Book iii. chap. 7, and 8._] and by that means, (due Preparations being

used) capable of _Combustion_, or of perishing by an universal Fire: Yet, to speak ingenuously, this is as hard a Step to be made, in virtue of natural Causes, as any in the whole _Theory_. But in Recompence of that Defect, the Conflagration is so plainly and literally taught us in Scripture, and avow’d by Antiquity, that it can fall under no dispute, as to the Thing it self; and as to a Capacity or Disposition to it in the present Earth, that I think is sufficiently made out.

Then, the Conflagration admitted, in that way it is explain’d in the third Book; the Earth, you see, is, by that Fire, reduc’d to a second Chaos. A Chaos truly so call’d; and from that, as from the first, arises another Creation, or _new Heavens_ and a _new Earth_; by the same Causes, and in the same Form, with the _paradisiacal_. This is the _Renovation_ of the World; the _Restitution_ of all Things mention’d both by Scripture and Antiquity; and by the Prophet _Isaiah_, St. _Peter_ and St. _John_, call’d the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_: With this, as the last Period, and most glorious Scene of all human Affairs, our _Theory_ concludes, as to this Method of Causes, whereof we are now speaking.

I say, here it Ends as to the _Method of Causes_: For tho’ we pursue the Earth still farther, even to its last Dissolution, which is call’d the Consummation of all Things; yet all that we have superadded upon that Occasion, is but problematical, and may, without Prejudice to the _Theory_, be argued and disputed on either Hand. I do not know, but that our Conjectures there may be well grounded; but however, not springing so directly from the same Root, or, at least, not by Ways so clear and visible, I leave that Part undecided: Especially seeing we pretend to write no more than the _Theory of the Earth_, and therefore as we begin no higher than the _Chaos_, so we are not oblig’d to go any farther than to the last State of a terrestrial Consistency; which is that of the new Heavens and the new Earth.

This is the first natural Proof, from the Order of Causes: The second is from the Consideration of Effects; namely, of such Effects as are already in being: And therefore this Proof can extend only to that Part of the _Theory_, that explains the present and past Form and Phænomena of the Earth. What is future, must be left to a farther Trial, when the Thing comes to pass, and present themselves to be examin’d and compar’d with the Hypothesis. As to the present Form of the Earth, we call all Nature to Witness for us; the Rocks and the Mountains, the Hills and the Valleys, the deep and wide Sea, and the Caverns of the Ground: Let these speak, and tell their Origin: How the Body of the Earth came to be thus torn and mangled? If this strange and irregular Structure was not the Effect of a Ruin; and of such a Ruin as was universal over the Face of the whole Globe. But we have given such a full Explication of this, in the first Part of the Theory, from _chap. ix._ to the End of that Treatise, that we dare stand to the Judgment of any that reads those four Chapters to determine if the Hypothesis does not answer to all those Phænomena, easy and adequately.

The next Phænomenon to be consider’d, is the _Deluge_, with its Adjuncts: This also is fully explain’d by our Hypothesis, in the iid, iiid, and vith Chapters of the first Book: Where it is shewn, that the _Mosaical Deluge_, that is, an universal Inundation of the whole Earth, above the Tops of the highest Mountains, made by a breaking open of the great Abyss, (for thus far _Moses_ leads us) is fully explain’d by this Hypothesis, and cannot be conceiv’d in any other Method hitherto propos’d. There are no Sources or Stores of Water sufficient for such an Effect, that may be drawn upon the Earth, and drawn off again, but by supposing such an Abyss, and such a Disruption of it, as the Theory represents.

Lastly, As to the Phænomena of _Paradise_, and the ante-diluvian World, we have set them down in Order in the second Book; and apply’d to each of them its proper Explication, from the same Hypothesis. We have also given an Account of that Character which Antiquity always assign’d to the first Age of the World, or the Golden Age, as they call’d it; namely, _Equality of Seasons_ throughout the Year, or a perpetual Equinox. We have also taken in all the Adjuncts or Concomitants of these States, as they are mention’d in Scripture. _The Longevity_ of the Ante-diluvians, and the Declension or their Age by degrees, after the Flood: As also that wonderful Phænomenon, the _Rainbow_; which appear’d to _Noah_ for a Sign, that the Earth should never undergo a second Deluge. And we have shewn [_Theor._ _Book ii. ch. 5._] wherein the Force and Propriety of that Sign consisted, for confirming _Noah_’s Faith in the Promise and in the Divine Veracity.

Thus far we have explain’d the past Phænomena of the natural World: The rest are Futurities, which still lie hid in their Causes; and we cannot properly prove a Theory from Effects that are not yet in Being: But so far as they are foretold in Scripture, both as to Substance and Circumstance, in Prosecution of the same Principles we have ante-dated their Birth, and shew’d how they will come to pass. We may therefore, I think, reasonably conclude, that this Theory has perform’d its Task and answer’d its Title; having given an Account of all the general Changes of the natural World as far as either Sacred History looks backwards, or Sacred Prophecy looks forwards; so far as the one tells us what is past in Nature, and the other what is to come; And if all this be nothing but an Appearance of Truth, ’tis a kind of Fatality upon us to be deceiv’d.

So much for natural Evidence, from the Causes or Effects: We now proceed to Scripture, which will make the greatest Part of this Review. The Sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands, is the Doctrine of St. _Peter_, deliver’d in his _second Epistle_ and _third Chapter_, concerning the _triple Order_ and Succession of the Heavens and the Earth; that comprehends the whole Extent of our Theory; which indeed is but a large Commentary upon St. _Peter_’s Text. The Apostle sets out a three-fold State of the Heavens and Earth, with some general Properties of each, taken from their different Constitution and different Fate. The Theory takes the same three-fold State of the Heavens and the Earth; and explains more particularly, wherein their different Constitution consists; and how, under the Conduct of Providence, their different Fate depends upon it. Let us set down the Apostle’s Words, with the Occasion of them; and their plain Sense, according to the most easy and natural Explication.

_2 Pet. iii. 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 willingly are 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 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._

This is the whole Discourse so far as relates to our Subject: St. _Peter_, you see, had met with some that scoff’d at the future Destruction of the World, and the coming of our Saviour; and they were Men, it seems, that pretended to Philosophy and Argument; and they use this Argument for their Opinion, _Seeing there has been no Change in Nature, or in the World, from the Beginning to this Time, why should we think there will be any Change for the future?_

The Apostle answers to this, that they willingly forget, or are ignorant, that there were Heavens of old, and an Earth, so and so constituted; consisting of Water and by Water; by reason whereof that World, or those Heavens and that Earth, perish’d in a Deluge of Water. But, saith he, the Heavens and the Earth, that are now, are of another Constitution, fitted and reserved to another Fate; namely to perish by Fire: And after these are perish’d, there will be new Heavens and a new Earth, according to God’s Promise.

This is an easy Paraphrase, and the plain and genuine Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; and no Body, I think, would ever look after any other Sense, if this did not carry them out of their usual Road, and point to Conclusions which they did not fancy. The Sense, you see, hits the Objection directly, or the Cavil which these Scoffers made; and tells them, that they vainly pretend that there hath been no change in the World since the Beginning; for there was one sort of Heavens and Earth before the Flood, and another Sort now, the first having been destroy’d at the Deluge. So that the Apostle’s Argument stands upon this Foundation, that there is a Diversity betwixt the present Heavens and Earth, and the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth; take away that, and you take away all the Force of his Answer.

Then as to his _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_ after the Conflagration, they must be material and natural, in the same Sense and Signification with the former Heavens and Earth; unless you will offer open Violence to the Text. So that this Triplicity of the Heavens and the Earth, is the first, obvious, plain Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; which every one would readily accept, if it did not draw after it a long Train of Consequences, and lead them into other Worlds than they ever thought of before, or are willing to enter upon now.

But we shall have Occasion by and by, to examine this Text more fully in all its Circumstances: Give me leave in the mean time to observe, that St. _Paul_ also implies that _triple Creation_ which St. _Peter_ expresses. St. _Paul_, I say, in the viiith Chapter to the _Romans_, ver. 20, 21. tells us of a _Creation_ that will be _redeem’d from Vanity_, which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come. A _Creation in Subjection to Vanity_; which is the present State of the World; and a _Creation_ that was subjected to Vanity, in hopes of being restored, which was the first _Paradisiacal_ Creation: And these are the three States of the natural World, which make the Subject of our Theory.

To these two Places of St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_, I might add that third in St. _John_, concerning the new Heavens and new Earth, with that distinguishing Character, that the Earth was _without a Sea_: As this distinguisheth it from the present Earth, so, being a _Restitution_ or _Restauration_, as we noted before, it must be the same with some former Earth; and consequently it implies, that there was another precedent State of the natural World, to which this is a Restitution. These three Places I alledge, as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full Extent; But we do not suppose them all of the same Force and Clearness; St. _Peter_ leads the Way, and gives Light and Strength to the other two: When a Point is prov’d by one clear Text, we allow others, as Auxiliaries, that are not of the same Clearness; but being open’d, receive Light from the primary Text, and reflect it upon the Argument.

So much for the Theory in general: We will now take one or two principal Heads of it, which virtually contain all the rest, and examine them more strictly and particularly, in reference to their Agreement with Scripture. The two Heads we pitch upon, shall be our Explication of the Deluge, and our Explication of the new Heavens and new Earth: We told you before, these two were as the Hinges, upon which all the Theory moves, and which hold the Parts of it in firm Union one with another. As to the Deluge, if I have explain’d that aright, by the Disruption of the great Abyss, and the Dissolution of the Earth that cover’d it, all the rest follows in such a Chain of Consequences as cannot be broken. Wherefore, in order to the Proof of that Explication, and of all that depends upon it, I will make bold to lay down this Proposition, _That our Hypothesis concerning the universal Deluge, is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy, than any other yet propos’d to the World, but is also more agreeable to Scripture_: Namely, to such Places of Scripture as reflect upon the _Deluge_, the _Abyss_, and the Form of the _first Earth_: And particularly to the _History of Noah’s Flood, as recorded by Moses_. If I can make this good, it will, doubtless, give Satisfaction to all that are free and intelligent; and I desire their Patience, if I proceed slowly and by several Steps. We will divide our Task into Parts, and examine them separately; first, by Scripture in general, and then by _Moses_ his History and Description of the Flood.

Our Hypothesis of the Deluge consists of three principal Heads, or differs remarkably in three Things from the common Explication. First, in that we suppose the ante-diluvian Earth to have been of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth; with the Abyss placed under it.

Secondly, In that we suppose the Deluge to have been made, not by any Inundation of the Sea, or overflowing of Fountains and Rivers; nor (principally) by an Excess of Rains; but by a real Dissolution of the exteriour Earth, and Disruption of the Abyss which it cover’d: These are the two principal Points; to which may be added, as a Corollary,

Thirdly, That the Deluge was not in the nature of a standing Pool; the Waters lying every where level, of an equal Depth, and with an uniform Surface; but was made by a Fluctuation and Commotion of the Abyss upon the Disruption: Which Commotion being over, the Waters retired into their Channels, and let the dry Land appear.

These are the most material and fundamental Parts of our Hypothesis; and these being prov’d consonant to Scripture, there can be no doubt of the rest.

We begin with the first: That the ante-diluvian Earth was of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth, with the Abyss placed under it: This is confirm’d in Scripture, both by such Places as assert a Diversity in general; and by other Places that intimate to us, wherein that Diversity consisted, and what was the form of the first Earth. That Discourse of St. _Peter_’s, which we have set before you concerning the past, present and future Heavens and Earth, is so full a Proof of this Diversity in general, that you must either allow it, or make the Apostle’s Argumentation of no Effect: He speaks plainly of the natural World, _The Heavens and the Earth_; and he makes a plain Distinction, or rather Opposition, betwixt those before and after the Flood. So that the least we can conclude from his Words, is a Diversity betwixt them; in answer to that Identity or Immutability of Nature, which the Scoffers pretended to have been ever since the Beginning.

But tho’ the Apostle, to me, speaks plainly of the _natural World_, and distinguishes that which was before the Flood, from the present; yet there are some that will allow neither of these to be contain’d in St. _Peter_’s Words; and by that means would make this whole Discourse of little or no Effect, as to our Purpose: And seeing we, on the contrary, have made it the chief Scripture-Basis of the whole Theory of the Earth, we are oblig’d to free it from those false Glosses or Mis-interpretations, that lessen the Force of its Testimony, or make it wholly ineffectual.

These Interpreters say, that St. _Peter_ meant no more than to mind these Scoffers, that the World was once destroy’d by a Deluge of Water; meaning the _Animate World_, Mankind and living Creatures: And that it shall be destroyed again by another Element, namely, by Fire. So as there is no Opposition or Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, taught or intended by the Apostle; but only in reference to their different Fate or Manner of perishing, and not of their different Nature or Constitution.

Here are two main Points, you see, wherein our Interpretations of this Discourse of the Apostle’s differ. First, in that they make the Apostle (in that _sixth verse_) to understand only the World _Animate_, or Men in brute Creatures: That these were indeed destroy’d, but not the natural World, or the Form and Constitution of the then Earth and Heavens. Secondly, that there is no Diversity or Opposition made by St. _Peter_ betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present, as to their Form and Constitution. We pretend that these are Mis-apprehensions or Mis-representations of the Sense of the Apostle in both respects, and offer these Reasons to prove them to be so.

For the first Point; That the Apostle speaks here of the natural World, particularly in the 6th verse; and that it perished, as well as the animate, these Considerations seem to prove.

First, because the Argument or Ground these Scoffers went upon, was taken from the natural World, its Constancy and Permanency in the same State from the Beginning; therefore if the Apostle answers _ad idem_, and takes away their Argument, he must understand the same natural World, and shew that it hath been chang’d, or hath perish’d.

You will say, it may be, the Apostle doth not deny, nor take away the Ground they went upon, but denies the Consequence they made from it; that _therefore there would be no Change because there had been none_. No, neither doth he do this, if by the _World_ in the 6th verse, he understands Mankind only; for their Ground was this, _There hath been no Change in the natural World_; their Consequence this, _Therefore there will be none_, nor any Conflagration. Now the Apostle’s Answer according to you, is this, _You forget that Mankind hath been destroy’d in a Deluge._ And what then? What’s this to the natural World, whereof they were speaking? This takes away neither Antecedent nor Consequent, neither Ground nor Inference nor any way toucheth their Argument, which proceeded from the natural World, to the natural World. Therefore you must either suppose that the Apostle takes away their Ground, or he takes away nothing.

Secondly, What is it that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? That there was a Deluge that destroy’d Mankind? They could not be ignorant of that, nor pretend to be so: It was therefore the Constitution of those old Heavens and Earth, and the Change or Destruction of them at the Deluge, that they were ignorant of, or did not attend to; and of this the Apostle minds them. These Scoffers appear to have been _Jews_ by the Phrase they use, _Since the Fathers fell asleep_, which in both Parts of it is a _Judaical_ Expression; and does St. _Peter_ tell the _Jews_ that had _Moses_ read to them every Sabbath, that _they were ignorant that Mankind was once destroyed with a Deluge in the Days of Noah_? Or could they pretend to be ignorant of that without making themselves ridiculous both to _Jews_ and Christians[6]? Besides, these do not seem to have been of the Vulgar amongst them, for they bring a Philosophical Argument for their Opinion; and also in their very Argument they refer to the History of the Old Testament, in saying, _Since the Fathers fell asleep_, amongst which Fathers, _Noah_ was one of the most remarkable.

_Thirdly_, The Design of the Apostle is to prove to them, or to dispose them to the Belief of the Conflagration, or future destruction of the World; which I suppose you will not deny to be a Destruction of the natural World; therefore to prove or persuade this, he must use an Argument taken from a precedent Destruction of the natural World; for to give an instance of the perishing of Mankind only, would not reach home to his Purpose. And you are to observe here, that the Apostle does not proceed against them barely by Authority; for what would that have booted? If these Scoffers would have submitted to Authority, they had already the Authority of the Prophets and Apostles in this Point: but he deals with them at their own Weapon, and opposes Reasons to Reasons; What hath been done may be done, and if the natural World hath been once destroyed, ’tis not hard, nor unreasonable to suppose those Prophecies to be true, that say, it shall be destroyed again.

_Fourthly_, Unless we understand here the natural World, we make the Apostle both redundant in his Discourse, and also very obscure in an easy Argument: If his Design was only to tell them that Mankind was once destroy’d in a Deluge, what’s that to the Heavens and the Earth? The 5th verse would be superfluous; which yet he seems to make the foundation of his Discourse. He might have told them how Mankind had perished before with a Deluge, and aggravated that Destruction as much as he pleas’d, without telling them how the Heavens and the Earth were constituted then; what was that to the Purpose, if it had no Dependence or Connection with the other? In the precedent Chapter, _ver. 5._ when he speaks only of the Floods destroying Mankind, he mentions nothing of the Heavens or the Earth; and if you make him to intend no more here, what he says more is superfluous.

I also add, that you make the Apostle very obscure and operose in a very easy Argument: How easy had it been for him, without this _Apparatus_, to have told them, as he did before, that God brought a Flood upon the World of the ungodly; and not given us so much Difficulty to understand his Sense, or such a Suspicion and Appearance, that he intended something more? For that there is at least a great Appearance and Tendency to a farther Sense, I think none can deny; And St. _Austin_, _Didymus Alex. Bede_, as we shall see hereafter, understood it plainly of the natural World; also modern Expositors and Criticks; as _Cajetan_, _Estius_, _Drusius_, _Heinsius_, have extended it to the natural World, more or less, tho’ they had no Theory to mislead them, nor so much as an Hypothesis to support them; but attended only to the Tenor of the Apostle’s Discourse, which constrained them to that Sense, in whole or in Part.

Fifthly, The Opposition carries it upon the natural World: The Opposition lies betwixt the οἱ ἔκπαλαι οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ and οἱ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ the Heavens that were of old, and the Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, or the two natural Worlds: And if they will not allow them to be oppos’d in their Natures (which yet we shall prove by and by) at least they must be oppos’d in their Fate; and as this is to perish by Fire, so that perished by Water; and if it perish’d by Water, it perish’d; which is all we contend for at present.

Lastly, If we would be as easily govern’d in the Exposition of this Place, as we are of other Places of Scripture, it would be enough to suggest, that in Reason and Fairness of Interpretation, the same World is destroy’d in the 6th _verse_, that was describ’d in the foregoing _verse_; but it is the natural World that is describ’d there, the Heavens and the Earth, so and so constituted; and therefore in Fairness of Interpretation they ought to be understood here; that World being the Subject that went immediately before, and there being nothing in the Words that restrains them to the animate World or to Mankind. In the iid _ch. ver. 5._ the Apostle does restrain the Word κόσμος by adding ἀσεβῶν, _the World of the ungodly_; but here ’tis not only illimited, but, according to the Context, both preceding and following, to be extended to the natural World. I say by the following Context too; for so it answers to the World that is to perish by Fire; which will reach the Frame of Nature as well as Mankind.

