foundation either in Scripture or reason 't is righty enough styl'd in the Excepter's words a meer fancy and groundless figment But I think we have had enough of these shifts and evasions Let us now proceed to the 2 d. part of his new Hypothesis which is this That the Abyss or Tehom-Rabbah which was broken open at the Deluge and together with the Rains made the Flood was nothing but the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains which open'd their mouths at that time and pour'd out a great quantity of Water To support this new notion of Tehom-Rabbah he alledgeth but one single Text of Scripture Psal. 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness and gave them drink as out of the Great Depths That is copiously and abundantly as if it were out of the great Deep So the next Verse implies and so it is generally understood As you may see both by Interpreters and also by the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations and those of the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Syriack But the Excepter by all means will have these holes in the Rocks to be the same with the Mosaical Abyss or Great Deep that was broken open at the Deluge So the Great Deep was not one thing or one continued Cavity as Moses represents it but ten thousand holes separate and distant one from another Neither must the Great Deep according to him signifie a low place but an high place For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common level of the Earth But I do not see how with any tolerable propriety or good sence that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be call'd the Great Deep An Abyss in the Earth or in the Water is certainly downwards in respect of their common Surface As much as a Pit is downwards And what is downwards from us we cannot suppose to be above us without confounding all dimensions and all names of things Calling that low which is high a Mountain a Valley or a Garret a Cellar Neither is there any thing in this Text Psal. 78. 15. that can justly induce us to believe the Great Abyss to be the same thing with Caverns in Rocks For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a miraculous thing that God should give them Water out of a Rock or out of a FLINT as plentifully as if it had been out of the Great Abyss Or whether you understand the original of Fountains to be noted here which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea or the great Abyss neither of these sences make any thing to the purpose of the new Hypothesis and yet they are the fairest and easiest sence that can be put upon the words and that which agrees best with other places of Scripture where the same matter of fact or the same History is related And therefore there can be no necessity from the Text of changing the general notion and signification of Deep or Abyss Both from that which it hath in common use and that which it hath in Scripture-use I say as in the common use of words Deep or Abyss signifies some low or inferiour place So the general use of it in Scripture is in the same sence Either to signifie the Sea or some subterraneous place Who shall descend into the Abyss or Deep says the Apostle Rom. 10. 7. Is that as much as if he had said Who shall ascend into the holes of the Rocks And when Iacob speaks of the blessings of the Abyss or of the Deep he calls them the blessings of the Deep that lyeth under Gen. 49. 25. In like manner Moses himself calls it the Deep that coucheth beneath Deut. 33. 13. And I know no reason why we should not understand the same Deep there that he mentioned before in the History of the Deluge Which therefore was subterraneous as this is Then as for the other use of the word namely for the Sea or any part of the Sea whose bottom is always lower than the level of the Earth that is the most common use of it in Scripture And I need not give you Instances which are every where obvious One must needs think it strange therefore that any Man of judgment should break thorough both the common use of a word and so many plain Texts of Scripture that shew the signification of it for the sake of one Text which at most is but dubious And then lay such stress upon that new signification as to found a new doctrine upon it And a doctrine that is neither supported by reason nor agrees with the History of the Deluge For as we noted before at the decrease of the Deluge the Waters are said to return from off the Earth Gen. 8. 3. Did they not return to the places from whence they came but if those places were the Caverns in the Rocks whose mouths lay higher than the Surface of the Deluge as he says they did I see no possibility of the Waters returning into them But the Excepter hath found out a marvellous invention to evade this argument He will have the returning of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles that is into vapors not to their Places In good time So the Dove 's returning was her returning into her Principles that is into an Egg not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded argue two things wit and want of judgment Moses speaks as plainly of the local return of the Waters in going and returning as of the local going and returning of the Raven and Dove See Gen. 8. 3 5. compar'd with Verse 7 th 9 th Lastly That we may end this Discourse the whole notion of these Water-pots in the tops of Mountains and of the broaching of them at the Deluge is a groundless imagination What reason have we to believe that there were such Vessels then more than now if there was no Fraction of the Earth at the Deluge to destroy them And he ought to have gag'd these Casks according to his own rule and told us the number and capacity of them that we might have made some judgment of the effect Besides if the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks why did not Moses express it so and tell us that the Rocks were cloven and the waters gushed out and so made the Deluge This would have been as intelligible if it had been true as to tell us that the Tehom-Rabbah was broken open But there is not one word of Rocks or the cleaving of Rocks in the History of the Flood Upon all accounts therefore we must conclude that this Virtuoso might have as well suspected that his whole Theory of the Deluge as one part of it would be accounted a meer fancy and groundless figment CHAP. XVI THIS Chapter is made up of Eight Objections against his own Hypothesis And those that have a mind to see them may read them in the Author
