of its Theorems makes that to be false upon which our religion is founded Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture here pretended is onely in natural things and also observe how far the Excepter himself in such things hath contradicted Scripture As for other reproofs which he gives us those that are more gentle I easily pass over but some-where he makes our assertions too bold an affront to Scripture And in another place represents them as either directly or consequentially Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is the unpardonable Sin Matt. 12. 31. There is no pleasure in repeating such expressions and dreadful sentences Let us rather observe if the Excepter hath not made himself obnoxious to them But first we must state the case truly that so the blame may not fall upon the Innocent The case therefore is this Whether to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture in things that relate to the natural World be destroying the foundations of Religion affronting Scripture and blaspheming the Holy Ghost In the Case propos'd We take the Negative and stand upon that Plea But the Excepter hath taken the Affirmative and therefore all those heavy charges must fall upon himself if he go contrary to the Literal sence of Scripture in his Philosophical opinions or assertions And that he hath done so we will give you some Instances out of this Treatise of his Pag. 314. He says It is most absurd to think that the Earth is the center of the World Then the Sun stands still and the Earth moves according to his doctrine But this is expresly contrary to Scripture in many places The Sun rejoices as a strong Man to run his race says David His going forth is from the end of the Heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it No such thing says the Excepter The Sun hath no race to run he is fixt in his seat without any progressive motion He hath no course from one end of the Heavens to the other In like manner Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon says the Sacred Author and the Sun stood still No says the Excepter 't was the Earth stood still upon that miracle for the Sun always stood still And 't is absurd yea most absurd to think otherwise And he blames Tycho Brahe for following Scripture in this particular Now is not this in the language of the Excepter to destroy the foundations of Religion To affront Scripture and blaspheme against the Holy Ghost But this is not all The Excepter says Chap. 10. the Sun rais'd up the Mountains on the 3 d. Day And the Sun was not in being till the 4 th Day according to Scripture Gen. 1. 14. The Moon also which according to Scripture was not created till the 4 th Day he says would hinder the formation of the Earth which was done the 3 d. Day Lastly In his new Hypothesis he makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain or common Surface of the Earth Which Scripture affirms expresly to have cover'd the tops of the highest Hills or Mountains under Heaven These two things are manifestly inconsistent The Scripture says they cover'd the tops of the highest Mountains And the Excepter says they reach but fifteen Cubits about or upon the skirts of them This I think is truly to contradict Scripture or according to his talent of loading things with great words This is not onely flatly but loudly contradictory to the most express word of the Infallible God These observations I know are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself But if you please upon this occasion let us reflect a little upon the Literal style of Scripture and the different authority of that style according to the matter that it treats of The subject matter of Scripture is either such as lies without the cognizance and comprehension of humane reason or such as lies within it If it be the former of these 't is what we call properly and purely Revelation And there we must adhere to the literal style because we have nothing to guide us but that Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation wherein we can have nothing to authorize our deviation from the Letter and words of Scripture And therefore the School-Divines who have spun those Doctrines into a multitude of Niceties and Subtleties had no warrant for what they did and their conclusions are of no authority The second matter or subject of Scripture is such as falls under the view and comprehension of Reason more or less and in the same proportion gives us a liberty to examine the Literal sence how far it is consistent with reason and the faculties of our mind Of this nature there are several things in the Holy Writings both Moral Theological and Natural wherein we recede from the Letter when it is manifestly contrary to the dictates of reason I will give some Instances in every kind First as to Moral things Our Saviour says If thy right Eye offend thee pluck it out If thy right hand offend thee cut it off There is no Man that thinks himself oblig'd to the Literal practice of this doctrine And yet it is plainly deliver'd you see in these terms in the Gospel Nay which is more our Saviour backs and enforces the letter of this doctrine with a Reason For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole Body should be cast into Hell As if he had intended that his Precept should have been really executed according to the Letter In like manner our Saviour says If any man will sue thee at Law and take away thy Coat let him have thy Cloak also And yet there is no Christian so good-natur'd as to practise this nor any Casuist so rigid as to enjoyn it according to the Letter Other Instances you may see in our Saviour's Sermon upon the Mount where we do not scruple to lay aside the Letter when it is judg'd contrary to the Light of Nature or impracticable in humane Society In all other things also that lie within the sphere of humane reason we are allow'd to examine their practicability or their credibility To instance in something Theological The words of Consecration in the Sacrament Our Saviour when he instituted the last Supper us'd these words This is my Body taking the Bread into his hand Which words joyn'd with that action are very formal and expressive Yet we do not scruple to forsake the Literal sence and take the words in another way But upon what warrant do we this Because the literal sence contains an absurdity Because it contradicts the light of Nature Because it is inconsistent with the Idea of a Body and so destroys it self In like manner upon the Idea of the Divine Nature we dispute Absolute Reprobation and an Eternity of Torments against the letter of Scripture And Lastly Whether the
the Iewish Cabala and Cabalistical interpretations And the Third about Mystical numbers But the Theory not being concern'd in these things I leave them to the Author and his Readers to enjoy the pleasure and profit of them and proceed to the Third Chapter CHAP. III. IN This Chapter a Second Exception against the formation of the Earth as propos'd in the Theory is alledg'd And 't is this The fluctuation of the Chaos or of that first watery Globe would hinder he says any Concretion of Earth upon its surface Not that there were Winds or Storms then to agitate those waters Neither would the motion of the Earth or the rotation of that Globe disturb them as he allows there But the disturbance would have rise from Tides or the ebbings and flowings of that great Ocean which he says must have been then as well as now And the reason he gives is this Because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon And the Moon was then present as he says in our Heavens or in our Vortex and therefore would have the same effect then upon that Body of waters which lay under it that it hath now upon the Sea That the Moon was in the Heavens and in our Neighbourhood when the Earth was form'd he proves from the Six-days Creation and spends two or three pages in wit and scolding upon this subject But with his leave when all is done his argument will be of no force unless he can prove that the Fourth Day 's Creation was before the Third I confess I have heard of a wager that was lost upon a like case namely whether Henry the 8 th was before Henry the 7 th But that was done by complot in the Company to whom it was referr'd to decide the Question We have no plot here but appeal fairly to that Judge the Excepter hath chosen namely to Scripture which tells us that the Moon was made the 4 th Day and the Earth was form'd the 3 d. Therefore unless the 4 th Day was before the 3 d. the Moon could not hinder the formation of the Earth But I hope say you this is a misrepresentation The Animadverter sure would not put the matter upon this issue Yes he does For when he had oppos'd to our Formation of the Earth the Fluctuation of the Waters caus'd as he phrases it by the bulkie presence of the Moon He concludes with these words p. 77. Paragr 3. But in reference to this matter there is a Doubt made by the Theorist which must be consider'd and removed Otherwise most of what hath been said touching the instability and fluctuation of these Waters will be vain and groundless The Doubt is Whether the Moon were then in our neighbourhood You see that matter is put upon this issue Whether the Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth at the time of its formation We say she was not and prove it by this plain argument If she was not in Being at that time she was not in our Neighbourhood But unless the 4 th day was before the 3 d. she was not in Being Ergo. But after all If the Moon had been present then and there had been Tides or any other fluctuation towards the Poles we have no reason to believe according to the experiences we have now that that would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth upon the surface of the Chaos For why should they have hinder'd that more than they do the formation of Ice upon the Surface of the Sea We know in cold Regions the Seas are frozen notwithstanding their Tides And in the mouths of Rivers where there is both the current and stream of the River on one hand and the counter-current of the Tides on the other these together cannot hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water And our water is a substance more thin and easily broken than that tenacious film was that cover'd the Chaos WHEREFORE upon all suppositions we have reason to conclude that no fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder the formation of the First Earth Lastly The Observator opposes the reasons that are given by the Theorist why the presence of the Moon was less needful in the first World Namely because there were no long Winter-nights nor the great Pool of the Sea to move or govern As to the Second reason 't is onely Hypothetical and if the Hypothesis be true That there was no open Sea at that time which must be else-where examin'd the consequence is certainly true But as to the first reason He will not allow the Consequence tho' the Hypothesis be admitted For he says As there were no long Winter-nights then so there were no short Summer ones neither So that set but the one against the other and the presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then in regard of the length of nights as she is now This looks like a witty observation but it does not reach the point Is there as much need of the Moon in Spain as in Lapland or the Northern Countries There is as much Night in one place as another within the compass of a Year but the great inconvenience is when the Night falls upon the hours of Travel or the hours of work and business For if it fall onely upon hours of sleep or of rest and retirement as it does certainly more in Spain and in those Climates that approach nearer to and Equinox the Moon is there less necessary in that respect We can sleep without Moon-shine or without Light but we cannot travel or do business abroad without hazard and great inconvenience if there be no light So that the reason of the Theorist holds good viz. That there would be more necessity of Moon shine in long Winter-Nights than in a perpetual Equinox We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter which is made up of some secondary Charges against this part of the Theory concerning the Chaos and the Formation of the first Earth As first that it is precarious Secondly Vnphilosophical and Thirdly Antiscriptural which we shall answer in order He seems to offer at three or four instances of precariousness as to the ingredients of the Chaos their proportions and separations But his quarrel is chiefly with the oily particles These he will scarce allow at all nor that they could separate themselves in due time to receive the Terrestrial at least in due proportions First He would have no oily particles in the Chaos But why so I pray what proof or just exception is there against them Why may there not be original Oily particles as well as original Salt particles Such as your great master D. Cartes supposes He who considers that vast quantity of Oleagineous matter that is disperst every where in Vegetables in Animals and in many sorts of Earths And that this must have been from the beginning or as soon as the Earth had any furniture will see
every cross word an affront Both those humours are extremes and breed quarrels Suppose a Man should say boldly God Almighty hath no right hand Oh might the Animadverter cry That 's a bold affront to Scripture For I can shew you many and plain Texts of Scripture both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament where express mention is made of God's Right Hand And will you offer to oppose Reason and Philosophy to express words of Scripture often repeated and in both Testaments O Tempora O Mores So far as my observation reaches weak reasons commonly produce strong passions When a Man hath clear reasons they satisfie and quiet the mind and he is not much concern'd whether others receive his notions or no. But when we have a strong aversion to an opinion from other Motives and Considerations and find our reasons doubtful or insufficient then according to the course of humane nature the passions rise for a further assistance and what is wanting in point of argument is made up by invectives and aggravations CHAP. IV. THIS Chapter is chiefly concerning the Central Fire and the Origine of the Chaos Of both which the Theorist had declared he would not treat And 't is an unreasonable violence to force an Author to treat of what things we please and not allow him to prescribe bounds to his own discourse As to the first of these see what the Theorist hath said Engl. Theor. p. 48. 64. 