was buried at Rome, Pompey was conquered at Philippi, now it would be nonsense in the Historians to describe exactly the Vault or spot of Ground where the Apostles Body was laid; or to show the particular ground which was covered by each Army; So that the Reader, if he pleased might go directly to them. Should Historians do this, it would ●ake their Writings as tedious and ridiculous, as a Story that is filled up with nothing but I said, and he said, and I said again. Therefore the Prophet's description of Paradise is very proper, to give the Reader an account, what kind of place Paradise was; but as for the finding out the place, it is neither necessary for us to know, nor for him to relate, with such particularity.  Phil. 
The next thing, Credentius, I have to accost you with, is, The Great Law which Adam and Eve were to be tried by, and all Mankind stand or fall, by the keeping, or the breaking of it. Now one would think, that a Law, upon which effects of so vast a consequence did depend, must be some mighty wise precept in itself, most admirably conducing to the good of Mankind and the honour and Wisdom of the Legislator, but instead of this, we find only a poor little trivial thing commanded, only forsooth the not eating of an Apple. A reasonable man would suppose, that these wise couple with the Supralapsarian Knowledge, should have had a Law given them for their Trial suitable to their great Capacities, some supereminent rules of moral Virtue, such as Philosophers talk of and leave for others to practise; some noble part of your Christian Charity, or seraphic Love, which some of your melting Divines make such fine speeches upon; these would have been precepts agreeable to that wise and glorious State, but such a ludicrous Law as this does not only seem to be an undervaluing to the Wisdom of the Deity, but even to Man himself, to be dealt with so like a Child, as this comes to.  Cred. 
I perceive this is an Argument, 
The reasonableness of the Probative Precept.  which Infidels have made use of in all Ages, down from Julian and Celsus, to the little Coffeehouse and Tavern Wits in our Time. But for my part, I could never see any strength in this Argument, nor any ridiculousness in this Law, nor any thing fit to be laughed at, but only their foolish management of it. As for your exceptions against this Law, that it was the prohibition of such a small indifferent Thing, and not some great Rule of Morality, will you be pleased to take this answer, which I am persuaded will satisfy you, or will at least silence you, from making sport with this passage of Scripture any more.  
It is acknowledged by all, that the Mosaical Tables are a good short System of Morality and take in all the general heads of moral Virtues, and therefore we will run through these, and see if any precept here was so fit to be given Adam for a Trial, as that which Moses said he had. 
The Prohibition of an Apple more proper than any thing else.  To begin with the first Table which relates to the Divine Worship and Reverence. Suppose the Worship of false Gods or Image-Worship, had been forbidden him. Had not that been ten times more ridiculous than the Apple? For the Worship of false Gods was a thing, which came into the World several hundred of years afterwards, when men grew so stupid as to take the Sun and Moon for Gods and began to flatter their Princes into divine honours. Neither would the Prohibition of Image-Worship have been any Trial; for we can never suppose Adam, to have been such a Sot, as to have made an Image and to have fell down before it himself. Besides, Images were long after brought into Worship, either to flatter living Princes, or else to supply the place of dead ones, whom the silly People fancied were become Gods. Neither would the prohibition of Perjury or vain Swearing, have been a better way of Probation. Perjury was a thing not to be heard of, till the World was better Peopled, when Commerce and Trade came into use, when Courts of Judicature were settled, when Men began to cheat one another, and then to deny it and forswear it. And vain Oaths could never have a being in a state of Innocence, for they must have their Origin in a corrupt Lying state of the World, when Men began to use them to ascertain others they were sincere in this matter, though they might be false in other matters; till afterwards, by frequent use, they grew habitual and customary words. Neither were any Particularities in the Divine-Worship proper to be commanded them; for Temples, and Priest, and Garments, and weekly and Anniversary Holidays, etc. were things perfectly inconsistent with that Infant state of the World. The like may be said of other duties commanded in the second Table. How could Adam have honoured his Father and Mother, when he never had any? What temptation could he possibly have, to be guilty of Murder, when there was no Man or Woman in the World, but his own Wife; whom if he should destroy, he would not only be excluded from Marriage again, but must needs spend his whole Life after in a miserable solitude? How could he commit Adultery, when Eve was the only Woman upon Earth? How could he be guilty of Theft, when he was the sole Lord of all the Creation? How could he bear false Witness against his Neighbour, or Covet his Goods, when there was no Neighbour in the World for him to be thus unjust to. And so if you go on to the Christian Precepts. What part of Charity was he in a capacity of exercising? How could he forgive Injuries and love Enemies, who had no one to offend against him? What charitable wishes and thoughts could he have of his Neighbour, when as yet there was neither Neighbour nor Sin in the World? How was it possible for him, to exercise the Duties of Mortification, Self-denial and taking up the Cross, who had no Lust to conquer, no Passions to overcome, who lived in such a delicious place as he could experience no want or disquiet. As for the Love of God, that was as natural to the Soul before the Fall, as it is for the Body to eat and drink; so that to have made that his Trial, would have been as absurd, as to have bid him to be sure to walk upon the ground and breath in the Air, which he could not but do. It remains therefore, that his Probation was most properly to be performed, by a Command of doing or forbearing some Indifferent Action, which was neither Good nor Evil, but only as it was commanded or forbidden. Now if it be requisite or fitting, that his Obedience should be tried in doing or forbearing such an indifferent thing why was not this first Law for forbearing this Fruit of a certain Tree in the Garden, as proper as a Law prohibiting any indifferent thing else? Nay there is more reason for this prohibition, than that of other things, because that which was prohibited was natural and apposite, not strange and far fetched. The first Parents being to live in a Garden, what more natural to be forbidden them, than the eating such a sort of Fruit? If some odd strange thing had been commanded them, which had no manner of relation to their way of living, we might have had something to say against it. If they had been commanded not to study Mathematics, or Magic, to make long Pilgrimages to Mecca or Loretto, to climb once or twice a year up to the Top of Mount Caucasus; or a thousand more of these indifferent things, only to try their Obedience, there would be none of them half so proper as this, which God made choice of; nay, I defy the Wit of Mankind to find out an indifferent thing to be prohibited, which was so natural and agreeable to the State of Mankind then, as this was. So that this Law is so far from being Ridiculous and Ludicrous, that it must seem very wise and reasonable, and grounded upon a very judicious Choice to all considering Men.  Phil. 
