expressly that the Waters covered the Tops of the highest Hills It does not say that they covered the tops of the highest Mountains And therefore for the Answerer to say it did affirm and say so expressly This I think is truly to force and falsify Scripture And thus his ill fortune haunts him still and where he thought to have catcht his adversary in a Net he only hampers and intangles himself For he relapses unhappily into his old infirmity and asserts what is not For where is it that Scripture says that the waters of the Flood did cover the tops of the highest Hills Yet he twice together asserts it did Two Untruths and so his recidivation is double and two untruths he tells at once 'T is confest Scripture says that the Mountains at the Flood were covered with waters But so it says also as we have observed that the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness was covered with Quails But as Quails two Cubits high upon the ground could not cover the Tops of the highest Tents so Waters fifteen Cubits high upon the Earth might not cover the Tops of the highest Hills For certain Scripture does not say it does not affirm expressly that they did Yet by this the Gentleman gives us to understand that what the Scripture says and expressly affirms is to be believed and ought to be received And then why is the being of a Sea before the Flood rejected and Adam's dominion over its fish denied I instance often in that Sea because I find it is of the Substance of the Theory and a piece of one of its Vital Assertions that the primitive Earth was without a Sea Ib. These Observations says the Answerer I know are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself But without a perhaps the Replicant finds they are of no use at all unless to the Observator May he that made them make the best use of them Here he takes occasion to reflect upon the Literal Style of Scripture And the last Head he speaks to and the only head that concerns us is of such things as belong to the Natural World Ib. p. 84. And to this he says may be reduc'd innumerable Instances where we leave the literal sence if inconsistent with Science or Experience What meant he then to charge us with going contrary to the Letter of Scripture for supposing the fixedness of the Sun and the motion of the Earth by his own confession before that charge was incompetent and by his own Rule here it must be impertinent By and by he has this Fling but I know not at whom Some men out of love to their own ease 〈◊〉 and in defence of their ignorance are not only for a Scripture-Divinity but also for a Scripture-Philosophy For my own part as I hate too lazy a Philosophy so I despise too busy a one Sound Philosophy is a noble thing and let all advance in it as far as they can the more expert Philosophers they are the wiser and better they are like to be But still we must remember that true Philosophy being bounded by the Light of Nature must never interfere with Revelation As on the one side it should not be slothful so on the other side it must not be pragmatical Scripture is no enemy to Philosophy and Philosophy by no means must affront Scripture GOD allows men the freest use of their Reason but 't is unreasonable they should oppose it to Inspiration and by using it confront his authority who gave them it So concern'd was Plato to shun all such indecency that being in his Timaeus to debate concerning the Universe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it were made or not made he thought it necessary to invoke all the GODS and Goddesses that what should be said might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeable to them and spoken consistently Change but the Object of the petition and the matter of it will be fit for any Philosophers Litany Direct the address to the One True GOD and there can be no fault in its application And let Notions be squar'd by the Rules that it contains and then Philosophy may take its liberty Scripture allows it sufficient latitude and the Christian Church will do no less So I am sure she did of old For then in her earlier and purer times she was so far from discouraging Philosophy that she took mens passing through its Schools to be a laudable preparative or qualification for their preferment Witness Origen cont Cel. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We will not turn away young men from those that teach Philosophy but where they have been exercis'd and have gone the round with them I will try to advance them higher c. But if any will abuse this noble liberty they must answer it to him who is philosophorum Deus as Tertullian told Marcion the GOD of Philosophers And if we would not aggravate our account here we must take heed of one thing Of entertaining Philosophy with trifling Notions For if once we suffer it to seed upon such trash we may expect it will soon get a surfeit and fall sick of Phantsy and that 's a Disease which commonly rises up into paroxysms of extravagance And then the vital heat of reason as I may call it turns into a violent and raging Fever And so the fire that should be kept orderly on the hearth furiously flies up to the house top And the flame which should burn only upon the Altar consumes the Temple Then he Observers Vpon the whole you see it is no fault to recede from the literal sence of Scripture but the fault is when we leave it without a just cause As it is no fault for a man to separate from a Church but to do it without a just cause is a real fault The beginning of this Observation does still farther justifie us against his late insufficient Charge And the rest of it gives us occasion to enquire what just cause he had to recede from the literal sence of Scripture as in too many instances he has done For if he left that sence without just cause he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemn'd by a sentence out of his own mouth The Letter of Scripture plainly says that GOD made two great Lights that He gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea that Tubal Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron That the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up and the Windows of Heaven open'd the same day Now pray what good reason or what just cause is there for his departing from the Literal sence of Scripture in these things For to recede from it without Cause is as real a fault by his own confession as it is without cause to separate from a Church And therefore as causless separation from a Church is criminous Schism so causeless recession from that sence of Scripture must be culpable desertion And so if
