assert Paradise to have been where they place it upon their credit or authority But we have something else to offer which will reach both the Particulars at once The Best Antiquity in the whole World is Scripture And if we appeal to that we shall find it most probable that the seat of Paradise was Mesopotamia or some Region thereabouts by the several broad Signs which it gives us thereof in the Second Chapter of Genesis For First That is Eastward of the place where Moses wrote And it is said Gen. 2.8 that the LORD GOD planted a Garden Eastward Eng. Theor. p. 251. And whereas our Author would have Mikkedhem there to signify in the beginning Moses teaches us plainly that it signifies in the East by using the word in that sense himself in the very next Chapter For in the last Verse of it he says that GOD placed Cherubim and a flaming Sword 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the East of the Garden of Eden But to have rendred it thus he placed in the Beginning of the Garden of Eden Cherubim and a flaming Sword would have been a very improper and ill Reddition And as often as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do occur in the Pentateuch which I think is at least thirty times besides Gen. 2.8 I do not find that they can in any one place be rendred otherwise than East Eastward of the East or in the East Which if they cannot it is enough to convince us that Mikkedhem Gen. 2.8 must be rendred in the East not in the Beginning Secondly Eden is there the Country wherein Paradise was planted So we read again Gen. 2.8 that the LORD GOD planted a Garden Eastward in EDEN And tho He would have Eden signify Ibid. pleasure and so read the Text thus the LORD GOD planted a Garden in pleasure that cannot be the true meaning For the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it must be read the LORD GOD planted a Garden in pleasure which would sound but harshly And in the next Verie but one it is said that a River went out of Eden to water the Garden But to say a River went out of pleasure to water the Garden would be no good sense And in the fourth of Genesis we meet with a Passage which shows that Moses by Mikkedhem must mean the East and not the Beginning and by Eden a Country and not pleasure For telling us there at the 16th Verse which way the Land of Nod lay where Cain dwelt he says it was on the East of Eden But for him to have said it was in the beginning of Pleasure would have been an odd account of its Situation After all which if it will not seem superfluous may be added the words spoken by Rabshakeh in the person of his Master and recorded by the Prophet Jer. 37.12 Have the GODS of the Nations delivered them which my Fathers have destroyed as Gozan and Haran and Rezeph and the Children of Eden which were in Talassar Ch. 27. v. 23. Ezekiel also puts Haran and Canneh and Eden together Whence it plainly appears that Eden was as much the proper name of a place as Rezeph or Canneh or any of those mention'd And also that that place was in the Eastern part of our Continent because the other places or Regions here joined with it lay about it or bordered upon it And so it might be in Mesopotamia too tho it could not be in the Southern Hemisphere And it is observable that when Jacob journied to Haran in Mesopotamia he is said to come into the land of the Children of the East Gen. 29.1 And Balaam who was brought out of the Mountains of the East Numb 23.7 is said to be of Mesopotamia Deut. 23.4 Thirdly the Land of Havilah is there about which the River Pison is said to fetch a compass Gen. 2.11 Not the Indian Havilah as some have greatly mistaken and by that mistake have been led into another that Pison was Ganges but that Havilah which was so called from the Son of Cush Whereas the other Havilah took its denomination from the Son of Joctan Strabo also placeth the Havilah that relates to Paradise in the Confines of Arabia and Mesopotamia Fourthly the Land of Cush is there so denominated from Cush the Son of Ham who settled himself and his Family in it It is said to be compassed with the River Gihon Gen. 2.13 and it is the Asiatic Aethiopia Tho some presuming that the African Aethiopia was there meant concluded that Gihon must be the Nile Fifthly Hiddekel or Tigris is there which is said to run towards the East of Assyria Gen. 2.14 Upon whose Stream rising from the Gordian Mountains in the greater Armenia and flowing Southwards to the dividing of Mesopotamia from Assyria stands the Principal City of that Country the famous Ninive built by Assur Sixthly Euphrates that Celebrated River of Asia is there also Gen. 2.14 I mean in that Eastern part of our Continent Now are not all these Regions and Rivers in or about Eden or Mesopotamia And are they not Marks of the Earthly Paradise And were they not made so by Moses himself And was not he directed by the H. GHOST And might it not be in Mesopotamia then or must it not be near it For had it been out of it and remote from it what wise man inspired by GOD would have described it by such Rivers and describ'd it by such Regions as lay about Mesopotamia and were conterminous with it or bordering upon it and if some of these Rivers and some of these Regions be very much chang'd in their Names and Postures since Moses wrote that 's no marvel It would rather be a wonder considering * Certum est insignes variationes in terrae partibus continuo evenire propter bellorum incurpiones aquarum inundationes Marium praeruptiones ac recessus imperiorum regnorum dominiorum instabilitates Etenim non solum regiones urbes oppida flumina alia hujusmodi sua nomina pro tempore mutant amissis prorsus prioribus verum etiam sines ipsarum regionum variantur urbes oppidaque senectute deleâ—tur bellorum calamitate evertuntur aliaque de novo conduntur mare uno in leâ—o continentem terrae dilatat in alio coarctat flumina quandoque augescunt quandoque minuuntur quandeque cursus variant quandoque etiam prorsus deficiunt Sic quoque fontes stagna paludes alibi exiccantur alibi vero procreantur c. Magin in praef ad Geogr. the Mutability of Nature here below if in so long a time they were not greatly altered Tho these Alterations do not argue in the least that Paradise was not situate in Mesopotamia or some adjacent Region Where after so many thousands of years we are no more to look for the same Features in the Earth's Face than for the same Fruitfulness in its Soil Tho if we will believe Herodotus Clia. l. 1. Geog. l. 16. Strabo
that the First Earth had an Open Sea Wherefore we may well goon with a little variation against the Answerer as he does against the Excepter It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Assertion is true but the truth of it must be demonstrated by good proofs Ib. p. 67. But the good and demonstrating proofs of this are still wanting And so that blame which he would fling upon the Excepter falls upon himself recoiling back by just recrimination Next he is for noting one or two things wherein the Excepter seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sense Ib. An high Charge and such as inevitably draws shame after it either upon him against whom it is made or else upon the Maker of it And where will he find this inconsistency to clear himself He looks for it first in these words of the Excepter Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real Now where 's the inconsistency of these words either with him that spake them or with good sense Rather how consistent is it with a mans self and with good sense not to be bound to defend what he thinks may not be true and real Yet as if he would make good his charge out of these very words he Querys immediately But why does he then trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real Many have written ingenious and useful things which they never believed to be true and real but were they for this troublers of the World and inconsistent with themselves or with good sense And why then should the Excepter's Hypothesis be so for his not believing it to be true and real Especially when he so far insinuates his mistrust or doubt of it as to declare he would not defend it as true and real Besides an Hypothesis in the very term of it being but a Supposition it would have been more like inconsistency with himself or with good sense if he had believed it to be true and real For in case it be a true and real thing why should it any longer be an hypothesis And therefore he who fancies