reason to believe that such particles must be thought Original and Primeval Not forg'd below the Abyss and extracted from the inferiour regions of the Earth For that would require a process of many ages whereas these being the principles of Fertility it is reasonable to suppose that a New World abounds with them more than an Old one Lastly if we suppose Oily particles to be tenuious and branchy as your Philosopher does too gross to be Air and too light for Water Why should we imagine that in that vast mass and variety of particles whereof the Chaos consisted there should not be any of this figure as well as of others Or what reason is there to suppose that there are none of that figure but what are brought from the inferiour Regions of the Earth For of all others these seem to be the most unlikely if not incapable of being extracted from thence And if there be only a gradual difference in magnitude and mobility betwixt the particles of Air and of Oil as that Philosopher seems to suppose why must we exclude these degrees and yet admit the higher and lower The second thing which he charges with precariousness is the separation of this Oily matter in due time so as to make a mixture and concretion with the terrestrial particles that fell from above This objection was both made and answered by the Theorist which the Observator might have vouchsaf'd to have taken notice of and either confuted the answer or spar'd himself the pains of repeating the objection The third precariousness is concerning the quantity and proportion of these particles and the fourth concerning the quantity and proportion of the Water The Excepter it seems would have had the Theorist to have gag'd these liquors and told him the just measure and proportion of each But in what Theory or Hypothesis is that done Has his great Philosopher in his Hypothesis of Three Elements which the Excepter makes use of p. 52. Or in his several Regions of the unform'd Earth in the 4 th Book of his Principles defin'd the quantity and dimensions of each Or in the Mineral particles and juices which he draws from the lower Regions does he determine the quantity of them And yet these by their excess or defect might be of great inconvenience to the World Neither do I censure him for these things as precarious For when the nature of a thing admits a latitude the original quantity of it is left to be determin'd by the effects and the Hypothesis stands good if neither any thing antecedent nor any present phoenomena can be alledged against it But if these examples from his great Philosopher be not sufficient I will give him one from an Author beyond all exception and that is from himself Does the Animadverter in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge ch 15. give us the just proportions of his Rock-water and the just proportions of his Rain-water that concurred to make the Deluge I find no calculations there but general expressions that the one was far greater than the other and that may be easily presumed concerning the oily substance and the watery in the Chaos What scruples therefore he raises in reference to the Chaos against the Theorist for not having demonstrated the proportions of the liquors of the Abyss fall upon his own Hypothsis for the same or greater reasons And you know what the old verse says Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But however He will have such exceptions to stand good against the Theorist tho' they are not good against other persons Because the Theorist stands upon terms of certainty and in one place of his Book has this sentence Ego quidem c. These words I think are very little exceptionable if they be taken with the Context For this Evidence and certainty which the Theorist speaks of is brought in there in opposition to such uncertain arguments as are taken from the interpretation of Fables and Symbols or from Etymologies and Grammatical Criticisms which are expresly mention'd in the preceding discourse And yet this sentence because it might be taken in too great an extent is left out in the 2 d Edition of the Theory and therefore none had reason to insist upon it But I see the Excepter puts himself into a state of War and thinks there is no foul play against an Enemy So much for his charge of precariousness We now come to the 2 d which is call'd unphilosophicalness And why is the Theorist in this case unphilosophical Because says the Excepter He supposes Terrestrial particles to be disperst through the whole Sphere of the Chaos as high as the Moon And why not pray if it be a meer Chaos where antecedently to separations all things are mixt and blended without distinction of gravity or levity Otherwise it is not a meer Chaos And when separations begin to be made and distinction of parts and regions so far it is ceasing to be a meer Chaos But then says the Observator why did not