of these Particles were sunk down the Air was yet thick gross and dark and that darkness was lasting Darkness Not that I reflect upon the Doctor for his Retractation here I note it rather in his commendation And the more any man does of this nature where there is cause for it and the farther he goes in this way the more laudable will his action and procedure be Having done with the Chapter he must now take the Excepter to task And it seems he was in a great fault where he little thought of being so The Theorist doubted whether the Moon was in our Neighbourhood before the Flood and he argued in Defence of this Doubt Disc p. 78. This said the Excepter is too bold an Affront to Scripture But says the Answerer a discreet man is not forward to call every cross word an affront Answ p. 10. And truly no more was the Excepter forward to that But every word so cross to Scripture as his spoken in the case mention'd deserves to be so called It is said in the Inspired Writings 1 King 7.16 that King Solomon made two Chapiters of Brass Now should any man doubt and dispute this and offer to prove that he made but one surely here would be too bold an affront to Scripture tho the things were little and of low consideration The same Writings assure us that GOD upon the 4th Day made two great Lights things of an higher Nature and Use for they were to give Light upon the Earth the one for the benefit of Mankind ruling the Day and the other the night The Theorist questions this disputes against it and offers to prove that instead of two Lights GOD made but one And must not the words spoken by him here be too bold an affront to Scripture And if they be so discreet men may be allowed to call things as they are Besides the Excepter had never ingag'd with the Theorist but to shew how cross his Assertions lie to Scripture and had he not pointed out what was too bold and affronting that way he must net have been discreet indeed as neglecting what was most proper for his purpose And lastly who must be most indiscreet of the two he that puts the affront upon Scripture or he that minds him of it But he has somewhat more against us yet for minding him of the Affront he put upon Scripture And it is this Suppose a man should say boldly p. 11. GOD Almighty has no right hand Oh might the Animadverter cry that 's a bold affront to Scripture for I can show you many and plain Texts of Scripture where express mention is made of GOD's right hand But let him show us one plain Text of Scripture which means that God has a real right hand That he has as really a right hand as he did really make two great Lights But because he cannot possibly do this the Animadverter must needs cry Oh how the Answerer here trifles As if there were no difference betwixt Literal and Allusive Expressions in the Bible In passing to the next Chapter he throws an Observation in our way Ib. Viz. Weak reasons commonly produce strong Passions Which serves to inform why the Answerer's Passions are sometimes so strong against the Excepter even because his reasons are weak Where they fail out come indiscreet rude injudicious uncharitable and the like Brats of Passion to supply the place of Arguments And yet as to any thing of this Nature the Replicant durst not twit the Answerer as he does the Excepter in this Chapter by saying it is Wit and Scolding Ib. p. 5. Not the first lest he should tell a lye not the Second lest he should speak in an unmannerly truth and make a Philosopher write in an incongruous Stile CHAP. IV. IN this Chapter he answers nothing as to what the Excepter objected against the Central fire of the Earth See Disc Ch. 4. and the Origin of the Chaos And his reason is because he had declared he would not treat of them Answ p. 11. Yet as to the Central fire Theor. p. 64. he plainly admits or allows of it yea he owns it to be reasonable and to be very reasonable But when he has given so fair occasion for Objections to be made against it if then he will not defend what he so highly approves and what is so nearly related to his Hypothesis who can help it His not treating of the Origin of the Chaos the Excepter said Disc p. 88. seem'd a Flaw in his Hypothesis Here therefore he vindicates himself thus Answ p. 12. 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 By no means But if a man undertakes to write the Roman History and begins at the Middle or leaves out the Beginning of it his Work will have a scurvy Defect in it And the very same he may imagine it will be in a Natural History especially if it be the greatest and most remarkable in the World Ib. The residue of this Chapter he spends in speaking freely of the Excepter And he is so free as to tell him first that his fourth Chapter seems to him in a great measure Impertinent But he is not to determine that alone let it stand or fall as the Candid shall judge Yet if it were impertinent but in a great measure that implies it was not wholly so but he answers to nothing in it Secondly he reflects upon the Excepter for dabbling in Philosophy And when he will be dabbling against Moses why may not the Excepter dabble against him Thirdly he condemns him of Scepticism And he had much rather be too doubtful in some things than a Sir positive at all He does not pretend that all he writes is true Natural History Nor will he leave out in a second Edition what is in his first Fourthly he lets fly at him for rambling But he rambled after him and his notions as any Reader may see Lastly he says he ends in nothing as to the formation of the Earth How can that be when he bestows the greatest part of that Chapter in disproving the Chaos out of which the Earth was to be formed by showing that such a Chaos was not created nor could it be produced in the Cartesian way or if it could yet it was not for the Theory to allow of that method of its production as being enough to subvert its own hypothesis This is some of that freeness of Speech which the Answerer is pleas'd to use towards the Excepter And therefore he must not wonder to see some freeness used towards himself upon more just occasions But the Excepter in his fourth Chapter encountred Two other Notions See Disc p. 99. c. which are stiffly asserted by the Theorist Namely Vid. Lat. Theor lib. 2. cap. 8. Edit 2. that Moses's Story of
under all its flaws and imperfections by such a lawless liberty as this A liberty of recourse to Extraordinary Providence and of bringing in Miracles and the Ministery of Angels to help to take off and solve those Difficulties which puzzle its Author and baffle its Principles To what purpose did he invent a Theory and write a Treatise with design to shut out one Extraordinary Providence Eng. Theor. p. 2◠l. 33 34. the creating of new Waters to make the Deluge when in this Treatise and to uphold that Theory he is constrain'd to let in thus many But here the Answerer is plainly for shifting to avoid a blow which for that falls but the heavier upon him The Theory said the Excepter Disc p. 175 will have the Rains to be antecedent to the Description of the Abyss Eng. Theor. p. 98. And he quoted these words in proof of it I do not suppose the Abyss broken open till after the forty days rain But then adds the Excepter this is most directly against Scripture for that plainly affirms that the Fountains of the great Deep and the windows of Heaven were both open'd on one day Gen. 7.11 Now to salve this repugnancy to Scripture the Answerer here declares that he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open'd before which made the Grand rains Answ p. 31. But then he must suppose that there were two forty-days-rains one before the Abyss was broke up and another beginning with it and continuing after it But is not this also as much against Scripture which owns but one forty-days rain that commenc'd with the Disruption And truly had the Vapours of the Atmosphaere been exhausted as they must have been by the first continued forty-days rain according to the Answerer's Supposition where could have been