324. By which passages it is evident that he did not meddle with the Central parts of the Earth nor thought it necessary for his Hypothesis As is also more fully exprest in the Latine Theory p. 45. For do but allow him a Chaos from the bottom of the Abyss upwards to the Moon and he desires no more for the formation of an habitable Earth Neither is it the part of wisdom to load a new subject with unnecessary curiosities Then as to the Origine of the Chaos see how the Theorist bounds his discourse as to that I did not think it necessary to carry the story and original of the Earth higher than the Chaos as Zoroaster and Orpheus seem to have done but taking that for our foundation which Antiquity sacred and profane does suppose and natural reason approve and confirm we have form'd the Earth from it To form an habitable Earth from a Chaos given and to show all the great Periods and general Changes of that Earth throughout the whole course of its duration or while it remain'd an Earth was the adequate design of the Theorist And was this design so short or shallow that it could not satisfy the great Soul of the Excepter but it must be a flaw in the Hypothesis that it did go higher than the Chaos We content our selves with these bounds at present And when a man declares that he will write only the Roman History Will you say his work 's imperfect because it does not take in the Persian and Assyrian These things consider'd to speak freely of this Chapter it seems to me in a great measure impertinent Unless it was design'd to show the learning of the Observator who loves I perceive to dabble in Philosophy tho' little to the purpose For as far as I see his disquisitions generally end in Scepticism He disputes first one way and then another and at last determines nothing He rambles betwext D. Cartes and Moses the Rabbies the Septuagint the Platonists Magnetisme striate Particles and praeexistence of Souls and ends in nothing as to the formation of the Earth which was to be the subject of the Chapter We proceed therefore to the next in hopes to meet with closer reasoning CHAP. V. FRom the manner of the Earth's formation the Excepter now proceeds to the Form of it if compleated And his first Exception is That it would want Waters or Rivers to water it He says there would either be no Rivers at all or none at least in due time The Theorist hath replenisht that Earth with Rivers flowing from the extreme parts of it towards the middle in continual streams and watering as a Garden all the intermediate climates And this constant supply of water was made from the Heavens by an uninterrupted stream of Vapours which had their course through the Air from the middle parts of the Earth towards the extreme and falling in Rains return'd again upon the surface of the Earth from the extreme parts to the middle For that Earth being of an Oval or something oblong figure there would be a declivity all a-long or descent from the Polar parts towards the Equinoctial which gave course and motion to these waters And the vapors above never failing in their course the Rivers would never fail below but a perpetual Circulation would be establish'd betwixt the waters of the Heavens and of the Earth This is a short account of the state of the Waters in the Primeval Earth Which you may see represented and explain'd more at large in the 2 d. Book of the Theory Chap. 5. And this I believe is an Idea more easily conceived than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of the present Earth if we had not experience of them Suppose a Stranger that had never seen this Terraqueous Globe where we live at present but was told the general Form of it How the Sea lies how the Land and what was the constitution of the Heavens If this Stranger was askt his opinion whether such an Earth was habitable and particularly whether they could have waters commodiously in such an Earth and how the Inland Countries would be supplied I am apt to think he would find it more difficult upon an Idea onely without experience to provide Waters for such an Earth as ours is at present than for such an one as the Primeval Earth was 'T is true He would easily find Rains possible and natural but with no constancy or regularity and these he might imagine would onely make transient torrents not any fixt and permanent Rivers But as for Fountains deriv'd from the Sea and breaking out in higher grounds I am apt to believe all his Philosophy would not be able to make a clear discovery of them But things that are familiar to us by experience we think easie in speculation or never enquire into the causes of them Whereas other things that never fall under our experience tho' more simple and intelligible in themselves we reject often as Paradoxes or Romances Let this be applied to the present case and we proceed to answer the Exceptions Let us take that Exception first as most material that pretends there would have been no Rivers at all in the Primeval Earth if it was of such a Form as the Theorist has describ'd And for this He gives one grand Reason Because the Regions towards the Poles where the Rains are suppos'd to fall and the Rivers to rise would have been all frozen and congeal'd and
and Nights were always equal in Paradise We have now done with the examination of Witnesses Philosophers Poets Iews and Christians From all these we collect That there was an opinion or Tradition amongst the Ancients of a change made in the state of the Natural World as to the diversity of Seasons in the Year And that this did arise from the change of the posture of the Earth Whether this Opinion or this Tradition was de jure as well as de facto is a question of another nature that did not lie before us at present But the thing that was only in debate in this Chapter was matter of Fact which I think we have sufficiently prov'd In the close of this Chapter The Excepter makes two Queries still by way of objection to the Antediluvian Equinox The First is this Supposing an Equinox in the beginning of the World would it in likelyhood have continued to the Flood If you grant the first part I believe few will scruple the second For why should we suppose a change before there appear any cause for it He says the Waters might possibly have weigh'd more towards one Pole than towards another But why the Waters more than the Air The Waters were not more rarified towards one Pole that towards another no more than the Air was for which the Excepter had justly blam'd Leucippus before But however says He that Earth would be very unstable because in process of time there would be an empty space betwixt the Exterior Region of the Earth and the Abyss below But that empty space would be fill'd with such gross vapors that it would be little purer than water and would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphere that is carried about with it We have no reason to change the posture of the Earth till we see some antecedent change that may be a cause of it And we see not any till the Earth broke But then indeed whether its posture depended barely upon its Aequilibrium or upon its magnetisme either or both of them when its parts were thrown into another situation might be chang'd For the parts of a ruine seldom lie in the same libration the Fabrick stood in And as to the magnetisme of the Earth that would change according as the Parts and Regions of the Earth chang'd their situation The second Query is this Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World Would not the natural day towards the later end of that World have been longer than in the former periods of the same Suppose this was true which yet we have no reason to believe That the Days were longer towards the flood than towards the beginning of the World why is this contrary to Scripture He tells you how in these words That the days just before the flood were of no unusual length is evident in the very story of the Flood the duration of which we find computed by Months consisting of thirty days a-piece Whereas had days been grown longer fewer of them would have made a Month. This is a meer Paralogisme or a meer blunder For if thirty days were to go to a Month whether the days were longer or shorter there must be thirty of them and the Scripture does not determine the length of the days If thirty circumgyrations of the Earth make a Month whether these circumgyrations are slow or swift thirty are still thirty But I suppose that which he would have said and which he had confusedly in his mind was this That the Month would have been longer at the Flood than it was before Longer I say as to extent of time or duration in general but not as to number of days And you could not cut off a slip of one day and tack it to the next through the intermediate Night to make an abridgment of the whole Therefore this Objection is grounded upon a mistake and ill reasoning which is now sufficiently detected CHAP. IX THIS Chapter is against the Oval Figure of the first Earth which the Theorist had asserted and grounded upon a general motion of the Waters forc'd from the Equinoctial Parts towards the Polar But before we proceed to his Objections against this Explication we must rectifie one Principle The Excepter seems to suppose that Terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point Whereas the Theorist supposes that all Bodies moving round have more or less a nitency from the Center of their motion and that 't is by an external force that they are prest down against their first inclination or nitency This being premis'd we proceed to his exceptions where his first and grand quarrel is about the use of a word whether the motion of the Water from the middle of the Earth towards the Poles can be call'd defluxus Seeing those Polar Parts in this suppos'd case were as high or higher than the Equinoctial I think we do not scruple to say undae defluunt ad litora tho' the shores be as high or higher than the Surface of the Sea For we often respect as the Theorist did the middle and the sides in the use of that word And so defluere è medio ad latera is no more than prolabi ad latera But 't is not worth the while to contest about a word Especially seeing 't is explain'd in the 2 d. Edition of the Theory by adding detrusione but it would have spoil'd all this pedantry and all his little triumphs if he had taken notice of that Explication Wherefore setting aside the word Let us consider his reasons against this motion of the Waters towards the Poles which he says could not be because it would have been an ascent not a descent We allow and suppose that But may not Waters ascend by force and detrusion when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that force and persevere in their motion And this is the case we are speaking to They were impell'd to ascend or recide from the Center and it was easier for them to ascend laterally than to ascend directly upon an inclin'd Plain than upon a perpendicular one Why then should we not suppose that they took that course Methinks the Observator who seems to be much conversant in the Cartesian Philosophy might have conceiv'd this detrusion of the Waters towards the Poles by the resistance of the superambient Air as well as their flowing towards and upon the shores by the pressure of the Air under the Moon And if the Moon continued always in the same place or over the middle of the Sea that posture of the waters would be always the same though it be an ascent both upon the Land and into the Rivers And this methinks is neither contradiction nor absurdity But an Enemy that is little us'd to Victory makes a great noise upon a small advantage He proceeds now to show that it was improbable that the Figure of the first
Troy that it existed before Rome and Carthage that does not necessarily imply that Rome and Carthage were built at the same time but only that Troy was before them both And so this of the Psalmist may be very well thus exprest by a gradation from a lower Epocha to an higher Then as for that place in Prov. ch 8. It would be very hard to reduce all those things that are mentioned there from ver 22. to the 30. to the same time of existence and there is no necessity from the words that they should be so understood The design and intention of the Holy Ghost is plain in both these places In the one to set out the Eternity of God and in the other of the Logos in particular And this is done by shewing their pre-existence to this Earth and to all its greatest and most remarkable parts He mentions also Deut. 33. 15. where the Hills are call'd Lasting and the Mountains Ancient And therefore they were before the Flood This is a hard consequence The River Kishon is call'd the ancient River Iudg. 5. 21. but I do not therefore think it necessary that that brook should have been before the Flood Things may very well deserve that character of Lasting or Ancient though they be of less antiquity than the Deluge If one should say the lasting Pyramids and ancient Babylon none could blame the expression nor yet think that they were therefore from the begining of the World After these allegations from Scripture He descends to a natural argument taken from the mountains in the Moon Which he says are much higher than the mountains upon the Earth and therefore seeing her Body is less they could not be made by a Dissolution of that Planet as these of the Earth are said to have been Though we are not bound to answer for the Mountains in the Moon yet however 't is easie to see that this is no good argument For besides that the Orb there might be more thick all ruines do not fall alike They may fall double or in ridges and arches or in steep piles some more than others and so stand at a greater height And we have reason to believe that those in the Moon fell otherwise than those of the Earth because we do not see her turn round nor can we ever get a sight of her back-side that we might better judge of the shapes of her whole Body From this Natural Argument he proceeds to an Historical Argument taken from the Talmudists and Iosephus The Talmudists say that many Giants sav'd themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion But this the Excepter confesses is wholly fabulous What need it then be mention'd as an argument Then he says Iosephus reports that many sav'd themselves from the flood upon the mountain Baris in Armenia But this also he says is false in the gross and a formal fiction Why then say I is it brought in as an argument Lastly he quotes a passage out of Plato who says when the gods shall drown the Earth the Herdsmen and Shepherds shall save themselves upon mountains And this the Excepter calls a piece of confus'd forgery Why then say I still is it alledg'd as an argument against the Theory But however says the Excepter these things argue that many thought there were mountains before the Flood But did the Theorist ever deny that it was the vulgar and common opinion Therefore such allegations as these may be of some use to shew reading but of no effect at all to confute the Theory Yet the Excepter is not content with these stories but he must needs add a fourth Which he says is a plain intimation that there were mountains in the beginning of the World Take his own words for the story and the application of it I will only add that Traditional story which is told of Adam namely how that after his fall and when he repented of his Sin he bewailed it for several hundreds of years upon the mountains of India Another plain intimation that THERE WERE MOVNTAINS in the beginning of the World This is a plain intimation indeed that those that made this Fable thought there were mountains then but is it a proof that there really was so as you seem to infer Does the Excepter really believe that Adam wander'd an hundred years upon the mountains of India If the matter of fact be false the supposition it proceeds upon may as well be false And he does not so much as cite an Author here for the one or the other We are now come to the main point a new Hypothesis concerning the original of Mountains which the Excepter hath vouchsafed to make for us And in short it is this When the Waters were drain'd off the Land on the 3d day while it was moist and full of Vapours the Sun by his heat made the Earth heave and rise up in many places which thereupon became Mountains But lest we mistake or misrepresent the Author's sence we will give it in his own words Now the Earth by this collection of the waters into one place being freed from the load and pressure of them and laid open to the Sun the moisture within by the heat of his beams might quickly be turâ—'d into Vapours And these Vapours being still increased by the continued rarifying warmth from above at length they wanted space wherein to expand or dilate themselves And at last not enduring the confinement they felt by degrees heaved up the Earth above somewhat after the manner that leaven does Dough when it is laid by a sire but much more forcibly and unevenly And lifting it up thus in numberless places and in several quantities and in various figures Mountains were made of all shapes and sizes Whose origine and properties he says upon this Hypothesis will be obvious or at least intelligible to thinking and Philosophick Minds I must confess I am none of those Thinking and Philosophick Minds to whom this is either obvious or intelligible For there seem to me to be a great many palpable defects or oversights in this new Hypothesis Whereof this is one of the grossest that he supposes the Sun by his heat the 3 d Day to have raised these Mountains upon the Earth whereas the Sun was not created till the 4 th Day So that it had this powerful effect it seems one day before it came into Being But suppose the Sun had then existed This is a prodigious effect for the Sun to perform in so short a time and with so little force The greatest part of that Day was spent in draining the Waters from off the Land Which had a long way to go from some Inland Countries to reach the Sea or their common receptacle And he says without an extraordinary power perhaps they could not have been drained off the Earth in one Day Let us then allow at least half a Day for clearing the Ground so the Sun might
