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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to his following Expressions To speak the truth P. 149. this Theory is something more than a bare Hypothesis P. 150. The Theory riseth above the Character of a bare Hypothesis Ib. We must in equity give more than a moral certitude to this Theory P. 274. The Theory carries its own light and proof with it And most fit it is therefore that this Theory being brought to the Test should approve it self far beyond others And an Earth being formed out of a strange Chaos the Creature of this Theory and according to the Laws of its Hypothesis as fit it is that the Ingredients of this Chaos should upon enquiry be found well proportion'd to one another beyond the Elements of D. Cartes's Hypothesis which arrogates no such certainty to it self but openly renounces it Yet if we compare D. Cartes's Hypothesis in the principal Instance here alledged with that of the Theorist we shall find it will acquit it self much better than his For suppose the World had been really to have been form'd out of the Cartesian Elements Yet upon examination it will appear that they were less liable to just Exceptions upon account of their possible Disproportionateness than the Chaos of the Theory upon the same account in regard of its Ingredients For of these 3 Elements the entire Vniverse was to be composed So that if they had all of them been more or less in quantity the Universe would only have had the larger or straiter Bounds And if any of them singly had been excessive or defective nothing worse would have followed upon this but that the several Bodies made out of them respectively must then have been proportion'd accordingly Thus if there had been more or less of the 1st Element there must have been more or greater or fewer or lesser Suns If there had been more or less of the 2d Element there must have been bigger or lesser Vortices If more or less of the 3d Element there must have been more or less of Terrestrial Matter in being So that the worst result from an excessive quantity of any one of the three Elements aforesaid would have been but an alteration in the Great World or at most but an inconvenience here and there in some parts of it no way detrimental or pernicious to the whole But as to this Earth of ours the case would have been quite otherwise For had not the Materials of that been duly proportion'd but one left to exceed and predominate over the other this redundance or inequality in measure would have been of very fatal Consequence That is it would have caused a miscarriage in the production of the Earth and have ruin'd the whole work which Nature was about And therefore in making the Chaos into an Earth there was absolute necessity as of Regularity of Process in its Formation so of due proportion in the Ingredients of its Constitution otherwise it could never have been brought to Perfection From D. Cartes the Answerer turns to the Excepter and thinks to choak him with an example of his own Does the Animadverter in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge P. 9. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-water and the just Proportions of his Rain-water that concurred to make the Deluge And does the Answerer think that the like accurate Proportion of things is needful to destroy a World that is necessary to form or rear one Yet here a World was to be destroyed only to be destroyed by being drowned Now supposing the destructive Flood was to rise out of Rock-water and Rain-water it mattered not as to the Destruction they were to bring on if both were of equal Quantity or which and how much one exceeded the other so they were together sufficient for the Work But what says the Answerer farther I find no Calculations there that is in the Animadverter's Hypothesis but general Expressions that one sort of Water was far greater than the other and that may be easily presumed concerning the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos Here he must be minded of one of these two things that is to say either of Shuffling or of Mistaking First of Shuffling For he instanceth only in the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos which he thought might shift pretty well together tho the one in Quantity exceeded the other But he knows there was a Terrestrial Substance too and what would have become of his Paradisiacal Earth which was to rise out of that if the Oil had not been fitly proportion'd to it If it had not been just enough that is to mix with the Earthy Particles and to make them into a good Soil For if it had been more than was sufficient to that purpose Disc p. 80. it would have overflowed them and rendred the Earth useless as a Greazy Clod. If less it would not have imbib'd them but they must have lain loose above in a fine and dry powder that would have made the Earth barren as an Heap of Dust And this in these very words the Excepter told the Theorist before Yet here we see the Earthy Substance is taken no notice of but rather slily shuffled out of the way Unless he intended that what he said of the Oily and Watry Substances in the Chaos should be meant of the Earthy one too And then Secondly he must be put in mind of a gross Mistake For tho in our