Exhalations extracted out of the Earth The same impurities and corruptions in the air and in consequence of these the same external dispositions to Epidemical distempers Besides there would be the same storms and tempests at Sea the same Earth-quakes and other desolations at Land So that had all the Sons and Daughters of men to use the Excepter's elegant style been as pure and bright as they could possibly have dropt out of the mint of Creation They should still have been subject to all these inconveniences and calamities If mankind had continued spotless and undegenerate till the Deluge or for sixteen hundred years they might as well have continued so for sixteen hundred more And in a far less time according to their fruitfulness and multiplication the whole face of the Earth would have been thick covered with inhabitants every Continent and every Island every Mountain and every Desert and all the climates from Pole to Pole But could naked innocency have liv'd happy in the frozen Zones where Bears and Foxes can scarce subsist In the midst of Snows and Ice thick foggs and more than Aegyptian darkness for some months together Would all this have been a Paradise or a Paradisiacal state to these Virtuous Creatures I think it would be more adviseable for the Excepter not to enter into such disputes grounded only upon suppositions God's prescience is infallible as his counsels are immutable But the Excepter further suggests that the Theory does not allow a judicial and extraordinary Providence in bringing on the Deluge as a punishment upon mankind Which I must needs say is an untrue and uncharitable suggestion As any one may see both in the Latin Theory Chap. 6th and in the English in several places So at the entrance upon the explication of the Deluge Theor. p. 68. are these words Let us then suppose that at a time appointed by Divine Providence and from causes made ready to do that great execution upon a sinful world that this Abyss was open'd and the frame of the Earth broke c. And accordingly in the conclusion of that discourse about the Deluge are these words Theor. p. 105. In the mean time I do not know any more to be added in this part unless it be to conclude with an advertisement to prevent any mistake or misconstruction as if this Theory by explaining the Deluge in a natural way or by natural causes did detract from the power of God by which that GREAT IVDGMENT WAS BROVGHT VPON THE WORLD IN A PROVIDENTIAL AND MIRACVLOVS MANNER And in the three following Paragraphs which conclude that Chapter there is a full account given both of an ordinary and extraordinary Providence in reference to the Deluge and other great revolutions of the Natural World But it is a weakness however to think that when a train is laid in Nature and Methods concerted for the execution of a Divine Judgment therefore it is not Providential God is the Author and Governor of the Natural World as well as of the Moral and He sees through the futuritions of both and hath so dispos'd the one as to serve him in his just Judgments upon the other Which Method as it is more to the honour of his Wisdom so it is no way to the prejudice of his Power of Justice And what the Excepter suggests concerning Atheists and their presum'd cavils at such an explication of the Deluge is a thing only said at random and without grounds On the contrary so to represent the sence of Scripture in natural things as to make it unintelligible and inconsistent with Science and Philosophick truth is one great cause in my opinion that breeds and nourishes Atheism CHAP. VII THIS Chapter is about the places of Scripture alledg'd in confirmation of the Theory And chiefly concerning that remarkable Discourse in St. Peter 2 Epist. 3. which treats of the difference of the Antediluvian World and the present World That Discourse is so fully explain'd in the Review of the Theory that I think it is plac'd beyond all exception And the Animadverter here makes his exception only against the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we thus render For this they willingly are ignorant of But he generally renders it wilfully ignorant of and lays a great stress upon that word wilfully But if he quarrel with the English Translation in this particular he must also fault the Vulgate and Beza and all others that I have yet met withal And it had been very proper for him in this case to have given us some Instances or proofs out of Scripture or Greek Authors where this Phrase signifies a wilful and obstinate ignorance He says it must have been a wilful ignorance otherwise it was not blameable whereas St. Peter gives it a sharp reproof I answer There are many kinds and degrees of blameable ignorance a contented ignorance an ignorance from prejudices from non-attendance and want of due examination These are all blameable in some degree and all deserve some reproof but it was not their ignorance that St. Peter chiefly reproves but their deriding and scoffing at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour and the Conflagration of the World And therefore He calls them Scoffers walking after their own lusts But the Excepter seems at length inclinable to render the foremention'd words thus They are willingly mindless or forgetful And I believe the translation would be proper enough And what gentler reproof can one give than to say you are willing to forget such an Argument or such a Consideration Which implies little more than non-attention or an inclination of the will towards the contrary opinion We cannot tell what evidence or what Traditions they might have then concerning the Deluge but we know they had the History of it by Moses and all the marks in Nature that we have now of such a Dissolution And They that pretended to Philosophize upon the works of Nature and the immutability of them might very well deserve that modest rebuke That they were willing to forget the first Heavens and first Earth and the destruction of them at the Deluge when they talkt of an immutable state of Nature Neither is there any thing in all this contrary to what the Theorist had said concerning the Ancient Philosophers That none of them ever invented or demonstrated from the causes the true state of the first Earth This must be granted But it is one thing to demonstrate from the Causes or by way of Theory and another thing to know at large whether by Scripture Tradition or collection from effects 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 At least before they should have proceeded so far as to reject the Christian doctrine concerning the future changes of the World with scorn and derision Which is the very thing the
that was to be a defence against cold He 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 After Lastly I expected no more but he hath two or three reasons after the Last As first he says upon our Hypothesis one Hemisphere of the Globe must have been unpeopled because the Torrid Zone was unpassable And was not the Ocean as unpassable upon your Hypothesis How got they into America and not only into America but into all the Islands of the Earth that are remote from Continents Will you not allow us one Miracle for your many I 'me sure the Theorist never excluded the Ministery of Angels and They could as easily carry them thorough the Torrid Zone as over the Ocean But Secondly he says There could be no Rains to make the Flood if there was a perpetual Equinox Were not those rains that made the Flood extraordinary and out of the course of Nature you would give one angry words that should deny it Besides the Flood-gates of Heaven were open'd when the Great Deep was broken up Gen. 7. 11. and no wonder the Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in the air and either compress the vapours or stop their usual course towards the Poles and draw them down in streams upon several parts of the Earth But the Excepter says this could not be because the Theorist makes the rains fall before the disruption of the Abyss But he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open'd before which made the grand rains And how unfairly that passage of the Theory is represented we shall see hereafter in the 14 th Chapter Lastly He concludes all with this remark That all sorts of Authors have disputed in what season of the Year the Deluge came and in what season of the Year the World began therefore they thought there were then different seasons of the Year These disputes he confesses did manifestly proceed from inadvertency or something worse Because there could not be any one season throughout all the Earth at once He might have added unless upon the supposition of the Theory which makes an universal Equinox at that time And why may not that have given occasion to the general belief that the world begun in the Spring and when the true reason of the Tradition was lost they fell into those impertinent questions In what season of the Year the World began But however we do not depend upon the belief either of the Ancients or the Moderns as to the generality for we know they had other notions of these things than what the Theory proposes otherwise it would have been a needless work But notwithstanding the general error that Providence did preserve some Traditions and Testimonies concerning that ancient Truth we shall see in the next following discourse So much for Scripture and Reasons He now comes to examine Authorities Namely such Testimonies as are alledg'd by the Theorist to shew that there was a Tradition amongst the Ancients of a change that had been as to the position of the Earth and consequently as to the form and seasons of the Year