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
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
VIII THIS Chapter is concerning that grand property of the Antediluvian Earth a perpetual Equinox or a Right position to the Sun This perpetual Equinox the Excepter will by no means admit But I 'me afraid he mistakes the notion for as he explains it in the two first Sections of this Chapter he seems to have a false Idea of the whole matter He thinks I perceive that when the Earth chang'd its situation it was translated from the Equator into the Ecliptick and that before that change in the Antediluvian state it mov'd directly under the Equator For these are his words So that in her Annual motion about the Sun namely the Earth before that change she was carried directly under the Equinoctial without any manner of obliquity in her site or declination towards either of the Tropicks in her course And therefore could never cut the Equinoctial by passing as now she is presum'd to do from one Tropick to the other By which words you see he imagines that the Earth mov'd perpetually under the Equator when it had a perpetual Equinox And when it came out of that state into this wherein it is now it did not only change its position and the posture of its Axis but was also really translated from one part of the Heavens into Another namely from under the Equator to the Ecliptick and so took another road in its annual course about the Sun This is a great mistake And I cannot blame him if he was so averse to admit this change seeing it lay so cross in his imagination For what Pullies or Leavers should we employ to remove the Earth out of the Equator into the Ecliptick Archimedes pretended if he had ground to plant his Engines upon that he would move the Earth out of its place but that it was done before I never knew nor heard of And if the Excepter had consider'd what is said in the Theory upon that occasion he might easily have prevented his mistake But we shall meet with the same Errour again in another place Let us consider now what Arguments he uses against this change He says If there had been such a change either Providence or Mankind would have preserv'd the memory of it How far the memory of it hath been preserv'd we shall see hereafter In the mean time we will give him instances of other things to reflect upon that are lost out of memory unless he be the happy Man that shall retrieve them The Age of the World hath not been preserv'd either by the memory of Man or by the care of Providence And was not that both a thing of importance and of easie preservation Noah could not but know the Age of the World for he was contemporary with five or six Generations that were contemporary with Adam And knowing the Age of the World himself he could not easily forbear one would think to tell it to his Sons and Posterity But to this day we do not know what the true Age of the World is There are three Bibles if I may so say or three Pentateuchs the Hebrew Samaritan and Greek which do all differ very considerably in their accounts concerning the Age of the World and the most Learned men are not yet able to determine with certainty which of the three accounts is most authentick Then what think you of the place of Paradise How well is the memory or knowledge of that preserv'd Could Noah be ignorant of it and was it not a fit subject to discourse of and entertain his Sons and Nephews and by them to communicate it to Posterity Yet we seek it still in vain The Iews were as much at a loss as we are and the Christian Fathers you think were out in their opinions both about the place and conditions of it neither do you venture to determine them your self so that Paradise is lost in a manner out of the world What wonder then if this single property of it be lost If the Excepter had well consider'd what the Theorist has said concerning the Providential conduct of knowledge in the World this doubt or objection might have been spar'd After a long excursion little to the purpose but to show his reading He tells us next that Scripture does not favour this notion of a perpetual Equinox before the Flood And cites Gen. 8. 22. which the Theorist had cited as a place that did suggest to us that vicissitude of Seasons that was establisht after the Flood The words indeed are not so determinate in themselves but that they may be understood either of the restauration of a former order in the Seasons of the Year or of the establishment of a new one And in whether sence they are to be taken is to be determin'd by collateral Reasons and Considerations Such the Theorist had set down to make it probable that they ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order for the Seasons of the Year as was brought in at that time and was to continue to the end of the World The Excepter hath not thought fit to take notice of or refute those Reasons and therefore they stand good as formerly Besides the Excepter must remember that this Text stands betwixt two remarkable Phaenomena the Longevity of the Antediluvians in the old World and the appearance of the Rainbow in the New Both which were marks of a different state of nature in the two Worlds He further excepts against that perpetual Equinox before the Flood for another Scripture-reason Viz. Because the Earth was curst before that time and consequently he says had not a perpetual Equinox But if that curse was supernatural it might have its effect in any position of the Earth For God can make a Land barren if he think fit in spite of the course of Nature And so he also must suppose it to have been in this case For upon all suppositions whether of a perpetual Equinox or no the Earth is granted to have been very fruitful at first and so would have continued if that curse had not interven'd Lastly He makes that an argument that the Air was cold and intemperate in Paradise and consequently no constant Equinox because Adam and Eve made themselves Aprons to cover their nakedness So he confesses Interpreters generally understand that it was to cover their nakedness But he will not allow that to be the true sence but says those Fig-leaves were to keep them warm And the other Interpretation of covering their nakedness he will not admit for three reasons First because the Scripture as he pretends does not declare it so See pray Gen. 3. 7. Secondly What shame says he need there have been betwixt Husband and Wife Thirdly If it was modesty when they were innocent they should have been more modest Some arguments answer themselves and I do not think these deserve a confutation But he says however God made them Coats of Skins afterwards and