the Moon come down as well as these Terrestrial particles I answer by another question Why does not the Moon come down now Seeing she is still in our Vortex and at the same distance and so the same reason which keeps her up now kept her up then Which reason he will not be at a loss to understand if he understand the principles of his great Philosopher We come now to the last charge That the Theory in this part of it is Antiscriptural And why so because it supposes the Chaos dark whereas the Scripture says there was Light the first day Well but does the Scripture say that the Chaos was thoroughly illuminated the first day the Excepter as I remember makes the primigenial Light to have been the Rudiment of a Sun and calls it there a faint light and a feeble light and in this place a faint glimmering If then the Sun in all its strength and glory cannot sometimes dispel a mist out of the Air what could this faint feeble glimmering do towards the dissipation of such a gross caliginous opacity as that was This Light might be sufficient to make some distinction of Day and Night in the Skies and we do not find any other mark of its strength in Scripture nor any other use made of it So we have done with this Chapter Give me leave only without offence to observe the style of the Excepter in reference to Scripture and the Theory He is apt to call every thing antiscriptural that suits not his Sence Neither is that enough but he must also call it a bold affront to Scripture He confesses he hath made a little bold with Scripture himself in his new Hypothesis How much that little will prove we shall see hereaster But however as to that hard word affront a discreet man as he is not apt to give as affront so neither is he forward to call
fertility according as they kept God's Commandments And so much for those two texts of Scripture Lastly The Excepter in the conclusion of his discourse about that place in Iob makes a reflection upon the impropriety of those expressions in Iob about Foundations and Corner-stones if they be apply'd to the first Earth describ'd by the Theorist But this seems to me an Elegancy in that discourse which he makes a fault whether it be understood as an Allusion only to our manner of building by deep Foundations and strong Corner-stones Or an Ironical interrogation as it seems to me implying that there was no Foundation strictly so call'd nor Corner-stone in that great Work tho' we cannot build a cottage or little bridge without such preparations He proceeds then to the following verses in that 38 th chap. Who shut up the Sea with doors when it broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb This the Theorist understands of the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge when the Sea broke forth out of the womb of the Earth or out of that subterraneous cavity where it was enclosed as in a womb 'T is plainly imply'd in the words of the Text That the Sea was shut up in some Womb before it broke forth I desire therefore to know in what Womb that was You will find Interpreters much at a loss to give a fair answer to that question What was that inclos'd state of the Sea and what place or part of Nature was that Receptacle where it lay But the Excepter hath found out a new answer He says it was that Womb of non-entity These are his words It just then as its creation gushed out of the womb of nothing into existence This is a subtle and far-fetcht notion Methinks the Womb of nothing is much what the same as no Womb. And so this is no answer But however let us consider how far it would suit this case if it was admitted If you understand the Womb of Non-entity the Sea broke out of that womb the first day and had no bars or doors set to it but flow'd over all the Earth without check or controul Therefore that could not be the time or state here spoken of And to refer that restraint or those bars and doors to another time which are spoken of here in the same verse would be very inexcusable in the Excepter Seeing he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different verses to be understood of different times To conclude this Metaphysical notion of the Womb of nothing is altogether impertinent at least in this case For the Text is plainly speaking of things Local and Corporeal and this prison of the Sea must be understood as such He proceeds now to the last place alledg'd Prov. 8. 27 28. When he prepared the Heavens I was there when he set a Compass upon the face of the deep The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render compass he says signifies no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss And so the fence will run thus When God set a rotundity or spherical figure upon the face of the Abyss But whereas the word may as well signifie a Sphere or Orb the Theorist thinks it more reasonable that it should be so translated and so the sentence would run thus When God set an Orb upon the face of the Deep And this discourse of Solomon's referring to the beginning of the World he thinks it rational to understand it of the first habitable Earth which was really an Orb set over the face of the Deep One cannot swear for the signification of a word in every particular place where it occurs but when there are two fences whereof it is capable and the one is much more important than the other it is a fair presumption to take it in the more important sence especially in such a place and upon such an occasion where the great works of the Divine Wisdom and Power are celebrated as they are here by Solomon And it cannot be deny'd that our fence of the words is more important than the other For of what consequence is it to say God made the Body of the