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
dissolved and by that dissolution fell a Mile or two downward and by that fall was broken to pieces and by that fraction was thrown into wildest disorders so that whereas before it had one entire smooth level uniform Surface it was thus made into Mountains Hills Valleys Islands Rocks Seas Gulphs Lakes c. And yet can think again that those Rivers which were before this happened should in their situations and chanels the principal circumstances we are now concern'd in be just like these after it he must be one of a very strong Phantsy but withal of as weak a Judgment And farther Moses does not describe Paradise by Rivers like to Tygris and Euphrates and Pison and Gihon but by those very same Rivers as originally flowing there And every like we know is far from being the very same Men and Animals now upon Earth are like to them before the Deluge yet I hope they are not the same revived And then lastly the Theorist yields Paradise was in the Southern Hemisphere and so the Rivers of it before the Flood must be there too and so they must rise from the rainy Region at the Antarctic Pole and so they must be very remote from the Land of Havilah and Assyria Whereas since the Flood Moses describes Paradise by Tygris and Euphrates and these are Rivers in this Northern Hemisphere and they spring up from the Mountains of Armenia and they run by or through the aforesaid Countries And is it to be thought then that those Rivers before the Flood and these Rivers since the Flood could be alike Especially alike in showing the Situation and the bounds of Paradise from Moses's Description or Topography of which was the first Reason borrow'd against the Earth's Dissolution Concerning which he expostulates Answ p. 61. Is it not a strange thing that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy Yes very strange and let them that make it so be blamed for it But still to affirm that Moses's Description of Paradise is false would be horrid Blasphemy it being dictated by the H. GHOST And this was the thing which the Excepter made Blasphemy which the Answerer if he thinks fit may contradict And now the Replicant says farther that to assert such a Dissolution of the Earth as destroys Moses's Description of Paradise or implies it to be false will indirectly consequentially and reductively at least be of Blasphemous importance But the Answerer alledges that very Expression Ibid. the Earth is dissolved is a Scripture Expression Psalm 75.3 Isai 24.19 Amos 9.5 which methinks might have been enough to have protected it from the imputation of Blasphemy How well this Allegation will protect him or what he has said in any capacity or respect I know not I only ask what dissolution of the Earth do the Psalmist and Prophets mean in the Places cited Do they mean a figurative tropological Dissolution or a literal and such a real one as the Theorist has invented and which according to him did drown the World If the first their notion is nothing to the Answerer's purpose if the Second the Earth must have been delug'd as often as they say it has been dissolv'd I cannot think that our Answerer believes that Palestine was literally or really dissolv'd in the prophet Esay's time Yet 't is plain it was so according to Scripture-expression Thou whole Palestina are dissolved Isai 14.31 Which shows him clearly what Dissolution of the Earth Scripture means in the places cited and what kind of protection that Scripture expression will afford him and consequently how weak the Sanctuary is that he here flies to In this Paragraph he insinuates odious things of the Excepter As if he were guilty of a rude and injudicious defending of Scripture by railing and ill language such as tends to the diminution and disparagement of it As if he made his own Consequences to be of the same authority with the word of GOD and so whatsoever is against them must be charg'd with Blasphemy against the H. GHOST And as if there were nothing safe against his blind zeal and opinionative ignorance How easy were it here to retort and retaliate But we must not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet he having observed that weak reasons commonly produce strong passions we may without offence Answ p. 11. measure his Arguments by his own Rule and judge of their weakness by the sentence proceeding out of his own mouth and conclude that his Reasons are like to be invalid because his Passions are so violent By them one would think he had taken a turn in his Torrid Zone and was just now come piping hot out of it Secondly the Dissolution of the Earth could not be the cause of the general flood because it would have utterly destroyed Noah 's Ark and all that was in it Disc p. 288. said the Excepter But this was prevented by the Theorist's putting the Ark under the Conduct of its Guardian Angels and a miraculous Providence says the Answerer p. 61. And in proof that he did thus put the Ark under the Conduct of Angels he cites these words out of the English Theory Ib. I think it had been impossible for the Ark to have liv'd upon the raging Abyss or for Noah and his Family to have been preserved if there had not been a miraculous hand of Providence to take care of them And then again he must needs fall pell-mell on the Excepter tho he comes off as he uses to do Ib. p. 62. Now either the Excepter did not take notice of this passage in the Theory or he does not allow that a miraculous hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark or thirdly that he made an objection which he knew himself to be impertinent And I confess I am inclinable to think the last is true But by his leave none of these three things are true and the real truth is this Tho he put the Ark under the conduct of Angels in the extremity of the Flood and when it was upon the raging Abyss yet he lest it without a miraculous hand to take care of it in its fall Yea instead of that it is evident that he only put it into a River or Dock Ib. or Cistern that it might be afloat there before the Abyss was broken open as if that could have sav'd it from being dasht to pieces And because the Excepter did not take notice of this Contrivance of this River or Dock he tells him of it in both ears p. 31. In the eighth Chapter of his Answer and here in the fourteenth p. 62 But was there so great an injury done him and had he such mighty cause to complain that that Thing was omitted which himself now looks upon as unnecessary For he says after all there is no necessity that the Ark should be afloat Ib. before the Earth broke And for what reason Why ordinary providence being thus laid aside what
Theory's had one single text to support it And yet how easie were it to cite seveval texts of Scripture that fall in most naturally with our sense I will instance but in two He layeth up the Deeps in treasuries Psal 33.7 And what could these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Treasuries be so properly as huge Caverns in Rocks and Mountains where GOD by the hand of Nature did of old and still does lay up Deep Waters And Pro. 3.20 GOD says by his knowledge the Depths are broken up or cleaved And to what can this Text be applied more fitly and of what can it be understood more fairly or expounded more emphatically than these Caverns Which as they were more generally broke up at the time of the Flood according as GOD in his Wisdom thought fit so at certain times and in certain places many have been cleaved or opened since Sometimes miraculously as in Rephidim and Cadesh and sometimes otherwise by ordinary Providence New Springs breaking forth and running continually out of the opened Caverns Whence as some Water issued or flowed out other again was still generated within by the Resolution of Vapours drawn up from the Great Deep below to which the Roots of many high Rocks and Mountains may descend Yea if they did not go down below the bottom of the Deep how could we come by the Metals that we have Next he intimates that the Text we alledge Ib. has been generally understood otherwise And so have many Texts which he alledges in favour of his Hypothesis And yet he thought that they might be interpreted to his sense and were very applicable to his purpose Ib. Then he says that the Excepter by all means will have these holes in the Rocks to be the same with the Mosaical Abyss or Great Deep that was broken up at the Deluge This is a meaning quite beyond our intention For we mean only this That our Caverns were but the fountains of the great Deep broken up at the Flood not the Great Deep it self And this is evident from several Expressions three of which occur in the same page where our Notion is delivered 303. li. 2. What those Fountains of the Great Deep were which at the time of the Flood were cleaved c. Li. 8. And again The breaking up of the Fountains of Tehom Rabbah or the great Deep which the Theory insists so much upon was no more than the breaking up of such Caverns And presently after the breaking open of the Fountains of the great Deep Li. 20. Gen. 7.11 and the cleaving of those Rocks in the Wilderness Psal 78.15 were in effect but the same thing p. 310. li. 12. And afterwards Still the great deep Caverns of the Mountains may very well pass for the Fountains of Moses 's Tehom Rabbah So that whereas it is said p. 312. Li. 1. supposing that the Caverns in the mountains were this great Deep c. And where speaking of the Psalmist's great Deeps and Moses's great Deep it is said p. 305. li. 30. that the same thing might be meant by both it is plain that by those Caverns and the Psalmist's Great Deeps must be meant that they were the same with the Fountains of Moses's