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
the Aereal Heavens perisht do think that they perisht any otherwise than by the Water 's rising up into the lowest Regions of the Air. And that place of Bede which the Review cites seems to speak the common sense as well as his own which gives us to understand that the Heavens perished p. 25. cunctis aeris hujus turbulenti spatiis aquarum accrescentium altitudine consumptis All the spaces of this turbulent Air being taken up by the heighth of the swelling waters According to which the Heavens perished just as the Air does in a Vessel when it fills with Water But let out the Water and the Air immediately returns into it So the lowest Heavens that perished at the Flood by standing in the Water when that was dried up presently recovered their first Aereal Constitution again The Last reason is answered in the 4th of the foregoing Exceptions And from what has been here said Answers may with ease be made to those Considerations which the Review alledges in proof of a Diversity or Opposition made by S. Peter betwixt the Ancient Heavens and Earth and the Present But farther yet the Review observes that S. Paul also implys that triple Creation which S. Peter expresses p. 10 11. For Rom. 8.20 21 he tells us of a Creation that will be redeemed from vanity which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come A Creation in subjection to vanity which is the present State of uhe World And a Creation that was subjected to vanity in hopes of being restored which was the first Paradisiacal Creation But by Creation or Creature here to understand the Heavens and Earth must be improper For first it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Creation or every Creature that is here spoken of v. 22d And where does that signify the material Heavens and Earth in Scripture Secondly the Creature mention'd is capable of waiting and of earnest expectation and of hope and of pain and of groaning as the verse cited and the context show Yea it seems to be capable of groaning as we our selves do v. 23. Which is above the power of Matter tho never so subtil or celestial Thirdly the Creature here is to be delivered from bondage into glorious liberty v. 21. And this again is a Character which falls not in with the Heavens and Earth He says indeed that the Creature that will be Redeemed from Vanity is the new Heavens and new Earth to come But how will they supposing them come into the Paradisiacal State be delivered from vanity For even then they can be in no better condition than the first Paradisiacal Heavens and Earth were as coming but into a state of Renovation or Restitution And they were so far from being freed from Vanity that they were subject to corruption and perished at the Deluge as the Theorist holds And truly so must the last Paradisiacal ones too unless it be prevented The new Earth if it stands long enough must be dissolved and lose its Form and the new Heavens must be changed at another Deluge and lose their Constitution Or if the day of Judgment should happen first and hinder this yet where would be their Redemption or Deliverance here phantsied For still they would be vain and corruptible in their Nature as Enoch and Elias were both Mortal tho neither died To which add that the Theory l. 4. p. 219 220. plants Gog and Magog in the New Earth and allows them to grow numerous there as the sand by the Sea And so it can no more be redeem'd or deliver'd from Moral Vanity and Corruption upon it than from Natural Vanity and Corruptibility in it Lastly This Creature of the Apostles is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Children of God v. 21. now the liberty of GOD's Children is Moral Spiritual and Divine which is not compleated but in the future exalted state of bliss Where being heirs of GOD and joint heirs with CHRIST we shall be glorified with him v. 17th But such a liberty as this is no way compatible to things meerly Physical and so the Heavens and Earth tho never so new and paradisiacal must not pretend to it cannot partake of it Thus we see that the Theorists Interpretation of this Place of Scripture is not right and therefore of necessity we must look out for some other Creature as here intended Nor need we search much to find one Preach the Gospel to every Creature said the H. JESUS to his Apostles S. Mar. 16.15 Here the word is the same with S. Paul's to the Romans But Heavens and Earth cannot possibly be meant by it because to them there must be no Preaching But by every Creature the Heathen World may fitly be understood And so this Precept or Commission given to the Apostles is parallel to that in the last chapter of S. Matthew go and teach all Nations And then by the Vanity to which the Creature was Subject and the Bondage of Corruption from which they were to be delivered we must understand See Dr. Hammonds Annotations on the place Idolatry to which the Gentiles were miserably inslaved And that indeed in Scripture is emphatically exprest by Vanity and Corruption So the Apostles Act. 15th having preached to Idolaters declare the end of their Doctrine was to turn them from their VANITIES And Moses in Deuteronomy does usually point at Idolatry by mens CORRUPTING themselves And if we frame the Exposition of S. Paul's words to this sense it will run very