For a Conclusion of this first Point, I will set down St. _Austin_’s Judgment in this Case; who in several Parts of his Works hath interpreted this Place of St. _Peter_, _of the natural World_. As to the Heavens, he hath these Words in his Expositian upon _Genesis_, _Hos etiam aërios cœlos quondam periisse Diluvio, in quâdam earum, quæ Canonica appellantur, Epistolâ legimus. We read in one of the Epistles called Canonical_, meaning this of St. _Peter_’s, _that the aërial Heavens perished in the Deluge_. And he concerns himself there to let you know that it was not the starry Heavens that were destroy’d; the Waters could not reach so high, but the Regions of our Air. Then afterwards he hath these Words, _Faciliùs eos (cœlos) secundum illius Epistolæ authoritatem credimus periisse, & alios, sicut ibi scribitur repositos. We do more easily believe, according to the Authority of that Epistle, those Heavens to have perished; and others, as it is there written, substituted in their Place_. In like manner, and to the same Sense, he hath these Words upon _Psal. ci._ _Aerii utique cœli perierunt ut propinqui Terris, secundum quod dicuntur volucres cœli; sunt autem & cœli cœlorum, superiores in Firmamento, sed utrùm & ipsi perituri sint igne, an hi soli, qui etiam diluvio perierunt, disceptatio est aliquanto scrupulosior inter doctos._ And in his Book _de Civ. Dei_, he hath several Passages to the same purpose, _Quemadmodum in Apostolicâ illâ Epistolâ à toto Pars accipitur, quod diluvio periisse dictus est mundus, quamvis sola ejus cum suis cœlis pars ima perierit._ These being to the same Effect with the first Citation, I need not make them English; and this last Place refers to the Earth as well as the Heavens, as several other places in St. _Austin_ do, whereof we shall give you an Account, when we come to shew his Judgment concerning the second Point, _the diversity of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian World_: This being but a Foretaste of his good Will and Inclinations towards this Doctrine.

These Considerations alledg’d, so far as I can judge, are full and unanswerable Proofs, that this Discourse of the Apostle’s comprehends and refers to the natural World; and consequently they warrant our Interpretation in this Particular, and destroy the contrary. We have but one Step more to make good, _That there was a Change made in this natural World at the Deluge_, according to the Apostle; and this is to confute the second Part of their Interpretation, which supposeth that St. _Peter_ makes no Distinction or Opposition betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, in that respect.

This second Difference betwixt us, methinks is still harsher than the first; and contrary to the very Form, as well as to the Matter of the Apostle’s Discourse. For there is a plain Antithesis, or Opposition made betwixt the Heavens and the Earth of old (_ver. the 5th_) and the Heavens and the Earth that are now (_ver. the 7th_) οἱ ἔκπαλαι οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and οἱ νῦν οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and the adversitive Particle, δὲ _but_, you see marks the Opposition; so that it is full and plain according to Grammar and Logick. And that the Parts or Members of this Opposition differ in Nature from one another, is certain from this, because otherwise the Apostle’s Argument or Discourse is of no Effect, concludes nothing to the Purpose; he makes no Answer to the Objection, nor proves any thing against the Scoffers, unless you admit that Diversity. For they said, _All Things had been the same from the Beginning in the natural World_; and unless he say, as he manifestly does, that there hath been a Change in Nature, and that the Heavens and Earth that are now, are different from the ancient Heavens and Earth which perish’d at the Flood, he says nothing to destroy their Argument, nor to confirm the prophetical Doctrine of the future Destruction of the natural World.

This, I think, would be enough to satisfy any clear and free Mind concerning the Meaning of the Apostle; but because I desire to give as full a Light to this Place as I can, and to put the Sense of it out of Controversy, if possible, for the future, I will make some farther Remarks to confirm this Exposition.

And we may observe that several of those Reasons which we have given to prove, that the _natural World_ is understood by St. _Peter_, are double Reasons; and do also prove the other Point in Question, a _Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds_, the ante-diluvian and the present. As for Instance, unless you admit this Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, you make the 5th _verse_ in this _Chapter_ superfluous and useless; and you must suppose the Apostle to make an Inference here without Premises. In the _vith verse_ he makes an Inference, [7]_Whereby_ the World, that then was perish’d in a Deluge; What does this _whereby_ relate to? _by Reason_ of what? Sure of the particular Constitution of the Heavens and the Earth immediately before describ’d. Neither would it have signified any thing to the Scoffers, for the Apostle to have told them how the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were constituted, if they were constituted just in the same Manner as the present.

Besides, what is it, as I ask’d before, that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? does he not say formally and expresly (_ver. 5._) that they were ignorant that the Heavens and the Earth were constituted so and so, before the Flood? But if they were constituted as these present Heavens and Earth are, they were not ignorant of their Constitution? Nor did pretend to be ignorant, for their own (mistaken) Argument supposeth it.

But before we proceed any further, give me leave to note the Impropriety of our Translation, in the _5th verse_, or latter Part of it; Ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δὶ ὕδατων (vel δὶ ὔδατος) συνισῶτα. This we translate _standing in the Water, and out of the Water_, which is done manifestly in compliance with the present Form of the Earth, and the Notions of the Translators, and not according to the natural Force and Sense of the _Greek_ Words. If one met with this Sentence[8] in a _Greek_ Author, who would ever render it _standing in the Water, and out of the Water_? Nor do I know any _Latin_ Translator that hath ventur’d to render them in that Sense, nor any _Latin_ Father; St. _Austin_ and St. _Jerome_ I’m sure do not, but _Consistens ex aquâ_, or _de aquâ, & per aquam_; for that later Phrase also συνεσάναι δὶ ὕδατος, does not with so good Propriety signify _to stand in the Water_, as to consist or subsist by Water, or by the Help of Water, _Tanquam per causam sustinentem_, as St. _Austin_ and _Jerome_ render it. Neither does that Instance they give from _1 Pet. iii. 20._ prove any thing to the contrary, for the Ark was sustain’d by the Waters, and the _English_ does render it accordingly.

The Translation being thus rectified, you see the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth consisted of Water, and by Water; which makes Way for a second Observation to prove our Sense of the Text; for if you admit no Diversity betwixt those Heavens and Earth, and the present, shew us pray, how the present Heavens and Earth consist of Water, and by Water? What watry Constitution have they? The Apostle implies rather, that _the new Heavens and Earth_ have a fiery Constitution. We have now Meteors of all Sorts in the Air, Winds, Hail, Snow, Lightning, Thunder, and all Things engender’d of fiery Exhalations, as well as we have Rain; but according to our Theory, _Book ii. c. 5._ the ante-diluvian Heavens, of all these Meteors had none but Dews and Vapours, or watry Meteors only; and therefore might very aptly be said by the Apostle to be _constituted of Water_, or to have a watry σίζασις. Then the Earth was said to _consist by Water_, because it was built upon it, and at first was sustain’d by it. And when such a Key as this is put into our Hands, that does so easily unlock this hard Passage, and makes it intelligible, according to the just Force of the Words, why should we pertinaciously adhere to an[9] Interpretation, that neither agrees with the Words, nor makes any Sense that is considerable.

Thirdly, If the Apostle had made the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth the same with the present, his Apodosis in the 7th verse, should not have been οἱ δε νῦν οῦρανοι, but καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί, &c. I say, it would not have been by way of Antithesis, but of Identity or Continuation; _And the same Heavens and Earth are kept in store reserv’d unto Fire_, &c. Accordingly we see the Apostle speaks thus, as to the _Logos_, or the _Word of God, ver. 7._ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, _by the same Word of God_; where the Thing is the same, he expresseth it as the same; and if it had been the same Heavens and Earth, as well as the same Word of God, why should he use a Mark of Opposition for the one, and of Identity for the other? To this I do not see what can be fairly answer’d.

Fourthly, The ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were different from the present, because, as the Apostle intimates, they were such, and so constituted, as made them obnoxious to a Deluge; whereas ours are of such a Form, as makes them incapable of a Deluge, and obnoxious to a Conflagration; the just contrary Fate, _Theor._ _Book i. c. 2._

If you say there was nothing of natural Tendency or Disposition in either World to their respective Fate, but the first might as well have perished by Fire as Water, and this by Water as by Fire, you unhinge all Nature and natural Providence in that Method, and contradict one main Scope of the Apostle in this Discourse. His first Scope is to assert, and mind them of that Diversity there was betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present; and from that, to prove against those Scoffers, that there had been a Change and Revolution in Nature: And his second Scope seems to be this, to shew that Diversity to be such, as, under the divine Conduct, leads to a different Fate, and expos’d that World to a Deluge; for when he had describ’d the Constitution of the first Heavens and Earth, he subjoins, δὶ ὧν ὅ τοτε κόσμος ὑδατι κατακλυοθεὶς ἀπόλετο. _Quia talis erat_, saith _Grotius_, _qualem diximus, constitutio & Terræ & Cœli._ _WHEREBY the then World perish’d in a Flood of Water._ This _whereby_ notes some kind of casual Dependance, and must relate to some Means or Conditions precedent. It cannot relate to _Logos_, or _the Word of God_, Grammar will not permit that; therefore it must relate to the State of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth immediately premis’d: And to what purpose indeed should he premise the Description of those Heavens and Earth, if it was not to lay a Ground for this Inference?

Having given these Reasons for the Necessity of this interpretation: in the last place, let us consider St. _Austin_’s Judgment and his Sense upon this Place, as to the Point in Question; as also the Reflections that some other of the Ancients have made upon this Doctrine of St. _Peter_’s. _Didymus Alexandrinus_, who was for some time St. _Jerome_’s Master, made such a severe Reflection upon it, that he said this Epistle was corrupted, and should not be admitted into the Canon, because it taught the Doctrine of a _triple_ or _triform World_ in this third Chapter; as you may see in his _Enarr. in Epist. Canonicas_. Now this three-fold World is first that in the _6th_ verse, _The World that then was_. In the _7th_ verse, _The Heavens and the Earth that are now_. And in the _13th_ verse, _We expect new Heavens and a new Earth, according to his Promise._ This seems to be a fair Account that St. _Peter_ taught the Doctrine of a triple World; and I quote this Testimony, to shew what St. _Peter_’s Words do naturally import, even in the Judgment of one that was not of his Mind; and a Man is not prone to make an Exposition against his own Opinion, unless he thinks the Words very pregnant and express.

But St. _Austin_ owns the Authority of this Epistle, and of this Doctrine, as deriv’d from it, taking notice of this Text of St. _Peter_’s in several Parts of his Works. We have noted three or four Places already to this purpose, and we may further take notice of several Passages in his Treatise, _de Civ. Dei_, which confirm our Exposition. In his xxth Book, _ch._ xxiv. he Disputes against _Porphyry_, who had the same Principles with these Eternalists in the Text; or, if I may so call them Incorruptarians; and thought the World never had, nor ever would undergo any Change, especially, as to the Heavens. St. _Austin_ could not urge _Porphyry_ with the Authority of St. _Peter_, for he had no Veneration for the Christian Oracles, but it seems he had some for the _Jewish_; and arguing against him, upon that Text in the Psalms, _Cœli peribunt_, he shews, upon Occasion, how he understands St. _Peter_’s Destruction of the old World. _Legitur Cœlum & Terra transibunt, Mundus transit, sed puto quod præterit transit, transibunt aliquantò mitius dicta sunt quam peribunt. In Epistolà quoque Petri Apostoli, ubi aquâ inundatus, qui tum erat, periisse dictus est Mundus, satis clarum est quæ pars mundi a toto significata est, & quatenus periisse dicta sit, & qui Cœli repositi igni reservandi._ This he explains more fully afterwards by subjoining a Caution (which we cited before) that we must not understand this Passion of St. _Peter_’s concerning the Destruction of the ante-diluvian World, to take in the whole Universe, and the highest Heavens, but only the aerial Heavens, and the sublunary World. _In Apostolicâ illâ Epistola a toto pars accipitur, quod Diluvio periisse dictus est Mundus quamvis sola ejus, cum suis Cœlis pars ima perierit. In that Apostolical Epistle, a part is signified by the whole, when the World is said to have perished in the Deluge, although the lower part of it only, with the Heavens belonging to it, perished_; that is, the Earth with the Regions of the Air that belong to it. And consonant to this, in his Exposition of that ci. _Psalm_, upon those Words, _The Heavens are the work of thy Hands; they shall perish, but thou shalt endure._ This perishing of the Heavens, he says, St. _Peter_ tells us, hath been once done already, namely, at the Deluge: _Apertè dixit hoc Apostolus Petrus, Cœli erant olim & Terra, de aquâ & per aquam constituti, Dei verbo; per quod qui factus est mundus, aquâ inundatus deperiit; Terra autem & Cœli qui nunc sunt, igni reservantur. Jam ergo dixit periisse Cœlos per Diluvium._

These Places shew us, that St. _Austin_ understood St. _Peter_’s Discourse to aim at the natural World, and his _periit_ or _periisse_ (ver. 6) to be of the same Force as _peribunt_ in the _Psalms_, when ’tis said the Heavens _shall perish_; and consequently that the Heavens and the Earth, in this Father’s Opinion, were as really changed and transformed at the Time of the Flood, as they will be at the Conflagration. But we must not expect from St. _Austin_, or any of the Antients, a distinct Account of this Apostolical Doctrine, as if they knew and acknowledg’d the Theory of the first World; that does not at all appear, but what they said was either from broken Tradition, or extorted from them by the Force of the Apostle’s Words and their own Sincerity.

There are yet other Places in St. _Austin_ worthy our Consideration upon this Subject; especially his Exposition of this iiid Chapter of St. _Peter_, as we find it in the same Treatise, _de Civ. Dei_, _cap._ xviii. There he compares again, the Destruction of that World at the Deluge, with that which shall be at the Conflagration, and supposeth both the Heavens and Earth to have perish’d: _Apostolus commemorans factum ante Diluvium, videtur admonuisse quodammodo quatenùs in fine hujus seculi mundum istum periturum esse credamus. Nam & illo tempore periisse dixit, qui tunc erat, mundum; nec solum orbem terræ, verum etiam cœlos._ Then giving his usual Caution, that the Stars and starry Heavens should not be comprehended in that mundane Destruction, he goes on, _Atque hoc modo_ (penè totus aër) _cum terra perierat; cujus Terræ utique prior facies_ (nempe ante-diluviana) _fuerat deleta Diluvia. Qui autem nunc sunt cœli & terra eodem verba repositi sunt igni reservandi; Proinde qui Cœli & quæ Terra id est, qui mundus, pro eo mundo qui Diluvio periit, ex eádem aquâ repositus est, ipse igni novissimo reservatur._ Here you see St. _Austin_’s Sense upon the whole Matter; which is this, that the natural World, the Earth with the Heavens about it, was destroyed and chang’d at the Deluge into the present Heavens and Earth; which shall again, in like Manner, be destroyed and chang’d by the last Fire. Accordingly, in another place, to add no more, he saith, the Figure of the (sublunary) World shall be changed at the Conflagration, as it was chang’d at the Deluge: _Tunc figura hujus mundi_, &c. _cap._ xvi.

Thus you see, we have St. _Austin_ on our side, in both Parts of our Interpretation; that St. _Peter_’s Discourse is to be referr’d to the natural inanimate World, and that the present natural World is distinct and different from that which was before the Deluge. And St. _Austin_ having applied this expresly to St. _Peter_’s Doctrine by way of Commentary, it will free us from any Crime or Affectation of Singularity in the Exposition we have given of that Place.

Venerable _Bede_ hath followed St. _Austin_’s Footsteps in this Doctrine; for, interpreting St. _Peter_’s _original World_ (Αρχαῖος Κόσμος) 2 _Pet._ ii. 5. he refers both that and this (_chap._ iii. 6.) to the natural inanimate World, which he supposeth to have undergone a Change at the Deluge. His Words are these, _Idem ipse mundus est_ (nempe quoad materiam) _in quo nunc humanum genus habitat, quem inhabitaverunt hi qui ante diluvium fuerunt, sed tamen rectè Originalis Mundus, quasi alius dicitur; quia sicut in consequentibus hujus Epistolæ scriptum continetur, Ille tunc mundus aquâ inundatus periit. Cælis videlicet qui erant prius, id est, cunctis aëris hujus turbulenti spatiis, aquarum accrescentiun altitudine consumptis, ac Terrâ in alteram faciem, excedentibus aquis, immutatâ. Nam etsi montes aliqui atque convalles ab initio facti creduntur, non tamen tanti quanti nunc in orbe cernuntur universo. ’Tis the same World_ (namely, as to the Matter and Substance of it) _which Mankind lives in now, and did live in before the Flood, but yet that is truly called the ORIGINAL WORLD, being as it were another from the present. For it is said in the Sequel of this Epistle, that the World that was then, perished in the Deluge; namely, the Regions of the Air were consumed by the Height and Excess of the Water; and by the same Waters the Earth was changed into another Form or Face. For although some Mountains and Valleys are thought to have been made from the Beginning, yet not such great ones as now we see throughout the whole Earth._

You see this Author does not only own a Change made at the Deluge, but offers at a farther Explication wherein that Change consisted, _viz._ That the Mountains and Inequalities of the Earth were made greater than they were before the Flood; and so he makes the Change, or the Difference betwixt the two Worlds gradual, rather than specifical, if I may so term it. But we cannot wonder at that, if he had no Principles to carry it farther, or to make any other Sort of Change intelligible to him. _Bede_ [_De 6 dier. creat._] also pursues the same Sense and Notion in his Interpretation of that _Fountain_, _Gen._ ii. 5. that watered the Face of the Earth before the Flood. And many other Transcribers of Antiquity have recorded this Tradition concerning a Difference, gradual or specifical, both in the ante-diluvian Heavens (_Gloss. Ordin. Gen._ ix. _de Iride. Lyran. ibid. Hist. Scholast._ _c. 35. Rab. Maurus & Gloss. Inter. Gen._ ii. 5, 6. _Alcuin. Quæst. in Gen. inter._ 135.) and in the ante-diluvian Earth, as the same Authors witness in other Places: As _Hist. Schol. c. 34. Gloss. Ord. in Gen._ vii. _Alcuin. Inter. 118, &c._ Not to Instance those that tell us the Properties of the ante-diluvian World under the Name and Notion of _Paradise_.