Waters that Drowned the Earth one sort may easily be allowed to be greater than the other yet the same thing cannot be easily presumed concerning his Materials supposed to form it For Rock-water and Rain water were both alike for Drowning and so equally fitted to serve that End whereunto they were appointed and the Excess of one above the other could be no hindrance of the Effect they were design'd to produce Yea without such an Excess the Effect intended could never have been wrought according to our Hypothesis of the Flood But Oily Liquor and Earthy Particles are very different things out of a well proportion'd mixture of which the Earth it self was to be made And therefore to presume the * The Oil that is far greater than the Earthy substance or that unduly proportion'd to the Oil. one was far greater than the other is to presume they were not duly proportion'd or mixt together and consequently that the Earth could not be raised out of them But we must not forget the Close of this Paragraph which runs in these Words What Scruples therefore he raises in reference to the Chaos Answ p. 9. against the Theorist for not having demonstrated the proportions of the Liquors of the Abyss fall upon his own Hypothesis for the same or greater reasons And you know what the old verse says Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum Here he goes on in his shuffling or mistaking Way still For he speaks of Scruples raised in reference to the chaos only whereas this refers as well to
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
I willingly allow Answ p. 64. that some of the interiour and barren parts of the Earth might be turn'd up as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries but this rather confirms the Theory than weakens it He must allow according to the tenour of his Hypothesis not only that some but that many of the interiour barren parts of the Earth were turned up everywhere And then the Waters being so strangely tumultuous and the fluctuations of them so extremely boisterous The Tumult of the Waters and the extremity of the Deluge lasted for some Months Eng. Theor. p. 76. Ib. p. 75. and their mighty rage of so long continuance While they were carried up to a great height in the Air and fell down again with prodigious weight and force they could not but harrass the Ground at such a rate as to wear away the upper part of it and make the top of the Earth as bare and barren as the bottom of a river by their monstrous and unspeakable Surgings Secondly he answers that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren p. 64. I cannot allow For good husbandmen overflow their grounds to make their Crops more Rich. And 't is generally supposed that the inundation of the Nile and the mud it leaves behind it makes Egypt more fruitful Besides this part of the objection lies against the common Explication of the Deluge as well as against that which is given by the Theory But when good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to improve their Crops they do it seasonably and they do it moderately and to be sure they do not at the same time turn them up for half a mile or a mile deep And tho several Rivers do inrich grounds by their Inundations by vertue of a great plenty of unctuous mud which they bring upon them that makes the Soil new as it were Nearchus de fluviorum effusione haec affert exempla quod dictum est Hermi Caystri Maeandri Caici campos similes esse propter limum qui e montibus delatus campos â—â—get imo facit Strabo Geogr. li. 15. so Hermus does and also Cayster Menander and Caicus as Strabo informs us from Nearchus yet that mud which the Deluge would have left would have been of a silty and sandy nature and so of a lean and hungry and starven quality as being mostly washt off from the Edges of those pieces into which the dissolved Earth was shattered and consequently would rather have prevented and hindred than helped or promoted the Earth's fruitfulness And therefore the Geographer notes that the mud of the aforesaid Rivers which makes the fields over which they flow is not coarse and dry like that which would have been eaten off of the verges of the terrestrial Fragments but of a softer and fatter sort Deferre autem flumina eum qui mollior sit pinguior ex quo campi fiunt Id. Ib. And then as to the Nile that the Mud it brings down upon the Land of Egypt is light and soft and fat and so fit to impregnate it with a strong Fertility we may properly infer from the sweetness of its Waters For as Diodorus reports they are the sweetest of all that are in the whole Earth Which made that famous General Piscenius Niger who contended with Septimus Severus for the Empire reprimand his Souldiers for hankering after wine and for muttering for the want of it when they might drink their fill of this pleasant Stream Tho it is well known that an ingenious French Writer I mean Duval in his Geogr. Vnivers ascribes both the Muddiness Fruitfulness and Overflow of it to its Nitrous Quality His words are to this purpose It has lately been found out that the Nitre wherewith the Nile abounds so much is the cause of all those wonderful Effects and that being heated by the sun it mingles it self with the water renders it troubled swells it and makes it pass over its