literal sense but that Moses receded from the Physical verity as he calls it and spoke only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Archeol p. 317. that is in plain English there is not a word of it true the World being neither Created nor Formed in the manner there recorded but that his History of the Formation of Heaven and Earth was not contriv'd to be agreeable to the truth but to the notions and dispositions of the people for whose use it was written To make this out he pretends to find many faults and incongruities in that History which I need not now particularly consider since there is none of them that is really incongruous and disagreeable either to the Nature of things or the Wisdom of God but only to his notions and ways of thinking As for instance when he says and he tells us that he speaks it with indignation that without the greatest reproach both to the Work and its Maker it is neither to be said or imagined Archeol p. 299. that this Farth which he stiles the very dregs and excrements of nature should be the chief and principal part of the Creation and the first born of every Creature so that there should be more time allow'd for the framing and ordering of it than what is bestowed on all the rest of the World However great the Theorist's indignation is that he has conceiv'd upon this account I am sure there are some that cannot read those Reflections of his upon this History without a much greater It may be suppos'd that Moses who had an immediate conversation with God Almighty knew better what was a reproach to the World and its Maker than the Theorist does and yet we find that he thought it no affront to the Divine Wisdom not only to say and imagine such a thing but also to write it and that with a design that it should be received as true by all future generations But says the Theorist the Sacred Writers do often speak in a Mystical Archeol p. 318. Allegorical or Metaphorical stile and according to the capacity of the people and why might not Moses do the same in delivering the History of the Creation To answer this let us consider in what cases the Scriptures are to be taken not in a literal but in an Allegorical and Metaphorical sense and then compare each of them with the present case to see if there is any parity of reason between them First then the Scriptures are to be understood in an Allegorical sense when their liternal meaning would imply a contradiction either to some other place of the Sacred Writings which is most evidently to be understood literally or to the nature of the things spoken of thus when God Almighty is said to have hands and feet ears and eyes to move and walk and to have the affections and passions belonging to Men all or any of these since they are a contradiction to the Infinite perfections of the Deity can never be understood in a literal meaning tho' there should be still some sort of analogy between them and the thing signified We are sure that this consideration can have no place in the Mosaick History of the Creation which most certainly does neither contradict any other part of the Scriptures nor is there any thing said there but what is plainly possible and can be performed by the Power of God who if he had pleas'd could have formed the World or any part of it how great soever in an instant In the next place the Scriptures are not to be taken in a real and literal meaning when they speak according to the system of appearances and the notions which we draw from our senses Thus when it represents the Earth plain and as having four Corners with the Heavens stretched over it like a Curtain In those indeed and in many other such like places of Scripture it is certain that it was the design of the Sacred Pen-men not to speak according to the reality and nature of the things themselves but according to the notions and opinions which people received of them from their senses or indeed when the Sun is said to move every day from East to West to Rise and Sett to stand still there is no necessity of imagining that all those things are really perform'd by the Sun but there the holy Pen-men as all other Writers which do not concern themselves with Astronomy speak according to the system of appearances and as the Heavenly motions are represented to them by their senses it being the common and receiv'd way of speaking from which we are not to recede if we design to be understood and even all those Astronomers who firmly believe the motion of the Earth when it is not their business to explain the true system of the Universe are forced to speak in the same Dialect and I believe we should scarce think a Man right in his wits that in writing or speaking upon any common subject instead of saying that the Sun rose or set or that it came to the East or went to the West of us would say that our Horizon moved till it came above the Sun or went under it or that our Horizon turned round till the East or West points of it came to be exactly under the Sun Now this can never be apply'd to the Mosaick History of the Creation since the method of the Formation of the World could never have appeared to our senses and without a Divine Revelation we should have been ignorant of it to this day and had never discover'd the order and method by which all