Tehom Rabbah or Great Deep and not that Great Deep it self And whereas it is said in our Discourse p. 153. that the great Deep or the fountains then broken up had no relation to the Sea it is to be understood that they had no such relation to it as that the breaking them up should occasion the proud waves of the Sea to pass their bounds in making the Deluge the thing there spoken of And lastly tho Moses's word be Deep and the Psalmist's word be Deeps yet as the different Numbers they use need not set them at variance so according to our meaning p. 306. they are very reconcileable For such Deeps as the Psalmist mentions were but the fountains of Moses's Deep and so in effect as was said even now but the same thing As much the same as fountains rising from a Spring-head and that Spring-head can be the same And we may observe in concent with this that Moses does not say that the Great Deep was broken up but that the Fountains of the great Deep were so And what true Fountains of the Great Deep were our Caverns of Water For the waters that filled them might all be drawn up by the influence of the Sun out of Moses's Great Deep and then when Providence cleaved these Caverns and set them a flowing how properly and really might it be said that the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up seeing that might be the Source from whence originally the waters of these Fountains were extracted The Answerer adds Answ p. 75. that according to the Excepter the Great Deep was not one thing or one continued Cavity as Moses represents it but ten thousand holes separate and distant from one another Tho our Great Deeps were many and separate and distant from one another yet they do not hinder Moses's Great Deep from being one continued Cavity for ours were but the fountains of his Tho enough was said besides to take off the edge of this Objection Disc p. 305 306. where we shewed that Scripture does use the singular and plural Numbers promiscuously sometimes putting one for the other Were there not above ten thousand Quails about the Hebrews Camp when they fell round about it as it were two Cubits high Num. 11.31 Yet the Scripture says only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Quail came up Exod. 16.13 As if as many as they were they had been but one The Answerer proceeds Neither must the Great Deep according to him signify a low place but an high place For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common level of the Earth Answ p. 75. Moses's Great Deep may lie as low as you please But our Great Deeps were but as Fountains of his and so might be as high as we plac'd them And yet some of them might be full out as deep as the Sea it self is in most places if we consider the wonderful heighth of some Mountains And so they might be strangely vast also considering how big some Mountains are And this our notion of the Fountains of the Great Deep falls in most fairly with the Scripture Doctrine of the Original of Fountains For that makes them to come from the Sea or Great Abyss and we suppose ours to be derived from thence Let these things be duly weighed and I hope it will appear that the Answerer had no reason at all to charge us with breaking thorough so many plain Texts of Scripture Ib. p. 76. Will he who finds this great fault be found free from the like himself But here I appeal to any indifferent Judge if our Notion of the fountains of the great Deep be not as consonant to Scripture as any other And thus we come
goes in be very winding cross and intricate it will guide him quickly and easily out them The Second Expedient whereby he shortens his work and makes it easy is this Where Objections are made that ought to be answered he frequently passes them by with Silence and sometimes justifies his so doing by saying the Theory is not concerned in them As if slighting Arguments or neglecting of them were a sufficient confuting them A Practice agreeable to the Country mans purpose Who being resolved to argue with a disputacious Quaker to his Friends disswading him said hold your Tongues for I will have a bout with him and if he speaks any thing that I cannot answer I 'll either say nothing at all to it or else face him down that 't is nothing to me Besides these two Shifts that he makes he tells such Vntruths and falls into such Mistakes and is guilty of such flat Contradictions to himself as will yield no Honour to a Son of Philosophy Lest this charge which may seem heavy should be suspected to be false in proof of its truth the particulars are noted in the Margent of the Reply As to his complaint of the Excepters Vnfairness Answer p. 26. in citing the first Edition of the Theory for such things as are left out of the Second it is of no weight For first the Excepter never heard nor knew the least of a Second Edition of any part of the Latin Theory out of which any things were left that were in the First till the answer to his Exceptions told him of it Ib. and whereas he adds in way of aggravation that this Edition was printed above a Twelvemonth before my Exceptions My Exceptions through the Printer's sickness were in the Press longer than so Secondly for a Writer to leave some very false things out of a Second Edition of his Book which he taught in the First is not sufficient To leave them all out is the least he can do even to make the very lowest amends possible for the wrong done to Truth But especially if he injured Divine Truths by confronting the Doctrine of the sacred Bible or by clashing with its History And this is that which makes what the Theorist has done in this Case to be short and imperfect All the things of this Nature and Tendency are not left out of his Second Edition And they who print things that derogate from Scripture or are repugnant to it will hardly make good men believe that they do GOD right by leaving some of those Derogations or evil Repugnancies out of a Second Impression while they keep in others that are as bad The Subject that libels his Princes Declaration highly to day makes no satisfaction by sending out a lower Libel of it to morrow No his second Act is an aggravation of his first and as he is chargeable with and answerable for either so in point of Duty he is bound to most serious acknowledgments of both And so is the Answerer to disown all these notions instead of defending them which reflect upon Scripture And truly should the Replicant go on to tax him with those notions as the Exceptor did he would have no great cause to blame him for the procedure For notwithstanding that he has left them out of his Book his Rejection of them is not so express but they seem yet to stand as true in his Judgment For thus he openly declares Answ p. 66. I have not from these Exceptions found reason to change any part of the Theory or to alter my opinion as to any particular in it And if his opinion of those particulars which we excepted against and he has left out be still the same the same Exceptions might without Vnfairness be urged against him Yea his telling the Excepter that his opinion as to the Theory is not alter'd Ib. p. 79. but more confirmed by his Exceptions makes his answering Exceptions against it by saying they are left out to be a meer Shift Yet the Replicant takes but little farther notice of these things as mentioning them but seldom and on special Occasion That this Reply came out no sooner is owing partly to the Fulness of it I was willing to say what I had to say to this Answer and so to the Theory once for all that then I might finally have done with it And partly to those many interruptions and frequent avocations that attend my Circumstances But chiefly to those indispositions of health which happened to me and hindred me as to writing for near a quarter of a Year together And now if in some things or places it be less pleasing or profitable than the Reader would have it he must consider this one thing That we do not here chuse the Paths we go in but are fain to trace another's Phansy and to follow his humour who leads the way CHAP. I. IN this Chapter there is nothing remarkable but the Squib which he throws at the End of it Where he tells the Excepter that his looking upon his Discourse as a Collection of Notes c. is a severe Censure Answ p. 2. And then adds but every man best understands his own Works Which without doubt must be true of himself else he could never understand a late Work of his own Eng. Theor. p. 96. to be a true piece of Natural History and the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World 1 Kings 4.33 Tractavit Historiam Plantarum c. Grot. in loc As for Solomon's it was nothing to it Joy to him of the honour he here does himself in taking place of all of his own Order 'T is an high Complement that he makes to his Pen may it prove as happy a one to his Person But having cast the Die he must take his chance And by this one Throw he is either the best Natural Historian in the World or a man that understands not his own Works He is wiser that is than Solomon in his way or else not right in his Understanding But the latter we may guess is the likeliest of the two For tho the King of Israel's ran upon things of another kind yet surely it was as true and withal as great and remarkable a piece of Natural History as the Theory of the Earth CHAP. II. IN the Second Chapter to the First Exception against the Formation of the Earth That it would have taken too much time the World being made in six Days The general answer is this 〈◊〉 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 But if according to an extraordinary you may suppose it made in six Minutes if you please But the Excepter had noted p. 59. lin 24. 33. c.
