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
in the World at the time of the Flood as there was since the flood about the time of Nebuchadnezzar it being as long from the Deluge to his time as it was from the Creation to the Deluge And tho he takes notice that no Cities are remembred by Writers but Henoch by Moses and Joppa by profane Authors yet he puts the Question Quis dubitet adeò jam aucto genere humano plurimas regiones imò totam penè Asiam Egyptum Urbibus oppidis pagis ante diluvium suisse exornatas Who can doubt that very many countries yea almost all Asia and Egypt were garnished with Cities Towns and Villages before the flood mankind being so increased To his Questions how the Children of Cain came to find out Iron Answ p. 50. and then to know the Nature and use of it and then the way of preparing and tempering it I think we may reply that in this matter they had instructions from Adam as he had his knowledge from GOD. Or if we should say they understood this by Inspiration it would be no rash or extravagant assertion For why might not some of Cain's Children be inspired to find out Brass c. as well as Aholiab was inspired to work in it Exod. 31.3 5. And yet they might find out Iron and other Metals in a lower way than that For the Flaming Sword at the East of Eden might be a burning of the Earth Discourse p. 270. And that it could not be the Torrid Zone as the Theory allows it to have been two Reasons were given Disc p. 272. Tho neither is answered but by the Last Expedient Now the Earth being once fired and burning continually at length it might reach to some Mine below and melting the Metal cause it to run and boil up upon the Ground And then observation and wise experience could not but lead men into a speedy acquaintance with its Nature and Use And also make the first Iron that they had instrumental in helping them to procure more Thus according to Herodotus lib. 7. and Natalis Comes lib. 9. the Idaei Dactyli the same with the Curetes or Corybantes both found out Iron and learnt the Art of using it by the burning of Ida. And why then might not the Progeny of Cain both get Iron and skill in it the same way But however they came by Iron or by skill to use it and make Tools of it 't is certain that they had it and that 's enough for us And truly if they had not made Tools of it also Jubal could no more have attain'd to his Art than his Brother Tubal could have taught his Trade Jubal was the Father of all such as handle the Harp and Organ Gen. 4.21 And how could such Musical Instruments be made without Iron Tools But now I think on 't there might be Gopher Wood and Pitch as well in Jubal's time as there was in Noah's and they might serve as well to make the Harp and Organ of the one as they did to make the Ark of the other without Tools of Iron Yet then the mischief on 't is Scripture does not mention either and therefore according to the Answerer's Rule above 't is a presumption rather that there were no such Materials us'd upon those occasions But then 't is a presumption withal that no such Harp or Organ were made And another as shrewd a presumption will follow that Jubal was a Father without Children Or if you will that he could not possibly be a Father of Musick himself because he wanted Instruments whereon to learn nor could he possibly beget any Sons of that Science because he had no Instruments whereby to teach He answers the last instance thus As to Tubal Cain let those that positively assert that there was no Iron in the first World tell us in what sense that place is to be understood I believe Iron or Brass is not once mention'd in all the Theory But why so indirect an Answer One would think that the Argument here which consists of Iron were red-hot to see how he handles it And the truth is let him touch it never so Gingerly it will all at once both burn his Fingers and Brand his Hypothesis Iron or Brass is not once mention'd in all the Theory Very good Yet for all that the Theorist flatly denies the being of them both before the Flood The Clause fore-cited witnesseth as much Metals and Minerals I believe they had none in the first Earth And if they had no Metals for certain they had no Iron nor Brass He adds the happier they no Gold nor Silver nor courser Metals If therefore Iron and Brass be Courser Metals than Gold and Silver he excludes them out of the first World as much as he does the finer ones named Nor does he more absolutely exclude them by his words than he effectually barrs them out of the first State of Nature by the tenour of his Hypothesis For that lodges the Abyss betwixt the Central and External Earth and so renders their Ascent from below into the superior Terrestial Region quite impossible And so what sorry and unmanly shifting is this And all to save the down-right acknowledgement of an Error which would have been more ingenuous and I think more easie 'T is unlucky for one to run his Head against a Post But when he has done if he will say he did not do it and stand in and defend what he says 't is a sign he is as senseless as he was unfortunate and is fitter to be pitied than confuted Good is the advice of the Son of Sirach In no wise speak against the Truth but be abashed of the error of thine Ignorance Eccus 4.25 CHAP. XI THat there was an Open Sea before the Flood the Excepter proved by Scripture and by Reason in his Eleventh Chapter But the Answerer inverts the Order of that Chapter and thinks fit to begin with the last first As if he designed by altering the Method to perplex the Matter and pervert the Arguments Or at least to raise such a Mist of Confusion as might dim the Eye of the Reader 's Observation and partly obscure the Weakness of his Answer But let us follow him in his own way and not fear in the least but 't will be every whit as easy for us For indeed let him go even which way he pleases we are bound in Justice to give him this Commendation that he never leads us into any difficulties The Reason offered in proof of an Open Sea was this Because otherwise the subterraneous Abyss must have been the Receptacle for Fishes Dsc p. 224. or the only place of their abode And that Abyss could by no means have been a fit Dwelling for them upon Three Accounts As being too Dark too Close and too Cold. But the Answerer would perswade us to believe otherwise As for Coldness methinks says he he might have left that out Answ p. 51. unless he supposes that there
resist the attenuating force of the Wind aforesaid these tops of the Mountains could not have shown themselves as yet For had not the Waters been thus decreased they would still have gone away into Vapours and Exhalations at such a rate as that the air by them would have been so bemisted and the Mountains by that would have been so obscured that the tops of them could not have been so soon discovered And why the tops of them were discerned before their lower and their larger parts Disc p. 342. an account has been already given Answ p. 74. Lastly as to this matter he objects That the whole notion of spending the waters of the Deluge by Evaporation hath no foundation in Scripture or Reason But in short it is founded upon both 1st Upon Reason For how reasonable is it that Waters should be turned into Vapours it being a thing most natural And how reasonable that they should be so turned at an extraordinary rate where the Sun had an extraordinary power and when to the force of the Sun was join'd the assistance of a mighty Wind 2ly Upon Scripture For their Returning off the Earth continually Gen. 8.3 might be but their returning into that Principle out of which they were made namely into Vapours See Disc p. 340 341. And that Expression the Waters were going and decreasing Gen. 8.5 may be understood of their going away quite by a wasting or diminishing of them And the learned Schindler makes the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that very place to signify this very thing And so the Notion was not only founded upon Scripture and Reason but moreover upon good Authority And whereas the Answerer would have the first of these two cited Texts to denote the local motion of the Waters or their returning to the place from whence they came Answ p. 76. this they did do when they were resolved into Vapours and were retracted into the Atmosphaere whence they descended Tho such a Return they could not be so fully capable of according to the Theory's Hypothesis the inclos'd Abyss being fill'd up in a great measure by the fallen Earth And whereas he says farther that then the Dove 's returning Ib. p. 77. was her returning into her principles that is into an Egg It is said expressly of the Dove that she returned unto him Noah into the Ark Gen. 8.9 and neither her's nor the Raven's return into Eggs could have been agreeable to Nature or Reason or have been of any manner of use Tho as nothing was more rational and nothing more natural so nothing could possibly be more useful than the Evaporation of the Waters both to the Earth and Atmosphaere at once For by their thus returning or going away into Vapours the one was dried by their reascending the other And so whereas he demands concerning the Evaporation of the Waters where does he find this notion in Scripture Answ p. 74. I might better put the like question to him where does he in Scripture find the vital Assertions of his Theory Which yet for the relation it has to Scripture he calls Theoria sacra the holy Theory tho in sundry things it be inconsistent with Scripture and opposite to it I must take my leave of this point with remarking an Vntruth which he lays upon the Excepter Another Untruth Answ p. 73◠li. 24◠It is this He gives him the Sun a miraculous power to draw up waters But where does he ascribe such a power to him The Answerer must show it or else incur the Censure of a false Accuser Indeed that the Sun has power to exhale Water now by agitating its Particles and so dilating and putting them into a flying motion is not to be doubted Nor is it to be question'd but this his power of Exhalation was most operative just after the full Rise of the Deluge For then the Atmosphaere having newly suffered a thorow Solution of its Continuity and the stock of its Vapours being greatly exhausted and the whole Earth except the higher parts of the Mountains being covered with the Flood his Beams having now a freer Passage through a finer Air could not but shoot down much more forcibly upon the diffused Water and agitating it more vehemently make Vapours to rise at a far greater Rate than they us'd to do And these Vapours being once raised by the action of the Sun would immediately take wing and fly into the empty Atmosphaere above there being such room and reception for them And as fast as some gave way others following while the void Atmosphaere suckt them up as it were and helpt them to ascend by its readiness to receive them an excessive plenty of misty Vapours must needs go up in continued streams from the steaming surface of the rarefying Water Thus I confess the Sun had power to draw up Water and power to attract it very copiously at the time we speak of till confused Nature came to be resettled in its first Order Yea so plentifully did he draw up Water in that juncture and such a mistiness thereby did he cause in the Air as he never did do before nor never in likelihood shall do again because there never was nor will be the like reasons for it But that the Excepter gave him miraculous power to do it is incumbent upon the Answerer who was pleas'd to say it to make it out A miraculous Wind indeed the Excepter owned Dsc p. 341. sent on purpose to hasten the work of drying up the Water Hic ventus non tam naturali quam divina visiccavit aquas a Lapide in loc Gen. 8.1 which in course of Nature could never have been done in so short a time if it could have been done at all but as for a miraculous influence of the Sun as it would have been needless in conjunction with such a Wind so he knows of none nor did he ever think of any But besides all this at length he would find out an Insufficiency in the new Hypothesis as if the measure of its Waters could not reach to the Execution which was necessary to be done upon the Animal World For whereas an Vniversal Destruction was made by the Flood Answ p. 71. I would gladly know says he how this could be in a fifteen-Cubit Deluge For Birds would naturally fly to the tops of Trees And Beasts would retire by degrees to Mountains Men also could not fail to retire into Mountains Or the upper stories of their houses might be sufficient to save them Or an house seated upon an Eminency or a Castle upon a Rock would always be a safe retreat from this diminutive Deluge Ib. 72. And those that were upon the Sea in Ships would never come in danger This is the substance of the Answerers Objections where he reflects upon the incompetency of the new Hypothesis in regard of the Quantity or height of those Waters of which it supposes the flood to be