The first Testimony that he excepts against is that of Diogenes and Anaxagoras who witness plainly That there had been an Inclination of the Earth or a change of posture since it was form'd and inhabited But the Excepter says they have not assign'd a true final cause nor such as agrees with the Theory The second Testimony is that of Empedocles which he excepts against because he hath not given a good Efficient Cause of that change The third witness is Leucippus against whom he makes the same exception that he does not assign the Causes a-right The fourth witness is Democritus whom he quarrels upon the same account But is this a fair hearing of Witnesses Or are these just and legal grounds of rejecting their testimony as to matter of Fact because they are unskilful in giving the causes and reasons of that matter of Fact That is not requir'd in witneses and they are often impertinent when they attempt to do it The Theorist does not cite these Authors to learn of them the causes either Efficient or Final of that Inclination or change of posture in the Earth but only matter of Fact To let you see that according to their testimony there was a Tradition in that time which they took for true concerning a change made in the posture of the Earth And this is all we require from them If you pretend to invalidate their testimony because they do not Philosophize well about that change That 's as if you should deny that there was such a War as the Peloponnesian war because the Historian hath not assigned the true causes and reasons of it Or as if a man should give you the history of a Comet that appear'd in such a year was of such a form and took such a course in the Heavens and you should deny there was any such Comet because the same Author had not given a good account of the generation of that Comet nor of the Causes of its form and motion The exceptions made against the testimonies of these Philosophers seem to me to be no less injudicious After these Testimonies He makes three or four remarks or reflections upon them But they all concern either the time of this Change or the Causes of it Neither of which the Theorist either engag'd or intended to prove from these Witnesses There is still one Testimony behind which the Excepter hath separated from the rest that he might encounter it singly T is another passage from Anaxagoras which both notes this Inclination and the posture of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination But here the Excepter quarrels first with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Ambrosius the Monk would have it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but without the Authority of any Manuscript and as Casaubon says male Then he says Aldobrandinus translates it turbulentè but gives no reason for that translation in his notes Therefore he cannot rest in this but in the third place he gives another sence to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if that will not please you he has still a fourth answer in reserve I do not like when a man shifts answers so often 't is a sign he has no great confidence in any one But let us have his fourth answer 'T is this That Anaxagoras was a kind of heterodox Philosopher and what he says is not much to be heeded These are the words of the Excepter If this will not satisfie I have one thing more to offer Grant that Anaxagoras should mean that very Declination which the Theory would have him yet this truly would contribute little towards the proof of
AN ANSWER TO THE LATE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY Mr Erasmus Warren AGAINST THE THEORY OF THE EARTH LONDON Printed by R. Norton for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1690. AN ANSWER To the late EXCEPTIONS MADE BY Mr ERASMVS WARREN AGAINST The THEORY of the EARTH IF it be a Civility to return a speedy Answer to a demand or a message I will not fail to pay that respect to the late Author of Exceptions against the Theory of the Earth I know short follies and short quarrels are the best and to offer satisfaction at the first opportunity is the fairest way to put an end to controversies Besides such personal altercations as these are but res periturae which do not deserve much time or study but like Repartees are best made off hand and never thought on more I only desire that friendliness that some allowance may be made as to unaccuracy of style which is always allow'd in hasty dispatches I shall make no excursions from the Subject nor use any other method than to follow the learned Exceptor from Chapter to Chapter and observe his steps and motions so far as they are contrary to the Theory But if he divert out of his way for his pleasure or other reasons best known to himself I may take notice of it perhaps but shall not follow him any further than my business leads me having no design to abridge his liberty but to defend my own Writings where they are attackt Give me leave therefore without any other preface or ceremony to fall to our work EXCEPTIONS CHAP. I. THIS Chapter is only an Introduction and treats of other things without any particular opposition to the Theory And therefore I shall only give you the Conclusion of it in the Author 's own words So much for the first Chapter which may be reckoned as an Introduction to the following Discourse Which if any shall look upon as a Collection of Notes somewhat confusedly put together rather than a formal well digested Treatise they will entertain the best or truest Idea of it A severe Censure But every man best understands his own works CHAP. II. HERE he begins to enter upon particular Exceptions and his first head is against the Formation of the Earth as explain'd by the Theory To this he gives but one exception in this chapter Namely that It would have taken up too much time The World being made in six days Whereas many separations of the Chaos and of the Elements were to be made according to the Theory which could not be dispatch'd in so short a time To this Exception the general Answer may be 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 'T was plain work and a simple process according to the Theory consisting only of such and such separations and a Concretion And either of these might be accelerated and dispatch'd in a longer or shorter time as Providence thought fit However this Objection does not come well from the hands of this Author who makes all the Mountains of the Earth the most operose part of it as one would think to be rais'd in a small parcel of a day by the heat and action of the Sun As we shall find in the 10 th Chapter hereafter He seems to proceed by natural Causes for such are the heat and action of the Sun and if so he will find himself as much straiten'd for time as the Theorist can be But if he say the work of Nature and of the Sun was accelerated by an extraordinary power he must allow us to say the same thing of the Separations of the Chaos and the first Concretion of the Earth For he cannot reasonably debar us that liberty which he takes himself unless we have debarr'd and excluded our selves Now 't is plain the Theorist never excluded an extraordinary Providence in the formation and construction of the Earth as appears and is openly exprest in many parts of the Theory See if you please the conclusion of the fifth Chapter which treats about the formation of the Earth The last paragraph is this Give me leave onely before we proceed any further to annex here a short Advertisement concerning the Causes of this wonderful Structure of the first Earth 'T is true we have propos'd the Natural Causes of it and I do not know wherein our Explication is false or defective but in things of this kind we may easily be too credulous And this Structure is so marvellous that it ought rather to be consider'd as a particular effect of the Divine Art than as the work of Nature The whole Globe of the water vaulted over and the exteriour Earth hanging above the Deep sustain'd by nothing but its own measures and manner of Construction A building without foundation or Corner-stone This seems to be a piece of Divine Geometry or Architecture and to this I think is to be refer'd that magnificent Challenge which God Almighty made to Job Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth Declare c. Moses also when he had describ'd the Chaos saith The Spirit of God mov'd upon or sat brooding upon the face of the waters without all doubt to produce some effects there And St. Peter when he speaks of the form of the Ante-diluvian Earth how it stood in reference to the waters adds By the word of God or by the wisdom of God it was made so And this same wisdom of God in the Proverbs as we observed before takes notice of this very piece of work in the formation of the Earth When he set an Orb over the face of the Deep I was there Wherefore to the great Architect who made the boundless Vniverse out of nothing and form'd the Earth out of a Chaos let the praise of the whole work and particularly of this Master-piece for ever with all honour be given In like manner there is a larger account of Providence both Ordinary and Extraordinary as to the Revolutions of the Natural World in the last Paragraph of the 8 th Chapter and like reflections are made in other places when occasion is offer'd We have not therefore any where excluded the influence and benefit of superiour causes where the case requires it Especially when 't is only to modify the effect as to time and dispatch And in that case none will have more need of it than himself as we shall find in the examination of his Tenth Chapter about the Origine of Mountains The rest of this Second Chapter is spent in three Excursions One in justifying the Cartesian way of forming Light and the Sun as agreeable to Moses The Second about