begin his work about Noon And before Night he had rais'd all the Mountains of one Hemisphere It will require a strong Philosophick Faith to believe this could be all done by the action of the Sun and in so short a time Besides we must consider that the Sun by Noon had past all the Eastern Countries yet cover'd with Water or not well drain'd So that after they were dry'd he could only look back upon them with faint and declining rayes Yet the Mountains of the East are as great and considerable as else-where But there is still another great difficulty in the case as to the Northern and Southern Mountains of the Earth for they lie quite out of the road of the Sun being far remov'd towards either Pole where by reason of his distance and obliquity his beams have little force How would he heave up the Riphaean Mountains those vast heaps of Stone and Earth that lie so far to the North You see what observations the Excepter hath made p. 119 120. concerning the cold of those Countries And it falls out very untowardly for this new Hypothesis that the Northern parts of the Earth as Norway Sweedland Island Scythia Sarmathia c. should be such Mountainous and Rocky Countries where he had before declar'd the Sun had so little force And indeed according to his Scheme all the great Mountains of the Earth should have been under the Equator or at least betwixt the Tropicks But to examine a little the manner and method of this great Action and what kind of Bodies these new Mountains would be Either the Sun drew up only the surface and outward skin of the Earth as Cupping-glasses raise Blisters Or his beams penetrated deep into the Earth and heaved up the substance of it as Moles cast up mole-hills If you take the first method these superficial Mountains would be nothing but so many baggs of Wind and not at all answerable to those huge masses of Earth and stone whereof our mountains consist And if you take the second method and suppose them pusht out of the solid Earth and thrown up into the air imagine then how deep these raies of the Sun must have penetrated in a few hours time and what strength they must have had to agitate the vapours to that degree that they should be able to do such prodigies as these Several Mountains upon a moderate computation are a mile high from the level of the Earth So that it was necessary that the beams of the Sun should penetrate at least a mile deep in so short a time and there loosen and rarefie the vapours and then tear up by the roots vast loads and extents of ground and heave them a mile high into the open air and all this in less than half a day Such things surely are beyond all imagination and so extravagant that one cannot in conscience offer them to the belief of a man Can we think that the Sun who is two or three hours in licking up the Dew from the grass in a May morning should be able in as many more hours to suck the Alps and Pyreneans out of the bowels of the Earth And not to spend all his force upon them neither For he would have as much work in other Countries To raise up Taurus for instance and Imaus and frozen Caucasus in Asia And the mighty Atlas and the Mountains of the Moon in Africk Besides the Andes in America which they say far exceed all the Mountains of our Continent One would be apt to think that this Gentleman never see the face of a Mountainous Country For he writes of them as if he had taken his Idea of Mountains and the great ridges of Mountains upon the Earth from the Devil's Ditch and Hogmagog Hills And he raises them faster than Mushromes out of the ground If the New-born Sun at his first appearance could make such great havock and so great changes upon the face of the Earth what hath he been doing ever since we never heard nor read of a Mountain since the memory of Man rais'd by the heat of the Sun We may therefore enquire in the last place Why have we no Mountains made now by the same causes We have no reason to believe that the heat or strength of the Sun is lessen'd since that time why then does it not produce like effects But I imagine he hath an answer for this Namely that the moisture of the first Earth when it was new-drain'd and marshy contributed much to this effect which now its driness hinders But besides that the driness of the Earth should rather give an advantage by the collection of Vapours within its Cavities However we might expect according to this reason that all our drain'd Fenns and marshy grounds should presently be rais'd into Mountains Whereas we see them all to continue arrand Plains as they were before But if you think these are too little spots of ground to receive a strong influence from the Sun take Aegypt for an instance That 's capacious enough and it 's overflow'd every Year and by that means made soft and moist to your mind as the new Earth when it rise from under the Abyss Why then is not Aegypt converted into Mountains after the inundation and retirement of Nile I do not see any qualification awanting according to the Excepter's Hypothesis Aegypt hath a moist Soil and a strong Sun much stronger than the Alpes or Pyreneans have and yet it continues one of the plainest Countries upon the Earth But there is still a greater instance behind against this Hypothesis than any of the former And that is of the whole Earth after the Deluge when it had been overflow'd a second time by the Abyss upon the retirement of those Waters it would be much what in the same condition as to moisture that it was in the 3 d. Day when it first became dry Land Why then should not the same effect follow again by the heat of the Sun And as many new Mountains be rais'd upon this second draining of the Earth as upon the first These are plain and obvious Instances and as plainly unanswerable And the whole Hypothesis which this Vertuoso hath propos'd concerning the Origine of Mountains is such an heap of Incredibilities and things inconsistent one with another that I 'me afraid I shall be thought to have spent too much time in confutation of it In the conclusion of this Chapter he hath an attempt to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood because there were Metals which are commonly found about the Roots of Mountains But the Theorist he says to shun this great inconvenience fairly consents to the abolishing of metals out of the first state of nature Yet he 's hard put to it to prove that the Theorist hath any where asserted whatsoever he thought that there were no Metals then The first Citation he produces only recites the opinion of others and says he thinks they do
300. lin 24. The general standing Hypothesis The usual Hypothesis The usual sence they put upon the Sacred story All these he rejects and disputes against as you may see in the places fore-cited And also he calls them such Inventions as have been and justly may be disgustful not only to nice and squeamish but to the best and soundest Philosophick judgments And p. 319. He says by his Hypothesis we are excused from running to those Causes or Methods which seem unreasonable to some and unintelligible to others and unsatisfactory to most And to name no more he says p. 330. The ordinary supposition that the Mountains were cover'd with water in the Deluge brings on a necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood Now whose Methods Inventions and Supoositions are these which he reflects upon Are they not the commonly receiv'd Methods and Suppositions 'T is plain most of those which he mentions p. 310 311 313 314 318. are not the Theorist's For the Theorist had rejected before those very Methods and Inventions which the Excepter rejects now and so far the justifies the Theory These reflections therefore must fall upon some other Hypothesis And what Hypothesis is that if it be not the Church-Hypothesis To conclude I argue thus in short to show the Excepter inconsistent with himself in this particular The Church-way of explaining the Deluge is either rational or irrational If he say it is rational why does he desert it and invent a new one And if he say it is irrational then that dreadful thing which he cannot well endure to speak That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge falls flat upon himself Thus much in general for his Introduction We proceed now to examine particularly his new Hypothesis Which as we told you before consists chiefly in this That the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the common unmountainous Surface of the Earth This which seems so odd and extravagant he says is the Foundation of his Hypothesis And which is still more surprising he says this depth or rather shallowness or the Waters of the Deluge is told us by Scripture as plainly as it can speak This must needs raise our curiosity to see that place of Scripture which has been over-lookt by all the Learned hitherto Well 't is Gen. 7. 20. in these words Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail This me thinks is somewhat general for the Basis of these fifteen Cubits is not exprest in these words But why does our Author stop in the middle of a Verse Why does he not transcribe the whole Verse for the last part of it is as good Scripture as the first And that says plainly that the Mountains were cover'd with the Waters The whole Verse runs thus Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail AND THE MOVNTAINS WERE COVERED Now if the Basis of these fifteen Cubits was the commons Surface or plain level of the Earth as the new Hypothesis will have it How could fifteen Cubits from that Basis reach to the tops of the Mountains Are the highest Mountains but fifteen Cubits higher than the common surface of the Earth Goliah was six cubits and a span high So Pic Tenariff would not be thrice as high as Goliah Yet David slung a stone up to his forehead Take what cubit you please Sacred or common it does not amount to two foot So the height of the greatest Mountains from bottom to top must not be thirty foot or ten paces according to this New Hypothesis Who ever measured Mountains at this rate The modern Mathematicians allow for their height a mile perpendicular upon a moderate computation and that makes 3000 foot How then could waters that were not 30 foot high cover Mountains that were 3000 foot high That the highest Mountains of the Earth were cover'd with the waters you may see express'd more fully in the precedent verse And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the Earth And all the high Hills that were under the whole Heaven were cover'd There can scarce be words more plain and comprehensive The Excepter says the Scripture tells us as plainly as it can speak that the waters were but fifteen cubits high from the common surface of the Earth And I say The Scripture tells us as plainly as it can speak That all the high Hills under the whole Heaven were covered with water And it must be a strange sort of Geometry that makes fifteen cubits of water reach to the top of the highest Hills Lastly the same History of Moses says the tops of the Mountains were discover'd when the waters begun to decrease Gen. 8. 5. Is not that a plain demonstration that they were cover'd before and cover'd with those waters We may therefore safely conclude two things First that this new Hypothesis besides all other faults is contrary to the general exposition of the text of Moses Secondly that it is contrary to the general recei'd Doctrine of the Deluge And if he has deliver'd a doctrine contrary to these two methinks it should be hard for him to maintain his ground and not pronounce at the same time what he dreads so much to speak That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge But let 's reflect a little upon this Fifteen-cubit Deluge to see what figure it would make or what execution it would do upon mankind and upon other Creatures If you will not believe Moses as to the overflowing of the Mountains at least I hope you will believe him as to the universal destruction made by the Deluge Hear his words Gen. 7. 21 22 23. we 'l take only the last verse which is this And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground Both man and cattle and creeping things and the fowl of the heavens and they were destroyed from the Earth and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the Ark. Now I would gladly know how this could be verifyed in a fifteen-cubit Deluge The birds would naturally fly to the tops of Trees when the ground was wet And the Beasts would retire by degrees to the Mountains and higher parts of the Earth as the lower begun to be overflow'd and if no waters could reach them there how were they all destroy'd while they had so many Sanctuaries and places of refuge Or if you suppose some of these Creatures had not wit enough to save themselves though their wit and instincts lie chiefly in that at least mankind would not be so stupid when men see the waters begin to rise they could not fail to retire into Mountains And tho' the upper stories of their houses might be sufficient to save them from fifteen cubits of water yet if fear made them think themselves not secure there whither could it drive them but still into higher places And