a supply for the second forty-days rain especially when the Rains that fell then were to be grand rains without a new Creation of Waters which the Theory designedly opposes And then the LORD said unto Noah Gen. 7.4 Yet seven days and I will cause it to rain upon the Earth forty days and forty nights And is it likely that GOD would have given that Preserver of the World notice that Rains to make the Flood should begin a Week after if it had already rained for three and thirty days before or for above a Month past Lastly against the Equinox it was suggested that Authors of all sorts have disputed Disc p. 176. in what Season of the year the Flood came in and the World had its beginning Which hints that there was not any one Season through all the Earth at once But the Answerer intimates that upon Supposition of an Equinox according to the Theory Answ p. 31. it might be so And why says he may not that have given occasion to the general belief that the World began in the Spring Did he insist upon that Belief he must prove it to be general and to be occasion'd by the Equinox and not take it for granted Ib. But because he says he does not depend upon it we need not reply to it any farther neither In the next place the Excepter considered the Authorities call'd in to establish the Doctrine of the Equinox That is by proving that the Earth had suffered a change as to its Position and thereby had lost its former Right Situation But these Authorities were not found clear enough to do the Theory's business as will best appear to them that shall peruse the Examination of the same Disc Ch. 8. § 7. And here the Answerer is much offended as if his Witnesses were not fairly heard Answ p. 32. but rather unjustly and illegally rejected because they were unskilful in giving the Causes or Reasons of a matter of fact We reply All Testimonies must be taken as they are And where evidence is not clear for the same reason it is not certain nor can it be valid And when Witnesses give it in if they trip and faulter in any part of it we have good reason to suspect the whole And as improbable Circumstances in their Allegations will invalidate them in matter of fact so impossible ones if mingled with them will quite overthrow them The true case of the Testimonies before us They contain such improbable and impossible things as do not only weaken but destroy them Should twenty Mariners confidently affirm that they sailed in a Ship from Dover to Calice by a brisk Gale out of a pair of Bellows tho this be a matter of fact must they not be reckoned notorious Lyars Or if forty Engineers should positively swear that the Powder-mill near London was lately blown up by a Mine then sprung at Great Waradin in Hungary must they not be grievously perjur'd Persons And the Philosophers attesting the Earth's Inclination having charged their Evidence with as great Impossibilities the Reports they make must be as little credible Or let us take the Instance which the Answerer gives the Peloponesian War Ibid. If the Historian that writes it had told that the Souldiers who fell in it fought only with Sun-beams and single Currants which grew thereabouts and that hundreds and thousands were stabb'd with the one and knockt on the head with the other who would believe that ever there were such Weapons in that war that ever there was such a fatal War in that Country Yet as possible it was for multitudes of men to be kill'd by these Instruments as for the Position of the Earth to be chang'd by those Causes which were assign'd by the Theory's Philosophic Witnesses For how could the Southern Pole of the Earth dip into the Air through excess of heat or excess of Fruits thereabouts when at both Poles the heat of the Sun was equal and so was the fatness and fertility of the Soil See Disc p. 180 181. Or if these were the Causes of that great Effect why then was it not wrought sooner than at the end of above sixteen hundred and fifty years And yet these very Causes being not only brought into their Evidence but made as true and express a part thereof as the Inclination of the Earth it self their Testimonies must extend to both alike and in case the one be of doubtful credit the other must be the same Yea the one according to their Allegations being Causes and the other but an effect of them if they be false witnesses as to the Causes upon which the Effect according to their evidence had its whole dependence their Testimonies as to the Effect must needs fail and be nothing worth For they plainly ascribing it to causes that were not Disc p. 179 189 c. and so could not produce it at the same time and by the same words that they attest there was such an Effect they witness withal that it could not be And so their Evidence is as far from being valid and authentic as contradiction is from truth But what ill has the
more rarifi'd towards one Pole than towards another And we never said or thought they were But in his English Theory we read p. 229. that the Current of the waters from the Poles might in some places rest and be stopt and then it would spread it self into Lakes and rise till it grew to such an heighth as to be able by its force or weight to overflow and break loose again before it could pass farther Now in case the Current might thue be stopt and the obstruction be so great as to cause the Waters to swell into Lakes how easily might there be more or greater Lakes near to one of the Poles than the other And so how easily would the overweight of water have sunk the Earth down at the praeponderating Pole tho the Waters were no more rarify'd there than at the other That therefore being wide of the Mark he should have hit he sends another Arrow after it taken out of the Quiver of Philosophy Ib. The empty space betwixt the exterior Region of the Earth and the Abyss below 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 Atmosphaere that is carried about with it But this shaft also tho levell'd more directly at it misses the intended Scope For if those Vapours were but a little purer than water yet look how much they were so and so much the weaker they would be and less able to keep the pendulous Earth in its Aequilibrious or even posture And that grossest Vapours are very much purer or thinner than water is evident from hence that they cannot sustain or buoy up a piece of light Cork whereas upon waters ships of greatest Burthen float and swim And tho the Atmosphaere be carried about with the Earth yet if that were inclosed with an oblong or Oval Orb of Earth this Orb would not sit half so fast and steddy upon that Sphaere of Vapours as it would do upon a Sphaere of Waters the Consistency of Water being many times as thick again as any Mass of Vapours can be in their natural Constitution The Second Query is this Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World Disc p. 187. Would not the natural day towards the latter end of that World have been longer than in the former periods of the same Yet 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 apiece Whereas says the Excepter had Days been grown longer fewer of them would have made a Month. This says the Answerer is a meer Blunder And he proves it thus If thirty days were to go to a Month Answ p. 28. whether the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them and