smoothly through the whole Paragraph without any considerable check or Difficulty Review p. 11. But after S. Paul he brings in S. John also to countenance his Phantsie of this triple State of Heavens and Earth For he speaks of the new Heavens and new Earth with that distinguishing Character that the Earth was without a Sea And as this distinguisheth it from the present Earth so being a Restitution or Restauration it must be the same with some former Earth c. To this we Answer The one and twentieth Chapter of the Apocalyps where we meet with S. Johns new Heavens and Earth consists of two very glorious Scenes The New Heavens and Earth make the first and the holy City or the New Jerusalem the latter But this City being Allegorical we have no reason to think that the new Heavens down from which and the new Earth down to which it came should be otherwise Also this Allegation does no more prove The Triple State of Heavens and Earth or that the primitive Earth was without a Sea than it proves there shall be a City built of pure Gold whose twelve Gates shall be twelve Pearls in a Literal sense according to the tenour of that chapter And now let us offer but Two short Exceptions which will not fail to subvert the chief Scripture-basis of the whole Theory of the Earth as the Review calls it p. 13th by showing that S. Peter's words as well as S. Paul's and S. John's are
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
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
suggested that such a posture as lying cross the Stream would be more likely to effect the Earth's turning upon its own axis as it does And the Stream would take more hold of an oblong Body than of a round Answ p. 40. And because it would take more hold of it for that very reason it would the sooner turn it out of its Position For what makes the force of a stream turn a long Body that lies cross it sooner than another as long which already lies length-ways in it but only its taking more hold of it And then as to the Earth's turning upon its own axis it would rather have promoted than prevented the change of its situation considering its wallowings in its Annual Circuit For where a Body has two Motions upon the same Center if one of them chances to be irregular the other commonly disorders it farther rather than helps to correct its Exorbitance Somewhat like a Bowl which being not set out of hand right the oftner it turns round in its progressive motion the farther it runs on in a wrong Course The second Argument against the Oval Figure of the first Earth Disc p. 196. is the Sphaericalness of the present Earth And that the present Earth is Sphaerical is not only the Opinion of Modern but also of Ancient Philosophers said the Excepter and he named some But the Theorist Answ p. 40. says the Answerer alledg'd many more Authorities in favour of the Oval Figure of the Earth For besides Empedocles in particular he affirms that the Philosophy of Orpheus the Phoenician Aegyptian and Persian Philosophers did all compare the Earth to an Egg with respect to its Oval External Form Here we must reply Another untruth 1st That this is another very false Assertion For those Philosophers made the comparison betwixt the World and the Egg not betwixt the Earth and the Egg tho our Author would put that sense upon them Only two of the Authorities cited by him Lat. Theor. Edit 2. p. 267. resemble the Earth to the Yolk of the Egg very unluckily for that we know is of a round Figure 2ly Where the Ancients compare the World to an Egg they do it usually with respect to its Production as well as to its Form A Notion which the Answerer or any Theist would be loth to admit of that Heaven and Earth and all things therein should spring out of a material Egg. A pregnant Instance of this occurs in Athenagoras which upon occasion we noted formerly who tells us that Orpheus the Author we may suppose Legat. pro Christ pa. mihi 72. Disc p. 105. Sympos l. 2. Qu. 3. of the Doctrine of the Mundane Egg for Plutarch calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Orphic Doctrine taught that a vast Egg brought forth by Hercules being broke by him fell into two parts Of the upper part Heaven was made and of the lower the Earth So that Heaven was contained in and sprung out of this Egg as well as the Earth And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Heaven being mingled with Earth brought forth Men Women and GODS And what is this less tho the Gentil Divinity was tinctur'd with it than a piece of rankest Atheistic Physiology For it makes Mankind and Gods to rise out of meer Matter without allowing such a Principle as Soul or Spirit to any one of them And this Egg out of which Aristophanes will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Avib the Race of Gods to be hatched as well as mortal and inanimate Creatures was layed he says by Chaos and Night And so gives us a plain account of the old Atheistic Theology which made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Production of the Gods and the Production of the World the same thing Yet the Theorist was pleased to show Vid. Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 7. 