A defence of the Discourse concerning the earth before the flood being a full reply to a late answer to exceptions made against The theory of the earth : wherein those exceptions are vindicated and reinforced, and objections against the new hypothesis of the deluge answered : exceptions also are made against the review of the theory / by Erasmus Warren ...

CHAP. XIV.

HEre another Vital Assertion of the Theory's is ex∣cepted against; and Reasons are given why the Deluge cannot be rightly explicated by the Dissolution of the Earth, or its Disruption and fall into the Abyss. The first is, because it would be inconsistent with Moses's Description of Paradise; which he has made according to proper Rules of Topography. But, says the Answerer, this Objection, I'm afraid, will fall heavier upon Moses, or upon the Excepter himself, than upon the Theorist. And why so? Why, because that place of Paradise cannot be understood or determin'd by the Mosaical Topography, one of these two things must be allowed; either that the de∣scription was insufficient and ineffectual: or that there has been some great change in the Earth, whereby the Marks of it are destroy'd.—If he take the second of these Answers, he joins with the Theorist. If the first, he reflects upon the honour of Moses, or confutes himself. Moses's To∣pography of Paradise, as it was done by proper Rules, so it was sufficient and effectual enough for marking it out, as it once stood. And that it is not so now, is because (as the second Answer intimates) there has been a great change in the Earth, in that part of the Earth where the Paradisiacal Region was. And such a change may be allowed without joining with the Theo∣rist,

as he Himself assures us. For he tells us in the same page, that good interpreters suppose, that the Chanels of Rivers were very much changed by the Flood. And a great change in the Chanels of Rivers, must make a great change in a Country: Especially where that Country is describ'd by those Rivers; which is the case of Paradise. And this change is the very thing which makes the place of Paradise so hard to be found. Yet this, I say, is very far from joining with the Theorist. For according to him, the Chanels of Rivers were not only changed, but all broke up, and so quite put by, by that Fraction of the Earth which made the Flood. And not only the Chanels of Rivers were destroyed, but even the Sources of them too, by his Hypothesis. For where∣as the general Sources of all Rivers in the primitive World, were the Rainy Regions about the Poles; Those Polar Regions fell in together with the rest, and so Ri∣vers which were before, could not afterward continue. Let him please to say therefore whether Tygris and Eu∣phrates were before the Flood or not. If they were not, how could Moses describe Paradise by them? If they were, had the Flood come in by the Earth's Dissolution, they must inevitably have been destroyed. But instead of that, they are still in being; and this is an evidence that the Earth was not delug'd, by being dissolv'd. Nor is this the only difficulty upon the Theorist here. For as to the place of Paradise, he refers himself wholly (as we have heard) to the Ancients; and they incline to seat it in the South, or South-East Land, in the other World. And can it enter into the mind of man to think, that Havilah, and Aethiopia, and Assyria, and Hidde∣kel, and Euphrates, which Moses takes into the de∣scription of Paradise; could ever be situate in the other Hemisphere, when they are now found in this? If the Earth fell in, without question it gave a deadly jounce.

But could it make these Countries and Rivers rebound with such force, as to leap quite beyond the torrid Zone, and settle some degrees on this side of our Tro∣pic? There are a sort of Divi∣nity Theorists, who would fain perswade us, that the Lady of Loretto's Chamber went thither a Pilgrimage out of Nazareth. This is strangely marvellous: but the wonder of it will be much a∣bated, if we can find the Regions and Rivers we speak of, going on procession out of the South-East Land, into this Northern Continent. I confess we are taught strange things of Paradise; but this its translation would surpass all. And how good soever its Soil was at first, certainly it grew very light at last, to hop thus far. Were this an effect of the Earth's fall, believe it, here is either a very fair tumbling Cast; or else our Au∣thor is in a foul mistake. And so indeed he must be; and the Objection which he was afraid would fall on Moses, or the Excepter; lights heavy on the Theorist.

