of these Particles were sunk down the Air was yet thick gross and dark and that darkness was lasting Darkness Not that I reflect upon the Doctor for his Retractation here I note it rather in his commendation And the more any man does of this nature where there is cause for it and the farther he goes in this way the more laudable will his action and procedure be Having done with the Chapter he must now take the Excepter to task And it seems he was in a great fault where he little thought of being so The Theorist doubted whether the Moon was in our Neighbourhood before the Flood and he argued in Defence of this Doubt Disc p. 78. This said the Excepter is too bold an Affront to Scripture But says the Answerer a discreet man is not forward to call every cross word an affront Answ p. 10. And truly no more was the Excepter forward to that But every word so cross to Scripture as his spoken in the case mention'd deserves to be so called It is said in the Inspired Writings 1 King 7.16 that King Solomon made two Chapiters of Brass Now should any man doubt and dispute this and offer to prove that he made but one surely here would be too bold an affront to Scripture tho the things were little and of low consideration The same Writings assure us that GOD upon the 4th Day made two great Lights things of an higher Nature and Use for they were to give Light upon the Earth the one for the benefit of Mankind ruling the Day and the other the night The Theorist questions this disputes against it and offers to prove that instead of two Lights GOD made but one And must not the words spoken by him here be too bold an affront to Scripture And if they be so discreet men may be allowed to call things as they are Besides the Excepter had never ingag'd with the Theorist but to shew how cross his Assertions lie to Scripture and had he not pointed out what was too bold and affronting that way he must net have been discreet indeed as neglecting what was most proper for his purpose And lastly who must be most indiscreet of the two he that puts the affront upon Scripture or he that minds him of it But he has somewhat more against us yet for minding him of the Affront he put upon Scripture And it is this Suppose a man should say boldly p. 11. GOD Almighty has no right hand Oh might the Animadverter cry that 's a bold affront to Scripture for I can show you many and plain Texts of Scripture where express mention is made of GOD's right hand But let him show us one plain Text of Scripture which means that God has a real right hand That he has as really a right hand as he did really make two great Lights But because he cannot possibly do this the Animadverter must needs cry Oh how the Answerer here trifles As if there were no difference betwixt Literal and Allusive Expressions in the Bible In passing to the next Chapter he throws an Observation in our way Ib. Viz. Weak reasons commonly produce strong Passions Which serves to inform why the Answerer's Passions are sometimes so strong against the Excepter even because his reasons are weak Where they fail out come indiscreet rude injudicious uncharitable and the like Brats of Passion to supply the place of Arguments And yet as to any thing of this Nature the Replicant durst not twit the Answerer as he does the Excepter in this Chapter by saying it is Wit and Scolding Ib. p. 5. Not the first lest he should tell a lye not the Second lest he should speak in an unmannerly truth and make a Philosopher write in an incongruous Stile CHAP. IV. IN this Chapter he answers nothing as to what the Excepter objected against the Central fire of the Earth See Disc Ch. 4. and the Origin of the Chaos And his reason is because he had declared he would not treat of them Answ p. 11. Yet as to the Central fire Theor. p. 64. he plainly admits or allows of it yea he owns it to be reasonable and to be very reasonable But when he has given so fair occasion for Objections to be made against it if then he will not defend what he so highly approves and what is so nearly related to his Hypothesis who can help it His not treating of the Origin of the Chaos the Excepter said Disc p. 88. seem'd a Flaw in his Hypothesis Here therefore he vindicates himself thus Answ p. 12. When a man declares that he will write only the Roman History will you say his Work 's Imperfect because it does not take in the Persian and Assyrian By no means But if a man undertakes to write the Roman History and begins at the Middle or leaves out the Beginning of it his Work will have a scurvy Defect in it And the very same he may imagine it will be in a Natural History especially if it be the greatest and most remarkable in the World Ib. The residue of this Chapter he spends in speaking freely of the Excepter And he is so free as to tell him first that his fourth Chapter seems to him in a great measure Impertinent But he is not to determine that alone let it stand or fall as the Candid shall judge Yet if it were impertinent but in a great measure that implies it was not wholly so but he answers to nothing in it Secondly he reflects upon the Excepter for dabbling in Philosophy And when he will be dabbling against Moses why may not the Excepter dabble against him Thirdly he condemns him of Scepticism And he had much rather be too doubtful in some things than a Sir positive at all He does not pretend that all he writes is true Natural History Nor will he leave out in a second Edition what is in his first Fourthly he lets fly at him for rambling But he rambled after him and his notions as any Reader may see Lastly he says he ends in nothing as to the formation of the Earth How can that be when he bestows the greatest part of that Chapter in disproving the Chaos out of which the Earth was to be formed by showing that such a Chaos was not created nor could it be produced in the Cartesian way or if it could yet it was not for the Theory to allow of that method of its production as being enough to subvert its own hypothesis This is some of that freeness of Speech which the Answerer is pleas'd to use towards the Excepter And therefore he must not wonder to see some freeness used towards himself upon more just occasions But the Excepter in his fourth Chapter encountred Two other Notions See Disc p. 99. c. which are stiffly asserted by the Theorist Namely Vid. Lat. Theor lib. 2. cap. 8. Edit 2. that Moses's Story of
the Formation of the Earth Disc p. 80. And he proceeds upon the Proportions of the liquors of the Abyss only whereas our Scruples referred as well to the Earthy Matter Let that be included therefore as it ought and then what he says will in plain terms amount to thus much That tho the Rain-water were far greater than the Rock-water yet there would have been greater reason why the Earth should not have been drowned than there would have been why the Earth should not have been formed tho the Oily substance had been far greater than the Earthy For the Scruples against the Theorist's Formation of the Earth can never for greater reason fall upon the Animadverter's Hypothesis concerning the Flood unless there be greater reason why vastly disproportionate Quantities of Oily and Earthy Substance should make an Earth than there is why the like disproportion'd Quantities of Rock-water and Rain-water should make a Flood Now have we greater reason to think that a little Terrestial Matter mixt with a vast deal of Oily matter should compose the first Earth than we have to think that a little Rock-water mixt with a vast deal of Rain-water should drown it There is great reason why one Tun of Rock-water mingled with an hundred thousand Tuns of Rain-water should drown a good Garden But is there greater reason why one Tun of Earthy matter mingled with an hundred thousand Tuns of Oily matter should make a good Garden Soil I hope tho our Answerer be too great a Favourer of many Absurdities he will not be forward to assert this Rock-water and Rain-water were similar Causes and could not but with equal readiness of natural Disposition conspire to the effect of Drowning And tho the one in measure was much inferior to the other yet if both of them in conjunction were but sufficient for the Inundation that was enough for the Deluge depended chiefly upon the quantity of Water in general and not upon the Proportion of this or that kind of it in Particular But Oily matter and Earthy matter are Heterogeneal Substances and therefore could not so readily and immediately conspire to the Earth's Formation Some other Helps conducive thereunto were to come betwixt them and that and Concretion for one But then Concretion depending upon the due proportion of Ingredients Due Proportions of Oily and Earthy matter must be more needful in forming the Earth and so ought to be better demonstrated than the Proportions of Rock and Rain-waters in raising the Flood And thus it is manifest that the Scruples raised against the Theorist by the Animadverter fall not upon his own Hypothesis for the same or greater reasons He might well therefore have spared his old verse which as appli'd here was as insignificant as an old Almanack But since in Civility to the Excepter he would needs send him it he cannot but in kindness give him a piece of it back again Letting him know that to reason or answer at such a rate as this Turpe est Doctori To make an end of this point of Precariousness The Excepter alledged Disc p. 81. That all these things that is to say The Ingredients of the Chaos and the Proportions of those Ingredients and the right timing of their Separations should have been more fully explained and clearly made out for a Personal reason which the Theorist made peculiar to himself Namely because he declared it to be his Judgment that things of moment of which nature was the Formation of his Earth are to be founded in aliquâ clarâ invictâ evidentiâ Lat. Theor. p. ◠on some clear and invincible evidence And what says he to this To it he gives a double Answer Answ p. 9. First that he set that sentence of which these words are part in opposition to such incertain Arguments as are taken from the interpretation of Fables and Symbols or from Etymologies and Grammatical Criticisms But is there nothing then of a middle nature betwixt Incertainties and invincible evidence No 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Probable or Credible things to come between them that he must needs over-strain himself by taking such a Leap not over but into a Ditch For thus he plunges into this deep absurdity of tying himself up to such an evidence as he is not able to produce But therefore he gives in a Second Answer more to the purpose That this Sentence because it might be taken in too great an extent Ib. is left out in the Second Edition of the Theory It seems then it was not taken in a worse sence than it might be taken Having done with the Precariousness he comes next to the Vnphilosophicalness wherewith the Theory was charged Answ p. 9. The instance is the Descent of the Terrestrial Particles from the whole capacity of those vast spaces betwixt the Moon and us And how could this Phaenomenon fall in with a smooth Philosophie Explication said the Excepter For either the bounds of the Chaos Disc p. 82. and the Sphaere of its Gravity reached as high as the Moon or they did not If they did not how could these Particles ever come there at all or come down from thence If they did extend so high then as the Excepter quaeried at first so he does still why did not the Moon come down with those Particles It is answered by another Question Answ p. 10. why does not the Moon come down now the same reason which keeps her up now kept her up then But this Answer is no Answer for that which kept the Moon up then would have kept up these Particles too And so either there must have been no Earth composed or else the Moon as an overplus must have dropt into its composition I think I have read of a Bullet shot up so high that it never came down upon the Earth more And then how could those terrestrial Particles descend that were disperst in all that vast space contain'd between the heighth of the Bullets ascent and the orb of the Moon The Last Charge upon the Theory in this part was its being Anti-scriptural That is in making the Chaos Dark whereas the Scripture says there was light the first day He answers to this sence P. 10. That the Scripture does not say the Chaos was throughly illuminated the first Day That the light then was faint and feeble and yet might be sufficient to make some distinction of day and night in the Skies A fair Concession and enough to end this part of our Controversy Only we must observe that the Theorist in this matter has changed his Mind and now plainly retracts his former Doctrine For how could he think there was any light in the Skies the first Day when he taught that the Matter whereof the whole Earth was to be made was diffused in Particles through the Air See Discourse Chap. 3. Parag. last Vid. Lat. Theor. Edit 2. p. 229. and that after the grossest