the Theory to be a Reality affirms it to be something more than a bare Hypothesis Eng. Theo. p. 149. Ib. p. 150. and will have it to rise above the character of a bare Hypothesis and be a true piece of natural history and the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World The Inconsistency he talks of is not to be found here whither goes he to seek it next Why he has recourse to this saying of the Excepter's Answ p. 67. Our Supposition stands supported by Divine authority as being founded upon Scripture Which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth Now tho nothing of the suggested Inconsistency appears here neither prima facie or at first glance yet he labours to discover it by what follows If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture Ib. p. 67 68. and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak why will not he defend it as true and real For to be supported by Scripture and plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our faith which every one surely is bound to defend In our entrance on this new Hypothesis we desired allowance to make bold with Scripture a little as the Theory had done a great deal Disc p. 299. And afterward we declared that we had no reason to take our singularity in expounding a Text or two of Scripture Ib. p. 325. as an Objection against us if brought by the Theorist or them that hold with him For that indeed is but an imperfect Transcript of his own Copy and a faint imitation of his extravagant Pattern showing him as in a dark and short resemblance a shadow of that large unusual Liberty which he assum'd to himself not easy to be parallell'd And therefore for him to lay hold of our supporting our Hypothesis by plain Scripture as if we forc'd or wrested misinterpreted or misapply'd it in so doing when at the same time we openly profess that we make bold with it is no better than a forestalled Argument otherwise a Cavil And farther as the Answerer himself noted just now we would not be bound to defend what we say of the new Hypothesis as true and real And therefore the founding it upon Scripture and making that to support it plainly cannot possibly be understood by men of sense to be done otherwise than in an hypothetic or suppositious way And thus the Excepter is so far from proving inconsistent with himself or good sense that how could he be more consistent with both than in refusing to defend as true and real what he only supposed to be thus founded upon Scripture and supported by it And whatever he said of that nature was spoken only in way of supposition conjectural Yea tho it was spoken never so positively it was but to set forth rei personam to make the more full and lively representation of the supposed thing And therefore before he began his new Explication of the Flood he premised this caution Disc p. 300. Where we speak never so positively still what we deliver is to be lookt upon not as an absolute but as a comparative Hypothesis And so not as really founded upon Scripture and supported by it but as supposed to be so only The Answerer therefore in this business need not have brought in so over-strain'd a comparison as the Articles of our Faith p. 68. Betwixt which and Hypotheses there is greatest Difference the one being no less than truths of GOD and the other no more than Imaginations of men And as they are very different things so Scripture supports them very different ways Articles of Faith it supports directly and mainly by Divine Revelation Hypotheses collaterally and presumptively by humane fiction or imputation And as Scripture supports them in a different manner so we are bound to defend them in as different a measure For Articles of Faith we are bound to defend to the very Death but who are oblig'd to be Martyrs for Philosophy Yea some who build Hypotheses upon Scripture-Foundations I believe will rather let them fall and moreover help to pull them down than stand a fiery Trial to uphold them We are told that S. Peter convinces us Eng. Theor. p. 85. that the Theorist's Description of the Antediluvian Earth and of the Deluge is a reality And that other places of Scripture seem manifestly to describe the form of his Abyss with the Earth above it Ib. p. 86. And that Scripture it self doth assure us that the Earth rise at first out of his Chaos Ib. p. 150. Yet I am apt to think and I hope without breaking the Law of Charity That the Learned Author of these Notions would
any Writer knowingly and causelesly deserts the literal sence of Scripture or dissents from it he cannot be innocent For to use the Answerers own words Ib. p. 85. tho we all leave the literal sence in certain cases and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man Yet he that makes a separation if I may so call it without good reasons he is truly obnoxious to censure And so in short he becomes his own Judge and pronounceth a most just sentence on himself Ib. And thus he comes to the great result of all which is this To have some common Rule to direct us when every one ought to follow and when to leave the Literal Sence And such a Rule it seems is not wanting For as he tells us in the next words 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 But must not the knowledge then of this good Rule aggravate the breaking it Ignorance which sometimes excuses error does always extenuate it But if with open eyes we go against the light and swerve from the Rule we see standing before us our senses take from us all plea of oversight and our presumptuous enormity will admit of little or no apology But yet the Answerer offers somewhat to clear him in this matter and it follows immediately in the next words This Rule I have always proposed to my self and always endeavoured to keep close to it May his next proposal then and endeavour of this nature be more fortunate And to that end perhaps it may be proper they should be better inforced For must not his proposal here be too slight and must not his endeavour be too faint when both of them proved so insuccessful For had the one been as serious and the other as vigorous as it ought what could have defeated him in so just an Enterprise or diverted him from it For example had he really proposed and heartily endeavoured to keep close to the letter where Scripture says GOD made two great Lights or where it says he gave Adam Dominion over Sea-fish or the like what could have hindred him or beat him off it As for absurditys or incongruitys in the subject Matters the only Bar according to the Rule which can exclude that sence nothing can be more vain than to pretend any here For as we have plainly seen the readiest way to open a wide Door and let them in is to receede from the literal sence 'T is confest indeed that the literal sence in these and other cases would have brought in absurdities and inconveniencies upon the Theory in good plenty But then this is so far from being any reason why the literal sence of those places should not be received that it is a most clear and convincing Argument that that Hypothesis is to be rejected For by the Rule laid down I say where no kind of absurdities or incongruitys do accrue to any Texts from the literal sence there it must be kept to And therefore if the Theory cannot stand and maintain it self free from absurdities and incongruities without perverting or depraving the literal sence of the now cited Texts or any other and without causing a needless departure from it it must sink and fall And then as he somewhere interrogates the Excepter why does he trouble himself Answ p. 67. or the World with such an Hypothesis Ib. p. 79. Did he do it meerly out of an itch of Scripturiency as he speaks methinks he might have laid that prurient humour by scratching himself with the briars of a more innocent Controversie or by scrubbing soundly against something else than the holy Scripture Ib. p. 85. He goes on 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 Let them that are thus inconsiderate in their minds and immoderate in their ways answer this charge Prove the Excepter concern'd and besides acknowledging his past fault he 'll be cautious of recommitting it for the future But yet the greatest liberty we have or may pretend to in things relating to the natural World can by no means authorize us to go against the letter of Scripture in any case where it is to be literally taken or may be so understood without absurdity If we do we go directly against the Rule of faith and so shall soon come to intrenchment upon its Articles He concludes thus Ib. 