This is pretty plausible, Credentius. But then I can never reconcile the severity of the Curse, which followed upon this Disobedience, with the Goodness, or indeed the Justice of God. We hardly now adays reckon the robbing an Orchard a Crime worth a whipping; and therefore how can we suppose, that Adam and Eve and all their harmless Posterity should be doomed to Eternal Damnation, only for eating a couple of Apples, they were not to meddle with? Methinks, this is very rigid Justice, to inflict such heavy Punishments, as these are, for such a little Peccadillo.  Cred. 
It is a very great mistake, 
The transgression of our first Parents no trifling offence,  Philologus, to imagine, that this Sin of our first Parents, was such a little slip, as you would pretend. It was the greatest Sin which ever was committed, unless it be the Sin against the Holy Ghost: For, if we consider the nature of the Crime, the mighty complication of offences in it, and the great advantages they had to avoid it; nothing can appear more heinous: For this Sin was, not only a bare Disobedience of God's Command, but a perfect Infidelity to God's promises and threats; it was a sort of Idolatry, in believing the Devil, and putting a greater Trust in him than God; it was a horrible Pride in them to desire to be like God, such a Diabolical Pride, as made the Evil Angels fall from their first Estate; it was a very great Covetousness and Theft, to desire and to purloin that, which was none of their own; it was a sort of the most cruel and unparallelled Murder, to kill and destroy the poor Souls of so many Thousand of their Offspring. Consider again, that this was a Disobedience against God, an Infinite Being and of Infinite Dignity, a God that had given them a Being, and that so very lately too, the impresses of which could not be worn out of their Memory, that had bestowed so much happiness upon them, more than on all the Creation besides; that had made them Lords over it all, and restrained nothing from them, but only the Fruit of this one Tree. Consider further, that they committed this Sin against the clearest Conviction of Conscience, when they had minds fully Illuminated with the Divine Spirit, and had all possible assistances of Grace to keep them from Sin, and had no untoward bent of nature and unruly passions to provoke them to it. Now to take all this together, it was a mighty aggravation of their Sin, and sets it at so high a rate, that it is hardly possible, for a Man, now adays, to commit a Crime of so great an Enormity. So that, Philologus, this was so far from being one of your Peccadillo's, that it assaulted Heaven with the highest Provocation.  Phil. 
But I know not how to reconcile with the Justice of God this Curse of his; to punish all Adam's Posterity, for his and his Wife's Sin. Why should so many poor Innocent wretches, that are born from their Loins, suffer for the Sins of their Great-Great-Grand-Father? We should think it very hard, for the King to hang up a number of his Subjects, only because their Predecessors were engaged in the Baron's Wars. And can we think that God-Almighty will be so unmerciful, as to call us to an account for the Crime of an old Forefather, committed above five thousand years ago? Your Divines may say what they please of Original Sin; but I can no more be persuaded, that Sin can go in a Blood, than that a Man's Notions and Learning can: For I believe a Man may be born a Philosopher, or a Divine as well as he can be born a Sinner. But suppose there was such a Traductive Gild, a Man would no more deserve Punishment for it, than he would do for inheriting his Father's Distempers; which methinks does deserve pity and not punishment. Indeed you would fain salve all this hardship, by the Benefits of your Christian Baptism; but than you leave all the poor Children which die unbaptised to make Faggots for the Devil. This severe Curse, especially as your Christian Theologers explain it, does by no means agree with the Divine Justice and Clemency; nay, it seems inconsistent with his holiness too, because this Gild must be infused into the Soul by God when he makes it; which does argue a double pravity in the Deity, first to implant Sin in Man, and then to punish him for it.  Cred. 
The propagation of Original Sin and the punishment which attends it, is not so inconsistent with the Justice of God, as Pelagians and Infidels do pretend: For,  
1st, 
The difficulties of Original Sin removed.  This Original Sin is not any vicious Habit infused into our Souls by God, for that was to make God the Author of it. It is only an Obliquity of our nature and a tendency to Evil, as being descended from a corrupt stock, which cannot produce a pure Offspring; so that God is not to be blamed any more, for suffering such an impure Progeny to be born from our first Parents, than he is for letting sour Fruit arise from a Tree degenerated by our ill Husbandry, or diseased Children from vicious Parents. Indeed in all Ages, Divines have troubled themselves, to explain how this obliquity should be conveyed to all Mankind, and the generality of them agree that it comes from the defect of Original Righteousness, or the withdrawing of that supernatural Grace which was so plentifully bestowed upon the Primaeval Parents, and they have forfeited for us; so that that Bar, which was to hinder us from Sin is now taken away, and so we rush with precipitancy upon it; that Fraenum which they call it, that Bridle, which was to restrain our Animal Faculties is lost by their Sin, and so now, like an unruly Horse, they overpower and run away with our Reason. The Cartesians explain its traduction, by the Imagination of the Mother, who as by her frights, desires, aversions, etc. imprints the same passions upon the Child she is pregnant with, and makes it liable to them afterwards; so by her aversions to Good and Proneness to Evil, she transmits' the same Tendencies to her Foetus; and by this means they will have Original Sin traduced from Eve down to us. Neither of which Explications are inconsistent with the Divine Justice; for God was neither obliged to continue this supernatural Grace to all Adam's Posterity; nor bound to frame the nature of Mankind anew, or to raise up a purer breed from the first corrupted stock.  
