consequently no fit Sources of water for the rest of the Earth Why we should think those Regions would be frozen and the Rains that fell in them he gives two Reasons the Distance and the Obliquity of the Sun As also the experience we have now of the coldness and frozenness of those parts of the Earth But as to the Distance of the Sun He confesses that is not the thing that does onely or chiefly make a Climate cold He might have added particularly in that Earth where the Sun was never at a greater distance than the Equator Then as to the Obliquity of the Sun neither was that so great nor so considerable in the first Earth as in the present Because the Body of that lay in a direct position to the Sun whereas the present Earth lies in an Oblique And tho' the Polar circles or circumpolar parts of that Earth did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial and consequently were cooler yet there was no danger of their being frozen or congeal'd It was more the moisture and excessive Rains of those parts that made them uninhabitable than the extreme coldness of the Climate of it self And if the Excepter had well consider'd the differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth as to obliquity of position and that which follows from it the length of Nights He would have found no reason to have charg'd that Earth with nipping and freezing cold where there was not I believe one morsel of Ice from one pole to another But that will better appear if we consider the causes of Cold. There are three general causes of Cold the distance of the Sun his Obliquity and his total Absence I mean in the Nights As to distance that alone must be of little effect seeing there are many Planets which must not be lookt upon as meer lumps of Ice at a far greater distance from the Sun than ours And as to Obliquity you see it was much less considerable in the respective parts of the Primitive Earth than of the present Wherefore these are to be consider'd but as secondary causes of Cold in respect of the third the total absence of the Sun in the night time And where this happens to be long and tedious there you must expect excess of Cold. Now in the primitive Earth there was no such thing as long winter nights but every where a perpetual Equinox or a perpetual Day And consequently there was no room or cause of excessive cold in any part of it But on the contrary the case is very different in the present Earth For in our Climate we have not the presence of the Sun in the depth of Winter half as long as he is absent And towards the Poles they have nights that last several weeks or months together And then 't is that the Cold rages binds up the ground freezes the Ocean and makes those parts more or less uninhabitable But where no such causes are you need not fear any such effects Thus much to shew that there might be Rains Waters and Rivers in the primigenial Earth and towards the extreme parts of it without any danger of freezing But however says the other part of the exception These Rivers would not be made in due time That 's wholly according to the process you take It you take a meer natural process the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth all on a sudden but you may accelerate that process as much as you please by a Divine Hand As to this particular indeed of the Rivers one would think there should be no occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth because mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth And if they did but lead the way and prepare the ground in every countrey before mankind arrived there that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their account Neither can it be imagin'd but that the Rivers would flow faster than mankind could follow for 't is probable in the first hundred years men did not reach an hundred miles from home or from their first habitations and we cannot suppose the defluxion of Water upon any declivity to be half so slow As to the chanels of these Rivers the manner of their progress and other circumstances Those things are set down fully enough in the 5 th Chapter of the 2 d Book of the English Theory and it would be needless to repeat them here But the Anti-theorist says this slow production and propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture Both because of the Rivers of Paradise and also because Fishes were made the Sixth day As to that of the Fishes He must first prove that those were River-fishes for the Scripture makes them Sea-fish and instances in great Whales But he says p. 113 114. it will appear in the sequel of his Discourse that the Abyss could be no receptacle of fishes To that sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the examination of this particular Then as to Paradise that was but one single spot of ground according to the ordinary Hypothesis which he seems to adhere to and Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases seeing its seat is not yet determin'd But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass that might be the work of time when their chanels and courses were extended and setled As they would be doubtless long before the time that Moses writ that description But as to the Rivers of Paradise it would be a long story to handle that dispute here And 't is fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves before we determine the original of its River or Rivers CHAP. VI. WE come now to the Deluge where the great Exception is this That according to the Theory the Deluge would have come to pass whether mankind had been degenerate or no. We know mankind did degenerate and 't is a dangerous thing to argue upon false suppositions and to tell what would have come to pass in case such a thing had not come to pass Suppose Adam had not sin'd what would have become of the Messiah and the Dispensation of the Gospel which yet is said to have been determin'd more early than the Deluge Let the Anti-theorist answer himself this question and he may answer his own But to take a gentler instance Suppose Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit How could He and all his Posterity have liv'd in Paradise A few generations would have fill'd that place and should the rest have been turn'd out into the wide World without any sin or fault of theirs You suppose the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth to have been the same with the present and consequently subject to the same accidents and inconveniences The action of the Sun would have been the same then as now according to your Hypothesis The same excesses of heat and cold in the several regions and climates The same Vapours and