10. Edit 2. that between this Doctrine and his there is an Harmony or Affinity Which if it will conciliate Reputation to his Hypothesis let it But so far as it agrees with the Aristophanic or Atheistic Cosmogony so far it will be the less reconcilable to the Mosaic Cosmology or inspired Doctrine of the Creation Disc p. 197. The Sphaericalness of this present Earth was argued First from the Conical Figure of its shadow cast upon the Moon Answ p. 41. But that says the Answerer cannot make a Difference sensible to us at this distance whether the Body that cast the shadow was exactly Sphaerical or Oval This is gratis dictum and spoken against a common and approved Argument and so of little weight Secondly It was inferred from the place of the Waters Which are deepest so far as we know near the Poles whereas were the Earth Oval the middle Regions thereof being lowest the Waters would have run thither and settled under the Aequator But this he tells us has been answer'd before The same Cause that drive the Waters thither would have kept them there And that Answer has been reply'd to already and the Replicant has shewed that there was no sufficient Cause to drive the Waters thither and so none to keep them there Thirdly It was urged That if this Earth was Oval Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult if not impossible because of Sailing up an Ascent But says the Answerer If there be a continual draught of Waters from the Aequator towards the Poles this will Ballance the Difficulty But if there be no such draught the difficulty holds and that there is such a Draught remains to be proved That the Figure of this Earth is truly Sphaerical is fairly discovered and determin'd by this Observation That the Gibbosity of the Sea rises as fast behind a Ship Sailing in direct Latitude towards the Poles as behind one whose course lies in direct Longitude towards East or West CHAP. X. THE Excepter proved that Mountains were before the Flood from the words of Moses Psal 90. Read Disc c. 10. § 1. Before the Mountains were brought forth Thou art GOD from everlasting And from Pro. 8.22 25. where we read that the LORD possessed WISDOM before the Mountains were settled And the Answerer grants that the design and intention of the H. GHOST is plain in both these places in the one Answ p. 43◠to set out the Eternity of GOD and in the other of the Logos in particular Now where it was the design and intention of the H. GHOST to set out the Existence of GOD and the Divine Logos which were from everlasting by temporal things would he do it by any but such as were soonest brought into being Or would Moses himself without the H. GHOST have done it by any other things than such Surely it would have been a very faint and improper Illustration of GOD's Eternity unbecoming Moses much more the H. SPIRIT to say that he existed before the World was seventeen hundred years old Yet when
and Q. Curtius the Babylonian Soil does still retain a strange and happy Fertility For they assure us that it yields Corn at the rate of two hundred fold and that it bears Palm Trees of its own accord which afford Bread Wine Honey c. And as Pliny informs us Nat. Hist l. 18. c. 17. their Corn grows so rank that men are fain to cut it twice and after that turn Sheep into it to eat it down And then Crops are so plentiful that one year they sow themselves against the next and sponte restibilis fit seges Corn grows of its own accord and yields an harvest without Tillage And if this Soil be so fertile now what was it before the Curse when it was newly created and in its prime Perfection So that upon the whole Matter let Rabbies and Fathers and Poets and Theorists say what they please yet so long as Moses wrote the second Chapter of Genesis and his hand was guided by the most HOLY and unerring SPIRIT we cannot but think that men in reason ought to conclude and that in duty they ought to believe that Paradise was seated in Mesopotamia or thereabouts And we hope it is as intelligible that it should be there seated as that it was situate in the Southern Hemisphere For who ever yet understood or who can understand That Eden and Havilah and Cush and Assyria were Countries and that Pison and Gihon and Hiddekel and Euphrates were Rivers in that Southern Hemisphere In case they were so how came they from thence hither I remember Sir Richard Baker tells it as a great Wonder amongst the Casualties that hapned in our Queen Elizabeth's Reign that a certain hill in Herefordshire beginning to remove out of its place on Saturday Evening continued walking till Munday noon But if such large Countries as these could take so long a Journey the ambulatory Mount may stand by for a diminutive Prodigy Tho we must observe withal that the Fathers never seated Paradise in the other Hemisphere neither They only seem to incline to that by the Theorists due interpretation of them as was noted above And as to the Seat of Paradise as he says they expressed themselves in various ways That is their Notions of it were incertain and in plain terms they knew not where to fix it But so far were they from believing it to be in the Southern Hemisphere that they did not believe that Hemisphere was ever inhabited for they did not believe that there were Antipodes And when some of them would have Paradise to be Mystical only and others would have it to be the whole Earth and others place it under the Aequinoctial and others under the Globe or Circle of the Moon and