Thus much concerning this remarkable Place in St. _Peter_, and the true Exposition of it; which I have the more largely insisted upon, because I look upon this Place as the chief Repository of that great natural Mystery, which in Scripture is communicated to us concerning the triple State or Revolution of the World. And of those Men that are so scrupulous to admit the Theory we have propos’d, I would willingly know, whether they believe the Apostle in what he says concerning the _new Heavens_ and the _new Earth to come_? ver. 13. and if they do, why they should not believe him as much concerning the _old Heavens_ and the _old Earth_ past? _ver._ 5, and 6. which he mentions as formally, and describes more distinctly than the other. But if they believe neither past nor to come, in a natural Sense, but an unchangeable State of Nature from the Creation to its Annihilation, I leave them then to their Fellow-Eternalists in the Text, and to the Character or Censure the Apostle gives them, Κατὰ τὰς ἴδιας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι, Men that go by their own private Humour and Passions, and prefer that to all other Evidence.

They deserve this Censure, I am sure, if they do not only disbelieve, but also scoff, at this Prophetick and Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Vicissitudes of Nature and a triple World. The Apostle in this Discourse does formally distinguish three Worlds (for ’tis well known that the _Hebrews_ have no Word to signify the natural World, but use that Periphrasis, _the Heavens_ and _the Earth_) and upon each of them engraves a Name and Title that bears a Note of Distinction in it: He calls them the _old Heavens and Earth_, the _present Heavens and Earth_, and the _new Heavens and Earth_. ’Tis true, these three are one, as to Matter and Substance; but they must differ as to Form and Properties; otherwise what is the Ground of this Distinction and of these three different Appellations? Suppose the _Jews_ had expected _Ezekiel_’s Temple for the third, and last, and most perfect; and that in the Time of the second Temple they had spoke of them with this Distinction, or under these different Names, the _old Temple_, the _present Temple_, and the _new Temple_ we expect; would any have understood those three of one and the same Temple; never demolish’d, never chang’d, never rebuilt; always the same, both as to Materials and Form? No, doubtless, but of three several Temples succeeding one another. And have we not the same Reason to understand this Temple of the World, whereof St. _Peter_ speaks, to be three-fold in Succession; seeing he does as plainly distinguish it into the _old_ Heavens and Earth, the _present_ Heavens and Earth? and the _new_ Heavens and Earth. And I do the more willingly use this Comparison of the Temple, because it hath been thought an Emblem of the outward World.

I know we are naturally averse to entertain any Thing that is inconsistent with the general Frame and Texture of our own Thoughts; that’s to begin the World again; and we often reject such things without Examination. Neither do I wonder that the generality of Interpreters beat down the Apostle’s Words and Sense to their own Notions; they had no other Grounds to go upon, and Men are not willing, especially in natural and comprehensible things, to put such a Meaning upon Scripture, as is unintelligible to themselves; they rather venture to offer a little Violence to the Words, that they may pitch the Sense at such a convenient Height, as their Principles will reach to: And therefore though some of our modern Interpreters, whom I mention’d before, have been sensible of the natural Tendency of this Discourse of St. _Peter_’s, and have much ado to bear off the Force of the Words, so as not to acknowledge that they import a real Diversity betwixt the two Worlds spoken of; yet having no Principles to guide or support them in following that Tract, they are forc’d to stop or divert another way. ’Tis like entring into the Mouth of a Cave, we are not willing to venture farther than the Light goes: Nor are they much to blame for this, the Fault is only in those Persons that continue wilfully in their Darkness; and when they cannot otherwise resist the Light, shut their Eyes against it, or turn their Head another Way.—But I am afraid I have staid too long upon this Argument; not for my own sake, but to satisfy others.

You may please to remember that all that I have said hitherto, belongs only to the first Head: To prove a _Diversity in general_ betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present; not expressing what their particular Form was. And this general Diversity may be argued also by Observations taken from _Moses_ his History of the World, before and after the Flood: From the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians; the Rainbow appearing after the Deluge; and the breaking open an Abyss capable to overflow the Earth. The Heavens that had no Rain-bow, and under whose benign and steady Influence, Men liv’d seven, eight, nine hundred Years and upwards, [See _Theor. Book_ ii. _ch._ 5.] must have been of a different Aspect and Constitution from the present Heavens: And that Earth that had such an Abyss, that the Disruption of it made an universal Deluge, must have been of another Form than the present Earth; and those that will not admit a Diversity in the two Worlds, are bound to give us an intelligible Account of these Phænomena: How they could possibly be in Heavens and Earth, like the present? Or if they were there once, why they do not continue so still, if Nature be the same?

We need say no more, as to the ante-diluvian Heavens; but as to the Earth, we must now, according to the second part of the first Head, enquire, if that _particular Form_, which we have assign’d it before the Flood, be agreeable to Scripture. You know how we have described the Form and Situation of that Earth; namely, that it was built over the Abyss, as a regular Orb, covering and incompassing the Waters round about, and founded, as it were, upon them. There are many Passages of Scripture that favour this Description; some more expresly, others upon a due Explication. To this purpose there are two express Texts in the _Psalms_; as _Psal._ xxiv. 1, 2. _The Earth is the Lord’s, and the Fulness thereof; the habitable World, and they that dwell therein. FOR he has founded it upon the[10] Sea, and established it upon the Floods_. An Earth founded upon the Seas, and establish’d upon the Waters, is not this Earth we have describ’d? The first Earth, as it came from the Hands of its Maker? Where can we now find in Nature such an Earth, as the Seas and the Water for its Foundation? Neither is this Text without a second, as a Fellow Witness to confirm the same Truth; for in _Psal._ cxxxvi. _ver._ 4, 5, 6. we read to the same Effect, in these Words, _To him who alone does great Wonders; to him that by Wisdom made the Heavens; to him that stretched out the Earth above the Waters_. We can hardly express that Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, in Words more determinate than these are: Let us then, in the same Simplicity of Heart, follow the Words of Scripture; seeing this literal Sense is not repugnant to Nature, but, on the contrary, agreeable to it upon the strictest Examination. And we cannot, without some Violence, turn the Words to any other Sense. What tolerable Interpretation can these admit of, if we do not allow the Earth once to have encompass’d and over-spread the Face of the Waters? To be _founded_ upon the Waters, to be _establish’d_ upon the Waters, to be _extended_ upon the Waters, what rational or satisfactory Account can be given of these Phrases and Expressions from any thing we find in the present Situation of the Earth? Or how can they be verified concerning it? Consult Interpreters, antient or modern, upon these two Places; see if they answer your Expectation, or answer the natural Importance of the Words, unless they acknowledge another Form of the Earth, than the present. Because a Rock hangs its Nose over the Sea, must the Body of the Earth be said to be _stretched over the Waters_? Or, because there are Waters in some subterraneous Cavities, is the Earth therefore _founded upon the Seas_? Yet such lame Explications as these you will meet with; and while we have no better Light, we must content our selves with them; but when an Explication is offer’d, that answers the Propriety, Force and Extent of the Words, to reject it, only because it is not fitted to our former Opinions, or because we did not first think of it, is to take an ill Method in expounding Scripture. This _Foundation_ or _Establishment_ of the Earth upon the Seas, this _Extention_ of it above the Waters, relates plainly to the Body, or whole Circuit of the Earth, not to Parcels and Particles of it; as appears from the Occasion, and its being join’d with the Heavens, the other Part of the World. Besides, _David_ is speaking of the Origin of the World, and of the divine Power and Wisdom in the Constitution and Situation of our Earth; and these Attributes do not appear from the Holes of the Earth, and broken Rocks, which have rather the Face of a Ruin, than of Wisdom; but in that wonderful Libration and Expansion of the first Earth over the Face of the Waters, sustained by its own Proportions, and the Hand of his Providence.

These two Places in the _Psalms_ being duly consider’d, we shall more easily understand a third Place, to the same effect, in the _Proverbs_; delivered by _WISDOM_, concerning the Origin of the World, and the Form of the first Earth, in these Words, _Chapter_ viii. 27. _When he prepared the Heavens I was there, when HE SET an Orb or Sphere upon the Face of the Abyss._ We render it, when we set a Compass upon the Face of the Abyss; but if we have rightly interpreted the Prophet _David_, ’tis plain enough what Compass is here to be understood; not an imaginary Circle, (for why should that be thought one of the wonderful Works of God?) but that exterior Orb of the Earth that was set upon the Waters: That was the Master-piece of the divine Art in framing of the first Earth, and therefore very fit to be taken Notice of by _Wisdom_. And upon this Occasion, I desire you to reflect upon St. _Peter_’s Expression, concerning the first Earth, and to compare it with _Solomon_’s, to see if they do not answer one another. St. _Peter_ calls it, γῆ καθεστῶσα δὶ ὕδάτων, _an Earth consisting, standing_, or _sustained by the Waters_. And _Solomon_ calls it חונ על בני תהום _An Orb drawn upon the Face of the Abyss._ And St. _Peter_ says, that was done τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, by the _Wisdom of God_; which is the same Λόγος or _Wisdom_, that here declares her self to have been present at this Work. Add now to these two Places, the two foremention’d out of the _Psalmist_; _An Earth founded upon the Sea_, (Psal. xxiv. 2.) and an _Earth stretched out above the Waters_; (_Psal._ cxxxvi. 6.) Can any Body doubt or question; but all these four Texts refer to the same Thing? And seeing St. _Peter_’s Description refers certainly to the ante-diluvian Earth, they must all refer to it; and do all as certainly and evidently agree with our Theory concerning the Form and Situation of it.

The pendulous Form and Posture of that first Earth being prov’d from these four Places, ’tis more easy and emphatical to interpret in this Sense that Passage in _Job ch._ xxvi. 7. _He stretcheth out the North over the Tohu_, (for so it is in the Original) _and hangeth the Earth upon nothing._ And this strange Foundation or no Foundation of the exterior Earth seems to be the Ground of those noble Questions propos’d to _Job_ by God Almighty, _chap._ xxxviii. _Where wast thou, when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? Declare if thou hast understanding, whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastned, and who laid the Corner-Stone?_ There was neither Foundation, nor Corner-Stone, in that piece of Architecture; and that was it which made the Art and Wonder of it. But I have spoken more largely to these Places in the Theory it self, _Book_ i. _p._ 119. And if the four Texts before mention’d be consider’d without Prejudice, I think there are few Matters of natural Speculation that can be so well prov’d out of Scripture, as the Form which we have given to the ante-diluvian Earth.

But yet it may be thought a just, if not a necessary Appendix to this Discourse, concerning the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, to give an Account also of the _ante-diluvian Abyss_, and the Situation of it according to Scripture; for the Relation which these two have to one another, will be a farther Means to discover, if we have rightly determined the Form of that Earth. The _Abyss_ or _Tehom Rabbah_ is a Scripture Notion, and the Word is not us’d, that I know of, in that distinct and peculiar Sense in Heathen Authors. ’Tis plain that in Scripture it is not always taken for the Sea (as _Gen._ i. 2. and vii. 11. and xlix. 25. _Deut._ xxxiii. 13. _Job_ xxviii. 14. and xxxviii. 16. _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. and lxxi. 20. and lxxviii. 15. and cxxxv. 6. _Apoc_. xx. 1, 3.) but for some other Mass of Waters, or subterraneous Store-house. And this being observ’d, we may easily discover the Nature, and set down the History of the Scripture-Abyss.

The Mother-Abyss is no doubt that in the Beginning of _Genesis_, _v._ 2. which had nothing but Darkness upon the Face of it, or a thick caliginous Air. The next News we hear of this Abyss is at the Deluge, (_Gen._ vii. 11.) where ’tis said to be broke open, and the Waters of it to have drowned the World. It seems then, this Abyss was clos’d up some Time betwixt the Creation and the Deluge, and had got another Cover than that of Darkness. And if we will believe _Wisdom_, (_Prov._ viii. 27.) who was there present at the Formation of the Earth, an _Orb was set upon the Face of the Abyss_, at the Beginning of the World.

That these three Places refer to the same Abyss, I think, cannot be questioned by any that will compare them and consider them. That of the Deluge, _Moses_ calls there _Tehom-Rabbah_, the great _Abyss_; and can there be any greater than the forementioned Mother-Abyss? And _WISDOM_, in that Place in the _Proverbs_, useth the same Phrase and Words with _Moses_, _Gen._ i. 2. על פני תהום _upon the Face of the Deep_, or of the _Abyss_; changing _Darkness_ for that _Orb_ of the exterior Earth, which was made afterwards to inclose it. And in this Sort it lay, and under this Cover, when the _Psalmist_ speaks of it in these Words, _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. _He gathereth the Waters of the Sea, as in a[11] Bag; he layeth up the Abyss in Store-houses._ Lastly, we may observe, that ’twas this Mother-Abyss, whose Womb was burst at the Deluge, when the Sea was born, and broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb; as God expresseth it to _Job_, _ch._ xxxviii. 8. in which Place the _Chaldee_ Paraphrase reads it, when it broke forth, _coming out of the Abyss_. Which Disruption at the Deluge seems also to be alluded to _Job_ xii. 14, 15. and more plainly, _Prov._ iii. 20. _by his Knowledge the Abysses are broken up_.

Thus you have already a three-fold State of the Abyss, which makes a short History of it; first, _open_, at the Beginning; then _covered_ till the Deluge; then _broke open_ again, as it is at present. And we pursue the History of it no farther; but we are told, _Apoc._ xx. 3. That it shall be shut up again, and the great Dragon in it, for a thousand Years. In the mean time we may observe from this Form and Posture of the ante-diluvian Abyss, how suitable it is and coherent with that Form of the ante-diluvian Earth which St. _Peter_ and the _Psalmist_ had described, _sustained by the Waters_; _founded upon the Waters_; _stretched above the Waters_; for if it was the Cover of this Abyss (and it had some Cover that was broke at the Deluge) it was spread as a Crust of Ice upon the Face of those Waters, and so made an _Orbis Terrarum_, an habitable Sphere of Earth about the Abyss.

So much for the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth and Abyss; which as they aptly correspond to one another, so, you see, our Theory answers, and is adjusted to both; and, I think, so fitly, that we have no reason hitherto to be displeased with the Success we have had in the Examination of it, according to Scripture. We have dispatch’d the two main Points in Question, first, to prove a Diversity in general betwixt the two natural Worlds, or betwixt the Heavens and the Earth before and after the Flood. Secondly, to prove wherein this Diversity consisted; or that the particular Form of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth was such according to Scripture, as we have describ’d it in the Theory. You’ll say, then the Work is done; what needs more, all the rest follows of Course? For if the ante-diluvian Earth had such a Form as we have propos’d and prov’d it to have had, there could be no Deluge in it but by a Dissolution of its Parts and exterior Frame: And a Deluge so made, would not be in the Nature of a Standing-Pool, but of a violent Agitation and Commotion of the Waters. This is true; these Parts of the Theory are so cemented, that you must grant all, if you grant any. However we will try, if even these two Particulars also may be prov’d out of Scripture; that is, if there be any Marks or Memorandums left there by the Spirit of God, of such a Fraction or Dissolution of the Earth at the Deluge; and also such Characters of the Deluge it self, as shew it to have been by a Fluctuation and impetuous Commotion of the Waters.

To proceed then; that there was a Fraction or Dissolution of the Earth at the Deluge, the History of it by _Moses_ gives us the first Account, seeing he tells us, as the principal Cause of the Flood, that the Fountains of the _great Abyss_ were _cloven_ or _burst asunder_; and upon this Disruption the Waters gush’d out from the Bowels of the Earth, as from the widen’d Mouths of so many Fountains. I do not take _Fountains_ there to signify any more than Sources or Stores of Water; noting also this Manner of their Eruption from below, or out of the Ground, as Fountains do. Accordingly in the _Proverbs_, (_chap._ iii. 20.) ’tis only said, the _Abysses were broken open_. I do not doubt, but this refers to the Deluge, as _Bede_, and others understand it; the very Word being us’d here, both in the _Hebrew_ and Septuagint, נבקעו ἐῤῤάγησαν that express the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge.

And this breaking up of the Earth at that Time, is elegantly exprest in _Job_, by the bursting of the Womb of Nature, when the Sea was first brought to Light; _ch._ xxxviii. when after many Pangs and Throws and Dilacerations of her Body, Nature was delivered of a Burthen, which she had born in her Womb sixteen hundred Years.

These three Places I take to be Memorials and Proofs of the Disruption of the Earth, or of the Abyss, at the universal Deluge. And to these we may add more out of the Prophets, _Job_, and the _Psalms_, by Way of Allusion commonly to the State of Nature at that Time. The Prophet _Isaiah_, in describing the future Destruction of the World, _chap._ xxiv. 18, 19. seems plainly to allude and have respect to the past Destruction of it at the Deluge; as appears by that leading Expression, _the Windows from on high are open_, ארבות סמיום נפתחו θυρίδες ἐκ τῷ οὐρανῶ ἠνεώχθησαν, taken manifestly from _Gen._ vii. 11. Then see how the Description goes on; _the Windows from on high are open, and the Foundations of the Earth do shake, the Earth is utterly broken down, the Earth is quite dissolved, the Earth is exceedingly moved_. Here are Concussions, and Fractions, and Dissolutions, as there were in the mundane Earthquake and Deluge; which we had exprest before only by _breaking open the Abyss_. By the Foundations of the Earth here and elsewhere, I perceive many understand the Center; so by _moving_ or _shaking_ the Foundations, or putting them out of Course, must be understood a displacing of the Center; which was really done at the deluge, as we have shewn in its proper Place, _Theor._ _Book_ ii. _Chap._ 3. If we therefore remember, that there was both a Dislocation, as I may so say, and a Fraction in the Body of the Earth, by that great Fall; a Dislocation as to the Center, and a Fraction as to the Surface and exterior Region, it will truly answer to all those Expressions in the Prophet, that seem so strange and extraordinary. ’Tis true, this Place of the Prophet respects also and foretels the future Destruction of the World; but that being by Fire, when the _Elements shall melt with fervent Heat, and the Earth with the Works therein shall be burnt up_, these Expressions of _Fractions and Concussions_, seem to be taken originally from the Manner of the World’s first distruction, and to be transferr’d, by way of Application, to represent and signify the second Destruction of it, though, it may be, not with the same Exactness and Propriety.

