state of the natural World to which this is a Restitution These three places I alledge as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full extent But we do not suppose them all of the same force and clearness St. Peter leads the way and gives light and strength to the other two When a Point is prov'd by one clear Text we allow others as auxiliaries that are not of the same clearness But being open'd receive light from the primary Text and reflect it upon the Argument So much for the Theory in general We will now take one or two principal heads of it which vertually contain all the rest and examine them more strictly and particularly in reference to their agreement with Scripture The two Heads we pitch upon shall be our Explication of the Deluge and our Explication of the new Heavens and new Earth We told you before these two were as the Hinges upon which all the Theory moves and which hold the parts of it in firm union one with another As to the Deluge if I have explain'd that aright by the Disruption of the Great Abyss and the Dissolution of the Earth that cover'd it all the rest follows in such a chain of consequences as cannot be broken Wherefore in order to the proof of that explication and of all that depends upon it I will make bold to lay down this Proposition That our Hypothesis concerning the universal Deluge is not onely more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy than any other yet propos'd to the World but is also more agreeable to Scripture Namely to such places of Scripture as reflect upon the Deluge the Abyss and the form of the first Earth And particularly to the History of Noah's Flood as recorded by Moses If I can make this good it will doubtless give satisfaction to all intelligent Persons And I desire their patience if I proceed slowly We will divide our task into parts and examine them separately First by Scripture in general and then by Moses his history and description of the Flood Our Hypothesis of the Deluge consists of three principal Heads or differs remarkably in three things from the common explication First in that we suppose the Antediluvian Earth to have been of another Form and constitution from the present Earth with the Abyss placed under it Secondly in that we suppose the Deluge to have been made not by any inundation of the Sea or overflowing of Fountains and Rivers nor principally by any excess of rains but by a real dissolution of the exteriour Earth and disruption of the Abyss which it cover'd These are the two principal points to which may be added as a Corollary Thirdly that the Deluge was not in the nature of a standing Pool the Waters lying every where level of an equal depth and with an uniform Surface but was made by a fluctuation and commotion of the Abyss upon the disruption which commotion being over the Waters retired into their Chanels and let the dry Land appear These are the most material and fundamental parts of our Hypothesis and these being prov'd consonant to Scripture there can be no doubt of the rest We begin with the first That the Ante-diluvian Earth was of another form and constitution from the present Earth with the Abyss placed under it This is confirm'd in Scripture both by such places as assert a diversity in general and by other places that intimate to us wherein that diversity consisted and what was the form of the first Earth That discourse of St. Peter's which we have set before you concerning the past present and future Heavens and Earth is so full a proof of this diversity in general that you must either allow it or make the Apostle's argumentation of no effect He speaks plainly of the natural World The Heavens and the Earth And he makes a plain distinction or rather opposition betwixt those before and after the Flood so that the least we can conclude from his words is a diversity betwixt them In answer to that Identity or immutability of Nature which the Scoffers pretended to have been ever since the beginning But tho' the Apostle to me speaks plainly of the Natural World and distinguishes that which was before the Flood from the present Yet there are some that will allow neither of these to be contain'd in St. Peter's words and by that means would make this whole Discourse of little or no effect as to our purpose And seeing we on the contrary have made it the chief Scripture-basis of the whole Theory of the Earth we are oblig'd to free it from those false glosses or mis-interpretations that lessen the force of its testimony or make it wholly ineffectual These Interpreters say that St. Peter meant no more than to mind these Scoffers that the World was once destroy'd by a Deluge of Water meaning the Animate World Mankind and living Creatures And that it shall be destroy'd again by another Element namely by Fire So as there is no opposition or diversity betwixt the two Natural Worlds taught or intended by the Apostle but onely in reference to their different fate or manner of perishing and not of their different nature or constitution Here are two main points you see wherein our interpretations of this discourse of the Apostles differ First in that they make the Apostle in that sixth verse to understand onely the World Animate or men and brute Creatures That these were indeed destroy'd but not the Natural World or the form and constitution of the then Earth and Heavens Secondly that there is no diversity or opposition made by St. Peter betwixt the ancient Heavens and Earth and the present as to their form and constitution We pretend that these are mis-apprehensions or mis-representations of the sence of the Apostle in