thor. And I remember, that when Mr. Cotes and I formerly talked with him about antient Chronology, I found his Notions fo weak, that I expected very little from his own Chronology, when it fhould be publish'd. Which Expectation altho' I ufed to fuggeft to my Friends before fuch Publication, yet would none of them believe me at that Time, though they did afterward. The fame Sir Ifaac Newton did also so imperfectly understand the Famous Prophecy of Daniel's LXX Weeks, and fome of the Prophecies in the Revelation of St. John, even after the successful Labours of the great Mr. Mede (whom I have heard him own as the best of its Expofitors) and others following him, that, upon fpending once with him alone, A. D. 1706, about four Hours on the Apocalypfe, I could hardly af fent to more than one of his Expofitions, viz. the Distinction of the IV Monarchies in prophetick Language, Geographically, as well as Chronologically; which therefore, by his Permiffion, I preferved in ry own Effay on that Book, p. 258, 259 of the frft Edition, and p. 296, 297, 298, of the fecond. Tho' after all it must be allowed, that Sir Ifaac Newton's Judgment did not fail him near Lo often in his Expofition of Prophecies, (unless we except that of the LXX Weeks, which feems to me exceeding weak) as it did in his Chronology. Of which Matters, fee my Confutation of his Chronology, and fhort View of his Expofitions Daniel and the Revelation: Of which hereafter.

During my being Chaplain to Bishop Moor, which was from 1694 to 1698, Bishop Burnet, who was his particular Friend, committed to his Perufal his Explication of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in MS. who committed it to my Perufal;, Perufal; without the leaft Indication who was the Author. Wherein I made a few Corrections; which I fuppofe were communicated to him. But when I returned the MS. Bishop Moor afked me, Whom I took to be the Author? I immediately added, that No-body could write it but Bishop Burnet: Whom he then allowed to be the true Author.

While I was alfo Chaplain there, the fame Bishop Burnet committed to Bishop Moor's Perufal, a Vindication of himfelf from the Reflexions Bishop Stilling fleet had made upon him, for requiring Bonds of Refignation from those whom he made Prebendaries of Sarum, in cafe they left that Diocefe: In order to relinquifh the Wages when they relinquished the Work, for which it was given: And that those that succeeded to the Work might have the Wages allotted to it. This Vindication the Bishop gave me to transcribe: Which I did, with full Approbation of its Contents: But without taking a Copy for myself, which I was not impowered to do. This Paper was not then published; because Bishop Stillingfleet was so very great a Man, that prudent People did not think it proper he should be quarrelled with. Yet when I perceived that Bishop Burnet's Son, Mr. Thomas, (now Mr. Justice Burnet)

was

was publishing his Father's Life, which he has done with great Reputation, I went to him, and told him, what an excellent Paper his Father had written, and I had tranfcrib'd: With my Defire that if he had it he would publish it. He confeffed he had a Copy of it in the Country; but feemed not willing to publish it: Nor has he yet published it, as it highly deferves. See the late Lord Nottingham's Letter to Dr. Waterland, to the like Purpose, publifhed by Dr. Newton, at the End of his unanswerable Treatife against Pluralities, P. 463, 464.

During the fame time that I was Chaplain to Bishop Moor, fomewhat happened at Norwich with relation to the forementioned Bishop Stillingfleet's Family; which for a while put me into a great Disorder, and is fit to be here related. The Bishop had a Son of St. John's College, Cambridge, by Profeffion a Physician, and one that wanted not good Parts; but of whom I had heard a very bad Character as to his Morals. He was fent by his Father to his Friend and my Patron Bishop Moor, for a private Ordination, to capacitate him for a Living. Now in fuch Cafes 'tis ufually expected, that the Chaplain should prefent the Candidate for Orders to the Bishop, and folemnly to declare his Opinion as to his Fitness for thofe Orders which the publick Form of Ordination requires: As I once presented the well known Mr. Echard, the Hiftorian, both to Deacons and Priefts Orders there; and never any one but him: Whofe Character was unacceptionable. When I understood this, I was in

great

great Perplexity, as not intending ever to present or confent to the Presentation of a bad Man to Holy Orders: And yet being unwilling to difoblige fo great a Man as Bishop Stilling fleet, I do not remember that I directly told my Uneafinefs to any Body, unless it was gueft at from my Countenance, or accidental Intimations. However, Archdeacon Jeffries foon came, and voluntarily offered to ease me of my Trouble; and faid, He had heard a better Character of him than I had, and would examine and present him, which he did. And I have lately heard, he proved afterward a worthy Man..

It was also during my being Chaplain to Bishop Moor, that I published my firft Work, intitled, A New Theory of the Earth, from its Original to the Confummation of all Things, wherein the Creation of the World in fix Days, the Universal Deluge, and the General Conflagration, as laid down in the Holy Scriptures, are fhewn to be perfectly agreeable to Reafon and Phylofophy. With a large Introduction concerning the genuine Nature, Stile, and Extent of the Mofaick History of the Creation: Price, as in the reft, bound, 6s. This Book was fhewed in MS. to Dr. Bentley, and to Sir Chriftopher Wren, but chiefly laid before Sir Ifaac Newton himself, on whose Principles it depended, and who well approved of it: The Epitome of it was made by me long afterward, in order to its Infertion into a foreign Journal: And has been added in the 5th Edition, which yet may almost be called the 7th, fince the first had 1500 Copies printed off at once. Whence it is plain that this Work was exceeding well

received

received by the learned World. As to which Reception hear the great Mr. John Lock, who fpeaks thus in his Letter to Mr. Molyneaux, concerning this my new Theory, foon after it was published:1 Dated from Oates, Feb. 22, 1696-7. " You

"defire to know what the Opinion of the Inge"nious is concerning Mr. Whifton's Book. I "have not heard any one of my Acquaintance

fpeak of it, but with great Commendations, as "I think it deferves, and truly I think he is more 66 to be admired that he has laid down an Hypo"thesis whereby he has explained fo many won"derful, and before inexplicable Things in the great Changes of this Globe, than that fome of "then should not easily go down with some Men; "when the whole was intirely new to all. He is "one of those Sort of Writers that I always fancy "should be most efteemed and encouraged; I am "always for the Builders, who bring some Addi"tion to our Knowledge, or at least fome new Thing to our Thoughts."

66

And tho' that great Geometrician, Mr. John Keill, foon wrote fomewhat against it twice, yet was it not till after fuch fair Conceffions as defeated, in great Measure, his own pretended Confutations. However, I immediately reply'd twice; and the Subftance of those Replies is inferted in their proper Places, in the later Editions: Tho' indeed the third Edition had by far the greatest Improvements: Since which I have made very few Alterations that are confidederable.

Now