There are several other Places that refer to the Dissolution and Subversion of the Earth at the Deluge, _Amos_ ix. 5, 6. _The Lord of Hosts is he, that toucheth the Earth, and it shall melt, or be dissolv’d.——and it shall rise up wholly like a Flood, and shall be drowned as by the Flood of Ægypt._ By _this_ and by _the next verse_ the Prophet seems to allude to the Deluge, and to the Dissolution of the Earth that was then. This in _Job_ seems to be called _breaking down the Earth, and overturning the Earth_, chap. xii. 14, 15. _Behold he breaketh down and it cannot be built again, He shutteth upon Man, and there can be no opening. Behold, he with-holdeth the Waters, and they dry up; also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the Earth:_ Which Place you may see paraphras’d, _Theo._ _Book_ i. _p._ 124, 125. We have already cited, and shall hereafter cite, other Places out of _Job_; and as that ancient Author (who is thought to have liv’d before the _Judaical_ Oeconomy, and nearer to _Noah_ than _Moses_) seems to have had the _Præcepta Noachidarum_, so also he seems to have had the _Dogmata Noachidarum_; which were deliver’d by _Noah_ to his Children and Posterity, concerning the Mysteries of natural Providence, the Origin and Fate of the World, the Deluge and ante-diluvian State, _&c._ and accordingly we find many Strictures of these Doctrines in the Book of _Job_. Lastly, In the _Psalms_ there are Texts that mention the _shaking of the Earth_, and the _Foundations_ of the World, in reference to the Flood, if we judge aright; whereof we will speak under the next Head, _concerning_ the raging of the Waters in the Deluge.

These Places of Scripture may be noted, as left us to be Remembrancers of that general Ruin and Disruption of the Earth at the Time of the Deluge. But I know it will be said of them, that they are not strict Proofs, but Allusions only: Be it so; yet what is the Ground of those Allusions? Something must be alluded, and something that hath past in Nature, and that is recorded in Sacred History; and what is that, unless it be the universal Deluge, and that Change and Disturbance that was then in all Nature? If others say, that these and such like Places are to be understood morally and allegorically, I do not envy them their Interpretation; but when Nature and Reason will bear a literal Sense, the Rule is, that we should not recede from the Letter. But I leave these Things to every one’s Thoughts; which the more calm they are, and the more impartial, the more easily they will feel the Impressions of Truth: In the mean Time, I proceed to the last particular mention’d, _The Form of the Deluge it self_.

This we suppose to have been, not in the Way of a standing Pool, the Waters making an equal Surface, and an equal Height every where; but that the extream Height of the Waters was made by the extream Agitation of them; caus’d by the Weight and Force of great Masses or Regions of Earth falling at once into the Abyss; by which Means, as the Waters in some Places were press’d out, and thrown at an excessive Height into the Air, so they would also in certain Places gape, and lay bare even the Bottom of the Abyss; which would look as an open Grave ready to swallow up the Earth, and all it bore. Whilst the Ark, in the mean time, falling and rising by these Gulphs and Precipices, sometimes above Water, and sometimes under, was a true Type of the State of the Church in this World: And to this Time and State _David_ alludes in the Name of the Church, _Psalm._ xlii. 7. _Abyss calls unto Abyss at the Noise of thy Cataracts or Water-Spouts; all thy Water and Billows have gone over me._ And again, _Psal._ xlvi. 2, 3. in the Name of the Church, _Therefore will not we fear tho’ the Earth be removed, and tho’ the Mountains be carried into the midst of the Seas. The Waters thereof roar and are troubled, the Mountains shake with the swelling thereof._

But there is no Description more remarkable or more eloquent, than of that Scene of Things represented, _Psalm._ xviii. 7, 8, 9, _&c._ which still alludes, in my Opinion, to the Deluge-Scene, and in the Name of the Church. We will set down the Words at large.

Ver. 6. _In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cryed unto my God; He heard my Voice out of his Temple, and my Cry came before him into his Ears._

7. _Then the Earth shook and trembled, the Foundations also of the Hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth._

8. _There went up a Smoak from his Nostrils, and Fire out of his Mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it._

9. _He bowed the Heavens also and came down, and Darkness was under his Feet._

10. _And he rode upon a Cherub and did fly, he did fly upon the Wings of the Wind._

11. _He made Darkness his secret Place; his Pavilion round about him was dark Waters and thick Clouds of the Sky._

12. _At the Brightness before him the thick Clouds passed, Hail and Coals of Fire._

13. _The Lord also thunder’d in the Heavens, and the Highest gave his Voice, Hail and Coals of Fire._

14. _Yea, he sent out his Arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out Lightnings and discomfited them._

15. _Then the Channels of Waters were seen, and the Foundations of the World were discovered; at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the Breath of thy Nostrils._

_He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of great Waters._ מים רבים

This is a rough, I think, Draught of the Face of the Heavens and the Earth at the Deluge, as the last Verses do intimate; and ’tis apply’d to express the Dangers and Deliverances of the Church: The Expressions are so far too high to be apply’d to _David_ in his Person, and to his Deliverance from _Saul_; no such Agonies or Disorders of Nature as are here instanc’d, were made in _David_’s Time, or upon his Account; but ’tis a Scheme of the Church, and of her Fate, particularly, as represented by the Ark, in that dismal Distress, when all Nature was in Confusion. And though there may be some Things here intermixt to make up the Scene, that are not so close to the Subject as the rest, or that they may be refer’d to the future Destruction of the World; yet that is not unusual, nor amiss, in such Descriptions, if the great Strokes be fit and rightly placed. That there was Smoak, and Fire, and Water, and Thunder, and Darkness, and Winds, and Earthquakes, at the Deluge, we cannot doubt, if we consider the Circumstances of it: Waters dash’d and broken made a Smoak and Darkness, and no Hurricane could be so violent as the Motions of the Air at that Time: Then the Earth was torn in pieces, and its Foundations shaken. And as to Thunder and Lightning, the Encounters and Collisions of the mighty Waves, and the Cracks of a falling World, would make Flashes and Noises, far greater and more terrible, than any that can come from Vapours and Clouds. There was an universal[12] Tempest, a Conflict and Clashing of all the Elements; and _David_ seems to have represented it so; with God Almighty in the midst of it, ruling them all.

But I am apt to think, some will say, all this is Poetical in the Prophet, and these are hyperbolical and figurative Expressions, from which we cannot make any Inference, as to the Deluge and the natural World: ’Tis true, those that have no Idea of the Deluge, that will answer to such a Scene of things, as is here represented, must give such a slight Account of this _Psalm_. But on the other hand, if we have already an Idea of the Deluge, that is rational, and also consonant to Scripture upon other Proofs, and the Description here made by the Prophet answer to that Idea, whether then is it not more reasonable to think, that it stands upon that Ground, than to think it a mere Fancy and poetical Scene of Things? This is the true State of the Case, and that which we must judge of. Methinks ’tis very harsh to suppose all this a bare Fiction, grounded upon no matter of Fact, upon no sacred Story, upon no Appearance of God in Nature. If you say it hath a moral Signification, so let it have, we do not destroy that: It hath reference, no doubt, to the Dangers and Deliverances of the Church; but the Question is, whether the Words and natural Sense be a Fancy only, a Bundle of random Hyperboles? or, whether they relate to the History of the Deluge, and the State of the Ark there representing the Church? This makes the Sense doubly rich, Historically and Morally; and grounds it upon Scripture and Reason, as well as upon Fancy.

That violent Eruption of the Sea out of the Womb of the Earth, which _Job_ speaks of, is, in my Judgment, another Description of the Deluge; ’tis _ch._ xxxviii. 8, 9, 10, 11. _Who shut up the Sea with Doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of a womb; when I made the Cloud the Garment thereof, and thick Darkness a swadling Band for it. And broke up for it my decreed Place.——Hitherto shalt thou come_, &c. Here you may see the Birth and Nativity of the Sea, or of _Oceanus_, describ’d[13], how he broke out of the Womb, and what his first Garment and Swadling-Cloaths were; namely, Clouds and thick Darkness. This cannot refer to any thing, that I know of, but to the Face of Nature at the Deluge; when the Sea was born, and wrapt up in Clouds and broken Waves, and a dark impenetrable Mist round the Body of the Earth. And this seems to be the very same, that _David_ had express’d in his Description of the Deluge, _Psal._ xviii. 11. _He made Darkness his secret Place, his Pavilion round about him were dark Waters and thick Clouds of the Skies._ For this was truly the Face of the World in the Time of the Flood, tho’ we little reflect upon it. And this dark Confusion every where, above and below, arose from the violent and confus’d Motion of the Abyss; which was dash’d in pieces by the falling Earth; and flew into the Air in misty Drops, as Dust flies up in a great Ruin. [See _Theor._ _Book_ i. _p._ 136.]

But I am afraid, we have stay’d too long upon this Particular, _The Form of the Deluge_; seeing ’tis but a Corollary from the precedent Article about the Dissolution of the Earth. However, Time is not ill spent about any thing that relates to natural Providence, whereof the two most signal Instances in our sacred Writings, are, the _Deluge_ and the _Conflagration_. And seeing _Job_ and _David_ do often reflect upon the Works of God in the external Creation, and upon the Administrations of Providence, it cannot be imagin’d, that they should never reflect upon the Deluge; the most remarkable Change of Nature that ever hath been, and the most remarkable Judgment upon Mankind. And if they have reflected upon it any where, ’tis, I think, in those Places and those Instances, which I have noted; and if those Places do relate to the Deluge, they are not capable, in my Judgment, of any fairer or more natural Interpretation, than that which we have given them; which you see, how much it favours and confirms our Theory.

I have now finished the Heads I undertook to prove, that I might shew our Theory to agree with Scripture in these three principal Points; first, in that it supposeth a Diversity and Difference betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth: Secondly, in assigning the particular Form of the ante-diluvian Earth and Abyss; Thirdly, in explaining the Deluge by a Dissolution of that Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss. How far I have succeeded in this Attempt, as to others, I cannot tell; but I am sure I have convinced my self, and am satisfied that my Thoughts, in that Theory, have run in the same Tract with the Holy Writings, with the true Intent and Spirit of them. There are some Persons that are wilfully ignorant in certain things, and others that are willing to be ignorant, as the Apostle phraseth it; speaking of those Eternalists that denied the Doctrine of the Change and Revolutions of the natural World: And ’tis not to be expected but there are many still of the same Humour, and therefore may be called _willingly ignorant_; that is, they will not use that Pains and Attention that is necessary for the Examination of such a Doctrine, nor Impartiality in judging after Examination; they greedily lay hold on all Evidence on one side, and willingly forget, or slightly pass over, all Evidence for the other. This, I think, is the Character of those that are _willingly ignorant_; for I do not take it to be so deep as a downright wilful Ignorance, where they are plainly conscious to themselves of that Wilfulness: but where an insensible Mixture of human Passions inclines them one Way, and makes them averse to the other; and in that Method draws on all the Consequences of a willing _Ignorance_.

There remains still, as I remember, one Proposition that I am bound to make good; I said, at first, that our Hypothesis concerning the Deluge was more agreeable not only to Scripture in general, but also to the particular History of the Flood left us by _Moses_; I say, more agreeable to it than any other Hypothesis, that hath yet been propos’d. This may be made good in a few Words; for in _Moses_’s History of the Deluge, there are two principal Points, the Extent of the Deluge, and the Causes of it; and in both these we do fully agree with that sacred Author. _As to the Extent of it_, he makes the Deluge universal; _All the high Hills under the whole Heaven were cover’d fifteen Cubits upwards._ We also make it universal, over the Face of the whole Earth; and in such a Manner as must needs raise the Waters above the Top of the highest Hills every where. As _to the Causes of it_, _Moses_ makes them to be the Disruption of the _Abyss_, and the _Rains_, and no more; and in this also we exactly agree with him; we know no other Causes, nor pretend to any other but those two. Distinguishing therefore _Moses_ his Narration as to the Substance and Circumstances of it, it must be allowed that these two Points make the Substance of it, and that an Hypothesis that differs from it in either of these two, differs from it more than ours; which, at the worst, can but differ in Matter of Circumstance. Now seeing the great Difficulty about the Deluge is the Quantity of Water required for it, there have been two Explications proposed, besides ours, to remove or satisfy this Difficulty; one whereof makes the Deluge not to have been universal, or to have reach’d only _Judea_ and some neighbouring Countries, and therefore less Water would suffice; the other owning the Deluge to be universal, supplies it self with Water from the divine Omnipotency, and says _new_ Waters were created then for the nonce, and again annihilated, when the Deluge was to cease. Both these Explications, you see, (and I know no more of Note that are not obnoxious to the same Exceptions) differ from _Moses_ in the Substance, or in one of the two substantial Points, and consequently more than ours doth. The first changeth the Flood into a kind of National Inundation; and the second assigns other Causes of it than _Moses_ had assign’d; And as they both differ apparently from the _Mosaical_ History, so you may see them refuted upon other Grounds also, in the third Chapter of the first Book of the _Theory_.

This may be sufficient as to the History of the Flood by _Moses_: But possibly it may be said, the principal Objection will arise from _Moses_ his six Days Creation in the first Chapter of _Genesis_; where another sort of Earth, than what we have form’d from the Chaos, is represented to us; namely, a terraqueous Globe such as our Earth is at present. ’Tis indeed very apparent, that _Moses_ hath accommodated his six Days Creation to the present Form of the Earth, or to that which was before the Eyes of the People, when he wrote. But it is a great Question whether that was ever intended for a true Physical Account of the Origin of the Earth; or whether _Moses_ did either Philosophize or Astronomize in that Description. The antient fathers, when they answer the Heathens, and the Adversaries of Christianity, do generally deny it; as I am ready to make good upon another Occasion. And the Thing it self bears in it evident Marks of an Accommodation and Condescension to the vulgar Notions concerning the Form of the World: Those that think otherwise, and would make it literally and physically true in all the Parts of it, I desire them, without entring upon the strict Merits of the Cause, to determine these Preliminaries. First, whether the whole Universe rise from a terrestrial Chaos? Secondly, what System of a World this six Days Creation proceeds upon; whether it supposes the Earth, or the Sun, for the Center? Thirdly, whether the Sun and fix’d Stars are of a later Date, and a later Birth, than this Globe of Earth? And lastly, where is the Region of the Super-celestial Waters? When they have determin’d these Fundamentals, we will proceed to other Observations upon the six Days Work, which will farther assure us, that ’tis a Narration suited to the Capacity of the People, and not to the strict and physical Nature of Things. Besides, we are to remember, that _Moses_ must be so interpreted in the first Chapter of _Genesis_, as not to interfere with himself in other Parts of his History; nor to interfere with St. _Peter_, or the Prophet _David_, or any other sacred Authors, when they treat of the same Matter. Nor lastly, so, as to be repugnant to clear and uncontested Science. For, in things that concern the natural World, that must always be consulted.

With these Precautions, let them try if they can reduce that Narrative of the Origin of the World, to physical Truth; so as to be consistent, both with Nature, and with Divine Revelation every where. It is easily reconcileable to both, if we suppose it wrote in a vulgar Style, and to the Conceptions of the People; and we cannot deny that a vulgar Style is often made use of in the holy Writings. How freely and unconcernedly does Scripture speak of God Almighty, according to the Opinions of the Vulgar? Of his _Passions_, _local Motions_, _Parts and Members of his Body_: Which all are things that do not belong, or are not compatible with the Divine Nature, according to Truth and Science. And if this Liberty be taken, as to God himself, much more may it be taken as to his Works. And accordingly we see, what Motion the Scripture gives to the Sun; what Figure to the Earth; what Figure to the Heavens: All according to the Appearance of Sense and popular Credulity without any Remorse for having transgressed the Rules of intellectual Truth.

This vulgar Style of Scripture, in describing the Nature of Things, hath been often mistaken for the real Sense, and so become a Stumbling-Block in the Way of Truth. Thus the _Anthropomorphites_ of old contended for the human Shape of God, from the Letter of Scripture, and brought many express Texts for their purpose; but sound Reason, at length, got the upper hand of literal Authority. Then several of the Christian Fathers contended, that there were no _Antipodes_; and made that Doctrine irreconcilable to Scripture; But this also, after a while, went off, and yeilded to Reason and Experience. Then, the Motion of the Earth must by no means be allow’d, as being contrary to Scripture; for so it is indeed, according to the Letter and vulgar Style. But all intelligent Persons see thorough this Argument, and depend upon it no more in this Case, than in the former. Lastly, the Original of the Earth from a Chaos, drawn according to the Rules of Phisiology, will not be admitted; because it does not agree with the Scheme of the six Days Creation. But why may not this be wrote in a vulgar Style, as well as the rest? Certainly there can be nothing more like a vulgar Style, than to set God to _work by the Day_, and in six Days to finish his Task; as he is there represented. We may therefore probably hope that all these Disguises of Truth will at length fall off, and that we shall see God and his Works in a pure and naked Light.

Thus I have finished what I had to say in Confirmation of this Theory from Scripture; I mean of the former Part of it, which depends chiefly upon the Deluge, and the ante-diluvian Earth. When you have collated the Places of Scripture, on either side, and laid them in the Balance, to be weigh’d one against another; if you do but find them equal, or near to an equal Poise, you know in whether Scale the natural Reasons are to be laid; and of what Weight they ought to be in an Argument of this kind. There is a great Difference betwixt Scripture with Philosophy on its side, and Scripture with Philosophy against it, when the Question is concerning the natural World: And this is our Case; which I now leave to the Consideration of the unprejudic’d Reader, and proceed to the Proof of the second Part of the Theory.

The latter Part consists of the _Conflagration of the World_, and the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_; and seeing there is no Dispute concerning the former of these two, our Task will now lie in a little Compass; being only this, to prove that there will be new Heavens, and a new Earth, after the Conflagration. This, to my Mind, is sufficiently done already, in the first, second and third Chapters of the ivth book, both from Scripture and Antiquity, whether Sacred or Prophane; and therefore, at present, we will only make a short and easy Review of Scripture-Testimonies, with design chiefly to obviate and disappoint the Evasions of such, as would beat down solid Texts into thin Metaphors and Allegories.

The Testimonies of Scripture concerning the _Renovation of the World_, are either express, or implicit: Those I call express, that mention the new Heavens and new Earth; and those implicit, that signify the same Thing, but not in express Terms. So when our Saviour speaks of a _Palingenesia_, or Regeneration; (_Matt._ xix. 28, 29.) or St _Peter_, of an _Apocatastasis_ or Restitution; (_Acts_ iii. 21.) these being Words used by all Authors, Prophane or Ecclesiastical, for the _Renovation_ of the World, ought, in reason, to be interpreted in the same Sense in the Holy Writings. And in like Manner, when St. _Paul_ speaks of his _future Earth_, or an _habitable World to come_, Hebr. ii. 5. ἡ οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα or of a _Redemption_ or Melioration of the present State of Nature, _Rom._ iii. 21, 22. these lead us again, in other Terms, to the same _Renovation_ of the World. But there are also some Places of Scripture, that set the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_ in such a full and open View, that we must shut our Eyes not to see them. St. _John_ says, he saw them, and observed the Form of the new Earth, _Apoc._ xxi. 1. _Isa._ lxv. 17. The Seer _Isaiah_ spoke of them in express Words, many hundred Years before. And St. _Peter_ marks the Time when they are to be introduc’d, namely, after the Conflagration, or after the Dissolution of the present Heavens and Earth, 2 _Pet._ iii. 12, 13.