Abyss round Every one knows that Fluids of their own accord run into that figure So as that would be a small remark upon a great occasion The construction of this Orb we speak of minds me of an injustice which the Excepter hath done the Theory in the precedent part of this Chapter by a false accusation For he says The Theory makes the construction of the first Earth to have been meerly Mechanical At least his words seem to signifie as much which are these And so its Formation speaking of the first Earth had been meerly Mechanical as the Theory makes it That the construction was not meerly Mechanical in the opinion of the Theorist you may see Eng. Theor. p. 65. which because we have cited it before we will not here repeat The Theorist might also complain that the Excepter cites the first Edition of the Theory for such things as are left out in the second which yet was printed a twelve-month before his Animadversions And therefore in fairness he ought always to have consulted the last Edition and last sence of the Author before he had censured him or his work But this unfair method it seems pleas'd his humour better as you may see in this Chapter p. 154. and in several other places where passages are cited and insisted upon that are no where to be found in the second Edition Not to mention his defective citations omitting that part that qualifies the sentence as p. 99. last citation and else-where I make this note that the Reader may judge how well this answers that sincerity with which he profest he would examine this work Only as a friend and servant to Truth And therefore with such Candour Meekness and Modesty as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character p. 43. The rest of this Chapter is a general Censure of citations out of Scripture that are only Tropical or Figurative Scheams of Speech These must be made so indeed if our sence of them be not allow'd But what necessity is there of a figurative interpretation of all these Texts The rule we go by and I think all good Interpreters is this That we are not to leave the literal sence unless there be a necessity from the subject matter And there is no such necessity in this case upon our Hypothesis for it suits with the literal sence And 't is to beg the Question to say the literal sence is not to be admitted because it complies too much with the Theory But as for that Text of his own which he instances in the Pillars of the Earth tremble that cannot be understood by the same Rule of Pillars literally because there are no such Pillars of the Earth upon any Hypothesis CHAP.
Troy that it existed before Rome and Carthage that does not necessarily imply that Rome and Carthage were built at the same time but only that Troy was before them both And so this of the Psalmist may be very well thus exprest by a gradation from a lower Epocha to an higher Then as for that place in Prov. ch 8. It would be very hard to reduce all those things that are mentioned there from ver 22. to the 30. to the same time of existence and there is no necessity from the words that they should be so understood The design and intention of the Holy Ghost is plain in both these places In the one to set out the Eternity of God and in the other of the Logos in particular And this is done by shewing their pre-existence to this Earth and to all its greatest and most remarkable parts He mentions also Deut. 33. 15. where the Hills are call'd Lasting and the Mountains Ancient And therefore they were before the Flood This is a hard consequence The River Kishon is call'd the ancient River Iudg. 5. 21. but I do not therefore think it necessary that that brook should have been before the Flood Things may very well deserve that character of Lasting or Ancient though they be of less antiquity than the Deluge If one should say the lasting Pyramids and ancient Babylon none could blame the expression nor yet think that they were therefore from the begining of the World After these allegations from Scripture He descends to a natural argument taken from the mountains in the Moon Which he says are much higher than the mountains upon the Earth and therefore seeing her Body is less they could not be made by a Dissolution of that Planet as these of the Earth are said to have been Though we are not bound to answer for the Mountains in the Moon yet however 't is easie to see that this is no good argument For besides that the Orb there might be more thick all ruines do not fall alike They may fall double or in ridges and arches or in steep piles some more than others and so stand at a greater height And we have reason to believe that those in the Moon fell otherwise than those of the Earth because we do not see her turn round nor can we ever get a sight of her back-side that we might better judge of the shapes of her whole Body From this Natural Argument he proceeds to an Historical Argument taken from the Talmudists and Iosephus The Talmudists say that many Giants sav'd themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion But this the Excepter confesses is wholly fabulous What need it then be mention'd as an argument Then he says Iosephus reports that many sav'd themselves from the flood upon the mountain Baris in Armenia But this also he says is false in the gross and a formal fiction Why then say I is it brought in as an argument Lastly he quotes a passage out of Plato who says when the gods shall drown the Earth the Herdsmen and Shepherds shall save themselves upon mountains And this the Excepter calls a piece of confus'd forgery Why then say I still is it alledg'd as an argument against the Theory But however says the Excepter these things argue that many thought