2. The Offspring of Adam had no Title to that Immortality and other blessings, which he forfeited for them. God-Almighty might, if he pleased, have made Mankind at first mortal, and subject to all the Diseases and Disorders, which are the Preliminaries of Death, and the Punishments of Sin; for we had no right to demand from him to be created more happy than the Brutes. Therefore we have no reason to repine at God's goodness, for not giving us that happiness after Adam's Sin; which we never had a right to before, but only a possibility of having. It is our Duty to thank God, for what we do enjoy, and not to Murmur at his goodness, and tax his Justice for what we do not.  
3ly, Our first Parents might forfeit these Blessings for us; and God might justly deny them to us, by reason of their Sin. I do not see any great force in that Notion of Divines, which makes the first Parents our Representatives, and so makes us, to Sin in them Interpretative, as the Schools speak, and therefore to deserve their Punishment: For I cannot apprehend how any one should be my Representative, without being delegated to personate me by my own proper and voluntary Act; and I can less apprehend why God should punish me, for what they did in my name which I never agreed to. But it is very agreeable to the Divine Justice for God to promise several blessings to Adam, and his Posterity, upon his Obedience, which neither he nor his Posterity should enjoy upon his Disobedience. And this seems very just to us, by our often doing the like in our humane affairs, without being taxed with the least injustice; as if I leave a Thousand Pounds a Year to such a Man and his Heirs forever, conditionally that he performs such things as my Will directs; but neither he nor his Posterity has a right to the Estate if that Person neglects to perform them. And this vindicates sufficiently the Divine Justice in not contributing the supernatural Grace to keep Men from Sinning, and in inflicting Death, (i. e.) not conferring immortality; both which were to be conferred upon Adam, and his Posterity, only upon condition of his Obedience.  
4ly, Men justly deserve all the Punishments of Sin by their own proper Transgression. If Men were to undergo Sickness, Afflictions in this World, and Eternal Damnation in the next, purely upon account of Adam's Sin, there would be something in your Argument; but when all men commit Sin by their own proper act, they can have no reason to complain for suffering that which by their actual disobedience they have merited.  
5ly, But than lastly, as for Children, who die before they commit actual Sin, and are not baptised; It is no part of our Christian Faith to believe that they are damned. For though the Scripture says expressly, except one be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Joh. 3.5. yet charitable Christians in all Ages, have understood this necessity to be, where the Sacrament might conveniently be had, and where there was no contempt of it. And therefore, many of the Fathers have assigned a middle place for such unbaptized Infants, which was a place neither of joy nor pleasure. And to this Opinion St. Austin himself was inclined Lib. 3. de Lib. Arbit. Cap. 23. who was the severest of the Ancients to unbaptized Children, before his Disputes with Pelagius, who asserted that all Children were undoubtedly saved. But however uncharitable the Papists may be to unbaptized Infants; it is the charitable Opinion of most Protestants, that such Children are left to the goodness of a merciful God, who is not tied up to his own Ordinances, who it is hoped will save them, though not by an ordinary, yet he may do it by an uncovenanted Grace.  Phil. 
There is another thing, Credentius, in this Curse which does not go down glibly with us, and that is the Curse of the ground. For this seems to be an action unbecoming the Deity; it looks like the frantic Passion of an angry Man, who when he is displeased revenges himself upon every thing that is nigh him. So here Moses, who had not the Philosophy to divest the Deity of Passion, brings him in raving upon the loss of his two Apples, and cursing them all round; and that nothing might escape his fury, the poor Earth too is made barren, in the midst of the angry fit. Such an action as this, Credentius, looks unbecoming a wise Man, who takes care not only to avoid Passion, but to distribute the punishments to the Parties offending; and therefore this History must be very injurious to the supreme Wisdom of the Deity to make the Earth suffer for the Sin of Man; or because God was angry with Adam, to represent him wreeking his fury upon the Innocent Earth.  Cred. 
I suppose, Philologus, 
The Cursing the ground on reflection upon the Deity.  you do not lay much stress upon the Innocency of the Earth, or the Injustice of the Curse being laid upon it. For Innocency and Injustice have place only among rational, or at least, sensible Creatures; the ground can neither be innocent nor guilty, it is neither capable of receiving a kindness, nor an injury; because it wants sense to perceive them. Neither does it imply any absurdity that the Earth should be cursed, for the Sin of Man; for this is consonant to the general Opinion of Mankind in things of the like nature. For the Ancient Heathen had not only their Piacula, things accursed by way of transmutation of punishment, and their Dies nefandi, accursed times; but even their Campi scelerati, accursed Fields. But your principal mistake is, that you fancy this Curse of the Earth by God Almighty, to be an effect of his Anger, or a weak human-like Passion, when it is only the result of a wise and equable Justice. For we can never suppose so wise a Man as Moses, to have such a silly notion of a Deity as this comes to, to make him curse the Earth in an angry mood because Man had vexed him. For his Cursing the ground was only a predent punishment of Man, that had offended; for it was Man, that was to suffer by this Curse of it, and not the ground itself. The ground felt no harm, by bringing forth Thorns and Thistles; but Man was a sufficient sufferer by it, when he, by the sweat of his Brows, was forced to keep it in an ordinary fertility, and much inferior to its Paradisiacal Fruitfulness.  Phil. 
