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
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
was so open that Moses and the Israelites marched through it How does the Answerer take off this Objection Why because the Excepter had said that as in a Bag Psal 33.7 Should be rendred as on an heap and proved it by Authorities he gives him leave to render this place so as on an heap For says he it was done by a miracle But if when by miracle the waters in an open Sea stood on an heap they were said to be in a Bag then this shows more plainly still that that Expression He gathereth the waters of ahe Sea as in a bagg can be no manner of proof that they were ever inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth And at last indeed he in effect confesses that he mis-interpreted the Psalmist's words For he declares now that that other place Psal 33.7 Answ p. 21. speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the Waters which is not on an heap but in a level or spherical convexity with the rest of the Earth And thus he catches himself in a trap For if the Text speaks of the Ordinary posture of the waters lying in a Level with the rest of the earth Eng. Theor. p. 86. why did he wrest and misapply it by making it speak of an Extraordinary posture of them an invention of his own whereby they lay within the Vault of the Earth But the Excepter must not escape here neither Answ p. 21. For he complains of him for an unfair citation of a Paragraph of the Theory which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal 33.7 whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms and is a modest reflection upon the explication of them Now if the Paragraph belonging to all those Texts did agree properly with none and with one less than with the rest surely the Excepter might without unfairness cite and apply it to that one without meddling with the rest And so the Complaint is frivolous Tho how modest the Reflection he speaks of was he may consider when it backs such an explication of Scripture as would make Moses and the Hebrews pass thorow a Sea See Disc p. 140. which at the time of their passing was inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth He proceeds next to Job 26.7 He stretcheth out the North over the empty place and hangeth the Earth upon nothing But how can this most aptly agree to the structure of the Theory's first Earth when as the Excepter noted the Theory it self testifies concerning Ib. p. 142. it that it rise upon the face of the Chaos And could not have been formed unless by a Concretion upon the face of the Waters And that it had the mass of the waters as a basis or foundation to rest upon And so was no more stretcht out upon emptiness and hang'd upon nothing than an Arch when built upon its Center And but just before the Theory contended from Psal 24.2 that it was founded upon the Seas and establisht upon the Floods What says the Answerer to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not one Syllable We must take it to be answered by the last Expedient The next place is Job 38.4 5 6. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth Who hath laid the Measures thereof Who hath stretched the line upon it Who laid the corner-stone thereof Where Measures and Line said the Excepter imply only that the Earth was made of a fitting Accuracy And he affirmed that this Earth of ours may be compared with and be thought to outgo the imaginary first Earth of the Theorist's inventing in Two things Comeliness and Vsefulness But because under the first Head of Comeliness the Excepter makes Hills and Mountains to be a piece of the Earth's Beauty P. 22. the Answerer seems much offended with him Not at all considering that at the same time he allows them to be Irregularities Dis p. 144. and 146. and Rudenesses and void of Exactness and Order and calls them the most horrid visible pieces of Nature and hideously amazing c. Only they conduce to the natural Pulchritude of the Earth because it consists in Asymetries and a Wild Variety Yet in respect of these the Earth is more comely than if it were one vast plain or lay every where in a smooth and regular sphaerical Convexity Ib. p. 147. Nor considering neither that the inspired Psalmist as the Excepter noted did devoutly celebrate the Wisdom of GOD exhibited in making the Mountains and high Hills which if they had been nothing but monstrous Scarrs or deformities in the Earthly Body or the Rubbish or Ruines of a decayed Building he would scarce have done so solemnly But as to making the Theorist admire the Beauty of Mountains it was never in the Excepter's thoughts Answ p. 22. Disc p. 146. Tho he takes notice that he was mightily pleased and raised by the sight and contemplation of them But between the Beauty of an Object and the Pleasure of seeing and contemplating it there is great Difference And to turn the Answerers Complement upon himself he that hath not sense and judgment enough to see the difference Answ p. 22. it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words The Vsefulness of the Earth in its present Form and State beyond that of the Theory the Excepter noted in Three Particulars First in that it had Seas for Traffick and Navigation Secondly in that it had Mountains for Bounding Nations for Dividing Kingdoms for Deriving Rivers for Yielding Minerals c. Thirdly in that it had Rains and seasonable Showres And that Rains and Showres were proper Rules whereby to measure the Vsefulness of the Earth and to show that it excells that of the Theory is manifest from GOD's making use of the same in a Case not unlike said the Excepter Disc p. 148. For GOD comparing Egypt and Palestine prefers the latter before the former because in Egypt the Seed sown was water'd with the foot as a Garden of Herbs but Palestine was a Land of hills and valleys and drank water of the Rain of heaven Deut. 11.10 11. Here the Answerer at lasts chops in and tells the Excepter how unluckily it falls out for him p. 23. that a Country that had no Rain should be compared in Scripture or join'd in privilege with Paradise it self and the Garden of GOD. For so is this very Egypt Gen. 13.10 tho it had no Rain but was water'd by Rivers And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Jordan that it was well watered every where before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha even as the Garden of the LORD like the Land of Egypt Therefore says he the greatest commendation of a Land for pleasure and fertility according to Scripture is its being well watered with Rivers But that 's more than the cited Scripture speaks and more than it means as will appear if we consider the Occasion