both respects and offer these reasons to prove them to be so For the first point That the Apostle speaks here of the natural World particularly in the 6th Verse and that it perish'd as well as the animate these Considerations seem to prove First because the argument or ground these Scoffers went upon was taken from the natural World its constancy and permanency in the same state from the beginning therefore if the Apostle answers ad idem and takes away their argument he must understand the same natural World and show that it hath been chang'd or hath perish'd You will say it may be the Apostle doth not deny nor take away the ground they went upon but denies the consequence they made from it that therefore there would be no change because there had been none No neither doth he do this if by the World in the 6th Verse he understands Mankind onely for their ground was this there hath been no change in the natural World Their consequence this therefore there will be none nor any Conflagration Now the Apostle's answer according to you is this you forget that Mankind hath been destroyed in a Deluge And what then what
of the World or the Golden Age as they call'd it namely Equality of Seasons throughout the Year or a perpetual Equinox We have also taken in all the adjuncts or concomitants of these States as they are mention'd in Scripture The Longevity of the Ante-diluvians and the declension of their age by degrees after the Flood As also that wonderful Phaenomenon the Rainbow which appear'd to Noah for a Sign that the Earth should never undergo a second Deluge And we have shewn wherein the force and propriety of that Sign consisted for confirming Noah's faith in the promise and in the divine veracity Thus far we have explain'd the past Phaenomena of the Natural World The rest are Futurities which still lie hid in their Causes and we cannot properly prove a Theory from effects that are not yet in being But so far as they are foretold in Scripture both as to substance and circumstance in prosecution of the same Principles we have ante-dated their birth and shew'd how they will come to pass We may therefore I think reasonably conclude That this Theory has performed its task and answer'd its title having given an account of all the general changes of the Natural World as far as either Sacred History looks backwards or Sacred Prophecy looks forwards So far as the one tells us what is past in Nature and the other what is to come And if all this be nothing but an appearance of truth 't is a kind of fatality upon us to be deceiv'd SO much for Natural Evidence from the Causes or Effects We now proceed to Scripture which will make the greatest part of this Review 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 the Earth That comprehends the whole extent of our Theory which indeed is but a large Commentary upon S. Peter's Text. The Apostle sets out a threefold state of the Heavens and Earth with some general properties of each taken from their different Constitution and different Fate The Theory takes the same threefold state of the Heavens and the Earth and explains more particularly wherein their different Constitution consists and how under the conduct of Providence their different fate depends upon it Let us set down the Apostle's words with the occasion of them and their plain sence according to the most easie and natural explication Ver. 3. Knowing this first that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts 4. And saying Where is the promise of his coming for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth consisting of water and by water 6. Whereby the world that then was being over flowed with water perished 7. But the heavens and the earth that are now by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men 10. The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up 13. Nevertheless we according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness This is the whole Discourse so far as relates to our Subject S. Peter you see had met with some that scoff'd at the future destruction of the World and the coming of our Saviour and they were men it seems that pretended to Philosophy and Argument and they use this argument for their opinion Seeing there hath been no change in Nature or in the World from the beginning to this time why should we think there will be any change for the future The Apostle answers to this That they willingly forget or are ignorant that there were Heavens of old and an Earth so and so constituted consisting of Water and by Water by reason whereof that World or those Heavens and that Earth perish'd in a Deluge of Water But saith he the Heavens and the Earth that are now are of another constitution fitted and reserved to another fate namely to perish by Fire And after these are perish'd there will be New Heavens and a New Earth according to God's promise This is an easie Paraphrase and the plain and genuine sence of the Apostle's discourse and no body I think would ever look after any other sence if this did not draw them into paths they do not know and to conclusions which they do not fancy This sence you see hits the objection directly or the Cavil which these scoffers made and tells them that they vainly pretend that there hath been no change in the World since the beginning for there was one sort of Heavens and Earth before the Flood and another sort now the first having been destroyed at the Deluge So that the Apostle's argument stands upon this Foundation That there is a diversity betwixt the present Heavens and Earth and the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth take away that and you take away all the force of his Answer Then as to his New Heavens and New Earth after the Conflagration they must be material and natural in the same sence and signification with the former Heavens and Earth unless you will offer open violence to the Text. So that this Triplicity of the Heavens and the Earth is the first obvious plain sence of the Apostle's discourse which every one would readily accept if it did not draw after it a long train of Consequences and lead them into other Worlds than they ever thought of before or are willing to enter upon now But we shall have occasion by and by to examine this Text more fully in all its circumstances Give me leave in the mean time to observe that S. Paul also implyes that triple Creation which S. Peter expresses S. Paul I say in the 8th chap. to the Romver 20 21. tell us of a Creation that will be redeem'd from Vanity which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come A Creation in subjection to Vanity which is the present state of the World And a Creation that was subjected to Vanity in hopes of being restor'd which was the first Paradisiacal Creation And these are the three states of the Natural World which make the subject of our Theory To these two places of St. Peter and St. Paul I might add that third in St. John concerning the new Heavens and new Earth with that distinguishing Character that the Earth was without a Sea As this distinguisheth it from the present Earth so being a Restitution or Restauration as we noted before it must be the same with some former Earth and consequently it implies that there was another precedent
like manner and to the same sence he hath these words upon Psal. 101. Aerii utique coeli perierunt ut propinqui Terris secundum quod dicuntur volucres coeli sunt autem coeli coelorum superiores in Firmamento sed utrùm ipfi perituri sint igni an hi soli qui etiam diluvio perierunt disceptatio est aliquanto scrupulosior inter doctos And in his Book de Civ Dei he hath several passages to the same purpose Quemadmodum in Apostolicâ illâ Epistolâ à toto pars accipitur quod diluvio periisse dictus est mandus quamvis sola ejus cum suis coelis pars ima perierit These being to the same effect with the first citation I need not make them English and this last place refers to the Earth as well as the Heavens as several other places in S. Austin do whereof we shall give you an account when we come to shew his judgment concerning the second point the diversity of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian World This being but a foretaste of his good will and inclinations towards this doctrine These considerations alledg'd so far as I can judge are full and unanswerable proofs that this discourse of the Apostle's comprehends and refers to the Natural World and consequently they warrant our interpretation in this particular and destroy the contrary We have but one step more to make good That there was a change made in this natural world at the Deluge according to the Apostle and this is to confute the second part of their interpretation which supposeth that S. Peter makes no distinction or opposition betwixt the antediluvian Heavens and Earth and the present Heavens and Earth in that respect This second difference betwixt us methinks is still harsher than the first and contrary to the very form as well as to the matter of the Apostle's discourse For there is a plain antithesis or opposition made betwixt the Heavens and the Earth of old ver the 5th and the Heavens and the Earth that are now verse the 7th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the adversative particle but you see marks the opposition so that it is full and plain according to Grammar and Logick And that the parts or members of this opposition differ in nature from one another is certain from this because otherwise the Apostle's argument or discourse is of no effect concludes nothing to the purpose he makes no answer to the objection nor proves any thing against the Scoffers unless you admit that diversity For they said All things had been the same from the beginning in the Natural World and unless he say as he manifestly does that there hath been a change in Nature and that the Heavens and Earth that are now are different from the ancient Heavens and Earth which perish'd at the Flood he says nothing to destroy their argument nor to confirm the Prophetical doctrine of the future destruction of the Natural World This I think would be enough to satisfie any clear and free mind concerning the meaning of the Apostle but because I desire to give as full a light to this place as I can and to put the sence of it out of controversie if possible for the future I will make some further remarks to confirm this exposition And we may observe that several of those reasons which we have given to prove That the Natural World is understood by S. Peter are double reasons and do also prove the other point in question a diversity betwixt the two Natural Worlds the Anti-diluvian and the present As for instance unless you admit this diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds you make the 5th verse in this Chapter superfluous and useless and you must suppose the Apostle to make an inference here without premises In the 6th verse he makes an inference Whereby the World that then was perish'd in a Deluge what does this whereby relate to by reason of what sure of the particular constitution of the Heavens and the Earth immediately before describ'd Neither would it have signified any thing to the Scoffers for the Apostle