Such another odd kind of undecent Passion does your Jewish Legislator attribute to the Deity; when he, in the same fit of Anger, Metamorphizes the poor Serpent, because the Devil made use of his Body. Besides I cannot imagine how that should be a punishment to the Serpent, which seems to be natural to it; 
O. R. p.  for 'tis as natural for a Serpent to creep, as for a Man to walk. And he might as well have made it a punishment, for Man to stand bolt upright, as for the Serpent to creep upon the ground. But be this as it will, and grant it a punishment, for the Serpent to creep; how did the poor Beast deserve such a Punishment? How could it help or hinder the Possession of the Devil? Or why should God be more angry at the Serpent so possessed, than he was at the Demoniacs in the Gospel?  Cred. 
I find you are mightily concerned, that no injustice should be offered to Brute Beasts, when you do not care how much you do to this divine Writer and Prophet of God, by exposing his Writings without any ground. But I pray, 
Nor the Curse of the Serpent.  what injustice was it to the Serpent, to have his Form something altered from what it was before? I am confident he was not able to distinguish whether it was altered, or no; for that would imply an intelligent nature, to have contemplated his former state, and to have compared it with his latter, which it was impossible for the Serpent to have done. But to receive a new shape, which he did not know whether it was better or worse, without any sensible pain, or alteration to him, and this too done by an Almighty Power, to whom he owed his whole being, and could claim nothing at his hands: this is so far from being Injustice, that it is Bounty still. Besides, Man being Lord of the Creation, had a natural right over the Serpent; and this change being designed by God for Man's good and Instruction, there was no more injustice in changing the Form of the Serpent for his sake, than in suffering other Creatures to be slain for his food. Nor last must we suppose, that God Almighty was any ways offended at the Serpent, because the Devil had possessed his Organs; but the reason he worked this change in his Body was, because it should remain as a Monument of the Unhappy Fall, of God's Aversation to Sin, and to deter men from the Commission of that, which brought such Vengeance with it. This was no proper punishment of the Serpent, but only an Instructive Emblem to Mankind; such as our Saviour's cursing of the Figtree, not to punish the Wood, but to read the Disciples an Emblematical Lecture, what they were to expect, if they did not bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. Neither is it disagreeable to the reason of Mankind, to have a proper punishment inflicted upon the Serpent for being the Instrument of this unhappy Miscarriage; any more than it is, when we destroy Knives, and Swords, and Beasts, that have been Instrumental in any Man's murder. As for the natural Reptility of the Serpent, it is plain from this History it is false; and we suppose the change to be from such a bright winged Saraph, as was before mentioned, to a mean creeping Snake.  Phil. 
Well! but what think you, Credentius of the opening Adam's Eyes by the eating the Apple, and his seeing himself naked, which he knew not of before. I protest this looks very strange. For Blindness was but a very sorrowful Ingredient in the Paradisiacal state. And if they could not have seen their Nakedness before, 
O. R.  yet methinks their other senses would have informed them. Or if they had not, I do not think they were any great losers by their Expulsion; for their Loss of the Orchard was abundantly compensated by the use of their Eyes.  Cred. 
The phrase to open Eyes, 
The meaning of their Eyes were opened.  among the Jews does not denote always a cure of Blindness, as is frequent in the History of the Gospel; but oftentimes Metaphorically does signify the sudden coming of any thing to a Man's knowledge, by any way whatsoever. Thus God is said to open the eyes of Balaam, when the Angel represented himself in a bodily shape to him, Num. 22.31. And thus the Disciples eyes were opened, when they recollected, that the person, that had discoursed with them in the way to Emaus, was the Lord. Not that these were blind before, but because they came suddenly to know something, which they were ignorant of before; by some new surprising illumination, and clearing up, as it were, the Eyes of their understanding. Thus our first Parents, after the Fall, presently came to find the irregular effects of their corrupted nature; or what the Scripture here calls nakedness. By which word, according to the usual modesty of the Hebrew Tongue, is understood all the irregular Appetites to Venereal pleasures, which they were strangers to in their State of Innocence; and began now at first to experience; and were therefore ashamed of their foul Degeneracy, and upon this account were desirous of Clothing to hid those Irregularities from the sight of others.  Phil. 
But then this Explication, Credentius, makes this Pudor circa res venereas subsequent only to the Fall, 
O.R. p. 43.  whereas it is congenit to his nature; and is not only implanted in Mankind, but in other Animals, which seem to have some kind of shame in such matters.  Cred. 
I think it can never be proved, that irrational Creatures have any sense of shame in Venereal matters; but the contrary is evident from their public Commixtures. Besides, before the Fall when Man's Appetites were more regular; there was no room for this shame, which had its beginning upon the corruption of his nature.  Phil. 
There is, Sir, another very great Difficulty in this History, and that is in the relation of their Clothing, after they were discovered to be naked. Now the Text tells us, that they sewed together Fig-leaves, and therewith made themselves Aprons. 
O.R. p. 44.  From whence forsooth we may deduce the Original of the Tailor's Trade. But then the mischief is, what they shall do for Thread and Needles; for spinning was not as yet found out, and working in Iron was an Invention of much later date. So again v. 21. when God takes the Tayloring work into his own hands, or at least an Angel by his appointment, And unto Adam and also to his Wife did the Lord God make Coats of skins and clothed them. This Angel then must kill, and flay the Animals, and strip off their skins to keep Adam and Eve warm; now methinks this smells more of the Butcher, or the Hangman than the Angel. Besides these Leathern Coats would be purchased by the Destruction of at least one whole species; for if either Male or Female of any kind had been destroyed, at the first Creation, as this was, there must a species be lost for ever, for it is not believed, that there were more than two of each kind created, and one alone without another for its Consort, could never have produced any Offspring.  Cred. 