there were mountains before the Flood But did the Theorist ever deny that it was the vulgar and common opinion Therefore such allegations as these may be of some use to shew reading but of no effect at all to confute the Theory Yet the Excepter is not content with these stories but he must needs add a fourth Which he says is a plain intimation that there were mountains in the beginning of the World Take his own words for the story and the application of it I will only add that Traditional story which is told of Adam namely how that after his fall and when he repented of his Sin he bewailed it for several hundreds of years upon the mountains of India Another plain intimation that THERE WERE MOVNTAINS in the beginning of the World This is a plain intimation indeed that those that made this Fable thought there were mountains then but is it a proof that there really was so as you seem to infer Does the Excepter really believe that Adam wander'd an hundred years upon the mountains of India If the matter of fact be false the supposition it proceeds upon may as well be false And he does not so much as cite an Author here for the one or the other We are now come to the main point a new Hypothesis concerning the original of Mountains which the Excepter hath vouchsafed to make for us And in short it is this When the Waters were drain'd off the Land on the 3d day while it was moist and full of Vapours the Sun by his heat made the Earth heave and rise up in many places which thereupon became Mountains But lest we mistake or misrepresent the Author's sence we will give it in his own words Now the Earth by this collection of the waters into one place being freed from the load and pressure of them and laid open to the Sun the moisture within by the heat of his beams might quickly be turâ—'d into Vapours And these Vapours being still increased by the continued rarifying warmth from above at length they wanted space wherein to expand or dilate themselves And at last not enduring the confinement they felt by degrees heaved up the Earth above somewhat after the manner that leaven does Dough when it is laid by a sire but much more forcibly and unevenly And lifting it up thus in numberless places and in several quantities and in various figures Mountains were made of all shapes and sizes Whose origine and properties he says upon this Hypothesis will be obvious or at least intelligible to thinking and Philosophick Minds I must confess I am none of those Thinking and Philosophick Minds to whom this is either obvious or intelligible For there seem to me to be a great many palpable defects or oversights in this new Hypothesis Whereof this is one of the grossest that he supposes the Sun by his heat the 3 d Day to have raised these Mountains upon the Earth whereas the Sun was not created till the 4 th Day So that it had this powerful effect it seems one day before it came into Being But suppose the Sun had then existed This is a prodigious effect for the Sun to perform in so short a time and with so little force The greatest part of that Day was spent in draining the Waters from off the Land Which had a long way to go from some Inland Countries to reach the Sea or their common receptacle And he says without an extraordinary power perhaps they could not have been drained off the Earth in one Day Let us then allow at least half a Day for clearing the Ground so the Sun might
Apostle so much censur'd them for So much for what is said by the Excepter concerning this place of St. Peter To all the rest he gives an easie answer in the Contents of this Chapter viz. That they are Figurative and so not argumentative The places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends are stated distinctly and in order in the REVIEW and to avoid repetitions we must sometimes refer to that particularly as to two remarkable places Psal. 24. 2. and Psal. 136. 6. concerning the Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas Which the Excepter quickly dispatches by the help of a Particle and a Figure The next He proceeds to is Psal. 33. 7. He gathereth the waters of the Sea as in a Bagg He layeth up the Abysses in store-houses But he says it should be render'd as on a heap which is the English Translation Whether the Authorities produc'd in this case by the Theorist or by the Excepter are more considerable I leave the Reader to judge But however he cites another place Psal. 78. 13. where the same word is us'd and apply'd to the Red-Sea which could not be enclos'd as in a bag Take whether Translation you please for this second place it is no prejudice to the Theory if you render it on an heap for it was a thing done by Miracle But the other place speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the waters which is not on a heap but in a level or spherical convexity with the rest of the Earth This reason the Animadverter was not pleas'd to take notice of tho' it be intimated in that same place of the Theory which he quotes But that which I might complain of most is his unfair citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal. 33. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms and is a modest reflection upon the explication of them As the Reader may plainly see if he please to look the Theory and compare it with his citation The next place he attacks is Iob 26. 7. He stretches the North over the Tohu or as we render it over the empty places and hangeth the Earth upon nothing Here he says Iob did either accommodate himself to the vulgar or else was a perfect Platonist Methinks Plato should rather be a Iobist if you will have them to imitate one another Then he makes an Objection and answers it himself Concluding however that Iob could not but mean this of the present Earth because in the next Verse he mentions Clouds But how does it appear that every thing that Iob mentions in that Chapter refers to the same time The next place is Iob 38. 