AN ANSWER TO THE LATE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY Mr Erasmus Warren AGAINST THE THEORY OF THE EARTH LONDON Printed by R. Norton for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1690. AN ANSWER To the late EXCEPTIONS MADE BY Mr ERASMVS WARREN AGAINST The THEORY of the EARTH IF it be a Civility to return a speedy Answer to a demand or a message I will not fail to pay that respect to the late Author of Exceptions against the Theory of the Earth I know short follies and short quarrels are the best and to offer satisfaction at the first opportunity is the fairest way to put an end to controversies Besides such personal altercations as these are but res periturae which do not deserve much time or study but like Repartees are best made off hand and never thought on more I only desire that friendliness that some allowance may be made as to unaccuracy of style which is always allow'd in hasty dispatches I shall make no excursions from the Subject nor use any other method than to follow the learned Exceptor from Chapter to Chapter and observe his steps and motions so far as they are contrary to the Theory But if he divert out of his way for his pleasure or other reasons best known to himself I may take notice of it perhaps but shall not follow him any further than my business leads me having no design to abridge his liberty but to defend my own Writings where they are attackt Give me leave therefore without any other preface or ceremony to fall to our work EXCEPTIONS CHAP. I. THIS Chapter is only an Introduction and treats of other things without any particular opposition to the Theory And therefore I shall only give you the Conclusion of it in the Author 's own words So much for the first Chapter which may be reckoned as an Introduction to the following Discourse Which if any shall look upon as a Collection of Notes somewhat confusedly put together rather than a formal well digested Treatise they will entertain the best or truest Idea of it A severe Censure But every man best understands his own works CHAP. II. HERE he begins to enter upon particular Exceptions and his first head is against the Formation of the Earth as explain'd by the Theory To this he gives but one exception in this chapter Namely that It would have taken up too much time The World being made in six days Whereas many separations of the Chaos and of the Elements were to be made according to the Theory which could not be dispatch'd in so short a time To this Exception the general Answer may be this either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence or of an extraordinary as to the time allowed for the Formation of the Earth If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence the formation of the Earth would require much more time than Six days But if according to an extraordinary you may suppose it made in six minutes if you please 'T was plain work and a simple process according to the Theory consisting only of such and such separations and a Concretion And either of these might be accelerated and dispatch'd in a longer or shorter time as Providence thought fit However this Objection does not come well from the hands of this Author who makes all the Mountains of the Earth the most operose part of it as one would think to be rais'd in a small parcel of a day by the heat and action of the Sun As we shall find in the 10 th Chapter hereafter He seems to proceed by natural Causes for such are the heat and action of the Sun and if so he will find himself as much straiten'd for time as the Theorist can be But if he say the work of Nature and of the Sun was accelerated by an extraordinary power he must allow us to say the same thing of the Separations of the Chaos and the first Concretion of the Earth For he cannot reasonably debar us that liberty which he takes himself unless we have debarr'd and excluded our selves Now 't is plain the Theorist never excluded an extraordinary Providence in the formation and construction of the Earth as appears and is openly exprest in many parts of the Theory See if you please the conclusion of the fifth Chapter which treats about the formation of the Earth The last paragraph is this Give me leave onely before we proceed any further to annex here a short Advertisement concerning the Causes of this wonderful Structure of the first Earth 'T is true we have propos'd the Natural Causes of it and I do not know wherein our Explication is false or defective but in things of this kind we may easily be too credulous And this Structure is so marvellous that it ought rather to be consider'd as a particular effect of the Divine Art than as the work of Nature The whole Globe of the water vaulted over and the exteriour Earth hanging above the Deep sustain'd by nothing but its own measures and manner of Construction A building without foundation or Corner-stone This seems to be a piece of Divine Geometry or Architecture and to this I think is to be refer'd that magnificent Challenge which God Almighty made to Job Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth Declare c. Moses also when he had describ'd the Chaos saith The Spirit of God mov'd upon or sat brooding upon the face of the waters without all doubt to produce some effects there And St. Peter when he speaks of the form of the Ante-diluvian Earth how it stood in reference to the waters adds By the word of God or by the wisdom of God it was made so And this same wisdom of God in the Proverbs as we observed before takes notice of this very piece of work in the formation of the Earth When he set an Orb over the face of the Deep I was there Wherefore to the great Architect who made the boundless Vniverse out of nothing and form'd the Earth out of a Chaos let the praise of the whole work and particularly of this Master-piece for ever with all honour be given In like manner there is a larger account of Providence both Ordinary and Extraordinary as to the Revolutions of the Natural World in the last Paragraph of the 8 th Chapter and like reflections are made in other places when occasion is offer'd We have not therefore any where excluded the influence and benefit of superiour causes where the case requires it Especially when 't is only to modify the effect as to time and dispatch And in that case none will have more need of it than himself as we shall find in the examination of his Tenth Chapter about the Origine of Mountains The rest of this Second Chapter is spent in three Excursions One in justifying the Cartesian way of forming Light and the Sun as agreeable to Moses The Second about
consequently no fit Sources of water for the rest of the Earth Why we should think those Regions would be frozen and the Rains that fell in them he gives two Reasons the Distance and the Obliquity of the Sun As also the experience we have now of the coldness and frozenness of those parts of the Earth But as to the Distance of the Sun He confesses that is not the thing that does onely or chiefly make a Climate cold He might have added particularly in that Earth where the Sun was never at a greater distance than the Equator Then as to the Obliquity of the Sun neither was that so great nor so considerable in the first Earth as in the present Because the Body of that lay in a direct position to the Sun whereas the present Earth lies in an Oblique And tho' the Polar circles or circumpolar parts of that Earth did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial and consequently were cooler yet there was no danger of their being frozen or congeal'd It was more the moisture and excessive Rains of those parts that made them uninhabitable than the extreme coldness of the Climate of it self And if the Excepter had well consider'd the differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth as to obliquity of position and that which follows from it the length of Nights He would have found no reason to have charg'd that Earth with nipping and freezing cold where there was not I believe one morsel of Ice from one pole to another But that will better appear if we consider the causes of Cold. There are three general causes of Cold the distance of the Sun his Obliquity and his total Absence I mean in the Nights As to distance that alone must be of little effect seeing there are many Planets which must not be lookt upon as meer lumps of Ice at a far greater distance from the Sun than ours And as to Obliquity you see it was much less considerable in the respective parts of the Primitive Earth than of the present Wherefore these are to be consider'd but as secondary causes of Cold in respect of the third the total absence of the Sun in the night time And where this happens to be long and tedious there you must expect excess of Cold. Now in the primitive Earth there was no such thing as long winter nights but every where a perpetual Equinox or a perpetual Day And consequently there was no room or cause of excessive cold in any part of it But on the contrary the case is very different in the present Earth For in our Climate we have not the presence of the Sun in the depth of Winter half as long as he is absent And towards the Poles they have nights that last several weeks or months together And then 't is that the Cold rages binds up the ground freezes the Ocean and makes those parts more or less uninhabitable But where no such causes are you need not fear any such effects Thus much to shew that there might be Rains Waters and Rivers in the primigenial Earth and towards the extreme parts of it without any danger of freezing But however says the other part of the exception These Rivers would not be made in due time That 's wholly according to the process you take It you take a meer natural process the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth all on a sudden but you may accelerate that process as much as you please by a Divine Hand As to this particular indeed of the Rivers one would think there should be no occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth because mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth And if they did but lead the way and prepare the ground in every countrey before mankind arrived there that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their account Neither can it be imagin'd but that the Rivers would flow faster than mankind could follow for 't is probable in the first hundred years men did not reach an hundred miles from home or from their first habitations and we cannot suppose the defluxion of Water upon any declivity to be half so slow As to the chanels of these Rivers the manner of their progress and other circumstances Those things are set down fully enough in the 5 th Chapter of the 2 d Book of the English Theory and it would be needless to repeat them here But the Anti-theorist says this slow production and propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture Both because of the Rivers of Paradise and also because Fishes were made the Sixth day As to that of the Fishes He must first prove that those were River-fishes for the Scripture makes them Sea-fish and instances in great Whales But he says p. 113 114. it will appear in the sequel of his Discourse that the Abyss could be no receptacle of fishes To that sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the examination of this particular Then as to Paradise that was but one single spot of ground according to the ordinary Hypothesis which he seems to adhere to and Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases seeing its seat is not yet determin'd But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass that might be the work of time when their chanels and courses were extended and setled As they would be doubtless long before the time that Moses writ that description But as to the Rivers of Paradise it would be a long story to handle that dispute here And 't is fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves before we determine the original of its River or Rivers CHAP. VI. WE come now to the Deluge where the great Exception is this That according to the Theory the Deluge would have come to pass whether mankind had been degenerate or no. We know mankind did degenerate and 't is a dangerous thing to argue upon false suppositions and to tell what would have come to pass in case such a thing had not come to pass Suppose Adam had not sin'd what would have become of the Messiah and the Dispensation of the Gospel which yet is said to have been determin'd more early than the Deluge Let the Anti-theorist answer himself this question and he may answer his own But to take a gentler instance Suppose Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit How could He and all his Posterity have liv'd in Paradise A few generations would have fill'd that place and should the rest have been turn'd out into the wide World without any sin or fault of theirs You suppose the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth to have been the same with the present and consequently subject to the same accidents and inconveniences The action of the Sun would have been the same then as now according to your Hypothesis The same excesses of heat and cold in the several regions and climates The same Vapours and
Apostle so much censur'd them for So much for what is said by the Excepter concerning this place of St. Peter To all the rest he gives an easie answer in the Contents of this Chapter viz. That they are Figurative and so not argumentative The places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends are stated distinctly and in order in the REVIEW and to avoid repetitions we must sometimes refer to that particularly as to two remarkable places Psal. 24. 2. and Psal. 136. 6. concerning the Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas Which the Excepter quickly dispatches by the help of a Particle and a Figure The next He proceeds to is Psal. 33. 7. He gathereth the waters of the Sea as in a Bagg He layeth up the Abysses in store-houses But he says it should be render'd as on a heap which is the English Translation Whether the Authorities produc'd in this case by the Theorist or by the Excepter are more considerable I leave the Reader to judge But however he cites another place Psal. 78. 13. where the same word is us'd and apply'd to the Red-Sea which could not be enclos'd as in a bag Take whether Translation you please for this second place it is no prejudice to the Theory if you render it on an heap for it was a thing done by Miracle But the other place speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the waters which is not on a heap but in a level or spherical convexity with the rest of the Earth This reason the Animadverter was not pleas'd to take notice of tho' it be intimated in that same place of the Theory which he quotes But that which I might complain of most is his unfair citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal. 33. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms and is a modest reflection upon the explication of them As the Reader may plainly see if he please to look the Theory and compare it with his citation The next place he attacks is Iob 26. 7. He stretches the North over the Tohu or as we render it over the empty places and hangeth the Earth upon nothing Here he says Iob did either accommodate himself to the vulgar or else was a perfect Platonist Methinks Plato should rather be a Iobist if you will have them to imitate one another Then he makes an Objection and answers it himself Concluding however that Iob could not but mean this of the present Earth because in the next Verse he mentions Clouds But how does it appear that every thing that Iob mentions in that Chapter refers to the same time The next place is Iob 38. 4 5 6. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth c. These eloquent expostulations of the Almighty he applies all to the present Form of the Earth where he says there are the Embossings of Mountains the Enamelling of lesser Seas the open-work of the vast Ocean and the Fret-work of Rocks c. These make a great noise but they might all be apply'd to the ruines of an old Bridge fallen into the water Then he makes a large harangue in commendation of Mountains and of the present Form of the Earth Which if you please you may compare with the 10 th Chap. of the Latin Theory and then make your judgment upon both But it is not enough for the Excepter to admire the beauty of Mountains but he will make the Theorist to do so too because he hath exprest himself much pleas'd with the sight of them Can we be pleas'd with nothing in an object but the beauty of it does not the Theorist say there in the very words cited by the Excepter Saepe loci ipsius insolentia spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis communibus We are pleas'd in looking upon the Ruines of a Roman Amphitheater or a Triumphal Arch tho' time have defac'd its beauty A man may be pleas'd in looking upon a Monster will you conclude therefore that he takes it for a beauty There are many things in objects besides beauty that may please but he that hath not sence and judgment enough to see the difference of those cases and whence the pleasure arises it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words After his commendation of Mountains he falls upon the commendation of Rain making those Countries that enjoy it to be better water'd than by Rivers and consequently the present Earth better than that Paradisiacal Earth describ'd by the Theorist And in this he says he follows the rule of Scripture for these are his words And that these rule whereby we measure the usefulness of this Earth and shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory are the most true and proper rules is manifest from God's making use of the same in a case not unlike For he comparing Egypt and Palestine prefers the later before the former because in Egypt the Seed sown was watered with the foot as a Garden of herbs but Palestine was a Land of Hills and Valleys and drank water of the rain of Heaven Deut. 11. 10 11. Let this rest a while In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily it falls out for the Observator that a Country that had no rain should be compared in Scripture or joyn'd in priviledge with Paradise it self and the Garden of God For so is this very Aegypt Gen. 13. 10. tho' it had no rain but was water'd by Rivers The words of Scripture are these And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of Iordan that it was well watered every where before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha even as the Garden of the Lord like the land of Aegypt The Plain of Iordan you see is commended for its fruitfulness and being well watered and as the height of its commendation it is compar'd with Aegypt and with the Paradise of God Now in Aegypt we know there was little or no rain and we read of none in Paradise but they were both water'd by Rivers Therefore the greatest commendation of a Land for pleasure and fertility according to Scripture is its being well water'd with Rivers which makes it like a paradise Surely then you cannot blame the Theorist having this authority besides all other reasons for making the Paradisiacal Earth to have been thus water'd Now let the Excepter consider how he will interpret and apply his place in Deuteronomy and make it consistent with this in Genesis Till I see a better Interpretation I like this very well tho' quite contrary to his Namely That they were not to expect such a Land as Aegypt that was a Plain naturally fruitfull as being well water'd But the Land they were to possess depended upon the benediction of Heaven And therefore they might expect more or less