But out of this fear, he quickly rises into another Passion, if we may guess by his expressions in the next Paragraph. Tho I cannot but say, his Passion is as causeless, as his fear was groundless. For, speaking truth in a controversy, should never move choler. And did the Excepter do more than so, when he said, that to affirm Moses's Description of Paradise to be false, must be horrid Blasphemy, it being Dictated by the H. GHOST? Yet this is the word which he takes so ill. And truly so far as he has said any thing, that implies Mose's To∣pography of Paradise to be false; So far he ought to resent what was spoken; tho not with anger. And, pray, how can he (allowing own Hypothesis to be

true) defend Moses's description of Paradise from being false; seeing he describes it by Rivers, and those Ri∣vers, according to the Theory, could not be before the Flood? He attempts the Defence thus. The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood, in great plenty, and why not like to these? He himself has given Reasons why they could not be like them. 'Tis true, if you admit our Hypothesis, concerning the fraction and disruption of the Earth at the Deluge, then we cannot expect to find rivers, as they were before, their general source is changed, and their Chanels are all broke up. And if Rivers after the Flood, are not as they were before it; how can they be alike? And when their source was changed at the De∣luge, and their Chanels all broke up; how is it possible but that they must differ greatly from what they were, in their situations, Courses, &c? Which must utterly spoil them for being topographical marks; I mean the same true topographical marks to any Country, to which they formerly were so: And can they then be alike? That Person who can think that the Earth was dissolved, and by that dissolution fell a Mile or two downward, and by that fall was broken to pieces, and by that fraction was thrown into wildest disorders; so that whereas before it had one entire, smooth, level, uniform Surface; it was thus made into Mountains, Hills, Valleys, Islands, Rocks, Seas, Gulphs, Lakes, &c. And yet can think again, that those Rivers which were before this happened, should in their situations and cha∣nels (the principal circumstances we are now concern'd in) be just like these after it; he must be one of a very strong Phantsy, but withal of as weak a Judgment. And farther, Moses does not describe Paradise by Ri∣vers like to Tygris, and Euphrates, and Pison, and Gi∣hon; but by those very same Rivers as originally flowing there. And every like, we know, is far from

being the very same. Men and Animals now upon Earth, are like to them before the Deluge: yet I hope they are not the same revived.

And then lastly, the Theorist yields Paradise was in the Southern Hemisphere, and so the Rivers of it before the Flood must be there too, and so they must rise from the rainy Region at the Antarctic Pole, and so they must be very remote from the Land of Havilah and Assyria. Whereas since the Flood, Moses describes Pa∣radise by Tygris and Euphrates, and these are Rivers in this Northern Hemisphere, and they spring up from the Mountains of Armenia, and they run by or through the aforesaid Countries. And is it to be thought then that those Rivers before the Flood, and these Rivers since the Flood, could be alike? Especially alike in show∣ing the Situation and the bounds of Paradise? from Moses's Description or Topography of which, was the first Reason borrow'd against the Earth's Dissolution. Concerning which he expostulates; Is it not a strange thing that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy? Yes, very strange, and let them that make it so, be blamed for it. But still to affirm that Moses's Description of Paradise is false, would be hor∣rid Blasphemy, it being dictated by the H. GHOST. And this was the thing which the Excepter made Blas∣phemy, (which the Answerer, if he thinks fit, may contradict.) And now the Replicant says farther, that to assert such a Dissolution of the Earth, as destroys Moses's Description of Paradise, or implies it to be false; will indirectly, consequentially, and reductive∣ly at least, be of Blasphemous importance. But the Answerer alledges; that very Expression, the Earth is dissolved, is a Scripture Expression (Psalm. 75.3. Isai. 24.19. Amos 9.5.) which, methinks, might have been enough to have protected it from the imputation of Blasphe∣my.

How well this Allegation will protect him or what he has said, in any capacity or respect; I know not. I only ask, what dissolution of the Earth, do the Psalm∣ist and Prophets mean, in the Places cited? Do they mean a figurative, tropological Dissolution; or a literal, and such a real one as the Theorist has invented, and which, according to him, did drown the World? If the first, their notion is nothing to the Answerer's pur∣pose: if the Second, the Earth must have been delug'd, as often as they say it has been dissolv'd. I cannot think, that our Answerer believes, that Palestine was literally or really dissolv'd, in the prophet Esay's time. Yet 'tis plain it was so, according to Scripture-expression. Thou whole Palestina are dissolved, Isai. 14.31. Which shows him clearly what Dissolution of the Earth, Scripture means in the places cited; and what kind of protecti∣on that Scripture expression will afford him: and con∣sequently how weak the Sanctuary is that he here flies to. In this Paragraph he insinuates odious things of the Excepter. As if he were guilty of a rude and injudicious defending of Scripture, by railing and ill language, such as tends to the diminution and disparagement of it. As if he made his own Consequences to be of the same authori∣ty with the word of GOD; and so whatsoever is against them, must be charg'd with Blasphemy against the H. GHOST. And as if there were nothing safe against his blind zeal and opinionative ignorance. How easy were it here to retort and retaliate? But we must not render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yet he having observed, that weak reasons commonly produce strong passions; we may without offence, measure his Arguments by his own Rule, and judge of their weakness by the sentence pro∣ceeding out of his own mouth; and conclude that his Reasons are like to be invalid, because his Passions are so violent. By them, one would think he had taken

a turn in his Torrid Zone, and was just now come piping hot out of it.