can be expected but Extraordinary providence should be brought in next And so it is with a witness Ib. in these words The Angels whose ministery we own openly upon these grand occasions could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air as on the Water But because Angels could do this may we argue from thence with good consequence that they did do it and from their power to act it conclude they effected it Without question they could have kept Judea dry when all the rest of the World was drown'd yet we know this was not done But the Ark however was held afloat in the Air by them For it follows the Ark being an Emblem of the Church GOD certainly did give his Angels charge over it that they should bear it up in their hands that it might not be dash'd against a stone Surely this Hypothesis must needs be very strong and lasting that has so much miracle and ministery of Angels to support it And then what matter for Philosophy tho the Theory is to be chiefly Philosophical Eng. Th. p. 6. when it may stand much better without it But the same pen writes thus in another place Eng. The. p. 98. Noah and his Family were sav'd by water so as the water which destroy'd the rest of the World was an instrument of their Conservation inasmuch as it bore up the Ark and kept it from that impetuous shock which it would have had if it had either stood upon dry land when the Earth fell or if the Earth had been dissolv'd without any water on it or under it Now if Noah and his Family were saved by water if the water which destroy'd the rest of the world was an instrument of their Conservation if it conserv'd them as it bore up the Ark and if it so bore it up as that it kept it from an impetuous shock which otherwise it would have had when the Earth fell how could the Answerer say there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke and now make the conservation of Noah and his Ark at the fall of the Earth to be wholly Angelical In short the Theorist affirms that mankind was saved by water that bore up the Ark and kept it from an impetuous shock when the Earth fell it having the Advantage of a River or of a Dock or Cistern wherein to float The Answerer that there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke because the Angels could hold it in the Air and they having charge over it did bear it up in their hands The Question therefore might be put which of the two speaks truest But e'en let them agree the difference as they please Another Contradiction and reconcile the plain Contradiction between them But for the Ark's being afloat in a River or Dock or Cistern before the Earth fell he has this pretence Those things were premis'd in the Theory Answ p. 62. only to soften the way to men that are hard of belief in such extraordinary matters Truly these matters are very Extraordinary and the way to believing them had need be well softned But when that is softned if so be men are not softned withal and made extraordinarily soft too they will hardly ever believe them at last And pray what are the Extraordinary matters to the belief of which the Arks being afloat in a River or Dock or Cistern was to soften the way They seem to be the saving of Noah and the saving of his Family and the saving of the Ark when the Earth fell But then in truth these things could not be those matters For we are here told at the same time that there was no necessity of the Arks being afloat in water in order to these things and that Noah and his Family and the Ark were saved by the Ministery of Angels And to the belief of the Angels saving them such a mollification would be vain and needless inasmuch as every one who believes their Existence believes also what the Answerer says of them that they could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air as in the Water And so what was premised in the Theory of this softning Nature and what the Excepter is blamed for not noting was of as little use as it is of truth And to shut up this particular by calling in this extraordinary help of the Angels he renders the Rains at the Deluge the principal Cause of it Gen. 7.4 wholly unnecessary For tho at first he would have them to save the Ark by setting it afloat yet now we see there was no necessity of that And then if the Earth fell into the Abyss and by its fall made the waters of it so raging and destructive to all things as he represents them there could be no more need of forty days rain in order to the Flood than of forty Candles to give light to the Sun And so GOD did a great work to no end or purpose Especially this 40 days rain following the Disruption Which happened the very first day that Noah entred the Ark. A Third Reason against the Floods coming in by the Dissolution of the Earth was this The Earth or dry Land of this Terraqueous Globe would in likelihood have been of another Figure than what it now bears Disc p. 289. But instead of answering it Answ p. 63. he speaks against a change in the Poles and Circles of the Earth a needless trouble and occasion'd by his own oversight For had he but lookt into the Errata's he might have seen there that those Parentheses upon which he grounded what he says should have been left out And in case he did peruse the Errata's and observe that these Parentheses were marked for such I may say of him as he said of the Excepter it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them Ib. p. 62. And if he had taken notice of them as Errata's he need not have troubled himself farther about them And so we pass to The Fourth Reason Had the Earth been dissolved to make the Flood Read Disc p. 290 291 292. its Dissolution would have brought it into lamentable barrenness For the dry and dead Soil would have been turned up by whole Countries at once and where the outward part of the Earth continu'd outward still the top of the Ground would have been rinsed off by the vehement workings and incessant beatings of the Flood upon it And then the furious commotions and aestuations of the Waters washing off an abundance of Earth from the innumerable Fragments which fell into the Abyss and this Earthy stuff being carried into all places and spread thick upon the Ground and mix'd and incorporated with much other Filth it would have hardned upon the going off of the Flood into a Crust or Cap on the surface of the Earth and so have been very destructive to its Fruitfulness It is answered first
at removing it Ib. p. 81. The first is this Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture here pretended is only in natural things And is his contradicting Scripture then but pretended only I heartily wish for his sake that it were so But what is said in the Eighth Chapter of this Reply makes it too real and apparent To extenuate it therefore he here remembers us that his contradicting Scripture is only in natural things And now I must confess my self to be at a stand I have often been surpriz'd at occurrencies in his Writings but now I am almost amaz'd To see that so wild a word as this should come from the Pen of a Christian Doctor That he should alledge for himself as a kind of defence that he contradicted Scripture only in natural things As if when the H. SPIRIT spake of such things he did not mind what it was he said or men might interpret it even as they list and turn it to a contrary meaning if they please without offence As if it were lawful in some things to give GOD the lie so we but allow him to speak truth in others Believe it I take no pleasure at all in these expressions but yet I cannot forbear neither to think the Oracles of Heaven should be thus treated I formerly minded him of too bold an affront to Scripture and how he might approach towards another enormity and GOD knows I did it in meekness and kindness And however it was taken 't is now plain 81. it was necessary For in that very page where he reflects on those things he runs unhappily into this new exorbitance of excusing his contradicting Scripture by saying he did it only in natural things As he bids us remember this so I hope he will remember it seriously Else by the memento he here puts in he will but heat a Brand as it were to mark himself for extravagance And truly admit but this one Extravagance of contradicting Scripture in natural things and it will draw such a number of others after it and those so notorious that no tongue can be able either to reckon them up or represent them It would even match the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that Hydra of non-sensical errors and monstrous Jargon of absurdities As a specimen of this take what follows From the very beginning as Scripture assures us the Sun shone in the Heavens the Light filled the Air and Day and Night were alternately on the Earth But these were Natural things and may we venture therefore to contradict Scripture in them and say they were not so Then how could the World possibly subsist As Scripture informs us the Ground yielded trees and trees brought forth fruits and of one sort of fruit did our first Parents eat tho it was forbidden them But these were Natural things and may we therefore presume to contradict Scripture and deny that they were thus Then how came these Products into being which gave occasion to the sin and fall of man As Scripture instructs us Adam begat some Children and they begat others and they again others and so on But these Generations were Natural things and may we therefore take upon us to contradict Scripture and say there was no such way of propagation Then how could Mankind be increas'd and multipli'd As Scripture teaches us the Body of our LORD was flesh and blood But flesh and blood are Natural things and may we therefore be so bold as to contradict Scripture and say that his body was not carnal Then how can his blood cleanse us from our sins or how shall we ever be saved by his Cross And when to such a monstrous and mischievous pitch of absurdity contradicting Scripture in Natural things would rise this aloud proclaims it to be an evil practice and a method too licentious to be allowable And farther Natural things may be matter of divine Declarations and Promises in Scripture And when they are so to contradict Scripture by saying they are otherwise than that declares or promises they should be must be indirect impeachment of the Truth Fidelity and Righteousness of Heaven Thus for example it was of old declar'd or promis'd to Noah that while the Earth continueth seed-time and harvest and summer and winter shall not cease Gen. 8.22 But therefore should we say that these various Seasons shall not be constant and run parallel with this Earthly Worlds existence but shall either be suspended by discontinuance or interruption or else cease by praemature abolition or expiration by contradicting Scripture in these tempestival Natural Vicissitudes we should break in too rudely upon GOD's most glorious Attributes aforesaid We may very easily bring this home to the Dominion over the Fish of the Sea That was a Priviledge which GOD declared or promised should be Adam's He therefore that denies the being of a Sea till long after his death by contradicting Scripture in a Natural thing must reflect dishonourably upon that GOD Who keepeth truth for ever Psal 146.6 In spite of this his Character which I would not should fail for ten thousand Worlds he makes him at once to be false to his Word unfaithful to his Promise and unjust to his Creature But as He that is righteous in all his Ways must needs abhor to be thus so we must abhor to think it of him And farther yet should GOD evidently violate but one express Declaration or Promise he has made tho in Natural things what a Damp would it cast upon mens belief of him in Celestial Concerns What a jealousy might it raise and what a vehement suspicion might it justly create in them as to all his highest promissory engagements making them apt to question whether he would stand to any if not ready to conclude that he would keep none And thus again the evil of contradicting Scripture in Natural things will discover it self He was pleas'd to signify Gen. 3.15 that the seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head Of how high a Nature and of what infinite Consequence was this most gracious Declaration or Promise It was the authentic Patent of Heavens renewed kindness to Sinners and the grand Assurance the Praediluvians had of its Spiritual and Eternal favours But if Adam and his Children of the first world had found by experience that the GOD who made it could break faith with men why should they regard it And what convincing experience had they of this if when he promis'd the Dominion over Sea-fish to them he did so grievously tantalize and abuse them as to hide both the Sea and all its Fish from them to the end of that World Manifest it is that He assur'd the Inhabitants of the primitive World as much of Dominion over the Sea as he did of the benefit of an incarnate Saviour but then if he cheated them so egregiously at present how could they in prudence trust him for the future and take his word to be what the Psalmist styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