misinterpreted and mis-apply'd The first is this In case this Triple state or successive Order of Heavens and Earth be rightly grounded upon the aforesaid Apostles words then those three most eminent Evangelical Writers must implicitly contradict the Doctrine of Moses And so either what he or what they have delivered in some points must be false and all of them being inspir'd from above the H. GHOST must contradict Himself By Moses's Doctrine 't is very plain that the first Earth had an open Sea For GOD he says gave man Dominion over the Fish of the Sea and his Dominion over the Fish appears to be as full and withal as soon conferr'd upon him as that he had over the Beasts or Fowls And therefore if these Apostles warrant this threefold State of Heavens and Earth in the first of which there could be no open Sea their Doctrine must necessarily clash with Moses's and implicitly contradict it So again by Moses's Doctrine 't is undeniably plain that there was Brass and Iron in the Praediluvian Earth For as he teaches Tubal-Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in those Metals And therefore if these three famous Apostles maintain this triple State of Heavens and Earth they must implicitly interfere with Moses again because the first of these states could not possibly produce either of those Metals both which according to Moses were extant in it The second Exception is this In case such a Triple state as this be truly founded upon the Writings of these three famous men then as all of them must contradict Moses implicitly so one of them must contradict himself expresly I mean S. John For speaking of the state of the new Heavens and Earth he says there was no more Sea Apoc. 21.1 Yet describing the final Judgment which is to be at the end of the same state he says the Sea gave up the dead which were in it Apoc. 20.13 And so in short there is no more probability that there should be such a tripple state as the Theory has invented built upon these Foundations of the Apostles laying than there is possibility that inspired Writers should contradict themselves or one another And therefore if what our Author says be true that the principal parts of this Theory are such things as are recorded in Scripture and so must be taken for granted in one sense or other Review p. 1 yet it is so far evident that he has not hit upon the Right sense of them as it is evident the sense that he puts upon them is not consonant to Scripture And that is so evident that in his interpreting Scriptures and applying several of them to his notions Review p. 8. he seems to have verifi'd his own words where he says 't is a kind of fatality upon us to be deceived Ib. p. 11. Yea even to be deceiv'd in the passages of those principal Apostles of which he thus pronounces These three places I alledge as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full extent And that he speeds no better in dealing with Prophane Writers about this Matter than he did in tampering with Divine ones one Instance will evince which we meet with in his Review p. 20. where to show the true importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how ill it is rendred in the English standing out of the water 2 S. Pet. 3.5 he says that he that should translate Plato 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World stands out of fire would be thought no Graecian And adds that Thales's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero renders ex aqua constare omnia But this we except against as nothing to the purpose For the Authors named by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant that the World was made out of a thing as out of its principle But did the Theorist's first Heavens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense was water the Principle out of which they were made So far from that that they were compleatly made and the Earth too without any water in their Composition Yea the Sun was fain to dart his fiery Beams through the Earth to rarify the water in the Abyss below and from thence to fetch it up by exhalation before so much as Vapour could spread through those Heavens So that they were no more made out of water than the Air is made out of Clouds because they fly in it or than a County is made out of a River because it runs through it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plato's or in Thales's sense has nothing to do here For besides that in the primitive Heavens there was no formal or specific Water save only about the Poles of the Earth where it fell but only Vapour even that Vapour was but passant through those Heavens no Ingredient of them no Principle of their Being or Part of their Essence But this was that which the Philosopher meant by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Orator confirms it by his reddition of the Words We cannot conclude without making this plain but true Observation That the Theory of the Earth is a very vain and false Hypothesis The Vanity of it is notorious For notwithstanding that it pretends to be chiefly Philosophical yet all its Primary Phaenomenaes that we have considered and which make up the biggest and most Philosophical part of it are fain to call in the help of Miracle to support them Review p. 2. The first is the Original of the Earth from a Chaos But that the Formation of this Earth might in due time be effected it is supposed to be done by the hand of Extraordinary or miraculous Providence The second is the state of Paradise and the Antediluvian World And here Miracle must come in again for that World could never have been peopled had not Angels carry'd Mankind over the Torrid Zone The Third is the Vniversal Deluge But without Miracle no Rains could have been before the fountains of the great Deep were broken up nor could the falling Ark have been preserved after it Nor is the Falseness of the Hypothesis inferiour to its Vanity For there is never a one of the Phaenomenaes aforesaid but includes too manifest Contradiction in it to the sacred Oracles or else to it self First the Formation of the Earth out of the Theory's Chaos contradicts Scripture For that tells us the Earth was made the Third day but the Theory says it was increased daily And if to take off this Contradiction to Scripture it be alledged that the Answerer allows it might be made in six minutes this throws the Contradiction upon the Theory For how could the Earth be made in six minutes that was daily increased Secondly the Paradisiacal state and the Antediluvian World Contradict Scripture For the one gives Paradise a Situation Contrary to what Moses assigns it and the other against his most plain Assertions excludes both Metals and an open Sea with Adam's Dominion over its Fish Thirdly the Vniversal Deluge contradicts Scripture For according to the Theorist See Disc c. 8. §. 5. Answ p. 31. Reply p. 67. there were fourscore days Rain towards making the Flood but the H. GHOST mentions and allows but forty This is no more than a Recapitulation or short Rehearsal of some former Remarks Yet they fully exhibit the nature of the Theory And when its Primary and Essential Phaenomenaes are such what must its Secondarys and Collaterals be If the Constituent and substantial parts of an Hypothesis be so very faulty impossible it is that the Coincidents or Appendants of it should be justifiable Yet thus our Author vouches this Hypothesis in his Review p. 12. It is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy than any other yet propos'd to the World but it is also more agreeable to Scripture Having found out words in Scripture that is somewhat like to his own he runs directly away with them and right or wrong applys them to his purpose Just as some persons who listning unto Bells think that they ring what runs in their minds so if Scripture phrases do but chime as it were or sound to his sense our Author concludes that they favour his Notions tho all be but Phantsy But let him make good that fair Character and I am ready to retract what I have said against him and to turn my Exceptions into applause In the mean time I have pursued the Theory as far as I need For as for going through the two last Books which he says will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Answ p. 66. I deem it wholly superfluous Where the Foundations of an house are taken away the Superstructures can never stand The upper Stories must needs follow the fate of the lower ones and both will certainly fall together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS ERRATA PAg. 14. l. 24. after Shores a full stop l. 25. after if r. it p. 19. l. 11. r. aereal p. 22. in marg leg Luna p 32. l. 6. blot out in p. 58. l. 14. blot out only p. 65 l. 35. after Expedient r. and. p. 72. l. 11. r. incrusted l. 16. r. account p. 87. l. 26. blot out English p 112. l. 31. r. off p. 119. l. 18. r. aereal p. 134. in marg leg delentur p. 151 l. ult r. his own p. 195. l. 28. r. Tehom p. 196. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 205. l. 6. after head a full stop Books lately Printed and are to be Sold by J. Southby at the Harrow in Cornhill 1691. TWO Treatises The First concerning Reproaching and Censure The Second an Answer to Mr. Serjeants Sure-footing To which are annexed Three Sermons Preached upon several Occasions and very useful for these Times By William Falkner D. D. in 4to A Letter to Father Petre concerning his Part in the Late Kings Government Wherein all his Actions are Justified and wherein also the Forgery of a Prince of Wales is freely Confessed and Justified in 4to The Benefit of Early Piety Recommended to all Young Persons and particularly to those of the City of London in Twelves A short View of the Duty of Receiving the Sacrament Fit to be Read in the Time of Preparation With Additions of several Prayers necessary to be used before and after Communion in 24. FINIS
shall be Judge Why one that the Answerer fairly appeals to and one it seems of the Excepter's own chusing namely Scripture I and let the same Judge says the Excepter decide the whole Controversie betwixt us And what says this Judge to the case before him Let all Philosophers who please to be of the Jury mind his sentence and also the Appellant's Argument from it The Moon was made the fourth day and the Earth was formed the third So says the Judge and very truly Therefore unless the fourth day was before the third the Moon could not hinder the Formation of the Earth So concludes the Appellant and very falsely in the case depending For the Earth formed the third day was Moses's Earth which the Excepter contends for and could not possibly think that the Moon should hinder the Formation of that But the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist's which could not be form'd the third day For according to him it was not only to grow out of a Chaos by the rising of Oyl out of an Abyss and the falling of Particles out of the Air but moreover was to be increast daily And therefore had the Moon been made the fifth or sixth day or after it might have been made time enough to hinder the Formation of this Earth But however he intimates here that his Earth was form'd the third day And that 's mighty well for now it 's to be hop'd that Moses and he will agree better Here 's one step towards an accommodation But then the mischief on 't is 't is a step backwards on our Author's part and I 'm afraid will do him but little Service For while he thus endeavours to shun Charybdis he falls unluckily into Scylla is reduc'd to such an exigence that let him choose which way he pleases of these two he is sure to go in contradiction to himself Another Contradiction For if he says his Earth was form'd the Third day according to Scripture he then contradicts himself in his Theory which teaches it was daily increased And if he says it was daily increased according to his Theory then he contradicts himself in his appeal to Scripture which as he now owns tells us it was formed the third day Ib. lin 21. And should it be alledged to evade this that here are two distinct Hypotheses that is to say of Ordinary and Extraordinary Providence whereon these two different Formations of the Earth are respectively founded this would be but the same