Secondly, the Dissolution of the Earth could not be the cause of the general flood; because it would have utterly destroyed Noah's Ark and all that was in it: said the Excepter. But this was prevented by the Theorist's putting the Ark under the Conduct of its Guardian Angels, and a miraculous Providence, says the Answerer. And in proof that he did thus put the Ark under the Conduct of Angels; he cites these words out of the English Theory. I think it had been impossible for the Ark to have liv'd upon the raging Abyss; or for Noah and his Family to have been preserved, if there had not been a miraculous hand of Providence to take care of them. And then again he must needs fall pell-mell on the Excepter, tho he comes off as he uses to do. Now either the Excepter did not take notice of this passage in the Theory, or he does not allow that a miraculous hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark: or thirdly, that he made an objection, which he knew himself to be impertinent. And I confess, I am inclinable to think the last is true. But by his leave, none of these three things are true, and the real truth is this. Tho he put the Ark under the conduct of Angels in the ex∣tremity of the Flood, and when it was upon the raging Abyss; yet he lest it without a miraculous hand to take care of it, in its fall. Yea, instead of that, it is evi∣dent, that he only put it into a River, or Dock, or Cistern, that it might be afloat there before the Abyss was broken open; as if that could have sav'd it from be∣ing dasht to pieces. And because the Excepter did not take notice of this Contrivance, of this River, or Dock: he tells him of it in both ears: In the eighth Chapter of his Answer, and here in the fourteenth. But was there so great an injury done him, and had he such mighty cause to complain, that that Thing

was omitted, which himself now looks upon as unneces∣sary? For he says, after all, there is no necessity that the Ark should be afloat, before the Earth broke. And for what reason? Why, ordinary providence be∣ing thus laid aside, what can be expected but Extraor∣dinary providence should be brought in next? And so it is with a witness, in these words. The Angels, (whose ministery we own openly upon these grand occasions) could as easily have held the Ark afloat, in the Air, as on the Water. But because Angels could do this, may we argue from thence with good consequence that they did do it? and from their power to act it, conclude they effected it? Without question they could have kept Judea dry, when all the rest of the World was drown'd; yet, we know, this was not done. But the Ark however was held afloat in the Air, by them. For it follows, the Ark, being an Emblem of the Church, GOD certainly did give his Angels charge over it; that they should bear it up in their hands, that it might not be dash'd against a stone. Surely this Hypothesis must needs be very strong and lasting, that has so much miracle, and ministery of Angels to support it. And then what matter for Philosophy (tho the Theory is to be chiefly Philosophical, Eng. Th. p. 6.) when it may stand much better without it? But the same pen writes thus in another place. Noah and his Family were sav'd by water; so as the water which destroy'd the rest of the World, was an instrument of their Conservation, inas∣much as it bore up the Ark, and kept it from that impe∣tuous shock, which it would have had, if it had either stood upon dry land when the Earth fell, or if the Earth had been dissolv'd without any water on it or under it. Now if Noah and his Family were saved by water; if the water which destroy'd the rest of the world, was an instrument of their Conservation; if it conserv'd them as

it bore up the Ark; and if it so bore it up, as that it kept it from an impetuous shock, which otherwise it would have had when the Earth fell: how could the Answerer say, there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke; and now make the conservation of Noah and his Ark, at the fall of the Earth, to be wholly Angelical? In short; the Theorist affirms, that mankind was saved by water that bore up the Ark, and kept it from an impetuous shock when the Earth fell; it having the Advantage of a River, or of a Dock, or Cistern, wherein to float. The Answerer, that there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke, because the Angels could hold it in the Air; and they having charge over it, did bear it up in their hands. The Question therefore might be put, which of the two speaks truest. But e'en let them agree the difference as they please, and reconcile the plain Contradiction between them. But for the Ark's being afloat in a River, or Dock, or Cistern, before the Earth fell; he has this pretence. Those things were premis'd in the Theory, only to soften the way to men that are hard of be∣lief in such extraordinary matters. Truly these mat∣ters are very Extraordinary; and the way to believing them had need be well softned. But when that is soft∣ned, if so be men are not softned withal, and made extraordinarily soft too; they will hardly ever believe them at last. And pray, what are the Extraordinary matters, to the belief of which, the Arks being afloat in a River, or Dock, or Cistern; was to soften the way? They seem to be the saving of Noah, and the saving of his Family, and the saving of the Ark, when the Earth fell. But then in truth these things could not be those matters. For we are here told (at the same time) that there was no necessity of the Arks being