others in the exterior part of a flat or plain Earth round the inward part of which they supposed the Ocean to stand like a Ring Which of them set it in the Southern Hemisphere Tho if they had we need not have been much surpriz'd at it neither For being but men they might have done as men have erred that is in their Opinion And truly ever since Adam through desire of Knowledge first planted error in Paradise that poysonous Weed has been apt to Spring up and spread unhappily in other places and the best Gardens of Antiquity have been stained with it Witness the Millenium the Rebaptizing of Haeretics the Limbus Patrum the Communicating of Infants and the like And if we 'll take in Errors of a lower Strain we shall find the false Notions entertained by the Ancients of the Form of the Earth of the Figure and Situation of the Sea of the non-existence of Antipodes c. ready to confirm and corroborate the Testimony And what does the famous Aristotelian Hypothesis seem to be now in this present Age Aristotle believed the Milky Way to be a Meteor He also allowed but Eight Heavenly Sphaeres which Timocaris above three hundred years before the Incarnation improved to Nine and Alphonsus in the thirteeneth Century after it into Ten and afterward they were commonly reckoned Eleven And not only Egyptians Graecians and Arabians but even Hebrew and Christian Doctors took the Stars to be living Bodies actuated with Souls as Espencaeus informs us in his Treatise de Cal. animat but a Mass of Errors Where such a Systeme was contrived for the Heavens and such a situation assigned to the Earth as neither Reason can approve nor Nature allow Yet so prosperous and prevailing was this Hypothesis that it was generally received and successfully propagated for many Ages And when the Heavens were so misconceived and the Earth so misplaced and the Errors touching both were spread so far and continued so long why might not the same happen as to Paradise Why might not the Ancients and the choicest of the Ancients mistake concerning it particularly concerning the place of it Were an Account to be given of the Original or Occasion of this their Mistake it might seem methinks to have risen thus or proceeded from hence They thought and spake too Great things of Paradise and supposed such Properties and Excellencies in it as it never had nor was capable of And having rais'd their Phantsies to so high a Pitch they could not tell how to let them fall again and stoop so low as Mesopotamia And so they conceited that Paradise was in some remote unknown inaccessible Region or as it were in another World because they could find out no place in this which answered the gay Notions that they had and their fine but false Idea's of it Just as the Jews overlookt the Person of the true Messiah because it came not up to that vain and extravagant Character of Him unhappily imprinted on their Minds So these pious learned and incomparable men took no notice of the real Place of Paradise as being prepossest with misapprehensions of it The lofty Opinions which they had concerning it lifted up their Thoughts far above it and carry'd them away quite beyond it They imagin'd that it was they knew not well what and so they placed it they knew not well where believing they should wrong it if they fixt it any where in this ordinary World The Excepter having done with the Place of Paradise he objected next against the Longaevity of men before the flood as a Property of it But this p. 55. says the Answerer he handles so loosely that in the conclusion of his Discourse one cannot tell whether he affirms it or denies it The Excepter begins his discourse of this matter Disc p. 273. with these very words As for the Longaevity of the Antediluvians that could be no Property or Adjunct of Paradise And did he not deny then and positively deny the Longaevity of the Antediluvians as a Property of Paradise which is his notion of it And because the Answerer does affirm the thing by dividing the Doctrine of the local Paradise into two parts Answer p. 55. the Place and the Properties
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
to his concluding Objection against our Caverns What reason have we to believe that there were such Vessels then Ib. p. 77. more than now To this we have spoken so very fully Disc p. 306 307 308. that nothing more needs here be added in way of reply Who would have thought there had been such fountains in the Rocks of Rephidim and Cadesh if God had not opened them But he draws out the Objection farther thus Answ p. 77. If the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks why did not Moses express it so and tell us that the Rocks were cloven and the waters gushed out and so made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Tehom Rabbah was broken open But there is not one word of Rocks or the cleaving of Rocks in the History of the Flood To which we reply first Moses does not say that the Tehom Rabbah was broken open but only the fountains of it were broken up And what fountains belonging to the Tehom Rabbah could more properly be so broken up than these Caverns Secondly the Intelligibility of a thing is no reason why it must needs be expressed How many things are passed by with silence in Scripture even where occasion is offered to speak of them which yet are