thing over again As evidently showing that in his way of shifting he has set up two Hypotheses plainly contradictory to one another Even as contradictory as affirming a thing made in one day and affirming it made in many days are contradictory affirmations The Excepter had suggested Disc p. 74 75 76. that the Moon being present and causing Tides and Fluctuations in the waters of the Chaos that would have hindred the Formation of the Earth upon them This says the Answerer Answ p. 6. we have no reason to believe according to the Experiences we have now For Tides hinder not the Formation of Ice in cold Regions upon the Surface of the Sea therefore why should they have hindred the Formation of the Earth upon the surface of the Chaos Some Seas indeed do freeze in some measure but then their waters are pretty still And so the most that can be inferred from thence is but this that if the waters of the Chaos were any where so quiet some Earth might there have been formed upon them Tho this Inference withal is far short of being an evidence of the thing inasmuch as there is more reason for Ice to be formed upon the Sea than there was for Earth to be formed upon the Chaos For our Seas have Shoars where Ice does usually begin its Formation spreading wider or farther by a continued or progressive Concretion Which may be one chief reason why our Creeks or Harbours are oft frozen up when Seas that feed or flow into them are not even because they are bounded with no far distant Banks where Ice can more easily grow from the Sides till it meets in the Middle But the waters of the Chaos had no Shoars Ice also is lighter than water and so swims upon it and therefore if fit chances to be broken in its first Formation and while it is thin it may unite and grow together again by a new congelement But earth is heavier than water and apt to sink and therefore if broken when spread upon it in a thin Covering it immediatly dives and goes down to the bottom And upon this account the same degrees of Fluctuation that permit Ice to gather upon Seas would have prevented an Earth's being formed upon the Chaos But we must go on The Theorist thought that the presence of the Moon was less needful in the first World Eng. Theor. p. 241. And one reason he gave for it was this because there were no long Winter nights To which the Excepter opposed Disc p. 79. that as there were no long Winter nights so there were no short Summer ones neither So that set but the one against the other and the presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then in regard of the length of nights as it is now But this in the Answerer's opinion tho witty does not reach the point And pray p. 6. why why because a great Inconvenience attends long nights when they fall upon the hours of travel or the hours of work and business But then at the same time that business and journeys are hindred in some places by long Nights in other places they are helped forward as much by short ones And therefore set but the business and travellings of the Inhabitants of some parts of the Earth against the like Concerns of the Inhabitants of other parts of it and the Excepter's Observation will reach the point And truly where can the presence of a Moon be more needful than in that World where half the time was still to be Night and 12 of every 24 hours was continually dark all over it at once that is all over its habitable Regions For then the Earth standing in a Right Position to the Sun and having none of its motion of Inclination as Astronomy calls it and the Sun always rising and setting in the Aequinoctial and so in the same points of the Heavens without any Latitude as the days would constantly be twelve hours in length so the nights by this means must be as long but the Crepusculum or Twilight in the praediluvian World would be very short and so its Inhabitants immers'd in the deeper darkness and consequently could very ill spare the Moon In the next place the Answerer notes that Oily Particles in the Chaos pag. 7. were excepted against as Precarious And he endeavours to take off the Exception by giving Reasons for their being Original and Primaeval Ib. The first he
heavens kindness that have been or can appear are properly to be solved CHAP. VII HEre the Answerer applies himself to vindicate those Texts of Scripture which being alledged in confirmation of the Theory were excepted against The first is that in the Second Epistle of S. Peter C. 3. v. 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of c. But he quarrels with the Excepter for rendring it generally Wilfully ignorant Answ p. 19. Now who can say they were not thus ignorant And is it not most probable that they really were so Or who can clearly discern and justly dinstinguish betwixt Willing and Wilful Ignorance and rightly determine which of the two men are guilty of in all cases It is hard to set an exact boundary between Willing and Wilful Sin so as positively to say where the one ends and the other begins The Difference here is so nice and obscure as not easily to be discovered If we look to the sins of the Tongue they that Ly and Swear Willingly commonly do it Wilfully If we look to the sins of the Hand they that Rob and Kill willingly commonly do it wilfully And so it is commonly as to sins of the mind and particularly as to the sin of Ignorance They that are willingly ignorant are wilfully ignorant For they are usually ignorant because they forbear to consult men or because they neglect to peruse Books or because they refuse to observe or consider or examine things And these Omissions being deliberate chosen and affected must consequently be wilful and make their ignorance of the same stamp Especially if men persist in their ignorance till it becomes high and hainous by being customary and habitual which seems to be the Case of them here reprehended Ib. And whereas the Answerer says that the Excepter lays a great stress upon the word Wilfully That he did not do nor was there any need of it For whether they were willingly or wilfully ignorant it matters not because they could in neither sense be blameably ignorant of such things as the Theorist presumes they were inasmuch as they were in no capacity of acquiring the Knowledge of them supposing they had been Real This the Excepter fairly made out To have proved them culpably ignorant therefore in either of these senses Disc p. 128. 129. c. the Answerer should have taken off what the Excepter objected against the likelihood of their attaining to the knowledge of those Matters and should have shown that the Pseudo-Christians reproved by St. Peter might by the use of such means as they had have come to a competent understanding of those Phaenomenaes which he believes the Apostle chid them for being unacquainted with But the doing of this he either willingly or wilfully omitted it being much easier to run out into an empty debate about a word than as he should have done to pursue the proper and material things He says indeed p. 20. The mutability and changes of the World which these Pseudo-Christians would not allow of was a knowable thing taking all the means which they might and ought to have attended to Great news this that the Changes of the World which they were checked for being ignorant of were knowable by the means which they injoyed Did GOD ever blame ignorance but in such Circumstances But let him prove that the first Constitution of the Heavens and the Earth and the changes and dissolution which happened to them at the Deluge were knowable things to them according to his Notions of them let him prove that they had means to bring them to the knowledge of these as he represents them and then he does something But he must first prove that there ever were such things And because he is for Instances out of Scripture where the Phrase used by S. Peter signifies wilful and obstinate ignorance let him take these that follow Answ p. 19. as proofs of as much The forgiven Servant obstinately refusing to shew mercy to his fellow-servant it is said of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not S. Mat. 18.30 The Inhabitants of Jerusalem obstinately refusing to come under GOD's Protection it is said of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye would not S. Mat. 23.37 And so again S. Luke 13.34 Now if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a negative Particle before it signifies a Wilful and obstinate Refusal of a thing then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Negative may signify a wilful and obstinate Consent to a thing or Compliance with it And so the Phrase here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signify a wilful and obstinate ignorance And because he is for Proofs out of Greek Authors Ib. one Proof shall be given him out of an Author that he knows understood Greek well enough I mean the very learned and judicious Dr. Hammond Who in his Annotations writes thus upon this Text. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems here to be taken in a sense not ordinary in other places for being of opinion or affirming perhaps with this addition of asserting it magisterially without any reason rendred for it but a sic volo c. So I will I command my Will is my reason And according to this excellent Annotator the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports extraordinary Wilfulness here Nor let him think that he gains any thing by noting p. 20. that it was not their ignorance that S. Peter chiefly reproves but their deriding and scoffing at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour For if he reproved them as Scoffers yet in the words considered he reproves them chiefly for their Ignorance and in all likelihood for their Wilful Ignorance p. 12◠Next he checks the Excepter for Dispatching Scriptures quickly by the help of a Particle and a Figure But if arguments be so weak that they will fall with a Fillip why should greater force be used to beat them down The fault is in him that should have brought stronger To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider I think would be preposterous He goes on next to Psal 33.7 He gathereth the waters of the Sea Eng. The. p. 86. as in a Bagg He layeth up the Abysses in Store-houses Which according to the Theory hints that the Sea or Abyss before the Deluge was inclosed within the Vault of the Earth In confutation of this Phantsy So the Vulgate and Septuagint both render it which the Theorist quoted for rendring the forecited place Psal 33.7 as in a bag the Excepter brought in that Passage Psal 78.13 He set the waters as in a Bag. Which proves according to the known Rule of Expounding one Scripture by another that by the waters being as in a bag Psal 33.7 could not be meant their being inclosed within the vault of the Earth Because this Text which says the same thing speaks of an open Sea viz. the Red Sea See Disc p. 139 140. and that when it