No absurdity in the Relation of the Fig-leaves and the Skins.  Here are in this Objection, Philologus, several suppositions which are all very wild, and if they are denied the Argument falls to the ground. For 1st, You suppose that they sewed the Fig-leaves together as Tailors do their Cloth, with Needle and Thread, which is more than the Scripture does imply. For the Original word Tapar signifies no more than to put together, to apply, to fit. As 'tis used, Job 16.15. applied Sackcloth to his Skin. And the Women in Ezechiel are reproved for wearing Pillows under their Armpits, Ez. 13.18. where we cannot suppose that Job sowed the Sackcloth to his Skin, or that those delicate Women tacked their Pillows to their flesh, with Needle and Thread. And the word gneleh, which we render leaves, signifies also Branches of Trees, such as were to make Booths, or Bowers, Neh. 8.15. So that to adapt, or fit Branches, which we render few leaves together; is only to twist or plat the flexible branches of the Figtree round about their wastes, in the manner of a Roman Crown; so that when the Broad leaves of that Tree hung down, it represented the fashion of a pair of Green Breeches.  
2ly. You suppose, that God, or some Angel must make them their Coats of Skin; which I think is by no means necessary. For it is a known observation in the Hebrew Tongue, that it is used to attribute many things to God, which are not done by his immediate act, but sometimes by his direction and sometimes by the permission of his ordinary Providence. So here the Coats are said to be made by God, whereas 'tis probable they only received instruction how to make them; or only perhaps, because they were the gift of God, as all other Blessings; as God is said to give a Man Health, or Wealth, or Strength. 3ly, You suppose that God could not provide for them these Coats, without destroying a whole Species, which is a very bold Assertion. For it is not certain, what number of Animals of a sort were created, and therefore the supposition is weak. Neither is it known how long after the Creation these Coats were made; in all probability it was not till the Winter following; and by that time Hares, Coneys, etc. had time sufficient to multiply considerably.  Phil. 
But next, for the close of all this fine Relation, there is a story, which outdoes all the Histories of Enchanted Islands and Castles, that ever were seen; and that is the story of the Angels with their flaming Sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life. That is a guard of Cherubims are placed at the Entrance of the Garden, with a great two-handed flaming Sword, that continually waved about the same, for fear least by open force, or by stealth, Adam and Eve should have repossessed themselves again of those happy Mansions. Now is not this very pleasant, to have Angels like Sentinels, with drawn Swords before the doors of the Garden, for I know not how many Ages, as Dragons are feigned by the Poets to have guarded the Apples of the Hesperides? But I pray, how long did this Angelical Guard last? To the Flood I suppose, if not longer. So that you here suppose the Angels, to have been for above 1500 years employed in keeping a Garden. Sic vacat exiguis rebus adesse Deis? How much easier would it have been, to have turned a River round the Garden, which would as effectually have kept Adam and Eve out, who knew nothing of Navigation, as all this Brigade of Cherubims.  Cred. 
I fancy, Philologus, 
The difficulties of the Cherubin and the flaming Sword removed.  you have been lately at Bartholomew-Fair, or at least you have been there since you have vouchsafed, to look into your Bible: for this Argument of yours seems mostly to be take out of the famous Puppet-Opera of the Creation of the World, which I have some remembrance of, ever since I was a Boy. For this great too handed flaming Sword smells more of the Booth than the Bible. For that which is commonly rendered Flaming Sword, is only in the Original the Flame of Cutting, or Division, or a dividing Flame; for though the same word does signify Sword, it does also signify Division. And the Writers of the New Testament do translate the same word both ways. For, whereas St. Matthew says, our Saviour is come to send a Sword. Matt. 10.34. St. Luke says, he is come to send Division, Luk. 12.51. So that this dividing Flame, or fiery Division, is but answerable to the Wall of Fire spoken of by the Prophet Zechary, C. 2. 5. which the Lord promised to make about Jerusalem. It was the Accension of some inflammable matter, round about the Garden, which excluded all comers to it, till such time as the beauty of the place was defaced. Now this opinion must be more probable to them, who place Paradise in the Eastern parts of the World, especially about Babylon, where there is such an abundance of Naphtha and Bitumen, according to the Relations of Pliny, Plutarch, Strabo, and Curtius; and where there are fields, which even yet at sometimes of the year, seem all on fire. But than you will be apt to say, what have these Cherubims or Angels to do with this Fiery Wall? I answer, it is the custom of the Hebrews to express all the extraordinary works of God by Angels, as to call a Plague, Famine, etc. a destroying Angel; nay farther, they being averse from the Philosophy of Mechanic and Material Principles used to explain the common Phaenomenae of nature by Vital, Pneumatick, or which is the same, Angelic Principles. So the Psalmist explains the Motions of Winds, and the Burning of Fire, to be performed by the ministry and energy of Angels. Who maketh his Angel's Spirits or Winds, and his Ministers a flaming fire, Psal. 104.4. So that in short by the Cherubin and flaming Division, here is understood only a Fiery Wall or Circle, encompassing the Garden, supernaturally raised for the Defence of it. What have you to object next?  Phil. 