the Scripture does not determine the length if the days Tho Scripture does not limit or account for the length of days expresly yet it does it implicitly and withal very plainly and intelligibly For it gives us to understand that days before the flood were of the same length that they are of now by informing us that months and years which were of the same length then that they are of at present were made up of the same numbers of days For how could there be just twelve Months in the Year at the time of the Deluge and thirty days in each of those Months if days then had not consisted as they do now of four and twenty hours a piece And as Providence has so ordered Nature that days which depend upon its Diurnal motion should be measured by Circumgyrations of the Earth So it has order'd likewise that Months which depend upon its Annual Motion should be measured by its progress in the Heavens And as it has so suted these Motions that the Earth while it makes a Month by running from one Sign in the Zodiack to another should turn about thirty times upon its own Axis and thereby make so many Days So it has taken care that each of these Circumrotations should be perform'd in four and twenty hours and consequently that every day should be just so long that thirty of them in way of round reckoning might compleat a Month. But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge by such causes as the Excepter suggested so that every day had consisted of thirty hours suppose it is manifest that fewer than thirty days they being longer than formerly must have made a Month. Because then before the Earth could have turned round thirty times she would have been translated by her progressive motion from one Celestial Constellation to another and so the Month would have been consummated But to talk as the Answerer does that the Month should be lengthened by the days being so is a fearful Blunder indeed Tho as luck will have it still it falls upon himself For let the days by slackning of the Earth's Diurnal motion have been never so long yet its Annual motion continuing the same the Month must needs have kept its usual Length only fewer days would have made it up the very thing objected The Answerer therefore need not have been so officious as to undertake to teach the Excepter to speak which he was pleased to do in these Words Answ p. 30. 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 The Answerer it seems had such a confused thought in his mind but the Excepter 't is plain was clear from it And truly had he been guilty of it he should have counted it a Meer Blunder For how could the Month be longer for the Earth's Circumgyrations being slower when the Month was measured by such a motion of the Earth as would have continu'd as swift as ever tho its Circumgyrations had been never so slack The Moon never turns circularly upon her own Center to make days and nights and yet she makes regular Months and Years by her Periodical and Synodical Courses And had the Circumgyrations of the Earth been never so swift at the Deluge or had they been never so slow or had they been none at all still the Months would have been the same that they were and neither longer nor shorter Tho then indeed they could not have consisted of so many days and nights following each other in an orderly succession because through want of the Earth's Diurnal motion there would have been no such vicissitude of them And since the Answerer took upon him to tell the Excepter what he had in his mind as he supposed the Replicant in requital of his kindness as well as in imitation of his Patern may suggest to him what he should have had in his thoughts When he said if thirty days were to go to a Month whether
to aggravate the thing against himself He thinks this Detrusion of the Waters may be conceived Answ p. 39. as well as their flowing towards and upon the Shores by the pressure of the Air under the Moon And so indeed it may by those that can conceive the Air alone to be as heavy in it self as that and the Moon are both together But who in reason can conceive this And to say it was easier for waters to ascend laterally than directly to ascend upon an inclin'd Plain than a perpendicular one is vain in this case For what real Inclination could there be on a Globe towards the Poles more than at the Equator every point of whose Superficies is Equidistant from the Center And how could the Ascent of Waters at the Poles of a Globe be other than Direct and perpendicular when its Polar parts are always as much a Plain as its Aequinoctial ones can possibly be So that to suppose waters could ascend more easily at the Poles than at the Aequator of the Chaotic Abyss is in effect to suppose that they could ascend perpendicularly more easily than they could ascend perpendicularly For at the Poles they were to ascend as directly as at the Aequinoctial the waters being exactly globular at first till by this supposed ascent they grew oval Only there they must have met with these two Disadvantages which at the Equinoctial they were free from First as we have hinted already a more cold and thick and stark Air. Which we may be sure would crowd them down at the Poles because an Air more warm and fine and soft and open is presum'd to do it at the Aequator Secondly a weaker Spring or power to impel them For in the Middle of the turning Globe there was a Conatus or tendency of the Waters towards receding from the Center but at the Sides of it none at all So that at the sides they were to rise by that Conatus or Nitency in the Middle And if a thin and open Air could prevail against that force in its direct and primary efforts at the Aequinoctial how much more would a thicker closer Air have overpowred it where it could be exerted but obliquely remotely and as it were at second hand at the Poles of the Abyss From what has been said it will follow that without a better Defence of this Vital Assertion of the Theory its whole Hypothesis will fall to the Ground for want of an Oval Earth to support it And whereas the Answerer in the Close of his 14th Chapter makes this Reflection Some men they say though of no great valour yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall So the Excepter behind a Text of Scripture is very fierce and rugged He may please to take notice that tho it be much better fighting behind the Wall of a Text than against it the Excepter is here behind no such Wall but ingages him in the open field of Reason and Philosophy and doubts not but to keep his Post That is if he does not run to his First Expedient as his wont is and turn the great Artillery of Extraordinary Providence upon him before which there is no standing For that mows down the best Arguments and makes a Lane through them as Chain-shot does through a Company of the bravest Souldiers tho they fight never so well and have all imaginable Right on their side But then he must desert his Hypothesis again as he has often done and the World knows what he is that runs from his Colours One they say of no great Valour But truly if it be matter of reproach to a man to fight behind a Text of Scripture the Excepter desires that it may always stick close to him To adhere to the divine and holy Word and to oppose error by revealed truth he thinks is far enough from Cowardise