4 5 6. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth c. These eloquent expostulations of the Almighty he applies all to the present Form of the Earth where he says there are the Embossings of Mountains the Enamelling of lesser Seas the open-work of the vast Ocean and the Fret-work of Rocks c. These make a great noise but they might all be apply'd to the ruines of an old Bridge fallen into the water Then he makes a large harangue in commendation of Mountains and of the present Form of the Earth Which if you please you may compare with the 10 th Chap. of the Latin Theory and then make your judgment upon both But it is not enough for the Excepter to admire the beauty of Mountains but he will make the Theorist to do so too because he hath exprest himself much pleas'd with the sight of them Can we be pleas'd with nothing in an object but the beauty of it does not the Theorist say there in the very words cited by the Excepter Saepe loci ipsius insolentia spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis communibus We are pleas'd in looking upon the Ruines of a Roman Amphitheater or a Triumphal Arch tho' time have defac'd its beauty A man may be pleas'd in looking upon a Monster will you conclude therefore that he takes it for a beauty There are many things in objects besides beauty that may please but he that hath not sence and judgment enough to see the difference of those cases and whence the pleasure arises it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words After his commendation of Mountains he falls upon the commendation of Rain making those Countries that enjoy it to be better water'd than by Rivers and consequently the present Earth better than that Paradisiacal Earth describ'd by the Theorist And in this he says he follows the rule of Scripture for these are his words And that these rule whereby we measure the usefulness of this Earth and shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory are the most true and proper rules is manifest from God's making use of the same in a case not unlike For he comparing Egypt and Palestine prefers the later before the former because in Egypt the Seed sown was watered with the foot as a Garden of herbs but Palestine was a Land of Hills and Valleys and drank water of the rain of Heaven Deut. 11. 10 11. Let this rest a while In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily it falls out for the Observator that a Country that had no rain should be compared in Scripture or joyn'd in priviledge with Paradise it self and the Garden of God For so is this very Aegypt Gen. 13. 10. tho' it had no rain but was water'd by Rivers The words of Scripture are these And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of Iordan that it was well watered every where before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha even as the Garden of the Lord like the land of Aegypt The Plain of Iordan you see is commended for its fruitfulness and being well watered and as the height of its commendation it is compar'd with Aegypt and with the Paradise of God Now in Aegypt we know there was little or no rain and we read of none in Paradise but they were both water'd by Rivers Therefore the greatest commendation of a Land for pleasure and fertility according to Scripture is its being well water'd with Rivers which makes it like a paradise Surely then you cannot blame the Theorist having this authority besides all other reasons for making the Paradisiacal Earth to have been thus water'd Now let the Excepter consider how he will interpret and apply his place in Deuteronomy and make it consistent with this in Genesis Till I see a better Interpretation I like this very well tho' quite contrary to his Namely That they were not to expect such a Land as Aegypt that was a Plain naturally fruitfull as being well water'd But the Land they were to possess depended upon the benediction of Heaven And therefore they might expect more or less
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
Earth should be Oval upon other considerations As first Because of its position which would be cross to the stream of the Air that turns it round or carries it about the Sun As a Ship he says that stands side-ways against a stream cannot sail But if that Ship was to turn round upon her Axis as a Mill-wheel and as the Earth does what posture more likely to have such an effect than to stand cross to the stream that turns it And the stream would take more hold of an Oblong-Body than of a round Then as to its annual course which he mentions that 's nothing but so many Circumvolutions for in turning round it is also progressive as a Cylinder in rowling a Garden And three-hundred sixty-five circumgyrations compleat its annual course So that this argument turns wholly against him and does rather confirm the Oval Figure of the Earth His Second Argument against the Oval Figure of the First Earth is the Spherical Figure of the present Earth And how does he prove that First from Authorities Anaximander Pythagoras and Parmenides thought so But how does he prove that their asserting the Earth to be round was not meant in opposition to its being Plain as the Epicureans and the Vulgar would have it That was the Question Socrates promis'd himself to be resolv'd in by Anaxagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the Earth was flat or round And 't is likely the dispute was generally understood in that sence