Why truly, Sir, I think I have tired you enough with resolving the doubts of a scrupulous Conscience; and indeed you have done Moses that Justice, and me that satisfaction which I did not expect; so that I have a much better opinion of the Mosaical Writings, than what I came hither with. But although there may not be so many absurdities in this Relation of his, as some men pretend; yet I do not think, that a sufficient reason for a Man to embrace it. For it is but a very poor Argument for the Truth or Goodness of an Author, that he does not talk Nonsense, or contradict himself. There is many an Author, which you and I have little value for, who does not talk of Garagantua's and Mazarillo's; and yet he may have ne'er a word of Truth in him neither. And possibly I may have the same opinion of this Mosaical Relation of the Fall; unless you can oblige me with some Arguments, to advance its Credibility; which I am afraid you will be at a loss for: unless you will take up with the Allegorical Hypothesis, and make it only a Divine Fable, which by the way, I take to be the best way of freeing Moses from those difficulties which vulgar apprehensions cast on him. Now I can be pretty well reconciled to this his Relation of the Fall, if you will allow it only to have an Allegorical meaning, and that the Prophet spoke only in a hidden Cabbala, and did not design to be understood literally. And if you go this way to work, this Relation then will appear rational enough. For probably, the whole History of the Fall is but one Hieroglyphic put into writing; to represent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Fall of the Soul, when it was embodied in some pristin state. Now I suppose the Hieroglyphic to be this, A Serpent with a Woman delivering an Apple to a Man. Which does most excellently set forth such a lapse of the Soul; for I suppose the Soul, when ever it did fall, fell by immersing itself in sensual pleasures; and probably was incited to it, by the Insinuation of malicious Daemons. Now by the Woman and the Apple are fitly represented all kind of sensual pleasures, Wine, Venery, etc. the Serpent is the crafty Daemon which did entice the Soul, and the Man the Soul so enticed. And then there is some sense in such an Hieroglyphic. But the reason, why Moses delivered this in words at length and not in Figures, was to beat it into the hea●●s of the thick sculled Jews, who it may be had not wit enough to understand a Picture; or it may be, for fear they should improve it into Image Worship, which he had such an abhorrence to.  Cred. 

The History of the Fall not Allegorical.  I do design before we part, Philologus, to offer you some Arguments to show the exellence of the Mosaic Relation of the Fall; but in the mean time I will speak a word or two concerning the Allegorical sense which you would put upon it. Now I think an Allegorical sense inconsistent with this Relation, and cannot so much as be pretended without offering the greatest violence imaginable to it. For 1st, 
Such a supposition would destroy all History.  This whole Book is Historical, and this Relation of the Fall is delivered in the same narratory way as the rest of the Book of Genesis is. Now nothing is more contrary to History than Allegory or Fable; for one pretends primâ fancy to deliver Truth undisguised, the other to deliver Truth at the Bottom under the colour and disguise of specious fictions. But wherever such kind of Allegorising Fable is allowed, it must I say primâ fancy appear to be Fable, or Parable; or otherwise it would be a Lie, a Legend, or a Romance. So when Aesop tells us the Story of the dunghil-cock, and our Saviour that of Dives and Lazarus, they do it in such a way as they cannot be understood in a literal sense. But when Thucydides relates the Plague of Athens, or Livy the Battle at Cannae, a Man would be mad that should go to Allegorise those passages. So here in the Book of Genesis, what more reason have Men to turn the relation of the Fall into an Allegory or Fable, than they have to do the History of Abraham and the other Patriarches, or the History of Cain, or Abel? All the Book besides is allowed to be literal; and why should this part of it be only a piece of Egyptian Hieroglyphic? If we should allow, for solid reasoning and Philosophising, these sportive rovings of a fanciful Brain, we should destroy not only the History of Genesis, but all the History in the World besides. We might, by the same rule, make the Bondage of Joseph, or the Children of Israel, to be the Platonic Incarceration of the Soul, their Descent into Egypt to be their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and their Deliverance from thence to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One may turn the Burial of Sarah into the Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sepulture of the Soul; and make Jacob and the twelve Patriarches the Sun and the twelve Signs in the Zodiac. But after this mad way of Allegorising, we should destroy the Credit of all History, it would make Men perfect Sceptics, as to the Actions of former times, and make us believe no more of Alexander the Great, or William the Conqueror, than we do of Atlantis and Utopia. 2. 
Moses a plain Writer.  Moses does every where show himself a plain unaffected Writer, and does no where seem to aim at that reserved sort of abstruseness which they of the Allegorical way are pleased with. He every where relates simple Truths, and those in the most plain and familiar expressions; he industriously avoids all hard Metaphors, and difficult Terms of Art, such as are to be found in Aristotle and Plato; he no where affects to raise a Fame to himself by the Invention of new Notions, as those Philosophers did, but was so far from it as to deliver down to Posterity his own failures. 4. Moses had not the same reason to write Hieroglyphically or Allegorically, as other Writers might have: For to begin with the Egyptians, we know that their Priests, who were the great Masters of their Hieroglyphics, which were called Hieroglyphics sacred sculptures from them; now it was their business to amuse the People with these dark riddles, to wrap up common and ordinary Truths in this mystic dress, that the People might the more admire them; which otherwise they would have despised, had they been delivered in the usual way, and so the Priests have lost a great part of their veneration. But just on the contrary, Moses endeavoured to reveal all his Doctrines to the People, he ordered his Books to be read in the Ears of all the People, and commanded Parents to teach them to their Children; so that 'tis plain he did not design, by Mystical senses, to keep them from the commonalty, but by all imaginable plainness to suit them to their Capacities. 