These later Texts of Scripture being so express, there is but one Way left to elude the Force of them; and that is, by turning the _Renovation of the World_ into an Allegory; and making the new Heavens and new Earth to be allegorical Heavens and Earth, not real and material, as ours are. This is a bold Attempt of some modern Authors, who chuse rather to strain the Word of God, than their own Notions. There are Allegories, no doubt, in Scripture, but we are not to allegorize Scripture without some Warrant; either from an Apostolical Interpretation, or from the Necessity of the Matter; and I do not know how they can pretend to either of these, in this Case. However, that they may have all fair Play, we will lay aside, at present, all the other Texts of Scripture, and confine our selves wholly to St. _Peter_’s Words; to see and examine whether they are, or can be turn’d into an Allegory, according to the best Rules of Interpretation.

St. _Peter_’s Words are these, 2 _Pet._ iii. 11, 12, 13. _Seeing then all these Things shall be dissolved, what manner of Persons ought ye to be in all holy Conversation and Godliness? Looking for, and hasting the Coming of the Day of God; wherein the Heavens being on Fire shall be dissolved, and the Elements shall melt with fervent Heat. Nevertheless we, according to his Promise, look for new Heavens and a new Earth; wherein Righteousness shall dwell._ The Question is concerning this last Verse, _Whether the new Heavens and Earth_ here promis’d, are to be real and material Heavens and Earth, or only figurative and allegorical. The Words, you see, are clear; and the general Rule of Interpretation is this, _That_ we are not to recede from the Letter, or the literal Sense, unless there be a Necessity from the Subject-matter; such a Necessity, as makes a literal Interpretation absurd. But where is that Necessity in this Case? Cannot God make new Heavens and a new Earth, as easily as he made the old ones? Is his Strength decayed since that Time, or is Matter grown more disobedient? Nay, does not Nature offer her self voluntarily to raise a new World from the second Chaos, as well as from the first; and, under the Conduct of Providence, to make it as convenient an Habitation as the primæval Earth? Therefore no Necessity can be pretended of leaving the litteral Sense, upon an Incapacity of the Subject-matter.

The second Rule to determine an Interpretation to be literal or allegorical, is the use of the same Words or Phrase in the Context, and the Signification of them there: Let’s then examine our Case according to this Rule. St. _Peter_ had us’d the same Phrase of _Heavens and Earth_ twice before in the same Chapter. The _old Heavens and Earth_, _ver._ 5. The _present Heavens and Earth_, _ver._ 7. and now he uses it again, _ver._ 13. the _new Heavens and Earth._ Have we not then Reason to suppose, that he takes it here in the same Sense, that he had done twice before, for real and material Heavens and Earth? There is no Mark set of a new Signification, nor why we should alter the Sense of the Words. That he used them always before for the material Heavens and Earth, I think none will question; and therefore, unless they can give us a sufficient Reason, why we should change the Signification of the Words, we are bound by this second Rule also, to understand them in a litteral Sense.

Lastly, The very Form of the Words, and the Manner of their Dependence upon the Context, leads us to a litteral Sense, and to material Heavens and Earth. _Nevertheless_, says the Apostle, _we expect new Heavens, &c._ Why _Nevertheless!_ that is, notwithstanding the Dissolution of the present Heavens and Earth. The Apostle foresaw, what he had said might raise a Doubt in their Minds, whether all Things would not be at an End; nothing more of Heavens and Earth, or of any habitable World, after the Conflagration: And to obviate this, he tells them, _Notwithstanding_ that wonderful Desolation that I have describ’d, we do, accordding to God’s Promises, expect new Heavens and a new Earth, to be an Habitation for the Righteous.

You see then the new Heavens and new Earth, which the Apostle speaks of, are substituted in the Place of those that were destroyed at the Conflagration; and would you substitute allegorical Heavens and Earth in the Place of Material? Shadow for a Substance? What an Equivocation would it be in the Apostle, when the Doubt was about the material Heavens and Earth, to make an Answer about allegorical. Lastly, The timing of the Thing determines the Sense: When shall this new World appear? after the Conflagration, the Apostle says: Therefore it cannot be understood of any moral Renovation, to be made at, or in the Times of the Gospel, as these Allegorists pretend. We must therefore, upon all Accounts, conclude that the Apostle intended a literal Sense; real and material Heavens, to succeed these after the Conflagration; which was the Thing to be prov’d. And I know not what Bars the Spirit of God can set, to keep us within the Compass of a literal Sense, if these be not sufficient.

Thus much for the Explication of St. _Peter_’s Doctrine concerning the new Heavens and new Earth; which secures the second Part of our Theory: For the Theory stands upon two Pillars, or two Pedestals, the ante-diluvian Earth and the future Earth; or in St. _Peter_’s Phrase, the old Heavens and Earth, and the new Heavens and Earth; and it cannot be shaken, so long as these two continue firm and immoveable. We might now put an End to this Review, but it may be expected possibly that we should say something concerning the _Millennium_? which we have, contrary to the general Sentiment of the modern _Millennaries_, plac’d in the _future_ Earth. Our Opinion hath this Advantage above others, that all fanatical Pretensions to Power and Empire in this World, are, by these Means, blown away, as Chaff before the Wind. Princes need not fear to be dethroned, to make way to the Saints; nor Governments unhinged, that they may rule the World with a Rod of Iron. These are the Effects of the wild Enthusiasm; seeing the very State which they aim at, is not to be upon this Earth.

But that our Sense may not be mistaken or misapprehended in this Particular, as if we thought the Christian Church would never, upon this Earth, be in a better and happier Posture than it is in at present: We must distinguish betwixt a _Melioration_ of the World, if you will allow that Word; and a _Millennium_. We do not deny a Reformation and Improvement of the Church, both as to Peace, Purity, and Piety: That Knowledge may increase, Mens Minds be enlarged, and Christian Religion better understood: That the Power of Antichrist shall be diminish’d, Persecution cease, Liberty of Conscience allow’d amongst the Reformed; and a greater Union and Harmony established: That Princes will mind the publick Good, more than they do now; and be themselves better Examples of Virtue and true Piety. All this may be, and I hope will be e’er long. But the _apocalyptical Millennium_, or the _new Jerusalem_, is still another Matter: It differs not in Degree only from the present State, but in a new Order of Things; both in the moral World and in the natural; and that cannot be till we come into the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_. Suppose what Reformation you can in this World, there will still remain many Things inconsistent with the true millennial State; Antichrist, tho’ weakned, will not be finally destroyed till the coming of our Saviour, nor Satan bound. And there will be always Poverty, Wars, Diseases, Knaves and Hypocrites, in this World, which are not consistent with the _new Jerusalem_, as St. _John_ describes it, _Apoc._ xxi. 2, 3, 4, _&c._

You see now what our Notion is of the Millennium, as we deny this Earth to be the Seat of it: ’Tis the State that succeeds the first Resurrection, when Satan is lock’d up in the bottomless Pit: The State when the Martyrs are to return into Life, and wherein they are to have the first Lot and chief Share: A State which is to last a thousand Years. _And Blessed and Holy is he, that hath a Part in it; on such the second Death hath no Power; but they shall be Priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand Years._ If you would see more particular Reasons of our Judgment in this Case, why such a Millennium is not to be expected in this World; they are set down in the _8th_ Chap. of the _4th_ Book, and we do not think it necessary that they should be here repeated.

As to that Dissertion that follows the Millennium, and reaches to the Consummation of all Things seeing it is but problematical, we leave it to stand or fall by the Evidence already given; and should be very glad to see the Conjectures of others more learned, in Speculations so abstruse and remote from common Knowledge. They cannot surely be thought unworthy or unfit for our Meditations, seeing they are suggested to us by Scripture it self: And to what end were they propos’d to us there, if it was not intended, that they should be understood, sooner or later?

I have done with this Review; and shall only add one or two Reflections upon the whole Discourse, and so conclude. You have seen the State of the Theory of the Earth, as to the _Matters_, _Form_, and _Proofs_ of it, both natural and sacred: If any one will substitute a better in its Place, I shall think my self more obliged to him, than if he had shewed me the Quadrature of the Circle. But it is not enough to pick Quarrels here and there; that may be done by any Writing, especially when it is of so great Extent and Comprehension: They must build up, as well as pull down; and give us another Theory instead of this, fitted to the same natural History of the Earth, according as it is set down in Scripture; and then let the World take their Choice. He that cuts down a Tree, is bound in Reason to plant two; because there is an Hazard in their Growth and Thriving.

Then as to those that are such rigorous Scripturists, as to require plainly demonstrative and irresistible Texts for every thing they entertain or believe; they would do well to reflect and consider, whether, for every Article in the three Creeds (which have no Support from natural Reason) they can bring such Texts of Scripture as they require of others; or a fairer and juster Evidence, all things consider’d, than we have done for the Substance of this Theory. We have not indeed said all that might be said, as to Antiquity; that making no part in this Review, and being capable still of great Additions. But as to Scripture and Reason I have no more to add: Those that are not satisfied with the Proofs already produc’d upon these two Heads, are under a Fate, good or bad, which is not in my Power to overcome. _FINIS._

Footnote 6:

There was a Sect amongst the _Jews_ that held this Perpetuity and Immutability of Nature; and _Maimonides_ himself was of this Principle, and gives the same Reason for it with the Scoffers here in the Text, _Quod mundus retinet & sequitur Consuetudinem suam._ And as to those of the _Jews_ that were _Aristoteleans_, it was very suitable to their principles to hold the Incorruptibility of the World, as their Master did. _Vid. Med. in loc._

Footnote 7:

δὶ ῀ὠν, _per que_. Vulgat. _Quamobrem_, Beza. _Quâ de causâ_, Grot. _Nemo interpretum reddidit_ δὶ ῀ὠν, per quas; _subintelligendo_ aquas. _Hoc enim argumentationem Apostolicana tolleret, supponeretque illusores illos ignorâsse quod olim fuerit Diluvium; Quod supponi non posse supra ostendimus._

Footnote 8:

This Phrase or manner of Speech συνισάναι ἐκ vel ἐξ is not usual in _Greek_ Authors; and upon a like Subject, _Plato_ saith, τὸν δὲ κόσμον συνισάναι ἐκ πυρὸς ὕδατος, ἀέρος, γῆς, but he that should translate _Plato_, _the World stands out of Fire, Water_, _&c._ would be thought neither _Grecian_, nor Philosopher. The same Phrase is us’d in reciting _Heraclitus_ his Opinion, τὰ πάντα ἐκ πυρὸς συνεσάναι, καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀναλιέως. And also in _Thales_ his which is still nearer to the Subject, ἐκ τοῦ ὑδατός, φηοι, συνιζάναι πάντα, which _Cicero_ renders, _ex aquâ, dixit, constare omnia_. So that it is easy to know the true Importance of this Phrase, and how it is ill render’d in the English, _standing out of the Water_.

Footnote 9:

Whether you refer the Words ἐξ ὕδατ. καὶ δὶ ὕδατ separately to the Heavens and the Earth, or both to the Earth, or both to both, it will make no great Difference as to our Interpretation.

Footnote 10:

I know some would make this Place of no effect by rendering the _Hebrew_ Particle על _juxta, by_ or _near_ to; so they would read it thus, _he had founded the Earth by the Sea-side_, and establish’d it by the Floods. What is there wonderful in this, that the Shores should lie by the Sea-side? Where could they lie else? What Reason or Argument is this, why the Earth should be the Lord’s? The Earth is the Lord’s, _for_ he hath founded it _near_ the Seas. Where is the Consequence of this? But if he founded it upon the Seas, which could not be done by any other Hand but his, it shews both the Workman and the Master. And accordingly in that other, _Psal._ cxxxvi. 6, if you render it, He _stretched_ out the Earth _near_ the Waters, How is that one of God’s great Wonders, as it is there represented to be? Because in some few Places this Particle is rendered otherwise, where the Sense will bear it, must we therefore render it so when we please, and where the Sense will not bear it? This being the most usual Signification of it, and there being no other Word that signifies _above_ more frequently or determinately than this does, why must it signify otherwise in this Place? Men will wriggle any way to get from under the Force of a Text, that does not suit to their own Notions.

Footnote 11:

This reading or translating is generally followed, (_Theor. Book_ i. _p._ 86.) though the _English_ Translation read _on a heap_, unsuitably to the Matter and to the Sense.

Footnote 12:

See _Philo Judæus_ his Description of the Deluge, both as to the Commotions of the Heavens, and the Fractions of the Earth. In his first Treatise _de Abrahamo_, _mih_, _p._ 279.

Footnote 13:

_Uti comparatio præcedens_, ver. 4, 5, 6. _de ortu Telluris, sumitur ab ædificio, ita hæc altera de orsu maris, sumitur à partu; & exhibetur Oceanus, primùm, ut fœtus inclusus in utero, dein ut erumpens & prodeuns, denique ut fasciis & primus suis panniis involvutus. Atque ex aperto Terræ utero prorupit aquarum moles, ut proluties illæ, quam simul cum fœtu profundere solet puerpera_.

AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN, Against the SACRED THEORY OF THE EARTH.

THE FOURTH EDITION.

_LONDON_:

Printed for J. HOOKE, at the _Flower de Luce_ in _Fleetstreet_, MDCCXXVI.

AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN, AGAINST THE _THEORY_ of the _EARTH_.

If it be Civility to return a speedy Answer to a Demand or Message, I will not fail to pay that Respect to the late Author of the _Exceptions against the Theory of the Earth_. I know, short Follies, and short Quarrels, are the best: And to offer Satisfaction at the first Opportunity, is the fairest Way to put an End to Controversies. Besides, such personal Altercations as these, are but _Res perituræ_, which do not deserve much Time or Study; but, like Repartees, are best made off hand, and never thought on more. I only desire that Friendliness, that some Allowance may be made as to Unaccuracy of Style: Which is always allow’d in hasty Dispatches.

I shall make no Excursions from the Subject, nor use any other Method than to follow the learned _Exceptor_ from Chapter to Chapter, and observe his Steps and Motions, so far as they are contrary to the Theory. But if he divert out of his Way, for his Pleasure, or other Reasons best known to himself, I may take notice of it perhaps, but shall not follow him any farther than my Business leads me; having no design to abridge his Liberty, but to defend my own Writings where they are attack’d. Give me leave therefore, without any other Preface or Ceremony, to fall to our Work.

CHAP. I.

This Chapter is only an Introduction, and treats of other Things, without any particular Opposition to the Theory. And therefore I shall only give you the Conclusion of it, in the Author’s own Words: _So much for the first Chapter; which may be reckoned as an Introduction to the following Discourse. Which if any shall look upon as a Collection of Notes, somewhat confusedly put together, rather than a formal, well digested Treatise, they will entertain the best or truest Idea of it._ A severe Censure: But every Man best understands his own Works.

CHAP. II.

Here he begins to enter upon particular Exceptions: And his first Head is against the _Formation of the Earth_, _pag._ 45. as explained by the Theory. To this he gives but one Exception in this Chapter: Namely, That _it would have taken up too much Time; the World being made in six Days_. Whereas many Separations of the Chaos, and of the Elements, were to be made, according to the Theory, which could not be dispatch’d in so short a Time. To this Exception, the general Answer may be this; either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence, or of an extraordinary, as to the Time allowed for the Formation of the Earth: If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence, the Formation of the Earth would require much more Time than six Days: But if according to an extraordinary, you may suppose it made in six Minutes, if you please. ’Twas plain Work, and a simple Process, according to the Theory; consisting only of such and such Separations, and a Concretion: And either of these might be accelerated, and dispatch’d in a longer or shorter Time, as Providence thought fit.

However, this Objection does not come well from the Hands of this Author, who makes all the Mountains of the Earth (the most operose Part of it, as one would think) to be rais’d in a small Parcel of a Day by the Heat and Action of the Sun; as we shall find in the tenth Chapter, hereafter. He seems to proceed by natural Causes; for such are the Heat and Action of the Sun: And if so, he will find himself as much straiten’d for Time, as the Theorist can be. But if he say, the Work of Nature and of the Sun was accelerated by an extra-ordinary Power, he must allow us to say the same Thing of the Separations of the Chaos, and the first Concretion of the Earth. For he cannot reasonably debar us that Liberty which he takes himself, unless we have debarr’d and excluded our selves. Now ’tis plain, the Theorist never excluded an extraordinary Providence in the Formation and Construction of the Earth; as appears, and is openly express’d in many Parts of the Theory, _Eng. Theor. p._ 88. See, if you please, the Conclusion of the _fifth Chapter_, which treats about the Formation of the Earth. The last Paragraph is this: _Give me leave only, before we proceed any farther, to annex here a short Advertisement, concerning the Causes of this wonderful Structure of the first Earth: ’Tis true, we have propos’d the natural Causes of it, and I do not know wherein our Explication is false or defective; but in Things of this Kind we may easily be too credulous: And this Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to be consider’d as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the Work of Nature. The whole Globe of the Water vaulted over, and the exterior Earth hanging above the Deep, sustain’d by nothing but its own Measures and Manner of Construction: A Building without Foundation or Corner-stone. This seems to be a Piece of Divine Geometry or Architecture; and to this, I think, is to be referr’d that magnificent Challenge which God Almighty made to_ Job; Where wast thou, when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? Declare, _&c._ Moses _also, when be had describ’d the Chaos, saith_, The Spirit of God mov’d upon, _or sat brooding upon_, the Face of the Waters; _without all doubt, to produce some Effects there_. _And St._ Peter, _when he speaks of the Form of the Anti-deluvian Earth, how it stood, in reference to the Waters, adds_, By the Word of God, _or by the Wisdom of God_, it was made so. _And this same Wisdom of God, in the_ Proverbs, _as we observed before, takes notice of this very Piece of Work in the Formation of the Earth_: When he set an Orb over the Face of the Deep, I was there. _Wherefore to the great Architect, who made the boundless Universe out of nothing, and form’d the Earth out of a Chaos, let the Praise of the whole Work, and particularly, of this Master-piece, for ever, with all Honour, be given._ In like Manner, there is a larger Account of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, as to the Revolutions of the natural World, in the last Paragraph of the eighth Chapter; and like Reflections are made in other Places, when Occasion is offer’d.