plain Contradictions of Moses Yet the Replicant does not say that they were Rude ones Tho whether they are not more Rude and Groundless than the Excepter's Censure of Anaxagoras was let the Ingenuous and Impartial judge And besides in his English Theory p. 288. he puts this amongst the Vital Assertions of it That neither Noah 's flood nor the present Form of the Earth can be explain'd in any other method that is rational nor by any other causes that are intelligible And speaking of the Ancient Earth and Abyss p. 93. he delivers himself thus If they were in no other Form nor other state than what they are under now the expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning them are very strange and inaccountable without any sufficient ground or any just occasion for such uncouth representations Some perhaps may see as much rudeness here as in any thing that the Excepter said of Anaxagoras And should absolute strangers to his Religion read this Author they might possibly be apt to think from many passages in his books that instead of believing these sacred Writers in several Matters he designs to confute them And should they at the same time be strangers to these Writers too they might be apt to think also that they deserve to be confuted or that they were not worth confuting For to say that their representations of things are uncouth and that their Expressions are occasionless and groundless and very strange and inaccountable is the same thing as to say that they writ non-sense These are our Authors words and if we will believe him who must needs know best he finds no reason to alter his Opinion in any one particular And when he can thus express himself of sacred Writers because their Doctrines differ from his Notions is he not like to be thought by some to be as deep in the dirt of rudeness as the Excepter is in the mire for saying what he did of an heathen Author To the Philosophers the Answerer says he might have added the Testimonies of Poets who tell us of a perpetual Spring And particularly he quotes Ovid for it But if his Evidence must be admitted it is but reason that we should have the whole of it And if we take it in its full latitude there is nothing more contrary to the Assertions of the Theory than that For as after that Testimony of his ver erat Aeternum Answ p. 35. c. there was a perpetual Spring he says Flumina jam Lactis jam flumina Nectaris ibant Sometimes Rivers flowed with Milk sometimes with Nectar so before it he speaks many things Metamor l. 1. in initio perfectly destructive to the Doctrine of the Theory For he tells that in the Beginning and even before man was created some Deity or other made Seas such Seas as had Shores and were tossed with Winds and so were open Seas Tum Freta diffudit rapidisque tumescere ventis Jussit ambitae circundare littora terrae Then Seas he made with blustring Storms to swell And Shores to th' Earth inclos'd he gave as well Then he says there were Valleys and Stony Mountains Jussit extendi campos subsidere Valles Fronde tegi sylvas lapidosos surgere montes Next Fields came forth and Valleys sunk below And leavy Trees and stony Hills did grow And tells us farther that at the same time there were two Zones of the five covered with deep Snows And that there were not only Mists but Clouds and dreadful Thunders and cold Winds with Lightnings Nix tegit alta duas Illic nebulas illic consistere nubes Jussit humanas motura tonitrua mentes Et cum fulminibus facientes frigora ventos With pure white Snows Two Zones were covered There Mists did fall and Clouds were gathered And frightful Thunders dwelt that awe mens minds And flashing Lightnings with most nipping Winds So that if he spake one word for the Theory he spake many against it And therefore it had been better that he had said nothing and that the Answerer had wav'd this Testimony of his Answ p. 36. In the next place he brings in the Christian Father's Character of Paradise in proof of his perpetual praediluvian Equinox And this Character he takes from Bellaâ—mine De Grat. prim hom cap. 12. who delivers it in these words Paradisus ita describitur a Sancto Basilio c. Paradise is so describ'd by S. Basil in his Book of Paradise by John Damascen in his second Book of the Faith and the eleventh Chapter By S. Austin in the fourteenth book of the City of GOD and the tenth Chapter by Alchimus Avitus and Claudius Marius Victor and others above cited by Isidore in his fourteenth book of Etymologys and third Chapter and others commonly as if in it there were a perpetual Spring no colds no heats no rains snows hails also no clouds which very thing the Scripture signifies when it says the first of mankind were naked in Paradise We reply First that the Cardinal who here summs up the Evidence of these Witnesses as a Judge did himself pronounce Extravagant things in the Case And therefore no wonder if he picks up and brings in such kind of Testimonies as may be somewhat sutable to his own * He believed that the waters of the Flood came not into Paradise But that Enoch was kept alive there when the Earth was drowned and that he and Elias do dwell together there now and shall continue to do so till such time as they come from thence to oppose Antichrist vid. Cap. 14. De Grat. prim hom De grat prim hom Cap. 12. Answ p. 37. Notions Secondly the Testimonies brought in by his own Pen he blots out again with his own hand For speaking of Bede's opinion that Paradise was a place as high as the Moon which he makes the opinion of Bridefert rather who glossed upon Bede he says that the Author of that opinion was pleased to make use of an Hyperbole that by the heighth of that Paradisi excellentiam demonstraret he might set forth the excellency of Paradise Quemidmodum intelligimus verba Sancti Basilii c. After the same manner that we understand the words of S. Basil of John Damascen of Alchimus Avitus c. And when what they said was Hyperbolical to the Theory's purpose it cannot be material After this he attaques the two Queries made by the Excepter against the praediluvian Equinox The First was this Disc p. 185. Would it in likelihood have continued till the Flood For the water of the Abyss being in process of time exhausted and the exterior Earth hanging hollow over an empty space round it by being pendulous and oblong the waters upon that Earth abounding for some reasons given more at one Pole of it Disc p. 187. than at the other might have sunk or sway'd down that Pole which was overcharged To this the Answerer opposes P. 37. the Waters were not
the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them he should have considered that these thirty days were to be of such a length just as that that Number of them might make a Solar Month. For supposing them either longer or shorter than so they could not be such days as the Scripture speaks of because thirty of them still made such a Month. Whereas if they had been shorter as there must have been more so if they had been Longer fewer would have done it And thus the Answerer's design of throwing a Blunder upon the Excepter is quite defeated and while he made an awkward Blow at him he only struck and wounded himself Yet the Dust he here raises can neither hide the Objection which the Excepter made nor yet so blind the Reader 's eyes as that he should not see it remains unanswered For after all if the Contiguity of the Sphaere of the Exterior Earth with the Abyss ceased by reason the Waters of the Abyss were exhaled that Sphaere of the Earth must be carried about with less Celerity than before it was Especially if the Moon came late into the Earth's Neighbourhood which being an heavy Luggage in the outward part of the Earth's Vortex like a Clog hang'd upon the Rim of a Wheel would make it turn more slowly as the Excepter objected But because we have hinted that Scripture gives us to understand that there were twelve Months in the Antediluvian year and thirty days in each of those Months it will not be amiss to conclude this Chapter with showing how Scripture makes the things out In the eighth of Genesis then and the fifth verse it informs us that the waters decreased until the tenth Month. And after this that at the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark v. 6th And that he stayed yet other seven days and sent forth the Dove v. 10th And that he stayed yet other seven days and sent forth the Dove again v. 12th Which fifty four days following the first day of the tenth Month on which the tops of the Mountains were seen v. 5th show that there must be twelve months in the year and indeed they make them up so many bating five days which we must suppose were still to run out before the first Month of the next year came in v. 13th And then it shows that there were thirty days in each Month. For first we find twenty seven days in one Month in this Chapter v. 14th And as we read in the Seventh Chapter the Waters prevailed upon the Earth one hundred and fifty days v. 24th Yet they began to come in the seventeenth day of the second month v. 11th and they began to decrease by the seventeenth day of the seventh month Chap. 8th v. 3d. Whence it is plain that the hundred and fifty days made just five months during which the Waters prevailed and so every month must consist of thirty days CHAP. IX IN the beginning of this Chapter relating to the Oval Figure of the first Earth he goes about to rectify a Principle of the Excepter's Answ p. 38. That terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point But let this be understood of Self-centred and Quiescent Earthly Bodies and the Assertion will need no Rectification And so the Excepter really meant it should be understood For he was not yet come to Consider the Mass upon which the Primitive Earth was founded as turning upon its own Center See Disc p. 190. but was going on towards the Consideration The Waters of that Mass Globular at first rising up above the Aequator by its gyration upon its own Axis became oval and so made the Earth of that Figure defluendo ad latera Disc p. 193 194. Answ p. 39. by flowing down at the sides of the Globe So the Theorist said at first To this word the Excepter spake so home that the Answerer we see was almost angry by the Reflections he makes We will therefore touch that tender place no more for fear of giving farther Provocation And we the rather forbear to press upon it because the Answerer we find is sensible it is sore by the Plaister he is fain to apply to it For now he has explain'd that word by another as he tells us namely Detrusione Ib. Let us therefore to the Thing Only in our passage to it it will not be amiss to observe his humour When he was fain to flinch and forc'd thus to shift from one word to another he falls upon the Excepter with a causeless censure of Pedantry and little triumphs He resolves that is to shoot Powder where he wants Bullets and at the same time that he gives Ground he will be as fierce as if he gain'd it Very pleasant to see to that he who blamed strong Passions as producing weak Arguments should thus by his Anger show his Impotence But we are to consider the Thing And here the Answerer interrogates Ib. May not waters ascend by force and detrusion when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that force and persevere in their motion Without all Question they may provided that force and detrusion be of power sufficient to compel them to ascend against the Principle of their natural Gravity and such extrinsic accidental Obstacles as may chance to lye in their way and hinder them But what then He goes on Ib. This is the case we are speaking to They were impell'd to ascend or recede from the Center and it was easier for them to ascend laterally than to ascend directly upon an inclin'd Plain than upon a perpendicular one This assertion wants a great deal of Proof For that the Waters of the Chaos should through the Circumgyration of it rise or ascend any way is very improbable as being bound down by the circumambient Air which is carried about therewith Fill a sphaerical Glass with water and then turn it swiftly upon its own Center However the water in this Glass may have a strong and constant Conatus during that its Motion towards rising up yet certain it is the Glass that contains it would keep it from swelling out beyond those Bounds to which it self confines it In like manner the Body of the Air in which at that time was the whole matter of the Exterior Earth diffused surrounding the entire Element of the Water would have kept that from actual receding from the Center tho it were impregnated with a conatus that way 'T is confess'd if we take a Globe and turn it round swiftly Water or Sand if we lay either upon it will fly off it violently And one reason is because the ambient Air does not turn with this Globe but gliding close upon its wheeling Surface by a renitency against it sweeps off whatever lies loose upon it But were the Air about it carried round with it the lightest things that lye loosest on its Superficies would rest