to have told them how the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were constituted if they were constituted just in the same manner as the present Besides what is it as I ask'd before that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of does he not say formally and expresly ver 5. that they were ignorant that the Heavens and the Earth were constituted so and so before the Flood but if they were constituted as these present Heavens and Earth are they were not ignorant of their constitution nor did pretend to be ignorant for their own mistaken argument supposeth it But before we proceed any further give me leave to note the impropriety of our Translation in the 5th Verse or latter part of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This we translate standing in the water and out of the water which is done manifestly in compliance with the present form of the Earth and the notions of the Translators and not according to the natural force and sence of the Greek words If one met with this sentence in a Greek Author who would ever render it standing in the water and out of the water nor do I know any Latin Translator that hath ventur'd to render them in that sence nor any Latin Father St. Austin and St. Jerome I 'me sure do not but Consistens ex aquâ or de aquâ per aquam for that later phrase also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not with so good propriety signifie to stand in the water as to consist or subsist by water or by the help of water Tanquam per causam sustinentem as St. Austin and Jerome render it Neither does that instance they give from 1 Pet. 3. 20. prove any thing to the contrary for the Ark was sustain'd by the waters and the English does render it accordingly The Translation being thus rectified you see the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth consisted of Water and by water which makes way for a second observation to prove our sence of the Text for if you admit no diversity betwixt those Heavens and Earth and the present shew us 'pray how the present Heavens and Earth consist of water and by water What watery constitution have they The Apostle implies rather that The now Heavens and Earth have a fiery constitution We have now Meteors of all sorts in the air winds hail snow lightning thunder and all things engender'd of fiery exhalations as well as we have rain but according to our Theory the ante-diluvian Heavens of all these Meteors had none but dews and rain or watery Meteors onely and therefore might very aptly be said by the Apostle to be constituted of water or to have a watery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then the Earth was said to consist by water because it was
built upon it and at first was sustain'd by it And when such a Key as this is put into our hands that does so easily unlock this hard passage and makes it intelligible according to the just force of the words why should we pertinaciously adhere to an interpretation that neither agrees with the words nor makes any sence that is considerable Thirdly If the Apostle had made the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth the same with the present his apodosis in the 7th Verse should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I say it should not have been by way of antithesis but of identity or continuation And the same Heavens and Earth are kept in store reserv'd unto fire c. Accordingly we see the Apostle speaks thus as to the Logos or the Word of God Verse 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the same Word of God where the thing is the same he expresseth it as the same And if it had been the same Heavens and Earth as well as the same Word of God Why should he use a mark of opposition for the one and of identity for the other to this I do not see what can be fairly answer'd Fourthly the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were different from the present because as the Apostle intimates they were such and so constituted as made them obnoxious to a Deluge whereas ours are of such a form as makes them incapable of a Deluge and obnoxious to a Conflagration the just contrary fate If you say there was nothing of natural tendency or disposition in either World to their respective fate but the first might as well have perish'd by fire as water and this by water as by fire you unhinge all Nature and natural providence in that method and contradict one main scope of the Apostle in this discourse His first scope is to assert and mind them of that diversity there was betwixt the ancient Heavens and Earth and the present and from that to prove against those Scoffers that there had been a change and revolution in Nature And his second scope seems to be this to show that diversity to be such as under the Divine conduct leads to a different fate and expos'd that World to a Deluge for when he had describ'd the constitution of the first Heavens and Earth he subjoyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quià talis erat saith Grotius qualem diximus constitutio Terrae Coeli W H E R E B Y the then World perish'd in a Flood of Water This whereby notes some kind of causal dependance and must relate to some means or conditions precedent It cannot relate to Logos or the Word of God Grammar will not permit that therefore it must relate to the state of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth immediately premis'd And to what purpose indeed should he premise the description of those Heavens and Earth if it was not to lay a ground for this inference Having given these Reasons for the necessity of this