any thing even what he openly condemns to support as he thinks his tottering Hypothesis which when he has done all that he can will fall at last Ibid. Then he passes to the following verses in that 38th Chapter Who shut up the Sea with doors when it brake forth as if it had issued out of a womb c. Here the Excepter gave reasons why these words must refer to what was done in the Beginning of the World Disc p. 150. p. 150. 151. As also reasons why by the Womb here mentioned could not be meant the inclosure of the Abyss as the Theory would have it And none of them being answered but by the Expedient of passing them by they both stand good Now if the HOLY GHOST speaks here of the Sea when it first brake forth into being which all but the Theorist allow he does what Womb could it issue out of but the Womb of Nothing But instead of removing our Objections the Answerer brings in two of his own which the Replicant will not answer as he does the Excepter's The first is this If you understand the Womb of Non-entity Answ p. 25. the Sea broke out of that womb the first day and had no bars or doors set to it but flow'd over all the Earth without check or controul Therefore that could not be the time or state here spoken of And to refer that restraint or those bars and doors to another time which are spoken of here in the same verse would be very inexcusable in the Excepter seeing he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different Verses to be understood of different times Now pray what is the difference betwixt the time of the Sea 's breaking forth of the womb and the time of its being restrain'd with doors that the Excepter should be so very inexcusable for allowing that difference It was but the space of one poor day And truly if he had not allowed of this difference when GOD Himself signifies that he made the breaking forth of the waters into being part of his first day's work and the gathering them together into one place the decreed place where they were shut up with bars and doors his Third days work he must have been very inexcusable indeed O but therefore the Excepter is very inexcusable because he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different verses to be understood of different times Be it so But were the different times of the Theorist then no more distant than the different times of the Excepter The space between the Excepter's times was one single day that between the Theorist's times was more than sixteen hundred years And yet let him bring but as good authority for the Different times which he contends for as the Excepter does for his different times which GOD has clearly distinguisht by different works his creating Waters on one of the times and his collecting and confining them on the other and his different times will by all be allowed But because he can bring no such authority nor any at all besides his own not the Excepter but he himself must be the very inexcusable person in this Matter His second Objection runs thus Ib. This Metaphysical notion of the womb of nothing is altogether impertinent at least in this case for the Text is plainly speaking of things local and corporeal and this prison of the Sea must be understood as such Must it so What necessity is there for it None at all but to support the Theorist's sinking Hypothesis And for him to say it must be so understood in favour of that is to beg the Question And however that may be less metaphysical it will be more impertinent than our Notion is For that we can presently make very pertinent by a way which himself just now cut out Foundations and Corner-stones are as local and corporeal things as the rest which the Text speaks of Yet these he told us in the immediately fore-going Page P. 24. l. 15. 16. may be understood in way of Allusion And let but this Womb be understood the same way as it ever was and then the Notion will be pertinent enough But who is impertinent for suggesting it was not so The last place is Prov. 8.27 28. When he prepared the Heavens I was there when he set a compass upon the face of the deep c. That by the word Compass here could not be meant the first habitable Earth as a Sphaere Orb or Arch in the beginning set round the Abyss according to the Theory the Excepter shewed very plainly Disc p. 153 154 155. But what he alledged of that nature is answered only by the Second Expedient which is made great use of that is it is passed by with silence Yet that the Answerer might seem to say something he sets up a shadow or phantsy of his own Answ p. 25. and then encounters it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render compass he the Excepter says signifies no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss Let the Answerer show where the Excepter says thus In this he charges him falsly A plain Untruth Disc p. 154. He only said that by the word compass might be meant either Earthly bounds about the open Waters or the Firmament of Heaven as a Sphaere Orb or Arch set upon the face of the Deep And are either of these the Rotundity or Sphaerical figure of the Abyss Yet if they are not as they cannot be has not the Answerer done manifest wrong to the Excepter by suggesting a vain Phantsy or Notion of his own and fathering it upon him as his This to speak freely is fencing with an unlawful Weapon which never commends either the Skill or Ingenuity of them that use it He might therefore as well have wav'd the false charge here by which he would turn the point of non-sense upon the Excepter For what can be more highly nonsensical than to say that the banks about the sides or the Air about the Surface of the Sea are but the shape or meer figure of it This Gentleman in this very Chapter complains of unfairness And is it possible He that does this wrong in the very next paragraph cries out of injury Answ p. 26. Of an injustice which the Excepter hath done the Theory by a false accusation For he says the Theory makes the Construction of the first Earth to have been meerly Mechanical And did it not make it so Proferte tabulas How read we in the beginning of the Sixth Chapter of the Latin Theory Edit 2. Secutus sum leges notissimas gravitatis levitatis earum solo ductu vidimus massam illam primigeniam pervenisse tandem in formam stabilem regionis terrae I have followed the most known laws of gravity and levity and by the sole leading of them we have
under all its flaws and imperfections by such a lawless liberty as this A liberty of recourse to Extraordinary Providence and of bringing in Miracles and the Ministery of Angels to help to take off and solve those Difficulties which puzzle its Author and baffle its Principles To what purpose did he invent a Theory and write a Treatise with design to shut out one Extraordinary Providence Eng. Theor. p. 2◠l. 33 34. the creating of new Waters to make the Deluge when in this Treatise and to uphold that Theory he is constrain'd to let in thus many But here the Answerer is plainly for shifting to avoid a blow which for that falls but the heavier upon him The Theory said the Excepter Disc p. 175 will have the Rains to be antecedent to the Description of the Abyss Eng. Theor. p. 98. And he quoted these words in proof of it I do not suppose the Abyss broken open till after the forty days rain But then adds the Excepter this is most directly against Scripture for that plainly affirms that the Fountains of the great Deep and the windows of Heaven were both open'd on one day Gen. 7.11 Now to salve this repugnancy to Scripture the Answerer here declares that he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open'd before which made the Grand rains Answ p. 31. But then he must suppose that there were two forty-days-rains one before the Abyss was broke up and another beginning with it and continuing after it But is not this also as much against Scripture which owns but one forty-days rain that commenc'd with the Disruption And truly had the Vapours of the Atmosphaere been exhausted as they must have been by the first continued forty-days rain according to the Answerer's Supposition where could have been a supply for the second forty-forty-days rain especially when the Rains that fell then were to be grand rains without a new Creation of Waters which the Theory designedly opposes And then the LORD said unto Noah Gen. 7.4 Yet seven days and I will cause it to rain upon the Earth forty days and forty nights And is it likely that GOD would have given that Preserver of the World notice that Rains to make the Flood should begin a Week after if it had already rained for three and thirty days before or for above a Month past Lastly against the Equinox it was suggested that Authors of all sorts have disputed Disc p. 176. in what Season of the year the Flood came in and the World had its beginning Which hints that there was not any one Season through all the Earth at once But the Answerer intimates that upon Supposition of an Equinox according to the Theory Answ p. 31. it might be so And why says he may not that have given occasion to the general belief that the World began in the Spring Did he insist upon that Belief he must prove it to be general and to be occasion'd by the Equinox and not take it for granted Ib. But because he says he does not depend upon it we need not reply to it any farther neither In the next place the Excepter considered the Authorities call'd in to establish the Doctrine of the Equinox That is by proving that the Earth had suffered a change as to its Position and thereby had lost its former Right Situation But these Authorities were not found clear enough to do the Theory's business as will best appear to them that shall peruse the Examination of the same Disc Ch. 8. § 7. And here the Answerer is much offended as if his Witnesses were not fairly heard Answ p. 32. but rather unjustly and illegally rejected because they were unskilful in giving the Causes or Reasons of a matter of fact We reply All Testimonies must be taken as they are And where evidence is not clear for the same reason it is not certain nor can it be valid And when Witnesses give it in if they trip and faulter in any part of it we have good reason to suspect the whole And as improbable Circumstances in their Allegations will invalidate them in matter of fact so impossible ones if mingled with them will quite overthrow them The true case of the Testimonies before us They contain such improbable and impossible things as do not only weaken but destroy them Should twenty Mariners confidently affirm that they sailed in a Ship from Dover to Calice by a brisk Gale out of a pair of Bellows tho this be a matter of fact must they not be reckoned notorious Lyars Or if forty Engineers should positively swear that the Powder-mill near London was lately blown up by a Mine then sprung at Great Waradin in Hungary must they not be grievously perjur'd Persons And the Philosophers attesting the Earth's Inclination having charged their Evidence with as great Impossibilities the Reports they make must be as little credible Or let us take the Instance which the Answerer gives the Peloponesian War Ibid. If the Historian that writes it had told that the Souldiers who fell in it fought only with Sun-beams and single Currants which grew thereabouts and that hundreds and thousands were stabb'd with the one and knockt on the head with the other who would believe that ever there were such Weapons in that war that ever there was such a fatal War in that Country Yet as possible it was for multitudes of men to be kill'd by these Instruments as for the Position of the Earth to be chang'd by those Causes which were assign'd by the Theory's Philosophic Witnesses For how could the Southern Pole of the Earth dip into the Air through excess of heat or excess of Fruits thereabouts when at both Poles the heat of the Sun was equal and so was the fatness and fertility of the Soil See Disc p. 180 181. Or if these were the Causes of that great Effect why then was it not wrought sooner than at the end of above sixteen hundred and fifty years And yet these very Causes being not only brought into their Evidence but made as true and express a part thereof as the Inclination of the Earth it self their Testimonies must extend to both alike and in case the one be of doubtful credit the other must be the same Yea the one according to their Allegations being Causes and the other but an effect of them if they be false witnesses as to the Causes upon which the Effect according to their evidence had its whole dependence their Testimonies as to the Effect must needs fail and be nothing worth For they plainly ascribing it to causes that were not Disc p. 179 189 c. and so could not produce it at the same time and by the same words that they attest there was such an Effect they witness withal that it could not be And so their Evidence is as far from being valid and authentic as contradiction is from truth But what ill has the