Banks But yet concerning this noble River it is as well known that as sometimes it has not increased at all as in the tenth and eleventh year of Cleopatra against the downfal and the death of that Princess and her admired Anthony and as sometimes it is defective in its increase to lamentable failures in the usual Products of that plentiful Country So if at any time it happens to exceed in its increment but two or three Cubits that excess is at once both a clear Prognostic and a certain Cause of a dearth or scarcity in the ensuing year But then that such a Deluge as the Theory supposes it being Universal and of long continuance and made of lean subterraneous water and full of dead and harsh and heavy soil fetcht off from numberless pieces of the broken Earth should occasion barrenness for a considerable time in the post-diluvian World is but reasonable to conclude Nor lastly does this part of the Objection lie against the common Explication of the Deluge with such force as it does against the Theory's Explication of it For tho a General Flood overtopping the Mountains must have left mud and slime and filth behind it yet where the water rise upon an Earth that remained unbroken they could be nothing in quantity to what they must have been where the Earth was dissolv'd and fell all to pieces and where the water boiling up from under these Fragments and then falling down again violently upon them raged amongst them with lasting incessant and unimaginable turbulence As a Fifth Reason against the Earth's being drowned by its being dissolved Disc p. 292 the Excepter added this All the Buildings erected before the Flood would have been shaken down or else overwhelmed Here as to the City Joppa which is the main hinge upon which the Objection turns he Answers it is incertain whether it was built before the Flood â— 64. But besides the authorities of Mela and Solinus cited for it it is generally granted to be so ancient and none that speak of its Antiquity take upon them to deny it Nor will the Fiction concerning Perseus and Andromeda subvert the receiv'd opinion in this matter For as many Fables are made out of true stories so many again are tacked to them â— 64 65. He goes on However suppose the ruines of one Town remain'd after the Flood does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv'd I do not doubt but there were several tracts of the Earth much greater than that Town that were not broken all to pieces by their fall Had that tract whereon Joppa stood continued whole yet falling down so very low a mile at least by the force of its weight it would have suffer'd such a shock as could not but have levell'd its Buildings with the ground Thus very good houses are oftentimes shatter'd down in Earthquakes meerly by the concussion or shaking of the Ground tho it never breaks And truly if only the bare ruines of it had remained which
we do not nor need not grant yet these must have given as fatal a blow to the Theory as the fall of the Earth would have done to this City For their very out-lasting the fury of the Deluge would prove that Joppa consisted not of a Number of Cottages made of branches of trees Answ p. 50. of Osiers and Bull-rushes or of Mud-Walls and Straw Roofs which then must all have been quite washt away but of Edifices made of such Materials as could never be prepared formed and set up without Iron tools And so we come to The Last Reason against the supposed dissolution of the Earth It would have made GOD's Covenant with Noah See Disc p. 296 297 298. a very vain and trifling thing Because then the Earth was not capable of or liable to such another Deluge It is here answered So much is true p. 65. that the Deluge in the course of Nature will not return again in the same way If it returns not in the same way that is in the course of nature it cannot be such another Deluge as Noah's was for that came in by the Course of Nature Read the beginning of the 6th Chapter of this Reply Answ p. 65. He proceeds But unless GOD prevents it it both may and will return in another way That is if the World continues long enough the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters in proportion rise and overflow the whole Earth How possible soever such a Deluge may be in long process of time yet Christians who believe the Doctrine of the Gospel and that principal Article of it the World's Conflagration can never think that it shall come to pass For if the World in the end were to be overflow'd with Water how could it according to St. Peter be reserved unto fire 2 Pet. 3. ◠And GOD having thus declar'd that he will prevent it His Covenant with Noah could have no relation to such a natural Overflow This piece of answer therefore is so very thin that a weak eye may easily see through it and discern that there is shifting at the bottom of it He adds therefore Answ p. 65. GOD might when He pleased by an extraordinary power and for the sins of men bring another Deluge upon the World And that is the thing which Noah seems to have feared and which GOD by his Covenant secur'd him against Noah's Flood was brought upon the World for the sins of men And if another Flood may be brought in upon that account by GOD's extraordinary power then Noah's Flood might come in by that power too even by its