Blessed be GOD that we have such a wall as His Scripture is behind which to fight against Truth 's Enemies Yet in this very Instance of forming an Oval Earth he flies to the help of Extraordinary Providence and thereby turns this necessary and indispensable Notion of the Air 's resistance or detrusion quite out of doors I mean by a certain Dilemma of his own brought in in the second Page of his Answer I apply it to him in his own words Either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence or of an extraordinary as to the time allowed for the Formation of the Earth If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence the formation of the Earth would require much more time than six days And so you must not take that Hypothesis because as you your self own in the fifth page of your Answer Scripture tell us that the Earth was form'd the third day But if according to an extraordinary you may suppose it made in six minutes But then the Resistance or Detrusion of the Air could not make the Waters oval that the Earth might be so For that being an ordinary natural Cause supposing it could be a cause would have required much more time than six days for the production of such an Effect And consequently this Resistance or Detrusion is made vain here and utterly useless by your self But if against the Answerer's concession of an extraordinary or miraculous efficiency here we should suppose an oval Earth to be made in a natural way and that in order thereunto a globular Abyss were to be form'd into an oval figure yet how could this be done according to the rule or method of the Theory For if the Waters of the Chaos by receding from the Center did rise up at the Equinoctial part of it and above fall off towards the Poles then underneath there must be a draught of Waters back again from the Poles toward the Equinoctial which continuing to rise there might push or drive on the stream towards the Poles that otherwise would not hold on its motion forasmuch as it flowed on a true Globe the surface of which is equivalent to a Plain where Waters never flow but by force or impulse And yet if such counter-motions as these be allowed to those Waters they might thus flow and reflow for ever without producing the design'd effect For the draught of Waters below towards the Equinoctial would draw in the liquid Mass at the Poles and so hinder its growing into an oblong or oval figure as much as the Drift of them above towards the Poles could swell them out there and so help towards the same The first Argument against the Oval Figure of the Earth was its inconvenient Position which would have followed thereupon For then it must have lain cross the vehicular Stream by which it was carried round the Sun and have been directed not unlike to Ships sailing side-ways and so it could not have kept that Position long but must have chang'd its Site in compliance with the duct or tendency of that Current wherein it swam In answer to this it is
Force and made it rise into many and prodigious inequalities And these things are here mention'd the rather as being a full answer to a Question that is put Namely why we have no Mountains made now Answ p. 48. It might as well have been askt Why does not the Fire make a down-bak'd Loaf swell and huff up because it made it do so when it was Dough But then it was a soft and puffy Mass whereas since it is hardned and the strength of that Leaven which was put into it is wholly spent And such is the changed State of the Earth It is dried and hardned very much over what it was and its Original fermentive flatulent Principle designed to assist in blowing it up is quite exhausted And tho GOD himself did cooperate with the Sun in the production of Mountains yet still this Answer must be fully satisfactory as to the Question propounded For when subject matter grows indispos'd or secondary Causes flagg and fail the first and great Cause most commonly stops and ceases to act GOD ordinarily limits his Almighty Power by the Creatures Capacity And where he is pleas'd to make use of means if those be wanting he does nothing of himself as being destitute of their concomitant Causality And if He did not thus desist from acting He must violate the Laws which he has given to Nature and invert or dissolve that fixt Regularity or methodical Order that His Wisdom has appointed and establisht in the Universe Thus He gives us Fruits but Plants bear them He gives us Plants but Rains nourish them He gives us Rains but Clouds disburse them and those Clouds arise from Vapours and those Vapours are exhal'd from the Earth and that Exhalation is perform'd by the Sun So that take but one Cause out of this whole Series of them and this orderly train of Effects would cease notwithstanding the Power of ALMIGHTY GOD as depending secondarily upon the entireness of this chain of Causes the agency of which must needs be suspended or finally stopt upon the disjunction or interruption of their effective connexion or concatenation Thus also he gives Sight to Animals but it is by their Eyes He gives them hearing but it is by their Ears and if their Organs fail their Senses must do so In like manner he thought sit to give Mountains to the Earth but then it was by imparting such an Habit to it or by conferring such Qualities upon it as might prepare and dispose it towards their Production And those Qualities being perfectly altered and that Habit decayed or destroyed we are not now to expect that more Mountains should be raised And tho we never suppos'd the Sun could make them alone yet we hope it will be granted that GOD and the Sun could easily do it That They could raise the vastest Mountains of all in the Northern parts of the Earth Yea even mighty Taurus it self As in making Rivers the Answer says p. 15. the Waters were accelerated by a divine hand so in raising Mountains the Sun might be assisted by the same But for the Excepter to have supposed that that and other Mountains were drawn up by the sole power of the Sun would have been to run himself under the Dint of his own Invective against abusing Philosophy Disc p. 34. c. by screwing it too high But Secondly as the Answerer mistook greatly concerning the Thing Another Mistake so he mistook as greatly concerning the Time For the Excepter was so far from supposing that the Sun did raise the Mountains on the third day that he supposed them to issue forth into being but as fast as Nature could permit ib. p. 202. Not that they were produced by a far distant succession neither as he says in the same sentence but all together that is in a short space of time as fast as they could well be one after another And however the Earliest that is to say the Maritime Mountains and such as were made with the Hollow of the Sea must rise when that was sunk or depressed yet touching the Inland ones in raising which the Sun was cencern'd he said as plainly as he could speak that in some Countries they were produced earlier and in some later Ib. p. 208. And could he suppose then that the Sun by his heat raised them the third day How strange is it that an Answerer should thus run on in Mistaking That having once got into the way of doing it he should never know when to come out of it again Surely by fair and just dealings with the Excepter he had better consulted