there unmoved supposing it the proper Center of their Gravity And for the same reason finest Dust lies undisturb'd even upon the tops of highest Mountains tho they whisk about with such celerity as no humane Art and strength can imitate And if the Earth's Rotation as rapid as it is cannot cause small Dust to rise from Hills in way of recession from the Center much less could it produce that great effect upon the Mass of Water which as it was a vast and ponderous Body so it couched the closer to the Earth under it And the truth is as to a competent or sufficient Cause of the Wate 's supposed Rise or Ascent we are yet at a loss For the Cause assigned is Detrusion Detrusion made by the superambient Air. Answ p. 39. Methinks the Observator might have conceiv'd this Detrusion of waters towards the Poles by the resistance of the superambient Air. But now if this Cause fail'd and was not able to detrude the Waters at the Equinoctial where they were to be thrust down Or which is worse if it be sound a more effectual Cause to detrude them at the Poles where they were to rise up what then becomes of this Assertion we ore upon or of that Essential of the Theory it relates to the Oval form of the Primitive Earth Yet in Reality thus it was The Air that should have depress'd or thrust down the Waters at the Aequator of the liquid Globe was more dispos'd to do it at its Polar parts For the Sun moving always in the Equinoctial of that Globe the Air thereabouts must needs be very hot and so very thin and so very yielding and so less able to resist and detrude the Waters And on the contrary the Sun being always very distant from the Poles the Air in those parts must needs be more cold and so more thick and so more stiff and heavy and so more fit to make Resistance and Detrusion there than any where else Yet see the unluckiness of this contrivance the Waters were to rise higher there much higher at the Poles where the Air would most resist them and to be thrust down lowest at the Aequator by the Air where it could least depress them And if by the Air 's Resistance be meant any thing else but a meer Detrusion arising from its natural weight which as is said had most force to keep the Waters down where it was most needful they should have risen up such a Resistance cannot be conceived considering that the whole Mass of the Air was carried about in Circumgyration with the Globe of Water The Deserts of Biledulgerid Lybia c. lie betwixt the Aequator and our Northern Tropic and so within the compass of that Latitude where the Waters of the liquid Globe should have felt a Resistance of the Air. But what reason have we to believe they did so when the light or running Sands there are no more ruffled or in the least stirred by such Resistance than if they were a crust of Flint or Adamant and the like may by said of Mare del Zur It lies under the Line and so in the Equinoctial part of this Terraqueous Globe Which being there of the biggest Circumference it must turn thereabouts most swiftly and so cause the greater resistance of the Air were there any such thing and that would produce as great a disturbance in the Water But on the contrary so quiet and still and smooth and even is this vast Ocean that it is called the Pacific Sea And if these spatious Waters so exactly fitted for this Resistance both by their situation and immensely wide and far extended Surface feel nothing of it now why should or how could the waters of the Abyss do it at first No the Air resisted and detruded then but as it does now That is so far as its own Gravity caused a Compression Which as it was gentle so it was general comparing the entire Globe at once with a soft constringency Only there was reason as we have shewed why this compression should be lightest at the Equinoctial and why it should be heaviest at the Poles of the Globe and why it could not make such Resistance or Detrusion as is imputed to the Air. In short If it did make Resistance either it was gentle and would only have rimpled the Surface of the turning Waters as the Subsolanus does which blows constantly about the Equator and so would not have been of force sufficient to depress them into an oval Figure or else it was violent and so would have discompos'd the Abyss so much that the Earth could never have been founded upon it And truly what less than such a violence as would so have discompos'd it could alter the Figure of it But yet that there neither was nor could be such a violent resistance made by the Air as to detrude the Waters of the Chaotic Mass may I think be demonstrated from the Motion of the Moon Her Distance from hence in her Perigee or nearest approach to us is about 51 Semidiameters of the Earth in her Apogee or farthest remove from us about 65. To take a moderate or middling Distance therefore betwixt both let us suppose her always 56 of those Semidiameters off us And then let us suppose again that she performs her Periodical Circuit in 28 Days tho she does it in less Now she absolving her Circuit at 56 Semidiameters distance from the Earth in 28 Days in case She were but 28 Semidiameters distant which is but half the Space she must do it in 14 Days which is but half the time And so were she distant but 14 Semidiameters she must do it consequently in 7 Days According to which proportion the Air towards the Earth at the heighth of one Semidiameter above it must wheel about as fast as the Earth it self does to the space of half a Day Now every Semidiameter of the Earth containing says Mr. Rohault Tract Phys par 2. cap. 12. near 1431 Leagues or 4293 English Miles hence it will follow that the Air at the heighth of 2146 Miles turns about as fast as the Earth bating but 6 Hours And at the heighth of 1073 Miles as fast as that bating 3 Hours And so at the heighth of 357 Miles to avoid fractions to one Hour Which divide into 60 parts because in an Hour there are 60 Minutes and the Air at the heighth of 6 Miles must turn as fast as the Earth in round reckoning to the space of one Minute And if we drive down the Account so low at 3 quarters of a Miles heighth it must turn as fast to the eighth part of a Minute And so just on its Surface even with it And when the Air encompassing the Earth does thus conspire and circulate with it in its Gyration how could it possibly resist the Waters of the turning Abyss so as to change their figure from Sphaerical to Oval Nor will the Answerer's Simile help here unless it be
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
he said He was before the Mountains what did he say less if the Mountains were made in the time of the Flood the World having stood above sixteen hundred and fifty years before that came in And whereas the Answerer suggests Ib. that the Psalmist's words might have a gradation in them from a lower Epocha to an higher when he said before the Mountains were brought forth and the Earth and the World were made Let him show when and where any such gradation was ever made use of by an inspired Writer to set out the Eternity of the EVERLASTING GOD. And whereas he adds as for that place in Prov. 8. it would be very hard to reduce all those things that are mentioned there from ver 22. to the 30 to the same time of existence Let him show if he pleases why the things there mention'd called GOD's Works of old may not very easily be reduced as to their first existence within the time of the six days of Creation Disc p. 202. Moses the Excepter added mentions lasting hills and ancient Mountains Deut. 33.15 But he would hardly have call'd them so had they risen at the Flood because then they would have been but few ages older than himself that is about seven hundred years To this it is answered the River Kishon is call'd the ancient River Answ p. 43. but I do not therefore think it necessary that that brook should have been before the flood Nor does he think it necessary that several other things should have been before the Flood Yea his Hypothesis makes it necessary that they should not then be But does it follow ever the more from hence that they were not He goes on Things may very well deserve that Character of lasting Ib. or ancient tho they be of less antiquity than the Deluge as lasting Pyramids and ancient Babylon But were the Mountains supposing them made at the Flood as lasting and ancient in Moses's time as the Pyramids and Babylon are now Disc p. 205 The next Argument was drawn from the Mountains in the Moon They as we are told are better than four times as high as the Mountains of the Earth And therefore they seem to be her native Features rather than Effects of her Dissolution For had they been raised by her being dissolved they could not have been so strangely over-proportion'd to the Mountains of the Earth she being a much less Planet than that And in case the Moon had Mountains from the beginning why might not the Earth have so too Answ p. 44. T is easy to see the Answerer says that this is no good Argument For besides that the Orb there might be more thick all ruines do not fall alike And 't is as easy to see that this is no good Answer For the Moon being more than forty times less than the Earth the Chaos out of which She was formed at first must be more than forty times less than the Earth's Chaos was else she could never have been so little For a larger Chaos would have contained more matter and more matter would have made her Dimensions bigger But if the Chaos out of which the Moon was made was forty times less than that out of which the Earth arose then it s central Earth together with its Abyss and exterior Orb must be so much less than the same parts of the Earth respectively were as being made of Ingredients which were forty times less than theirs And so the Orb of the Moon could not possibly be thicker than the Orb of the Earth nor could its Mountains be higher than the Earths Mountains are much less above four times higher upon that account And then as to the falling of its Ruines if we allow it to have been done with all imaginable Advantages which way could they have pil'd themselves up so much higher than the ruines of the Earth Especially if we consider that their Materials were alike I speak of the primitive Bodies of the Earth and Moon their Figures alike and also the manner of their Dissolution Only if we suppose the Earth to have been twenty thousand miles in perimeter the Moon must be less than five hundred As to the Historical Arguments alledg'd in this case he demands over and over why they were mention'd But such Questions had an anticipative Answer made to them in our Discourse and that excuses all farther reply p. 207. In the next place he falls upon the Excepter's Conjecture about the Original of Mountain And in this New Hypothesis as he calls it Answ p. 45 46. he finds many palpable defects or oversights whereof he says this is one of the grossest that he supposes the Sun by his heat the third day to have raised the Mountains of the Earth whereas the Sun was not created till the fourth day But here he relapses into his wonted Infirmity of Mistaking egregiously Another Mistake For first the Excepter did not suppose that the Sun alone rais'd the Earth's Mountains This plainly appears from what he said in his entrance upon the Conjecture Disc p. 208. That Nature might have a considerable stroke in the Work And if Nature were to have but a considerable stroke in that work the whole of it could not be done by the Sun No the main part of it was still to be effected by the hand of GOD. And the concurrence of his Power with the influence of the Sun in producing Mountains the Excepter acknowledged in these words Disc p. 209. Tho GOD could and 't is like did produce them another way I will venture to guess HE might do it thus So that still it was HE that is GOD who thus produced the Mountains not the Sun alone And then follows an account how or wherein the Sun help'd forward this extraordinary Work tho he must not be understood to accomplish the same by his own sole and proper efficiency but as he was an Instrument in the hand of Omnipotence and so inabled to do that which of himself he could never have done Tho I must add withal that at that time he was capable of doing a great deal in this Work For 1st Perhaps he had then no Maculaes about him which now swimming upon his face in great abundance do check and damp and weaken his influence 2dly There being then a Flaâ—uous Moisture in the Earth put into it on purpose to make it Heave His piercing Beams soon gave it such an heat and agitation as made it dilate it self with furious Rarefaction 3ly The Earth it self being then most light and soft and unctuous was also of a more pliant yielding nature and so more apt and easie to ascend Lastly The Pores of this Earth being then close shut and the vehement Vapours rarefy'd within having no other possible way to get out but by elevating the Ground which lay upon them and so confin'd and kept them down no wonder if they threw it up with a mighty