things were form'd Moses certainly wrote that discourse on purpose to give us a true notion of the Creation and therefore was to speak of things as they were really formed without any respect had to appearances as they would be represented to humane senses since there was no Man then in being to whom they could have appeared and I am of the opinion that if he had purposely and directly wrote as much upon the System of the World and the motions of the Heavens as he has done upon the subject of the Creation all those who acknowledge the Divine Authority of his writings would have been oblig'd to believe it The next case wherein we are to recede from the literal sense in the interpretation of Scripture is when they deliver parables those being only contriv'd by their Writers to illustrate something wherein they would instruct the people can never be suppos'd to be understood in a literal meaning This way of writing is indeed very ancient and is of great use for informing Mankind in the precepts of Prudence and Morality which are never so easily retain'd or so strongly imprinted on our imagination as when they are couched under some Fable whose Moral is easily apprehended But then from the nature of those Parables and the manner of their delivery it is easy to perceive that their Authors never design'd
Schemes by which they think they can defend their own Principles After this the Defender passes to consider what is said in the third Chapter of the Examination about Mountains He owns it to be a subject that deserves consideration and He says that if the Examiner can prove that there were Mountains in the primitive Earth He will undertake that the Theorist shall make no further defence of his Theory The Theorists great argument why the face of the primitive Earth was smooth and without Mountains depended on the supposition that the Chaos from whence it took its original was perfectly a fluid Mass This I affirm'd to be a precarious Hypothesis without any foundation in nature since the greatest part of the bodies we have in the Earth are hard and solid and there not being a quantity of Water in Nature sufficient enough to moisten and liquify them the Chaos could not be so fluid as 't was necessary â—t should be to form it self into an uniform smooth body Besides that the greatest part of them such as Stones and Mettals are uncapable of being liquify'd by water The Defender's reply to this is Very good what is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm that there were Stones or Mettals in the Chaos or that they were liquify'd by Water The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition I hope the Defender will not think this any answer to the objection I am sure none of his Readers can I thought that it concern'd the Theorist very much to prove his Chaos to be a fluid Mass of matter for otherwise it is not necessary that it should have its surface smooth regular and uniform at least it is fitting that the objections against its fluidity should be answer'd For if the Examiner can prove that the Chaos was not alltogether so fluid as the Theorist imagines and from thence shew that there was no necessity that the face of the Earth should be smooth and without Mountains then the Theorists argument must be of little force and that objection will still very much weaken the truth of the Theory I freely own indeed that the World was produced from a Chaos such a one namely as is recorded to us in Scripture but I am far from granting that the Theorist's notion is any ways agreeable to it he supposes that all the Elements Air Water and Earth with all the principles of Terrestial Bodies were reduc'd into one fluid Mass and mingled with one another so that the parts of any one sort could not be discern'd as distinct from the rest This I suppose is a new sort of Chaos which never existed any where but in fancy It were easie for me here to assume the Defenders method and argue against it by putting him questions how when and where was this mixing and blending together of all the Materials of Heaven and Earth By whom upon what design and for what purpose was this done Was it to the end that they might all settle themselves again in order and each take its place according to its specifick gravity but if the great parts of the World were for the most part so before what necessity was there for disturbing them only that they might range themselves orderly again He would do well also to tell us from whence he had this account of the Chaos from Sacred or Profane Writers if from the latter we are to value their authority no further than they are agreeable to the Scriptures since it would be no hard task to prove that it was from the Sacred History that the Heathen Writers first drew their knowledge of the Chaos which they afterwards corrupted with their own fancies In the Holy Scriptures I can find no account of the mixing and reducing of all the Materials of the World into one fluid Mass Moses indeed tells us that the Earth was Tohu and Bohu which we render without Form and Void and can we from thence conclude that all the parts of it were fluid and mixed together We may allow that the Jews understood the sense of these words better than we or any Heathen Writers and they give them a contrary