fertility according as they kept God's Commandments And so much for those two texts of Scripture Lastly The Excepter in the conclusion of his discourse about that place in Iob makes a reflection upon the impropriety of those expressions in Iob about Foundations and Corner-stones if they be apply'd to the first Earth describ'd by the Theorist But this seems to me an Elegancy in that discourse which he makes a fault whether it be understood as an Allusion only to our manner of building by deep Foundations and strong Corner-stones Or an Ironical interrogation as it seems to me implying that there was no Foundation strictly so call'd nor Corner-stone in that great Work tho' we cannot build a cottage or little bridge without such preparations He proceeds then to the following verses in that 38 th chap. Who shut up the Sea with doors when it broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb This the Theorist understands of the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge when the Sea broke forth out of the womb of the Earth or out of that subterraneous cavity where it was enclosed as in a womb 'T is plainly imply'd in the words of the Text That the Sea was shut up in some Womb before it broke forth I desire therefore to know in what Womb that was You will find Interpreters much at a loss to give a fair answer to that question What was that inclos'd state of the Sea and what place or part of Nature was that Receptacle where it lay But the Excepter hath found out a new answer He says it was that Womb of non-entity These are his words It just then as its creation gushed out of the womb of nothing into existence This is a subtle and far-fetcht notion Methinks the Womb of nothing is much what the same as no Womb. And so this is no answer But however let us consider how far it would suit this case if it was admitted If you understand the Womb of Non-entity 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 To conclude 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 He proceeds now to the last place alledg'd Prov. 8. 27 28. When he prepared the Heavens I was there when he set a Compass upon the face of the deep The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render compass he says signifies no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss And so the fence will run thus When God set a rotundity or spherical figure upon the face of the Abyss But whereas the word may as well signifie a Sphere or Orb the Theorist thinks it more reasonable that it should be so translated and so the sentence would run thus When God set an Orb upon the face of the Deep And this discourse of Solomon's referring to the beginning of the World he thinks it rational to understand it of the first habitable Earth which was really an Orb set over the face of the Deep One cannot swear for the signification of a word in every particular place where it occurs but when there are two fences whereof it is capable and the one is much more important than the other it is a fair presumption to take it in the more important sence especially in such a place and upon such an occasion where the great works of the Divine Wisdom and Power are celebrated as they are here by Solomon And it cannot be deny'd that our fence of the words is more important than the other For of what consequence is it to say God made the Body of the Abyss round Every one knows that Fluids of their own accord run into that figure So as that would be a small remark upon a great occasion The construction of this Orb we speak of minds me of an injustice which the Excepter hath done the Theory in the precedent part of this Chapter by a false accusation For he says The Theory makes the construction of the first Earth to have been meerly Mechanical At least his words seem to signifie as much which are these And so its Formation speaking of the first Earth had been meerly Mechanical as the Theory makes it That the construction was not meerly Mechanical in the opinion of the Theorist you may see Eng. Theor. p. 65. which because we have cited it before we will not here repeat The Theorist might also complain that the Excepter cites the first Edition of the Theory for such things as are left out in the second which yet was printed a twelve-month before his Animadversions And therefore in fairness he ought always to have consulted the last Edition and last sence of the Author before he had censured him or his work But this unfair method it seems pleas'd his humour better as you may see in this Chapter p. 154. and in several other places where passages are cited and insisted upon that are no where to be found in the second Edition Not to mention his defective citations omitting that part that qualifies the sentence as p. 99. last citation and else-where I make this note that the Reader may judge how well this answers that sincerity with which he profest he would examine this work Only as a friend and servant to Truth And therefore with such Candour Meekness and Modesty as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character p. 43. The rest of this Chapter is a general Censure of citations out of Scripture that are only Tropical or Figurative Scheams of Speech These must be made so indeed if our sence of them be not allow'd But what necessity is there of a figurative interpretation of all these Texts The rule we go by and I think all good Interpreters is this That we are not to leave the literal sence unless there be a necessity from the subject matter And there is no such necessity in this case upon our Hypothesis for it suits with the literal sence And 't is to beg the Question to say the literal sence is not to be admitted because it complies too much with the Theory But as for that Text of his own which he instances in the Pillars of the Earth tremble that cannot be understood by the same Rule of Pillars literally because there are no such Pillars of the Earth upon any Hypothesis CHAP.
the thing For he was a man as like to be Heterodox as like to broach and maintain false and groundless opinions as any of the learned Ancients Had he made this exception against this witness at first it might have sav'd both himself and us a great deal of pains For we do allow if you can prove a witness to be persona infamis or non compos mentis 't is sufficient to invalidate his Testimony But this is a rude and groundless censure Shall that famous Anaxagoras that was call'd MENS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not be thought so much as mentis compos nor have credit enough for an honest witness I am apt to think from those sentences and those remains we have left of him that there was not a more considerable man amongst the Ancients for nobleness of mind and natural knowledg I could bring the testimonies of many ancient Authors and of many Christian fathers to clear his reputation and place it above envy 'T is generally acknowledg'd that he first introduc'd an intellectual principle in the formation of the Universe to dispose and order confus'd matter And accordingly Eusebius gives him this fair character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He first rectified the doctrine of Principles For he did not only discourse about the matter or substance of the Vniverse as other Philosophers but also of the cause and principle of its motion And the same Author in his 14 th Book repeats and enlarges this character I wonder the Excepter of all men should lessen the name of Anaxagoras For besides his Orthodoxy as to the intellectual World He was one that establish'd the notion of Vortices in the Corporeal As you may see in Clem. Alexandrinus and in Plato's Phaedo And tho' the Father and Socrates who never was a friend to natural Philosophy both blame him for it yet the excepter who is deservedly pleas'd with that Systeme of Vortices ought to have shew'd him some favour and esteem for the sake of this doctrine Lastly as to his moral temper his contempt of the World and his love of contemplation you have many instances of it in the short story of his life in Laertius And I shall always remember that excellent saying of his in Clem. Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the end of life is Contemplation and that liberty that accompanies it or flows from it But we are not to imagine that all the opinions of the ancient Philosophers are truly conveyed or represented to us Neither can we in reason or justice believe that they could be guilty of such absurd notions as are sometimes fathered upon them The Excepter instances in an extravagant assertion as the story is told to us ascrib'd to Anaxagoras of a stone that fell from the Sun This cannot be literally true nor literally the opinion of Anaxagoras if he believ'd Vortices therefore methinks so witty a man as the Excepter and so well vers'd in the modern Philosophy should rather interpret this of the Incrustation of a fixt Star and its descent into the lower World That a Star fell from the Ethereal regions and became an Opake and Terrestrial Body Especially seeing Diogenes as he says supposes it a Star Some things were aenigmatically spoken at first and some things afterwards so much corrupted in passing thorough unskilful hands that we should be very injurious to the memory of those great Men if we should suppose every thing to have come so crudely from them as it is now deliver'd to us And as to this Philosopher in particular As the Ionick Physiology in my opinion was the most considerable amongst the Ancients so there was none of that order more considerable than Anaxagoras Whom tho' you should suppose extravagant quoad hoc that would not invalidate his testimony in other things Upon the whole matter let us now summ up the Evidence and see what it will amount to Here are five or six Testimonies of considerable Philosophers Anaxagoras Diogenes Empedocles Leucippus and Democritus To which he might have added Plato both in his Politicus and Phaedo if he had pleas'd to have lookt into the 2 d. Edition of the Latin Theory These Philosophers do all make mention of a change that hath been in the posture of the Earth and the Heavens And tho' they differ in assigning causes or other circumstances yet they all agree as to matter of Fact that there was such a thing or at least a Tradition of such a thing And this is all that the Defendant desir'd or intended to prove from them as Witnesses in this cause To these Philosophers he might have added the Testimonies of the Poets who may be admitted as witnesses of a Tradition though it be further questioned whether that Tradition be true or false These Poets when they speak of a Golden Age or the Reign of Saturn tell us of a perpetual Spring or a Year without change of Seasons This is expresly said by Ovid Ver erat Aeternum c. And upon the expiration of the Golden Age he says Iupiter Antiqui contraxit tempora Veris Perque Hyemes Aestusque inaequales Autumnos Et breve Ver spatiis exegit quattuor annum Ovid liv'd in the time of our Saviour And the Tradition it seems was then a foot and very express too Plato who was much more ancient hath said the same thing in his Politicus concerning the Reign of Saturn And if we may have any regard to Mythology and make Ianus the same with Noah which is now an Opinion generally receiv'd That power that is given him by the Ancients of changing Times and Seasons cannot be better expounded than by that great change of time and of the Seasons of the Year that happen'd in the Days of Noah Neither must we count it a meer Fable what is said by the Ancients concerning the Inhabitability of the Torrid Zone and yet that never was if the Earth was never in any other posture than what it is in now Lastly As the Philosophers and Poets are witnesses of this Tradition so many of the Christian Fathers have given such a Character of Paradise as cannot be understood upon any other supposition than of a Perpetual Equinox This Card. Bellarmine hath noted to our hands and also observ'd that there could not be a perpetual Equinox in the Countries of Asia nor indeed in any Topical Paradise unless it stood in the middle of the Torrid Zone nisi alius tunc fuerit cursus solis quà m nunc est unless the course of the Sun or which is all one the posture of the Earth was otherwise at that time than what it is now which is a true observation The Iewish Doctors also as well as the Christian seem to go upon the same supposition when they place Paradise under the Equinoctial Because they suppos'd it certain as Aben Ezra tells us that the Days