more rarifi'd towards one Pole than towards another And we never said or thought they were But in his English Theory we read p. 229. that the Current of the waters from the Poles might in some places rest and be stopt and then it would spread it self into Lakes and rise till it grew to such an heighth as to be able by its force or weight to overflow and break loose again before it could pass farther Now in case the Current might thue be stopt and the obstruction be so great as to cause the Waters to swell into Lakes how easily might there be more or greater Lakes near to one of the Poles than the other And so how easily would the overweight of water have sunk the Earth down at the praeponderating Pole tho the Waters were no more rarify'd there than at the other That therefore being wide of the Mark he should have hit he sends another Arrow after it taken out of the Quiver of Philosophy Ib. The empty space betwixt the exterior Region of the Earth and the Abyss below would be fill'd with such gross vapors that it would be little purer than water and would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphaere that is carried about with it But this shaft also tho levell'd more directly at it misses the intended Scope For if those Vapours were but a little purer than water yet look how much they were so and so much the weaker they would be and less able to keep the pendulous Earth in its Aequilibrious or even posture And that grossest Vapours are very much purer or thinner than water is evident from hence that they cannot sustain or buoy up a piece of light Cork whereas upon waters ships of greatest Burthen float and swim And tho the Atmosphaere be carried about with the Earth yet if that were inclosed with an oblong or Oval Orb of Earth this Orb would not sit half so fast and steddy upon that Sphaere of Vapours as it would do upon a Sphaere of Waters the Consistency of Water being many times as thick again as any Mass of Vapours can be in their natural Constitution The Second Query is this Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World Disc p. 187. Would not the natural day towards the latter end of that World have been longer than in the former periods of the same Yet that the days just before the Flood were of no unusual length is evident in the very Story of the Flood the Duration of which we find computed by Months consisting of Thirty days apiece Whereas says the Excepter had Days been grown longer fewer of them would have made a Month. This says the Answerer is a meer Blunder And he proves it thus If thirty days were to go to a Month Answ p. 28. whether the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them and the Scripture does not determine the length if the days Tho Scripture does not limit or account for the length of days expresly yet it does it implicitly and withal very plainly and intelligibly For it gives us to understand that days before the flood were of the same length that they are of now by informing us that months and years which were of the same length then that they are of at present were made up of the same numbers of days For how could there be just twelve Months in the Year at the time of the Deluge and thirty days in each of those Months if days then had not consisted as they do now of four and twenty hours a piece And as Providence has so ordered Nature that days which depend upon its Diurnal motion should be measured by Circumgyrations of the Earth So it has order'd likewise that Months which depend upon its Annual Motion should be measured by its progress in the Heavens And as it has so suted these Motions that the Earth while it makes a Month by running from one Sign in the Zodiack to another should turn about thirty times upon its own Axis and thereby make so many Days So it has taken care that each of these Circumrotations should be perform'd in four and twenty hours and consequently that every day should be just so long that thirty of them in way of round reckoning might compleat a Month. But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge by such causes as the Excepter suggested so that every day had consisted of thirty hours suppose it is manifest that fewer than thirty days they being longer than formerly must have made a Month. Because then before the Earth could have turned round thirty times she would have been translated by her progressive motion from one Celestial Constellation to another and so the Month would have been consummated But to talk as the Answerer does that the Month should be lengthened by the days being so is a fearful Blunder indeed Tho as luck will have it still it falls upon himself For let the days by slackning of the Earth's Diurnal motion have been never so long yet its Annual motion continuing the same the Month must needs have kept its usual Length only fewer days would have made it up the very thing objected The Answerer therefore need not have been so officious as to undertake to teach the Excepter to speak which he was pleased to do in these Words Answ p. 30. I suppose that which he would have said and which he had confusedly in his mind was this That the Month would have been longer at the Flood than it was before The Answerer it seems had such a confused thought in his mind but the Excepter 't is plain was clear from it And truly had he been guilty of it he should have counted it a Meer Blunder For how could the Month be longer for the Earth's Circumgyrations being slower when the Month was measured by such a motion of the Earth as would have continu'd as swift as ever tho its Circumgyrations had been never so slack The Moon never turns circularly upon her own Center to make days and nights and yet she makes regular Months and Years by her Periodical and Synodical Courses And had the Circumgyrations of the Earth been never so swift at the Deluge or had they been never so slow or had they been none at all still the Months would have been the same that they were and neither longer nor shorter Tho then indeed they could not have consisted of so many days and nights following each other in an orderly succession because through want of the Earth's Diurnal motion there would have been no such vicissitude of them And since the Answerer took upon him to tell the Excepter what he had in his mind as he supposed the Replicant in requital of his kindness as well as in imitation of his Patern may suggest to him what he should have had in his thoughts When he said if thirty days were to go to a Month whether
the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them he should have considered that these thirty days were to be of such a length just as that that Number of them might make a Solar Month. For supposing them either longer or shorter than so they could not be such days as the Scripture speaks of because thirty of them still made such a Month. Whereas if they had been shorter as there must have been more so if they had been Longer fewer would have done it And thus the Answerer's design of throwing a Blunder upon the Excepter is quite defeated and while he made an awkward Blow at him he only struck and wounded himself Yet the Dust he here raises can neither hide the Objection which the Excepter made nor yet so blind the Reader 's eyes as that he should not see it remains unanswered For after all if the Contiguity of the Sphaere of the Exterior Earth with the Abyss ceased by reason the Waters of the Abyss were exhaled that Sphaere of the Earth must be carried about with less Celerity than before it was Especially if the Moon came late into the Earth's Neighbourhood which being an heavy Luggage in the outward part of the Earth's Vortex like a Clog hang'd upon the Rim of a Wheel would make it turn more slowly as the Excepter objected But because we have hinted that Scripture gives us to understand that there were twelve Months in the Antediluvian year and thirty days in each of those Months it will not be amiss to conclude this Chapter with showing how Scripture makes the things out In the eighth of Genesis then and the fifth verse it informs us that the waters decreased until the tenth Month. And after this that at the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark v. 6th And that he stayed yet other seven days and sent forth the Dove v. 10th And that he stayed yet other seven days and sent forth the Dove again v. 12th Which fifty four days following the first day of the tenth Month on which the tops of the Mountains were seen v. 5th show that there must be twelve months in the year and indeed they make them up so many bating five days which we must suppose were still to run out before the first Month of the next year came in v. 13th And then it shows that there were thirty days in each Month. For first we find twenty seven days in one Month in this Chapter v. 14th And as we read in the Seventh Chapter the Waters prevailed upon the Earth one hundred and fifty days v. 24th Yet they began to come in the seventeenth day of the second month v. 11th and they began to decrease by the seventeenth day of the seventh month Chap. 8th v. 3d. Whence it is plain that the hundred and fifty days made just five months during which the Waters prevailed and so every month must consist of thirty days CHAP. IX IN the beginning of this Chapter relating to the Oval Figure of the first Earth he goes about to rectify a Principle of the Excepter's Answ p. 38. That terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point But let this be understood of Self-centred and Quiescent Earthly Bodies and the Assertion will need no Rectification And so the Excepter really meant it should be understood For he was not yet come to Consider the Mass upon which the Primitive Earth was founded as turning upon its own Center See Disc p. 190. but was going on towards the Consideration The Waters of that Mass Globular at first rising up above the Aequator by its gyration upon its own Axis became oval and so made the Earth of that Figure defluendo ad latera Disc p. 193 194. Answ p. 39. by flowing down at the sides of the Globe So the Theorist said at first To this word the Excepter spake so home that the Answerer we see was almost angry by the Reflections he makes We will therefore touch that tender place no more for fear of giving farther Provocation And we the rather forbear to press upon it because the Answerer we find is sensible it is sore by the Plaister he is fain to apply to it For now he has explain'd that word by another as he tells us namely Detrusione Ib. Let us therefore to the Thing Only in our passage to it it will not be amiss to observe his humour When he was fain to flinch and forc'd thus to shift from one word to another he falls upon the Excepter with a causeless censure of Pedantry and little triumphs He resolves that is to shoot Powder where he wants Bullets and at the same time that he gives Ground he will be as fierce as if he gain'd it Very pleasant to see to that he who blamed strong Passions as producing weak Arguments should thus by his Anger show his Impotence But we are to consider the Thing And here the Answerer interrogates Ib. May not waters ascend by force and detrusion when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that force and persevere in their motion Without all Question they may provided that force and detrusion be of power sufficient to compel them to ascend against the Principle of their natural Gravity and such extrinsic accidental Obstacles as may chance to lye in their way and hinder them But what then He goes on Ib. This is the case we are speaking to They were impell'd to ascend or recede from the Center and it was easier for them to ascend laterally than to ascend directly upon an inclin'd Plain than upon a perpendicular one This assertion wants a great deal of Proof For that the Waters of the Chaos should through the Circumgyration of it rise or ascend any way is very improbable as being bound down by the circumambient Air which is carried about therewith Fill a sphaerical Glass with water and then turn it swiftly upon its own Center However the water in this Glass may have a strong and constant Conatus during that its Motion towards rising up yet certain it is the Glass that contains it would keep it from swelling out beyond those Bounds to which it self confines it In like manner the Body of the Air in which at that time was the whole matter of the Exterior Earth diffused surrounding the entire Element of the Water would have kept that from actual receding from the Center tho it were impregnated with a conatus that way 'T is confess'd if we take a Globe and turn it round swiftly Water or Sand if we lay either upon it will fly off it violently And one reason is because the ambient Air does not turn with this Globe but gliding close upon its wheeling Surface by a renitency against it sweeps off whatever lies loose upon it But were the Air about it carried round with it the lightest things that lye loosest on its Superficies would rest