consequently no fit Sources of water for the rest of the Earth Why we should think those Regions would be frozen and the Rains that fell in them he gives two Reasons the Distance and the Obliquity of the Sun As also the experience we have now of the coldness and frozenness of those parts of the Earth But as to the Distance of the Sun He confesses that is not the thing that does onely or chiefly make a Climate cold He might have added particularly in that Earth where the Sun was never at a greater distance than the Equator Then as to the Obliquity of the Sun neither was that so great nor so considerable in the first Earth as in the present Because the Body of that lay in a direct position to the Sun whereas the present Earth lies in an Oblique And tho' the Polar circles or circumpolar parts of that Earth did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial and consequently were cooler yet there was no danger of their being frozen or congeal'd It was more the moisture and excessive Rains of those parts that made them uninhabitable than the extreme coldness of the Climate of it self And if the Excepter had well consider'd the differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth as to obliquity of position and that which follows from it the length of Nights He would have found no reason to have charg'd that Earth with nipping and freezing cold where there was not I believe one morsel of Ice from one pole to another But that will better appear if we consider the causes of Cold. There are three general causes of Cold the distance of the Sun his Obliquity and his total Absence I mean in the Nights As to distance that alone must be of little effect seeing there are many Planets which must not be lookt upon as meer lumps of Ice at a far greater distance from the Sun than ours And as to Obliquity you see it was much less considerable in the respective parts of the Primitive Earth than of the present Wherefore these are to be consider'd but as secondary causes of Cold in respect of the third the total absence of the Sun in the night time And where this happens to be long and tedious there you must expect excess of Cold. Now in the primitive Earth there was no such thing as long winter nights but every where a perpetual Equinox or a perpetual Day And consequently there was no room or cause of excessive cold in any part of it But on the contrary the case is very different in the present Earth For in our Climate we have not the presence of the Sun in the depth of Winter half as long as he is absent And towards the Poles they have nights that last several weeks or months together And then 't is that the Cold rages binds up the ground freezes the Ocean and makes those parts more or less uninhabitable But where no such causes are you need not fear any such effects Thus much to shew that there might be Rains Waters and Rivers in the primigenial Earth and towards the extreme parts of it without any danger of freezing But however says the other part of the exception These Rivers would not be made in due time That 's wholly according to the process you take It you take a meer natural process the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth all on a sudden but you may accelerate that process as much as you please by a Divine Hand As to this particular indeed of the Rivers one would think there should be no occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth because mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth And if they did but lead the way and prepare the ground in every countrey before mankind arrived there that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their account Neither can it be imagin'd but that the Rivers would flow faster than mankind could follow for 't is probable in the first hundred years men did not reach an hundred miles from home or from their first habitations and we cannot suppose the defluxion of Water upon any declivity to be half so slow As to the chanels of these Rivers the manner of their progress and other circumstances Those things are set down fully enough in the 5 th Chapter of the 2 d Book of the English Theory and it would be needless to repeat them here But the Anti-theorist says this slow production and propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture Both because of the Rivers of Paradise and also because Fishes were made the Sixth day As to that of the Fishes He must first prove that those were River-fishes for the Scripture makes them Sea-fish and instances in great Whales But he says p. 113 114. it will appear in the sequel of his Discourse that the Abyss could be no receptacle of fishes To that sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the examination of this particular Then as to Paradise that was but one single spot of ground according to the ordinary Hypothesis which he seems to adhere to and Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases seeing its seat is not yet determin'd But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass that might be the work of time when their chanels and courses were extended and setled As they would be doubtless long before the time that Moses writ that description But as to the Rivers of Paradise it would be a long story to handle that dispute here And 't is fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves before we determine the original of its River or Rivers CHAP. VI. WE come now to the Deluge where the great Exception is this That according to the Theory the Deluge would have come to pass whether mankind had been degenerate or no. We know mankind did degenerate and 't is a dangerous thing to argue upon false suppositions and to tell what would have come to pass in case such a thing had not come to pass Suppose Adam had not sin'd what would have become of the Messiah and the Dispensation of the Gospel which yet is said to have been determin'd more early than the Deluge Let the Anti-theorist answer himself this question and he may answer his own But to take a gentler instance Suppose Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit How could He and all his Posterity have liv'd in Paradise A few generations would have fill'd that place and should the rest have been turn'd out into the wide World without any sin or fault of theirs You suppose the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth to have been the same with the present and consequently subject to the same accidents and inconveniences The action of the Sun would have been the same then as now according to your Hypothesis The same excesses of heat and cold in the several regions and climates The same Vapours and
the Iewish Cabala and Cabalistical interpretations And the Third about Mystical numbers But the Theory not being concern'd in these things I leave them to the Author and his Readers to enjoy the pleasure and profit of them and proceed to the Third Chapter CHAP. III. IN This Chapter a Second Exception against the formation of the Earth as propos'd in the Theory is alledg'd And 't is this The fluctuation of the Chaos or of that first watery Globe would hinder he says any Concretion of Earth upon its surface Not that there were Winds or Storms then to agitate those waters Neither would the motion of the Earth or the rotation of that Globe disturb them as he allows there But the disturbance would have rise from Tides or the ebbings and flowings of that great Ocean which he says must have been then as well as now And the reason he gives is this Because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon And the Moon was then present as he says in our Heavens or in our Vortex and therefore would have the same effect then upon that Body of waters which lay under it that it hath now upon the Sea That the Moon was in the Heavens and in our Neighbourhood when the Earth was form'd he proves from the Six-days Creation and spends two or three pages in wit and scolding upon this subject But with his leave when all is done his argument will be of no force unless he can prove that the Fourth Day 's Creation was before the Third I confess I have heard of a wager that was lost upon a like case namely whether Henry the 8 th was before Henry the 7 th But that was done by complot in the Company to whom it was referr'd to decide the Question We have no plot here but appeal fairly to that Judge the Excepter hath chosen namely to Scripture which tells us that the Moon was made the 4 th Day and the Earth was form'd the 3 d. Therefore unless the 4 th Day was before the 3 d. the Moon could not hinder the formation of the Earth But I hope say you this is a misrepresentation The Animadverter sure would not put the matter upon this issue Yes he does For when he had oppos'd to our Formation of the Earth the Fluctuation of the Waters caus'd as he phrases it by the bulkie presence of the Moon He concludes with these words p. 77. Paragr 3. But in reference to this matter there is a Doubt made by the Theorist which must be consider'd and removed Otherwise most of what hath been said touching the instability and fluctuation of these Waters will be vain and groundless The Doubt is Whether the Moon were then in our neighbourhood You see that matter is put upon this issue Whether the Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth at the time of its formation We say she was not and prove it by this plain argument If she was not in Being at that time she was not in our Neighbourhood But unless the 4 th day was before the 3 