Earth should be Oval upon other considerations As first Because of its position which would be cross to the stream of the Air that turns it round or carries it about the Sun As a Ship he says that stands side-ways against a stream cannot sail But if that Ship was to turn round upon her Axis as a Mill-wheel and as the Earth does what posture more likely to have such an effect than to stand cross to the stream that turns it And the stream would take more hold of an Oblong-Body than of a round Then as to its annual course which he mentions that 's nothing but so many Circumvolutions for in turning round it is also progressive as a Cylinder in rowling a Garden And three-hundred sixty-five circumgyrations compleat its annual course So that this argument turns wholly against him and does rather confirm the Oval Figure of the Earth His Second Argument against the Oval Figure of the First Earth is the Spherical Figure of the present Earth And how does he prove that First from Authorities Anaximander Pythagoras and Parmenides thought so But how does he prove that their asserting the Earth to be round was not meant in opposition to its being Plain as the Epicureans and the Vulgar would have it That was the Question Socrates promis'd himself to be resolv'd in by Anaxagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the Earth was flat or round And 't is likely the dispute was generally understood in that sence However the Theorist hath alledg'd many more Authorities than these in favour of the Oval Figure of the Earth For besides Empedocles in particular and those whom Plutarch mentions in general 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 as well as internal composition These you may see fully set down in the Theory And it had been fair in the Excepter to have taken some notice of them if he would contend in that way of Authorities But he has thought fit rather to pass them over wholly in silence His reasons to prove the figure of the present Earth to be Spherical and not Oval are taken first from the Conical figure of the shadow of the Earth cast upon the Moon But that cannot make a difference sensible to us at this distance whether the Body that cast the shadow was exactly Spherical or Oval His Second reason is from the place of the waters which he says would all retire from the Poles to the Equator if the Polar parts were higher But this has been answer'd before The same cause that drive the Waters thither would make them keep there As we should have a perpetual Flood if the Moon was always in our Meridian And whereas he suggests that by this means the Sea should be shallowest under the Poles which he says is against experience We tell him just the contrary That according to our Hypothesis the Sea should be deepest towards the Poles which agrees with experience That the Sea should be deepest under the Poles if it was of an Oval form he may see plainly by his own Scheme or by the Theory Scheme So that if his observation be true of an extraordinary depth of the Ocean in those parts it confirms our suspition that the Sea continues still Oval Lastly he urges If this Earth was Oval Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult if not impossible because upon an ascent But if there be a continual draught of Waters from the Equator towards the Poles this will balance the difficulty and be Equivalent to a gentle Tide that carries Ships into the mouth of a River though upon a gradual ascent Thus much we have said in complacency to the Excepter For the Theorist was not oblig'd to say any thing in defence of the Oval form of the present Earth seeing he had no where asserted it It not being possible as to what evidence we have yet to determine in what order the Earth fell and in what posture the ruines lay after their fall But however to speak my mind freely upon this occasion I am inclinable to believe that the Earth is still Oval or Oblong What things the Antitheorist hath suggested will not decide the controversie nor it may be any natural history nor any of those observations that we have already The surface of the Sea lies more regular than that of the Land and therefore I should think that observations made there would have the best effect I should particularly recommend these two First that they would observe towards the Poles whether the Sun rise and set according to the rules of a true Globe or of a Body exactly Spherical Secondly that they would observe whether the degrees of latitude are of equal extent in all the parts of a Meridian that is if the quantity of sea or land that answers to a degree in the heavens be of equal extent towards the Equator as towards the Poles These two observations would go the nearest of any I know to determine whether the figure of the Earth be truly spherical or oblong CHAP. X. THIS Chapter is concerning the Original of Mountains and that they were befoe the Flood or from the beginning Which the Excepter endeavours to prove from Scripture not directly but because mention is made of them in the same places where the beginning of the Earth is mentioned as Psal. 90. 1 2. and Prov. 8. 25. therefore they must be co-eval and contemporary We have I think noted before that things are not always Synchronal that are mention'd together in Scripture The Style of Scripture is not so accurate as not to speak of things in the same place that are to be referr'd to different times Otherwise we must suppose the destruction of Ierusalem and of the World to have been intended for the same time seeing our Saviour joyns them in the same discourse Matt. 24. without any distinction of time Or with such a distinction as rather signifies an immediate succession ver 29. than so great a distance as we now find to be betwixt the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the World Greater than that betwixt the Beginning and the Flood So in the Prophets sometimes in the same discourse one part is to be referr'd to the first coming of our Saviour and another part to the second without making any distinction of time but what is to be gathered from the sence Neither is there any incongruity in the sence or in the tenour of the words if those expressions in the Psalmist be referr'd to different times God existed before the Mountains were brought forth and the Earth and the World were made This is certainly true whether you take it of the same or different times And if you take it of different times 't is a way of speaking we often use As suppose a man should say concerning the Antiquity of
Excepter hath been taken notice of before and 't is continued in this Chapter where there is little or nothing positively determin'd The Theorist on the contrary expresly affirms the Longevity of the Antediluvians and gives these reasons for his assertion First because all the Lives and all the Generations recorded in Scripture before the Flood from Father to Son in a Line of sixteen hundred years are longeval Of six seven eight nine hundred years a-piece Secondly Antiquity both Greek and Barbarian have attested the same thing and recorded the Tradition Thirdly the Generations recorded in Scripture after the Flood as they exceed the term of succeeding Ages so they decline by degrees from the Antediluvian Longevity Lastly Iacob complains of the shortness of his life and fewness of his days in comparison of his Forefathers when he had liv'd one hundred and thirty years which had been a groundless complaint if his Ancestors had not lived much longer These two last reasons the Excepter has not thought fit to take notice of And in answer to the two former he hath onely the usual subterfuges As that the long lives of the Antediluvian Patriarchs was a thing extraordinary and providential confin'd to their Persons not of a general extent nor according to the course of Nature But how does this appear It must be made out either by Scripture or Reason Scripture makes no distinction nor exception of Persons in this case All whereof it hath left any account as to term of life are declar'd to have liv'd several hundreds of years And why should we not conclude the same thing concerning the rest Then as to Reason you cannot suppose Longevity in that World against reason or nature unless you first suppose the form and constitution of that World to have been the same with the present Which is to beg the Question Admitting that form and constitution of the first Heavens and Earth which the Theory hath given Longevity will be a natural consequnce of it And having such a course of nature laid before us as agrees with the reports of Scripture and with general Tradition why should we quit that to comply with an imaginary presumption that these were miraculously preserv'd and all the rest were short-liv'd I know he pretends we may as well conclude all Men were Gyants in those days because Moses says There were Giants upon the Earth in those days Gen. 6. 4. as conclude that all Men were long-liv'd in those days because Moses mentions some that were so There had been some pretence for this if Moses had made a distinction of two races of Men in the first World Long-livers and short-livers as he hath distinguisht the Giants from the common Race of Mankind Or as he hath said in one case There were Giants on the Earth in those days So if he had said in the other there were Long-livers upon the Earth in those days and upon that had given us a List of the Long-liv'd Patriarchs this indeed would have made the cases pretty parallel But on the contrary Moses makes no such distinction of long-living and short-living races before the Flood nor yet notes it as a mark of divine favour or extraordinary benediction upon those persons that liv'd so long Therefore not to suppose it general to Mankind at that time is a groundless restriction which is neither founded upon Scripture nor Reason As to the second Argument for Antediluvian longevity taken from Tradition and the Testimony of the Ancients He objects that Iosephus does not seem to be firm in that opinion himself But what then The Theorist lays no stress upon Iosephus's single opinion but refers to the Testimonies of those Authors whether Greeks or such as have given an account of the Aegyptian Chaldean and Phoenician Antiquities which are call'd in by Iosephus as witnesses of this Truth or Tradition concerning the long lives of the first Men. And at last the Excepter seems content this Tradition should be admitted seeing the Authors are too many and too considerable to have their Testimonies question'd or rejected But then he will make a further Question Why there should not also be a Tradition concerning the Perpetual Equinox or Perpetual Spring upon which this Longevity depended But this Question is fully answer'd and the Tradition fully made out before in the 8 th Chapter which I need not here repeat In like manner all the secondary Questions which he there mentions depending upon and being included in this first receive their resolution from it For when a perpetual Equinox is once truly stated there is no difficulty concerning the rest After these contests about Traditions he hath one or two Reasons against this Antediluvian Longevity First Because the Earth by this means would have been over-stockt with People before the time of the Deluge Secondly They should all have been of the same Longevity before the Flood Neither of these methinks have any strength in them As to the first That Earth was much more capacious than this is where the Sea takes away half of its Surface and renders it uninhabitable And whereas he suggests as a recompence That Mountains have more surface and capacity than Plains That 's true but they are also less habitable by reason of their barrenness and ruggedness Who can believe that there are as many People in Wales as in other parts of England upon the same compass of level ground Or no more in Holland than upon a like number of Acres upon the Alpes or Pyreneans There would be room enough for twice as many People as there are in the World and twice as many Animals if there was food enough to nourish them But here I have two things to complain of as foul play First the Excepter cites the Theory partially Secondly he does not mark the place whence he takes that citation as if it was on purpose to hide his partiality The words he cites are these If we allow the first Couple at the end of one hundred years or of the first Century to have left ten pair of Breeders which is an easie supposition there would arise from these in fifteen hundred years a greater number than the Earth was capable of allowing every pair to multiply in the same decuple proportion the first pair did Here the Excepter stops and makes this inference that upon an easie supposition which the Theorist makes and allows the Earth would have been over-stockt in fifteen hundred years This is an easie supposition for the first Century as the Theorist put it But it would be a very uneasie one for the following Centuries when they came to be at any considerable distance from the beginning And therefore the Theorist tells you in that very Page The same measure cannot run equally through all the Ages And in his Calculation you see after the first Century he hath taken only a quadruple proportion for the increase of mankind As judging that a
moderate and reasonable measure betwixt the Highest and the Lowest This the Excepter might easily have observed and as easily avoided this misapplication of the words of the Theorist His second reason against the antediluvian longevity is slighter that the first For he pretends that all the Antediluvians upon that supposition should have been equally long-liv'd You may as well say that all the children of the same parents and that live in the same place should now be equally long-liv'd the external world being the same to them all But besides accidents their stamina and constitutions might then be of a different strength as well as now tho' they were born of the same Parents and liv'd in the same Air. Lastly he moves a difficulty about the multiplication of Animals in the first World that they would have been too numerous before the Flood I can say nothing to that nor He neither upon good grounds unless we knew what Species's of Animals were then made and in what degrees they multiplied The Theorist always supposes a Divine Providence to superintend proportion and determine both the number and food of Animals upon the Earth suitably to the constitution and circumstances of every World And seeing that Earth was no less under the care and direction of Providence than the present we may conclude that due measures were taken for adjusting the numbers and food of Animals in such manner as neither to be a burthen to one another nor to man CHAP. XIV THIS Chapter is against the Explication of the Deluge by the Dissolution of the Earth That dissolution as is pretended being unfit or insufficient to produce such an effect And to prove this the Anti-theorist gives us five Arguments whereof the first is this Moses having left us an accurate description of Paradise according to the proper rules of Topography such a description would have been improper and insufficient to determine the place of Paradise and consequently useless if the Earth had been dissolv'd and by that means the bounds of those Countreys and the Chanels of those Rivers broken and chang'd This objection I 'me afraid will fall heavier upon Moses or upon the Excepter himself than upon the Theorist However one would have expected that the Excepter should have determin'd here the place of Paradise in vertue of that description So learned and sagacious a person having before him an exact draught of Paradise according to the proper rules of Topography could not fail to lay his finger upon the very spot of ground where it stood Yet I do not find that he hath ventur'd to determine the place of Paradise either in this Chapter or in the precedent Which gives me a great suspicion that he was not satisfied where it stood notwithstanding the Mosaical Topography Now if it cannot be understood or determin'd by that Topography one of these two things must be allowed either that the description was insufficient and ineffectual or that there has been some great change in the Earth whereby the marks of it are destroy'd namely the bounds of Countries and the courses of the Rivers If he take the second of these answers he joyns with the Theorist If the first he reflects according to his way of arguing upon the honour of Moses or confutes himself But here is still a further charge Moses's description of Paradise would have been False which he notes for horrid blasphemy if the Earth ws broken at the Deluge For then those Rivers by which Moses describes Paradise could not have been before the Flood But why so I pray The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood in great plenty and why not like to these And if their chanels were very much chang'd by the Flood that 's no more than what good Interpreters suppose Being unable upon any other supposition to give an account why it is so hard notwithstanding Moses's description to determine the place of Paradise Now where is the Blasphemy of this Horrid Blasphemy against the holy Ghost A rude and injudicious defence of Scripture by railing and ill language is the true way to lessen and disparage it Especially when we make our own consequences to be of the same authority with the Word of God and whatsoever is against them must be charg'd with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Is it not a strange thing that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy when the Prophets and inspir'd Authors speak so often of the Disruptions Fractions Concussions and Subversions of the Earth And that very expression that the Earth is dissolv'd is a Scripture-expression Psal. 75. 