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 written upon the same subject c. In this particular as the Animadverter needs no excuse so he asks none Yet if he used the Theorist so well he again should have used him the better But whoever reads over the present Answer will easily find that he is treated rather as a grievous sinner against the holy Theory than as a Saint Excepter Who that Animadverter is of whom he complains I know not I have seen no other Writings or Animadversions upon the Subject he speaks of but the Lord Bishop of Hereford's And I own that his Lordships publishing his Animadversions was good encouragement to me to Print my Exceptions at first and to Defend them now To see that therein I should follow the great Example of a Reverend Prelate and in fighting for the Truth against the Theory of the Earth should militate under the Episcopal Banner I was now thinking that I had done and just about to lay down my Pen. But then calling to mind that the Answerer quoted a Review of the Theory against us as to some Texts of Scripture on which the Theory is bottom'd or does depend I held my self oblig'd to take notice of this Review And because in it he offers to justify his Exposition which he formerly made of S. Peter's words and we endeavoured to confute It will not be improper briefly to except against what is there said to that purpose And tho enough has been alledg'd against the Theory's sense of those words already yet ex abundanti we 'll here cast in a little more speaking to S. Peter's words chiefly tho not to them only And yet we shall speak only to Scriptures because in reference to them alone was this Review cited against us Answ p. 21. and 61. Review p. 8. In it he tells us that the sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands is the Doctrine of S. Peter deliver'd in his second Epistle and third Chapter concerning the Triple Order and succession of the heavens and earth and is comprehended in seven verses of that Chapter
of the Moral and he sees thorough the Futuritions of both and hath so dispos'd the one as to serve him in his just Judgments upon the other But is this to satisfy or silence the Athiest Can the Answerer think that he who denies the being of a GOD should acknowledge his Attribute and consent to a Providence directed by Proescience This is as much as to say let an Atheist become no Atheist and then he will silence this Athiest's Cavils The Two Questions he puts in the Beginning of his Chapter touching GOD's Praescience are little to the purpose Inasmuch as the Athiest whom the Excepter justly brings in the silencing of his Cavils being the aim of the Theory does absolutely disown and disavow the Property together with the Essence of the GLORIOUS DEITY However let us reply to these Questions that nothing may seem to be pass'd over which but looks as if it required an Answer The first Question is this Suppose Adam had not sinn'd what would have become of the Messiah p. 17. and the Dispensation of the Gospel Why then the Messiah need not have been born nor need the Gospel have been dispensed And truly both the Incarnation of the one and the Dispensation of the other might have been prevented or put by without any stop or interruption in the Course of nature made by the intervention of a miraculous Power But the like cannot be affirmed of the Deluge For had that been put off the order of Nature must thereby have been broken and the hand of Omnipotence must have supported the Earth by the strength of Miracle Else in a certain period of time in that Juncture suppose when the Flood according to the Theory fell out it must have suffered Disruption and have sunk into the Abyss But it is farther urged that the Dispensation of the Gospel is said to be very early determin'd Ibid. in Scripture that is It must be allowed therefore that that Determination had respect to mans Sin But that the like may be allowed to the Theory of the Flood it must be prov'd as well that the Deluge was decreed or determin'd to come in according to its Method And where has Scripture determin'd that as it did things relating to the Blessed MESSIAH and his eternal Gospel But This believe it is a lofty Instance to be fetcht down into comparison with a phansiful Hypothesis The next therefore is of a lower strain upon which the Second Question runs which is This. Ibid. 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 To it we Reply First that if Adam had not eaten the foibidden fruit yet it does not appear that he and all his Posterity were to have liv'd in Paradise For That in a few ages might not only have been sufficiently replenisht but overcharg'd with Inhabitants Secondly when that place had been filled and the rest as the Answerer expresses it must have been turn'd out into the wide World yet they being without sin should not have felt the Inconveniences which we do For as the Barrenness of the Earth so many Inconveniences perhaps secondary Causes of it might proceed from the Curse of GOD pull'd down upon the Ground by the sin of man And thus much Moses has left upon record that as the Earth by GOD's blessing brought forth useful Products while man stood Gen. 1.12 so Thorns and Thistles were the just effect or punishment of his Fall Gen. 3.18 But then as the Answerer has noted that a Supernatural curse might have its effect in any position of the Earth so it is as certain P. 29. that a supernatural Blessing might have its proper effects too And if GOD as he says Ibid. can make a Land barren if he think fit in spite of the Course of Nature then in spite of the Course of nature he can as well make it fruitful and pleasant And therefore so he might have made the Praediluvian earth had not Adam eat the forbidden fruit notwithstanding its oblique Position to the Sun Then as there should have been no Death amongst men so there should have been nothing like it or tending to it No such excessive heat and cold as now rage in several Climates No such noxious Vapours and Exhalations as now rise from or breath out of the Earth No such impurities and unwholsom corruptions as now breed in and distemper the Air No such blustring Storms and violent Tempests as now disquiet and toss and cause Breaches by the Sea No such mighty Floods and dreadful Earthquakes as now do unspeakable Mischiefs at Land But mens Souls being upright and clear from sin their Bodies should have been safe from dangers and free from sufferings and the security and pleasure of their outward Condition would have been answerable to their inward Peace and Purity When Israel pass'd through the Arabian Desert because they were a chosen and peculiar People and dear unto his MAJESTY the ALMIGHTY sav'd them from the great Inconveniences of that desolate Region by ministring to their Wants most sutable and seasonable Defensatives and Supplies Thus the Drieness of the place and the lack of Waters he supplied by the streams from Rocks Its Barrenness or lack of Food by Quails and Manna It s heat and lack of shades by a Cloudy Canopy It s Wildness and lack of Roads and Way-marks by the Pillar of a Cloud guiding them by day when their Camp moved and by a Pillar of fire leading them by night The lack of new Cloaths and the lack of new shooes by the lastingness of their old ones and by their not wearing out And when the Good GOD had such care and kindness for a sinful People yea for a stubborn perverse and provoking Generation as thus to sence and furnish them against the most grievous external Inconveniences that could readily beset them we may well conclude how tender he would have been of an Innocent World and how inconceivably gracious and indulgent to them in the like Nature The wide World therefore should not have been inconvenient to Adam and his Posterity as this World now is to us if he had not eaten the forbidden fruit The supernatural Blessing of Heaven would then have made their Circumstances happy upon Earth Nor should they ever have overstockt it tho they had multiply'd never so fast For still as they grew aged that they might not grow too numerous they might in due time have been translated hence as Enoch was to the higher State of bliss and felicity Nor is there any thing here overstrain'd in the least For tho we must not be too bold with Extraordinary Providence in the Philosophic Schools it was ever a standing Hypothesis in the Church And upon the principle of it the most glorious Phaenomenaes of