Had not design like the Heathen Philosophers to serve by an Allegory.  Again it was the design of the Heathen Philosophers, who affected Allegories most, to impart their Notions only to their own Scholars, who were let into the meaning of that Philosophical Cant; by which means they excluded the vulgar from understanding their Tenets, and kept their learning within the bounds of their own School. But Moses had no such design, he was not afraid of any other Philosophers setting up against him, and running away with his Notions, he had not a School but a whole Nation to instruct, for the greatest part consisting of unlearned and ignorant People; and therefore he can never be supposed to make use of such mystical Doctrines, which were impossible to be understood by the illiterate Jews. 
Nor the same design with the Allegorical Fathers.  And lastly, for the Allegorising Fathers, they cannot be brought in to countenance this opinion; for tho' they Allegorise many Historical parts of the Bible, yet they leave the literal sense entire still; they allow the matter of fact was true, but they will have this matter of fact to have another Allegorical meaning, and to be a Type of something else. Now the ancient Fathers were the more inclined to this way of Interpreting Scripture, not only from the practice of the Jews themselves and the Writers of the New Testament; but to show the peculiar Excellence of the Christian Religion, against their Adversaries the Jews; by making all the History of the Jewish Religion, to be only a Type of ours. Now Moses having no such reason to put a mystical meaning upon his words, he must be supposed to have used them in the literal sense; unless those which the Holy Ghost did design should be also Typical, and those actions which were to prefigure others, under the Kingdom of the Messiah.  Phil. 
I find it grows late, Credentius, and therefore before I take my leave of you, let me hear, what you have to say in Defence of the Mosaic Relation of the Fall; which you promised just now to do.  Cred. 
The reason why I so much admire the excellence of this Relation is, because it gives an easy solution to many difficulties in nature and morality, which are otherways impossible to be accounted for. Moses in a few lines of this short History, has made a many things plain, which have racked the Brains of many Ages, and which the greatest Philosophers in the World have blundered at.  
1. The first of these is the natural account, 
Moses gives the best account of the Depravation of Man's Will.  which he gives of The Depravation of Man's Will, or its Inclinableness to Evil. It will amaze one to consider, what horrible work the Heathen Philosophers made, in their accounts of it. Some of them made this Inclinableness to Sin, and all the Evil, which is found in the World, to come from an Infinitely-Evil Principle; a sort of Anti-God eternally co-existing with the good one; which was not only the Opinion of the Persian Magis and the Manichees, but as Plutarch says, was the Opinion of the most and wisest of the Philosophers. Now this is such a foolish account of Sin, that no one will presume to compare the Mosaical account with it: For to assert a God or Principle infinitely Evil, is contradiction in terms: For as all the attributes of one God are good, so the other must be Evil, or just contrary or privative to the first. 
The Miscarriages of the Philosophers in this.  As one is infinitely just and merciful, so the other must be infinitely unrighteous and cruel; as the one is infinite in Power, so the other must be infinite in no Power, that is, must have no power at all; as the one is Eternal and Necessary in his being, the other must be infinite in nonexistence, and be impossible to be. All which includes a Troop of Contradictions and Absurdities.  
Another set of Philosophers imputed this Obliquity of the Soul to its mixture with matter. But it is unintelligible, how a mere mixture with matter, which is neither good nor evil, should make a thing originally good to be bad. If they say matter was Evil in itself originally; they then make God, which was the Author of matter, to be the Author of the Evil in it, which is injurious to the Divine Holiness. If they say Matter is Eternal, as Plutarch and some others of them do, and withal Evil in itself; this is to make such another Eternal Evil Principle, which includes the Absurdities likewise of the Manichean Principle.  
A third sort attributed this Depravation to a pre-existent state of sinfulness, and that the Inclinableness to Sin in this World was but an ill habit of the Soul contracted in another, by a voluntary deviation from God. This the later Philosophers call generally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the moulting of the Wings of the Soul, and its alienation or flight from the Deity. This last Opinion, I say the latter Moralists generally took up with, after they had been beat off from their other accounts by the Arguments of the Christians. Not that they learned this from the Mosaical account of the Lapse, as some will have it, in the School of Ammonius; for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato is much older; but afterwards they stuck only to this Account, because the Christians had made the others so apparently ridiculous. But I pray, what evidence had those Philosophers of such a pre-existent State? They ought solidly to have proved first the State, in which this pretended Lapse happened, before they asserted the Lapse itself; which after all is but their pure Assertion. Besides, these Philosophers generally make this Immersion into gross matter, to be the punishment of the Soul for her Offences in her pre existing State; but then such an Immersion is not a proper way of Punishment of the Soul, and seems inconsistent with the Wisdom and Justice of God. For all Punishments inflicted by God, especially in probatory states, are in order to amendment; now the Soul not having Reminiscence of her former state, it is impossible for her to amend the Errors of that state, she cannot remember. These are the accounts which the Philosophers give of the Depravation of the Soul; which are all very lame and unsatisfactory in themselves, as they are asserted without any proof. But on the contrary, what can be more natural and easy, than to account for this, by deducing Mankind from one common stock, which had deviated from its Original Rectitude? That the Soul was strangely degenerated from its Original stamp, was a thing which all wise Men were sensible of, but how this came to pass, the Heathens to whom God had not vouchsafed his Revelations, was a thing they could only guests and blunder at in the dark. Hence Aristotle compares the state of the Soul in the Body, to the Etruscan Robbers joining dead Bodies to living ones. And Tully talks of the effects of Original Sin more like a Divine than a Philosopher: For thus St. Austin in his 4th Book against Julian brings him in saying, 
Cic. Lib. 3. de Repub.  non à Matre sed à Novercâ naturâ editum esse hominem in vitam, corpore nudo, fragili & infirmo, animo anxio ad molestias, humili ad timores, molli ad labores, prono ad libidines; in quo tamen velut obrutus inesset ignis quidam divinus mentis: That Man was not born of nature as of a Mother but as a Stepmother; with a Body naked, frail and infirm; with a mind anxious for Troubles, dejected for Fears, sluggish to Labour, and prone to Lust; in which that divine Fire of the Soul lies, as it were, smothered: Upon which St. Austin remarks. Non Author iste male viventium moribus dixit effectum, sed naturam potius accusavit, Rem vidit, causam nescivit. Latebat enim eum, cur esset grave jugum super filios Adam, quia sacris literis non eruditus, ignorabat originale peccatum. This Author did not speak of the unhappy effect occasioned by the disobedience of our first ill-living Parents, but only accused nature. He very well saw the Thing, but was ignorant of the Cause. The Reason was hid from him, why so heavy a Yoke was laid upon the Sons of Adam, because not being educated in the sacred Letters, he was ignorant of Original Sin. If these wise Men had but had the Advantage of reading the Mosaical Account, they would never have taken up with such foolish Hypotheses, to explain the Origin of Evil by. They would quickly have concluded, with our Saviour's Argument, that a Corrupt Tree cannot bring forth Good Fruit, Matt. 7.18. Because this Explication of the rise of Sin by an Original Lapse is freed from those Absurdities, which the other Explications abound with.  