meaning for according to the Syriack Translation those words signifie that the Earth was without either Habitation or Cultivation Terra erat deserta inculta in the Chaldaick Paraphrase they signifie deserta vacua The Targum of Jonahan B. Vziel supposes their meaning to be this Terra autem erat stupor inanitas vasta à filiis hominum vacua ab omni jumento with which the Jerusalem Targum does well agree according to which Paraphrase they signifie that the Earth was stupor inanitas desolatio à filiis hominum omni bestia vacua as that Paraphrase is render'd in Latin We may conclude from thence therefore that the Jews thought that all that was mean't by the words Tohu and Bohu was that the Earth was Void and Uncultivated without out Ornaments and Inhabitants Men or Beasts or any sort of Ammals Nor was the opinion of the ancient Christian Fathers any wise different from that of the Jews as to this matter Tertullian in his book against Hermogenes says Vnde compertus es Hermogenes uniformem inconditam illam fuisse 〈◊〉 ateriam quoe ut invisibilis latebat and in the 30th Chapter he plainly proves from Scripture that there was not a confus'd heap of matter mixed and blended together out of which all things were made St. Ambrose in the 8th Chapter of his Hexameron says that the Earth was incomposit a utpote solertis agricolae inarata culturis quia adhuc deerat cultor and again Terra crat incomposita quia nuda gignentium nec thoris herbosa riparum nec opaca nemoribus nec laeta segetibus nec umbrosa superciliis montium nec odora floribus nec grata vinetis St. Basil tells us that the true beauty and composition of the Earth arises from its great fertility * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his 2d Homily in Hexam near the beginning whereby it is productive of all sorts of Vegetables such as Plants of all kinds lofty and tall Trees as well those that bear Fruit as those that afford us none fragrant and sweet Flowers differing both in colour and smell and the Earth says he being naked and unfurnished with any of those sorts of Ornaments might well be said by the Scriptures to be Void and without Form In those discourses of the ancient Jews and primitive Fathers there is not one word of a perfectly fluid Mass of matter out of which all things were made there is nothing there of the mixing and blending together of the Elements and all the Materials of Heaven and Earth in their Writings we cannot see that such a Chaos as the Theorist fancies was ever either deliver'd or suppos'd we find that their notion about the origination of the World was very different from the Theorists whose Hypothesis is not therefore
As also Petrus Aponeusis in his Conciliator Diff. has these words Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis immobilis ordinate directe concurrebant tum virtus perfectiori modo à primo principio per medias causas taliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora cum causae tunc sibi invicem correspondebant These Testimonies I own do sufficiently convince me not that the Theorist's position of the Primitive Earth was the true one but that the Defender who has alledg'd them to prove his point does not understand them For he could not have quoted any thing that was less to his purpose than they are I know not what skill this Author has in the new Astronomy but I am sure he does not understand it if it be put into an old fashion dress No doubt he thought that these Authors mean't by such words that at first the Equator and Ecliptick were coincident when they never dream't of any such thing They as their own words inform us suppose with all the old Astronomers two Zodiacks the one of which is exactly placed under the other and the uppermost being immoveable the lowest in which the fixed Stars are placed moves exactly under it and performs its course from West to East according to some in the space of 25000. Years At first these two Circles had the same beginning the Constellation Aries being exactly in the sign of the Ecliptick of the same name and the Constellation Taurus was exactly in the sign Taurus the Stars also that make up the sigure of Gemini were exactly under the sign Gemini of the immoveable Zodiack and so in the rest By which these Astrological Gentlemen thought that both their forces being united their efficacy and vertue upon the Earth would be very strong But now that the moveable Zodiack has mov'd these two Circles have not the same beginning and the Stars that make up the figure of Aries are not in the sign Aries but in Taurus and those Stars which compose the sign of Taurus are no more in Taurus but in Gemini so the Stars of Gemini are got into Cancer and those of Cancer into Leo c. as may plainly be seen on any Coelestial Globe Which they suppose to be perform'd by the motion of the eighth Sphere or the moveable Zodiack of which all the old Astronomers speak whom if he pleases he may consult particularly he may read Clavius's Notes on Sacrobosco de Sphaera which is as common and as good a Book as he can find on the subject But it seems the Defender thinks that this would appear more to his purpose if the old fashion disguise were taken off and the business apply'd to the true System of the Heavens Well let us see if it is so The new Astronomers suppose