there unmoved supposing it the proper Center of their Gravity And for the same reason finest Dust lies undisturb'd even upon the tops of highest Mountains tho they whisk about with such celerity as no humane Art and strength can imitate And if the Earth's Rotation as rapid as it is cannot cause small Dust to rise from Hills in way of recession from the Center much less could it produce that great effect upon the Mass of Water which as it was a vast and ponderous Body so it couched the closer to the Earth under it And the truth is as to a competent or sufficient Cause of the Wate 's supposed Rise or Ascent we are yet at a loss For the Cause assigned is Detrusion Detrusion made by the superambient Air. Answ p. 39. Methinks the Observator might have conceiv'd this Detrusion of waters towards the Poles by the resistance of the superambient Air. But now if this Cause fail'd and was not able to detrude the Waters at the Equinoctial where they were to be thrust down Or which is worse if it be sound a more effectual Cause to detrude them at the Poles where they were to rise up what then becomes of this Assertion we ore upon or of that Essential of the Theory it relates to the Oval form of the Primitive Earth Yet in Reality thus it was The Air that should have depress'd or thrust down the Waters at the Aequator of the liquid Globe was more dispos'd to do it at its Polar parts For the Sun moving always in the Equinoctial of that Globe the Air thereabouts must needs be very hot and so very thin and so very yielding and so less able to resist and detrude the Waters And on the contrary the Sun being always very distant from the Poles the Air in those parts must needs be more cold and so more thick and so more stiff and heavy and so more fit to make Resistance and Detrusion there than any where else Yet see the unluckiness of this contrivance the Waters were to rise higher there much higher at the Poles where the Air would most resist them and to be thrust down lowest at the Aequator by the Air where it could least depress them And if by the Air 's Resistance be meant any thing else but a meer Detrusion arising from its natural weight which as is said had most force to keep the Waters down where it was most needful they should have risen up such a Resistance cannot be conceived considering that the whole Mass of the Air was carried about in Circumgyration with the Globe of Water The Deserts of Biledulgerid Lybia c. lie betwixt the Aequator and our Northern Tropic and so within the compass of that Latitude where the Waters of the liquid Globe should have felt a Resistance of the Air. But what reason have we to believe they did so when the light or running Sands there are no more ruffled or in the least stirred by such Resistance than if they were a crust of Flint or Adamant and the like may by said of Mare del Zur It lies under the Line and so in the Equinoctial part of this Terraqueous Globe Which being there of the biggest Circumference it must turn thereabouts most swiftly and so cause the greater resistance of the Air were there any such thing and that would produce as great a disturbance in the Water But on the contrary so quiet and still and smooth and even is this vast Ocean that it is called the Pacific Sea And if these spatious Waters so exactly fitted for this Resistance both by their situation and immensely wide and far extended Surface feel nothing of it now why should or how could the waters of the Abyss do it at first No the Air resisted and detruded then but as it does now That is so far as its own Gravity caused a Compression Which as it was gentle so it was general comparing the entire Globe at once with a soft constringency Only there was reason as we have shewed why this compression should be lightest at the Equinoctial and why it should be heaviest at the Poles of the Globe and why it could not make such Resistance or Detrusion as is imputed to the Air. In short If it did make Resistance either it was gentle and would only have rimpled the Surface of the turning Waters as the Subsolanus does which blows constantly about the Equator and so would not have been of force sufficient to depress them into an oval Figure or else it was violent and so would have discompos'd the Abyss so much that the Earth could never have been founded upon it And truly what less than such a violence as would so have discompos'd it could alter the Figure of it But yet that there neither was nor could be such a violent resistance made by the Air as to detrude the Waters of the Chaotic Mass may I think be demonstrated from the Motion of the Moon Her Distance from hence in her Perigee or nearest approach to us is about 51 Semidiameters of the Earth in her Apogee or farthest remove from us about 65. To take a moderate or middling Distance therefore betwixt both let us suppose her always 56 of those Semidiameters off us And then let us suppose again that she performs her Periodical Circuit in 28 Days tho she does it in less Now she absolving her Circuit at 56 Semidiameters distance from the Earth in 28 Days in case She were but 28 Semidiameters distant which is but half the Space she must do it in 14 Days which is but half the time And so were she distant but 14 Semidiameters she must do it consequently in 7 Days According to which proportion the Air towards the Earth at the heighth of one Semidiameter above it must wheel about as fast as the Earth it self does to the space of half a Day Now every Semidiameter of the Earth containing says Mr. Rohault Tract Phys par 2. cap. 12. near 1431 Leagues or 4293 English Miles hence it will follow that the Air at the heighth of 2146 Miles turns about as fast as the Earth bating but 6 Hours And at the heighth of 1073 Miles as fast as that bating 3 Hours And so at the heighth of 357 Miles to avoid fractions to one Hour Which divide into 60 parts because in an Hour there are 60 Minutes and the Air at the heighth of 6 Miles must turn as fast as the Earth in round reckoning to the space of one Minute And if we drive down the Account so low at 3 quarters of a Miles heighth it must turn as fast to the eighth part of a Minute And so just on its Surface even with it And when the Air encompassing the Earth does thus conspire and circulate with it in its Gyration how could it possibly resist the Waters of the turning Abyss so as to change their figure from Sphaerical to Oval Nor will the Answerer's Simile help here unless it be
to aggravate the thing against himself He thinks this Detrusion of the Waters may be conceived Answ p. 39. as well as their flowing towards and upon the Shores by the pressure of the Air under the Moon And so indeed it may by those that can conceive the Air alone to be as heavy in it self as that and the Moon are both together But who in reason can conceive this And to say it was easier for waters to ascend laterally than directly to ascend upon an inclin'd Plain than a perpendicular one is vain in this case For what real Inclination could there be on a Globe towards the Poles more than at the Equator every point of whose Superficies is Equidistant from the Center And how could the Ascent of Waters at the Poles of a Globe be other than Direct and perpendicular when its Polar parts are always as much a Plain as its Aequinoctial ones can possibly be So that to suppose waters could ascend more easily at the Poles than at the Aequator of the Chaotic Abyss is in effect to suppose that they could ascend perpendicularly more easily than they could ascend perpendicularly For at the Poles they were to ascend as directly as at the Aequinoctial the waters being exactly globular at first till by this supposed ascent they grew oval Only there they must have met with these two Disadvantages which at the Equinoctial they were free from First as we have hinted already a more cold and thick and stark Air. Which we may be sure would crowd them down at the Poles because an Air more warm and fine and soft and open is presum'd to do it at the Aequator Secondly a weaker Spring or power to impel them For in the Middle of the turning Globe there was a Conatus or tendency of the Waters towards receding from the Center but at the Sides of it none at all So that at the sides they were to rise by that Conatus or Nitency in the Middle And if a thin and open Air could prevail against that force in its direct and primary efforts at the Aequinoctial how much more would a thicker closer Air have overpowred it where it could be exerted but obliquely remotely and as it were at second hand at the Poles of the Abyss From what has been said it will follow that without a better Defence of this Vital Assertion of the Theory its whole Hypothesis will fall to the Ground for want of an Oval Earth to support it And whereas the Answerer in the Close of his 14th Chapter makes this Reflection Some men they say though of no great valour yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall So the Excepter behind a Text of Scripture is very fierce and rugged He may please to take notice that tho it be much better fighting behind the Wall of a Text than against it the Excepter is here behind no such Wall but ingages him in the open field of Reason and Philosophy and doubts not but to keep his Post That is if he does not run to his First Expedient as his wont is and turn the great Artillery of Extraordinary Providence upon him before which there is no standing For that mows down the best Arguments and makes a Lane through them as Chain-shot does through a Company of the bravest Souldiers tho they fight never so well and have all imaginable Right on their side But then he must desert his Hypothesis again as he has often done and the World knows what he is that runs from his Colours One they say of no great Valour But truly if it be matter of reproach to a man to fight behind a Text of Scripture the Excepter desires that it may always stick close to him To adhere to the divine and holy Word and to oppose error by revealed truth he thinks is far enough from Cowardise Blessed be GOD that we have such a wall as His Scripture is behind which to fight against Truth 's Enemies Yet in this very Instance of forming an Oval Earth he flies to the help of Extraordinary Providence and thereby turns this necessary and indispensable Notion of the Air 's resistance or detrusion quite out of doors I mean by a certain Dilemma of his own brought in in the second Page of his Answer I apply it to him in his own words Either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence or of an extraordinary as to the time allowed for the Formation of the Earth If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence the formation of the Earth would require much more time than six days And so you must not take that Hypothesis because as you your self own in the fifth page of your Answer Scripture tell us that the Earth was form'd the third day But if according to an extraordinary you may suppose it made in six minutes But then the Resistance or Detrusion of the Air could not make the Waters oval that the Earth might be so For that being an ordinary natural Cause supposing it could be a cause would have required much more time than six days for the production of such an Effect And consequently this Resistance or Detrusion is made vain here and utterly useless by your self But if against the Answerer's concession of an extraordinary or miraculous efficiency here we should suppose an oval Earth to be made in a natural way and that in order thereunto a globular Abyss were to be form'd into an oval figure yet how could this be done according to the rule or method of the Theory For if the Waters of the Chaos by receding from the Center did rise up at the Equinoctial part of it and above fall off towards the Poles then underneath there must be a draught of Waters back again from the Poles toward the Equinoctial which continuing to rise there might push or drive on the stream towards the Poles that otherwise would not hold on its motion forasmuch as it flowed on a true Globe the surface of which is equivalent to a Plain where Waters never flow but by force or impulse And yet if such counter-motions as these be allowed to those Waters they might thus flow and reflow for ever without producing the design'd effect For the draught of Waters below towards the Equinoctial would draw in the liquid Mass at the Poles and so hinder its growing into an oblong or oval figure as much as the Drift of them above towards the Poles could swell them out there and so help towards the same The first Argument against the Oval Figure of the Earth was its inconvenient Position which would have followed thereupon For then it must have lain cross the vehicular Stream by which it was carried round the Sun and have been directed not unlike to Ships sailing side-ways and so it could not have kept that Position long but must have chang'd its Site in compliance with the duct or tendency of that Current wherein it swam In answer to this it is