as the Swan and hunt the Kite or Hobby as Boys do the Wren Did he mean that he should hang up Ostritches in a Cage as people do Linnets Or fetch down the Eagles to feed with his Pullen and make them perch with his Chickens in the Hen-roost Or else could he have no command over the Fowls And in like manner when he gave the same Adam Dominion over the Sea was he to be able to dwell at the bottom or to walk on the top of it To drain it as a Ditch or take all its Fry at once in a Drag-net Was he to Snare the Shark as we do young Pickarels Or to bridle the Sea-Horse and ride him for his Pad Or to put a slip upon the Crocodiles Neck and play with him as with a Dog Or else must he have no Dominion over that Element and the Creatures in it Certainly betwixt having Dominion over the Fowls and flying after them in the Air there is great difference And so there is betwixt the real Dominion which Adam had over the Sea and its Fish and all excess or extravagance of Rule When GOD set Adam over the Fish of the Sea he plac'd him under his Glorious SELF For had his Dominion been supreme and absolute he must have partook of GOD's Nature as well as he did of his Image and Empire But as we very well know all Subordinate Power must be limited and so was Adam's And therefore he could not go beyond his prescribed Bounds but was to command the Fish as he did other Creatures That is according to the Order of the World and the Laws of Providence according to the Capacity of his own Nature and the Quality of theirs And if so be he did but act in his Station in pursuance of his Commission governing his Subjects as in Duty he was obliged and as in Power he was inabled that is according to the Will of GOD and the measures of a Man this will be sufficient for him who had the Dominion and so it will be for us who defend it The Answerer proceeds Adam was made Lord of all Animals upon the Earth P. 52◠and had a right to use them for his conveniency when they came into his power Here he speaks as out of a Cloud and we may justly suspect that what he says had need be clear'd from doubtful meaning For Fishes if his Hypothesis may be believed were never upon this Earth but always under it during Adam's time and so they never came into his power neither And therefore it may be question'd whether he means that Adam was Lord of them or not But if in all Animals he includes the Fishes then we reply as follows That in case the Doctrine of the Theory be true Adam could be but a poor and sorry Lord over the Fishes which are a considerable part of the living Creatures Lib. 32. C. 11. Pliny attempts in his Natural History to reduce all of them that belong to the Sea to an hundred seventy and six kinds and to particularize the several Names of them respectively But so mean a Lord was Adam over them that indeed to call him by this Title in reference to those Animals would be but to put an affront upon him he enjoying no more if the Theorist errs not than a meer colour or shadow of that honour Should an Emperor grant one of his Courtiers a Commission to be his Vice-Roy or Deputy in a certain Country which 't is utterly impossible he should ever come at as this Patent would reproach the Majesty that gives it so would it not be Mockage to the Favourite that receives it Yet just such is the Case here As impossible it was for Adam to come at the Abyss below as it was for him to dart downward for a Mile or two's Thickness through the compact and solid Earth So that his Lordship over the Fishes there must be a bare nominal and titular thing And he might as well have been Lord over the Fish in the Moon supposing she had any as over the Fish in the Infernal Sea For his descent to the one was as difficult as his ascent would have been to the other and his Power was exercis'd alike in both for he died above seven hundred years before the Ocean or so much as one Fish appeared in the World Now pray when or to whom in what Ages and to which of his Servants did the GOD of Heaven ever assign such mock Seigniories and pitiful airy Royalties as this No they are windy promises that convey empty Donatives and neither can proceed from that Glorious Being which is the fulness of Sincerity and all Munificence Where GOD is pleas'd to impart Dominion we may assure our selves it shall not be a name or empty notion But as there shall be a Scaene for Jurisdiction to act in so there shall be Subjects for it to be exercis'd upon and Matters also to imploy it about And so here is something more suggested in way of Reply as to the Favour which GOD bestowed upon Adam in relation to the Fishes namely that he imparted to him a Dominion over them And that I hope is quite different from a Titular Lordship And so Titular was his Lordship according to the Theory over the Fish that tho he held it near a thousand years it did not all that time bring one of them to his Sight A man may have a Title to things and Right to use them when he can get them tho he never had nor ever shall have Dominion over them I do by no means wish the Answerer to be unjustly barred from his Estate But if he were so he would find that a Title to it and a Right to use it when it should come into his Power must not be compar'd to a real Dominion or Command over it But now it was an actual Dominion which GOD gave Adam over the Fish And therefore he did not say have thou the Title of Lord over them and use them for thy conveniency when they come into thy power which yet would have been a plain Jeer such as Heaven never put upon an Innocent because into his power they were not to come but have DOMINION over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowl of the Air and over every living thing which moveth upon the Earth Gen. 1.28 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Targum renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have the Dominion does signify an actual Rule and the very exercise of it And the Word is used in this Sense in too many Places of the H. Bible to be here recited So that Adam's Dominion over the Fish was not as the Answerer would most unreasonably make it a Titular Lordship or imaginary Right which was to hang in the Air and not be realiz'd even to his Posterity till above sixteen hundred Years should be past and till the World in which they lived should be quite destroyed and a new
positive as it were and absolute And when Scripture makes this the Sentence of GOD Who had sufficient power to execute it as well as just and mighty provocation to do it after once it took place it must be consonant to Reason that short life rather than long life should be the general lot of men And so both Scripture and Reason plainly suggest that they who lived eight or nine hundred years under this Sentence must in all likelihood ow their Longaevity to the favour of Heaven and a special Benediction rather than to the strength of their own nature within or any Course or Order of Nature without Especially if we consider that even the pretended Aequinoctial State of Nature would have shortned mens days Seâ— Disc p. 281. as we noted And if that alone would have hindred Longaevity how much more would it have done it when the sin of man concurred with it and the curse of GOD upon the Earth occasion'd by that sin As to the Testimonies of the Ancients cited by Josephus Eng. Theor. p. 315. and alledged by the Theorist in proof of the Antediluvian Longaevity they were noted by the Excepter to be utterly false Disc p. 276. For whereas they witness that in the first age of the World men liv'd a thousand years none of mankind according to the account that the Divine Writings give ever did so but some of them tho this is answered by his last Expedient only fell very short of it Thus Seth came short of a thousand years by almost Ninety Enos by almost an Hundred Mahalaleel by above an Hundred Lamech by above two Hundred and Twenty The Answerer therefore need not have insisted upon the Ancients Tradition And tho he tells the Excepter that he seems content Answ p. 57. Disc p. 278. this Tradition should be admitted Yet as the Context plainly shows he yielded it only so far as to make the Concession introductive to an Enquiry after farther Tradition about a constant Equinox and Perpetual Spring how it comes to pass that Tradition is so partial as not to tell us explicitly of them the Causes of this Longaevity But this Question he says is fully answered and the Tradition fully made out before in the 8th Chapter And to that 8th Chapter of his Answer the 8th Chapter here does as fully Reply But let us go on to the Reasons alledg'd against the General Longaevity of the Praediluvians The First was this Disc p. 279. Answ p. 58. Their Multitudes would have overstockt the Earth To which he answers That Earth was more capacious than this is where the Sea takes away half of its Surface But as the Sea takes away from this Earth so the Torrid Zone and Rainy Regions took away from that That Earth also had no Mountains which in this are great as well as numerous and do very much inlarge its Capacity or room for Inhabitants And whereas he suggests that Mountains are less habitable than Plains Ib. by reason of their barrenness It must be considered first that a Mountainous Earth must have Valleys in it And as Mountains are more barren than Plains so Valleys are oftentimes more fruitful than they and also receptive of more Dwellers That is by reason of their hollowness and declivities they are more capacious than Plains whose superficial extent is equal to the tops of these Valleys if measured by lines drawn from side to side Secondly tho some Mountains be barren others are as fruitful Taurus for instance which takes its Denomination as some think from its Magnitude and is the Greatest Mountain in all Asia being as we are told fifty Miles broad in some places on the Top of it and fifteen hundred long reaching from the Ocean of Chinah to the Sea of Pamphylia on the sides of it is prodigious fruitful tho its highest parts are covered with Snow For it affords Honey Wheat Gums Wines and Fruits in vast Quantities What he intimates touching Holland that there are more people in it Ibid. than upon a like number of Acres upon the Alps or Pyreneans is allowed to be true But then the Populousness of that Place as of many others is not owing to the Fruitfulness of the Soil but to the Traffique by Sea And therefore he had the less reason to accuse the Sea of straightning the Earth when by vertue of its Trade it inables so great a multitude of People Answ p. 58. to live in so little a compass of Ground Here he adds that he has Two things to complain of as foul play Citing the Theory partially and not marking the place whence the Citation was taken As to this Latter it was not so needful to mark the place of the Citation because the place of another Citation immediately before this and relating to the same matter was marked See Disc p. 279. And this Citation here meant was but six lines distant from that on the very next page As to the Former He had no cause to blame the Excepter for a Partial Citation for he cited enough to confute the Theory fairly as to this Point out of it self and what needed he to cite more The Citation was this If we allow the first Couple Ib. 279 280. at the end of one hundred years or of the first Century to have left ten pair of breeders which is an easy supposition there would arise from these in fifteen hundred years a greater number than the Earth was capable of allowing every pair to multiply in the same decuple proportion the first pair did So that admitting this easy Supposition either the Longaevity of the Antediluvians must not be universal or the Earth was incapable of its Inhabitants said the Excepter But therefore says the Answerer the Theorist tells you the same measure cannot run equally through all Ages Answ p. 58 59. And in his calculation you see after the first Century he hath taken only a quadruple proportion for the increase of mankind This the Excepter might have observed And this the Excepter did observe But then he observed withal that he had no reason to go off from this easy supposition of a decuple proportion And therefore he stopt at it and did not concern himself with the Quadruple proportion as being a groundless diminution of that Decuple Measure of increase which would have easily held on through all following Centuries in a proportion equal to that of the first For if Adam and Eve the first pair of Breeders at the end of the first Century lest ten pair why should not every other pair be allow'd to multiply at the same rate The reason given seems to be this Ib. p. 58. This is an easy supposition for the first century but it would be a very uneasy one for the following Centuries And why I find no reason again but this Eng. The. p. 23. because this decuple proportion would rise far beyond the capacities of this Earth That is