that was to be a defence against cold He must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood and which way and how far Adam and Eve were banisht from it When those things are determin'd we shall know what to judge of his argument and of Coats of Skins After Lastly I expected no more but he hath two or three reasons after the Last As first he says upon our Hypothesis one Hemisphere of the Globe must have been unpeopled because the Torrid Zone was unpassable And was not the Ocean as unpassable upon your Hypothesis How got they into America and not only into America but into all the Islands of the Earth that are remote from Continents Will you not allow us one Miracle for your many I 'me sure the Theorist never excluded the Ministery of Angels and They could as easily carry them thorough the Torrid Zone as over the Ocean But Secondly he says There could be no Rains to make the Flood if there was a perpetual Equinox Were not those rains that made the Flood extraordinary and out of the course of Nature you would give one angry words that should deny it Besides the Flood-gates of Heaven were open'd when the Great Deep was broken up Gen. 7. 11. and no wonder the Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in the air and either compress the vapours or stop their usual course towards the Poles and draw them down in streams upon several parts of the Earth But the Excepter says this could not be because the Theorist makes the rains fall before the disruption of the Abyss But he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open'd before which made the grand rains And how unfairly that passage of the Theory is represented we shall see hereafter in the 14 th Chapter Lastly He concludes all with this remark That all sorts of Authors have disputed in what season of the Year the Deluge came and in what season of the Year the World began therefore they thought there were then different seasons of the Year These disputes he confesses did manifestly proceed from inadvertency or something worse Because there could not be any one season throughout all the Earth at once He might have added unless upon the supposition of the Theory which makes an universal Equinox at that time And why may not that have given occasion to the general belief that the world begun in the Spring and when the true reason of the Tradition was lost they fell into those impertinent questions In what season of the Year the World began But however we do not depend upon the belief either of the Ancients or the Moderns as to the generality for we know they had other notions of these things than what the Theory proposes otherwise it would have been a needless work But notwithstanding the general error that Providence did preserve some Traditions and Testimonies concerning that ancient Truth we shall see in the next following discourse So much for Scripture and Reasons He now comes to examine Authorities Namely such Testimonies as are alledg'd by the Theorist to shew that there was a Tradition amongst the Ancients of a change that had been as to the position of the Earth and consequently as to the form and seasons of the Year The first Testimony that he excepts against is that of Diogenes and Anaxagoras who witness plainly That there had been an Inclination of the Earth or a change of posture since it was form'd and inhabited But the Excepter says they have not assign'd a true final cause nor such as agrees with the Theory The second Testimony is that of Empedocles which he excepts against because he hath not given a good Efficient Cause of that change The third witness is Leucippus against whom he makes the same exception that he does not assign the Causes a-right The fourth witness is Democritus whom he quarrels upon the same account But is this a fair hearing of Witnesses Or are these just and legal grounds of rejecting their testimony as to matter of Fact because they are unskilful in giving the causes and reasons of that matter of Fact That is not requir'd in witneses and they are often impertinent when they attempt to do it The Theorist does not cite these Authors to learn of them the causes either Efficient or Final of that Inclination or change of posture in the Earth but only matter of Fact To let you see that according to their testimony there was a Tradition in that time which they took for true concerning a change made in the posture of the Earth And this is all we require from them If you pretend to invalidate their testimony because they do not Philosophize well about that change That 's as if you should deny that there was such a War as the Peloponnesian war because the Historian hath not assigned the true causes and reasons of it Or as if a man should give you the history of a Comet that appear'd in such a year was of such a form and took such a course in the Heavens and you should deny there was any such Comet because the same Author had not given a good account of the generation of that Comet nor of the Causes of its form and motion The exceptions made against the testimonies of these Philosophers seem to me to be no less injudicious After these Testimonies He makes three or four remarks or reflections upon them But they all concern either the time of this Change or the Causes of it Neither of which the Theorist either engag'd or intended to prove from these Witnesses There is still one Testimony behind which the Excepter hath separated from the rest that he might encounter it singly T is another passage from Anaxagoras which both notes this Inclination and the posture of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination But here the Excepter quarrels first with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Ambrosius the Monk would have it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but without the Authority of any Manuscript and as Casaubon says male Then he says Aldobrandinus translates it turbulentè but gives no reason for that translation in his notes Therefore he cannot rest in this but in the third place he gives another sence to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if that will not please you he has still a fourth answer in reserve I do not like when a man shifts answers so often 't is a sign he has no great confidence in any one But let us have his fourth answer 'T is this That Anaxagoras was a kind of heterodox Philosopher and what he says is not much to be heeded These are the words of the Excepter If this will not satisfie I have one thing more to offer Grant that Anaxagoras should mean that very Declination which the Theory would have him yet this truly would contribute little towards the proof of
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
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
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