that the Stars are immoveable and that the Earth turns round the Sun so that its Axis makes always the acute Angle of 66½° with the Plane of its Orbit if this Axis were perfectly directed to the same point of the Heavens or mov'd always precisely parallel to its self then the fixed Stars would seem to have no other motion but the diurnal But because the Earths Axis varies a little from an exact parallelism and does not precisely point to the same Star when it is in the same place of its Orbit but makes a small Angle with a line that obtains the position it had formerly in the same place hence it happens that the Equinoctial points or the common section of the Equator and the Ecliptick retrocede or move backwards from East to West and this is that which the Astronomers call the precession of the Equinox by which the fixed Stars seem to move from the West to the East with a very slow motion and the Constellation Aries which at first was in the sign Aries has now got into Taurus and Taurus has seem'd to move into Gemini Gemini into Cancer c. From hence it appears that according either to the old or new Astronomers the fixed Stars change their Longitude daily but not their Latitude and they have always suppos'd that the Axis of the World has kept still the same Angle with the Plane of the Ecliptick I will now leave it to any indifferent Reader or even to the Theorist and his Defender to judge if these quotations signify any thing to the purpose or if they are not stronger arguments against the Theorist's position than for it Since the Defender has advis'd me to consult Antiquity I suppose it will not be amiss to alledge the testimony of a very ancient Philosopher whose authority ought at least to be as great as Leucippus's Anaxagoras's Empedocles's or even Plato's I mean the Divinely inspir'd Moses who is the most ancient Writer that is now extant and the only one who gives us an account of the state and condition of the Primitive World of which the Philosophers adduced by the Theorist were altogether ignorant in his Writings there is not one word of the coincidence of the Ecliptick and the Equator or of the perpetual Equinox and Spring that was observ'd in the Primitive Earth Moses supposes no such thing but rather the contrary for in giving an account of the Creation he tells us that God said let there be lights in the firmament of the Heavens to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years from this it is observable that Moses supposes that there were different seasons from the very Creation and that their variety proceeded from the different motion of the Heavenly bodies and more particularly of the Sun whereas if the Theorist's Hypothesis had been true the motion of the Sun could have made no variety of seasons but the Year would have remain'd with the same face and tenour having but one continued season Thus it is evident that the Theorists supposition in this matter is directly contrary to that of Moses and I think that his testimony ought to be of greater force with any candid Reader even supposing that he had no Divine Inspiration than any thing that could have been said by such Philosophers as the Theorist has brought who lived not till many hundred years after Moses's time I found fault with the Theorist for saying the Earth was inclin'd to the Ecliptick it being impossible to conceive how a Sphere can be inclin'd to a Plane passing thro' its Center as the Ecliptick does thro' the Centre of the Earth The Defender endeavours to excuse himself in this matter telling us it is the expression of the ancient Philosophers tho' he thinks it may be properly called an obliquation I would not have him raise a scandal on the ancient Philosophers without good grounds which I scarce believe he has for his assertion yet if they said any such thing I did not think that the Theorist was so great an admirer of the old Philosophers that in complaisance to them he would
founded on any authority which is sufficient to induce us to believe it Nor has his opinion any more foundation in reason than authority for if we should allow of the Theorists account of the Waters that are in the Earth and from thence by computation compare the solid bodies with those that are fluid we shall find that the liquids are not the hundred thousandth part of the solid bodies in the Earth nay if we should take in the Atmosphere the whole System of fluids will not amount to the thousandth part of the solid bodies from which it plainly appears that the Chaos cannot be thought to have been in any manner an intirely fluid Mass but rather a hard and solid one For if we take hard bodies as Earth or Clay and fluid as Water or Oyl and mix them together in the proportion of eight thousand to one or even in that of a thousand to one that is take one inch of fluid matter for a thousand inches of solid matter the fluids will have but a very small effect on the solids Since therefore the whole composition of the Chaos when all its parts were mixed and blendeed together must not have been fluid but rather hard and solid I hope the Defender will allow the objection to be to the purpose and of force against the Theory which is founded on a contrary supposition Having thus prov'd that the far greatest part of those bodies