Penelope unravelling by night what it weav'd by day Thus he pulls down his own Censure upon himself Methinks they make very bold with the Deity Eng. The. p. 20. when they make Him do and undo go forward and backwards by such countermarches and retractions as we do not willingly impute to the Wisdom of GOD ALMIGHTY CHAP. XIV HEre another Vital Assertion of the Theory's is excepted against and Reasons are given why the Deluge cannot be rightly explicated by the Dissolution of the Earth or its Disruption and fall into the Abyss The first is Disc p. 285. because it would be inconsistent with Moses 's Description of Paradise which he has made according to proper Rules of Topography But says the Answerer this Objection I 'm afraid will fall heavier upon Moses Answ p. 60. or upon the Excepter himself than upon the Theorist And why so Why Ib. because that place of Paradise cannot be understood or determin'd by the Mosaical Topography one of these two things must be allowed either that the description was insufficient and ineffectual or that there has been some great change in the Earth whereby the Marks of it are destroy'd If he take the second of these Answers he joins with the Theorist If the first he reflects upon the honour of Moses or confutes himself Moses's Topography of Paradise as it was done by proper Rules so it was sufficient and effectual enough for marking it out as it once stood And that it is not so now is because as the second Answer intimates there has been a great change in the Earth in that part of the Earth where the Paradisiacal Region was And such a change may be allowed without joining with the Theorist as he Himself assures us For he tells us in the same page that good interpreters suppose that the Chanels of Rivers were very much changed by the Flood And a great change in the Chanels of Rivers must make a great change in a Country Especially where that Country is describ'd by those Rivers which is the case of Paradise And this change is the very thing which makes the place of Paradise so hard to be found Yet this I say is very far from joining with the Theorist For according to him the Chanels of Rivers were not only changed Eng. Theor. p. 252. but all broke up and so quite put by by that Fraction of the Earth which made the Flood And not only the Chanels of Rivers were destroyed but even the Sources of them too by his Hypothesis For whereas the general Sources of all Rivers in the primitive World were the Rainy Regions about the Poles Those Polar Regions fell in together with the rest and so Rivers which were before could not afterward continue Let him please to say therefore whether Tygris and Euphrates were before the Flood or not If they were not how could Moses describe Paradise by them If they were had the Flood come in by the Earth's Dissolution they must inevitably have been destroyed But instead of that they are still in being and this is an evidence that the Earth was not delug'd by being dissolv'd Nor is this the only difficulty upon the Theorist here For as to the place of Paradise he refers himself wholly as we have heard to the Ancients and they incline to seat it in the South or South-East Land in the other World And can it enter into the mind of man to think that Havilah and Aethiopia and Assyria and Hiddekel and Euphrates which Moses takes into the description of Paradise could ever be situate in the other Hemisphere when they are now found in this If the Earth fell in without question it gave a deadly jounce But could it make these Countries and Rivers rebound with such force as to leap quite beyond the torrid Zone and settle some degrees on this side of our Tropic There are a sort of Divinity Theorists * Annus ipse nonagesimus primus ejus seculi erat quod eodem anno ac pene mense natalis Deiparae Virginis domus deficiente cultu ex Asia in Europam coelestium ministerio transit Quae primo in Dalmatia inde quadrienno post in Piceno consedit Hor. Tursel Epit. Hist lib. 9. pag. mihi 302. who would fain perswade us that the Lady of Loretto's Chamber went thither a Pilgrimage out of Nazareth This is strangely marvellous but the wonder of it will be much abated if we can find the Regions and Rivers we speak of going on procession out of the South-East Land into this Northern Continent I confess we are taught strange things of Paradise but this its translation would surpass all And how good soever its Soil was at first certainly it grew very light at last to hop thus far Were this an effect of the Earth's fall believe it here is either a very fair tumbling Cast or else our Author is in a foul mistake And so indeed he must be and the Objection which he was afraid would fall on Moses or the Excepter lights heavy on the Theorist But out of this fear he quickly rises into another Passion if we may guess by his expressions in the next Paragraph Tho I cannot but say his Passion is as causeless as his fear was groundless For speaking truth in a controversy should never move choler And did the Excepter do more than so when he said that to affirm Moses's Description of Paradise to be false Disc p. 286. must be horrid Blasphemy it being Dictated by the H. GHOST Yet this is the word which he takes so ill And truly so far as he has said any thing that implies Mose's Topography of Paradise to be false So far he ought to resent what was spoken tho not with anger And pray how can he allowing own Hypothesis to be true defend Moses's description of Paradise from being false seeing he describes it by Rivers and those Rivers according to the Theory could not be before the Flood He attempts the Defence thus The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood Answer p. 60. in great plenty and why not like to these He himself has given Reasons why they could not be like them Eng. The. p. 252. 'T is true if you admit our Hypothesis concerning the fraction and disruption of the Earth at the Deluge then we cannot expect to find rivers as they were before their general source is changed and their Chanels are all broke up And if Rivers after the Flood are not as they were before it how can they be alike And when their source was changed at the Deluge and their Chanels all broke up how is it possible but that they must differ greatly from what they were in their situations Courses c Which must utterly spoil them for being topographical marks I mean the same true topographical marks to any Country to which they formerly were so And can they then be alike That Person who can think that the Earth was
can be expected but Extraordinary providence should be brought in next And so it is with a witness Ib. in these words The Angels whose ministery we own openly upon these grand occasions could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air as on the Water But because Angels could do this may we argue from thence with good consequence that they did do it and from their power to act it conclude they effected it Without question they could have kept Judea dry when all the rest of the World was drown'd yet we know this was not done But the Ark however was held afloat in the Air by them For it follows the Ark being an Emblem of the Church GOD certainly did give his Angels charge over it that they should bear it up in their hands that it might not be dash'd against a stone Surely this Hypothesis must needs be very strong and lasting that has so much miracle and ministery of Angels to support it And then what matter for Philosophy tho the Theory is to be chiefly Philosophical Eng. Th. p. 6. when it may stand much better without it But the same pen writes thus in another place Eng. The. p. 98. Noah and his Family were sav'd by water so as the water which destroy'd the rest of the World was an instrument of their Conservation inasmuch as it bore up the Ark and kept it from that impetuous shock which it would have had if it had either stood upon dry land when the Earth fell or if the Earth had been dissolv'd without any water on it or under it Now if Noah and his Family were saved by water if the water which destroy'd the rest of the world was an instrument of their Conservation if it conserv'd them as it bore up the Ark and if it so bore it up as that it kept it from an impetuous shock which otherwise it would have had when the Earth fell how could the Answerer say there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke and now make the conservation of Noah and his Ark at the fall of the Earth to be wholly Angelical In short the Theorist affirms that mankind was saved by water that bore up the Ark and kept it from an impetuous shock when the Earth fell it having the Advantage of a River or of a Dock or Cistern wherein to float The Answerer that there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke because the Angels could hold it in the Air and they having charge over it did bear it up in their hands The Question therefore might be put which of the two speaks truest But e'en let them agree the difference as they please Another Contradiction and reconcile the plain Contradiction between them But for the Ark's being afloat in a River or Dock or Cistern before the Earth fell he has this pretence Those things were premis'd in the Theory Answ p. 62. only to soften the way to men that are hard of belief in such extraordinary matters Truly these matters are very Extraordinary and the way to believing them had need be well softned But when that is softned if so be men are not softned withal and made extraordinarily soft too they will hardly ever believe them at last And pray what are the Extraordinary matters to the belief of which the Arks being afloat in a River or Dock or Cistern was to soften the way They seem to be the saving of Noah and the saving of his Family and the saving of the Ark when the Earth fell But then in truth these things could not be those matters For we are here told at the same time that there was no necessity of the Arks being afloat in water in order to these things and that Noah and his Family and the Ark were saved by the Ministery of Angels And to the belief of the Angels saving them such a mollification would be vain and needless inasmuch as every one who believes their Existence believes also what the Answerer says of them that they could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air as in the Water And so what was premised in the Theory of this softning Nature and what the Excepter is blamed for not noting was of as little use as it is of truth And to shut up this particular by calling in this extraordinary help of the Angels he renders the Rains at the Deluge the principal Cause of it Gen. 7.4 wholly unnecessary For tho at first he would have them to save the Ark by setting it afloat yet now we see there was no necessity of that And then if the Earth fell into the Abyss and by its fall made the waters of it so raging and destructive to all things as he represents them there could be no more need of forty days rain in order to the Flood than of forty Candles to give light to the Sun And so GOD did a great work to no end or purpose Especially this 40 days rain following the Disruption Which happened the very first day that Noah entred the Ark. A Third Reason against the Floods coming in by the Dissolution of the Earth was this The Earth or dry Land of this Terraqueous Globe would in likelihood have been of another Figure than what it now bears Disc p. 289. But instead of answering it Answ p. 63. he speaks against a change in the Poles and Circles of the Earth a needless trouble and occasion'd by his own oversight For had he but lookt into the Errata's he might have seen there that those Parentheses upon which he grounded what he says should have been left out And in case he did peruse the Errata's and observe that these Parentheses were marked for such I may say of him as he said of the Excepter it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them Ib. p. 62. And if he had taken notice of them as Errata's he need not have troubled himself farther about them And so we pass to The Fourth Reason Had the Earth been dissolved to make the Flood Read Disc p. 290 291 292. its Dissolution would have brought it into lamentable barrenness For the dry and dead Soil would have been turned up by whole Countries at once and where the outward part of the Earth continu'd outward still the top of the Ground would have been rinsed off by the vehement workings and incessant beatings of the Flood upon it And then the furious commotions and aestuations of the Waters washing off an abundance of Earth from the innumerable Fragments which fell into the Abyss and this Earthy stuff being carried into all places and spread thick upon the Ground and mix'd and incorporated with much other Filth it would have hardned upon the going off of the Flood into a Crust or Cap on the surface of the Earth and so have been very destructive to its Fruitfulness It is answered first