creating waters to make it Which in case it had been but yielded at first it might have sav'd the pains of setting up this Hypothesis And not only so but likewise have superseded the collateral trouble of too weak and ineffectual endeavours to support it And when all is said the sole reason why such another flood as Noah's was shall never come in again is not any change in Nature rendring the thing difficult or impossible but the unchangeable covenant of GOD as appears Isai 54.9 Where GOD to illustrate the stability of his kindness to the Jewish Church and to show that its calamity shall never be reiterated compares it to the sure and perpetual exclusion of the waters of Noah to the return of which his immutable Oath is the eternal bar For this is as the waters of Noah unto me for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the Earth so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee nor rebuke thee Thus we have done with the Answer to our Exceptions In which I am not conscious to my self that I have omitted any one thing which deserves notice and a Reply And here I might speak freely of this Answer But because its defects are plain and obvious enough to the intelligent I only say this much That I expected a better from the Author of the Theory or none at all CHAP. XV. HEre the Scaene changes and our Answerer now becomes an Objector and manages this part as he did the other And as an instance of as much he trips in the first step that he makes and stumbles into a Mistake For he affirms Answ p. 66. that the first Proposition laid down for the establishing of our Hypothesis is this That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high above the ordinary level of the Earth But as any one that pleases may see the Proposition laid down as the foundation of our Hypothesis is verbatim this Disc p. 30◠That the highest parts of the Earth that is of the common surface of it were under Water but fifteen Cubits in depth And between the common surface or ordinary level of the Earth and the highest parts of that surface or level there is great difference For according to the first the Waters were not 30 foot high as he noted Ib. l. 12. but according to the latter they might in most places be thirty forty or fifty Cubits high or higher as we observed Disc p. 300. l. 31. Ib. l. 27. And whereas it is said of the Waters of the Flood that they were but fifteen Cubits high in all above the surface of the Earth it is manifest that the highest parts of its surface were there intended by what follows in explanation of that Clause even to the end of the Paragraph Touching the Proposition he cries out This is an unmerciful Paradox Answ p. 66. But who could have lookt for such an Exclamation from him whose own Paradoxes are so many and unmerciful Here therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Censure returns double upon himself And while he finds fault with the sliver in my Teeth I may justly give him the Talmudic answer usually directed to the more guilty Reprehender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take the Beam out of thine eyes Then he enquires Ib. p. 66 67. under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd as a Postulatum or as a Conclusion If it be a Postulatum it must be clear from its own light or acknowledg'd by general consent It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light because it is matter of fact which is not known but by Testimony Neither is it generally acknowledg'd for the general opinion is that the Waters covered the tops of the Mountains and were fifteen Cubits higher We might bring this home to the vital Assertions of the Theory but let us try but one of them Namely that the Primitive Earth was without a Sea Under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd As a Postulatum or as a Conclusion If it be a Postulatum it must be clear from its own light or acknowledg'd by general consent It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light because it is matter of fact which is not known but by testimony Neither is it generally acknowledg'd For the general opinion is
that the First Earth had an Open Sea Wherefore we may well goon with a little variation against the Answerer as he does against the Excepter It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Assertion is true but the truth of it must be demonstrated by good proofs Ib. p. 67. But the good and demonstrating proofs of this are still wanting And so that blame which he would fling upon the Excepter falls upon himself recoiling back by just recrimination Next he is for noting one or two things wherein the Excepter seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sense Ib. An high Charge and such as inevitably draws shame after it either upon him against whom it is made or else upon the Maker of it And where will he find this inconsistency to clear himself He looks for it first in these words of the Excepter Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real Now where 's the inconsistency of these words either with him that spake them or with good sense Rather how consistent is it with a mans self and with good sense not to be bound to defend what he thinks may not be true and real Yet as if he would make good his charge