d. she was not in Being Ergo. But after all If the Moon had been present then and there had been Tides or any other fluctuation towards the Poles we have no reason to believe according to the experiences we have now that that would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth upon the surface of the Chaos For why should they have hinder'd that more than they do the formation of Ice upon the Surface of the Sea We know in cold Regions the Seas are frozen notwithstanding their Tides And in the mouths of Rivers where there is both the current and stream of the River on one hand and the counter-current of the Tides on the other these together cannot hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water And our water is a substance more thin and easily broken than that tenacious film was that cover'd the Chaos WHEREFORE upon all suppositions we have reason to conclude that no fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder the formation of the First Earth Lastly The Observator opposes the reasons that are given by the Theorist why the presence of the Moon was less needful in the first World Namely because there were no long Winter-nights nor the great Pool of the Sea to move or govern As to the Second reason 't is onely Hypothetical and if the Hypothesis be true That there was no open Sea at that time which must be else-where examin'd the consequence is certainly true But as to the first reason He will not allow the Consequence tho' the Hypothesis be admitted For he says As there were no long Winter-nights then 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 she is now This looks like a witty observation but it does not reach the point Is there as much need of the Moon in Spain as in Lapland or the Northern Countries There is as much Night in one place as another within the compass of a Year but the great inconvenience is when the Night falls upon the hours of Travel or the hours of work and business For if it fall onely upon hours of sleep or of rest and retirement as it does certainly more in Spain and in those Climates that approach nearer to and Equinox the Moon is there less necessary in that respect We can sleep without Moon-shine or without Light but we cannot travel or do business abroad without hazard and great inconvenience if there be no light So that the reason of the Theorist holds good viz. That there would be more necessity of Moon shine in long Winter-Nights than in a perpetual Equinox We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter which is made up of some secondary Charges against this part of the Theory concerning the Chaos and the Formation of the first Earth As first that it is precarious Secondly Vnphilosophical and Thirdly Antiscriptural which we shall answer in order He seems to offer at three or four instances of precariousness as to the ingredients of the Chaos their proportions and separations But his quarrel is chiefly with the oily particles These he will scarce allow at all nor that they could separate themselves in due time to receive the Terrestrial at least in due proportions First He would have no oily particles in the Chaos But why so I pray what proof or just exception is there against them Why may there not be original Oily particles as well as original Salt particles Such as your great master D. Cartes supposes He who considers that vast quantity of Oleagineous matter that is disperst every where in Vegetables in Animals and in many sorts of Earths And that this must have been from the beginning or as soon as the Earth had any furniture will see
Apostle so much censur'd them for So much for what is said by the Excepter concerning this place of St. Peter To all the rest he gives an easie answer in the Contents of this Chapter viz. That they are Figurative and so not argumentative The places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends are stated distinctly and in order in the REVIEW and to avoid repetitions we must sometimes refer to that particularly as to two remarkable places Psal. 24. 2. and Psal. 136. 6. concerning the Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas Which the Excepter quickly dispatches by the help of a Particle and a Figure The next He proceeds to is Psal. 33. 7. He gathereth the waters of the Sea as in a Bagg He layeth up the Abysses in store-houses But he says it should be render'd as on a heap which is the English Translation Whether the Authorities produc'd in this case by the Theorist or by the Excepter are more considerable I leave the Reader to judge But however he cites another place Psal. 78. 13. where the same word is us'd and apply'd to the Red-Sea which could not be enclos'd as in a bag Take whether Translation you please for this second place it is no prejudice to the Theory if you render it on an heap for it was a thing done by Miracle But the other place speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the waters which is not on a heap but in a level or spherical convexity with the rest of the Earth This reason the Animadverter was not pleas'd to take notice of tho' it be intimated in that same place of the Theory which he quotes But that which I might complain of most is his unfair citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal. 33. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms and is a modest reflection upon the explication of them As the Reader may plainly see if he please to look the Theory and compare it with his citation The next place he attacks is Iob 26. 7. He stretches the North over the Tohu or as we render it over the empty places and hangeth the Earth upon nothing Here he says Iob did either accommodate himself to the vulgar or else was a perfect Platonist Methinks Plato should rather be a Iobist if you will have them to imitate one another Then he makes an Objection and answers it himself Concluding however that Iob could not but mean this of the present Earth because in the next Verse he mentions Clouds But how does it appear that every thing that Iob mentions in that Chapter refers to the same time The next place is Iob 38. 4 5 6. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth c. These eloquent expostulations of the Almighty he applies all to the present Form of the Earth where he says there are the Embossings of Mountains the Enamelling of lesser Seas the open-work of the vast Ocean and the Fret-work of Rocks c. These make a great noise but they might all be apply'd to the ruines of an old Bridge fallen into the water Then he makes a large harangue in commendation of Mountains and of the present Form of the Earth Which if you please you may compare with the 10 th Chap. of the Latin Theory and then make your judgment upon both But it is not enough for the Excepter to admire the beauty of Mountains but he will make the Theorist to do so too because he hath exprest himself much pleas'd with the sight of them Can we be pleas'd with nothing in an object but the beauty of it does not the Theorist say there in the very words cited by the Excepter Saepe loci ipsius insolentia spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis communibus We are pleas'd in looking upon the Ruines of a Roman Amphitheater or a Triumphal Arch tho' time have defac'd its beauty A man may be pleas'd in looking upon a Monster will you conclude therefore that he takes it for a beauty There are many things in objects besides beauty that may please but he that hath not sence and judgment enough to see the difference of those cases and whence the pleasure arises it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words After his commendation of Mountains he falls upon the commendation of Rain making those Countries that enjoy it to be better water'd than by Rivers and consequently the present Earth better than that Paradisiacal Earth describ'd by the Theorist And in this he says he follows the rule of Scripture for these are his words And that these rule whereby we measure the usefulness of this Earth and shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory are the most true and proper rules is manifest from God's making use of the same in a case not unlike For he comparing Egypt and Palestine prefers the later before the former because in Egypt the Seed sown was watered with the foot as a Garden of herbs but Palestine was a Land of Hills and Valleys and drank water of the rain of Heaven Deut. 11. 10 11. Let this rest a while In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily it falls out for the Observator that a Country that had no rain should be compared in Scripture or joyn'd in priviledge with Paradise it self and the Garden of God For so is this very Aegypt Gen. 13. 10. tho' it had no rain but was water'd by Rivers The words of Scripture are these And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of Iordan that it was well watered every where before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha even as the Garden of the Lord like the land of Aegypt The Plain of Iordan you see is commended for its fruitfulness and being well watered and as the height of its commendation it is compar'd with Aegypt and with the Paradise of God Now in Aegypt we know there was little or no rain and we read of none in Paradise but they were both water'd by Rivers Therefore the greatest commendation of a Land for pleasure and fertility according to Scripture is its being well water'd with Rivers which makes it like a paradise Surely then you cannot blame the Theorist having this authority besides all other reasons for making the Paradisiacal Earth to have been thus water'd Now let the Excepter consider how he will interpret and apply his place in Deuteronomy and make it consistent with this in Genesis Till I see a better Interpretation I like this very well tho' quite contrary to his Namely That they were not to expect such a Land as Aegypt that was a Plain naturally fruitfull as being well water'd But the Land they were to possess depended upon the benediction of Heaven And therefore they might expect more or less