was so open that Moses and the Israelites marched through it How does the Answerer take off this Objection Why because the Excepter had said that as in a Bag Psal 33.7 Should be rendred as on an heap and proved it by Authorities he gives him leave to render this place so as on an heap For says he it was done by a miracle But if when by miracle the waters in an open Sea stood on an heap they were said to be in a Bag then this shows more plainly still that that Expression He gathereth the waters of ahe Sea as in a bagg can be no manner of proof that they were ever inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth And at last indeed he in effect confesses that he mis-interpreted the Psalmist's words For he declares now that that other place Psal 33.7 Answ p. 21. speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the Waters which is not on an heap but in a level or spherical convexity with the rest of the Earth And thus he catches himself in a trap For if the Text speaks of the Ordinary posture of the waters lying in a Level with the rest of the earth Eng. Theor. p. 86. why did he wrest and misapply it by making it speak of an Extraordinary posture of them an invention of his own whereby they lay within the Vault of the Earth But the Excepter must not escape here neither Answ p. 21. For he complains of him for an unfair citation of a Paragraph of the Theory which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal 33.7 whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms and is a modest reflection upon the explication of them Now if the Paragraph belonging to all those Texts did agree properly with none and with one less than with the rest surely the Excepter might without unfairness cite and apply it to that one without meddling with the rest And so the Complaint is frivolous Tho how modest the Reflection he speaks of was he may consider when it backs such an explication of Scripture as would make Moses and the Hebrews pass thorow a Sea See Disc p. 140. which at the time of their passing was inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth He proceeds next to Job 26.7 He stretcheth out the North over the empty place and hangeth the Earth upon nothing But how can this most aptly agree to the structure of the Theory's first Earth when as the Excepter noted the Theory it self testifies concerning Ib. p. 142. it that it rise upon the face of the Chaos And could not have been formed unless by a Concretion upon the face of the Waters And that it had the mass of the waters as a basis or foundation to rest upon And so was no more stretcht out upon emptiness and hang'd upon nothing than an Arch when built upon its Center And but just before the Theory contended from Psal 24.2 that it was founded upon the Seas and establisht upon the Floods What says the Answerer to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not one Syllable We must take it to be answered by the last Expedient The next place is Job 38.4 5 6. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth Who hath laid the Measures thereof Who hath stretched the line upon it Who laid the corner-stone thereof Where Measures and Line said the Excepter imply only that the Earth was made of a fitting Accuracy And he affirmed that this Earth of ours may be compared with and be thought to outgo the imaginary first Earth of the Theorist's inventing in Two things Comeliness and Vsefulness But because under the first Head of Comeliness the Excepter makes Hills and Mountains to be a piece of the Earth's Beauty P. 22. the Answerer seems much offended with him Not at all considering that at the same time he allows them to be Irregularities Dis p. 144. and 146. and Rudenesses and void of Exactness and Order and calls them the most horrid visible pieces of Nature and hideously amazing c. Only they conduce to the natural Pulchritude of the Earth because it consists in Asymetries and a Wild Variety Yet in respect of these the Earth is more comely than if it were one vast plain or lay every where in a smooth and regular sphaerical Convexity Ib. p. 147. Nor considering neither that the inspired Psalmist as the Excepter noted did devoutly celebrate the Wisdom of GOD exhibited in making the Mountains and high Hills which if they had been nothing but monstrous Scarrs or deformities in the Earthly Body or the Rubbish or Ruines of a decayed Building he would scarce have done so solemnly But as to making the Theorist admire the Beauty of Mountains it was never in the Excepter's thoughts Answ p. 22. Disc p. 146. Tho he takes notice that he was mightily pleased and raised by the sight and contemplation of them But between the Beauty of an Object and the Pleasure of seeing and contemplating it there is great Difference And to turn the Answerers Complement upon himself he that hath not sense and judgment enough to see the difference Answ p. 22. it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words The Vsefulness of the Earth in its present Form and State beyond that of the Theory the Excepter noted in Three Particulars First in that it had Seas for Traffick and Navigation Secondly in that it had Mountains for Bounding Nations for Dividing Kingdoms for Deriving Rivers for Yielding Minerals c. Thirdly in that it had Rains and seasonable Showres And that Rains and Showres were proper Rules whereby to measure the Vsefulness of the Earth and to show that it excells that of the Theory is manifest from GOD's making use of the same in a Case not unlike said the Excepter Disc p. 148. For GOD comparing Egypt and Palestine prefers the latter before the former because in Egypt the Seed sown was water'd with the foot as a Garden of Herbs but Palestine was a Land of hills and valleys and drank water of the Rain of heaven Deut. 11.10 11. Here the Answerer at lasts chops in and tells the Excepter how unluckily it falls out for him p. 23. that a Country that had no Rain should be compared in Scripture or join'd in privilege with Paradise it self and the Garden of GOD. For so is this very Egypt Gen. 13.10 tho it had no Rain but was water'd by Rivers And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Jordan that it was well watered every where before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha even as the Garden of the LORD like the Land of Egypt Therefore says he the greatest commendation of a Land for pleasure and fertility according to Scripture is its being well watered with Rivers But that 's more than the cited Scripture speaks and more than it means as will appear if we consider the Occasion
hardly venture to defend them in Smithfield as glorious Witnesses have done the Articles of our Faith The pretended Inconsistency is hitherto invisible and concerning it we may return a non est inventa On he goes therefore as by a melius Inquirendo and makes farther search after it in the ensuing Paragraph The strength it has lies much in the close of it and expresses it self in this Argument Answ p. 69. 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 The last vital Assertion of the Theory which the Excepter undertook in his Fifteenth Chapter is this That neither Noah 's Flood nor the present form of the Earth can be explained in any other method that is rational nor by any other causes that are intelligible besides those which the Theory assigns Whence follows what I cannot well endure to speak said the Excepter that the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Now says the Answerer this charge falls flat upon himself and he attempts to prove it by the Argument produced But we take it off with this direct and plain Reply First we say that the Church way of explaining the Deluge is very rational For it implies no more than GOD's creating Waters sufficient for it and his annihilating them again which is not in the least inconsistent with reason or repugnant to it Tho evident it is that his vital Assertion expressly condemns this way in which GOD's Church has ever gone as both irrational and unintelligible at once Methinks an excuse or defence of this should have been more seasonable than what we here meet with Unless he thinks that so black a blemish can be fastned on the wisest and noblest Society in the whole World without offence or means that the Readers Judgment for his unadvised rashness should pass upon him in course by nihil dicit