true and had they been expressed might easily have been understood And thirdly the same Objection which he throws at the Excepter rebounds back with violence upon himself If the breaking up of the Abyss at the Deluge had been the Disruption and fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it according to the Vital Assertion of the Theory in that case why did not Moses express it so and tell us that this Disruption and Fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Fountains of the Jehom Rabbah were broken up But there is not one word of this Fall of the Earth in the History of the Flood Thus have we seen the Assaults that are made upon the new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge But so far are they from overthrowing it that they seem to me not to shake it in the least And I cannot but own that I am never so inclinable to believe it may be true as when I consider how weak the answers are to the reasons and arguments alledg'd to confirm it and how inconsiderable the Objections against it But yet I do no more affirm it to be true now than I did at first Tho I am apt to think it may as well pass for true and may as easily be maintained to be true as that Hypothesis to which it is compared and which arrogates to it self the glorious Title not only of a true piece of Natural History but also of the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World CHAP. XVI THE principal matter and the only thing to be noted in this Chapter is what our Author omitted in its proper place and is here thought on by him to be answered According to his usual way of mistaking Answ p. 78. he calls it one objection tho there be two very distinct ones He answers the last first and therefore I begin with that Disc p. 311. which was this If the Abyss under the Earth to wave the other things mention'd had been the great Deep meant by Moses it had not had any true or proper Fountains in it And so what will become of all the Fountains of the great Deep His Answer is Answ p. 78. there were fountains in the Abyss as much as Windows in Heaven The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred Windows signifies as well Cataracts and it might have been rendred so more properly And indeed in the Margent Gen. 7.11 it is rendred Floodgates which in signification is somewhat nearer to Cataracts Tho that I say would have been the properest reddition in this Text. For Cataracts are high and broken places from whence waters do impetuously rush down And therefore thick and broken Clouds condensed into hardness or an Icy consistency from which prodigious waters by falls from one concameration of them to another came tumbling down in excessive quantities and at last were discharged hideously on the Earth in many places especially about the lofty Mountains were at that time true coelestial Cataracts which by ALMIGHTY GOD were then opened even in a literal sense And therefore these Cataracts or Windows of Heaven by some learned Commentators are expounded to be Nubes densae Copiosae thick and huge Clouds But now in the inclos'd Abyss there were no answerable Fountains broken up no such real Fountains as these were real Cataracts of Heaven and therefore the Answer given is not home to the purpose The other Objection was this Whereas it is said Disc p. 311. Gen. 8.2 That the Fountains of the Deep were stopped the Earth broken down into the Abyss was never made up again He answers those were shut up that is Answ p. 78. ceas'd to act and were put into a condition to continue the Deluge no longer But then if the Stoppage of these Fountains was Figurative the Fountains themselves must be the same And so they were not so real as the Cataracts of Heaven were Nor could they be stopped so properly as our Caverns might be the thing that we argued for and the drift of our Objection was to make it out And as for this answer it rather strengthens the Objection than takes it off CHAP. XVII IN justification of that Positiveness wherewith he was charged in the beginning of this Chapter he makes profession of his belief of the Theory And let them that can do it envy him the satisfaction and benefit of it But if he has no better proofs of its certainty than what he has produced when by his faith he apprehends it for a Reality he may do no better than he did who embrac'd a shadow for the Goddess There are many thousands and they not unlearned who take Legends for truths and equal Tradition to the written Word Who put Apocryphal Books into the holy Canon and give fullest assent to that pregnant absurdity the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But this is so far from changing the Nature of the things that it only betrays the folly of the Persons For it evidently shows the blindness of their Minds that they are so strangely impos'd on and the weakness of their Judgments that can be led captive into such gross and groundless Errors And from these and other Instances we may infer that a strong faith and confident assurance may be no arguments of the objects truth but of the Believers Credulity It is a notable word that Demosthenes spake in his Third Oration to the Olynthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Disc p.
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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