and Nights were always equal in Paradise We have now done with the examination of Witnesses Philosophers Poets Iews and Christians From all these we collect That there was an opinion or Tradition amongst the Ancients of a change made in the state of the Natural World as to the diversity of Seasons in the Year And that this did arise from the change of the posture of the Earth Whether this Opinion or this Tradition was de jure as well as de facto is a question of another nature that did not lie before us at present But the thing that was only in debate in this Chapter was matter of Fact which I think we have sufficiently prov'd In the close of this Chapter The Excepter makes two Queries still by way of objection to the Antediluvian Equinox The First is this Supposing an Equinox in the beginning of the World would it in likelyhood have continued to the Flood If you grant the first part I believe few will scruple the second For why should we suppose a change before there appear any cause for it He says the Waters might possibly have weigh'd more towards one Pole than towards another But why the Waters more than the Air The Waters were not more rarified towards one Pole that towards another no more than the Air was for which the Excepter had justly blam'd Leucippus before But however says He that Earth would be very unstable because in process of time there would be an empty space betwixt the Exterior Region of the Earth and the Abyss below But that empty space would be fill'd with such gross vapors that it would be little purer than water and would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphere that is carried about with it We have no reason to change the posture of the Earth till we see some antecedent change that may be a cause of it And we see not any till the Earth broke But then indeed whether its posture depended barely upon its Aequilibrium or upon its magnetisme either or both of them when its parts were thrown into another situation might be chang'd For the parts of a ruine seldom lie in the same libration the Fabrick stood in And as to the magnetisme of the Earth that would change according as the Parts and Regions of the Earth chang'd their situation The second Query is this Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World Would not the natural day towards the later end of that World have been longer than in the former periods of the same Suppose this was true which yet we have no reason to believe That the Days were longer towards the flood than towards the beginning of the World why is this contrary to Scripture He tells you how in these words That the days just before the flood were of no unusual length is evident in the very story of the Flood the duration of which we find computed by Months consisting of thirty days a-piece Whereas had days been grown longer fewer of them would have made a Month. This is a meer Paralogisme or a meer blunder For if thirty days were to go to a Month whether the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them and the Scripture does not determine the length of the days If thirty circumgyrations of the Earth make a Month whether these circumgyrations are slow or swift thirty are still thirty But I suppose that which he would have said and which he had confusedly in his mind was this That the Month would have been longer at the Flood than it was before Longer I say as to extent of time or duration in general but not as to number of days And you could not cut off a slip of one day and tack it to the next through the intermediate Night to make an abridgment of the whole Therefore this Objection is grounded upon a mistake and ill reasoning which is now sufficiently detected CHAP. IX THIS Chapter is against the Oval Figure of the first Earth which the Theorist had asserted and grounded upon a general motion of the Waters forc'd from the Equinoctial Parts towards the Polar But before we proceed to his Objections against this Explication we must rectifie one Principle The Excepter seems to suppose that Terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point Whereas the Theorist supposes that all Bodies moving round have more or less a nitency from the Center of their motion and that 't is by an external force that they are prest down against their first inclination or nitency This being premis'd we proceed to his exceptions where his first and grand quarrel is about the use of a word whether the motion of the Water from the middle of the Earth towards the Poles can be call'd defluxus Seeing those Polar Parts in this suppos'd case were as high or higher than the Equinoctial I think we do not scruple to say undae defluunt ad litora tho' the shores be as high or higher than the Surface of the Sea For we often respect as the Theorist did the middle and the sides in the use of that word And so defluere è medio ad latera is no more than prolabi ad latera But 't is not worth the while to contest about a word Especially seeing 't is explain'd in the 2 d. Edition of the Theory by adding detrusione but it would have spoil'd all this pedantry and all his little triumphs if he had taken notice of that Explication Wherefore setting aside the word Let us consider his reasons against this motion of the Waters towards the Poles which he says could not be because it would have been an ascent not a descent We allow and suppose that But may not Waters ascend by force and detrusion when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that force and persevere in their motion And this is the case we are speaking to They were impell'd to ascend or recide from the Center and it was easier for them to ascend laterally than to ascend directly upon an inclin'd Plain than upon a perpendicular one Why then should we not suppose that they took that course Methinks the Observator who seems to be much conversant in the Cartesian Philosophy might have conceiv'd this detrusion of the Waters towards the Poles by the resistance of the superambient Air as well as their flowing towards and upon the shores by the pressure of the Air under the Moon And if the Moon continued always in the same place or over the middle of the Sea that posture of the waters would be always the same though it be an ascent both upon the Land and into the Rivers And this methinks is neither contradiction nor absurdity But an Enemy that is little us'd to Victory makes a great noise upon a small advantage He proceeds now to show that it was improbable that the Figure of the first
begin his work about Noon And before Night he had rais'd all the Mountains of one Hemisphere It will require a strong Philosophick Faith to believe this could be all done by the action of the Sun and in so short a time Besides we must consider that the Sun by Noon had past all the Eastern Countries yet cover'd with Water or not well drain'd So that after they were dry'd he could only look back upon them with faint and declining rayes Yet the Mountains of the East are as great and considerable as else-where But there is still another great difficulty in the case as to the Northern and Southern Mountains of the Earth for they lie quite out of the road of the Sun being far remov'd towards either Pole where by reason of his distance and obliquity his beams have little force How would he heave up the Riphaean Mountains those vast heaps of Stone and Earth that lie so far to the North You see what observations the Excepter hath made p. 119 120. concerning the cold of those Countries And it falls out very untowardly for this new Hypothesis that the Northern parts of the Earth as Norway Sweedland Island Scythia Sarmathia c. should be such Mountainous and Rocky Countries where he had before declar'd the Sun had so little force And indeed according to his Scheme all the great Mountains of the Earth should have been under the Equator or at least betwixt the Tropicks But to examine a little the manner and method of this great Action and what kind of Bodies these new Mountains would be Either the Sun drew up only the surface and outward skin of the Earth as Cupping-glasses raise Blisters Or his beams penetrated deep into the Earth and heaved up the substance of it as Moles cast up mole-hills If you take the first method these superficial Mountains would be nothing but so many baggs of Wind and not at all answerable to those huge masses of Earth and stone whereof our mountains consist And if you take the second method and suppose them pusht out of the solid Earth and thrown up into the air imagine then how deep these raies of the Sun must have penetrated in a few hours time and what strength they must have had to agitate the vapours to that degree that they should be able to do such prodigies as these Several Mountains upon a moderate computation are a mile high from the level of the Earth So that it was necessary that the beams of the Sun should penetrate at least a mile deep in so short a time and there loosen and rarefie the vapours and then tear up by the roots vast loads and extents of ground and heave them a mile high into the open air and all this in less than half a day Such things surely are beyond all imagination and so extravagant that one cannot in conscience offer them to