afloat in water, in order to these things: and that Noah, and his Family, and the Ark, were saved by the Mini∣stery of Angels. And to the belief of the Angels saving them, such a mollification would be vain and needless; inasmuch as every one who believes their Existence, believes also what the Answerer says of them; that they could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air, as in the Water. And so what was premised in the Theory, of this softning Nature; and what the Excepter is blamed for not noting, was of as little use, as it is of truth. And to shut up this particular; by calling in this extraordinary help of the Angels, he renders the Rains at the Deluge (the principal Cause of it, Gen. 7.4.) wholly unnecessary. For tho at first he would have them to save the Ark by setting it afloat; yet now we see there was no necessity of that. And then if the Earth fell into the Abyss, and by its fall made the waters of it so raging and destructive to all things, as he represents them; there could be no more need of forty days rain in order to the Flood; than of forty Candles to give light to the Sun. And so GOD did a great work to no end or purpose. Especially this 40 days rain fol∣lowing the Disruption; Which happened the very first day that Noah entred the Ark.

A Third Reason against the Floods coming in by the Dissolution of the Earth, was this. The Earth (or dry Land of this Terraqueous Globe) would in likelihood have been of another Figure than what it now bears. But instead of answering it, he speaks against a change in the Poles and Circles of the Earth; a needless trouble, and occa∣sion'd by his own oversight. For had he but lookt into the Errata's, he might have seen there, that those Pa∣rentheses, upon which he grounded what he says, should have been left out. And in case he did peruse the Er∣rata's, and observe that these Parentheses were marked

for such; I may say of him, as he said of the Excepter, it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them. And if he had taken notice of them as Errata's, he need not have troubled himself farther about them. And so we pass to

The Fourth Reason. Had the Earth been dissolved to make the Flood; its Dissolution would have brought it into lamentable barrenness. For the dry and dead Soil would have been turned up by whole Countries at once: and where the outward part of the Earth continu'd out∣ward still; the top of the Ground would have been rinsed off, by the vehement workings and incessant beatings of the Flood upon it. And then the furious commotions and aestuations of the Waters, washing off an abundance of Earth, from the innumerable Frag∣ments which fell into the Abyss; and this Earthy stuff being carried into all places, and spread thick upon the Ground, and mix'd and incorporated with much other Filth; it would have hardned (upon the going off of the Flood) into a Crust or Cap on the surface of the Earth, and so have been very destructive to its Fruitful∣ness. It is answered first, I willingly allow, that some of the interiour and barren parts of the Earth might be turn'd up; as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries: but this rather confirms the Theory, than weakens it. He must allow (according to the tenour of his Hypothe∣sis) not only that some, but that many of the interiour barren parts of the Earth were turned up everywhere. And then the Waters being so strangely tumultuous, and the fluctuations of them so extremely boisterous, and their mighty rage of so long continuance; While they were carried up to a great height in the Air, and fell down again with prodigious weight and force; they could not but harrass the Ground at such a rate, as to wear away the upper part of it, and make the top of