3. Isa. 24. 19. Amos. 9. 5. which methinks might have been enough to have protected it from the imputation of blasphemy But there is nothing safe against blind zeal and opinionative ignorance which by how much they find themselves weaker in reasons by so much they become more violent in passions But to return to the objection upon the whole matter he casts the burthen of the charge upon Moses himself as we noted before For take whether Hypothesis you will that the Earth was or was not broken the question still returns if the Mosaical Topography was exact and sufficient why can we not yet find out the situation of Paradise 'T is now above three thousand years since Moses dyed and men have been curious and very inquisitive in all ages to find out the place of Paradise but it is not found out to this day to any satisfaction So that methinks upon the whole the Theory which supposeth the Earth very much chang'd makes the fairest Apology both for Moses and mankind in this particular But to proceed to his second Argument Secondly says the Excepter The dissolution of the Earth could not be the cause of the general Flood because it would have utterly destroy'd Noah's Ark and all that were in it I thought the Theorist had effectually prevented this objection by puting the Ark under the conduct of its Guardian Angels and of a miraculous Providence These are his words I think it had been impossible for the Ark to have liv'd upon the raging Abyss or for Noah and his family to have been preserv'd if there had not been a miraculous hand of Providence to take care of them Now either the Excepter did not take notice of this passage in the Theory or he does not allow that a miraculous hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark or thirdly he made an objection which he knew himself to be impertinent And I confess I am inclinable to think the last is true For as to the first he confesses p. 354. that the Theory represents the Ark with its Guardian Angels about it in the extremity of the Flood And as to the second He himself makes use of a miraculous power to preserve the Ark upon his Hypothesis in answer to the eighth objection p. 351 352 c. Why then may not we make use of the same power
and with the same effect It remains therefore that he was conscious to himself that he made this objection to no purpose But that is not all He has also us'd foul play in his citation For whereas the great danger of the Ark would be at the first fall of the Earth or the disruption of the Abyss The Theorist he says to prevent this makes the Ark to be a-float by the Rains before the Abyss was broken But is that all the Theorist says in that place does he not assign another way how the Ark might be a-float namely in a River or in a Dock These are the words of the Theory So as the Ark if it could not float upon these Rain-waters at least taking the advantage of a River or of a dock or cistern made to receive them it might be a-float before the Abyss was broken open And these words being in the same place whence he makes his citation it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them But he see they would have taken off the edge of his objection and therefore thought fit not to touch upon them But after all there is no necessity that the Ark should be a-float before the Earth broke Those things were premis'd in the Theory only to soften the way to men that are hard of belief in such extraordinary matters For the Angels whose ministery we openly own upon these grand occasions could as easily have held the Ark a-float in the Air as on the water And the Ark being an Emblem of the Church God certainly did give his Angels charge over it that they should bear it up in their hands that it might not be dash'd against a stone And this having been more than once profest by the Theorist we must again conclude this objection superfluous and useless The third objection is this If the Earth had been thus dissolv'd The present Earth would have been in likelihood of another figure than what now it bears These are his words but I suppose he means that it would have been of another form as to Sea and Land And the reason he gives is this Because says he it would have broke first in the Equator and consequently that part falling down first would have been swallowed up by the waters and become all Sea Whereas we find that under the Equator that then was which he supposeth the present Ecliptick the dry ground is of most spatious extent and continuity We need not examine his account of Sea and Land because it proceeds upon a false supposition He relapses here into his former Astronomical error or to his first adds a second viz. That the Earth when it chang'd its situation chang'd its Poles and Circles This is a great mistake the change of position in respect of the Heavens did not change the places of its Circles in respect to its own Globe As when you change a Sphere or a Globe out of a right situation into an oblique the Circles do not change their places as to that Sphere or Globe but have only another position to the Heavens The Earth's Ecliptick runs through the same places it did before and the Equinoctial regions of that Earth were the same with the Equinoctial regions of this only bear another posture to the Heavens and the Sun These Circles have not chang'd places with one another as he imagines and which is worse would father this imagination upon the Theory in these words under the Ecliptick which in the Primitive situation of the Earth ACCORDING TO THE THEORY was its Equinoctial and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres as the Equator does now the dry ground c. He that affirms this with respect to the Earth neither understands the Theory nor the Doctrine of the Sphere But let 's press no further upon a mistake The fourth objection is this That such a Dissolution of the Earth would have caus'd great barrenness after the Flood Partly by turning up some dry and unfruitful parts of the Earth and partly by the soil and filth that would be left upon its surface As to the first I willingly allow that some of the interiour and barren parts of the Earth might be turn'd up as we now see in Mountainous and wild Countries but this rather confirms the Theory than weakens it But as to the second that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren I cannot allow that For good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to make their crop more rich And 't is generally suppos'd that the Inundation of Nile and the mud it leaves behind it makes Aegypt more fruitful Besides this part of the objection lies against the common explication of the Deluge as well as against that which is given by the Theory For if you suppose an universal Deluge let it come from what causes you please it must overflow all the Earth and leave mud and slime and filth upon the surface of it And consequently cause barrenness according to this argumentation He adds another consideration under this head namely that if the Earth had been dissolv'd in this manner All the buildings erected before the Flood would have been shaken down or else overwhelmed Yet we read of some that outstood the Flood and were not demolish'd Such were the pillars of Seth and the Cities Henochia and Joppa As to Seth's pillars they are generally accounted fabulous And I perceive the excepter will not vouch for them For he concludes p. 295. I know the very being is question'd of Seth's pillars c. If he will not defend them why should I take the pains to confute them I do not love to play with a Man that will put nothing to the stake That will have his chance to win but can lose nothing because he stakes nothing Then as to the City Henochia it hath no authority but that of Annius Viterbiensis and his Berosus A Book generally exploded as fictitious Lastly as to Ioppa the authority indeed is better though still uncertain But however suppose the ruines of one Town remain'd after the Flood does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv'd I do not doubt but there were several tracts of the Earth much greater than that Town that were not broken all to pieces by their fall But you and your English Historian are mistaken if you suppose the Altars and Inscriptions mention'd by Mela to have been Antediluvian Altars and Inscriptions Unless you will make the Fable of Perseus and Andromeda and the Sea-Monster to have been an Antediluvian Fable Neither hath your Historian been lucky in translating those words of Mela cum religione plurimâ with the grounds and principles of their religion which signifie only with a religious care or superstition But to leave Fables and proceed His last Argument against the Dissolution is this Had the Dissolution of the Earth been the cause of the Deluge It would have made God's Covenant with Noah a
an House seated upon an Eminency or a Castle upon a Rock would be always a safe retreat from this diminutive Deluge I speak all this upon the suppositions of the Excepter who allows not only Mountains and Rocks but also Castles and Cities before the Deluge built of good Timber and Stone and Iron and such substantial materials But how in such a case and in such a state of things all mankind except Noah and his Family should be destroy'd by fifteen cubits of water is a lump of Incredibilities too hard and big for me to swallow But there is still another difficulty that we have not mention'd As those that were upon the Land might easily save themselves from ruine so those that were upon the Sea in ships would never come in danger For what would it signifie to them if the Sea was made a few fathoms deeper by these new waters It would bear their vessels as well as it did before and would be no more to them than a Spring-tide And lastly how shall we justifie the Divine Wisedom which gave such punctual orders for the building of an Ark to save Noah and a set of Creatures for a new World when there were so many more easie and obvious ways to preserve them without that trouble These objections in my opinion are so plain and full that it is not needful to add any more Nor to answer such evasions as the new Theorist attempts to make to some of them As for instance to that plain objection from Moses's words that the Mountains were cover'd with the waters he says first that it is a Synecdoche where the whole is put for a part Or Secondly 't is an Hyperbole where more is said than understood Or Thirdly 't is a Poetical History Or Lastly if none of these will do by the Tops of the Mountains is to be understood the bottoms of the Mountains and that cures all The truth is he has taken a great deal of pains in the next Chapter to cure and incurable Hypothesis We will give you but one instance more 'T is about the appearance of the tops of the Mountains at the decrease of the Deluge Which argues strongly that they were cover'd in the Deluge But take it in his own words with the answer It is recorded Gen. 8. 5. that the waters decreased continually until the tenth month and on the first day of the month WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOVNTAINS SEEN Now if the mountains had not been quite under water and so invisible for the time they were overwhelmed how could they be said to become visible again or to be seen upon the Floods going off This is a plain and bold objection And after two answers to it which he seems to distrust his 3 d and last is this If these two considerations will not satisfie we must carry on the enquiry a little further and seek for a Third And truly some one or other must needs be found out Thirdly therefore we consider that the tops of the mountains may be said to be seen at the time mentioned upon account of their EMERGENCY OVT OF DARKNESS NOT OVT OF WATERS This is his final Answer The tops of the Mountains at the decrease of the Deluge were seen not that they were covered before with water says he but with darkness Where finds he this account 't is neither in the Text nor in reason If it was always so dark and the tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where how could the Ark avoid them in the darkness Moreover If the Deluge was made in that gentle way that he supposes I see no reason to imagine that there would be darkness after the forty-days-rain For these rains being faln and all the Vapours and clouds of the Air discharg'd methinks there should have ensued an extraordinary clearness of the Air as we often see after rainy seasons Well 't is true But the rains he supposes were no sooner faln but the Sun retracted them again in Vapours with that force and swiftness that it kept the Air in perpetual darkness Thus he says afterwards He 's mightily beholden to the Sun upon many accounts and the Sun is no less beholden to him for he gives him a miraculous power to raise Mountains and draw up Waters 'T is well the Sun did not presently fall to his old work again of raising Mountains out of this moist Earth as the Excepter says he did when the Earth was first drain'd That he contented himself now to suck up the Waters only and let the Earth alone We are not a little beholden to him for this For he seems to have had the same power and opportunity at the decrease of the Deluge of making new ravages upon the Earth that he had before when it was first drain'd But let 's see how or when these waters were suck'd up or resolv'd into vapours Upon the expiration of the 40 days rain whether was the Air purg'd of Vapours and clear or no Yes it was purg'd He says p. 343. The Atmosphere was never so exhausted of Vapours and never so thin as when the waters were newly come down Then in that clear Air the tops of the Mountains might have been seen if they lay above water But Moses says it was in the Tenth Month that they begun to be seen when the Waters were decreas'd 't was therefore the Waters not the gross Air that hindered the sight of them before And according to this Method of the Excepter after the first Forty days the Deluge begun to decrease For the Sun forth-with set his Engines a work and resolv'd the Waters into vapor and exhalations at such a rate that he presently made all the Atmosphere dark with thick Mists and Clouds and in proportion lessen'd 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 The truth is The whole notion of spending the Waters of the Deluge by Evaporation is no better than what the Excepter suspected it would be thought A meer fancy a whimsical groundless figment For what could the Sun do in the Northern and Southern parts of the World towards the exhaling of these Waters And in the temperate Climates why should they not fall again in Rains if he had a power to exhale them as they do now Was not the Earth in the same position and the Sun of the same force Besides where does he find this notion in Scripture that the Waters of the Deluge were consum'd by Evaporation Moses says the Waters returned from off the Earth in going and returning Gen. 8. 3 5. that is after frequent reciprocations they setled at length in their Chanels Where bounds were set them that they might not pass over that they return not again to cover the Earth Seeing therefore this notion hath no