that the First Earth had an Open Sea Wherefore we may well goon with a little variation against the Answerer as he does against the Excepter It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Assertion is true but the truth of it must be demonstrated by good proofs Ib. p. 67. But the good and demonstrating proofs of this are still wanting And so that blame which he would fling upon the Excepter falls upon himself recoiling back by just recrimination Next he is for noting one or two things wherein the Excepter seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sense Ib. An high Charge and such as inevitably draws shame after it either upon him against whom it is made or else upon the Maker of it And where will he find this inconsistency to clear himself He looks for it first in these words of the Excepter Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real Now where 's the inconsistency of these words either with him that spake them or with good sense Rather how consistent is it with a mans self and with good sense not to be bound to defend what he thinks may not be true and real Yet as if he would make good his charge out of these very words he Querys immediately But why does he then trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real Many have written ingenious and useful things which they never believed to be true and real but were they for this troublers of the World and inconsistent with themselves or with good sense And why then should the Excepter's Hypothesis be so for his not believing it to be true and real Especially when he so far insinuates his mistrust or doubt of it as to declare he would not defend it as true and real Besides an Hypothesis in the very term of it being but a Supposition it would have been more like inconsistency with himself or with good sense if he had believed it to be true and real For in case it be a true and real thing why should it any longer be an hypothesis And therefore he who fancies the Theory to be a Reality affirms it to be something more than a bare Hypothesis Eng. Theo. p. 149. Ib. p. 150. and will have it to rise above the character of a bare Hypothesis and be a true piece of natural history and the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World The Inconsistency he talks of is not to be found here whither goes he to seek it next Why he has recourse to this saying of the Excepter's Answ p. 67. Our Supposition stands supported by Divine authority as being founded upon Scripture Which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth Now tho nothing of the suggested Inconsistency appears here neither prima facie or at first glance yet he labours to discover it by what follows If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture Ib. p. 67 68. and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak why will not he defend it as true and real For to be supported by Scripture and plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our faith which every one surely is bound to defend In our entrance on this new Hypothesis we desired allowance to make bold with Scripture a little as the Theory had done a great deal Disc p. 299. And afterward we declared that we had no reason to take our singularity in expounding a Text or two of Scripture Ib. p. 325. as an Objection against us if brought by the Theorist or them that hold with him For that indeed is but an imperfect Transcript of his own Copy and a faint imitation of his extravagant Pattern showing him as in a dark and short resemblance a shadow of that large unusual Liberty which he assum'd to himself not easy to be parallell'd And therefore for him to lay hold of our supporting our Hypothesis by plain Scripture as if we forc'd or wrested misinterpreted or misapply'd it in so doing when at the same time we openly profess that we make bold with it is no better than a forestalled Argument otherwise a Cavil And farther as the Answerer himself noted just now we would not be bound to defend what we say of the new Hypothesis as true and real And therefore the founding it upon Scripture and making that to support it plainly cannot possibly be understood by men of sense to be done otherwise than in an hypothetic or suppositious way And thus the Excepter is so far from proving inconsistent with himself or good sense that how could he be more consistent with both than in refusing to defend as true and real what he only supposed to be thus founded upon Scripture and supported by it And whatever he said of that nature was spoken only in way of supposition conjectural Yea tho it was spoken never so positively it was but to set forth rei personam to make the more full and lively representation of the supposed thing And therefore before he began his new Explication of the Flood he premised this caution Disc p. 300. Where we speak never so positively still what we deliver is to be lookt upon not as an absolute but as a comparative Hypothesis And so not as really founded upon Scripture and supported by it but as supposed to be so only The Answerer therefore in this business need not have brought in so over-strain'd a comparison as the Articles of our Faith p. 68. Betwixt which and Hypotheses there is greatest Difference the one being no less than truths of GOD and the other no more than Imaginations of men And as they are very different things so Scripture supports them very different ways Articles of Faith it supports directly and mainly by Divine Revelation Hypotheses collaterally and presumptively by humane fiction or imputation And as Scripture supports them in a different manner so we are bound to defend them in as different a measure For Articles of Faith we are bound to defend to the very Death but who are oblig'd to be Martyrs for Philosophy Yea some who build Hypotheses upon Scripture-Foundations I believe will rather let them fall and moreover help to pull them down than stand a fiery Trial to uphold them We are told that S. Peter convinces us Eng. Theor. p. 85. that the Theorist's Description of the Antediluvian Earth and of the Deluge is a reality And that other places of Scripture seem manifestly to describe the form of his Abyss with the Earth above it Ib. p. 86. And that Scripture it self doth assure us that the Earth rise at first out of his Chaos Ib. p. 150. Yet I am apt to think and I hope without breaking the Law of Charity That the Learned Author of these Notions would
to his concluding Objection against our Caverns What reason have we to believe that there were such Vessels then Ib. p. 77. more than now To this we have spoken so very fully Disc p. 306 307 308. that nothing more needs here be added in way of reply Who would have thought there had been such fountains in the Rocks of Rephidim and Cadesh if God had not opened them But he draws out the Objection farther thus Answ p. 77. If the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks why did not Moses express it so and tell us that the Rocks were cloven and the waters gushed out and so made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Tehom Rabbah was broken open But there is not one word of Rocks or the cleaving of Rocks in the History of the Flood To which we reply first Moses does not say that the Tehom Rabbah was broken open but only the fountains of it were broken up And what fountains belonging to the Tehom Rabbah could more properly be so broken up than these Caverns Secondly the Intelligibility of a thing is no reason why it must needs be expressed How many things are passed by with silence in Scripture even where occasion is offered to speak of them which yet are true and had they been expressed might easily have been understood And thirdly the same Objection which he throws at the Excepter rebounds back with violence upon himself If the breaking up of the Abyss at the Deluge had been the Disruption and fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it according to the Vital Assertion of the Theory in that case why did not Moses express it so and tell us that this Disruption and Fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Fountains of the Jehom Rabbah were broken up But there is not one word of this Fall of the Earth in the History of the Flood Thus have we seen the Assaults that are made upon the new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge But so far are they from overthrowing it that they seem to me not to shake it in the least And I cannot but own that I am never so inclinable to believe it may be true as when I consider how weak the answers are to the reasons and arguments alledg'd to confirm it and how inconsiderable the Objections against it But yet I do no more affirm it to be true now than I did at first Tho I am apt to think it may as well pass for true and may as easily be maintained to be true as that Hypothesis to which it is compared and which arrogates to it self the glorious Title not only of a true piece of Natural History but also of the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World CHAP. XVI THE principal matter and the only thing to be noted in this Chapter is what our Author omitted in its proper place and is here thought on by him to be answered According to his usual way of mistaking Answ p. 78. he calls it one objection tho there be two very distinct ones He answers the last first and therefore I begin with that Disc p. 311. which was this If the Abyss under the Earth to wave the other things mention'd had been the great Deep meant by Moses it had not had any true or proper Fountains in it And so what will become of all the Fountains of the great Deep His Answer is Answ p. 78. there were fountains in the Abyss as much as Windows in Heaven The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred Windows signifies as well Cataracts and it might have been rendred so more properly And indeed in the Margent Gen. 7.11 it is rendred Floodgates which in signification is somewhat nearer to Cataracts Tho that I say would have been the properest reddition in this Text. For Cataracts are high and broken places from whence waters do impetuously rush down And therefore thick and broken Clouds condensed into hardness or an Icy consistency from which prodigious waters by falls from one concameration of them to another came tumbling down in excessive quantities and at last were discharged hideously on the Earth in many places especially about the lofty Mountains were at that time true coelestial Cataracts which by ALMIGHTY GOD were then opened even in a literal sense And therefore these Cataracts or Windows of Heaven by some learned Commentators are expounded to be Nubes densae Copiosae thick and huge Clouds But now in the inclos'd Abyss there were no answerable Fountains broken up no such real Fountains as these were real Cataracts of Heaven and therefore the Answer given is not home to the purpose The other Objection was this Whereas it is said Disc p. 311. Gen. 8.2 That the Fountains of the Deep were stopped the Earth broken down into the Abyss was never made up again He answers those were shut up that is Answ p. 78. ceas'd to act and were put into a condition to continue the Deluge no longer But then if the Stoppage of these Fountains was Figurative the Fountains themselves must be the same And so they were not so real as the Cataracts of Heaven were Nor could they be stopped so properly as our Caverns might be the thing that we argued for and the drift of our Objection was to make it out And as for this answer it rather strengthens the Objection than takes it off CHAP. XVII IN justification of that Positiveness wherewith he was charged in the beginning of this Chapter he makes profession of his belief of the Theory And let them that can do it envy him the satisfaction and benefit of it But if he has no better proofs of its certainty than what he has produced when by his faith he apprehends it for a Reality he may do no better than he did who embrac'd a shadow for the Goddess There are many thousands and they not unlearned who take Legends for truths and equal Tradition to the written Word Who put Apocryphal Books into the holy Canon and give fullest assent to that pregnant absurdity the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But this is so far from changing the Nature of the things that it only betrays the folly of the Persons For it evidently shows the blindness of their Minds that they are so strangely impos'd on and the weakness of their Judgments that can be led captive into such gross and groundless Errors And from these and other Instances we may infer that a strong faith and confident assurance may be no arguments of the objects truth but of the Believers Credulity It is a notable word that Demosthenes spake in his Third Oration to the Olynthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Disc p.