Discourse p. 49. how the Theory acknowledged that to make the primitive Earth out of Particles descending from above p. 51. must be a good whiles work and that it was to become dry by degrees after it had done growing and that the Body or new Concretion of it was increased DAILY being fed and supplied both from above and below And can an Habitable Earth which is a good while in making and the body of which must be DAILY increased be made in six Minutes even by Extraordinary Providence it self What made the Answerer start out of the way of ordinary Providence which he went in as to the Earth's Formation into this extraordinary one to stumble into such a Contradiction of himself But so it is A Contradiction to himself when men are pinched and put to pain they must do and say something tho it be little to the purpose yea much against it And this grave distinction being bestowed upon the first Exception without more ado it is fairly dropt And as for the Arguments contained in the residue of the Chapter against undue protraction of the time of the Earth's Formation which protraction is made necessary by the Theorist's Hypothesis Answ p. 4. even against the Doctrine or History of Moses They are left to the Author and his Readers the Theory being not concerned in them And so they are answered by his Last Expedient But before I go farther I must tell our Answerer that in allowing this extraordinary Providence he condemns his Hypothesis of extraordinary Impertinence For what Need or what Vse can there be of his New Hypothesis as to solving the Phaenomenaes of the Flood when by this Concession the old one will be inabled to the Solution of them all for which his was invented Thus for example was that World to be drowned and the Flood to surmount the highest Hills fifteen Cubits Why extraordinary Providence in six Minutes could create water enough to do it Was that work done by such a prodigious Flood and the Mass of Water to be dried up again Extraordinary Providence could as soon annihilate it Was the frame of the World to be inlarged upon the coming of so vast a quantity of new matter into it And to be contracted again upon its going out Extraordinary Providence could sufficiently provide both against the one and the other inconvenience Were men to live a thousand years before the Flood The same Providence could effect this without a continual Equinox or an Earth universally paradisiacal And thus the Theory instead of making any Figure here is by its own Author made to dwindle into a Cypher and meer superfluity We hope that henceforward the old method of explaining Noah's Flood shall be allowed to be rational and intelligible for that proceeded upon extraordinary Providence and our Answerer is fain to make use of that kind of Providence in reference to his own Hypothesis at last Yea the truth is he is now glad we see to take up with it at first and even to form his Earth by it And yet he tells us in the sixth Chapter of the first Book of his Latin Theory Edit 2. that this Earth was formed solo ductu by the sole conduct of the most known Laws of Gravity and Levity And so this Natural History the Theory is in good part a Natural History of what was done by Divine Power or an History of an effect wrought by Extraordinary Providence which was done by the sole conduct of Natures Laws and Principles And therefore how true this piece of Natural History is and also how great let the World judge but if it be not extremely remarkable I am much mistaken Another Contradiction And so I am if here be not contradiction again But tho our Answerer as he pretends in this Chapter be such a friend to extraordinary Providence yet it is evident that the Theorist otherwhiles was not For tho now his Earth as he grants might be made in six minutes yet heretofore it was to be increased daily and to be dried by degrees before it could be habitable that is it was to be formed in way of ordinary Providence And in the second Chap. of the first Book of his English Theory he tells the World plainly that if we come to reflect seriously upon it we shall find it extreamly difficult if not impossible p. 9. to give an account of the Waters that compos'd the Deluge whence they came and whether they went And adds Ib. to find Water sufficient for this Effect as it is generally explained and understood I think is impossible But had he been hearty for Extraordinary Providence here would have appeared no difficulty I am sure much less extreme difficulty and least of all impossibility For such a Providence could have created Waters to compose the Deluge and then have annihilated them again and as the quantity of them would thus have been sufficient so the account whence they came and whither they went would have been as easie That this was one way in which some went as to explaining the Deluge according to the general or common Notion of it the Theorist observed in his third Chapter They say in short says he Eng. The. p. 18. That God ALMIGHTY created waters on purpose to make the Deluge and then annihilated them again when the Deluge was to cease But how did he approve of this way That will appear from what follows Where he presently complains Ib. that this is to show us the naked arm of Omnipotency A sight which he could not well brook in this case And why Why Ib. because this is to cut the knot when we cannot loose it Yet see the change he is now fain to show the naked Arm of Omnipotency himself and to make use of the Knife of Extraordinary Providence tho with it he cuts his own Fingers as well as several knots of his Hypothesis as we shall see afterward And thus we have gained one extraordinary Point An Earth that before was to increase DAILY in the Body or Concretion of it and so might be six Days or six Weeks or as many Months or Years in forming might now by Extraordinary Providence be made in six Minutes That is our Author is brought to Cross his Hypothesis in this Matter For now he supposes that his Earth might be formed in six Minutes by extraordinary Providence whereas the Theory as is plain from the cited Expressions carries on its formation in way of ordinary Providence according to which the Formation of it would require much more time than six days as he confesses Answ p. 2. CHAP. III. THat the Moon was in the Heavens and in our neighbourhood P. 5. when the Earth was form'd he proves from the six days Creation says the Answerer of the Excepter here But his Argument he tells him will be of no force unless he can prove that the Fourth days Creation was before the Third No Who
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
to his following Expressions To speak the truth P. 149. this Theory is something more than a bare Hypothesis P. 150. The Theory riseth above the Character of a bare Hypothesis Ib. We must in equity give more than a moral certitude to this Theory P. 274. The Theory carries its own light and proof with it And most fit it is therefore that this Theory being brought to the Test should approve it self far beyond others And an Earth being formed out of a strange Chaos the Creature of this Theory and according to the Laws of its Hypothesis as fit it is that the Ingredients of this Chaos should upon enquiry be found well proportion'd to one another beyond the Elements of D. Cartes's Hypothesis which arrogates no such certainty to it self but openly renounces it Yet if we compare D. Cartes's Hypothesis in the principal Instance here alledged with that of the Theorist we shall find it will acquit it self much better than his For suppose the World had been really to have been form'd out of the Cartesian Elements Yet upon examination it will appear that they were less liable to just Exceptions upon account of their possible Disproportionateness than the Chaos of the Theory upon the same account in regard of its Ingredients For of these 3 Elements the entire Vniverse was to be composed So that if they had all of them been more or less in quantity the Universe would only have had the larger or straiter Bounds And if any of them singly had been excessive or defective nothing worse would have followed upon this but that the several Bodies made out of them respectively must then have been proportion'd accordingly Thus if there had been more or less of the 1st Element there must have been more or greater or fewer or lesser Suns If there had been more or less of the 2d Element there must have been bigger or lesser Vortices If more or less of the 3d Element there must have been more or less of Terrestrial Matter in being So that the worst result from an excessive quantity of any one of the three Elements aforesaid would have been but an alteration in the Great World or at most but an inconvenience here and there in some parts of it no way detrimental or pernicious to the whole But as to this Earth of ours the case would have been quite otherwise For had not the Materials of that been duly proportion'd but one left to exceed and predominate over the other this redundance or inequality in measure would have been of very fatal Consequence That is it would have caused a miscarriage in the production of the Earth and have ruin'd the whole work which Nature was about And therefore in making the Chaos into an Earth there was absolute necessity as of Regularity of Process in its Formation so of due proportion in the Ingredients of its Constitution otherwise it could never have been brought to Perfection From D. Cartes the Answerer turns to the Excepter and thinks to choak him with an example of his own Does the Animadverter in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge P. 9. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-water and the just Proportions of his Rain-water that concurred to make the Deluge And does the Answerer think that the like accurate Proportion of things is needful to destroy a World that is necessary to form or rear one Yet here a World was to be destroyed only to be destroyed by being drowned Now supposing the destructive Flood was to rise out of Rock-water and Rain-water it mattered not as to the Destruction they were to bring on if both were of equal Quantity or which and how much one exceeded the other so they were together sufficient for the Work But what says the Answerer farther I find no Calculations there that is in the Animadverter's Hypothesis but general Expressions that one sort of Water was far greater than the other and that may be easily presumed concerning the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos Here he must be minded of one of these two things that is to say either of Shuffling or of Mistaking First of Shuffling For he instanceth only in the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos which he thought might shift pretty well together tho the one in Quantity exceeded the other But he knows there was a Terrestrial Substance too and what would have become of his Paradisiacal Earth which was to rise out of that if the Oil had not been fitly proportion'd to it If it had not been just enough that is to mix with the Earthy Particles and to make them into a good Soil For if it had been more than was sufficient to that purpose Disc p. 80. it would have overflowed them and rendred the Earth useless as a Greazy Clod. If less it would not have imbib'd them but they must have lain loose above in a fine and dry powder that would have made the Earth barren as an Heap of Dust And this in these very words the Excepter told the Theorist before Yet here we see the Earthy Substance is taken no notice of but rather slily shuffled out of the way Unless he intended that what he said of the Oily and Watry Substances in the Chaos should be meant of the Earthy one too And then Secondly he must be put in mind of a gross Mistake For tho in our Waters that Drowned the Earth one sort may easily be allowed to be greater than the other yet the same thing cannot be easily presumed concerning his Materials supposed to form it For Rock-water and Rain water were both alike for Drowning and so equally fitted to serve that End whereunto they were appointed and the Excess of one above the other could be no hindrance of the Effect they were design'd to produce Yea without such an Excess the Effect intended could never have been wrought according to our Hypothesis of the Flood But Oily Liquor and Earthy Particles are very different things out of a well proportion'd mixture of which the Earth it self was to be made And therefore to presume the * The Oil that is far greater than the Earthy substance or that unduly proportion'd to the Oil. one was far greater than the other is to presume they were not duly proportion'd or mixt together and consequently that the Earth could not be raised out of them But we must not forget the Close of this Paragraph which runs in these Words What Scruples therefore he raises in reference to the Chaos Answ p. 9. against the Theorist for not having demonstrated the proportions of the Liquors of the Abyss fall upon his own Hypothesis for the same or greater reasons And you know what the old verse says Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum Here he goes on in his shuffling or mistaking Way still For he speaks of Scruples raised in reference to the chaos only whereas this refers as well to
but little above half an hour And then to counter-ballance or weigh down this single Difference in length of Nights the pretended Cause of prevailing or excessive degrees of Cold in this present state of Nature beyond what could be in the praediluvian World we hinted several other Causes of vehement Cold in that World Disc Chap. 5 which are not in this tho the Answerer takes no notice of them As First upon supposition that That Earth was Oval the Wet Regions in it must have been several hundreds of Miles farther removed from the Sun than our Climate is and so the Cold there must have been proportionably stronger Secondly in the primitive Earth there was no Clouds which contribute much towards warming the Air. That is as they reverberate or beat back the Beams of the Sun reflected from the Earth As they straiten and compress Vapours in their Motion and agitation And as at some times and in some measure they transmit the Coelestial Rays not altogether unlike to Burning-glasses Thirdly in the first Earth there was no open Seas which fill the Air with Mists and Foggs and great store of Vapours that do mightily thicken it and consequently mitigate the sharpness of it Fourthly There was no Hills nor Valleys Ruggednesses nor Inequalities upon the Surface of that Earth which cause Heat again by confus'd and irregular Reflections of the Sun-beams Now put but these Four Causes of Cold extant in the first World into the Scales against the Length of Nights in the Second which the Answerer insists upon and they will not fail to weigh it down sufficiently Especially if we add that in our Nights shorter by near Four hours than those before the Flood we have sometimes very brisk kind of Frosts In the Beginning that is to say or in the Middle of May when the Sun is far advanc'd on our side of the Equator in a World that has Clouds and Seas and Hills Answ p. 15. As to the other part of the Exception These Rivers could not have been made in due time He answers thus That 's wholly according to the Process you take if you take a meer natural Process the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth all on a sudden but you may accelerate that process as much as you please by a Divine Hand And so this is answered by the first Expedient Extraordinary Providence which is here at a Pinch brought in again to serve this Extraordinary Hypothesis And thus indeed there might be Rivers for Fishes and a River in Paradise and the one as soon and the other as great as needed to be even as big as Euphrates it self Here therefore this Controversie must end for who can stand out against such an Answer Only we must say it is a very Philosophical one and 't is pitty he made not shorter Work in the Case For he might have told us that Men and Animals and all kind of Plants by the power of a Divine Hand lived without water before the Flood and then he had sav'd himself the whole trouble as well of raising as of propagating his Rivers And truly so difficult a Work is the latter of these Another Contradiction that it will cost him no less than a Contradiction to do it For he tells us in his English Theory p. 228. that the derivations of the waters at first would be very irregular and diffuse till the Channels were a little worn and hollowed And p. 229. that the Current would be easie and gentle all along and if it chanc'd in some places to rest or be stopt it would spread it self into a pleasant Lake till by fresh supplies it had raised its waters so high as to overflow and break loose again Now when at first there were no Rivers but diffused waters and afterwards they were to flow in Channels worn and hollowed by themselves When their Currents were to be easie and gentle all along and to rest and stop and spread at places till they waxed strong enough to run forward Were these waters accelerated by a divine hand No more than what is natural is at the same time miraculous No more than what is slow is at the same time swift Or than flat Contradictions can fall in with truth CHAP. VI. PART of the Theorist's Design in explaining the Deluge his way was to silence the Cavils of Atheists Eng. Theor. p. 17. That is by superseding the Miracle of Creating Waters in that Case and then of Annihilating the same which seemed to him a Method irrational and unintelligible and by making it the effect of natural Causes and so in his opinion more agreeable to reason and more easie to be understood Ib. p. 20. And accordingly he declares that the Design of his Treatise is to show a way of making the Deluge fairly intelligible and accountable without creating of new waters And in another place explaining the Deluge in a natural way Chap. 8. or by natural Causes he makes these Causes to be Vapours within the Earth and Rains without it and Cracks and Chasms made by the Sun in the Arch of it All which natural Causes together brought on the Disruption of that Earth and this Disruption occasion'd the Innundation But if his Hypothesis which takes off one Miracle brings on another or as the event of things might prove makes it necessary to suppose another Miracle interwoven with the Contexture of it it will then contribute just nothing towards silencing the Atheist who cannot possibly be reconciled to Miracle as professing principles most repugnant to it Now the great Flood being made by the Theory an Effect of Natural Causes it must needs have come on in a Course of Nature Yea tho it was to come as a Judgment upon obstinate Sinners yet it must have hapned inevitably tho Mankind had been Innocent or truly Penitent unless the power of a miraculous hand had forcibly stopt the Course of Nature and held her from running on into this otherwise certain and inavoidable issue And when it is as necessary to admit Miracle into this new Hypothesis as it was to allow it in the Old how is the Atheist silenced by it Yea when he sees this Hypothesis making Ruine the Lot either of a righteous or repenting World this must open his mouth instead of silencing his tongue and make him more fierce and clamorous than ever This is the Substance of the Excepter's Sixth Chapter which runs upon what the Cavilling Athiest would be apt to alledge against the Theory of the Flood It is answered thus Answ p. 19. What the Excepter suggests concerning Athiests and their presum'd Cavils at such an explication of the Deluge is a thing only said at random and without grounds And why so Surely it must be because of something the Answerer had said before Ib. p. 18. p. 19. Namely that GOD's Praescience is infallible and God is the Author and Governour of the Natural World as well as
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
and day shall not cease Which place the Answerer owns Answ p. 29. may be understood of the restauration of a former order in the Seasons of the year and so by his own Confession it is good evidence on our side Ib. And whereas he tells of Reasons which the Theorist set down to make it probable that the words ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order for the Seasons of the Year as was brought in at that time which Reasons the Excepter hath not thought fit to take notice of or refute These Reasons seem to be the perpetual Equinox the Longaevity of the Antediluvians and the Appearance of the Rainbow first in the new World But before such Phaenomonaes can be offered as good Reasons to prove other things they must be better establisht themselves To go about to prove one part of an Hypothesis by another part of it when the whole is questioned and lies under debate is no allowable way of proceeding Yet these Reasons the Excepter did take sufficient notice of But the Answerer's finding fault with the Excepter here for not taking notice of Reasons puts him upon a more just and most seasonable Recrimination For five Instances heing alledg'd by the Excepter Disc p. 166 167 168. in proof of what he affirmed of the Scripture viz. that it rather discountenances the Equinox than favours it He answers three of them only by his last Expedient that is by passing them by To the Fourth being the Barrenness of the Earth from the divine Malediction denounc'd against it for Adam's sin which Barrenness is utterly inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Equinox his Answer is this Answ p. 29. That Curse was supernatural and might have its effect in any Position of the Earth But then this Effect overthrows his Hypothesis which maintains a perpetual Spring to all the World and a continual verdure of the Earth Eng. Theor. p. 196. Disc p. 169. Lastly the Intemperature of the Air in Paradise inferred from the Coats of Skins made by GOD to cloth the Protoplasts with and defend them from cold was brought in as an Instance to show that Scripture does not favour the Equinox but discountenance