Secondly we say that we do not desert or reject the Church-way of explaining the Deluge We allow indeed as he notes That it may be disgustful to the best and soundest Philosophic Judgments Disc p. 313. and the reasons are given why But then it is manifest that we shut out Philosophy from ruling in this Case as being in a good degree miraculous Ib. p. 355. The Flood was a Miracle in good measure Or had so much miracle running through it and interwoven with it that all passages in it are not to be accounted for by Reason and Philosophy And truly where Nature was over-rul'd by Providence it is but fit that Philosophy should give place to Omnipotence And whereas he observes that we say that by our Hypothesis Answ p. 68. we are excused from running to those Causes or Methods which seem unreasonable to some and unintelligible to others and unsatisfactory to most This is no proof that the Excepter deserts the Churches way of Explaining the Deluge For however some or others may think it unreasonable and unintelligible as the Theorist makes it and how unsatisfactory soever some of the causes or methods alledg'd by the Excepter may be to most yet the Excepter is of the mind that the Churches method is very rational and easy to be understood And tho he farther remarks that the Excepter says that the ordinary Supposition that the Mountains were covered with water in the Deluge Ib. brings on a necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood yet that necessary new Hypothesis which the Excepter means will plainly show that he justifies and defends the Church-Hypothesis instead of deserting it For it is only this We must suppose that the Mountains of Ararat whereon the Ark rested in the height of the Deluge were then the highest Mountains in the World but since that time they are either worn down or sunk and settled lower than some others Admit but this and then Scripture Geography and the Churches method of explaining the Flood will all be reconcil'd and the usual Hypothesis will stand clear of material Difficulties and Objections Thirdly we say that tho we invented a new Hypothesis it was not set up in competition with this of the Church but in comparison with that of the Theory and in Confutation of its last vital Assertion For it makes it evident that there is another way of explaining Noah's Flood both rational in its method and intelligible in its causes Disc p. 300. l. 18. at least as rational and intelligible as his And as such a Comparative Hypothesis as we have made it it may possibly stand almost as long as the Theorist's which draws more and greater Absurdities after it Especially if it should have but a Second Edition to support it on the one side and a Review to prop it up on the other and have many things left out of it and have one word in it explain'd by another and have here and there a Contradiction allow'd it c. And thus the Excepter is freed from the objected inconsistency with himself and good sense This same Reply will take off those Objections also which are brought on by the Answerer at the bottom of his seventieth Page as being of near affinity with what he last alledged Having thus made his general Observations he comes now to Particulars The first he pitches upon is the Height of the Deluge-waters which we set at fifteen Cubits above the highest parts of the common Surface of the Earth making it the Foundation of our Hypothesis and supposing it to rest upon Scripture and to be supported by that This therefore he says Answ p. 69. must needs raise our Curiosity to see that place of Scripture which has been overlookt by all the Learned hitherto But if learned mens overlooking this Text as to the sense that we apply it to be a just Objection against our alledging it how much more strongly must the same Objection come against the Theorist for alledging so many Texts as he does in confirmation of such new and strange notions as none of the learned could ever see contained in them or confirmed by them but always overlookt them as to such meanings Answ p. 67. Then he urges Scripture says plainly that the Mountains were covered with waters Ib. p. 69. and how could fifteen Cubits reach to the tops of the Mountains This Objection is fully answered in our Discourse only thus much may be here put in Chap. 16. Pagr 3. Gen. 7.20 As the high Mountains were covered with Waters so the Camp of Israel was covered with Quails Yet those Quails which covered the Camp Exod. 16.13 were but two Cubits high upon the face of the Earth Numb 11.31 Now if
expressly that the Waters covered the Tops of the highest Hills It does not say that they covered the tops of the highest Mountains And therefore for the Answerer to say it did affirm and say so expressly This I think is truly to force and falsify Scripture And thus his ill fortune haunts him still and where he thought to have catcht his adversary in a Net he only hampers and intangles himself For he relapses unhappily into his old infirmity and asserts what is not For where is it that Scripture says that the waters of the Flood did cover the tops of the highest Hills Yet he twice together asserts it did Two Untruths and so his recidivation is double and two untruths he tells at once 'T is confest Scripture says that the Mountains at the Flood were covered with waters But so it says also as we have observed that the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness was covered with Quails But as Quails two Cubits high upon the ground could not cover the Tops of the highest Tents so Waters fifteen Cubits high upon the Earth might not cover the Tops of the highest Hills For certain Scripture does not say it does not affirm expressly that they did Yet by this the Gentleman gives us to understand that what the Scripture says and expressly affirms is to be believed and ought to be received And then why is the being of a Sea before the Flood rejected and Adam's dominion over its fish denied I instance often in that Sea because I find it is of the Substance of the Theory and a piece of one of its Vital Assertions that the primitive Earth was without a Sea Ib. These Observations says the Answerer I know are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself But without a perhaps the Replicant finds they are of no use at all unless to the Observator May he that made them make the best use of them Here he takes occasion to reflect upon the Literal Style of Scripture And the last Head he speaks to and the only head that concerns us is of such things as belong to the Natural World Ib. p. 84. And to this he says may be reduc'd innumerable Instances where we leave the literal sence if inconsistent with Science or Experience What meant he then to charge us with going contrary to the Letter of Scripture for supposing the fixedness of the Sun and the motion of the Earth by his own confession before that charge was incompetent and by his own Rule here it must be impertinent By and by he has this Fling but I know not at whom 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 For my own part as I hate too lazy a Philosophy so I despise too busy a one Sound Philosophy is a noble thing and let all advance in it as far as they can the more expert Philosophers they are the wiser and better they are like to be But still we must remember that true Philosophy being bounded by the Light of Nature must never interfere with Revelation As on the one side it should not be slothful so on the other side it must not be pragmatical Scripture is no enemy to Philosophy and Philosophy by no means must affront Scripture GOD allows men the freest use of their Reason but 't is unreasonable they should oppose it to Inspiration and by using it confront his authority who gave them it So concern'd was Plato to shun all such indecency that being in his Timaeus to debate concerning the Universe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it were made or not made he thought it necessary to invoke all the GODS and Goddesses that what should be said might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeable to them and spoken consistently Change but the Object of the petition and the matter of it will be fit for any Philosophers Litany Direct the address to the One True GOD and there can be no fault in its application And let Notions be squar'd by the Rules that it contains and then Philosophy may take its liberty Scripture allows it sufficient latitude and the Christian Church will do no less So I am sure she did of old For then in her earlier and purer times she was so far from discouraging Philosophy that she took mens passing through its Schools to be a laudable preparative or qualification for their preferment Witness Origen cont Cel. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We will not turn away young men from those that teach Philosophy but where they have been exercis'd and have gone the round with them I will try to advance them higher c. But if any will abuse this noble liberty they must answer it to him who is philosophorum Deus as Tertullian told Marcion the GOD of Philosophers And if we would not aggravate our account here we must take heed of one thing Of entertaining Philosophy with trifling Notions For if once we suffer it to seed upon such trash we may expect it will soon get a surfeit and fall sick of Phantsy and that 's a Disease which commonly rises up into paroxysms of extravagance And then the vital heat of reason as I may call it turns into a violent and raging Fever And so the fire that should be kept orderly on the hearth furiously flies up to the house top And the flame which should burn only upon the Altar consumes the Temple Then he Observers Vpon 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 but to do it without a just cause is a real fault The beginning of this Observation does still farther justifie us against his late insufficient Charge And the rest of it gives us occasion to enquire what just cause he had to recede from the literal sence of Scripture as in too many instances he has done For if he left that sence without just cause he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemn'd by a sentence out of his own mouth The Letter of Scripture plainly says that GOD made two great Lights that He gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea that Tubal Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron That the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up and the Windows of Heaven open'd the same day Now pray what good reason or what just cause is there for his departing from the Literal sence of Scripture in these things For to recede from it without Cause is as real a fault by his own confession as it is without cause to separate from a Church And therefore as causless separation from a Church is criminous Schism so causeless recession from that sence of Scripture must be culpable desertion And so if
which run thus in the Review Ver. 3. Knowing this first that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts 4. And saying where is the promise of his coming for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation 5. For this they are willingly ignorant of that by the Word of GOD the heavens were of old and the earth consisting of water and by water 6. Whereby the World that then was being overflowed with water perished 7. But the heavens and the earth that are now by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men 10. The day of the LORD will come as a thief in the night in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up 13. Nevertheless we according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness But that such a triplicity of heavens and earth as the Review contends for is signifi'd or set out by S. Peter's words is very unlikely and the following Exceptions lie against it First those words are so opposite to the first state of the heavens and earth that they cannot admit of it unless one passage in them be false which is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Review renders consisting of water and by water This must be appli'd both to the Heavens and to the Earth as being spoken of both And if it be to be understood not of the Posture of them according to our Translation but as the Review interprets it it must be void of truth For first apply it to the heavens and they must consist by water as well as of water that is by the help of water tanquam per causam sustmentem as by a sustaining cause says the Review p. 20. But how did water sustain the first heavens or Neptune in that State perform the task of Atlas Secondly apply it to the earth and that must consist of water as well as by water But how did the first Earth in order consist of water more than the second Instead of that this second Earth is of a far more watry constitution than the first half the surface of the present Globe being nothing but Sea And if it be urged that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of water relates to the Heavens and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by water relates to the Earth the very form of the words will not allow it For as the H. GHOST has set them both the Expressions relate as much to the Heavens as they do to the Earth and as much to the Earth as they do to the Heavens and to both alike And the Review gives us leave to refer both to both because it will make no great difference in its interpretation p. 21. Secondly S. Peter's words are so opposite to the second state of the Heavens and Earth that they cannot admit of it unless one Passage in them be inverted For the SPIRIT says that the world that then was being overflowed with water perished And so plainly makes the watry inundation the cause of the Worlds destruction But grant there were Heavens and Earth of a second Order according to the Review and the Earth's Destruction or Dissolution must be the cause of that inundation And is it likely that St. Peter would so teach Philosophy that it should not be understood without transposing the terms in which it is delivered or drawing them to a kind of contrary sense Who can believe that he allowed this second state of heavens and earth much less asserted it in disputing with Philosophers when if he did so in his expression as properly and most naturally taken he mistook the Cause for the Effect and made the Earth to perish by its being drowned when indeed it was drowned by its perishing or being dissolved Thirdly the Apostle's words are so opposite to the Third state of Heavens and Earth that they cannot admit of it unless one Passage in them be contradicted For this Third state which is the same with the new Heavens and new Earth is by the Review post-pon'd to the Conflagration For it tells us that the Earth by that fire being reduc'd to a second Chaos from that as from the first arises a new Creation or new Heavens and a new Earth p. 6. And therefore the Theorist's asserting that these shall rise before the day of Judgment must needs be plain Contradiction to what the Apostle lays down in the 7th verse For there he says that the Heavens and the Earth that are now are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of Iudgment and perdition of ungodly men And when he has said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the present Heavens and the Earth shall be kept and reserved till the day of Iudgment the Doctrine of New Heavens and a new Earth to be introduc'd before then must be downright Contradiction to this And truly the same it must be to affirm that these New Heavens and Earth shall be consequent to the general Conflagration Nor is there any way to avoid these barefac'd Contradictions unless in complaisance to this pretty Hypothesis there must be two Conflagrations and two Days of Judgment and two ends of the World which is one of each sort more than GOD has revealed By S. Peter's New heavens therefore and his new Earth we are to understand a new and excellent state of things upon which the blessed Saints are all to enter at the consummation of this present World And as to what the Review says p. 10. they must be material and natural in the same sense and signification with the former Heavens and Earth this does not appear from the Apostle's words The other sense now mention'd may rather be inferred from them considering the way or usage of the holy Writers For with them it is common in passing from one thing to another to carry a word or Notion used just before along with them farther or to rise from a Literal to an Allegorical or Anagogical meaning Such Transitions as these to confine our Observation to one sacred Author occur very frequently in the Gospel of S. John Thus in the 4th Chapter our SAVIOUR discoursing with the Samaritan Woman about drawing water out of a Deep Well carries on the matter to Water that he could give To such Water as he that drinketh of it shall never thirst but it shall be in him a VVell springing up into everlasting life But tho the Well and the Water first mention'd were Material it does not follow from thence that the latter were the same or that they could be such So Chap. 6. from speaking of Loaves and of eating bread he raises his Discourse to that meat which endureth unto everlasting life But yet it is never the more