We have not, therefore, any where excluded the Influence and Benefit of superior Causes, where the Case requires it: Especially, when ’tis only to modify the Effect, as to Time and Dispatch. And in that Case, none will have more need of it than himself; as we shall find in the Examination of his tenth Chapter, about the Origin of Mountains.

The rest of this second Chapter is spent in three Excursions. One in justifying the _Cartesian_ Way of forming Light and the Sun, as agreeable to _Moses_. The second about the _Jewish Cabala_, and _Cabalistical Interpretations_. And the third about _mystical Numbers_. But the Theory not being concern’d in these Things, I leave them to the Author, and his Readers, to enjoy the Pleasure and Profit of them. And proceed to the third Chapter.

CHAP. III.

In this Chapter a second Exception against the Formation of the Earth, as propos’d in the Theory, is alledg’d: And ’tis this; The Fluctuation of the Chaos, or of that first watery Globe, would hinder, he says, any Concretion of Earth upon its Surface. Not that there were Winds or Storms then, to agitate those Waters; neither would the Motion of the Earth, or the Rotation of that Globe, disturb them, as he allows there; but the Disturbance would have Rise from Tides, _p._ 74. _lin._ 18, 19. or the Ebbings and Flowings of that great Ocean, which, he says, must have been then, as well as now; And the Reason he gives, is this; because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon; and the Moon was then present, as he says, in our Heavens, or in our Vortex: And therefore, would have the same Effect then, upon that Body of Waters which lay under it, that it hath now upon the Sea.

That the Moon was in the Heavens, and in our Neighbourhood, when the Earth was form’d, he proves from the six Days Creation: and spends two or three Pages in Wit and Scolding upon this Subject, _p._ 77, 78, 79. But, with his leave, when all is done, his Argument will be of no Force, unless he can prove, that the _fourth Day’s Creation was before the third_. I confess, I have heard of a Wager that was lost upon a like Case, namely, Whether _Henry_ VIII. was before _Henry_ VII? But that was done by Complot in the Company, to whom it was referr’d to decide the Question. We have no Plot here, but appeal fairly to that Judge the Exceptor hath chosen, namely, to Scripture, which tells us, that the Moon was made the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third. Therefore, unless the fourth Day was before the third, the Moon could not hinder the Formation of the Earth.

But I hope, say you, this is a Misrepresentation. The Animadverter sure would not put the Matter upon this Issue. Yes, he does. For when he had oppos’d to our Formation of the Earth, the Fluctuation of the Waters, caus’d, as he phrases it, by the _bulky Presence_ of the Moon, he concludes with these Words, (_p._ 77. _Parag._ 3.) _But in reference to this Matter, there is a Doubt made by the Theorist, which must be consider’d and removed; otherwise most of what hath been said, touching the Instability and Fluctuation of these Waters, will be vain and groundless: The Doubt is, Whether the Moon were then in our Neighbourhood._ You see that Matter is put upon this Issue, Whether the Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth, at the Time of its Formation. We say she was not; and prove it by this plain Argument, If she was not in Being at that Time, she was not in our Neighbourhood: But unless the _fourth_ Day was before the _third_, she was not in Being. _Ergo._

But after all, if the Moon had been present then, and there had been Tides, or any other Fluctuation towards the Poles, we have no Reason to believe, according to the Experiences we have now, that that would have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, upon the Surface of the Chaos. For why should they have hinder’d that more, than they do the Formation of Ice upon the Surface of the Sea? We know, in cold Regions, the Seas are frozen, notwithstanding their Tides; and in the Mouths of Rivers, where there is both the Current and Stream of the River on one hand, and the Counter-Current of the Tides on the other; these, together, cannot hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water: And our Water is a Substance more thin, and easily broken, than that tenacious Film was, that cover’d the Chaos. WHEREFORE, upon all Suppositions, we have Reason to conclude, that no Fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder the Formation of the first Earth.

Lastly, The Observator opposes the Reasons that are given by the Theorist, _why the Presence of the Moon_ was less needful in the first World. Namely, _because there were no long Winter Nights; nor the great Pool of the Sea to move or govern_. As to the second Reason, ’tis only hypothetical; and if the Hypothesis be true, _That_ there was no open Sea at that Time, (which must be elsewhere examin’d,) the Consequence is certainly true. But as to the first Reason, he will not allow the Consequence, tho’ the Hypothesis be admitted. For he says, _p._ 79. _As there were no long Winter Nights then, so there were no short Summer ones neither: So that set but the one against the other, and the Presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then, in regard of the Length of Nights, as she is now._ This looks like a witty Observation, but it does not reach the Point. Is there as much need of the Moon in _Spain_, as in _Lapland_, or the Northern Countries? There is as much Night in one Place as another, within the Compass of a Year, but the great Inconvenience is, when the Night falls upon the Hours of Travel, or the Hours of Work and Business; for if it fall only upon Hours of Sleep, or of Rest and Retirement, as it does certainly more in _Spain_, and in those Climates that approach nearer to an Equinox; the Moon is there less necessary in that Respect: We can sleep without Moonshine, or without Light, but we cannot travel, or do Business abroad, without Hazard and great Inconvenience, if there be no Light. So that the Reason of the Theorist holds good, _viz._ That there would be more Necessity of Moon-shine in long Winter Nights, than in a perpetual Equinox.

We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter, which is made up of some secondary Charges against this Part of the Theory, concerning the Chaos and the Formation of the first Earth. As, First, That it is, _p._ 80, 81. _Precarious:_ Secondly, _p._ 83. _Unphilosophical_: And, Thirdly, _Antiscriptural_; which we shall answer in order. He seems to offer at three or four Instances of _Precariousness_, as to the Ingredients of the Chaos, their Proportions and Separations; but his Quarrel is chiefly with the oily Particles: These he will scarce allow at all; nor that they could separate themselves in due Time to receive the terrestrial, at least in due Proportions.

First, He would have no oily Particles in the Chaos. But why so, I pray? What Proof or just Exception is there against them? Why may not there be original oily Particles, as well as original salt Particles? Such as your great Master _Des Cartes_ supposes, _Prin. ph._ _l._ 4. §. 84. _Meteor._ _c._ 1. §. 8. He who considers that vast Quantity of oleaginous Matter that is dispers’d every where, in Vegetables, in Animals, and in many sorts of Earths, and that this must have been from the Beginning, or as soon as the Earth had any Furniture; will see Reason to believe that such Particles must be thought original and primeval; not forg’d below the Abyss, and extracted from the inferior 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 inferior 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 Oil, as that Philosopher seems to suppose, _Prin. phil._ _l._ 4. §. 76. 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; _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 79. 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 Exceptor, it seems, would have had the Theorist to have gauged 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 Exceptor makes use of, _p._ 52.) or in his several Regions of the unform’d Earth, the _Fourth 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 _Phænomena_, 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 Exceptions; 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 Chaos: What Scruples therefore, _p._ 80, 81. 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 Hypothesis; for the same or greater Reasons. And you know what the old Verse says,

_Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redurguit ipsum._

But, however, he will have such Exceptions, _p._ 81. to stand good against the Theorist, though they are not good against other Persons; because the Theorist stands upon Terms[14] of Certainty, and in one Place of his Book, has this Sentence, _Ego quidem_, &c. These Words, I think, are very 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 second Edition of the Theory, and therefore, none had Reason to insist upon it. But I see the Exceptor 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 second, which is call’d _Unphilosophicalness_. And, why is the Theorist, in this Case, unphilosophical? Because, says the Exceptor, he supposes terrestrial Particles to be dispers’d through the whole Sphere of the Chaos, as high as the Moon: And why not, pray, if it be a mere Chaos? Where, antecedently to Separations, all Things are mix’d and blended without Distinction of Gravity or Levity; otherwise it is not a mere Chaos: And when Separations begin to be made, and Distinction of Parts and Regions, so far it is ceasing to be a mere 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 throughly illuminated the first Day? The Exceptor, _p._ 52. as I remember, makes the primigenial Light to have been the Rudiment of a Sun; and calls it there, _lin._ 17. a _faint Light_, and a _feeble Light_; and in this Place, _lin._ 27. 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 Exceptor, in reference to Scripture, and the Theory. He is apt to call every Thing _antiscriptural_, that suits not his Sense; neither is that enough, but he must also call it, _p._ 78. a _bold Affront_ to Scripture. He confesses, he hath made, _p._ 299. _pen._ a _little bold_ with Scripture himself, in his new Hypothesis; how much that _little_ will prove, we shall see hereafter. But however, as to that hard Word, _Affront_, a discreet Man, as he is not apt to give an Affront, so neither is he forward to call every cross Word, an Affront: Both those Humours are Extreams, and breed Quarrels. Suppose a Man should say boldly, God Almighty _hath no Right Hand_. Oh, might the Animadverter cry, _That’s a bold Affront to Scripture_: For I can shew you many and plain Texts of Scripture, both in the _Old Testament_, and in the _New Testament_, where express Mention is made of God’s _Right Hand_. And will you offer to oppose _Reason_ and _Philosophy_ to express Words of Scripture, often repeated, and in both Testaments? _O Tempora, O Mores!_ So far as my Observation reaches, weak Reasons commonly produce strong Passions. When a Man hath clear Reasons, they satisfy and quiet the Mind; and he is not much concern’d, whether others receive his Notions, or no: But when we have a strong Aversion to an Opinion, from other Motives and Considerations, and find our Reasons doubtful or insufficient; then, according to the Course of human Nature, the Passions rise for a farther Assistance; and what is wanting, in point of Argument, is made up by Invectives and Aggravations.

Footnote 14:

_Eg: quidem i et sum sententis, so in barum resum de quibus agnt regnitienem, a alarum qunque, quo mements snt, sum s Des aut Natur ut pat estes perviniendi, ratio i ce est, aliq claris invi: Non eujecturatis, v, Quetras nimpe i, que opesmi sui, qui meimi sicavent ab, quam amcteren._

CHAP. IV.

This Chapter is chiefly concerning the _Central Fire_, and the _Origin_ of the _Chaos_; of both which, the Theorist had declared he would not treat: And ’tis an unreasonable Violence to force an Author to treat of what Things we please, and not allow him to prescribe Bounds to his own Discourse. As to the first of these, see what the Theorist hath said, _Engl. Theor._ _p._ 451, and 86, 67. By which Passages it is evident, that he did not meddle with the central Parts of the Earth; nor thought it necessary for his Hypothesis: As is also more fully express’d in the _Latin Theory_, _p._ 45. For, do but allow him a Chaos from the Bottom of the Abyss, upwards to the Moon, and he desires no more for the Formation of an habitable Earth: Neither is it the Part of Wisdom, to load a new Subject with unnecessary Curiosities.

Then as to the Origin of the Chaos, see how the Theorist bounds his Discourse as to that, [15]_Engl. Theor._ _p._ 451. _I did not think it necessary to carry the Story and Original of the Earth, higher than the Chaos, as_ Zoroaster _and_ Orpheus _seem to have done; but taking that for our Foundation which Antiquity, sacred and profane, does suppose, and natural Reason approve and confirm, we have form’d the Earth from it_. To form an habitable Earth from a Chaos given, and to shew all the great Periods and general Changes of that Earth, throughout the whole Course of its Duration, or while it remain’d an Earth, was the adequate Design of the Theorist. And was this Design so short or shallow, that it could not satisfy the great Soul of the Exceptor, _p._ 88. but it must be a _Flaw_ in the Hypothesis, that it did go higher than the Chaos? We content our selves with these Bounds at present. And when a Man declares, that he will write only the _Roman_ History, will you say his Work’s imperfect, because it does not take in the _Persian_ and _Assyrian_?

These Things consider’d, to speak freely of this Chapter, it seems to me, in a great Measure, impertinent; unless it was design’d to shew the Learning of the Observator, who loves, I perceive, to dabble in Philosophy, though little to the Purpose: For, as far as I see, his Disquistions generally end in Scepticism; he disputes first one way, then another; and, at last determines nothing. He rambles betwixt _Des Cartes_ and _Moses_, the _Rabbies_, the _Septuagint_, the _Platonists_, _Magnetisme_, _striate Particles_, and _Præ-existence of Souls_: And ends in nothing, as to the Formation of the Earth, which was to be the Subject of the Chapter. We proceed therefore to the next, in hopes to meet with closer Reasoning.

Footnote 15:

_Si admittamus insupor Ignam Centratem, sive Maisom ignir in centra Terra, quod quidem ain est basus argumenti. Neque partem intimam Chaos, niji ibiter & pro formo, conjiaeravi, cum ad um, nesram non spestet._ _Vid. etiam_ p. 186.

CHAP. V.

From the manner of the Earth’s Formation, the Exceptor, _p._ 106. now proceeds to the _Form_ of it, if compleated. And his first Exception is, That it would want _Waters_, or Rivers to water it. He says, there would either be no Rivers at all, or none, at least, in due time.

The Theorist hath replenish’d that Earth with Rivers, flowing from the extreme Parts of it, towards the middle, in continual Streams; and watering, as a Garden, all the intermediate Climates. And this constant Supply of Water was made from the Heavens, by an uninterrupted Stream of Vapours, which had their Course through the Air, from the middle Parts of the Earth towards the extreme; and falling in Rains, return’d again upon the Surface of the Earth, from the extreme Parts to the middle: For that Earth being of an oval or something oblong Figure, there would be a Declivity all along, or Descent, from the Polar Parts towards the Equinoctial; which gave Course and Motion to these Waters. And the Vapours above never falling in their Course, the Rivers would never fail below; but a perpetual Circulation would be establish’d, betwixt the Waters of the Heavens and of the Earth.

This is a short Account of the State of the Waters in the primeval Earth. Which you may see represented and explain’d more at large, in the _second Book of the Theory_, _Chap._ 5. And this, I believe, is an Idea more easily conceiv’d, than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of the present Earth, if we had not Experience of them. Suppose a Stranger, that had never seen this terraqueous Globe, where we live at present, but was told the general Form of it; how the Sea lies, how the Land, and what was the Constitution of the Heavens: If this Stranger was asked his Opinion, whether such an Earth was habitable; and particularly, whether they could have Waters commodiously in such an Earth, and how the inland Countries would be supplied? I am apt to think, he would find it more difficult (upon an Idea only, without Experience) to provide Waters for such an Earth, as ours is at present, than for such an one as the primeval Earth was. ’Tis true, he would easily find Rains, possible and natural, but with no Constancy or Regularity; and these, he might imagine, would only make transient Torrents, not any fix’d and permanent Rivers. But as for Fountains deriv’d from the Sea, and breaking out in higher Grounds, I am apt to believe, all his Philosophy would not be able to make a clear Discovery of them: But Things that are familiar to us by Experience, we think easy in Speculation, or never enquire into the Causes of them. Whereas, other Things, that never fall under our Experience, though more simple and intelligible in themselves, we reject often as Paradoxes or Romances. Let this be applied to the present Case, and we proceed to answer the Exceptions.

Let us take that Exception first, as most material, _p._ 114. that pretends there would have been no Rivers at all in the primeval Earth, if it was of such a Form as the Theorist had describ’d. And for this, he gives one grand Reason, Because the Regions towards the Poles, where the Rains are suppos’d to fall, and the Rivers to rise, would have been all frozen and congeal’d; and consequently, no fit Sources of Water for the rest of the Earth. Why we should think those Regions would be frozen, and the Rains that fell in them, he gives two Reasons, the Distance, and the Obliquity of the Sun. As also the Experience we have now, of the Coldness and Frozenness of those Parts of the Earth. But as to the Distance of the Sun, He confesses, _p._ 118. that is not the Thing _that does only or chiefly_ make a Climate cold. He might have added, _particularly in that Earth, where the Sun was never at a greater Distance than the Equator_. Then, as to the Obliquity of the Sun, neither was that so great, nor so considerable, in the first Earth, as in the present. Because the Body of that lay in a direct Position to the Sun; whereas the present Earth lies in an oblique. And though the Polar Circles or Circumpolar Parts of that Earth, did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial, and consequently were cooler, yet there was no Danger of their being frozen or congeal’d. It was more the Moisture and excessive Rains of those Parts that made them uninhabitable, than the extreme Coldness of the Climate, of it self. And if the Exceptor had well consider’d the Differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth, as to Obliquity of Position, and that which follows from it, the Length of Nights, he would have found no Reason to have charg’d that Earth with _nipping and freezing Cold_; where there was not, I believe, one Morsel of Ice, from one Pole to another: But that will better appear, if we consider the Causes of Cold.

There are three general Causes of Cold: The Distance of the Sun, his Obliquity, and his total Absence; I mean in the Nights. As to Distance, that alone must be of little Effect, seeing there are many Planets (which must not be look’d upon as mere Lumps of Ice) at a far greater Distance from the Sun, than ours: And as to Obliquity, you see it was much less considerable in the respective Parts of the Primitive Earth, than of the present. Wherefore, these are to be consider’d but as secondary Causes of Cold, in respect of the third, the total Absence of the Sun in the Night Time: And where this happens to be long and tedious, there you must expect Excess of Cold. Now, in the primitive Earth there was no such Thing as long Winter Nights, but every where a perpetual Equinox, or a perpetual Day. And consequently, there was no Room or Cause of excessive Cold in any Part of it. But on the contrary, the Case is very different in the present Earth; for in our Climate, we have not the Presence of the Sun, in the Depth of Winter, half as long as he is absent; and towards the Poles they have Nights that last several Weeks or Months together: And then ’tis that the Cold rages, binds up the Ground, freezes the Ocean, and makes those Parts more or less uninhabitable. But where no such Causes are, you need not fear any such Effects.

Thus much to shew that there might be Rains, Waters, and Rivers, in the primigenial Earth, and towards the extreme Parts of it, without any Danger of freezing. But however, says the other Part of the Exception, _These Rivers would not be made in due Time._ That’s wholly according to the Process you take; if you take a mere natural Process, the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth, all on a sudden; but you may accelerate that Process, as much as you please, by a Divine Hand. As to this Particular indeed of the Rivers, one would think there should be no Occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth, because Mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth: And if they did but lead the Way, and prepare the Ground in every Country, before Mankind arrived there, that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their Account: Neither can it be imagined, but that the Rivers would flow faster than Mankind could follow; for it is probable, in the first hundred Years, Men did not reach an hundred Miles from Home, or from their first Habitations: And we cannot suppose the Defluxion of Water, upon any Declivity, to be half so slow. As to the Channels of these Rivers, the Manner of their Progress, and other Circumstances, those Things are set down fully enough in the fifth Chapter of the second _Book_ of the _English Theory_, and it would be needless to repeat them here.