it And to this it is answered thus Answ p. 30. He the Excepter must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood and which way and how far Adam and Eve were banisht from it When those things are determin'd we shall know what to Judge of his Argument and of Coats of skins In the mean time he may please to consider these Four things Disc p. 169 170 First that it has been already shewed that in all likelihood these coats of skins were made to defend our first Parents from Cold. Secondly that for ought appears in the sacred Story they were clothed with these Coats before they were turned out of Paradise Thirdly that they could not be banisht far from it because when they were thrown out of it Cherubim were set to guard the Entrance lest they should return into it again And therefore if Paradise stood in a pleasant and temperate Region of the Earth as who can think otherwise they may be supposed for a great while to abide in the Neighbourhood of it Fourthly Suppose them banisht which way you will and as far from it as you please yet they could have needed no Coats to defend them from Cold in case the Theory's Hypothesis were true Eng. Theor. p. 251 For according to that in the primaeval Earth we have every where through the temperate Climates all the general Characters of Paradise so that the trouble will be rather in that competition what part or Region to pitch upon in particular than to find a seat that had all those beauties and conveniences And therefore had Adam and Eve been banisht never so far from Paradise into any temperate Climates and none were then intemperate but those that were also uninhabitable yet they must still have been in Paradisiacal Regions and circumstances and so could have needed no Coats of Skins But GOD being pleased to make them such Coats to defend them from the Cold this subverts the General Paradisiacalness of the primitive Earth and consequently its Equinox by implying there was a cold or intemperate air in the habitable parts of it The Answerer proceeds thus in the next Paragraph After Lastly I expected no more Answ p. 30. but he hath two or three Reasons after the Last Thus he cannot forbear playing upon the Excepter tho he does it with the worst luck that ever man had For even by this Reflection intended to disparage him he only exposes himself by betraying and proclaiming his own Inadvertency For the Lastly he notes plainly belongs as any one may see to the Last of the Instances shewing that Scripture does not favour the Equinox Disc p. 169. But still the Reasons against the Equinox alledged in that Chapter might follow in their due Course or Order So that tho it be about a little thing he here again falls into a great mistake Another Mistake The next Argument of the Excepter's against the Equinox is Ib. p. 171. That it would have kept one Hemispaere of the terrestrial Globe unpeopled For grant Adam to have been planted on either side of the Torrid Zone such was the fiery heat thereof that neither he nor his could have gone through it to the other side And here the Answerer is so put to it that he is forc'd to betake himself to his first Expedient to solve the Objection by Extraordinary Providence Answ p. 30. Telling us that the Theorist never excluded the Ministery of Angels and they could as easily carry them through the Torrid Zone as over the Ocean As for Angels carrying men over the Ocean let him blame those that assert it he knows the Excepter to be very clear from it See Disc ch 11. § 7. But if he will have them carried through the Torrid Zone by their miraculous Ministery he must remember that this is to show us the arm of Omnipotency Eng. Theor. p. 18. and to cut the knot when we cannot loose it Tho had Providence shown this signal favour to Mankind we need not question but it would have been entred in the Records of Heaven But the inspired Writings remember nothing of it Another Reason brought by the Excepter why there could be no Equinox Disc p. 174. is that it would have put by the Rains which help'd to raise the Flood And here the Philosopher is fain to run to his old Refuge again and to answer by the same Expedient That those rains that made the Flood were Extraordinary Answ p. 30. and out of the course of Nature But this is little less than giving up his Hypothesis at least it is condemning it as weak and insufficient And truly what Hypothesis tho never so mean and full of Defects would not support it self
Excepter said of Anaxagoras that the Answerer taxes him not only with a Groundless Answ p. 33. but also a Rude Censure of that famous man Why Disc p. 184. he asserted that an huge stone at the River Aegos in Thracia fell down from the Sun And he being a Principal Witness of the change of the Earth's Position the Excepter brings in this against him to weaken his evidence Which it may well do upon this account because it bespeaks him a man as like to be Heterodox as any of the Learned Ancients And this Censure is neither Groundless nor Rude Not Groundless For as his Assertion was most wild and childish and ridiculous and false so it was as absurd unreasonable and extravagantly Heterodox as could readily be invented in Astronomy Nor could he slip into this Error by chance nor could he mean any thing else by the Assertion than what he expressed because it agrees so well as the Excepter observed to the strain of his Philosophy Ib. it being sutable to his Hypothesis of generating Stars out of Stones Now that man be he who or what he will even Anaxagoras himself who is guilty of one so abominably gross and shameful an Heterodoxness in Astronomy is certainly as like to be guilty of another as any of the Learned and therefore the Censure cannot be Groundless Nor is it Rude For first as we see it is well grounded Built as the Excepter said before upon a wretched foundation of his own laying Ib. He pull'd down the censure upon himself by giving most just occasion for it Secondly it was spoken of him as a Witness chiefly As a Witness in that Case where the Excepter was concern'd And witnesses we know may be canvass'd and lookt into as well as what they say They may be sifted and explored and spoken against too if they give in false evidence instead of true Thirdly it was spoken with this Caution not to disparage Anaxagoras Ib. p. 185. but only to signify that in any dark or doubtful opinion we have no reason to lay the stress of our belief upon his Authority contrary to the whole World of the Learned Fourthly Pliny pass'd an heavier Censure upon him which hitherto was never said to be rude For speaking of Anaxagoras and this stone which he phantsied fell out of the Sun Nat. Hist l. 2. c. 58. Farewel the knowledge of Natures works says he and welcome confusion of all in case we should believe it And how could he possibly reflect more highly upon an eminent Philosopher than to make him the Author of such an Assertion or to make him the Patron of such an opinion as if People had believ'd it would have let confusion into the World by banishing natural Philosophy out of it Is not this a more rugged Censure than saying he was a man as like to be Heterodox as any of the learned Ancients Yet who ever call'd it Rude But how extravagant soever Pliny thought him the Answerer takes him to be very excusable And accordingly offers to make his excuse two ways First by saying that we are not to imagine Answ p. 34. that all the opinions of the ancient Philosophers are truly conveyed to us And so the Earth's Inclination or its changed Position which he conceives to be the Opinion of several Philosophers may be nothing but a falsity or misrepresented Notion of theirs Secondly by saying that his Assertion of a Stone that fell from the Sun cannot be literally true Ib. And therefore like a witty Mythologist he interprets it of the Incrustation of a fixt star and its descent into the lower World But did ever any star come down so low as to rest upon the Earth Or did ever any star lie to be seen and wondred at by a Rivers side Plutar. Lysand Or could the smallest fixt star be contained in Thracia Or would it amount to no bigger bulk or burthen than might be carry'd at one Waggon-load Pliny Or can a Star intrusted with maculaes come out of the Sun Yet all these Circumstances besides the generating of Stars out of stones which is capable of no very clever Mythological Exposition belong to Anaxagoras's monstrous Assertion according to the account that is given us of it And if it be not truly his and if it be not literally true let the Answerer blame Plutarch and Laertius for making it so But they two are the very authors out of whole Books he cites his Testimonies for the Earth's changing of its Position And we only bring in a third Person telling the same story of this stony fiery fallen star for a literal truth namely Pliny And his Authority cannot but help much to confirm the thing he being well known to be no trivial Writer But does not the Answerer forget himself in this case Is there not a greater than Anaxagoras here What thinks he of Moses We might fill many Pages with his glorious Character and yet come short of his real worth Let us only note that Encomium therefore which the H. GHOST bestows upon him where for his Excellency he compares the very Messiah to him Act. 3.22 A Prophet shall the LORD your GOD raise up unto you like unto me That is for Wisdom Miracles c. Now is not the Theorist more rude to this great and illustrious Prophet than the Excepter was to the aforesaid Philosopher The Excepter only noted Anaxagoras's Doctrine as delivered to the World by unexceptionable Pens and made a just Observation upon it more mild or less severe than a considerable Author upon the same Passage had made before him But the Theorist confronted the inspired Doctrine of Moses and that not only by implied but also by explicit contradiction in sundry instances For Moses teaches Gen. 1.16 that GOD made Two great Lights The Theorist argues that he made but one Eng. Theor. p. 241. by doubting of and disputing against the Presence of the Moon in the first World Moses in his Cosmopoeia treats of Light of Stars of the Soul of man Gen. 1.3 v. 16. Gen. 2.7 v. 1. Subjectum autem Geneseos Mosaicae c. Theor. Edit 2. p. 234. Eng. Theor. p. 288. Gen. 4.22 and of the Host of the Heavens The Theorist averrs that the Subject of his Genesis is the Chaos and that most confus'd and earthly and the things made out of this Chaos and related to it as a Center Moses teaches that GOD gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea as He did over the Fowl of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth The Theorist makes it one Vital or Primary Assertion of his Hypothesis Eng. Theor. p. 244. that the Primitive Earth was without Mountains or a Sea Moses assures us that Tubal Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron The Theorist says that in the first Earth they had no Metals nor Minerals as he believed Are not these
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