Interpretation in the last place let 's consider St. Austin's judgment and his sence upon this place as to the point in question As also the reflections that some other of the Ancients have made upon this doctrine of St. Peter's Didymus Alexandrinus who was for some time St. Jerome's Master made such a severe reflection upon it that he said this Epistle was corrupted and should not be admitted into the Canon because it taught the doctrine of a Triple or Triform World in this third Chapter As you may see in his Enarr in Epist. Canonicas Now this threefold World is first that in the 6th Verse The World that then was In the 7th Verse The Heavens and the Earth that are now And in the 13th Verse We expect new Heavens and a new Earth according to his promise This seems to be a fair account that St. Peter taught the doctrine of a triple World And I quote this testimony to show what St. Peter's words do naturally import even in the judgment of one that was not of his mind And a Man is not prone to make an exposition against his own Opinion unless he think the words very pregnant and express But St. Austin owns the authority of this Epistle and of this doctrine as deriv'd from it taking notice of this Text of St. Peter's in several Parts of his Works We have noted three or four places already to this purpose and we may further take notice of several passages in his Treatise de Civ Dei which confirm our exposition In his 20th Book ch 24. he disputes against Porphyry who had the same Principles with these Aeternalists in the Text or if I may so call them Incorruptarians and thought the World never had nor ever would undergo any change especially as to the Heavens St. Austin could not urge Porphyry with the authority of St. Peter for he had no veneration for the Christian Oracles but it seems he had some for the Jewish and arguing against him upon that Text in the Psalms Coeli peribunt he shows upon occasion how he understands St. Peter's destruction of the Old World Legitur Coelum Terra transibunt Mundus transit sed puto quod proeterit transit transibunt aliquantò mitiùs dicta sunt quà m peribunt In Epistolà quoque Petri Apostoli ubi aquâ inundatus qui tum erat periisse dictus est Mundus satis clarum est quae pars mundi à toto significata est quatenùs periisse dicta sit qui coeli repositi igni reservandi This he explains more fully afterwards by subjoyning a caution which we cited before that we must not understand this passage of St. Peter's concerning the destruction of the ante diluvian World to take in the whole Universe and the highest Heavens but onely the aerial Heavens and the sublunary World In Apostolicâ illâ Epistolâ à toto pars accipitur quod Diluvio periisse dictus est mundus quamvis sola ejus cum suis coelis pars ima perierit In that Apostolical Epistle a part is signified by the whole when the World is said to have perish'd in the Deluge although the lower part of it onely with the Heavens belonging to it perished that is the Earth with the regions of the Air that belong to it And consonant to this in his exposition of that hundred and first Psalm upon those words The Heavens are the work of thy hands They shall perish but thou shalt endure This perishing of the Heavens he says S. Peter tells us hath been once done already namely at the Deluge Apertè dixit hoc Apostolus Petrus Coeli erant olim Terra de aquâ per aquam constituti Dei verbo per quod qui factus est mundus aquâ inundatus deperiit Terra autem coeli qui nunc sunt igni reservantur Jam ergo dixit periisse coelos per Diluvium These places shew us that
They deserve this censure I am sure if they do not only disbelieve but also scoff at this Prophetick and Apostolick doctrine concerning the Vicissitudes of Nature and a triple World The Apostle in this discourse does formally distinguish three Worlds for 't is well known that the Hebrews have no word to signifie the natural World but use that Periphrasis The Heavens and the Earth and upon each of them engraves a name and title that bears a note of distinction in it He calls them the Old Heavens and Earth the Present Heavens and Earth and the New Heavens and Earth 'T is true these three are one as to matter and substance but they must differ as to form and properties otherwise what is the ground of this distinction and of these three different appellations Suppose the Jews had expected Ezekiel's Temple for the Third and last and most perfect and that in the time of the second Temple they had spoke of them with this distinction or under these different names The Old Temple the Present Temple and the New Temple we expect Would any have understood those three of one and the same Temple never demolish'd never chang'd never rebuilt always the same both as to materials and form no doubtless but of three several Temples succeeding one another And have we not the same reason to understand this Temple of the World whereof S. Peter speaks to be threefold in succession seeing he does as plainly distinguish it into the Old heavens and earth the Present heavens and earth and the New heavens and earth And I do the more willingly use this comparison of the Temple because it hath been thought an Emblem of the outward World I know we are naturally averse to entertain any thing that is inconsistent with the general frame and texture of our own thoughts That 's to begin the World again and we often reject such things without examination Neither do I wonder that the generality of Interpreters beat down the Apostle's words and sence to their own notions They had no other grounds to go upon and Men are not willing especially in