the Aereal Heavens perisht do think that they perisht any otherwise than by the Water 's rising up into the lowest Regions of the Air. And that place of Bede which the Review cites seems to speak the common sense as well as his own which gives us to understand that the Heavens perished p. 25. cunctis aeris hujus turbulenti spatiis aquarum accrescentium altitudine consumptis All the spaces of this turbulent Air being taken up by the heighth of the swelling waters According to which the Heavens perished just as the Air does in a Vessel when it fills with Water But let out the Water and the Air immediately returns into it So the lowest Heavens that perished at the Flood by standing in the Water when that was dried up presently recovered their first Aereal Constitution again The Last reason is answered in the 4th of the foregoing Exceptions And from what has been here said Answers may with ease be made to those Considerations which the Review alledges in proof of a Diversity or Opposition made by S. Peter betwixt the Ancient Heavens and Earth and the Present But farther yet the Review observes that S. Paul also implys that triple Creation which S. Peter expresses p. 10 11. For Rom. 8.20 21 he tells us of a Creation that will be redeemed from vanity which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come A Creation in subjection to vanity which is the present State of uhe World And a Creation that was subjected to vanity in hopes of being restored which was the first Paradisiacal Creation But by Creation or Creature here to understand the Heavens and Earth must be improper For first it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Creation or every Creature that is here spoken of v. 22d And where does that signify the material Heavens and Earth in Scripture Secondly the Creature mention'd is capable of waiting and of earnest expectation and of hope and of pain and of groaning as the verse cited and the context show Yea it seems to be capable of groaning as we our selves do v. 23. Which is above the power of Matter tho never so subtil or celestial Thirdly the Creature here is to be delivered from bondage into glorious liberty v. 21. And this again is a Character which falls not in with the Heavens and Earth He says indeed that the Creature that will be Redeemed from Vanity is the new Heavens and new Earth to come But how will they supposing them come into the Paradisiacal State be delivered from vanity For even then they can be in no better condition than the first Paradisiacal Heavens and Earth were as coming but into a state of Renovation or Restitution And they were so far from being freed from Vanity that they were subject to corruption and perished at the Deluge as the Theorist holds And truly so must the last Paradisiacal ones too unless it be prevented The new Earth if it stands long enough must be dissolved and lose its Form and the new Heavens must be changed at another Deluge and lose their Constitution Or if the day of Judgment should happen first and hinder this yet where would be their Redemption or Deliverance here phantsied For still they would be vain and corruptible in their Nature as Enoch and Elias were both Mortal tho neither died To which add that the Theory l. 4. p. 219 220. plants Gog and Magog in the New Earth and allows them to grow numerous there as the sand by the Sea And so it can no more be redeem'd or deliver'd from Moral Vanity and Corruption upon it than from Natural Vanity and Corruptibility in it Lastly This Creature of the Apostles is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Children of God v. 21. now the liberty of GOD's Children is Moral Spiritual and Divine which is not compleated but in the future exalted state of bliss Where being heirs of GOD and joint heirs with CHRIST we shall be glorified with him v. 17th But such a liberty as this is no way compatible to things meerly Physical and so the Heavens and Earth tho never so new and paradisiacal must not pretend to it cannot partake of it Thus we see that the Theorists Interpretation of this Place of Scripture is not right and therefore of necessity we must look out for some other Creature as here intended Nor need we search much to find one Preach the Gospel to every Creature said the H. JESUS to his Apostles S. Mar. 16.15 Here the word is the same with S. Paul's to the Romans But Heavens and Earth cannot possibly be meant by it because to them there must be no Preaching But by every Creature the Heathen World may fitly be understood And so this Precept or Commission given to the Apostles is parallel to that in the last chapter of S. Matthew go and teach all Nations And then by the Vanity to which the Creature was Subject and the Bondage of Corruption from which they were to be delivered we must understand See Dr. Hammonds Annotations on the place Idolatry to which the Gentiles were miserably inslaved And that indeed in Scripture is emphatically exprest by Vanity and Corruption So the Apostles Act. 15th having preached to Idolaters declare the end of their Doctrine was to turn them from their VANITIES And Moses in Deuteronomy does usually point at Idolatry by mens CORRUPTING themselves And if we frame the Exposition of S. Paul's words to this sense it will run very smoothly through the whole Paragraph without any considerable check or Difficulty Review p. 11. But after S. Paul he brings in S. John also to countenance his Phantsie of this triple State of Heavens and Earth For he speaks of the new Heavens and new Earth with that distinguishing Character that the Earth was without a Sea And as this distinguisheth it from the present Earth so being a Restitution or Restauration it must be the same with some former Earth c. To this we Answer The one and twentieth Chapter of the Apocalyps where we meet with S. Johns new Heavens and Earth consists of two very glorious Scenes The New Heavens and Earth make the first and the holy City or the New Jerusalem the latter But this City being Allegorical we have no reason to think that the new Heavens down from which and the new Earth down to which it came should be otherwise Also this Allegation does no more prove The Triple State of Heavens and Earth or that the primitive Earth was without a Sea than it proves there shall be a City built of pure Gold whose twelve Gates shall be twelve Pearls in a Literal sense according to the tenour of that chapter And now let us offer but Two short Exceptions which will not fail to subvert the chief Scripture-basis of the whole Theory of the Earth as the Review calls it p. 13th by showing that S. Peter's words as well as S. Paul's and S. John's are
misinterpreted and mis-apply'd The first is this In case this Triple state or successive Order of Heavens and Earth be rightly grounded upon the aforesaid Apostles words then those three most eminent Evangelical Writers must implicitly contradict the Doctrine of Moses And so either what he or what they have delivered in some points must be false and all of them being inspir'd from above the H. GHOST must contradict Himself By Moses's Doctrine 't is very plain that the first Earth had an open Sea For GOD he says gave man Dominion over the Fish of the Sea and his Dominion over the Fish appears to be as full and withal as soon conferr'd upon him as that he had over the Beasts or Fowls And therefore if these Apostles warrant this threefold State of Heavens and Earth in the first of which there could be no open Sea their Doctrine must necessarily clash with Moses's and implicitly contradict it So again by Moses's Doctrine 't is undeniably plain that there was Brass and Iron in the Praediluvian Earth For as he teaches Tubal-Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in those Metals And therefore if these three famous Apostles maintain this triple State of Heavens and Earth they must implicitly interfere with Moses again because the first of these states could not possibly produce either of those Metals both which according to Moses were extant in it The second Exception is this In case such a Triple