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
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
it would not be uneasy in the truth and reality of the thing but uneasy in regard of the Theory's Hypothesis It would not be uneasy for Mankind to multiply in a decuple proportion but it would be uneasy for the Theory to allow they did so because then as the Excepter urges the Earth would have been overcharg'd with their numerous increase And when the Excepter cited so much of the Theory as carried the whole Truth of the Matter in it he had no reason to go farther in citing more of it which was added but to serve the Theory against the Truth nor is there reason why he should be counted or called partial because he did not do it That every Pair of breeders should at the end of every Century leave ten pair more is easy and allowable because in all likelihood true in it self and was the Excepter to take in a lower proportion because this higher one was not for the Theorist's purpose The first Supposition being easy and in all probability true why should a second be admitted to render that uneasy and false meerly because it favours not him who made it But let him show why Seth and his Wife and Enos and his Wife and other pairs downward may not be allowed to multiply in the same decuple proportion that the first pair are allowed to do and then the Excepter will own himself faulty for not enlarging the Citation and taking in the Quadruple proportion mentioned But because in all probability they multipli'd in equal measures he had no reason to be blam'd as partial for leaving it out Tho the truth is if but the Quadruple proportion be admitted it will set the Number of the Praediluvians very much too high if compar'd with the Number of the present Earth's Inhabitants as the Theorist computes them both For whereas he thinks that the present number of men upon the face of the Earth is commonly estimated to be betwixt three and four hundred Millions Eng. Theor. p. 23. the Quadruple proportion in sixteen hundred and fifty years which passed before the Flood came in would raise it to 21474836480. A most prodigious Excess as raising the number more than one and twenty thousand Millions above the common account Or if we quite lay aside this Quadruple proportion and go but according to that other Citation out of the Theory before this the Earth would still be overlaid with the multitude of its Inhabitants See Disc p. 279. The Citation runs thus 'T is likely they were more fruitful in the first Ages of the World than after the Flood and they lived six seven eight nine hundred years apiece getting Sons and Daughters And when men lived so many hundreds of years before the Flood and lived getting of Sons and Daughters and were more fruitful then than since how is it possible but that the first Earth in sixteen hundred years must be mightily over-peopled especially when Digamy and as the H. GHOST seems to intimate Poligamy too Gen 6.2 were in fashion in the first World So that go which way you please by your Decuple that is or by your Quadruple proportion or else by the last clause cited out of your Theory and according to any or according to all of them the primitive Earth would have been greatly overstockt in case the Longaevity of the Antediluvians had been universal The second Reason against that Longaevity was the inequality of it or the difference as to length of days Disc p. 280. amongst them that lived before the Flood To this it is answered Answ p. 59. their Stamina and Constitutions might then be of a different strength as well as now The length of Mens days depends naturally upon the strength of their Bodies and the strength of their Bodies upon the goodness of their Stamina and Constitutions And therefore if These were as different before the Flood as they are since many Millions might dye then as soon as they were born and as many in their Infancy and as many very young and so the Longaevity of the Praediluvians could not be General which was the Thing objected The last Reason against the Praediluvian Longaevity supposed to proceed from a constant Equinox Answ p. 59. Disc p. 281 282 283 The second Character is the Longaevity of men and as is probable of all other Animals in proportion Eng. Theor. p. 180. was the proportionable long life of other Animals For that would have been an Effect of the same Cause And they multiplying much faster than Mankind had they lived long they would have grown so numerous as to have been pernicious To which it is answered thus I can say nothing to that nor he neither upon good grounds unless we knew what species's of Animals were then made and in what degrees they Multiplied He formerly yielded that the Earth then brought forth the principles of life and all living Creatures Man excepted Eng. The. p. 179 But now it appears that he then said he knew not what for he owns that he knows not what species's of Animals were then made And then as to the Degrees which they multiply'd in they must needs be strangely high For besides that the Ground was then most fat and fruitful and the Air most warm and cherishing and all advantages imaginable concurr'd to constant and numerous propagations of them the Earth brought forth the principles of life we see and all living creatures and so by spontaneous Births they would have increased even sans number and such a consuming multitude of them would have been produced as would not only have greatly annoyed but utterly ruined Mankind For while Horses Asses Cows Sheep Goats Swine Dogs Lions Bears Wolves Crocodiles Serpents Scorpions Rats Mice Fowls Hornets c. grew out of the Earth in strange plenty and this Terrigenous Breed by the help and influence of a perpetual Equinox were naturally far more prolific than now these Creatures are and there were no hands to hinder their Procreations or to destroy either young or old how could Mankind who multiply'd in comparison so very slowly have defended either themselves or their Provisions naked and destitute of Weapons as they were from the Assaults and Invasions of such inconceiveable Herds or Swarms of Vermin as would have come upon them But here therefore the old Expedient Extraordinary Providence is call'd in again for Remedy or Prevention Ib. The Theorist always supposes a Divine Providence to superintend proportion and determine both the number and food of Animals upon the Earth suitably to the constitution and circumstances of every World That is when ordinary Providence had put Nature into such a condition as to bring forth the aforesaid animals and many other out of the Earth Extraordinary Providence was to stand by and either hinder them from rising into animation or else knock them on the head as fast as they quickned and send them packing out of life again As if divine Providence imitated
I willingly allow Answ p. 64. that some of the interiour and barren parts of the Earth might be turn'd up as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries but this rather confirms the Theory than weakens it He must allow according to the tenour of his Hypothesis not only that some but that many of the interiour barren parts of the Earth were turned up everywhere And then the Waters being so strangely tumultuous and the fluctuations of them so extremely boisterous The Tumult of the Waters and the extremity of the Deluge lasted for some Months Eng. Theor. p. 76. Ib. p. 75. and their mighty rage of so long continuance While they were carried up to a great height in the Air and fell down again with prodigious weight and force they could not but harrass the Ground at such a rate as to wear away the upper part of it and make the top of the Earth as bare and barren as the bottom of a river by their monstrous and unspeakable Surgings Secondly he answers that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren p. 64. I cannot allow For good husbandmen overflow their grounds to make their Crops more Rich. And 't is generally supposed that the inundation of the Nile and the mud it leaves behind it makes Egypt more fruitful Besides this part of the objection lies against the common Explication of the Deluge as well as against that which is given by the Theory But when good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to improve their Crops they do it seasonably and they do it moderately and to be sure they do not at the same time turn them up for half a mile or a mile deep And tho several Rivers do inrich grounds by their Inundations by vertue of a great plenty of unctuous mud which they bring upon them that makes the Soil new as it were Nearchus de fluviorum effusione haec affert exempla quod dictum est Hermi Caystri Maeandri Caici campos similes esse propter limum qui e montibus delatus campos â—â—get imo facit Strabo Geogr. li. 15. so Hermus does and also Cayster Menander and Caicus as Strabo informs us from Nearchus yet that mud which the Deluge would have left would have been of a silty and sandy nature and so of a lean and hungry and starven quality as being mostly washt off from the Edges of those pieces into which the dissolved Earth was shattered and consequently would rather have prevented and hindred than helped or promoted the Earth's fruitfulness And therefore the Geographer notes that the mud of the aforesaid Rivers which makes the fields over which they flow is not coarse and dry like that which would have been eaten off of the verges of the terrestrial Fragments but of a softer and fatter sort Deferre autem flumina eum qui mollior sit pinguior ex quo campi fiunt Id. Ib. And then as to the Nile that the Mud it brings down upon the Land of Egypt is light and soft and fat and so fit to impregnate it with a strong Fertility we may properly infer from the sweetness of its Waters For as Diodorus reports they are the sweetest of all that are in the whole Earth Which made that famous General Piscenius Niger who contended with Septimus Severus for the Empire reprimand his Souldiers for hankering after wine and for muttering for the want of it when they might drink their fill of this pleasant Stream Tho it is well known that an ingenious French Writer I mean Duval in his Geogr. Vnivers ascribes both the Muddiness Fruitfulness and Overflow of it to its Nitrous Quality His words are to this purpose It has lately been found out that the Nitre wherewith the Nile abounds so much is the cause of all those wonderful Effects and that being heated by the sun it mingles it self with the water renders it troubled swells it and makes it pass over its Banks But yet concerning this noble River it is as well known that as sometimes it has not increased at all as in the tenth and eleventh year of Cleopatra against the downfal and the death of that Princess and her admired Anthony and as sometimes it is defective in its increase to lamentable failures in the usual Products of that plentiful Country So if at any time it happens to exceed in its increment but two or three Cubits that excess is at once both a clear Prognostic and a certain Cause of a