he said He was before the Mountains what did he say less if the Mountains were made in the time of the Flood the World having stood above sixteen hundred and fifty years before that came in And whereas the Answerer suggests Ib. that the Psalmist's words might have a gradation in them from a lower Epocha to an higher when he said before the Mountains were brought forth and the Earth and the World were made Let him show when and where any such gradation was ever made use of by an inspired Writer to set out the Eternity of the EVERLASTING GOD. And whereas he adds as for that place in Prov. 8. it would be very hard to reduce all those things that are mentioned there from ver 22. to the 30 to the same time of existence Let him show if he pleases why the things there mention'd called GOD's Works of old may not very easily be reduced as to their first existence within the time of the six days of Creation Disc p. 202. Moses the Excepter added mentions lasting hills and ancient Mountains Deut. 33.15 But he would hardly have call'd them so had they risen at the Flood because then they would have been but few ages older than himself that is about seven hundred years To this it is answered the River Kishon is call'd the ancient River Answ p. 43. but I do not therefore think it necessary that that brook should have been before the flood Nor does he think it necessary that several other things should have been before the Flood Yea his Hypothesis makes it necessary that they should not then be But does it follow ever the more from hence that they were not He goes on Things may very well deserve that Character of lasting Ib. or ancient tho they be of less antiquity than the Deluge as lasting Pyramids and ancient Babylon But were the Mountains supposing them made at the Flood as lasting and ancient in Moses's time as the Pyramids and Babylon are now Disc p. 205 The next Argument was drawn from the Mountains in the Moon They as we are told are better than four times as high as the Mountains of the Earth And therefore they seem to be her native Features rather than Effects of her Dissolution For had they been raised by her being dissolved they could not have been so strangely over-proportion'd to the Mountains of the Earth she being a much less Planet than that And in case the Moon had Mountains from the beginning why might not the Earth have so too Answ p. 44. T is easy to see the Answerer says that this is no good Argument For besides that the Orb there might be more thick all ruines do not fall alike And 't is as easy to see that this is no good Answer For the Moon being more than forty times less than the Earth the Chaos out of which She was formed at first must be more than forty times less than the Earth's Chaos was else she could never have been so little For a larger Chaos would have contained more matter and more matter would have made her Dimensions bigger But if the Chaos out of which the Moon was made was forty times less than that out of which the Earth arose then it s central Earth together with its Abyss and exterior Orb must be so much less than the same parts of the Earth respectively were as being made of Ingredients which were forty times less than theirs And so the Orb of the Moon could not possibly be thicker than the Orb of the Earth nor could its Mountains be higher than the Earths Mountains are much less above four times higher upon that account And then as to the falling of its Ruines if we allow it to have been done with all imaginable Advantages which way could they have pil'd themselves up so much higher than the ruines of the Earth Especially if we consider that their Materials were alike I speak of the primitive Bodies of the Earth and Moon their Figures alike and also the manner of their Dissolution Only if we suppose the Earth to have been twenty thousand miles in perimeter the Moon must be less than five hundred As to the Historical Arguments alledg'd in this case he demands over and over why they were mention'd But such Questions had an anticipative Answer made to them in our Discourse and that excuses all farther reply p. 207. In the next place he falls upon the Excepter's Conjecture about the Original of Mountain And in this New Hypothesis as he calls it Answ p. 45 46. he finds many palpable defects or oversights whereof he says this is one of the grossest that he supposes the Sun by his heat the third day to have raised the Mountains of the Earth whereas the Sun was not created till the fourth day But here he relapses into his wonted Infirmity of Mistaking egregiously Another Mistake For first the Excepter did not suppose that the Sun alone rais'd the Earth's Mountains This plainly appears from what he said in his entrance upon the Conjecture Disc p. 208. That Nature might have a considerable stroke in the Work And if Nature were to have but a considerable stroke in that work the whole of it could not be done by the Sun No the main part of it was still to be effected by the hand of GOD. And the concurrence of his Power with the influence of the Sun in producing Mountains the Excepter acknowledged in these words Disc p. 209. Tho GOD could and 't is like did produce them another way I will venture to guess HE might do it thus So that still it was HE that is GOD who thus produced the Mountains not the Sun alone And then follows an account how or wherein the Sun help'd forward this extraordinary Work tho he must not be understood to accomplish the same by his own sole and proper efficiency but as he was an Instrument in the hand of Omnipotence and so inabled to do that which of himself he could never have done Tho I must add withal that at that time he was capable of doing a great deal in this Work For 1st Perhaps he had then no Maculaes about him which now swimming upon his face in great abundance do check and damp and weaken his influence 2dly There being then a Flaâ—uous Moisture in the Earth put into it on purpose to make it Heave His piercing Beams soon gave it such an heat and agitation as made it dilate it self with furious Rarefaction 3ly The Earth it self being then most light and soft and unctuous was also of a more pliant yielding nature and so more apt and easie to ascend Lastly The Pores of this Earth being then close shut and the vehement Vapours rarefy'd within having no other possible way to get out but by elevating the Ground which lay upon them and so confin'd and kept them down no wonder if they threw it up with a mighty
of it and making this Antediluvian Longevity one of those Properties the Replicant continues the positive Negation and says expressly as before that the Longaevity of the Antediluvians could be no Property of Paradise He makes it good thus If it had been so it would have ceased or have been extinguisht in Mankind by their loss of that Place For where-ever Priviledges are the Properties of a Place he that enjoys them can hold them no longer than he continues in that place If once he forfeits the Place and be dispossess'd of that together with it he must actually lose all those Priviledges which are Properties of it and be deprived of them And this Longaevity being according to our Author a Property of the Place of Paradise Adam and his Children could not be priviledg'd with it as such when he himself was soon turn'd out of it and none of them were ever in it Besides how could this Longaevity be a Property of the Particular Topical Paradise when he makes it to be one of his three general Characters Eng. Theor. l. 2. c. 2 3. common to the whole Primitive Earth Yet a Property of the particular Paradise it must needs be because it is one of the Properties meant where he divides the Doctrine of that Paradise into the Place and the Properties of that Place But then is not here something like Contradiction again where a Property of one particular Place of the Earth is made common to the whole habitable Earth Indeed the Excepter did not positively deny the Longaevity of the Antediluvians to be General And therefore the Answerer taxes him with Sceptical humour Answ p. 55. But if the contrary humour will please him better the Replicant will so far put it on as positively to affirm that the Praediluvian Longaevity cannot be founded upon the Hypothesis of the Theory For in case it stands upon that foundation it must be supported by a constant Aequinox and an Oval Earth And that Earth must be without Metals and without a Sea And then as Adam could have no Dominion over the Fish so neither could Tubal-Cain trade in Brass or Iron And if these things were thus plain Scripture must be false and Moses must be out in the history of the Creation He was deceiv'd that is that we might be so and the SPIRIT of Truth which actuated him is become the Author of Lies to us which GOD forbid any one should think After this he observes ib. p. 56. that the Excepter did not take notice of the two last Reosons he gave in confirmation of the Antediluvian Longaevity One of them runs thus The generations recorded in Scripture after the Flood as they exceed the term of succeeding Ages so they decline by degrees from the Antediluvian Longaevity To this we answered sufficiently tho we did not expressly apply it to that particular Reason where we said Shem Arphaxad Salah and Eber living much longer just after the Flood than others did then See Disc p. 27â— or have done since did live so long for the same reasons that the ten men in a lineal descent Gen. 5. were such long-livers For so their lives are not to be lookt upon as declining from the Antediluvian Longaevity as the Answerer conceits but as extraordinarily lengthened by a special Blessing the elongation of them being a work of Providence not of Nature The other Reason was this Jacob complains of the shortness of his life Answ p. 56. and fewness of his days in comparison of his Forefathers when he had liv'd one hundred and thirty years which had been a groundless complaint if his Ancestors had not lived much longer The Answer to this is so obvious and easy that it was not worth troubling the Reader with it The days of the years of my Pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years few and evil have the days of the years of my Life been and have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my Fathers So Jacob complained Gen. 47.9 Now his days being spent or so far past they could not but seem few to the good Patriarch tho they were an hundred and thirty years And being no more he might truly say that they had not attain'd to the years of his Fathers without any manner of reference to or so much as thought of the Antediluvian long-livers For his Great-Grandfather Terah lived two hundred and five years Gen. 11.32 C. 25.7 His Grandfather Abraham an hundred and threescore and fifteen C. 35.28 And his Father Isaac an hundred and fourscore So that the shortest liver of these his Ancestors lived much