and Nights were always equal in Paradise We have now done with the examination of Witnesses Philosophers Poets Iews and Christians From all these we collect That there was an opinion or Tradition amongst the Ancients of a change made in the state of the Natural World as to the diversity of Seasons in the Year And that this did arise from the change of the posture of the Earth Whether this Opinion or this Tradition was de jure as well as de facto is a question of another nature that did not lie before us at present But the thing that was only in debate in this Chapter was matter of Fact which I think we have sufficiently prov'd In the close of this Chapter The Excepter makes two Queries still by way of objection to the Antediluvian Equinox The First is this Supposing an Equinox in the beginning of the World would it in likelyhood have continued to the Flood If you grant the first part I believe few will scruple the second For why should we suppose a change before there appear any cause for it He says the Waters might possibly have weigh'd more towards one Pole than towards another But why the Waters more than the Air The Waters were not more rarified towards one Pole that towards another no more than the Air was for which the Excepter had justly blam'd Leucippus before But however says He that Earth would be very unstable because in process of time there would be an empty space betwixt the Exterior Region of the Earth and the Abyss below But that empty space would be fill'd with such gross vapors that it would be little purer than water and would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphere that is carried about with it We have no reason to change the posture of the Earth till we see some antecedent change that may be a cause of it And we see not any till the Earth broke But then indeed whether its posture depended barely upon its Aequilibrium or upon its magnetisme either or both of them when its parts were thrown into another situation might be chang'd For the parts of a ruine seldom lie in the same libration the Fabrick stood in And as to the magnetisme of the Earth that would change according as the Parts and Regions of the Earth chang'd their situation The second Query is this Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World Would not the natural day towards the later end of that World have been longer than in the former periods of the same Suppose this was true which yet we have no reason to believe That the Days were longer towards the flood than towards the beginning of the World why is this contrary to Scripture He tells you how in these words That the days just before the flood were of no unusual length is evident in the very story of the Flood the duration of which we find computed by Months consisting of thirty days a-piece Whereas had days been grown longer fewer of them would have made a Month. This is a meer Paralogisme or a meer blunder For if thirty days were to go to a Month whether the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them and the Scripture does not determine the length of the days If thirty circumgyrations of the Earth make a Month whether these circumgyrations are slow or swift thirty are still thirty But I suppose that which he would have said and which he had confusedly in his mind was this That the Month would have been longer at the Flood than it was before Longer I say as to extent of time or duration in general but not as to number of days And you could not cut off a slip of one day and tack it to the next through the intermediate Night to make an abridgment of the whole Therefore this Objection is grounded upon a mistake and ill reasoning which is now sufficiently detected CHAP. IX THIS Chapter is against the Oval Figure of the first Earth which the Theorist had asserted and grounded upon a general motion of the Waters forc'd from the Equinoctial Parts towards the Polar But before we proceed to his Objections against this Explication we must rectifie one Principle The Excepter seems to suppose that Terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point Whereas the Theorist supposes that all Bodies moving round have more or less a nitency from the Center of their motion and that 't is by an external force that they are prest down against their first inclination or nitency This being premis'd we proceed to his exceptions where his first and grand quarrel is about the use of a word whether the motion of the Water from the middle of the Earth towards the Poles can be call'd defluxus Seeing those Polar Parts in this suppos'd case were as high or higher than the Equinoctial I think we do not scruple to say undae defluunt ad litora tho' the shores be as high or higher than the Surface of the Sea For we often respect as the Theorist did the middle and the sides in the use of that word And so defluere è medio ad latera is no more than prolabi ad latera But 't is not worth the while to contest about a word Especially seeing 't is explain'd in the 2 d. Edition of the Theory by adding detrusione but it would have spoil'd all this pedantry and all his little triumphs if he had taken notice of that Explication Wherefore setting aside the word Let us consider his reasons against this motion of the Waters towards the Poles which he says could not be because it would have been an ascent not a descent We allow and suppose that But may not Waters ascend by force and detrusion when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that force and persevere in their motion And this is the case we are speaking to They were impell'd to ascend or recide from the Center and it was easier for them to ascend laterally than to ascend directly upon an inclin'd Plain than upon a perpendicular one Why then should we not suppose that they took that course Methinks the Observator who seems to be much conversant in the Cartesian Philosophy might have conceiv'd this detrusion of the Waters towards the Poles by the resistance of the superambient Air as well as their flowing towards and upon the shores by the pressure of the Air under the Moon And if the Moon continued always in the same place or over the middle of the Sea that posture of the waters would be always the same though it be an ascent both upon the Land and into the Rivers And this methinks is neither contradiction nor absurdity But an Enemy that is little us'd to Victory makes a great noise upon a small advantage He proceeds now to show that it was improbable that the Figure of the first