his own ease as well as his Credit For by making these false charges upon him he occasion'd himself the trouble of spending most of this long Chapter in confuting nothing by things which he took to be plainly unanswerable Answ p. 4â— For still we stand the ground of our Conjecture and are like to abide unmoved by it Namely that Nature had a considerable stroke in making the Mountains and tho GOD could and t is like did produce them another way yet He might do it partly by the instrumental Efficiency of the Sun raising the Inland ones some earlier and some later but all together as fast as Nature could permit Tho when GOD caused the Sun to raise the Mountains it was as he caused the Earth to bring forth Trees on the third day Gen. 1.12 after the Waters were drained off it that is by a special Blessing and Divine assistance And so he might cause those Trees again to bring forth Fruits and those Fruits to ripen by that time Adam was created that so they might be in a readiness for his nourishment And here it may be remembred that what the Excepter said in this matter as to GOD's producing the Mountains by the instrumentality of the Sun was but to humour Philosophy Disc p. 208. and was meerly conjectural I will venture to guess he might do it thus p. 209. The last argument to prove that there were Mountains in the First World Disc p. 215. was this There were Metals in it which are usually found at the Roots of Mountains Answ p. 49. And here he tells the Excepter that he 's hard put to it to prove that the Theorist hath any where asserted whatsoever he thought that there were no Metals then Yet he did prove it and that so plainly that the Answerer if he considers will be much harder put to it to deny it The proof consists of his own words cited out of the English Theory p. 244. Disc p. 216. As for subterraneous things Metals and Minerals I believe they had none in the first Earth and the happier they no Gold nor Silver nor Courser Metals And then he proceeds to give Reasons why there could be none And does not he that says he believes there were no Metals in the Earth and then gives Reasons why there could be none and declares men were happier
hardly venture to defend them in Smithfield as glorious Witnesses have done the Articles of our Faith The pretended Inconsistency is hitherto invisible and concerning it we may return a non est inventa On he goes therefore as by a melius Inquirendo and makes farther search after it in the ensuing Paragraph The strength it has lies much in the close of it and expresses it self in this Argument Answ p. 69. The Church-way of explaining the Deluge is either rational or irrational If he say it is rational why does he desert it and invent a new one And if he say it is irrational then that dreadful thing which he cannot well endure to speak That the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge falls flat upon himself The last vital Assertion of the Theory which the Excepter undertook in his Fifteenth Chapter is this That neither Noah 's Flood nor the present form of the Earth can be explained in any other method that is rational nor by any other causes that are intelligible besides those which the Theory assigns Whence follows what I cannot well endure to speak said the Excepter that the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Now says the Answerer this charge falls flat upon himself and he attempts to prove it by the Argument produced But we take it off with this direct and plain Reply First we say that the Church way of explaining the Deluge is very rational For it implies no more than GOD's creating Waters sufficient for it and his annihilating them again which is not in the least inconsistent with reason or repugnant to it Tho evident it is that his vital Assertion expressly condemns this way in which GOD's Church has ever gone as both irrational and unintelligible at once Methinks an excuse or defence of this should have been more seasonable than what we here meet with Unless he thinks that so black a blemish can be fastned on the wisest and noblest Society in the whole World without offence or means that the Readers Judgment for his unadvised rashness should pass upon him in course by nihil dicit Secondly we say that we do not desert or reject the Church-way of explaining the Deluge We allow indeed as he notes That it may be disgustful to the best and soundest Philosophic Judgments Disc p. 313. and the reasons are given why But then it is manifest that we shut out Philosophy from ruling in this Case as being in a good degree miraculous Ib. p. 355. The Flood was a Miracle in good measure Or had so much miracle running through it and interwoven with it that all passages in it are not to be accounted for by Reason and Philosophy And truly where Nature was over-rul'd by Providence it is but fit that Philosophy should give place to Omnipotence And whereas he observes that we say that by our Hypothesis Answ p. 68. we are excused from running to those Causes or Methods which seem unreasonable to some and unintelligible to others and unsatisfactory to most This is no proof that the Excepter deserts the Churches way of Explaining the Deluge For however some or others may think it unreasonable and unintelligible as the Theorist makes it and how unsatisfactory soever some of the causes or methods alledg'd by the Excepter may be to most yet the Excepter is of the mind that the Churches method is very rational and easy to be understood And tho he farther remarks that the Excepter says that the ordinary Supposition that the Mountains were covered with water in the Deluge Ib. brings on a necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood yet that necessary new Hypothesis which the Excepter means will plainly show that he justifies and defends the Church-Hypothesis instead of deserting it For it is only this We must suppose that the Mountains of Ararat whereon the Ark rested in the height of the Deluge were then the highest Mountains in the World but since that time they are either worn down or sunk and settled lower than some others Admit but this and then Scripture Geography and the Churches method of explaining the Flood will all be reconcil'd and the usual Hypothesis will stand clear of material Difficulties and Objections Thirdly we say that tho we invented a new Hypothesis it was not set up in competition with this of the Church but in comparison with that of the Theory and in Confutation of its last vital Assertion For it makes it evident that there is another way of explaining Noah's Flood both rational in its method and intelligible in its causes Disc p. 300. l. 18. at least as rational and intelligible as his And as such a Comparative Hypothesis as we have made it it may possibly stand almost as long as the Theorist's which draws more and greater Absurdities after it Especially if it should have but a Second Edition to support it on the one side and a Review to prop it up on the other and have many things left out of it and have one word in it explain'd by another and have here and there a Contradiction allow'd it c. And thus the Excepter is freed from the objected inconsistency with himself and good sense This same Reply will take off those Objections also which are brought on by the Answerer at the bottom of his