out of these very words he Querys immediately But why does he then trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real Many have written ingenious and useful things which they never believed to be true and real but were they for this troublers of the World and inconsistent with themselves or with good sense And why then should the Excepter's Hypothesis be so for his not believing it to be true and real Especially when he so far insinuates his mistrust or doubt of it as to declare he would not defend it as true and real Besides an Hypothesis in the very term of it being but a Supposition it would have been more like inconsistency with himself or with good sense if he had believed it to be true and real For in case it be a true and real thing why should it any longer be an hypothesis And therefore he who fancies the Theory to be a Reality affirms it to be something more than a bare Hypothesis Eng. Theo. p. 149. Ib. p. 150. and will have it to rise above the character of a bare Hypothesis and be a true piece of natural history and the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World The Inconsistency he talks of is not to be found here whither goes he to seek it next Why he has recourse to this saying of the Excepter's Answ p. 67. Our Supposition stands supported by Divine authority as being founded upon Scripture Which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth Now tho nothing of the suggested Inconsistency appears here neither prima facie or at first glance yet he labours to discover it by what follows If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture Ib. p. 67 68. and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak why will not he defend it as true and real For to be supported by Scripture and plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our faith which every one surely is bound to defend In our entrance on this new Hypothesis we desired allowance to make bold with Scripture a little as the Theory had done a great deal Disc p. 299. And afterward we declared that we had no reason to take our singularity in expounding a Text or two of Scripture Ib. p. 325. as an Objection against us if brought by the Theorist or them that hold with him For that indeed is but an imperfect Transcript of his own Copy and a faint imitation of his extravagant Pattern showing him as in a dark and short resemblance a shadow of that large unusual Liberty which he assum'd to himself not easy to be parallell'd And therefore for him to lay hold of our supporting our Hypothesis by plain Scripture as if we forc'd or wrested misinterpreted or misapply'd it in so doing when at the same time we openly profess that we make bold with it is no better than a forestalled Argument otherwise a Cavil And farther as the Answerer himself noted just now we would not be bound to defend what we say of the new Hypothesis as true and real And therefore the founding it upon Scripture and making that to support it plainly cannot possibly be understood by men of sense to be done otherwise than in an hypothetic or suppositious way And thus the Excepter is so far from proving inconsistent with himself or good sense that how could he be more consistent with both than in refusing to defend as true and real what he only supposed to be thus founded upon Scripture and supported by it And whatever he said of that nature was spoken only in way of supposition conjectural Yea tho it was spoken never so positively it was but to set forth rei personam to make the more full and lively representation of the supposed thing And therefore before he began his new Explication of the Flood he premised this caution Disc p. 300. Where we speak never so positively still what we deliver is to be lookt upon not as an absolute but as a comparative Hypothesis And so not as really founded upon Scripture and supported by it but as supposed to be so only The Answerer therefore in this business need not have brought in so over-strain'd a comparison as the Articles of our Faith p. 68. Betwixt which and Hypotheses there is greatest Difference the one being no less than truths of GOD and the other no more than Imaginations of men And as they are very different things so Scripture supports them very different ways Articles of Faith it supports directly and mainly by Divine Revelation Hypotheses collaterally and presumptively by humane fiction or imputation And as Scripture supports them in a different manner so we are bound to defend them in as different a measure For Articles of Faith we are bound to defend to the very Death but who are oblig'd to be Martyrs for Philosophy Yea some who build Hypotheses upon Scripture-Foundations I believe will rather let them fall and moreover help to pull them down than stand a fiery Trial to uphold them We are told that S. Peter convinces us Eng. Theor. p. 85. that the Theorist's Description of the Antediluvian Earth and of the Deluge is a reality And that other places of Scripture seem manifestly to describe the form of his Abyss with the Earth above it Ib. p. 86. And that Scripture it self doth assure us that the Earth rise at first out of his Chaos Ib. p. 150. Yet I am apt to think and I hope without breaking the Law of Charity That the Learned Author of these Notions would