the belief of a man Can we think that the Sun who is two or three hours in licking up the Dew from the grass in a May morning should be able in as many more hours to suck the Alps and Pyreneans out of the bowels of the Earth And not to spend all his force upon them neither For he would have as much work in other Countries To raise up Taurus for instance and Imaus and frozen Caucasus in Asia And the mighty Atlas and the Mountains of the Moon in Africk Besides the Andes in America which they say far exceed all the Mountains of our Continent One would be apt to think that this Gentleman never see the face of a Mountainous Country For he writes of them as if he had taken his Idea of Mountains and the great ridges of Mountains upon the Earth from the Devil's Ditch and Hogmagog Hills And he raises them faster than Mushromes out of the ground If the New-born Sun at his first appearance could make such great havock and so great changes upon the face of the Earth what hath he been doing ever since we never heard nor read of a Mountain since the memory of Man rais'd by the heat of the Sun We may therefore enquire in the last place Why have we no Mountains made now by the same causes We have no reason to believe that the heat or strength of the Sun is lessen'd since that time why then does it not produce like effects But I imagine he hath an answer for this Namely that the moisture of the first Earth when it was new-drain'd and marshy contributed much to this effect which now its driness hinders But besides that the driness of the Earth should rather give an advantage by the collection of Vapours within its Cavities However we might expect according to this reason that all our drain'd Fenns and marshy grounds should presently be rais'd into Mountains Whereas we see them all to continue arrand Plains as they were before But if you think these are too little spots of ground to receive a strong influence from the Sun take Aegypt for an instance That 's capacious enough and it 's overflow'd every Year and by that means made soft and moist to your mind as the new Earth when it rise from under the Abyss Why then is not Aegypt converted into Mountains after the inundation and retirement of Nile I do not see any qualification awanting according to the Excepter's Hypothesis Aegypt hath a moist Soil and a strong Sun much stronger than the Alpes or Pyreneans have and yet it continues one of the plainest Countries upon the Earth But there is still a greater instance behind against this Hypothesis than any of the former And that is of the whole Earth after the Deluge when it had been overflow'd a second time by the Abyss upon the retirement of those Waters it would be much what in the same condition as to moisture that it was in the 3 d. Day when it first became dry Land Why then should not the same effect follow again by the heat of the Sun And as many new Mountains be rais'd upon this second draining of the Earth as upon the first These are plain and obvious Instances and as plainly unanswerable And the whole Hypothesis which this Vertuoso hath propos'd concerning the Origine of Mountains is such an heap of Incredibilities and things inconsistent one with another that I 'me afraid I shall be thought to have spent too much time in confutation of it In the conclusion of this Chapter he hath an attempt to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood because there were Metals which are commonly found about the Roots of Mountains But the Theorist he says to shun this great inconvenience fairly consents to the abolishing of metals out of the first state of nature Yet he 's hard put to it to prove that the Theorist hath any where asserted whatsoever he thought that there were no Metals then The first Citation he produces only recites the opinion of others and says he thinks they do
moderate and reasonable measure betwixt the Highest and the Lowest This the Excepter might easily have observed and as easily avoided this misapplication of the words of the Theorist His second reason against the antediluvian longevity is slighter that the first For he pretends that all the Antediluvians upon that supposition should have been equally long-liv'd You may as well say that all the children of the same parents and that live in the same place should now be equally long-liv'd the external world being the same to them all But besides accidents their stamina and constitutions might then be of a different strength as well as now tho' they were born of the same Parents and liv'd in the same Air. Lastly he moves a difficulty about the multiplication of Animals in the first World that they would have been too numerous before the Flood 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 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 And seeing that Earth was no less under the care and direction of Providence than the present we may conclude that due measures were taken for adjusting the numbers and food of Animals in such manner as neither to be a burthen to one another nor to man CHAP. XIV THIS Chapter is against the Explication of the Deluge by the Dissolution of the Earth That dissolution as is pretended being unfit or insufficient to produce such an effect And to prove this the Anti-theorist gives us five Arguments whereof the first is this Moses having left us an accurate description of Paradise according to the proper rules of Topography such a description would have been improper and insufficient to determine the place of Paradise and consequently useless if the Earth had been dissolv'd and by that means the bounds of those Countreys and the Chanels of those Rivers broken and chang'd This objection I 'me afraid will fall heavier upon Moses or upon the Excepter himself than upon the Theorist However one would have expected that the Excepter should have determin'd here the place of Paradise in vertue of that description So learned and sagacious a person having before him an exact draught of Paradise according to the proper rules of Topography could not fail to lay his finger upon the very spot of ground where it stood Yet I do not find that he hath ventur'd to determine the place of Paradise either in this Chapter or in the precedent Which gives me a great suspicion that he was not satisfied where it stood notwithstanding the Mosaical Topography Now if it cannot be understood or determin'd by that 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 namely the bounds of Countries and the courses of the Rivers If he take the second of these answers he joyns with the Theorist If the first he reflects according to his way of arguing upon the honour of Moses or confutes himself But here is still a further charge Moses's description of Paradise would have been False which he notes for horrid blasphemy if the Earth ws broken at the Deluge For then those Rivers by which Moses describes Paradise could not have been before the Flood But why so I pray The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood in great plenty and why not like to these And if their chanels were very much chang'd by the Flood that 's no more than what good Interpreters suppose Being unable upon any other supposition to give an account why it is so hard notwithstanding Moses's description to determine the place of Paradise Now where is the Blasphemy of this Horrid Blasphemy against the holy Ghost A rude and injudicious defence of Scripture by railing and ill language is the true way to lessen and disparage it Especially when we make our own consequences to be of the same authority with the Word of God and whatsoever is against them must be charg'd with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Is it not a strange thing that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy when the Prophets and inspir'd Authors speak so often of the Disruptions Fractions Concussions and Subversions of the Earth And that very expression that the Earth is dissolv'd is a Scripture-expression Psal. 75. 3. Isa. 24. 19. Amos. 9. 5. which methinks might have been enough to have protected it from the imputation of blasphemy But there is nothing safe against blind zeal and opinionative ignorance which by how much they find themselves weaker in reasons by so much they become more violent in passions But to return to the objection upon the whole matter he casts the burthen of the charge upon Moses himself as we noted before For take whether Hypothesis you will that the Earth was or was not broken the question still returns if the Mosaical Topography was exact and sufficient why can we not yet find out the situation of Paradise 'T is now above three thousand years since Moses dyed and men have been curious and very inquisitive in all ages to find out the place of Paradise but it is not found out to this day to any satisfaction So that methinks upon the whole the Theory which supposeth the Earth very much chang'd makes the fairest Apology both for Moses and mankind in this particular But to proceed to his second Argument Secondly says the Excepter The dissolution of the Earth could not be the cause of the general Flood because it would have utterly destroy'd Noah's Ark and all that were in it I thought the Theorist had effectually prevented this objection by puting the Ark under the conduct of its Guardian Angels and of a miraculous Providence These are his words 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 preserv'd if there had not been a miraculous hand of Providence to take care of them 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 he made an objection which he knew himself to be impertinent And I confess I am inclinable to think the last is true For as to the first he confesses p. 354. that the Theory represents the Ark with its Guardian Angels about it in the extremity of the Flood And as to the second He himself makes use of a miraculous power to preserve the Ark upon his Hypothesis in answer to the eighth objection p. 351 352 c. Why then may not we make use of the same power