the Earth as bare and barren as the bottom of a river, by their monstrous and unspeakable Surgings. Second∣ly, he answers, that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren, I cannot allow. For good husbandmen overflow their grounds, to make their Crops more Rich. And 'tis generally supposed that the inundation of the Nile, and the mud it leaves behind it, makes Egypt more fruit∣ful. Besides, this part of the objection lies against the com∣mon Explication of the Deluge, as well as against that which is given by the Theory. But when good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to improve their Crops; they do it seasonably, and they do it moderately, and to be sure they do not at the same time turn them up for half a mile or a mile deep. And tho several Rivers do in∣rich grounds by their Inundations, by vertue of a great plenty of unctuous mud which they bring upon them, that makes the Soil new as it were; (so Hermus does, and also Cayster, Menander, and Caicus, as Strabo informs us from Nearchus) yet that mud which the Deluge would have left, would have been of a silty and sandy nature, and so of a lean, and hungry, and starven quali∣ty, as being mostly washt off from the Edges of those pieces into which the dissolved Earth was shattered: and consequently would rather have prevented and hin∣dred, than helped or promoted the Earth's fruitfulness. And therefore the Geographer notes, that the mud of the aforesaid Rivers, which makes the fields over which they flow; is not coarse and dry (like that which would have been eaten off of the verges of the terre∣strial Fragments) but of a softer and fatter sort. And then as to the Nile, that the Mud it brings down upon the Land of Egypt, is light and soft, and fat; and so fit to impregnate it with a strong Fertility: we may

properly infer from the sweetness of its Waters. For as Diodorus reports, they are the sweetest of all that are in the whole Earth. Which made that famous Gene∣ral, Piscenius Niger, (who contended with Septimus Se∣verus for the Empire) reprimand his Souldiers for han∣kering after wine, and for muttering for the want of it; when they might drink their fill of this pleasant Stream. Tho it is well known, that an ingenious French Writer, I mean Duval (in his Geogr. Ʋnivers.) ascribes both the Muddiness, Fruitfulness, and Overflow of it; to its Nitrous Quality. His words are to this purpose. It has lately been found out, that the Nitre wherewith the Nile abounds so much, is the cause of all those wonderful Effects; and that being heated by the sun, it mingles it self with the water, renders it troubled, swells it, and makes it pass over its Banks. But yet concerning this noble River it is as well known; that as sometimes it has not increased at all, (as in the tenth and eleventh year of Cleopatra, against the downfal and the death of that Princess, and her admired Anthony:) and as some∣times it is defective in its increase, to lamentable failures in the usual Products of that plentiful Country: So if at any time it happens to exceed in its increment, but two or three Cubits; that excess is at once both a clear Prognostic, and a certain Cause, of a dearth or scarcity in the ensuing year. But then that such a Deluge as the Theory supposes, (it being Universal, and of long continuance, and made of lean subterraneous water, and full of dead, and harsh, and heavy soil, fetcht off from numberless pieces of the broken Earth) should occasion barrenness, for a considerable time, in the post-diluvian World; is but reasonable to conclude. Nor lastly does this part of the Objection lie against the common Explication of the Deluge, with such force as it does against the Theory's Explication of it. For

tho a General Flood overtopping the Mountains, must have left mud, and slime, and filth behind it; yet where the water rise upon an Earth that remained un∣broken, they could be nothing in quantity, to what they must have been where the Earth was dissolv'd and fell all to pieces; and where the water boiling up from under these Fragments, and then falling down again violently upon them, raged amongst them with lasting, incessant, and unimaginable turbulence.

As a Fifth Reason against the Earth's being drowned, by its being dissolved, the Excepter added this. All the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been shaken down, or else overwhelmed. Here, as to the City Joppa (which is the main hinge upon which the Ob∣jection turns) he Answers: it is incertain whether it was built before the Flood. But besides the au∣thorities of Mela and Solinus cited for it, it is generally granted to be so ancient; and none that speak of its Antiquity, take upon them to deny it. Nor will the Fiction concerning Perseus and Andromeda, subvert the receiv'd opinion in this matter. For as many Fables are made out of true stories, so many again are tacked to them. He goes on; However suppose the ruines of one Town remain'd after the Flood; does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv'd? I do not doubt, but there were several tracts of the Earth, much greater than that Town, that were not broken all to pieces by their fall. Had that tract, whereon Joppa stood, continued whole; yet falling down so very low (a mile at least;) by the force of its weight it would have suffer'd such a shock, as could not but have levell'd its Buildings with the ground. Thus very good houses are oftentimes shatter'd down in Earthquakes, meerly by the concussion or shaking of the Ground, tho it never breaks. And truly if only the bare ruines of it had remained (which we do not,

nor need not grant) yet these must have given as fatal a blow to the Theory, as the fall of the Earth would have done to this City. For their very out-lasting the fury of the Deluge, would prove that Joppa consisted, not of a Number of Cottages, made of branches of trees, of Osiers, and Bull-rushes; or of Mud-Walls and Straw Roofs (which then must all have been quite washt away:) but of Edifices made of such Materials, as could never be prepared, formed, and set up, without Iron tools. And so we come to