seventieth Page as being of near affinity with what he last alledged Having thus made his general Observations he comes now to Particulars The first he pitches upon is the Height of the Deluge-waters which we set at fifteen Cubits above the highest parts of the common Surface of the Earth making it the Foundation of our Hypothesis and supposing it to rest upon Scripture and to be supported by that This therefore he says Answ p. 69. must needs raise our Curiosity to see that place of Scripture which has been overlookt by all the Learned hitherto But if learned mens overlooking this Text as to the sense that we apply it to be a just Objection against our alledging it how much more strongly must the same Objection come against the Theorist for alledging so many Texts as he does in confirmation of such new and strange notions as none of the learned could ever see contained in them or confirmed by them but always overlookt them as to such meanings Answ p. 67. Then he urges Scripture says plainly that the Mountains were covered with waters Ib. p. 69. and how could fifteen Cubits reach to the tops of the Mountains This Objection is fully answered in our Discourse only thus much may be here put in Chap. 16. Pagr 3. Gen. 7.20 As the high Mountains were covered with Waters so the Camp of Israel was covered with Quails Yet those Quails which covered the Camp Exod. 16.13 were but two Cubits high upon the face of the Earth Numb 11.31 Now if
c. 40. and as this same Writer tells us Pyrates on the Coasts of Germany made some of these Trunks so large that they would carry thirty men And where they had not Instruments fit for the Excavation of these trees we must conclude it was done by fire In other places it began in Wicker Sciphs covered with Leather well sticht together Carinae primum ac statumina ex levi materia fiebant reliquum corpus navium viminibus contextum coriis integebatur De Bello Civil l. 1. So it did here in our Country For Caesar in his Commentaries says thus of the British ships Their Keels and Footstocks were made of light timber but the rest of their body was covered with Hides and made of Osiers wrought together Nor were the Venetians Ships any better than the Britains if we may take Lucan's word for it Primùm cana Salix madefacto Vimine parvam Texerat in puppim caesoque induta juvenco Victoris patiens tumidum superenatat amnem Sic Venetus stagnante Pado susoque Britannus Navigat Oceano A Ship first made of moist hoar Willow twiggs And cover'd with a Bullocks Hide Tho small it be when it the Master riggs Doth on the swelling River ride Thus the Venetian sails on the smooth Po And Britains on vast Ocean go In other places again it began in Rushen or Reeden Canoes and the Vessels they used were Paper things even in the very letter So it was upon the Nile And Scripture tells us of Ambassadors being sent upon negotiations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vessels of Bul-rushes Isai 18.2 The Second thing worthy of remark is that degree of Perfection to which Shipping arrived And as our aforesaid Author informs us it was grown up no higher than to great Gallies in Ptolomy Philopator's time And he reigning after the Year of the World 3750 Vid. Helvic Theatr. Histor this World had then stood near five hundred years longer than that before the Flood And whereas he affirms the first Quadrireme to be built by the Carthaginians we must consider that Carthage it self was not built till An. Mun. 3080. Id. ib. So that if we allow that Common-wealth but 150 years to settle in and to improve in mechanical Attainments and in Ship-Carpentry for one Then if we reckon which is no ill way of counting that the first World made equal proficience in the same Art with this latter in proportion to its standing it might so be furnisht with such kind of Gallies as the Carthaginians were just a little before the Deluge But then they seem to have been Vessels not over strong Nor indeed is it possible that Ships in those days should be of any great strength if we consider with what strange Expedition they were built For as that excellent Historian Florus tells us Lib. 2. cap. 2◠a Navy of the Romans of an hundred and sixty Ships in the time of the first Punic War was set out and lay at anchor intra sexegesimum diem within sixty days after the timber they were made of was cut down in the wood Insomuch that they might seem to be non arte factae not framed by art sed quodam munere Deorum c. but by a certain favour of the GODS turned out of trees into Ships And yet that they were as strong as any that the Carthaginians or that the King of Syracuse their Confederate had the event proved For then it was that Duilius the Roman Admiral so quickly overcame that Prince that he confessed he was conquered before he saw the Enemy And having broken in pieces and put to flight the Fleet at Lipara he was the first that was honoured with a Sea-triumph as the same Writer says Adding withal that for this he triumphed every day never at any time returning from supper without Torches and Musick before him Nor is Florus alone in reporting the strange and wonderful celerity wherewith the Romans of old builded their ships Pliny joins with him Nat. Hist l. 16 c. 3◠and testifies that in the second Punic War the Armado which Scipio commanded was under sail within forty days after the timber was felled whereof it was made And acquaints us farther that L. Piso left it in writing that against King Hiero two hundred and twenty Ships were built and furnisht within five and forty days after the timber grew Surely these could be no very stout or strong Ships And yet I say they matched the strongest in the World For the only Commonwealth which could then pretend to cope with Rome was that of Carthage And indeed with Rome it did contend in two very sharp and tedious Wars tho it sell in the third the first holding four and twenty years and the second eighteen between which says Florus there was vix quadriennis requies scarce four years respite And Carthage being built by the Tyrians or at leastwise peopled with a Colony of Phaenicians who were ever well skill'd in Sea affairs and eminent in Shipping This City being older than Rome * Condita est urbs haec LXXII annis antequam Roma Justin lib. 18. seventy two years and mighty powerful was the most likely of all other to exceed Rome in Naval force Yet so far was it from doing this that the Carthaginians were frequently vanquisht by the Romans in Sea Ingagements Particularly in that which the incomparable Livy gives account of Hist Dec. 3. lib. 1. when the Roman Fleet put to flight that of Carthage and took seven of their Ships extemplò as his word is even immediately And yet those Ships were not so inconsiderable but in them were taken seventeen hundred Souldiers And when they had done that as he continues the story they sailed to Lilybaeum or Messala and gave their enemies Navy there a great overthrow And when the Romans could thus worst the Carthaginians who had reason to have the best shipping 't is a sign that their shipping was as good as theirs But then the Roman Ships being so hastily built they could not excel in strength neither And yet at the time of the first Punic War this World had stood four hundred years longer than the first did And so we cannot imagine that the Shipping of that World was ever better than the Roman shipping was then in this And in case it was not we have no cause to think that any of its Ships could possibly endure and out-last the Flood And truly if we look forward we shall find that Ships in some succeeding Ages were of no great bulk or burthen For had they been so in Julius Caesar's time who lived about three hundred years after the Punic War he needed not to have invaded Britain with above eight hundred at once as we find he did Commentar lib. 5. De. Bell. Gall. And therefore when we read of Agamemnon's Fleet of a thousand Sail and of Xerxes's that covered the Hellespont or the like we need not be surpriz'd at the