and with the same effect It remains therefore that he was conscious to himself that he made this objection to no purpose But that is not all He has also us'd foul play in his citation For whereas the great danger of the Ark would be at the first fall of the Earth or the disruption of the Abyss The Theorist he says to prevent this makes the Ark to be a-float by the Rains before the Abyss was broken But is that all the Theorist says in that place does he not assign another way how the Ark might be a-float namely in a River or in a Dock These are the words of the Theory So as the Ark if it could not float upon these Rain-waters at least taking the advantage of a River or of a dock or cistern made to receive them it might be a-float before the Abyss was broken open And these words being in the same place whence he makes his citation it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them But he see they would have taken off the edge of his objection and therefore thought fit not to touch upon them But after all there is no necessity that the Ark should be a-float before the Earth broke Those things were premis'd in the Theory only to soften the way to men that are hard of belief in such extraordinary matters For the Angels whose ministery we openly own upon these grand occasions could as easily have held the Ark a-float in the Air as on the water And the Ark being an Emblem of the Church God certainly did give his Angels charge over it that they should bear it up in their hands that it might not be dash'd against a stone And this having been more than once profest by the Theorist we must again conclude this objection superfluous and useless The third objection is this If the Earth had been thus dissolv'd The present Earth would have been in likelihood of another figure than what now it bears These are his words but I suppose he means that it would have been of another form as to Sea and Land And the reason he gives is this Because says he it would have broke first in the Equator and consequently that part falling down first would have been swallowed up by the waters and become all Sea Whereas we find that under the Equator that then was which he supposeth the present Ecliptick the dry ground is of most spatious extent and continuity We need not examine his account of Sea and Land because it proceeds upon a false supposition He relapses here into his former Astronomical error or to his first adds a second viz. That the Earth when it chang'd its situation chang'd its Poles and Circles This is a great mistake the change of position in respect of the Heavens did not change the places of its Circles in respect to its own Globe As when you change a Sphere or a Globe out of a right situation into an oblique the Circles do not change their places as to that Sphere or Globe but have only another position to the Heavens The Earth's Ecliptick runs through the same places it did before and the Equinoctial regions of that Earth were the same with the Equinoctial regions of this only bear another posture to the Heavens and the Sun These Circles have not chang'd places with one another as he imagines and which is worse would father this imagination upon the Theory in these words under the Ecliptick which in the Primitive situation of the Earth ACCORDING TO THE THEORY was its Equinoctial and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres as the Equator does now the dry ground c. He that affirms this with respect to the Earth neither understands the Theory nor the Doctrine of the Sphere But let 's press no further upon a mistake The fourth objection is this That such a Dissolution of the Earth would have caus'd great barrenness after the Flood Partly by turning up some dry and unfruitful parts of the Earth and partly by the soil and filth that would be left upon its surface As to the first I willingly allow 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 But as to the second that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren I cannot allow that For good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to make their crop more rich And 't is generally suppos'd that the Inundation of Nile and the mud it leaves behind it makes Aegypt 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 For if you suppose an universal Deluge let it come from what causes you please it must overflow all the Earth and leave mud and slime and filth upon the surface of it And consequently cause barrenness according to this argumentation He adds another consideration under this head namely that if the Earth had been dissolv'd in this manner All the buildings erected before the Flood would have been shaken down or else overwhelmed Yet we read of some that outstood the Flood and were not demolish'd Such were the pillars of Seth and the Cities Henochia and Joppa As to Seth's pillars they are generally accounted fabulous And I perceive the excepter will not vouch for them For he concludes p. 295. I know the very being is question'd of Seth's pillars c. If he will not defend them why should I take the pains to confute them I do not love to play with a Man that will put nothing to the stake That will have his chance to win but can lose nothing because he stakes nothing Then as to the City Henochia it hath no authority but that of Annius Viterbiensis and his Berosus A Book generally exploded as fictitious Lastly as to Ioppa the authority indeed is better though still uncertain But 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 But you and your English Historian are mistaken if you suppose the Altars and Inscriptions mention'd by Mela to have been Antediluvian Altars and Inscriptions Unless you will make the Fable of Perseus and Andromeda and the Sea-Monster to have been an Antediluvian Fable Neither hath your Historian been lucky in translating those words of Mela cum religione plurimâ with the grounds and principles of their religion which signifie only with a religious care or superstition But to leave Fables and proceed His last Argument against the Dissolution is this Had the Dissolution of the Earth been the cause of the Deluge It would have made God's Covenant with Noah a
foundation either in Scripture or reason 't is righty enough styl'd in the Excepter's words a meer fancy and groundless figment But I think we have had enough of these shifts and evasions Let us now proceed to the 2 d. part of his new Hypothesis which is this That the Abyss or Tehom-Rabbah which was broken open at the Deluge and together with the Rains made the Flood was nothing but the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains which open'd their mouths at that time and pour'd out a great quantity of Water To support this new notion of Tehom-Rabbah he alledgeth but one single Text of Scripture Psal. 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness and gave them drink as out of the Great Depths That is copiously and abundantly as if it were out of the great Deep So the next Verse implies and so it is generally understood As you may see both by Interpreters and also by the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations and those of the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Syriack But 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 open at the Deluge So the Great Deep was not one thing or one continued Cavity as Moses represents it but ten thousand holes separate and distant one from another Neither must the Great Deep according to him signifie a low place but an high place For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common level of the Earth But I do not see how with any tolerable propriety or good sence that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be call'd the Great Deep An Abyss in the Earth or in the Water is certainly downwards in respect of their common Surface As much as a Pit is downwards And what is downwards from us we cannot suppose to be above us without confounding all dimensions and all names of things Calling that low which is high a Mountain a Valley or a Garret a Cellar Neither is there any thing in this Text Psal. 78. 15. that can justly induce us to believe the Great Abyss to be the same thing with Caverns in Rocks For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a miraculous thing that God should give them Water out of a Rock or out of a FLINT as plentifully as if it had been out of the Great Abyss Or whether you understand the original of Fountains to be noted here which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea or the great Abyss neither of these sences make any thing to the purpose of the new Hypothesis and yet they are the fairest and easiest sence that can be put upon the words and that which agrees best with other places of Scripture where the same matter of fact or the same History is related And therefore there can be no necessity from the Text of changing the general notion and signification of Deep or Abyss Both from that which it hath in common use and that which it hath in Scripture-use I say as in the common use of words Deep or Abyss signifies some low or inferiour place So the general use of it in Scripture is in the same sence Either to signifie the Sea or some subterraneous place Who shall descend into the Abyss or Deep says the Apostle Rom. 10. 