which compos'd the Chaos were firm and solid I think it easie to shew why there is no necessity that an Earth form'd from such a composition should be smooth and regular for it is not so with solids as with fluids where all range themselves according to their intensive gravities and settle themselves into a regular and even surface whereas solids take their place according to the order they happen to be in that body coming soonest to its rest which is nearest the Centre without any respect had to gravity or levity and where these bodies happen'd to be thickest or highest or their parts less coherent there also after their fall would their surfaces be highest and the face of the whole would be very rugged and mountainous the liquids if we should allow them to separate from the solids would descend and fill the Holes Cavities and Caverns that were made by the falling of these irregular peices on one another and what was more than sufficient for this might spread its self upon the Valleys and leave great protuberances of the solid Mass as great as any of our Mountains standing out above the surface of the Water But granting that the greatest part of the Chaos was a fluid Mass I brought another argument in the Examination to shew how the face of the Earth might be mountainous and uneven by supposing in the Chaos a great many bodies which by being in a great measure hollow or fastned to some other matter of less gravity than that of the fluid Chaos would swim on the surface of it after the subsiding of all the rest and some parts of them standing above the surface of the watery Orb would form Mountains The Defender answers this as he does most other objections by a question Who told me that these lumps of matter were hollow Is not this precarious or rather Chimerical and ridiculous I answer I came to know this after the same manner that the Theorist knew there were neither Mountains nor Seas in the Primitive Earth if it be a precarious Hypothesis I cannot help it but it is my comfort that if every thing that 's precarious be also Chimerical and ridiculous I know whole Theories that will be so likewise After this he falls into a strain of very learned questions What made those solid lumps hollow when or where or how were their inward parts scoped out of them I know none but Theorists that can give a positive answer to such nice questions I am content to say they might have been so order'd by God Almighty at first for that very end that they might swim on the Abyss tho' another Theorist says that the fluid Abyss was much denser and heavier than the Mountains and therefore they could not sink and it is indifferent to me which of these answers he takes or if he find out some other of his own which he can easily do if he has a mind to it that he will like better It is enough for me to shew that there is no necessity that an Earth arising from a Chaos should have its surface smooth and uniform as the Theorist pretends it must But this Defender thinks that it is my opinion that Mountains were really sorm'd after this manner and from thence he proceeds to collect from my Principles and Concessions that there could be no Sea in the Primitive Earth and that an Orb of Earth must have been built over the Abyss and after all he concludes that I have no good hand in making Mountains This way of writing would almost tempt me to believe that he had never read over that Chapter which he pretends to answer for by the reading of it one may plainly see that it was not my design to settle this or any other new Theory of my own about the formation of Mountains nay I positively declar'd that I thought there were other principles concurring to the formation of Mountains besides gravitation and the known laws of motion my business was onely to shew the weakness of the Theorist's arguments and that an Earth arising from a Chaos might have been uneven rugged and mountainous notwithstanding he asserted that it must necessarily form its self into a smooth regular and uniform Figure For my part I think it absolutely indifferent to the question what way Mountains were made at the beginning of the World whether by Mechanical causes or by the immediate hand of God Almighty or if by hollowing and making a channel for the Sea the Earth was rais'd and laid upon the dry land to form Mountains which by the by is not so ridiculous or so repugnant to Calculation as the Theorist imagines it was sufficient to my purpose to shew that there was no necessity that the face of the Primitive Earth should be without Mountains Having thus laid open the weakness of the Theorists arguments I endenvoured in the next place to shew the great use and advantage that Mountains afforded to mankind The Theorist asserted that they did not consist of any proportion of parts that is referable to any design or which had the least footsteps of Art or Counsel This I thought was a bold and ill grounded assertion since it is certain that they are so far from being placed upon the Earth without any design or contrivance that they are justly reckon'd by the Philosophers amongst the most useful as well as the most stupendous parts of nature without them we could have had no Rivers or Springs which are things necessary to us not only for our Commodious living bur