natural and comprehensible things to put such a meaning upon Scripture as is unintelligible to themselves They rather venture to offer a little violence to the words that they may pitch the sence at such a convenient height as their Principles will reach to And therefore though some of our modern Interpreters whom I mention'd before have been sensible of the natural tendency of this discourse of St. Peter's and have much ado to bear off the force of the words so as not to acknowledge that they import a real diversity betwixt the two worlds spoken of yet having no Principles to guide or support them in following that Tract they are forc'd to stop or divert another way 'T is like entering into the mouth of a Cave we are not willing to venture further than the light goes Nor are they much to blame for this the fault is onely in those Persons that continue wilfully in their darkness and when they cannot otherwise resist the light shut their eyes against it or turn their head another way but I am afraid I have staid too long upon this argument not for my own sake but to satisfie others You may please to remember that all that I have said hitherto belongs onely to the first Head To prove a Diversity in general betwixt the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth and the present not expressing what their particular form was And this general diversity may be argued also by observations taken from Moses his history of the World before and after the Flood From the Longevity of the Antediluvians The Rain-bow appearing after the Deluge and the breaking open an Abyss capable to overflow the Earth The Heavens that had no Rainbow and under whose benign and steddy influence Men liv'd seven eight nine hundred years and upwards must have been of a different aspect and constitution from the present Heavens And that Earth that had such an Abyss that the disruption of it made an universal Deluge must have been of another form than the present Earth And those that will not admit a diversity in the two worlds are bound to give us an intelligible account of these Phaenomena How they could possibly be in Heavens and Earth like the present Or if they were there once why they do not continue so still if Nature be the same We need say no more as to the Ante-diluvian Heavens but as to the Earth we must now according to the second Part of the first Head enquire If that Particular Form which we have assign'd it before the Flood be agreeable to Scripture You know how we have describ'd the Form and situation of that Earth namely that it was built over the Abyss as a regular Orb covering and incompassing the waters round about and founded as it were upon them There are many passages of Scripture that favour this description Some more expresly others upon a due explication To this purpose there are two express Texts in the Psalms as Psal. 24. 1 2. The Earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof The habitable World and they that dwell therein FOR he has founded it upon the Seas and establish'd it upon the Floods An Earth founded upon the Seas and establish'd upon the Waters is not this the Earth we have describ'd the first Earth as it came from the hands of its Maker Where can we now find in Nature such an Earth as has the Seas and the Water for its foundation Neither is this Text without a second as a fellow-witness to confirm the same truth For in the 136. Psalm ver 4 5 6. we read to the same effect in these words To him who alone does great wonders To him that by wisdom made the Heavens To him that stretched out the Earth above the Waters We can hardly express that form of the Ante-diluvian Earth in words more determinate than these are Let us then in the same simplicity of heart follow the words of Scripture seeing this literal sence is not repugnant to Nature but on the contrary agreeable to it upon the strictest examination And we cannot without some violence turn the words to any other sence What tolerable interpretation can these admit of if we do not allow the Earth once to have encompass'd and overspread the face of the Waters To be founded upon the waters to be establish'd upon the waters to be extended upon the waters what rational or satisfactory account can be given of these phrases and expressions from any thing we find in the present situation of the Earth or how can they be verified concerning it Consult Interpreters ancient or modern upon these two places see if they answer your expectation or answer the natural importance of the words unless they acknowledge another form of the Earth than the present Because a Rock hangs its nose over the Sea must the body of the
coming out of the Abyss Which disruption at the Deluge seems also to be alluded to Job 12. 14 15 and more plainly Prov. 3.20 by his knowledge the Abysses are broken up Thus you have already a threefold state of the Abyss which makes a short History of it first Open at the beginning then covered till the Deluge Then broke open again as it is at present And we pursue the History of it no further but we are told Apoc. 20. 