7. Is that as much as if he had said Who shall ascend into the holes of the Rocks And when Iacob speaks of the blessings of the Abyss or of the Deep he calls them the blessings of the Deep that lyeth under Gen. 49. 25. In like manner Moses himself calls it the Deep that coucheth beneath Deut. 33. 13. And I know no reason why we should not understand the same Deep there that he mentioned before in the History of the Deluge Which therefore was subterraneous as this is Then as for the other use of the word namely for the Sea or any part of the Sea whose bottom is always lower than the level of the Earth that is the most common use of it in Scripture And I need not give you Instances which are every where obvious One must needs think it strange therefore that any Man of judgment should break thorough both the common use of a word and so many plain Texts of Scripture that shew the signification of it for the sake of one Text which at most is but dubious And then lay such stress upon that new signification as to found a new doctrine upon it And a doctrine that is neither supported by reason nor agrees with the History of the Deluge For as we noted before at the decrease of the Deluge the Waters are said to return from off the Earth Gen. 8. 3. Did they not return to the places from whence they came but if those places were the Caverns in the Rocks whose mouths lay higher than the Surface of the Deluge as he says they did I see no possibility of the Waters returning into them But the Excepter hath found out a marvellous invention to evade this argument He will have the returning of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles that is into vapors not to their Places In good time So the Dove 's returning was her returning into her Principles that is into an Egg not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded argue two things wit and want of judgment Moses speaks as plainly of the local return of the Waters in going and returning as of the local going and returning of the Raven and Dove See Gen. 8. 3 5. compar'd with Verse 7 th 9 th Lastly That we may end this Discourse the whole notion of these Water-pots in the tops of Mountains and of the broaching of them at the Deluge is a groundless imagination What reason have we to believe that there were such Vessels then more than now if there was no Fraction of the Earth at the Deluge to destroy them And he ought to have gag'd these Casks according to his own rule and told us the number and capacity of them that we might have made some judgment of the effect Besides 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 Upon all accounts therefore we must conclude that this Virtuoso might have as well suspected that his whole Theory of the Deluge as one part of it would be accounted a meer fancy and groundless figment CHAP. XVI THIS Chapter is made up of Eight Objections against his own Hypothesis And those that have a mind to see them may read them in the Author
of its Theorems makes that to be false upon which our religion is founded Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture here pretended is onely in natural things and also observe how far the Excepter himself in such things hath contradicted Scripture As for other reproofs which he gives us those that are more gentle I easily pass over but some-where he makes our assertions too bold an affront to Scripture And in another place represents them as either directly or consequentially Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is the unpardonable Sin Matt. 12. 31. There is no pleasure in repeating such expressions and dreadful sentences Let us rather observe if the Excepter hath not made himself obnoxious to them But first we must state the case truly that so the blame may not fall upon the Innocent The case therefore is this Whether to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture in things that relate to the natural World be destroying the foundations of Religion affronting Scripture and blaspheming the Holy Ghost In the Case propos'd We take the Negative and stand upon that Plea But the Excepter hath taken the Affirmative and therefore all those heavy charges must fall upon himself if he go contrary to the Literal sence of Scripture in his Philosophical opinions or assertions And that he hath done so we will give you some Instances out of this Treatise of his Pag. 314. He says It is most absurd to think that the Earth is the center of the World Then the Sun stands still and the Earth moves according to his doctrine But this is expresly contrary to Scripture in many places The Sun rejoices as a strong Man to run his race says David His going forth is from the end of the Heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it No such thing says the Excepter The Sun hath no race to run he is fixt in his seat without any progressive motion He hath no course from one end of the Heavens to the other In like manner Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon says the Sacred Author and the Sun stood still No says the Excepter 't was the Earth stood still upon that miracle for the Sun always stood still And 't is absurd yea most absurd to think otherwise And he blames Tycho Brahe for following Scripture in this particular Now is not this in the language of the Excepter to destroy the foundations of Religion To affront Scripture and blaspheme against the Holy Ghost But this is not all The Excepter says Chap. 10. the Sun rais'd up the Mountains on the 3 d. Day And the Sun was not in being till the 4 th Day according to Scripture Gen. 1. 14. The Moon also which according to Scripture was not created till the 4 th Day he says would hinder the formation of the Earth which was done the 3 d. Day Lastly In his new Hypothesis he makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain or common Surface of the Earth Which Scripture affirms expresly to have cover'd the tops of the highest Hills or Mountains under Heaven These two things are manifestly inconsistent The Scripture says they cover'd the tops of the highest Mountains And the Excepter says they reach but fifteen Cubits about or upon the skirts of them This I think is truly to contradict Scripture or according to his talent of loading things with great words This is not onely flatly but loudly contradictory to the most express word of the Infallible God These observations I know are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself But if you please upon this occasion let us reflect a little upon the Literal style of Scripture and the different authority of that style according to the matter that it treats of The subject matter of Scripture is either such as lies without the cognizance and comprehension of humane reason or such as lies within it If it be the former of these 't is what we call properly and purely Revelation And there we must adhere to the literal style because we have nothing to guide us but that Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation wherein we can have nothing to authorize our deviation from the Letter and words of Scripture And therefore the School-Divines who have spun those Doctrines into a multitude of Niceties and Subtleties had no warrant for what they did and their conclusions are of no authority The second matter or subject of Scripture is such as falls under the view and comprehension of Reason more or less and in the same proportion gives us a liberty to examine the Literal sence how far it is consistent with reason and the faculties of our mind Of this nature there are several things in the Holy Writings both Moral Theological and Natural wherein we recede from the Letter when it is manifestly contrary to the dictates of reason I will give some Instances in every kind First as to Moral things Our Saviour says If thy right Eye offend thee pluck it out If thy right hand offend thee cut it off There is no Man that thinks himself oblig'd to the Literal practice of this doctrine And yet it is plainly deliver'd you see in these terms in the Gospel Nay which is more our Saviour backs and enforces the letter of this doctrine with a Reason For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole Body should be cast into Hell As if he had intended that his Precept should have been really executed according to the Letter In like manner our Saviour says If any man will sue thee at Law and take away thy Coat let him have thy Cloak also And yet there is no Christian so good-natur'd as to practise this nor any Casuist so rigid as to enjoyn it according to the Letter Other Instances you may see in our Saviour's Sermon upon the Mount where we do not scruple to lay aside the Letter when it is judg'd contrary to the Light of Nature or impracticable in humane Society In all other things also that lie within the sphere of humane reason we are allow'd to examine their practicability or their credibility To instance in something Theological The words of Consecration in the Sacrament Our Saviour when he instituted the last Supper us'd these words This is my Body taking the Bread into his hand Which words joyn'd with that action are very formal and expressive Yet we do not scruple to forsake the Literal sence and take the words in another way But upon what warrant do we this Because the literal sence contains an absurdity Because it contradicts the light of Nature Because it is inconsistent with the Idea of a Body and so destroys it self In like manner upon the Idea of the Divine Nature we dispute Absolute Reprobation and an Eternity of Torments against the letter of Scripture And Lastly Whether the