But the Anti-Theorist says, this slow Production and Propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture; both because of the Rivers of Paradise, and also, because Fishes were made the sixth Day. As to that of the Fishes, he must first prove that those were River-Fishes; for the Scripture, _Gen._ i. 21. and 22. makes them Sea-Fish, and instances in great Whales. But he says (_p._ 113, 114.) it will _appear in the Sequel of his Discourse_, that the Abyss could be no Receptacle of Fishes. To that Sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the Examination of this Particular. Then as to Paradise, that was but one single Spot of Ground, _ch._ xiii. according to the ordinary Hypothesis; which he seems to adhere to: And Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases, seeing its Seat is not yet determin’d. But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass, that they might be the Work of Time, when their Channels and Courses were extended and settled; as they would be, doubtless, long before the Time that _Moses_ writ that Description: But as to the _Rivers of Paradise_, it would be a long Story to handle that Dispute here. And ’tis fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves, before we determine the Original of its River, or Rivers.

CHAP. VI.

We come now to the Deluge, where the great Exception is this, _p._ 121. That according to the Theory, the Deluge would have come to pass, whether Mankind had been degenerate, or no.

We know Mankind did degenerate, and ’tis a dangerous Thing to argue upon false Suppositions; and to tell what would have come to pass, in case such a Thing had not come to pass: Suppose _Adam_ had not sinn’d, what would have become of the _Messiah_? _Eph._ i. 4. 1 _Pet._ i. 20. _Apoc._ xiii. 8. and the Dispensation of the Gospel, which yet is said to have been determin’d more early than the Deluge? Let the Anti-Theorist answer himself this Question, and he may answer his own.

But to take a gentler Instance, suppose _Adam_ had not eaten the forbidden Fruit, how could he and all his Posterity have liv’d in Paradise? A few Generations would have fill’d that Place; and should the rest have been turn’d out into the wide World, without any sin or Fault of theirs? You suppose the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth to have been the same with the present, and, consequently, subject to the same Accidents and Inconveniences. The Action of the Sun would have been the same then as now, according to your Hypothesis: The same Excesses of Heat and Cold, in the several Regions and Climates; the same Vapours and Exhalations extracted out of the Earth; the same Impurities and Corruptions in the Air: And in Consequence of these, the same external Disposition to epidemical Distempers. Besides, there would be the same Storms and Tempests at Sea, the same Earthquakes, and other Desolations at Land. So that _had all the Sons and Daughters of Men_, to use the Exceptor’s elegant Style, _p._ 122. _been as pure and bright as they could possibly have dropt out of the Mint of Creation, they should still_ have been subject to all these Inconveniences and Calamities. If Mankind had continued spotless and undegenerate ’till the Deluge, or for sixteen hundred Years, they might as well have continued so for sixteen hundred more. And in a far less Time, according to their Fruitfulness and Multiplication, the whole Face of the Earth would have been thick covered with Inhabitants: Every Continent and every Island, every Mountain and every Desert, and all the Climates from Pole to Pole. But could naked Innocency have liv’d happy in the frozen Zones, where Bears and Foxes can scarce subsist? in the midst of Snows and Ice, thick Fogs, and more than _Ægyptian_ Darkness, for some Months together? Would all this have been a _Paradise_, or a paradisaical State, to these virtuous Creatures? I think it would be more advisable for the Exceptor, not to enter into such Disputes, grounded only upon Suppositions. God’s Prescience is infallible, as his Counsels are immutable.

But the Exceptor further suggests, _p._ 121. that the Theory does not allow a judicial and extraordinary Providence in bringing on the Deluge, as a Punishment upon Mankind. Which, I must needs say, is an untrue and uncharitable Suggestion, as any one may see, both in the _Latin_ Theory [16] _Chap._ 6. and in the _English_, in several Places. So at the Entrance upon the Explication of the Deluge (_Theor._ _p._ 92.) are these Words, _Let us then suppose, that at a Time appointed by Divine Providence, and from Causes made ready to do that great Execution upon a sinful World, that this Abyss was open’d, and the Frame of the Earth broke,_ &c. And accordingly in the Conclusion of that Discourse about the Deluge, are these Words, (Theor. p. 144.) _In the mean time I do not know any more to be added in this Part, unless it be to conclude with an Advertisement to prevent any Mistake or Misconstruction, as if this Theory, by explaining the Deluge in a natural Way, or by natural Causes, did detract from the Power of God, by which that GREAT JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT UPON THE WORLD, IN A PROVIDENTIAL AND MIRACULOUS MANNER._ And in the three following Paragraphs (_Theor._ _p._ 144, 145, 146.) which conclude that Chapter, there is a full Account given both of an ordinary and extraordinary Providence, in reference to the Deluge, and other great Revolutions of the natural World.

But it is a Weakness however to think, that, when a Train is laid in Nature, and Methods concerted, for the execution of a Divine Judgment, therefore it is not _providential_. God is the Author and Governor of the natural World, as well as 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. Which Method, as it is more to the Honour of his Wisdom, so it is in no way to the Prejudice of his Power or Justice. And what the Exceptor suggests concerning Atheists, and their presum’d Cavils at such an Explication of the Deluge, is a Thing only said at random and without Grounds. On the contrary, so to represent the Sense of Scripture, in natural Things, as to make it unintelligible, and inconsistent with Science and Philosophick Truth, is one great Cause, in my Opinion, that breeds and nourishes Atheism.

Footnote 16:

_Notandum verò, quamvis mundi veteris dissolutionem & rationes Diluvii secundum ordinem causarum naturalium, explicemus, quòd eo modo magis clarè & distinctè intelligantur; non ideò in pœnam humani generis ordinatum suisse diluvium, singulisque ipsius motibus præfuisse providentiam, inficiamur: imò in eo elucet maximè Sapientia divina, quòd mundum naturalem morali ita coaptet & attemperet, ut hujus ingenio, illius ordo & dispositio semper respondeat: & amberum libratis momentis, simul concurrant & unà compleantur utriusque tempora & vicissitudines; ipse etiam Apostolus Petrus diluvii & excidii mundani causas naturales assignat, cùm ait_, δὶ ὧν, &c.

CHAP. VII.

This Chapter is about the Places of Scripture, alledg’d in Confirmation of the Theory: And chiefly concerning that remarkable Discourse in St. _Peter_, 2 _Epist._ iii. which treats of the Difference of the Ante-diluvian World, and the present World. That Discourse is so fully explain’d in the _Review of the Theory_, that I think it is plac’d beyond all Exception. And the Animadverter here makes his Exception only against the first Words, _ver._ 5. Λανσθάνει γὰρ αὐτοῦς τοῦτο θέλοντας, which we thus render, _For this they willingly are ignorant of._ But he generally renders it, _wilfully ignorant of_, and lays a great Stress upon that word _wilfully_. But if he quarrel with the _English_ Translation, in this particular, he must also fault the _Vulgate_, and _Beza_, and all others that I have yet met withal. And it had been very proper for him, in this Case, to have given us some Instances or Proofs, out of Scripture or _Greek_ Authors, where this Phrase signifies a _wilful and obstinate Ignorance_. He says it must have been a wilful Ignorance, otherwise it was not blameable: Whereas St. _Peter_ gives it a sharp Reproof. I answer, There are many Kinds and Degrees of blameable Ignorance; a contented Ignorance, an Ignorance from Prejudices, from Non-attendance, and want of due Examination. These are all blameable in some Degree, and all deserve some Reproof; but it was not their Ignorance that St. _Peter_ chiefly reproves, but their deriding and _scoffing_ at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour, and the Conflagration of the World. And therefore he calls them, _Scoffers, walking after their own Lusts_.

But the Exceptor seems at length inclinable to render the forementioned Words thus, _p._ 137. _They are willingly mindless or forgetful._ And I believe the Translation would be proper enough. And what gentler Reproof can one give, than to say, you are _willing to forget_ such an Argument, or such a Consideration; which implies little more than Non-attention, or an Inclination of the Will towards the contrary Opinion? We cannot tell what Evidence, or what Traditions they might have then concerning the Deluge, but we know they had the History of it by _Moses_, and all the Marks in Nature, that we have now, of such a Dissolution. And they, that pretended to philosophize upon the Works of Nature, and the Immutability of them, might very well deserve that modest Rebuke, that they were _willing to forget_ the first Heavens and first Earth, and the Destruction of them at the Deluge, when they talk’d of an immutable State of Nature.

Neither is there any Thing in all this, contrary to what the Theorist had said, _Theor._ _c._ 1. concerning the ancient Philosophers: That none of them ever invented or demonstrated from the Causes, the true State of the first Earth. This must be granted; but it is one Thing to demonstrate from the Causes, or by way of Theory, and another Thing to know at large: Whether by Scripture, Tradition, or Collection from Effects. The Mutability and Changes of the World, which these Pseudo-Christians would not allow of, was a knowable Thing, taking all the Means which they might and ought to have attended to: At least, before they should have proceeded so far as to reject the Christian Doctrine concerning the future Changes of the World, with Scorn and Derision. Which is the very Thing the Apostle so much censor’d them for.

So much for what is said by the Exceptor concerning this place of St. _Peter_. To all the rest he gives an easy 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 fixed distinctly and in order, in the REVIEW: And, to avoid Repetitions, we must sometimes refer to that, _Review_, p. 371, 372. particularly, as to two remarkable Places, _Psal._ xxiv. 2. and _Psal._ cxxxvi. 6. concerning the _Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas_. Which the Exceptor quickly dispatches by the Help of a _Particle_ and a _Figure_. על.

The next he proceeds to, is, _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. _He gathereth the Waters of the Sea, as in a Bag: He layeth up the Abyss in Store-Houses._ But, he says, it should be render’d, as _on an Heap_: Which is the _English_ Translation. Whether the Authorities produced, in this case, by the Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 117. or by the Exceptor, are more considerable, I leave the Reader to judge. But, however, he cites another place, _Psal._ lxxviii. 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 an 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, _p._ 86. But that which I might complain of most, is his unfair Citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory, _Excep._ _p._ 140. which he applies peculiarly to this Text of _Psal._ xxxiii. 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, _Job_ xxvi. 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, _p._ 141. _Job_ did either accommodate himself to the Vulgar, or else was a perfect _Platonist._ Methinks _Plato_ should rather be a _Jobist_, if you would have them to imitate one another. Then he makes an Objection, and answers it himself: concluding, however, that _Job_ 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 _Job_ mentions in that Chapter, refers to the same time?

The next Place, is, _Job_ xxxviii. 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 Ruins 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 tenth _Chapter_ of the _Latin Theory_, and then make your Judgment upon both.

But it is not enough for the Exceptor to admire the Beauty of Mountains, but he, _p._ 146. 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 Exceptor, _Sæpe loci ipsius insolentia & spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis & communibus._ We are pleas’d in looking upon the Ruins of a _Roman_ Amphitheatre, 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 Sense and Judgment enough to see the Difference of those Cases, and whence the Pleasures arise, 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 paradisaical Earth describ’d by the Theorist. And in this he says, he follows the Rule of Scripture, for these are his Words, p. 148, _And that these Rules, 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_ Ægypt _and_ Palestine, _prefers the latter before the former; because in_ Ægypt _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._ xi. 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 join’d in Privilege, with Paradise it self, and the Garden of God. For so is this very _Ægypt_, _Gen._ xiii. 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 Jordan, that it was well-watered every where (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) even as the Garden of the Lord, like the Land of Ægypt._ The Plain of _Jordan_ you see is commended for its Fruitfulness, and being well watered: And as the height of its Commendation, it is compar’d with _Ægypt_, and with the _Paradise of God_. Now in _Ægypt_ 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 _paradisaical Earth_ to have been thus water’d.

Now let the Exceptor consider how he will interpret and apply his place in _Deuteronomy_, and make it consistent with this _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 _Ægypt_, that was a Plain naturally fruitful, as being well water’d; but the Land they were to possess, depended upon the Benediction of Heaven: And therefore they might expect more or less Fertility, according as they kept God’s Commandments. And so much for those two Texts of Scripture.

Lastly, The Exceptor, _p._ 149. in the Conclusion of his Discourse about that place in _Job_, makes a Reflection upon the Impropriety of those Expressions made in _Job_, 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 thirty-eighth Chapter. _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. ’Tis 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 enclos’d State of the Sea? And what Place, or Part of Nature, was that Receptacle where it lay? But the Exceptor hath found out a new Answer. He says, it was that _Womb_ of Non-entity. These are his Words, _It just then_ (at its Creation) _gushed out of the Womb of Nothing, into Existence_. This is a subtle and far-fetch’d 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_, _Gen._ i. 2. 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 Control. 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 Exceptor: _p._ 150. 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 alleg’d, _Prov._ viii. 27, 28. _When he prepared the Heavens, I was there: When he set a Compass upon the Face of the Deep._ The word חוג which we tender _Compass_, he says, signifies no more than the Rotundity or spherical Figure of the Abyss. And so the Sense will run thus, _When God set a Rotundity_, or _spherical Figure, upon the Face of the Abyss_. But whereas the Word may as well signify 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 is 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 Senses 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 Sense; 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 Sense 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 Exceptor 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 _merely mechanical_. At least, his Words seem to signify as much, which are these, _p._ 143. _And so its Formation_, speaking of the first Earth, _had been merely mechanical, as the Theory makes it_. That the Construction was not merely mechanical, in the Opinion of the Theorist, you may see, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 88. which, because we have cited it before, we will not here repeat. The Theorist might also complain, that the Exceptor cites the first Edition of the Theory for such Things as are left out in the second: Which yet was printed a Twelvemonth before his Animadversions. And therefore in Fairness he ought always to have consulted the last Edition, and last Sense of the Author, before he had censured him, or his Work. But this unfair Method, it seems, pleas’d his Humour better: _p._ 81. _p._ 100, last Part, as you may see in this Chapter, _p._ 154. _p._ 227, 228. _p._ 244. 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 elsewhere, _p._ 279, 280. _p._ 288. 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 Candor, 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 Schemes of Speech. These must be made so indeed, if our Sense 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 Sense, 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 Sense. And ’tis to beg the Question, to say, the literal Sense 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. VIII.

This Chapter is concerning that grand Property of the ante-diluvian Earth, _a perpetual Equinox_, or a right Position to the Sun. This perpetual Equinox the Exceptor will by no means admit. But I’m afraid he mistakes the Notion: For as he explains it in the two first Sections of this Chapter, he seems to have a false Idea of the whole Matter. He thinks, I perceive, that when the Earth chang’d its Situation, it was translated from the Equator into the Ecliptick: And that before that Change in the ante-diluvian State, it moved directly under the Equator. For these are his Words, _p._ 158. So _that in her annual Motion about the Sun_, namely, the Earth, before that Change, _she was carried directly under the Equinoctial, without any Manner of Obliquity in her Site, or Declination towards either of the Tropicks in her Course; and therefore could never cut the Equinoctial, by passing (as now she is presumed to do) from one Tropick to the other_. By which Words, you see, he imagines that the Earth mov’d perpetually under the Equator, when it had a perpetual Equinox. And when it came out of that State, into this wherein it is now, it did not only change its Position, and the Posture of its Axis, but was also really translated from one Part of the Heavens into another, namely, from under the Equator to the Ecliptick, and so took another Road in its annual Course about the Sun. This is a great Mistake: And I cannot blame him, if he was so averse to admit this Change, seeing it lay so cross in his Imagination. For what Pullies or Leavers should we employ to remove the Earth out of the Equator into the Ecliptick? _Archimedes_ pretended, if he had Ground to plant his Engines upon, that he would move the Earth out of its Place; but that it was done before, I never knew, nor heard of: And if the Exceptor had consider’d what is said in the Theory upon that Occasion, _Lat. Theor. li._ 2. _c._ 4. he might easily have prevented his Mistake. But we shall meet with the same Error again in another Place. Let us consider now, what Arguments he uses against this Change.

He says, _p._ 159. _If there had been such a Change_, either Providence, or Mankind, would have preserv’d the Memory of it. How far the Memory of it hath been preserv’d, we shall see hereafter. In the mean Time, we will give him Instances of other Things to reflect upon, that are lost out of Memory, unless he be the happy Man that shall retrieve them. The _Age of the World_ hath been preserv’d, either by the Memory of Man, or by the Care of Providence. And was not that both a Thing of Importance, and of easy Preservation? _Noah_ could not but know the Age of the World, for he was contemporary with five or six Generations, that were contemporary with _Adam_. And knowing the Age of the World himself, he could not easily forbear, one would think, to tell it to his Sons and Posterity. But, to this Day, we do not know what the true Age of the World is. There are three Bibles, if I may so say, or three _Pentateuchs_, the _Hebrew_, _Samaritan_, and _Greek:_ Which do all differ very considerably in their Accounts, concerning the Age of the World: And the most learned Men are not yet able to determine with Certainty, which of the three Accounts is most authentick. Then, what think you of the Place of _Paradise_? How well is the Memory or Knowledge of that preserv’d? Could _Noah_ be ignorant of it? And was it not a fit Subject to discourse of, and entertain his Sons and Nephews, and by them to communicate it to Posterity? Yet we seek it still in vain. The _Jews_ were as much at a Loss as we are: _p._ 263, 264, 265. and the Christian Fathers, you think, were out in their Opinions, both about the Place and Conditions of it: Neither do you venture to determine them your self: So that Paradise is lost in a Manner out of the World. What Wonder then if this single Property of it be lost? If the Exceptor had well consider’d (_Eng. Theor._ _p._ 400, 401.) what the Theorist has said concerning the providential Conduct of Knowledge in the World, this Doubt or Objection might have been spar’d.

After a long Excursion, little to the Purpose, but to shew his Reading, _p._ 166. he tells us next, that Scripture does not favour this Notion of a perpetual Equinox before the Flood: And cites _Gen._ viii. 22. which the Theorist had cited as a Place that did suggest to us that Vicissitude of Seasons that was established after the Flood. The Words indeed are not so determinate in themselves, but that they may be understood, either of the Restoration of a former Order in the Seasons of the Year, or of the Establishment of a new one. And in whether Sense they are to be taken, is to be determin’d by collateral Reasons and Considerations. Such the Theorist had set down, to make it probable, that they ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order of the Seasons of the Year, as was brought in at that Time, and was to continue to the End of the World. The Exceptor hath not thought fit to take notice of, or refute those Reasons, and therefore they stand good, as formerly. Besides, the Exceptor must remember, that this Text stands betwixt two remarkable Phænomena, the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians in the old World, and the Appearance of the Rainbow in the new. Both which were Marks of a different State of Nature in the two Worlds.