longer than he had then done even by more than a Third part of his Time mentioned That those remembred by Moses as Long-livers before the Flood do not show all in general to be so the Excepter argued from these words of his Disc p. 277. Gen. 6.4 There were Giants on the Earth in those days Now as his telling the World there were some Giants then does not imply that the whole Race of Mankind were such but does rather import that the rest were otherwise so his mentioning some so very Long-livers may insinuate that the rest were not so To this it is answered there had been some pretence for this Answ p. 57. if Moses had made a distinction of two races of men in the first World Long-livers and Short-livers as he hath distinguisht the Giants from the Common race of Mankind And is not his Distinction equally plain in both cases Or if there be any difference does he not distinguish better betwixt long-livers and short-livers than he does betwixt men of Gigantic and of usual Proportions For whereas to distinguish Giants from ordinary men he only said there were Giants on the Earth in those days he did more than say there were Long-livers on the Earth in those days for he specifi'd their Names and he set down their Ages signifying clearly both who they were and to what years they reached But on the other side he neither expressed who the Giants were nor what their Stature and Dimensions So that of the two he distinguishes more plainly betwixt long-livers and short-livers than betwixt the Giants and men of common size For thus indeed he fairly intimated that the Generality of the praediluvians were short livers by his care to particularize those that liv'd long and both by their names and by the length of their days to discriminate them from the rest And tho the Answerer says in the close of his Paragraph that not to suppose long life general to Mankind at that time is a groundless restriction which is neither founded upon Scripture nor reason We reply that it may be founded upon both For Scripture says in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 And tho this Sentence was denounc'd against man conditionally at first in case he sinned yet upon his actual disobedience it became
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
two Cubits of Quails could cover this Camp then fifteen Cubits of Water might cover these Mountains And as for the Tops of the Mountains they are no where said to be covered any more than the top of the Camp was But he says the Tops of the Mountains were discover'd Answ p. 70. when the Waters began to decrease Gen. 8.5 Is not that a plain demonstration that they were cover'd before and cover'd with those Waters To this Objection also an answer was given by the Excepter Disc Ch. 16. §. 5. However to make it more full we are content to recite part of what was formerly said and to add somewhat new as occasion requires We say therefore that the tops of the Mountains being discovered upon the decrease of the Waters is no demonstration that they were covered with them for they might be discovered by their Emergency out of darkness Upon that Answer he brings this Quaery Answ p. 73. Where finds he this Account 't is neither in the Text nor in Reason It was fairly gathered out of both as plainly appears in our Discourse The holy Text we went upon was Gen. 8. ult Where day being settled upon the recovering World the very settling of it then implies that in time of the Flood the Earth was strangely benighted And for a Reason was suggested the Exclusion of Frost Which had not the Air been very thick thick enough to hide the Tops of the Mountains from the Eyes of men would have seiz'd the Waters with exceeding vehemence and have thereby hindred the so speedy drying of the Earth But he goes on in his way of objecting If it was always so dark and the Tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where Ib. how could the Ark avoid them in that darkness And could it by an ordinary Providence have avoided them in the Light For tho the H. GHOST in that Description which he was pleas'd to give of the Ark descends even to Particulars and that to the very Door and the Window of it yet He hints not the least concerning a Rudder belonging to it And being destitute of that there could be nothing whereby to turn or govern it but at all times it must be left to drive right on whatever Dangers tho great and visible might come in its way Or say it had an Helm yet what Pilot without inspiration could have steer'd its Course safely in those perilous new-made Seas upon Earth Where as Rocks and Banks and Flats and Sands were thick set and innumerable so there was not so much as one Buoy or Sea-mark which by showing any of them might help to shun them And as these dangers according to the Common Hypothesis would have been equal when first this Vessel was set afloat so according to the Theory they would have been much greater He continues to object Ib. I see no reason to imagine that there would be darkness after the forty days rain For he the Excepter says the Atmosphaere was never so exhausted of Vapours and never so thin as when the waters were newly come down Tho the Atmosphaere was never so exhausted of Vapours and never so thin as at that time in the vast Body or general Comprehension of it upwards yet here below the Air might still be foggy and thick So we are often invelop'd with caliginous Mists in this lower Region next the Earth when let them but disperse and wear off and the heaven above is most serene and in the Skie there 's nothing but glorious day He objects still Ib. p. 74. It was in the Tenth month that they the Mountains begun to be seen when the Waters were decreas'd 't was therefore the Waters not the gross Air that hindred the sight of them before For if according to the method of the Excepter the Deluge begun to decrease after the first forty days rain by the Sun 's resolving waters into Vapours and Exhalations this in proportion must lessen the waters of the Deluge But we do not read in Moses of any abatement in the Deluge till the end of one hundred and fifty days Gen. 8.3 which is four Months after this term Nor do we imagine that there was any considerable abatement of the Waters till that time For after the Flood was come to its height it was necessary it should stand there a good while the better to effect that fatal destruction of the Animal World for which it was sent Yet during the time that the Flood was thus Stationary we suppose that GOD did work no Miracle for we read of none to weaken Nature in its force and put by its proper Operations And so the Sun which had then a more than ordinary power upon the outragious and prevailing Waters as shining on them through a thinner Medium than ever yet he did could not but turn them a great pace into Misty Vapours and Exhalations And these ascending swiftly and copiously to replenish the Atmosphaere so lately emptied by excessive Resolution might render the Mountains as Mists always do quite invisible at a little Distance Yet this work being done only by Nature's hand or to use the Answerer's elegant style by the Sun 's setting his Engines awork tho it was carried on for several Months the diminution of the Waters I say might be inconsiderable So inconsiderable as not to be worth the Spirits notice And withal so ineffectual that if some better course had not been taken the Waters would have remain'd a very long time upon the drowned Earth beyond the hundred and fifty days mention'd without any considerable degree of abatement For if in the hundred and ten days succeeding those in which the rains fell the Waters went up in misty Vapours towards restoring the Atmosphaere to its lost Consistency in such a quantity as to sink the Flood suppose but one or two Cubits tho this reeking evaporation might so darken the Air as to hide the Mountains yet how little would such a diminution of the Deluge be taken notice of by Heaven or how little would it contribute to drying of the Earth And therefore to speed the work which by the strength of Nature went on but slowly GOD made use of a certain Wind Gen. 8.1 as an extraordinary Instrument And by this added at length to the Attractive influence of the Sun the Waters asswaged so very fast that as the SPIRIT notes on the first day of the Tenth Month the Tops of the Mountains were seen Gen. 8.5 And whereas the sacred Story makes the appearance of these Mountain-tops to follow the decrease of the Deluge-waters nothing could be done more properly according to the tenour of this new Hypothesis For in case the Waters had not been decreased and so decreased as to have refill'd the Atmosphaere with Vapours and so decreased as to have dampt the attractive power of the sun and so decreased as to be drawn so low and grown so gross and foul and heavy as to
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
Material food because the first spoken of was of that nature And in the same Chapter the Jews telling of Manna or bread from Heaven which their Fathers eat JESVS said unto them I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shall never hunger But this does not make our SAVIOUR real Manna nor was it possible he should be Material bread Yea being but in the Jewish Temple he took occasion from thence to call his body by that name Chap. 2. Destroy this Temple and I will build it again in three days But was his sacred Body ever the more a stony building And when this was the way of our Great REDEEMER what wonder that his chief Apostle should imitate him And that speaking of the old Heavens and Earth kept in store and reserved unto fire should in raising his Discourse to a future spiritual blessed state speak of it in the terms and under the notions of new Heavens and a new Earth But fourthly that the Apostles words should point at a triform state of Heavens and Earth is very improbable from that change which he makes in the Terms that he uses For in the 5th verse he uses the words Heavens and Earth and in the 7th verse again Heavens and Earth but in the verse betwixt both he says the World that then was Now if he meant the same thing in all three verses why did he not use the same Words and say the Heavens and the Earth that were then This fairly intimates that he intended not the natural but animate World and principally Mankind whom he called the old World in this Chapter and in the preceding Chapter the world of the ungodly Fifthly that this threefold state of Heavens and Earth should be denoted in these words is not to be thought because they certify us that the World that then was perished Now could that be true of the natural World Yet it must be true of some World because GOD says it and therefore it must relate to a World which could and did actually perish which must be the Animal World Indeed by this Perishing the Review understands a change only in the constitution and form of the Heavens and Earth But is or can that be a perishing Suppose ones temper or constitution be changed from Phlegmatic to Choleric is the man therefore perished Or suppose the Shell of an Egg should crack and sink inward a little is the Egg therefore perished No more could the Material Heavens and Earth perish by a meer change of their Constitution and form And had but such a change as that befallen them the Apostle would certainly have express'd it accordingly and not have said the World that then was perished But since he has thus express'd it the animate World must be here understood that so the Word spoken may come up to the thing and express it in a just and true sense But because he says that the Apostle speaks here of the Natural World particularly in the 6th verse and offers Reasons to prove that it perished Review p. 14. We shall lay down the Substance of these Reasons and briefly answer them First the ground these Scoffers went upon was taken from the permanency of the natural World in the same state from the beginning And therefore if the Apostle would take away their Argument he must show that the natural World hath been changed or hath perished Answ And does he not show them a sufficient change in nature at the Deluge when as he minds them the Earth stood so deep and the Heavens so high in Water that thereby the animate world perished Only this change was a change in the condition not of the Constitution of the natural World Secondly these Scoffers could not be ignorant that there was a Deluge which destroyed Mankind and therefore it was the Constitution of those old Heavens and Earth and the change and destruction of them at the Deluge that they were ignorant of Answ If they were not ignorant of the destructive Deluge they