very vain and trifling thing So much is true That the Deluge in the course of Nature will not return again in the same way But unless God prevent it it both may and will return in another way That is if the World continue long enough the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters in proportion rise and overflow the whole Earth As is plainly shewn by a parallel case in the first Book of the Theory ch 4. Besides God might when he pleas'd by an extraordinary power and for the sins of Men bring another Deluge upon the World And that is the thing which Noah seems to have fear'd and which God by his Covenant secur'd him against For as the Excepter hath said himself in answering an harder objection p. 152. When God assigned to the Waters the place of their abode he did not intend to fortifie them in it against his own omnipotence or to devest himself of his Sovereign Prerogative of calling them forth when he pleased This being allow'd with what we said before that Covenant was not vain or trifling either in respect of an ordinary or extraordinary Providence Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own And the last of all excepts not against the truth of the Theory but the certainty of it In reflection upon this whole matter give me leave to declare Two things First That I have not knowingly omitted any one Objection that I thought of moment Secondly That I have not from these Exceptions found reason to change any part of the Theory nor to alter my opinion as to any particular in it No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture which understood according to the Letter in a Vulgar way stand cross both to this and other natural Theories And a Child that had read the first Chapters of Genesis might have observ'd this as well as the Excepter but could not have loaded his charge with so much bitterness Some Men they say though of no great Valour yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall The Excepter behind a Text of Scripture is very fierce and rugged But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy he 's gentle and tractable The Theorist had declar'd his intentions and oblig'd himself to give a full account of Moses his Cosmopoeia or six-days Creation but did not think it proper to be done in the Vulgar Language nor before the whole Theory was compleated This might have spar'd much of the Excepter's pains But till that account be given if the Excepter thinks fit to continue his Animadversions and go thorough the Two last Books as he hath done the two first it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Provided it be done with sincerity in reciting the words and representing the sence of the Author CHAP. XV. IN This Chapter the Anti-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge And the War is chang'd on his side from Offensive to Defensive 'T is but fair that he should lie down in his turn and if some blows smart a little he must not complain because he begun the Sport But let 's try his Hypothesis without any further ceremony The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it is this That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high above the ordinary level of the Earth This is an unmerciful Paradox and a very unlucky beginning For under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd As a Postulatum or as a Conclusion If it be a Postulatum it must be clear from its own light or acknowledg'd by general consent It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light because it is matter of Fact which is not known but by Testimony Neither is it generally acknowledg'd For the general opinion is that the Waters cover'd the tops of the Mountains Nay that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the tops of the Mountains And this he confesses himself in these words We shall find there is a great mistake in the common Hypothesis touching their depth namely of the Waters For Whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all above the Surface of the Earth And this Opinion or Doctrine he calls The general standing Hypothesis The usual Hypothesis The usual sence they have put upon the Sacred Story It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Hypothesis is false but the falsity of it must be demonstrated by good Proofs Now I do not find that this new Hypothesis of a fifteen-cubit-Deluge offers at any more than one single proof namely from Gen. 7. 20. But before we proceed to the examination of that give me leave to note one or two things wherein the new-Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sence At his entrance upon this new Hypothesis he hath these words P. 300. Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real or if he does believe it to be so Why will he not defend it for we ought to defend truth But he says moreover p. 302. lin 19. Our supposition stands supported by Divine authority as being founded upon Scripture Which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak Why will not he defend it as true and real For to be supported by Scripture and by plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith which every one surely is bound to defend But this is not all the difficulty we meet with The whole period which we quoted runs thus Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true or real any more than to believe what I cannot well endure to speak that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Which yet she must needs have done if there be no other rational method of explaining it and no other intelligible Causes of it than what the Theory has propos'd Now for the word Theory put the word Excepter or Excepter's Hypothesis and see if this charge That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge does not fall as much upon the Excepter's new Hypothesis as upon the Theory If the Church-Hypothesis was rational what need he have invented a new one why does he not propose that Hypothesis and defend it I 'me afraid it will be found that he does not only contradict the Church-Hypothesis but reject it as mistaken and irrational For what is the Church-Hypothesis but the Common Hypothesis p.