state as this be truly founded upon the Writings of these three famous men then as all of them must contradict Moses implicitly so one of them must contradict himself expresly I mean S. John For speaking of the state of the new Heavens and Earth he says there was no more Sea Apoc. 21.1 Yet describing the final Judgment which is to be at the end of the same state he says the Sea gave up the dead which were in it Apoc. 20.13 And so in short there is no more probability that there should be such a tripple state as the Theory has invented built upon these Foundations of the Apostles laying than there is possibility that inspired Writers should contradict themselves or one another And therefore if what our Author says be true that the principal parts of this Theory are such things as are recorded in Scripture and so must be taken for granted in one sense or other Review p. 1 yet it is so far evident that he has not hit upon the Right sense of them as it is evident the sense that he puts upon them is not consonant to Scripture And that is so evident that in his interpreting Scriptures and applying several of them to his notions Review p. 8. he seems to have verifi'd his own words where he says 't is a kind of fatality upon us to be deceived Ib. p. 11. Yea even to be deceiv'd in the passages of those principal Apostles of which he thus pronounces These three places I alledge as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full extent And that he speeds no better in dealing with Prophane Writers about this Matter than he did in tampering with Divine ones one Instance will evince which we meet with in his Review p. 20. where to show the true importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how ill it is rendred in the English standing out of the water 2 S. Pet. 3.5 he says that he that should translate Plato 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World stands out of fire would be thought no Graecian And adds that Thales's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero renders ex aqua constare omnia But this we except against as nothing to the purpose For the Authors named by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant that the World was made out of a thing as out of its principle But did the Theorist's first Heavens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense was water the Principle out of which they were made So far from that that they were compleatly made and the Earth too without any water in their Composition Yea the Sun was fain to dart his fiery Beams through the Earth to rarify the water in the Abyss below and from thence to fetch it up by exhalation before so much as Vapour could spread through those Heavens So that they were no more made out of water than the Air is made out of Clouds because they fly in it or than a County is made out of a River because it runs through it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plato's or in Thales's sense has nothing to do here For besides that in the primitive Heavens there was no formal or specific Water save only about the Poles of the Earth where it fell but only Vapour even that Vapour was but passant through those Heavens no Ingredient of them no Principle of their Being or Part of their Essence But this was that which the Philosopher meant by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Orator confirms it by his reddition of the Words We cannot conclude without making this plain but true Observation That the Theory of the Earth is a very vain and false Hypothesis The Vanity of it is notorious For notwithstanding that it pretends to be chiefly Philosophical yet all its Primary Phaenomenaes that we have considered and which make up the biggest and most Philosophical part of it are fain to call in the help of Miracle to support them Review p. 2. The first is the Original of the Earth from a Chaos But that the Formation of this Earth might in due time be effected it is supposed to be done by the hand of Extraordinary or miraculous Providence The second is the state of Paradise and the Antediluvian World And here Miracle must come in again for that World could never have been peopled had not Angels carry'd Mankind over the Torrid Zone The Third is the Vniversal Deluge But without Miracle no Rains could have been before the fountains of the great Deep were broken up nor could the falling Ark have been preserved after it Nor is the Falseness of the Hypothesis inferiour to its Vanity For there is never a one of the Phaenomenaes aforesaid but includes too manifest Contradiction in it to the sacred Oracles or else to it self First the Formation of the Earth out of the Theory's Chaos contradicts Scripture For that tells us the Earth was made the Third day but the Theory says it was increased daily And if to take off this Contradiction to Scripture it be alledged that the Answerer allows it might be made in six minutes this throws the Contradiction upon the Theory For how could the Earth be made in six minutes that was daily increased Secondly the Paradisiacal state and the Antediluvian World Contradict Scripture For the one gives Paradise a Situation Contrary to what Moses assigns it and the other against his most plain Assertions excludes both Metals and an open Sea with Adam's Dominion over its Fish Thirdly the Vniversal Deluge contradicts Scripture For according to the Theorist See Disc c. 8. §. 5. Answ p. 31. Reply p. 67. there were fourscore days Rain towards making the Flood but the H. GHOST mentions and allows but forty This is no more than a Recapitulation or short Rehearsal of some former Remarks Yet they fully exhibit the nature of the Theory And when its Primary and Essential Phaenomenaes are such what must its Secondarys and Collaterals be If the Constituent and substantial parts of an Hypothesis be so very faulty impossible it is that the Coincidents or Appendants of it should be justifiable Yet thus our Author vouches this Hypothesis in his Review p. 12. It is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy than any other yet propos'd to the World but it is also more agreeable to Scripture Having found out words in Scripture that is somewhat like to his own he runs directly away with them and right or wrong applys them to his purpose Just as some persons who listning unto Bells think that they ring what runs in their minds so if Scripture phrases do but chime as it were or sound to his sense our Author concludes that they favour his Notions tho all be but Phantsy But let him make good that fair Character and I am ready to retract what I have said against him and to turn my Exceptions into applause In the mean time I have pursued the Theory as far as I need For as for going through the two last Books which he says will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Answ p. 66. I deem it wholly superfluous Where the Foundations of an house are taken away the Superstructures can never stand The upper Stories must needs follow the fate of the lower ones and both will certainly fall together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS ERRATA PAg. 14. l. 24. after Shores a full stop l. 25. after if r. it p. 19. l. 11. r. aereal p. 22. in marg leg Luna p 32. l. 6. blot out in p. 58. l. 14. blot out only p. 65 l. 35. after Expedient r. and. p. 72. l. 11. r. incrusted l. 16. r. account p. 87. l. 26. blot out English p 112. l. 31. r. off p. 119. l. 18. r. aereal p. 134. in marg leg delentur p. 151 l. ult r. his own p. 195. l. 28. r. Tehom p. 196. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 205. l. 6. after head a full stop Books lately Printed and are to be Sold by J. Southby at the Harrow in Cornhill 1691. TWO Treatises The First concerning Reproaching and Censure The Second an Answer to Mr. Serjeants Sure-footing To which are annexed Three Sermons Preached upon several Occasions and very useful for these Times By William Falkner D. D. in 4to A Letter to Father Petre concerning his Part in the Late Kings Government Wherein all his Actions are Justified and wherein also the Forgery of a Prince of Wales is freely Confessed and Justified in 4to The Benefit of Early Piety Recommended to all Young Persons and particularly to those of the City of London in Twelves A short View of the Duty of Receiving the Sacrament Fit to be Read in the Time of Preparation With Additions of several Prayers necessary to be used before and after Communion in 24. FINIS