might have forgotten it See Disc p. 137. and therefore the Apostle minds them of it Or else they were ignorant or forgetful of the divine Cause of the Flood Ib. p. 134 c which he therefore expressly tells them was the Word of GOD. But as to the pretended change or destruction of the Heavens and Earth I doubt not but S. Peter was as ignorant of them as any of the Persons he reprehends Thirdly the Apostle's design is to prove the Conflagration which will be a destruction of the natural World and therefore he must use an Argument taken from a precedent destruction of that World Answ The Design of the Apostle is not to oppose reason to reason strictly in a just parity of Instances but fairly to infer one judicial and calamitous Providence or Dispensation from another And GOD having drowned the old Heavens in some measure as well as the Earth by the word of his power bringing in the flood upon the ungodly he would from hence convince them that by the same word the present Heavens and Earth are reserved unto fire which shall then be the instrument of perdition to the impious and the whole living World as water was before And so from one general destruction past he strenuously argues the certain futurity of another to come Fourthly unless we understand here the natural World we make the Apostle both redundant in his Discourse and also very obscure in an easy Argument Answ His Discourse for this will not be redundant but very close to his purpose For that is not only to mind these Scoffers that men and other Animals were destroyed in a Deluge caused by GOD's Power but to represent the greatness of that Deluge which swell'd so mightily upon the Earth that in some measure it invaded the Heavens And therefore to what he said of the flood 's destroying Mankind in the foregoing Chapter v. 5th he adding here a description of the vastness of that Flood in the drowned posture which the Heavens and Earth then stood in what he says is far from being superfluous or redundant Nor is his Argument thus made obscure On the contrary rather it receives light from hence For he here bringing in the Heavens and Earth into his account of the Deluge does thereby make the Greatness of it he was representing the more conspicuous Fifthly the opposition carries it upon the Natural World Answ The Heavens and Earth that were of old and the Heavens and Earth that are now we grant are opposed But then 't is as to their Fate not in their Natures And tho the Heavens and Earth that are now shall perish more throughly than they did of old Fire being more consuming than Water yet then for a time they perished too That is in S. Austin's sense with whose Authority the Review makes so loud a noise to little purpose For so far as I can find neither he nor any of the Fathers who affirm
misinterpreted and mis-apply'd The first is this In case this Triple state or successive Order of Heavens and Earth be rightly grounded upon the aforesaid Apostles words then those three most eminent Evangelical Writers must implicitly contradict the Doctrine of Moses And so either what he or what they have delivered in some points must be false and all of them being inspir'd from above the H. GHOST must contradict Himself By Moses's Doctrine 't is very plain that the first Earth had an open Sea For GOD he says gave man Dominion over the Fish of the Sea and his Dominion over the Fish appears to be as full and withal as soon conferr'd upon him as that he had over the Beasts or Fowls And therefore if these Apostles warrant this threefold State of Heavens and Earth in the first of which there could be no open Sea their Doctrine must necessarily clash with Moses's and implicitly contradict it So again by Moses's Doctrine 't is undeniably plain that there was Brass and Iron in the Praediluvian Earth For as he teaches Tubal-Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in those Metals And therefore if these three famous Apostles maintain this triple State of Heavens and Earth they must implicitly interfere with Moses again because the first of these states could not possibly produce either of those Metals both which according to Moses were extant in it The second Exception is this In case such a Triple state as this be truly founded upon the Writings of these three famous men then as all of them must contradict Moses implicitly so one of them must contradict himself expresly I mean S. John For speaking of the state of the new Heavens and Earth he says there was no more Sea Apoc. 21.1 Yet describing the final Judgment which is to be at the end of the same state he says the Sea gave up the dead which were in it Apoc. 20.13 And so in short there is no more probability that there should be such a tripple state as the Theory has invented built upon these Foundations of the Apostles laying than there is possibility that inspired Writers should contradict themselves or one another And therefore if what our Author says be true that the principal parts of this Theory are such things as are recorded in Scripture and so must be taken for granted in one sense or other Review p. 1 yet it is so far evident that he has not hit upon the Right sense of them as it is evident the sense that he puts upon them is not consonant to Scripture And that is so evident that in his interpreting Scriptures and applying several of them to his notions Review p. 8. he seems to have verifi'd his own words where he says 't is a kind of fatality upon us to be deceived Ib. p. 11. Yea even to be deceiv'd in the passages of those principal Apostles of which he thus pronounces These three places I alledge as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full extent And that he speeds no better in dealing with Prophane Writers about this Matter than he did in tampering with Divine ones one Instance will evince which we meet with in his Review p. 20. where to show the true importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how ill it is rendred in the English standing out of the water 2 S. Pet. 3.5 he says that he that should translate Plato 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World stands out of fire would be thought no Graecian And adds that Thales's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero renders ex aqua constare omnia But this we except against as nothing to the purpose For the Authors named by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant that the World was made out of a thing as out of its principle But did the Theorist's first Heavens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense was water the Principle out of which they were made So far from that that they were compleatly made and the Earth too without any water in their Composition Yea the Sun was fain to dart his fiery Beams through the Earth to rarify the water in the Abyss below and from thence to fetch it up by exhalation before so much as Vapour could spread through those Heavens So that they were no more made out of water than the Air is made out of Clouds because they fly in it or than a County is made out of a River because it runs through it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plato's or in Thales's sense has nothing to do here For besides that in the primitive Heavens there was no formal or specific Water save only about the Poles of the Earth where it fell but only Vapour even that Vapour was but passant through those Heavens no Ingredient of them no Principle of their Being or Part of their Essence But this was that which the Philosopher meant by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Orator confirms it by his reddition of the Words We cannot conclude without making this plain but true Observation That the Theory of the Earth is a very vain and false Hypothesis The Vanity of it is notorious For notwithstanding that it pretends to be chiefly Philosophical yet all its Primary Phaenomenaes that we have considered and which make up the biggest and most Philosophical part of it are fain to call in the help of Miracle to support them Review p. 2. The first is the Original of the Earth from a Chaos But that the Formation of this Earth might in due time be effected it is supposed to be done by the hand of Extraordinary or miraculous Providence The second is the state of Paradise and the Antediluvian World And here Miracle must come in again for that World could never have been peopled had not Angels carry'd Mankind over the Torrid Zone The Third is the Vniversal Deluge But without Miracle no Rains could have been before the fountains of the great Deep were broken up nor could the falling Ark have been preserved after it Nor is the Falseness of the Hypothesis inferiour to its Vanity For there is never a one of the Phaenomenaes aforesaid but includes too manifest Contradiction in it to the sacred Oracles or else to it self First the Formation of the Earth out of the Theory's Chaos contradicts Scripture For that tells us the Earth was made the Third day but the Theory says it was increased daily And if to take off this Contradiction to Scripture it be alledged that the Answerer allows it might be made in six minutes this throws the Contradiction upon the Theory For how could the Earth be made in six minutes that was daily increased Secondly the Paradisiacal state and the Antediluvian World Contradict Scripture For the one gives Paradise a Situation Contrary to what Moses assigns it and the other against his most plain Assertions excludes both Metals and an open Sea with Adam's Dominion over its Fish Thirdly the Vniversal Deluge contradicts Scripture For according to the Theorist See Disc c. 8. §. 5. Answ p. 31. Reply p. 67. there were fourscore days Rain towards making the Flood but the H. GHOST mentions and allows but forty This is no more than a Recapitulation or short Rehearsal of some former Remarks Yet they fully exhibit the nature of the Theory And when its Primary and Essential Phaenomenaes are such what must its Secondarys and Collaterals be If the Constituent and substantial parts of an Hypothesis be so very faulty impossible it is that the Coincidents or Appendants of it should be justifiable Yet thus our Author vouches this Hypothesis in his Review p. 12. It is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy than any other yet propos'd to the World but it is also more agreeable to Scripture Having found out words in Scripture that is somewhat like to his own he runs directly away with them and right or wrong applys them to his purpose Just as some persons who listning unto Bells think that they ring what runs in their minds so if Scripture phrases do but chime as it were or sound to his sense our Author concludes that they favour his Notions tho all be but Phantsy But let him make good that fair Character and I am ready to retract what I have said against him and to turn my Exceptions into applause In the mean time I have pursued the Theory as far as I need For as for going through the two last Books which he says will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Answ p. 66. I deem it wholly superfluous Where the Foundations of an house are taken away the Superstructures can never stand The upper Stories must needs follow the fate of the lower ones and both will certainly fall together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS ERRATA PAg. 14. l. 24. after Shores a full stop l. 25. after if r. it p. 19. l. 11. r. aereal p. 22. in marg leg Luna p 32. l. 6. blot out in p. 58. l. 14. blot out only p. 65 l. 35. after Expedient r. and. p. 72. l. 11. r. incrusted l. 16. r. account p. 87. l. 26. blot out English p 112. l. 31. r. off p. 119. l. 18. r. aereal p. 134. in marg leg delentur p. 151 l. ult r. his own p. 195. l. 28. r. Tehom p. 196. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 205. l. 6. after head a full stop Books lately Printed and are to be Sold by J. Southby at the Harrow in Cornhill 1691. TWO Treatises The First concerning Reproaching and Censure The Second an Answer to Mr. Serjeants Sure-footing To which are annexed Three Sermons Preached upon several Occasions and very useful for these Times By William Falkner D. D. in 4to A Letter to Father Petre concerning his Part in the Late Kings Government Wherein all his Actions are Justified and wherein also the Forgery of a Prince of Wales is freely Confessed and Justified in 4to The Benefit of Early Piety Recommended to all Young Persons and particularly to those of the City of London in Twelves A short View of the Duty of Receiving the Sacrament Fit to be Read in the Time of Preparation With Additions of several Prayers necessary to be used before and after Communion in 24. FINIS