foundation either in Scripture or reason 't is righty enough styl'd in the Excepter's words a meer fancy and groundless figment But I think we have had enough of these shifts and evasions Let us now proceed to the 2 d. part of his new Hypothesis which is this That the Abyss or Tehom-Rabbah which was broken open at the Deluge and together with the Rains made the Flood was nothing but the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains which open'd their mouths at that time and pour'd out a great quantity of Water To support this new notion of Tehom-Rabbah he alledgeth but one single Text of Scripture Psal. 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness and gave them drink as out of the Great Depths That is copiously and abundantly as if it were out of the great Deep So the next Verse implies and so it is generally understood As you may see both by Interpreters and also by the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations and those of the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Syriack But the Excepter by all means will have these holes in the Rocks to be the same with the Mosaical Abyss or Great Deep that was broken open at the Deluge So the Great Deep was not one thing or one continued Cavity as Moses represents it but ten thousand holes separate and distant one from another Neither must the Great Deep according to him signifie a low place but an high place For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common level of the Earth But I do not see how with any tolerable propriety or good sence that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be call'd the Great Deep An Abyss in the Earth or in the Water is certainly downwards in respect of their common Surface As much as a Pit is downwards And what is downwards from us we cannot suppose to be above us without confounding all dimensions and all names of things Calling that low which is high a Mountain a Valley or a Garret a Cellar Neither is there any thing in this Text Psal. 78. 15. that can justly induce us to believe the Great Abyss to be the same thing with Caverns in Rocks For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a miraculous thing that God should give them Water out of a Rock or out of a FLINT as plentifully as if it had been out of the Great Abyss Or whether you understand the original of Fountains to be noted here which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea or the great Abyss neither of these sences make any thing to the purpose of the new Hypothesis and yet they are the fairest and easiest sence that can be put upon the words and that which agrees best with other places of Scripture where the same matter of fact or the same History is related And therefore there can be no necessity from the Text of changing the general notion and signification of Deep or Abyss Both from that which it hath in common use and that which it hath in Scripture-use I say as in the common use of words Deep or Abyss signifies some low or inferiour place So the general use of it in Scripture is in the same sence Either to signifie the Sea or some subterraneous place Who shall descend into the Abyss or Deep says the Apostle Rom. 10. 7. Is that as much as if he had said Who shall ascend into the holes of the Rocks And when Iacob speaks of the blessings of the Abyss or of the Deep he calls them the blessings of the Deep that lyeth under Gen. 49. 25. In like manner Moses himself calls it the Deep that coucheth beneath Deut. 33. 13. And I know no reason why we should not understand the same Deep there that he mentioned before in the History of the Deluge Which therefore was subterraneous as this is Then as for the other use of the word namely for the Sea or any part of the Sea whose bottom is always lower than the level of the Earth that is the most common use of it in Scripture And I need not give you Instances which are every where obvious One must needs think it strange therefore that any Man of judgment should break thorough both the common use of a word and so many plain Texts of Scripture that shew the signification of it for the sake of one Text which at most is but dubious And then lay such stress upon that new signification as to found a new doctrine upon it And a doctrine that is neither supported by reason nor agrees with the History of the Deluge For as we noted before at the decrease of the Deluge the Waters are said to return from off the Earth Gen. 8. 3. Did they not return to the places from whence they came but if those places were the Caverns in the Rocks whose mouths lay higher than the Surface of the Deluge as he says they did I see no possibility of the Waters returning into them But the Excepter hath found out a marvellous invention to evade this argument He will have the returning of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles that is into vapors not to their Places In good time So the Dove 's returning was her returning into her Principles that is into an Egg not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded argue two things wit and want of judgment Moses speaks as plainly of the local return of the Waters in going and returning as of the local going and returning of the Raven and Dove See Gen. 8. 3 5. compar'd with Verse 7 th 9 th Lastly That we may end this Discourse the whole notion of these Water-pots in the tops of Mountains and of the broaching of them at the Deluge is a groundless imagination What reason have we to believe that there were such Vessels then more than now if there was no Fraction of the Earth at the Deluge to destroy them And he ought to have gag'd these Casks according to his own rule and told us the number and capacity of them that we might have made some judgment of the effect Besides if the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks why did not Moses express it so and tell us that the Rocks were cloven and the waters gushed out and so made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Tehom-Rabbah was broken open But there is not one word of Rocks or the cleaving of Rocks in the History of the Flood Upon all accounts therefore we must conclude that this Virtuoso might have as well suspected that his whole Theory of the Deluge as one part of it would be accounted a meer fancy and groundless figment CHAP. XVI THIS Chapter is made up of Eight Objections against his own Hypothesis And those that have a mind to see them may read them in the Author
Resurrection-Body consists of the same individual parcels and particles whereof the mortal Body consisted before it was putrified or dispers'd And whether the Book of Life are to be understood in a literal sence The last Head is of such things as belong to the Natural World And to this may be reduc'd innumerable Instances where we leave the literal sence if inconsistent with Science or experience And the truth is if we should follow the Vulgar Style and literal sence of Scripture we should all be Anthropomorphites as to the Nature of God And as to the Nature of his works in the external Creation we must renounce Philosophy and Natural Experience if the descriptions and accounts given in Scripture concerning the Heavens the Earth the Sea and other parts of the World be received as accurate and just representations of the state and properties of those Bodies Neither is there any danger lest this should affect or impeach the Divine Veracity for Scripture never undertook nor was ever designed to teach us Philosophy or the Arts and Sciences And whatsoever the Light of Nature can reach and comprehend is improperly the Subject of Revelation But some men out of love to their own ease and in defence of their ignorance are not only for a Scripture-Divinity but also for a Scripture-Philosophy 'T is a cheap and compendious way and saves them the trouble of farther study or examination Upon the whole you see it is no fault to recede from the literal sence of Scripture but the fault is when we leave it without a just cause As it is no fault for a man to separate from a Church or for a Prince to make war against his Neighbour but to do the one or the other without a just cause is a real fault We all leave the literal sence in certain cases and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man But he that makes a separation if I may so call it without good reasons he is truly obnoxious to censure The great result of all therefore is this to have some common Rule to direct us when every one ought to follow and when to leave the Literal Sence And that Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters is this Not to leave the literal Sence when the subject matter will bear it without absurdity or incongruity This Rule I have always proposed to my self and always endeavoured to keep close to it But some inconsiderate minds make every departure from the Letter let the Matter or Cause be what it will to be an affront to Scripture And there where we have the greatest liberty I mean in things that relate to the Natural world They have no more indulgence or moderation than if it was an intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith In this particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter yet I must needs say he is a very Saint in comparison of another Animadverter who hath writ upon the same subiect but neither like a Gentleman nor like a Christian nor like a Scholar And such Writings answer themselves FINIS Pag. 44. Pag. 45. Eng. Theor. p. 65. Eng. Theor. â— 106. 107. â— 74. lin 18 19. p. 77 78. 79. p. 79. p. 80 81 p. 83. Prin. ph l. 4. §. 84. Meteor c. 1. §. 8. Prin. phil l. 4. §. 76. Eng. Theor. p. 58 59. p. 80 81. p. 81. * Ego quidem in eâ sum sententiâ si in harum rerum de quibus agitur cognitionem aut aliarum quarumcunque quae momenti sunt visum fuerit Deo aut Naturae ut pateret hominibus ratio perveniendi ratio illa certa est in aliquâ clarâ invictâ evidentiâ fundata non conjecturalis vaga dubia Qualem nempe ii qui optimè utuntur libertate suâ qui maximè sibi cavent ab erroribus nunquam amplecterentur Pag. 52. lin 17. lin 27. p. 78. p. 299. pen. p. 86. * Si admittamus insuper Ignem Centralem sive Massam ignis in centro Terrae quod quidem non est hujus argumenti Neque partem intimam Chaos nisi obiter pro formâ consideravi cum ad rem nostram non spectet Vid. etiam p. 186. edit 2. Eng. Theor. p. 324. p 88. p. 106. p. 114. p. 118. Gen. 1. 22. 22. ch 13. p. 121. Eph. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 20. Apoc. 13. 8. p. 122. p. 121. * Notandum verò quamvis mundi veteris dissolutionem rationes Diluvii secundum ordinem causarum naturalium explicemius quòd eo modo magis clare distincte intelligantur non ideo in poenam humani generis ordinatum fuisse diluvium singulisque ipsius motibus praefuisse providentiam inficiamur imo in eo elucet maximè Sapientia divina quod mundum naturalem morali ita coaptet attemperet ut hujus ingenio illius ordo dispositio semper respondeat amborum libratis momentis simul concurrant unà compleantur utriusque tempora vicissitudines ipse etiam Apostolus Petrus diluvii excidii mundani causas naturales assignat cùm ait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theor. p. 106 107 108. Ver. 5 p. 137. Theor. c. 1. Review p. 29 c. * Eng. Theor p. 86. p. 86. Excep p. 140. p. 141. p. 146. p. 148. p. 149. Gen. 1. 2. p. 150. p. 143. p. 81. p. 100. last part p. 154. p. 227 228. p. 244. p. 279 280. p. 288. p. 158. Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 4. p. 159. p. 263 264 265. Eng. Theor. p. 286 287. p. 166. p. 168. p. 169. p. 170. p. 1â—1 Eng. Theor. p. 99. p. 176. p. 177. p. 178. p. 179. p. 180. p. 181. p. 182. p. 184. Praep. Evan. l. 10. c. ult p. 504. Col. ch 14. p. 750. Strom. 2. p. 364. Phaed. p. 99. Serem 2. p. 416. Li. 2. c. 10. p. 274. Vid. Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 10. in fine * De Grat. Prim. hom c. 12. Accedit ad haec quod Paradisus it a describitur à Sancto Basilio in Libro de Paradiso à Joan. Damasceno Libro secundo de fide capite undecimo à Sancto Augustino libro decimo quarto de civitate Dei capit 10. Ab Alchimo Avito Claud. Mario victore aliis suprà citatis Isidoro libro decimo quarto Etymolog capite tertio aliis communiter ut fuerit in eo ver perpetuum nulla figora nulli aestus nullae pluviae nives grandines nullae etiam nubes quod ipsum significat scriptura cum dicit primos homines in Paradiso fuisse nudos See Eng. Theor. p. 253. p. 185. p. 180. p. 187. p. 188. p. 189. p. 190. p. 186. p. 195. Plat. in Phaed. Lat. Theor li. 2. c. 10. p. 197. p. 186. Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 5. p. 198. p. 201. Isa. 9. 6 7. Isa. 9. 1 c. Luk. 1. 31 32 33. p. 202. p. 205. p. 206. p. 207. ibid. p. 208. p. 208 209 c. p. 209. p. 51. the 4th day was the first day of the Sun's existence p. 209. p. 215. p. 216. p. 215. li. 24. Gen. 6. 1â— * Per ludibrium rogant nasuti homines unde Architectos Opifices conduxerit Cain ad urbem extruendam Nos vicissim ab illis quaerimus quo authore credant Vrbem ex quadratis lapidibus fuisse extructam magno artificio multisque sumptibus longi temporis operâ aedificium hoc constitisse Nihil enim aliud colligere licet exverbis Mosis quà m muros ex rudi materiâ Cain sibi posteris circumdedisse Cal. in loc p. 250. p. 224. Iob 38. 8. p. 219 220. p. 225 226. Gen. 1. 17. p. 234. p. 246. p. 257. 2 Kings 13. 17. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 5. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 7. p. 265. p. 273. See the Table of both Eng. Theor. p. 220. Gen. 47. 9. Theor. bo 2. ch 3. 4th p. 2â—7 p. 276 277. p. 278. 79 280. ibid. Eng. Theor. p. 23. ibid. p. 280. p. 281. p. 285. p. 286. ibid. See Review p. 35 c. p. 288. Eng. Theor. p. 108. p. 98. p. 289 ibid. See p. 27. before p. 290. p. 292. p. 296. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 9. at the end p. 299. p. 297 300. p. 300. p. 329. lin 19. c. 31. p. 339. lin 18. p. 312. ult Eng. Theor. ch 2. 3. * The Excepter rejects first the Waters of the Sea Then the Waters in the bowels of the Earth Then the Supercelestial Waters Then a New Creation of Waters Then the mass of Air chang'd into water And lastly a partial Deluge And therefore he puts men fatally either upon the Theory or upon his new Hypothesis p. 301. p. 302. lin 21. 1 Sam. 17. 4. Gen. 7. 19. * This he acknowledges p. 325. We expound a Text or two of Scripture so as none ever did and deserting the common receiv'd sence put an unusual Gloss upon them not to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a private interpretation and p. 359. p. 215 216 292 c. p. 330. p. 332 333. p. 337. p. 339. p. 341. See ch 10. Gen. 8. 5. p. 341. p. 343. p. 303. * p. 303. But though these Caverns be called Deeps we must not take them for profound places that went down into the Earth below the common Surface of it on the contrary they were situate above it * Psal. 114. 7 8. Tremble thou Earth at the presence of the Lord at the presence of the God of Jacob Which turned the Rock into a standing water the flint into a fountain of Waters Num. 20. 10 11. And Moses and Aaron gathered the Congregation together before the Rock and he said unto them Hear now you rebels must we fetch you water out of this Rock And Moses lift up his hand and with his rod he smote the Rock twice and the Water came out abundantly p. 303 305. * ch 3. p. 343. Eng. Theor. p. 150. Eng. Theor. p. 96. Eng. Theor p. 288. p. 43. p. 78. p. 286. Ps. 19. 5 6. Ios. 10. 12 13. 2 Kin. 20. 10 11. Isa. 38. 8. p. 157. p. 74. Gen. 7. 19 20. Gen. 8. 5. p. 216. Mat. 5. 29 30. Phil. 4. 3. Apoc. 3. 5. 20. 12.