any thing even what he openly condemns to support as he thinks his tottering Hypothesis which when he has done all that he can will fall at last Ibid. Then he passes to the following verses in that 38th Chapter Who shut up the Sea with doors when it brake forth as if it had issued out of a womb c. Here the Excepter gave reasons why these words must refer to what was done in the Beginning of the World Disc p. 150. p. 150. 151. As also reasons why by the Womb here mentioned could not be meant the inclosure of the Abyss as the Theory would have it And none of them being answered but by the Expedient of passing them by they both stand good Now if the HOLY GHOST speaks here of the Sea when it first brake forth into being which all but the Theorist allow he does what Womb could it issue out of but the Womb of Nothing But instead of removing our Objections the Answerer brings in two of his own which the Replicant will not answer as he does the Excepter's The first is this If you understand the Womb of Non-entity Answ p. 25. the Sea broke out of that womb the first day and had no bars or doors set to it but flow'd over all the Earth without check or controul Therefore that could not be the time or state here spoken of And to refer that restraint or those bars and doors to another time which are spoken of here in the same verse would be very inexcusable in the Excepter seeing he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different Verses to be understood of different times Now pray what is the difference betwixt the time of the Sea 's breaking forth of the womb and the time of its being restrain'd with doors that the Excepter should be so very inexcusable for allowing that difference It was but the space of one poor day And truly if he had not allowed of this difference when GOD Himself signifies that he made the breaking forth of the waters into being part of his first day's work and the gathering them together into one place the decreed place where they were shut up with bars and doors his Third days work he must have been very inexcusable indeed O but therefore the Excepter is very inexcusable because he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different verses to be understood of different times Be it so But were the different times of the Theorist then no more distant than the different times of the Excepter The space between the Excepter's times was one single day that between the Theorist's times was more than sixteen hundred years And yet let him bring but as good authority for the Different times which he contends for as the Excepter does for his different times which GOD has clearly distinguisht by different works his creating Waters on one of the times and his collecting and confining them on the other and his different times will by all be allowed But because he can bring no such authority nor any at all besides his own not the Excepter but he himself must be the very inexcusable person in this Matter His second Objection runs thus Ib. This Metaphysical notion of the womb of nothing is altogether impertinent at least in this case for the Text is plainly speaking of things local and corporeal and this prison of the Sea must be understood as such Must it so What necessity is there for it None at all but to support the Theorist's sinking Hypothesis And for him to say it must be so understood in favour of that is to beg the Question And however that may be less metaphysical it will be more impertinent than our Notion is For that we can presently make very pertinent by a way which himself just now cut out Foundations and Corner-stones are as local and corporeal things as the rest which the Text speaks of Yet these he told us in the immediately fore-going Page P. 24. l. 15. 16. may be understood in way of Allusion And let but this Womb be understood the same way as it ever was and then the Notion will be pertinent enough But who is impertinent for suggesting it was not so The last place is Prov. 8.27 28. When he prepared the Heavens I was there when he set a compass upon the face of the deep c. That by the word Compass here could not be meant the first habitable Earth as a Sphaere Orb or Arch in the beginning set round the Abyss according to the Theory the Excepter shewed very plainly Disc p. 153 154 155. But what he alledged of that nature is answered only by the Second Expedient which is made great use of that is it is passed by with silence Yet that the Answerer might seem to say something he sets up a shadow or phantsy of his own Answ p. 25. and then encounters it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render compass he the Excepter says signifies no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss Let the Answerer show where the Excepter says thus In this he charges him falsly A plain Untruth Disc p. 154. He only said that by the word compass might be meant either Earthly bounds about the open Waters or the Firmament of Heaven as a Sphaere Orb or Arch set upon the face of the Deep And are either of these the Rotundity or Sphaerical figure of the Abyss Yet if they are not as they cannot be has not the Answerer done manifest wrong to the Excepter by suggesting a vain Phantsy or Notion of his own and fathering it upon him as his This to speak freely is fencing with an unlawful Weapon which never commends either the Skill or Ingenuity of them that use it He might therefore as well have wav'd the false charge here by which he would turn the point of non-sense upon the Excepter For what can be more highly nonsensical than to say that the banks about the sides or the Air about the Surface of the Sea are but the shape or meer figure of it This Gentleman in this very Chapter complains of unfairness And is it possible He that does this wrong in the very next paragraph cries out of injury Answ p. 26. Of an injustice which the Excepter hath done the Theory by a false accusation For he says the Theory makes the Construction of the first Earth to have been meerly Mechanical And did it not make it so Proferte tabulas How read we in the beginning of the Sixth Chapter of the Latin Theory Edit 2. Secutus sum leges notissimas gravitatis levitatis earum solo ductu vidimus massam illam primigeniam pervenisse tandem in formam stabilem regionis terrae I have followed the most known laws of gravity and levity and by the sole leading of them we have
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