every cross word an affront Both those humours are extremes and breed quarrels Suppose a Man should say boldly God Almighty hath no right hand Oh might the Animadverter cry That 's a bold affront to Scripture For I can shew you many and plain Texts of Scripture both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament where express mention is made of God's Right Hand And will you offer to oppose Reason and Philosophy to express words of Scripture often repeated and in both Testaments O Tempora O Mores So far as my observation reaches weak reasons commonly produce strong passions When a Man hath clear reasons they satisfie and quiet the mind and he is not much concern'd whether others receive his notions or no. But when we have a strong aversion to an opinion from other Motives and Considerations and find our reasons doubtful or insufficient then according to the course of humane nature the passions rise for a further assistance and what is wanting in point of argument is made up by invectives and aggravations CHAP. IV. THIS Chapter is chiefly concerning the Central Fire and the Origine of the Chaos Of both which the Theorist had declared he would not treat And 't is an unreasonable violence to force an Author to treat of what things we please and not allow him to prescribe bounds to his own discourse As to the first of these see what the Theorist hath said Engl. Theor. p. 48. 64. 324. By which passages it is evident that he did not meddle with the Central parts of the Earth nor thought it necessary for his Hypothesis As is also more fully exprest in the Latine Theory p. 45. For do but allow him a Chaos from the bottom of the Abyss upwards to the Moon and he desires no more for the formation of an habitable Earth Neither is it the part of wisdom to load a new subject with unnecessary curiosities Then as to the Origine of the Chaos see how the Theorist bounds his discourse as to that I did not think it necessary to carry the story and original of the Earth higher than the Chaos as Zoroaster and Orpheus seem to have done but taking that for our foundation which Antiquity sacred and profane does suppose and natural reason approve and confirm we have form'd the Earth from it To form an habitable Earth from a Chaos given and to show all the great Periods and general Changes of that Earth throughout the whole course of its duration or while it remain'd an Earth was the adequate design of the Theorist And was this design so short or shallow that it could not satisfy the great Soul of the Excepter but it must be a flaw in the Hypothesis that it did go higher than the Chaos We content our selves with these bounds at present And when a man declares that he will write only the Roman History Will you say his work 's imperfect because it does not take in the Persian and Assyrian These things consider'd to speak freely of this Chapter it seems to me in a great measure impertinent Unless it was design'd to show the learning of the Observator who loves I perceive to dabble in Philosophy tho' little to the purpose For as far as I see his disquisitions generally end in Scepticism He disputes first one way and then another and at last determines nothing He rambles betwext D. Cartes and Moses the Rabbies the Septuagint the Platonists Magnetisme striate Particles and praeexistence of Souls and ends in nothing as to the formation of the Earth which was to be the subject of the Chapter We proceed therefore to the next in hopes to meet with closer reasoning CHAP. V. FRom the manner of the Earth's formation the Excepter now proceeds to the Form of it if compleated And his first Exception is That it would want Waters or Rivers to water it He says there would either be no Rivers at all or none at least in due time The Theorist hath replenisht that Earth with Rivers flowing from the extreme parts of it towards the middle in continual streams and watering as a Garden all the intermediate climates And this constant supply of water was made from the Heavens by an uninterrupted stream of Vapours which had their course through the Air from the middle parts of the Earth towards the extreme and falling in Rains return'd again upon the surface of the Earth from the extreme parts to the middle For that Earth being of an Oval or something oblong figure there would be a declivity all a-long or descent from the Polar parts towards the Equinoctial which gave course and motion to these waters And the vapors above never failing in their course the Rivers would never fail below but a perpetual Circulation would be establish'd betwixt the waters of the Heavens and of the Earth This is a short account of the state of the Waters in the Primeval Earth Which you may see represented and explain'd more at large in the 2 d. Book of the Theory Chap. 5. And this I believe is an Idea more easily conceived than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of the present Earth if we had not experience of them Suppose a Stranger that had never seen this Terraqueous Globe where we live at present but was told the general Form of it How the Sea lies how the Land and what was the constitution of the Heavens If this Stranger was askt his opinion whether such an Earth was habitable and particularly whether they could have waters commodiously in such an Earth and how the Inland Countries would be supplied I am apt to think he would find it more difficult upon an Idea onely without experience to provide Waters for such an Earth as ours is at present than for such an one as the Primeval Earth was 'T is true He would easily find Rains possible and natural but with no constancy or regularity and these he might imagine would onely make transient torrents not any fixt and permanent Rivers But as for Fountains deriv'd from the Sea and breaking out in higher grounds I am apt to believe all his Philosophy would not be able to make a clear discovery of them But things that are familiar to us by experience we think easie in speculation or never enquire into the causes of them Whereas other things that never fall under our experience tho' more simple and intelligible in themselves we reject often as Paradoxes or Romances Let this be applied to the present case and we proceed to answer the Exceptions Let us take that Exception first as most material that pretends there would have been no Rivers at all in the Primeval Earth if it was of such a Form as the Theorist has describ'd And for this He gives one grand Reason Because the Regions towards the Poles where the Rains are suppos'd to fall and the Rivers to rise would have been all frozen and congeal'd and