2. Another very good Argument, 
His account the best of the Pudor circa res Veneris.  for the Excellency of the Mosaical Account of the Fall is, because it gives a Rationale of the Pudor circa res venereas, which is a Thing which all the reason of Mankind was never able to do: For how strange is it to consider, what an innate bashfulness there is implanted in all Mankind as to these things, and they are looked upon Monsters in nature, that can divest themselves of it; and yet to consider, how little natural reason is to be given for such a shame? Nay I defy the whole Wit of Mankind, to give any one tolerably satisfactory. For there is no reason in the World, why Mankind should not use public commixtures in a lawful way as well as eat and drink in public; or why he should be ashamed of one more than the other: For nothing in nature is really shameful but Vice. And upon this account the Cynic Philosophers reasoned themselves into such Beasts as to throw off all shame of this nature, and pretended it was only a vulgar Error. But notwithstanding this, the generality of men find a mighty impulse of unaccountable shame overruling them in such matters, and the most impudent are forced to struggle long with it, before they can conquer it; and which no one can give a natural reason for, but must be beholding to the Mosaical Relation to account for. And from hence all the difficulty is cleared up; we from hence learn what Irregularities we fall into by the defect of that Original Grace forfeited by the first Parents, and from the predominancy of our Animal Nature over our Spiritual; and that this shame is not only a Note of our own Turpitude, but a perpetual Mark and Brand of our shameful Origin from such a degenerate stock.  

Of the pain of Childbirth,  3. Another very good Argument for the excellence of the Mosaical Relation of the Fall, is The Pain of Childbirth. Aristotle in his Book of Animals, long ago observed, that Woman, of all Creatures in the World, was most vexed and tormented in bringing forth. Now what an unaccountable thing is it, that Woman, which is the principal Female of the whole Creation, should be dealt withal more unkindly by God, than the meanest Creature upon Earth? I defy the wisest Philosopher upon Earth, to give a reason, why other Females should bring forth with so much ease, and why God should inflict such intolerable pain upon Woman alone. To be sure God Almighty did not allot this out of humour and Caprice, but he had a very good reason for it; now never any tolerable reason was assigned besides that, which Moses has given in his Relation of the Fall, and this appears very satisfactory and rational, and therefore is a very good Argument for the Truth and Excellency of this History.  
4. Another Argument is, 
Of the barrenness of the Earth.  the Account Moses has given of the modern Sterility of the Earth. It has perplexed the greatest Philosophers, to account for this Barrenness; and it has made such Impression upon some, as to make them turn Atheists and deny Providence. And indeed from natural Light there is no reason to be given for it. For indeed it is very surprising to consider, what ungrateful returns oftentimes the stubborn ground yields to the care of the Husbandman, how prolific it is of its own accord of noxious and useless Herbs, and how sparingly it produces those we want; what a great part of the World is uninhabitable Deserts and Barren Heaths, that are uncapable of any Tillage, and bring forth hardly any thing profitable to Mankind. Now this, which has puzzled the Wit of all the Heathen World, is fairly accounted for in Moses his History; when he relates this as a punishment for the disobedience of our first Parents. I could yet urge farther, in behalf of this History of the Fall, the slowness of the Education of Children, and their natural Imbecility above all other Creatures, the subjection of the Woman to the Man, our Antipathy to Viperous Animals, if you can have patience to hear them; and which can never be accounted for but by the Mosaic History.  Phil. 
You need not bespeak my Patience, Sir, at any time for your Discourse; but I think by the Arguments you have brought upon this subject you have proved it strenuously enough. And the Night draws on, and therefore I must hasten away. My hearty thanks, Sir, for the pains you have taken towards converting a poor Infidel; and at your leisure I will take another opportunity to be further Catechised.    


I. Chaos of the Sun and seven Planets.  
1 Days work. II. Let there be Light etc. Gen. 1.3.  
2 Days work. III. And God divided the Waters which were under the firmament etc. Gen. 3.7.  
3. Days work. iv Let the Waters be gathered to gether etc. Gen. 1.9. Let the Earth bring forth Grass etc. v. 11.  
4. Days work. V And God said let there be Lights etc. v. 14.  
VI