any Writer knowingly and causelesly deserts the literal sence of Scripture or dissents from it he cannot be innocent For to use the Answerers own words Ib. p. 85. tho we all leave the literal sence in certain cases and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man Yet he that makes a separation if I may so call it without good reasons he is truly obnoxious to censure And so in short he becomes his own Judge and pronounceth a most just sentence on himself Ib. And thus he comes to the great result of all which is this To have some common Rule to direct us when every one ought to follow and when to leave the Literal Sence And such a Rule it seems is not wanting For as he tells us in the next words That Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters is this Not to leave the literal sence when the subject matter will bear it without absurdity or incongruity But must not the knowledge then of this good Rule aggravate the breaking it Ignorance which sometimes excuses error does always extenuate it But if with open eyes we go against the light and swerve from the Rule we see standing before us our senses take from us all plea of oversight and our presumptuous enormity will admit of little or no apology But yet the Answerer offers somewhat to clear him in this matter and it follows immediately in the next words This Rule I have always proposed to my self and always endeavoured to keep close to it May his next proposal then and endeavour of this nature be more fortunate And to that end perhaps it may be proper they should be better inforced For must not his proposal here be too slight and must not his endeavour be too faint when both of them proved so insuccessful For had the one been as serious and the other as vigorous as it ought what could have defeated him in so just an Enterprise or diverted him from it For example had he really proposed and heartily endeavoured to keep close to the letter where Scripture says GOD made two great Lights or where it says he gave Adam Dominion over Sea-fish or the like what could have hindred him or beat him off it As for absurditys or incongruitys in the subject Matters the only Bar according to the Rule which can exclude that sence nothing can be more vain than to pretend any here For as we have plainly seen the readiest way to open a wide Door and let them in is to receede from the literal sence 'T is confest indeed that the literal sence in these and other cases would have brought in absurdities and inconveniencies upon the Theory in good plenty But then this is so far from being any reason why the literal sence of those places should not be received that it is a most clear and convincing Argument that that Hypothesis is to be rejected For by the Rule laid down I say where no kind of absurdities or incongruitys do accrue to any Texts from the literal sence there it must be kept to And therefore if the Theory cannot stand and maintain it self free from absurdities and incongruities without perverting or depraving the literal sence of the now cited Texts or any other and without causing a needless departure from it it must sink and fall And then as he somewhere interrogates the Excepter why does he trouble himself Answ p. 67. or the World with such an Hypothesis Ib. p. 79. Did he do it meerly out of an itch of Scripturiency as he speaks methinks he might have laid that prurient humour by scratching himself with the briars of a more innocent Controversie or by scrubbing soundly against something else than the holy Scripture Ib. p. 85. He goes on But some inconsiderate minds make every departure from the letter let the Matter or Cause be what it will to be an affront to Scripture And there where we have the greatest liberty I mean in things that relate to the natural World they have no more indulgence or moderation than if it was an intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith Let them that are thus inconsiderate in their minds and immoderate in their ways answer this charge Prove the Excepter concern'd and besides acknowledging his past fault he 'll be cautious of recommitting it for the future But yet the greatest liberty we have or may pretend to in things relating to the natural World can by no means authorize us to go against the letter of Scripture in any case where it is to be literally taken or may be so understood without absurdity If we do we go directly against the Rule of faith and so shall soon come to intrenchment upon its Articles He concludes thus Ib. In this particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter yet I must needs say he is a very Saint in comparison of another Animadverter who hath written upon the same subject c. In this particular as the Animadverter needs no excuse so he asks none Yet if he used the Theorist so well he again should have used him the better But whoever reads over the present Answer will easily find that he is treated rather as a grievous sinner against the holy Theory than as a Saint Excepter Who that Animadverter is of whom he complains I know not I have seen no other Writings or Animadversions upon the Subject he speaks of but the Lord Bishop of Hereford's And I own that his Lordships publishing his Animadversions was good encouragement to me to Print my Exceptions at first and to Defend them now To see that therein I should follow the great Example of a Reverend Prelate and in fighting for the Truth against the Theory of the Earth should militate under the Episcopal Banner I was now thinking that I had done and just about to lay down my Pen. But then calling to mind that the Answerer quoted a Review of the Theory against us as to some Texts of Scripture on which the Theory is bottom'd or does depend I held my self oblig'd to take notice of this Review And because in it he offers to justify his Exposition which he formerly made of S. Peter's words and we endeavoured to confute It will not be improper briefly to except against what is there said to that purpose And tho enough has been alledg'd against the Theory's sense of those words already yet ex abundanti we 'll here cast in a little more speaking to S. Peter's words chiefly tho not to them only And yet we shall speak only to Scriptures because in reference to them alone was this Review cited against us Answ p. 21. and 61. Review p. 8. In it he tells us that the sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands is the Doctrine of S. Peter deliver'd in his second Epistle and third Chapter concerning the Triple Order and succession of the heavens and earth and is comprehended in seven verses of that Chapter