dearth or scarcity in the ensuing year But then that such a Deluge as the Theory supposes it being Universal and of long continuance and made of lean subterraneous water and full of dead and harsh and heavy soil fetcht off from numberless pieces of the broken Earth should occasion barrenness for a considerable time in the post-diluvian World is but reasonable to conclude Nor lastly does this part of the Objection lie against the common Explication of the Deluge with such force as it does against the Theory's Explication of it For tho a General Flood overtopping the Mountains must have left mud and slime and filth behind it yet where the water rise upon an Earth that remained unbroken they could be nothing in quantity to what they must have been where the Earth was dissolv'd and fell all to pieces and where the water boiling up from under these Fragments and then falling down again violently upon them raged amongst them with lasting incessant and unimaginable turbulence As a Fifth Reason against the Earth's being drowned by its being dissolved Disc p. 292 the Excepter added this All the Buildings erected before the Flood would have been shaken down or else overwhelmed Here as to the City Joppa which is the main hinge upon which the Objection turns he Answers it is incertain whether it was built before the Flood â— 64. But besides the authorities of Mela and Solinus cited for it it is generally granted to be so ancient and none that speak of its Antiquity take upon them to deny it Nor will the Fiction concerning Perseus and Andromeda subvert the receiv'd opinion in this matter For as many Fables are made out of true stories so many again are tacked to them â— 64 65. He goes on However suppose the ruines of one Town remain'd after the Flood does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv'd I do not doubt but there were several tracts of the Earth much greater than that Town that were not broken all to pieces by their fall Had that tract whereon Joppa stood continued whole yet falling down so very low a mile at least by the force of its weight it would have suffer'd such a shock as could not but have levell'd its Buildings with the ground Thus very good houses are oftentimes shatter'd down in Earthquakes meerly by the concussion or shaking of the Ground tho it never breaks And truly if only the bare ruines of it had remained which
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
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.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of righteousness Psal 119.123 or as some render it and not improperly the word of bounty or kindness Fraudulent dealing makes Confidence shie and they that have been chous'd will be cautelous after it If one says he will give me but two Guineas and basely deceives me when he tells me he designs a thousand for me in reason I must think he puts a trick upon me So if GOD brake promise with the Antediluvians in a lesser matter how could they expect he should perform a greater His unfair disappointing them of a temporal blessing would rather have flung them into fatal despair of his everlasting Mercy His imposing on them so openly once would have aw'd their faith into such fear and diffidence that they could no more have reli'd upon his broken fidelity No more than they could believe that he made Adam and them to be Lords of the Fish and Soveraigns of the Sea when neither he nor they saw one or the other to their dying day And thus for the Credit of contradicting Scripture in Natural things we see what the tendency of it is and how excellent the products of it will be It turns the most solemn Grants of Heaven into shameful Mockeries and besides the dishonour it brings to GOD le ts in fatal despondency upon men So much for the first piece of his apology the second part of it follows And here in way of farther answer to the Charge of contradicting Scripture Answ p. 81. he is dispos'd to observe how far the Excepter himself in such natural things hath contradicted Scripture And because the Excepter us'd dreadful Sentences towards the Theorist he goes about to show that he hath made himself obnoxious to them And that this might be done the more fairly we must says he state the case truly And he does it thus Whether to go contrary to the letter of Scripture in things that relate to the Natural World â—b be destroying the Foundations of Religion affronting Scripture and blaspheming the H. GHOST Now however he pretends to state this case truly it is evident that he does it falsly For it is not going contrary to the letter of Scripture that draws such evil consequences after it but going contrary to the letter of Scripture where it is to be literally understood This Circumstance therefore which was left out should have been taken into the Case And this is the great oversight of the Theorist going contrary to Scripture in Natural things where it is to be taken in a literal sense By this means he exposeth himself But the Excepter is guilty of no such procedure and therefore the Scriptures alledg'd against him can take no hold of him In demonstration of as much let us but consider the first of them that he cites in his Answer which is Psal 19.5 Ib. The whole verse runs thus being spoken by David of the Sun Which is as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber and rejoyceth as a strong man to run a race So that according to the letter of this Text the Sun moves But says the Answerer the Sun stands still and the Earth moves Ib. according to the Excepter's Doctrine Very true But yet that Doctrine is not contrary to this Scripture for the reason just now suggested even because its meaning is not literal For which reason also the alledging it is improper and insignificant And that its meaning cannot be literal it proves irrafragably for its self For take it in that sense and what a numerous throng of ridiculous Absurdities will issue from it upon the acception Then the Sun must be a man and must be upon his Marriage and must be drest in fine clothes as a Bridegroom is Then he must come out of a Chamber and must give no more light and cast no more heat than a Bridegroom does Then he must have life too and he must have sense he must have passions and he must have leggs else how can he rejoyce and rejoice as a strong man to run a race So that in short what is here said of the Sun's motion needs not be literally understood It may be spoken only quoad apparentiam vel ad captum vulgi according to appearance or common apprehension And the like may be said of the rest of those Scriptures which the Answer quotes to the same purpose either in the Body or the Margent of it What therefore was said before we may think still that the alledging this Text was improper and superfluous And the Answerer himself confirms this thought For he says p. 85. that we all leave the literal sense in certain cases and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man And thus he is so kind or complaisant as to censure and take off his own Objection and to save us the trouble of confuting his Argument by baffling it himself And which is kinder yet he tells us p. 84. the truth is if we should follow the Vulgar style and literal sense of Scripture we must renounce Philosophy and natural Experience And so by a pretty and unusual sort of method the skain which he ruffled he brings to rights again First he observ'd that we contradicted Scripture Then he show'd wherein we did it Then he charg'd us for so doing Then he proclaim'd his Charge insufficient And lastly he allows the very thing he attaqu'd For he makes it necessary to contradict Scripture in some Cases and not to follow its literal sence in all things Unless we will renounce Philosophy and Experience A thing which the Excepter is loth to do As to the Instances he brings of the Sun 's raising Mountains and the Moon 's hindring the formation of the Earth they are so far from being Arguments against the Excepter that they are but meer mistakes of his own as we have here shewed But another Argument he has found out tho by an odd way of invention or mustered up to bring up the Rear Chap. 3d. and 10th in this Battalion And by it he intends to make an absolute conquest of us and to beat us down into humble subjection to his own sentiment in which he thus triumphs over us tho before the Victory Answ p. 82. This I think is truly to contradict Scripture Here therefore I trow he goes upon good grounds and treads sure For should his heels fly up as they have frequently done his fall would be the worse for running so high against his adversary as he calls the Excepter in the foregoing Paragraph And pray what is this last Argument Why the Excepter in his new Hypothesis makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain or common surface of the Earth Which Scripture affirms expressly to have covered the tops of the highest hills And again he vouches it The Scripture says they covered the tops of the highest Mountains But this the Scripture does not do It does not affirm
which run thus in the Review Ver. 3. Knowing this first that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts 4. And saying where is the promise of his coming for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation 5. For this they are willingly ignorant of that by the Word of GOD the heavens were of old and the earth consisting of water and by water 6. Whereby the World that then was being overflowed with water perished 7. But the heavens and the earth that are now by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men 10. The day of the LORD will come as a thief in the night in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up 13. Nevertheless we according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness But that such a triplicity of heavens and earth as the Review contends for is signifi'd or set out by S. Peter's words is very unlikely and the following Exceptions lie against it First those words are so opposite to the first state of the heavens and earth that they cannot admit of it unless one passage in them be false which is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Review renders consisting of water and by water This must be appli'd both to the Heavens and to the Earth as being spoken of both And if it be to be understood not of the Posture of them according to our Translation but as the Review interprets it it must be void of truth For first apply it to the heavens and they must consist by water as well as of water that is by the help of water tanquam per causam sustmentem as by a sustaining cause says the Review p. 20. But how did water sustain the first heavens or Neptune in that State perform the task of Atlas Secondly apply it to the earth and that must consist of water as well as by water But how did the first Earth in order consist of water more than the second Instead of that this second Earth is of a far more watry constitution than the first half the surface of the present Globe being nothing but