However the Theorist hath alledg'd many more Authorities than these in favour of the Oval Figure of the Earth For besides Empedocles in particular and those whom Plutarch mentions in general the Philosophy of Orpheus the Phoenician Aegyptian and Persian Philosophers did all compare the Earth to an Egg with respect to its Oval external form as well as internal composition These you may see fully set down in the Theory And it had been fair in the Excepter to have taken some notice of them if he would contend in that way of Authorities But he has thought fit rather to pass them over wholly in silence His reasons to prove the figure of the present Earth to be Spherical and not Oval are taken first from the Conical figure of the shadow of the Earth cast upon the Moon But that cannot make a difference sensible to us at this distance whether the Body that cast the shadow was exactly Spherical or Oval His Second reason is from the place of the waters which he says would all retire from the Poles to the Equator if the Polar parts were higher But this has been answer'd before The same cause that drive the Waters thither would make them keep there As we should have a perpetual Flood if the Moon was always in our Meridian And whereas he suggests that by this means the Sea should be shallowest under the Poles which he says is against experience We tell him just the contrary That according to our Hypothesis the Sea should be deepest towards the Poles which agrees with experience That the Sea should be deepest under the Poles if it was of an Oval form he may see plainly by his own Scheme or by the Theory Scheme So that if his observation be true of an extraordinary depth of the Ocean in those parts it confirms our suspition that the Sea continues still Oval Lastly he urges If this Earth was Oval Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult if not impossible because upon an ascent But if there be a continual draught of Waters from the Equator towards the Poles this will balance the difficulty and be Equivalent to a gentle Tide that carries Ships into the mouth of a River though upon a gradual ascent Thus much we have said in complacency to the Excepter For the Theorist was not oblig'd to say any thing in defence of the Oval form of the present Earth seeing he had no where asserted it It not being possible as to what evidence we have yet to determine in what order the Earth fell and in what posture the ruines lay after their fall But however to speak my mind freely upon this occasion I am inclinable to believe that the Earth is still Oval or Oblong What things the Antitheorist hath suggested will not decide the controversie nor it may be any natural history nor any of those observations that we have already The surface of the Sea lies more regular than that of the Land and therefore I should think that observations made there would have the best effect I should particularly recommend these two First that they would observe towards the Poles whether the Sun rise and set according to the rules of a true Globe or of a Body exactly Spherical Secondly that they would observe whether the degrees of latitude are of equal extent in all the parts of a Meridian that is if the quantity of sea or land that answers to a degree in the heavens be of equal extent towards the Equator as towards the Poles These two observations would go the nearest of any I know to determine whether the figure of the Earth be truly spherical or oblong CHAP. X. THIS Chapter is concerning the Original of Mountains and that they were befoe the Flood or from the beginning Which the Excepter endeavours to prove from Scripture not directly but because mention is made of them in the same places where the beginning of the Earth is mentioned as Psal. 90. 1 2. and Prov. 8. 25. therefore they must be co-eval and contemporary We have I think noted before that things are not always Synchronal that are mention'd together in Scripture The Style of Scripture is not so accurate as not to speak of things in the same place that are to be referr'd to different times Otherwise we must suppose the destruction of Ierusalem and of the World to have been intended for the same time seeing our Saviour joyns them in the same discourse Matt. 24. without any distinction of time Or with such a distinction as rather signifies an immediate succession ver 29. than so great a distance as we now find to be betwixt the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the World Greater than that betwixt the Beginning and the Flood So in the Prophets sometimes in the same discourse one part is to be referr'd to the first coming of our Saviour and another part to the second without making any distinction of time but what is to be gathered from the sence Neither is there any incongruity in the sence or in the tenour of the words if those expressions in the Psalmist be referr'd to different times God existed before the Mountains were brought forth and the Earth and the World were made This is certainly true whether you take it of the same or different times And if you take it of different times 't is a way of speaking we often use As suppose a man should say concerning the Antiquity of