resist the attenuating force of the Wind aforesaid these tops of the Mountains could not have shown themselves as yet For had not the Waters been thus decreased they would still have gone away into Vapours and Exhalations at such a rate as that the air by them would have been so bemisted and the Mountains by that would have been so obscured that the tops of them could not have been so soon discovered And why the tops of them were discerned before their lower and their larger parts Disc p. 342. an account has been already given Answ p. 74. Lastly as to this matter he objects That the whole notion of spending the waters of the Deluge by Evaporation hath no foundation in Scripture or Reason But in short it is founded upon both 1st Upon Reason For how reasonable is it that Waters should be turned into Vapours it being a thing most natural And how reasonable that they should be so turned at an extraordinary rate where the Sun had an extraordinary power and when to the force of the Sun was join'd the assistance of a mighty Wind 2ly Upon Scripture For their Returning off the Earth continually Gen. 8.3 might be but their returning into that Principle out of which they were made namely into Vapours See Disc p. 340 341. And that Expression the Waters were going and decreasing Gen. 8.5 may be understood of their going away quite by a wasting or diminishing of them And the learned Schindler makes the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that very place to signify this very thing And so the Notion was not only founded upon Scripture and Reason but moreover upon good Authority And whereas the Answerer would have the first of these two cited Texts to denote the local motion of the Waters or their returning to the place from whence they came Answ p. 76. this they did do when they were resolved into Vapours and were retracted into the Atmosphaere whence they descended Tho such a Return they could not be so fully capable of according to the Theory's Hypothesis the inclos'd Abyss being fill'd up in a great measure by the fallen Earth And whereas he says farther that then the Dove 's returning Ib. p. 77. was her returning into her principles that is into an Egg It is said expressly of the Dove that she returned unto him Noah into the Ark Gen. 8.9 and neither her's nor the Raven's return into Eggs could have been agreeable to Nature or Reason or have been of any manner of use Tho as nothing was more rational and nothing more natural so nothing could possibly be more useful than the Evaporation of the Waters both to the Earth and Atmosphaere at once For by their thus returning or going away into Vapours the one was dried by their reascending the other And so whereas he demands concerning the Evaporation of the Waters where does he find this notion in Scripture Answ p. 74. I might better put the like question to him where does he in Scripture find the vital Assertions of his Theory Which yet for the relation it has to Scripture he calls Theoria sacra the holy Theory tho in sundry things it be inconsistent with Scripture and opposite to it I must take my leave of this point with remarking an Vntruth which he lays upon the Excepter Another Untruth Answ p. 73◠li. 24◠It is this He gives him the Sun a miraculous power to draw up waters But where does he ascribe such a power to him The Answerer must show it or else incur the Censure of a false Accuser Indeed that the Sun has power to exhale Water now by agitating its Particles and so dilating and putting them into a flying motion is not to be doubted Nor is it to be question'd but this his power of Exhalation was most operative just after the full Rise of the Deluge For then the Atmosphaere having newly suffered a thorow Solution of its Continuity and the stock of its Vapours being greatly exhausted and the whole Earth except the higher parts of the Mountains being covered with the Flood his Beams having now a freer Passage through a finer Air could not but shoot down much more forcibly upon the diffused Water and agitating it more vehemently make Vapours to rise at a far greater Rate than they us'd to do And these Vapours being once raised by the action of the Sun would immediately take wing and fly into the empty Atmosphaere above there being such room and reception for them And as fast as some gave way others following while the void Atmosphaere suckt them up as it were and helpt them to ascend by its readiness to receive them an excessive plenty of misty Vapours must needs go up in continued streams from the steaming surface of the rarefying Water Thus I confess the Sun had power to draw up Water and power to attract it very copiously at the time we speak of till confused Nature came to be resettled in its first Order Yea so plentifully did he draw up Water in that juncture and such a mistiness thereby did he cause in the Air as he never did do before nor never in likelihood shall do again because there never was nor will be the like reasons for it But that the Excepter gave him miraculous power to do it is incumbent upon the Answerer who was pleas'd to say it to make it out A miraculous Wind indeed the Excepter owned Dsc p. 341. sent on purpose to hasten the work of drying up the Water Hic ventus non tam naturali quam divina visiccavit aquas a Lapide in loc Gen. 8.1 which in course of Nature could never have been done in so short a time if it could have been done at all but as for a miraculous influence of the Sun as it would have been needless in conjunction with such a Wind so he knows of none nor did he ever think of any But besides all this at length he would find out an Insufficiency in the new Hypothesis as if the measure of its Waters could not reach to the Execution which was necessary to be done upon the Animal World For whereas an Vniversal Destruction was made by the Flood Answ p. 71. I would gladly know says he how this could be in a fifteen-Cubit Deluge For Birds would naturally fly to the tops of Trees And Beasts would retire by degrees to Mountains Men also could not fail to retire into Mountains Or the upper stories of their houses might be sufficient to save them Or an house seated upon an Eminency or a Castle upon a Rock would always be a safe retreat from this diminutive Deluge Ib. 72. And those that were upon the Sea in Ships would never come in danger This is the substance of the Answerers Objections where he reflects upon the incompetency of the new Hypothesis in regard of the Quantity or height of those Waters of which it supposes the flood to be