The Last Reason against the supposed dissolution of the Earth. It would have made GOD's Covenant with Noah, a very vain and trifling thing. Because then the Earth was not capable of, or liable to such another Deluge. It is here answered: So much is true, that the Deluge in the course of Nature, will not return again in the same way. If it returns not in the same way, that is, in the course of nature; it cannot be such another Deluge as Noah's was: for that came in by the Course of Nature. He proceeds; But unless GOD prevents it, it both may and will return in another way. That is, if the World, continues long enough, the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters, in proportion, rise; and overflow the whole Earth. How possible soever such a Deluge may be in long process of time; yet Christians, who believe the Doctrine of the Gospel, and that principal Article of it, the World's Conflagration; can never think that it shall come to pass. For if the World in the end, were to be overflow'd with Water; how could it, according to St. Peter, be reserved unto fire? And GOD having thus declar'd that he will prevent it, His Covenant with Noah could have no relation to such a natural Overflow. This piece of answer therefore is so very thin, that a weak eye may easily see through it, and discern that there is shifting at the bottom of it.

He adds therefore; GOD might, when He pleased, by an extraordinary power, and for the sins of men, bring ano∣ther Deluge upon the World. And that is the thing which Noah seems to have feared, and which GOD, by his Cove∣nant, secur'd him against. Noah's Flood was brought upon the World for the sins of men; And if another Flood may be brought in, upon that account, by GOD's ex∣traordinary power; then Noah's Flood might come in by that power too, even by its creating waters to make it. Which in case it had been but yielded at first, it might have sav'd the pains, of setting up this Hypothesis. And not only so, but likewise have superseded the col∣lateral trouble, of too weak and ineffectual endeavours to support it. And when all is said, the sole reason why such another flood as Noah's was, shall never come in again; is not any change in Nature, rendring the thing difficult or impossible; but the unchangeable covenant of GOD, as appears, Isai. 54.9. Where GOD, to illustrate the stability of his kindness to the Jewish Church, and to show that its calamity shall never be reiterated; compares it to the sure and perpetual ex∣clusion of the waters of Noah, to the return of which, his immutable Oath is the eternal bar. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the Earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Thus we have done with the Answer to our Excep∣tions. In which I am not conscious to my self, that I have omitted any one thing, which deserves notice and a Reply. And here I might speak freely of this An∣swer. But because its defects are plain and obvious e∣nough to the intelligent; I only say this much. That I expected a better from the Author of the Theory, or none at all.

Notes

• Disc. p. 285.
• Answ. p. 60.
• Ib.
• Eng. Theor. p. 252.
• Annus ipse nonagesimus primus ejus seculi erat, quod eodem anno, ac pene mense, natalis Deiparae Virginis domus, deficiente cultu, ex Asia in Europam, coelestium ministerio transit. Quae primo in Dalmatia, inde quadrienno post in Piceno consedit. Hor. Tursel. Epit. Hist. lib. 9. pag. (mihi) 302.
• Disc. p. 286.
• Answer. p. 60.
• Eng. The. p. 252.
• Answ. p. 61.
• Ibid.
• Answ. p. 11.
• Disc. p. 288.
• p. 61.
• Ib.
• Ib. p. 62.
• Ib.
• p. 31.
• p. 62:
• Ib.
• Ib.
• Eng. The. p. 98.
• Another Con∣tradiction.
• Answ: p. 62.
• Disc. p. 289.
• Answ. p. 63.
• Ib. p. 62.
• Read Disc. p. 290, 291, 292.
• Answ. p. 64.
• The Tumult of the Waters, and the extre∣mity of the Deluge lasted for some Months. Eng. Theor. p. 76. Ib. p. 75.
• p. 64.
• Nearchus de fluviorum effusione haec affert ex∣empla, quod dictum est, Hermi, & Caystri, & Maeandri, & Caici, campos similes esse, propter limum qui e montibus delatus campos ••••get, imo facit. Strabo Geogr. li. 15.
• Deferre autem flumina eum qui mollior sit, & pinguior ex quo campi fiunt. Id. Ib.
• Disc. p. 292:
• ••. 64.
• ••. 64, 65.
• Answ: p. 50.
• See Disc. p. 296, 297, 298.
• p. 65.
• Read the be∣ginning of the 6th. Chapter of this Reply. Answ. p. 65.
• 2 Pet. 3.••
• Answ. p. 65.