very vain and trifling thing So much is true That the Deluge in the course of Nature will not return again in the same way But unless God prevent it it both may and will return in another way That is if the World continue long enough the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters in proportion rise and overflow the whole Earth As is plainly shewn by a parallel case in the first Book of the Theory ch 4. Besides God might when he pleas'd by an extraordinary power and for the sins of Men bring another Deluge upon the World And that is the thing which Noah seems to have fear'd and which God by his Covenant secur'd him against For as the Excepter hath said himself in answering an harder objection p. 152. When God assigned to the Waters the place of their abode he did not intend to fortifie them in it against his own omnipotence or to devest himself of his Sovereign Prerogative of calling them forth when he pleased This being allow'd with what we said before that Covenant was not vain or trifling either in respect of an ordinary or extraordinary Providence Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own And the last of all excepts not against the truth of the Theory but the certainty of it In reflection upon this whole matter give me leave to declare Two things First That I have not knowingly omitted any one Objection that I thought of moment Secondly That I have not from these Exceptions found reason to change any part of the Theory nor to alter my opinion as to any particular in it No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture which understood according to the Letter in a Vulgar way stand cross both to this and other natural Theories And a Child that had read the first Chapters of Genesis might have observ'd this as well as the Excepter but could not have loaded his charge with so much bitterness Some Men they say though of no great Valour yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall The Excepter behind a Text of Scripture is very fierce and rugged But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy he 's gentle and tractable The Theorist had declar'd his intentions and oblig'd himself to give a full account of Moses his Cosmopoeia or six-days Creation but did not think it proper to be done in the Vulgar Language nor before the whole Theory was compleated This might have spar'd much of the Excepter's pains But till that account be given if the Excepter thinks fit to continue his Animadversions and go thorough the Two last Books as he hath done the two first it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Provided it be done with sincerity in reciting the words and representing the sence of the Author CHAP. XV. IN This Chapter the Anti-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge And the War is chang'd on his side from Offensive to Defensive 'T is but fair that he should lie down in his turn and if some blows smart a little he must not complain because he begun the Sport But let 's try his Hypothesis without any further ceremony The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it is this That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high above the ordinary level of the Earth This is an unmerciful Paradox and a very unlucky beginning For under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd As a Postulatum or as a Conclusion If it be a Postulatum it must be clear from its own light or acknowledg'd by general consent It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light because it is matter of Fact which is not known but by Testimony Neither is it generally acknowledg'd For the general opinion is that the Waters cover'd the tops of the Mountains Nay that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the tops of the Mountains And this he confesses himself in these words We shall find there is a great mistake in the common Hypothesis touching their depth namely of the Waters For Whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all above the Surface of the Earth And this Opinion or Doctrine he calls The general standing Hypothesis The usual Hypothesis The usual sence they have put upon the Sacred Story It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Hypothesis is false but the falsity of it must be demonstrated by good Proofs Now I do not find that this new Hypothesis of a fifteen-cubit-Deluge offers at any more than one single proof namely from Gen. 7. 20. But before we proceed to the examination of that give me leave to note one or two things wherein the new-Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sence At his entrance upon this new Hypothesis he hath these words P. 300. Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real or if he does believe it to be so Why will he not defend it for we ought to defend truth But he says moreover p. 302. lin 19. 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 If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture 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 by plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith which every one surely is bound to defend But this is not all the difficulty we meet with The whole period which we quoted runs thus Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true or real any more than to believe what I cannot well endure to speak that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Which yet she must needs have done if there be no other rational method of explaining it and no other intelligible Causes of it than what the Theory has propos'd Now for the word Theory put the word Excepter or Excepter's Hypothesis and see if this charge That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge does not fall as much upon the Excepter's new Hypothesis as upon the Theory If the Church-Hypothesis was rational what need he have invented a new one why does he not propose that Hypothesis and defend it I 'me afraid it will be found that he does not only contradict the Church-Hypothesis but reject it as mistaken and irrational For what is the Church-Hypothesis but the Common Hypothesis p.
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