Sea And if it be urged that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of water relates to the Heavens and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by water relates to the Earth the very form of the words will not allow it For as the H. GHOST has set them both the Expressions relate as much to the Heavens as they do to the Earth and as much to the Earth as they do to the Heavens and to both alike And the Review gives us leave to refer both to both because it will make no great difference in its interpretation p. 21. Secondly S. Peter's words are so opposite to the second state of the Heavens and Earth that they cannot admit of it unless one Passage in them be inverted For the SPIRIT says that the world that then was being overflowed with water perished And so plainly makes the watry inundation the cause of the Worlds destruction But grant there were Heavens and Earth of a second Order according to the Review and the Earth's Destruction or Dissolution must be the cause of that inundation And is it likely that St. Peter would so teach Philosophy that it should not be understood without transposing the terms in which it is delivered or drawing them to a kind of contrary sense Who can believe that he allowed this second state of heavens and earth much less asserted it in disputing with Philosophers when if he did so in his expression as properly and most naturally taken he mistook the Cause for the Effect and made the Earth to perish by its being drowned when indeed it was drowned by its perishing or being dissolved Thirdly the Apostle's words are so opposite to the Third state of Heavens and Earth that they cannot admit of it unless one Passage in them be contradicted For this Third state which is the same with the new Heavens and new Earth is by the Review post-pon'd to the Conflagration For it tells us that the Earth by that fire being reduc'd to a second Chaos from that as from the first arises a new Creation or new Heavens and a new Earth p. 6. And therefore the Theorist's asserting that these shall rise before the day of Judgment must needs be plain Contradiction to what the Apostle lays down in the 7th verse For there he says that the Heavens and the Earth that are now are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of Iudgment and perdition of ungodly men And when he has said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the present Heavens and the Earth shall be kept and reserved till the day of Iudgment the Doctrine of New Heavens and a new Earth to be introduc'd before then must be downright Contradiction to this And truly the same it must be to affirm that these New Heavens and Earth shall be consequent to the general Conflagration Nor is there any way to avoid these barefac'd Contradictions unless in complaisance to this pretty Hypothesis there must be two Conflagrations and two Days of Judgment and two ends of the World which is one of each sort more than GOD has revealed By S. Peter's New heavens therefore and his new Earth we are to understand a new and excellent state of things upon which the blessed Saints are all to enter at the consummation of this present World And as to what the Review says p. 10. they must be material and natural in the same sense and signification with the former Heavens and Earth this does not appear from the Apostle's words The other sense now mention'd may rather be inferred from them considering the way or usage of the holy Writers For with them it is common in passing from one thing to another to carry a word or Notion used just before along with them farther or to rise from a Literal to an Allegorical or Anagogical meaning Such Transitions as these to confine our Observation to one sacred Author occur very frequently in the Gospel of S. John Thus in the 4th Chapter our SAVIOUR discoursing with the Samaritan Woman about drawing water out of a Deep Well carries on the matter to Water that he could give To such Water as he that drinketh of it shall never thirst but it shall be in him a VVell springing up into everlasting life But tho the Well and the Water first mention'd were Material it does not follow from thence that the latter were the same or that they could be such So Chap. 6. from speaking of Loaves and of eating bread he raises his Discourse to that meat which endureth unto everlasting life But yet it is never the more
the Aereal Heavens perisht do think that they perisht any otherwise than by the Water 's rising up into the lowest Regions of the Air. And that place of Bede which the Review cites seems to speak the common sense as well as his own which gives us to understand that the Heavens perished p. 25. cunctis aeris hujus turbulenti spatiis aquarum accrescentium altitudine consumptis All the spaces of this turbulent Air being taken up by the heighth of the swelling waters According to which the Heavens perished just as the Air does in a Vessel when it fills with Water But let out the Water and the Air immediately returns into it So the lowest Heavens that perished at the Flood by standing in the Water when that was dried up presently recovered their first Aereal Constitution again The Last reason is answered in the 4th of the foregoing Exceptions And from what has been here said Answers may with ease be made to those Considerations which the Review alledges in proof of a Diversity or Opposition made by S. Peter betwixt the Ancient Heavens and Earth and the Present But farther yet the Review observes that S. Paul also implys that triple Creation which S. Peter expresses p. 10 11. For Rom. 8.20 21 he tells us of a Creation that will be redeemed from vanity which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come A Creation in subjection to vanity which is the present State of uhe World And a Creation that was subjected to vanity in hopes of being restored which was the first Paradisiacal Creation But by Creation or Creature here to understand the Heavens and Earth must be improper For first it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Creation or every Creature that is here spoken of v. 22d And where does that signify the material Heavens and Earth in Scripture Secondly the Creature mention'd is capable of waiting and of earnest expectation and of hope and of pain and of groaning as the verse cited and the context show Yea it seems to be capable of groaning as we our selves do v. 23. Which is above the power of Matter tho never so subtil or celestial Thirdly the Creature here is to be delivered from bondage into glorious liberty v. 21. And this again is a Character which falls not in with the Heavens and Earth He says indeed that the Creature that will be Redeemed from Vanity is the new Heavens and new Earth to come But how will they supposing them come into the Paradisiacal State be delivered from vanity For even then they can be in no better condition than the first Paradisiacal Heavens and Earth were as coming but into a state of Renovation or Restitution And they were so far from being freed from Vanity that they were subject to corruption and perished at the Deluge as the Theorist holds And truly so must the last Paradisiacal ones too unless it be prevented The new Earth if it stands long enough must be dissolved and lose its Form and the new Heavens must be changed at another Deluge and lose their Constitution Or if the day of Judgment should happen first and hinder this yet where would be their Redemption or Deliverance here phantsied For still they would be vain and corruptible in their Nature as Enoch and Elias were both Mortal tho neither died To which add that the Theory l. 4. p. 219 220. plants Gog and Magog in the New Earth and allows them to grow numerous there as the sand by the Sea And so it can no more be redeem'd or deliver'd from Moral Vanity and Corruption upon it than from Natural Vanity and Corruptibility in it Lastly This Creature of the Apostles is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Children of God v. 21. now the liberty of GOD's Children is Moral Spiritual and Divine which is not compleated but in the future exalted state of bliss Where being heirs of GOD and joint heirs with CHRIST we shall be glorified with him v. 17th But such a liberty as this is no way compatible to things meerly Physical and so the Heavens and Earth tho never so new and paradisiacal must not pretend to it cannot partake of it Thus we see that the Theorists Interpretation of this Place of Scripture is not right and therefore of necessity we must look out for some other Creature as here intended Nor need we search much to find one Preach the Gospel to every Creature said the H. JESUS to his Apostles S. Mar. 16.15 Here the word is the same with S. Paul's to the Romans But Heavens and Earth cannot possibly be meant by it because to them there must be no Preaching But by every Creature the Heathen World may fitly be understood And so this Precept or Commission given to the Apostles is parallel to that in the last chapter of S. Matthew go and teach all Nations And then by the Vanity to which the Creature was Subject and the Bondage of Corruption from which they were to be delivered we must understand See Dr. Hammonds Annotations on the place Idolatry to which the Gentiles were miserably inslaved And that indeed in Scripture is emphatically exprest by Vanity and Corruption So the Apostles Act. 15th having preached to Idolaters declare the end of their Doctrine was to turn them from their VANITIES And Moses in Deuteronomy does usually point at Idolatry by mens CORRUPTING themselves And if we frame the Exposition of S. Paul's words to this sense it will run very smoothly through the whole Paragraph without any considerable check or Difficulty Review p. 11. But after S. Paul he brings in S. John also to countenance his Phantsie of this triple State of Heavens and Earth For he speaks of the new Heavens and new Earth with that distinguishing Character that the Earth was without a Sea And as this distinguisheth it from the present Earth so being a Restitution or Restauration it must be the same with some former Earth c. To this we Answer The one and twentieth Chapter of the Apocalyps where we meet with S. Johns new Heavens and Earth consists of two very glorious Scenes The New Heavens and Earth make the first and the holy City or the New Jerusalem the latter But this City being Allegorical we have no reason to think that the new Heavens down from which and the new Earth down to which it came should be otherwise Also this Allegation does no more prove The Triple State of Heavens and Earth or that the primitive Earth was without a Sea than it proves there shall be a City built of pure Gold whose twelve Gates shall be twelve Pearls in a Literal sense according to the tenour of that chapter And now let us offer but Two short Exceptions which will not fail to subvert the chief Scripture-basis of the whole Theory of the Earth as the Review calls it p. 13th by showing that S. Peter's words as well as S. Paul's and S. John's are