3. That it shall be shut up again and the great Dragon in it for a Thousand years In the mean time we may observe from this form and posture of the Ante-diluvian Abyss how suitable it is and coherent with that form of the Ante-diluvian Earth which S. Peter and the Psalmist had describ'd sustain'd by the waters founded upon the waters stretcht above the waters for if it was the cover of this Abyss and it had some cover that was broke at the Deluge it was spread as a Crust or Ice upon the face of those waters and so made an orbis Terrarum an habitable sphere of Earth about the Abyss So much for the form of the Ante-diluvian Earth and Abyss which as they aptly correspond to one another so you see our Theory answers and is adjusted to both and I think so fitly that we have no reason hitherto to be displeas'd with the success we have had in the examination of it according to Scripture We have dispatch'd the two main points in question first to prove a diversity in general betwixt the two natural Worlds or betwixt the Heavens and the Earth before and after the Flood Secondly to prove wherein this diversity consisted or that the particular form of the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth was such according to Scripture as we have describ'd it in the Theory You 'l say then the work is done what needs more all the rest follows of course for if the Ante-diluvian Earth had such a form as we have propos'd and prov'd it to have had there could be no Deluge in it but by a dissolution of its parts and exteriour frame And a Deluge so made would not be in the nature of a standing Pool but of a violent agitation and commotion of the waters This is true These parts of the Theory are so cemented that you must grant all if you grant any However we will try if even these two particulars also may be prov'd out of Scripture That is if there be any marks or memorandums left there by the Spirit of God of such a fraction or dissolution of the Earth at the Deluge And also such characters of the Deluge it self as show it to have been by a fluctuation and impetuous commotion of the waters To proceed then That there was a Fraction or Dissolution of the Earth at the Deluge the history of it by Moses gives us the first account seeing he tells us as the principal cause of the Flood that the Fountains of the Great Abyss were cloven or burst asunder and upon this disruption the waters gush'd out from the bowels of the Earth as from the widen'd mouths of so many Fountains I do not take Fountains there to signifie any more than Sources or Stores of Water noting also this manner of their eruption from below or out of the ground as Fountains do Accordingly in the Proverbs chap. 3.20 't is onely said the Abysses were broken open I do not doubt but this refers to the Deluge as Bede and others understand it the very word being us'd here both in the Hebrew and Septuagint that express'd the disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge And this breaking up of the Earth at that time is elegantly exprest in Job by the bursting of the Womb of Nature when the Sea was first brought to light when after many pangs and throes and dilacerations of her body Nature was deliverd of a burthen which she had born in her Womb Sixteen Hundred Years These three places I take to be memorials and proofs of the disruption of the Earth or of the Abyss at the universal Deluge And to these we may add more out of the Prophets Job and the Psalms by way of allusion commonly to the state of Nature at that time The Prophet Isaiah in describing the future destruction of the World chap. 24. 18 19. seems plainly to allude and have respect to the past destruction of it at the Deluge as appears by that leading expression the windows from an high are open 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken manifestly from Gen. 7. 11. Then see how the description goes on the windows from an high are open and the foundations of the Earth do shake The Earth is utterly broken down the Earth is quite dissolv'd the Earth is exceedingly moved Here are Concussions and Fractions and Dissolutions as there were in the Mundane Earth-quake and Deluge which we had exprest before only by breaking open the Abyss By the Foundations of the Earth here and elsewhere I perceive many understand the Centre so by moving or shaking the foundations or putting them out of course must be understood a displacing of the Centre which was really done at the Deluge as we have shewn in its proper place If we therefore remember that there was both a dislocation as I may so say and a fraction in the body of the Earth by that great fall a dislocation as to the centre and a fraction as to the surface and exterior region it will truly answer to all those expressions in the Prophet that seem so strange and extraordinary 'T is true this place of the Prophet respects also and foretells the future destruction of the World but that being by Fire when the Elements shall melt with servent heat and the Earth with the works therein shall be burnt up these expressions of fractions and concussions seem to be taken originally from the manner of the World's first destruction and to be transferr'd by way of application to represent and signifie the second destruction of it though it may be not with the same exactness and propriety There are several other places that refer to the dissolution and subversion of the Earth at the Deluge Amos 9. 5 6. The Lord of Hosts is he that toucheth the Earth and it shall melt or be dissolv'd and it shall rise up wholly like a Flood and shall be drowned as by the Flood of Aegypt By this and by the next Verse the Prophet seems to allude to the Deluge and to the dissolution of the Earth that was then This in Job seems to be call'd breaking down the Earth and overturning the Earth Chap. 12. 14 15. Behold he breaketh down and it cannot be built again He shutteth upon man and there can be no opening Behold he withholdeth the waters and they dry up also he sendeth them out and they overturn the Earth Which place you may see paraphras'd Theor. Book 1. p. 91 92. We have already cited and shall hereafter