He further excepts, _p._ 168. against that perpetual Equinox before the Flood, for another Scripture-reason: _viz._ Because the Earth was curst before that Time, and consequently, he says, had not a perpetual Equinox. But if that Curse was supernatural, it might have its Effect in any Position of the Earth. For God can make a Land barren, if he think fit, in spite of the Course of Nature. And so he also must suppose it to have been in this Case. For, upon all Suppositions, whether of a perpetual Equinox, or no, the Earth is granted to have been very fruitful at first: And so would have continued, if that Curse had not interven’d.

Lastly, He makes that an Argument, _p._ 169. that the Air was cold and intemperate in Paradise, and consequently no constant Equinox, _because_ Adam _and_ Eve _made themselves Aprons to cover their Nakedness_. So, he confesses, Interpreters generally understand, that it was to _cover their Nakedness_. But he will not allow that to be the true Sense, but says those Fig-Leaves were to keep them warm. And the other Interpretation of _covering their Nakedness_, he will not admit, for three Reasons: First, because the Scripture, as he pretends, does not declare it so. See, pray, _Gen._ iii. 7. Secondly, _What Shame_, says he, _need there have been betwixt Husband and Wife_? Thirdly, _If it was Modesty; when they were innocent, they should have been more modest._ Some Arguments answer themselves, and I do not think these deserve a Confutation. But, he says, _p._ 170. however God made them _Coats of Skins_ afterwards, and that was to be a _Defence against Cold._ He must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood: And which way, and how far _Adam_ and _Eve_ were banish’d from it. When those Things are determin’d, we shall know what to judge of this 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, _p._ 171. 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’m sure the Theorist never excluded the Ministry 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._ vii. 11.) and no Wonder the Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in the Air, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 135. 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 Exceptor 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 fourteenth Chapter.

Lastly, He concludes all with this Remark, _p._ 176. 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 Antients 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 among the Antients, 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, _p._ 177. That there had been an _Inclination_ of the Earth, or a Change of Posture, since it was form’d and inhabited. But the Exceptor says, they have not assign’d a true _final Cause_, nor such as agrees with the Theory. The second Testimony, is, that of _Empedocles_, p. 178. 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, _p._ 179. that he doth not assign the Causes a-right. The fourth Witness, is _Democritus_; whom he, _p._ 180. quarrels with 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 Witnesses: 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 _p._ 181. 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 Exceptor hath separated from the rest, that he might encounter it singly. ’Tis another Passage from _Anaxagoras_, which both notes this _Inclination_, and the Posture of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination. But here the Exceptor quarrels, first, with the word θολοειδῶς: Because _Ambrosius_ the Monk, would have it to be θολερπῶς, but without the Authority of any Manuscript: And, as _Casaubon_ says, _malè_. 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 Sense to Φορὰ Θολοειδής. And if that will not please you, he hath still a fourth Answer in reserve. I do not like when a Man shifts Answer so often; ’tis a sign he has no great Confidence in any one. But let us have his fourth Answer. ’Tis 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 Exceptor, p. 184. _If this will not satisfy, I have one Thing more to offer. Grant that_ Anaxagoras _should mean that very Declination, which the Theory would have him, yet this truly would contribute little towards the Proof of the Thing. For he was a Man as like to be heterodox; as like to broach and maintain false and groundless Opinions, as any of the learned Antients._ Had he made this Exception against this Witness at first, it might have sav’d both himself and us a great deal of Pains. For we do allow, if you can prove a Witness to be _persona infamis_, or _non compos mentis_, ’tis sufficient to invalidate his Testimony.

But this is a rude and groundless Censure; shall that famous _Anaxagoras_, that was call’d _MENS_, κατὶ ἐοχὴν, not be thought so much as _mentis compos_; nor have Credit enough for an honest Witness? I am apt to think, from those Sentences, and those Remains we have left of him, that there was not a more considerable Man amongst the Antients, for Nobleness of Mind and natural Knowledge. I could bring the Testimonies of many antient Authors, and of many Christian Fathers, to clear his Reputation, and place it above Envy. ’Tis generally acknowledg’d, that he first introduc’d an intellectual Principle, in the Formation of the Universe, to dispose and order confus’d Matter. And accordingly _Eusebius_ gives him this fair Character, _Præp. Evan. l._ 10. _c. ult. p._ 504. _Col._ δὴ πρῶτος διήρθρωσε, &c. _He first rectified the Doctrine of Principles: For he did not only discourse about the Matter or Substance of the Universe, as other Philosophers: But also of the Cause and Principle of its Motion._ And the same Author, in his fourteenth Book, _ch._ 14. _p._ 750. repeats and enlarges this Character.

I wonder the Exceptor, of all Men, should lessen the Name of _Anaxagoras_. For, besides his Orthodoxy as to the intellectual World; he was one that establish’d the Notion of _Vortices_, in the Corporeal. As you may see in _Clem. Alexandrinus_, _Strom._ 2. _p._ 364. and in _Plato’s Phædo Phæd._ _p._ 99. And tho’ the _Father_, and _Socrates_, (who never was a Friend to natural Philosophy) both blame him for it, yet the Exceptor, who is deservedly pleas’d with that system of _Vortices_, ought to have shew’d him some Favour and Esteem, for the Sake of this Doctrine. Lastly, as to his moral Temper, his Contempt of the World, and his Love of Contemplation; you may have many Instances of it in the short Story of his Life in _Laertius_. And I shall always remember that excellent Saying of his in _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _Strom. p._ 416. Τὴν θεωρίαν τοῦ βίου τέλος εἶναι, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης ἐλευθερίαν. _That the End of Life is Contemplation; and that Liberty, that accompanies it, or flows from it._

But we are not to imagine, that all the Opinions of the ancient Philosophers, are truly convey’d or represented to us. Neither can we, in Reason or Justice, believe that they could be guilty of such absurd Notions, as are sometimes fathered upon them. The Exceptor instances in an extravagant Assertion, (as the Story is told to us) ascrib’d to _Anaxagoras_, of a _Stone that fell from the Sun_. This cannot be literally true, nor literally the Opinion of _Anaxagoras_, if he believed _Vortice_; therefore methinks so witty a Man as the Exceptor, and so well versed in the modern Philosophy, should rather interpret this of the Incrustation of a fix’d Star, and its Descent into the lower World: That a Star fell from the etherial Regions, and became an opake and terrestrial Body: Especially seeing _Diogenes_, as he says, supposes it a Star. Some Things were ænigmatically spoken at first: And some Things afterwards so much corrupted, in passing through unskilful Hands, that we should be very injurious to the Memory of those great Men, if we should suppose every Thing to have come so crudely from them, as it is now delivered to us. And as to this Philosopher in particular; as the _Ionick_ Physiology, in my Opinion, was the most considerable amongst the Antients; so there was none, of that Order, more considerable than _Anaxagoras_. Whom, tho’ you should suppose extravagant, _quoad hoc_, that it would not invalidate his Testimony in other Things.

Upon the whole Matter, let us now sum up the Evidence, and see what it will amount to. Here are five or six Testimonies of considerable Philosophers: _Anaxagoras_, _Diogenes_, _Empedocles_, _Leucippus_ and _Democritus_. To which he might have added _Plato_, both in his _Politicus_ and _Phædo_, _Li._ 2. _c._ 10. _p._ 274. if he had pleased to have look’d into the second Edition of the _Latin_ Theory. These Philosophers do all make mention of a Change that hath been in the Posture of the Earth and the Heavens. And tho’ they differ in assigning Causes, or other Circumstances, yet they all agree as to Matter of Fact; that there was such a Thing, or, at least, a Tradition of such a Thing. And this is all that the Defendant desir’d or intended to prove from them, as Witnesses in this Cause.

To these _Philosophers_, he might have added the Testimonies of the _Poets_, who may be admitted as Witnesses of a Tradition, though it be further questioned, whether that Tradition be true or false. These Poets, when they speak of a _Golden Age_, or the _Reign of Saturn_, tell us of a _perpetual Spring_, or a Year without Change of Seasons. This is expresly said by _Ovid_, _Ver erat æternum_, &c. And upon the Expiration of the Golden Age, he says;

_Jupiter Antiqui contraxit tempora Veris, Perque Hyemes, Æstusque, & inæquales Autumnos, Et breve Ver, spatiis exegit quatuer annum._

_Ovid_ liv’d in the Time of our Saviour. And the Tradition, it seems, was then a-foot, and very express too. _Plato_, who was much more antient, hath said the same Thing in his _Politicus_, concerning the _Reign of Saturn_. And if we may have any Regard to _Mythology_, (vid. _Theor. Lat._ _li._ 2. _c._ 10. _in fine_.) and make _Janus_ the same with _Noah_, which is now an Opinion generally received, that Power, that is given him by the Antients, of _changing Times and Seasons_, cannot be better expounded, than by that great Change of Time, and of the Seasons of the Year, that happened in the Days of _Noah_. Neither must we count it a mere Fable, what is said by the Antients, concerning the Inhabitability of the _Torrid Zone_: And yet that never was, if the Earth was never in any other Posture, than what it is in now.

Lastly, as the Philosophers and Poets are Witnesses of this Tradition, so many of the Christian Fathers have given such a Character of _Paradice_, as cannot be understood upon any other Supposition, than of a _perpetual Equinox_. This _Card. Bellarmine_[17] hath noted to our Hands; and also observ’d, that there could not be a perpetual Equinox in the Countries of _Asia_, nor indeed in any topical Paradise, (unless it stood in the middle of the Torrid Zone) _nisi alius tunc fuerit cursus solis, quam nunc est_; _unless the Course of the Sun_, or, which is all one, the Posture of the Earth, _was otherwise at that Time than what it is now_: Which is a true Observation. The _Jewish_ Doctors also, as well as the Christian, seem to go upon the same Supposition, when they place Paradise under the Equinoctial; see _Eng. Theor._ p. 351. Because they suppos’d it certain, as _Eben Ezra_ tells us, that the Days and Nights were always equal in Paradise.

We have now done with the Examination of Witnesses: _Philosophers_, _Poets_, _Jews_, and _Christians_. From all these we collect, that there was an Opinion, or Tradition, amongst the Antients, of a Change made in the State of the natural World, as to the Diversity of Seasons in the Year: And that this did arise from the Change of the Posture of the Earth. Whether this Opinion, or this Tradition, was _de jure_, as well as _de facto_, is a Question of another Nature, that did not lie before us at present. But the Thing that was only in Debate in this Chapter, was matter of Fact, which I think we have sufficiently prov’d.

In the Close of this Chapter, the Exceptor makes two Queries: Still by way of Objection to the ante-diluvian Equinox. The first is this, p. 185. _Supposing an Equinox in the Beginning of the World, would it (in Likelyhood) have continued to the Flood._ If you grant the first Part, I believe few will scruple the second. For why should we suppose a Change before there appear any Cause for it? He says, the Waters might possibly have weigh’d more towards one Pole, than towards another. But why the Waters more than the Air? The Waters were not more rarified towards one Pole than towards another, no more than the Air was: For which the Exceptor, _p._ 180. had justly blam’d _Leucippus_ before. But however, _says he_, that Earth would be very unstable, because, in Process of Time, there would be an empty Space betwixt the exterior Region of the Earth, and the Abyss below. But that empty Space would be fill’d with such gross Vapours, that it would be little purer than Water: And would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphere that is carried about with it. We have no Reason to change the Posture of the Earth, till we see some antecedent Change that may be a Cause of it. And we see not any till the Earth broke. But then indeed, whether its Posture depended barely upon its _Æquilibrium_, or upon its _Magnetism_, either, or both of them, when its Parts were thrown into another Situation, might be changed. For the Parts of a Ruin seldom lie in the same Libration the Fabrick stood in. And as to the Magnetism of the Earth, that would change, according as the Parts and Regions of the Earth changed their Situation.

The second Query is this, granting there was such an Equinox in the first World, _p._ 187. _Would not the natural World, towards the latter End of that World, have been longer, than in the former Periods of the same?_ Suppose this was true, which yet we have no Reason to believe, that the Days were longer towards the Flood, than towards the beginning of the World; why is this contrary to Scripture? He tells you how, in these Words, _p._ 188. _That the Days just before the Flood were of no unusual Length, is evident in the very Story of the Flood; the Duration of which we find computed by Months, consisting of thirty Days a-piece._ Whereas _had Days been grown longer, fewer of them would have made a Month_. This is a mere Paralogism, or a mere Blunder. For if thirty Days were to go to a Month, whether the Days were longer or shorter, there must be thirty of them; and the Scripture does not determine the Length of the Days. If thirty Circumgyrations of the Earth makes a Month, whether these Circumgyrations are slow or swift, thirty are still thirty. But I suppose that which he would have said and which he had confusedly in his Mind, was this, that the _Month_ would have been longer at the Flood than it was before. _Longer_, I say, as to extent of Time, or Duration in general, but not as to number of Days. And you could not cut off a slip of one Day, and tack it to the next, through the intermediate Night, to make an Abridgment for the Whole. Therefore this Objection is grounded upon a Mistake, and ill Reasoning, which is now sufficiently detected.

Footnote 17:

_De Grat. prim. tm. c. 12._

_Accedit adbat, quad Paradisus ita deferiditus à Sinsto_ Basilio_, in I. ’to de Paradiso; à_ Joan. Damasceno,_ Libre secundo, de fide, capit; à Sano_ Augustino _Libre decim: quarto et cevit ete Dei, capit. 10. Ab A, A & Claud. Ma._

CHAP. IX.

This Chapter is against the _oval Figure of the first Earth_, p. 189. which the Theorist had asserted, and grounded upon a general Motion of the Waters, forc’d from the Equinoctial Parts towards the Polar. But before we proceed to his Objections against this Explication, we must rectify one Principle. The Exceptor seems to suppose, _p._ 190. that terrestrial Bodies have a _Nitency inwards or downwards, towards their central Point_. Whereas the Theorist supposes, that all Bodies moving round, have, more or less, a Nitency from the Centre of their Motion: And that ’tis by an external Force that they are prest down, against their first Inclination or Nitency.

This being premised, we proceed to his Exceptions: Where his first and grand Quarrel is about the Use of a Word; whether the Motion of the Water from the middle of the Earth towards the Poles, can be call’d _defluxus_; seeing those polar Parts, in this supposed Case, were as high, or higher than the Equinoctial. I think we do not scruple to say _undæ defluunt ad littora_: Tho’ the Shores be as high, or higher than the Surface of the Sea. For we often respect, as the Theorist did, the _middle_ and the _sides_, in the use of that Word; And so, _defluere è medio ad latera_, is no more than _prolabi ad latera_. But ’tis not worth the while to contest about a Word; especially seeing ’tis explained in the second Edition of the Theory, _p._ 186, by adding _detrusione_: But it would have spoil’d all this Pedantry, and all his little Triumphs, if he had taken notice of that Explication.

Wherefore setting aside the _Word_, let us consider his _Reasons_ against this Motion of the Waters towards the Poles; which, he says, could not be, because it would have been an Ascent, not a Descent. We allow and suppose that. But may not Waters ascend by Force and Detrusion; when it is the easiest way they can take to free themselves from that Force, and persevere in their Motion? And this is the Case we are speaking to. They were impell’d to ascend, or recede from the Centre, and it was easier for them to ascend laterally, than to ascend directly: Upon an inclined Plain, than upon a perpendicular one. Why then should we not suppose that they took that Course? Methinks the Observator, who seems to be much conversant in the _Cartesian_ Philosophy, might have conceived this Detrusion of the Waters towards the Poles by the Resistance of the superambient Air, as well as their flowing towards, and upon the Shores, by the Pressure of the Air under the Moon. And if the Moon continued always in the same Place, or over the middle of the Sea, that Posture of the Waters would be always the same: Though it be an Ascent, both upon the Land and into the Rivers. And this, methinks, is neither Contradiction, nor Absurdity. But an Enemy, that is little us’d to Victory, makes a great Noise upon a small Advantage.

He proceeds now to shew, _p._ 195. that it was improbable that the Figure of the first 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 _Perminedes_ 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_, _Plat. in Phæd._ πότερεν ἡ γῆ πλατεῖα ἔπις, ἢ αρογγύλη. _Whether the Earth was flat or round._ And ’tis likely the Dispute was generally understood in that Sense. 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 _Phœnician_, _Ægyptian_, 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: Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 10_. And it had been fair in the Exceptor 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, _p._ 197. 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 drives 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, _p._ 186. he may see plainly by his own Scheme, or by the Theory Scheme: _Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 5_. So that if his Observation be true, of an extraordinary Depth of the Ocean in those Parts, it confirms our Suspicion, that the Sea continues still oval. Lastly, he urges, _p._ 198. 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 ballance 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 Exceptor. 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 Ruins 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 Anti-theorist hath suggested, will not decide the Controversy; 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 toward 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 Mountains_, and that they were before the Flood, or from the Beginning; which the Exceptor 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, _p._ 291. as _Psal._ xc. 1, 2. and _Prov._ viii. 25. therefore they must be co-eval and contemporary. We have, I think, noted before, that Things are not always Synchronal that are mentioned 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 _Jerusalem_, and of the _World_, to have been intended for the same Time; seeing our Saviour joins them in the same Discourse, (_Mat._ xxiv.) 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 _Jerusalem_ 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. _Isa._ ix. 6, 7. _Isa._ ix. 1. &c. _Luke_ i. 31, 32, 33. without making any Distinction of Time, but what is to be gather’d from the Sense. Neither is there any Incongruity in the Sense, or in the Tenor 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, ’tis a way of Speaking we often use. As suppose a Man should say, concerning the Antiquity of _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, _Prov._ _ch._ viii. it would be very hard to reduce all those Things that are mentioned there, (from _ver._ 22. to 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 Præ-existence to this Earth, and to all its greatest and most remarkable Parts.

He mentions also, _p._ 202. _Deut._ xxxiii. 15. where the Hills are call’d _Lasting_, and the Mountains _Antient_. And _therefore they were before the Flood_. This is a hard Consequence. The River _Kishon_ is call’d the _antient_ River, _Judg._ v. 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 _antient_, though they be of less Antiquity than the Deluge. If one should say the _lasting Pyramids_, and _antient Babylon_, none could blame the Expression, nor yet think that they were therefore from the Beginning of the World.

After these Allegations from Scripture, _p._ 205. 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, ’tis easy to see that this is no good Argument: For, besides that the Orb there might be more thick, all Ruins 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 Backside, that we might better judge of the Shapes of her whole Body.

From this natural Argument, _p._ 206. he proceeds to an historical Argument, taken from the _Talmudists_ and _Josephus_. The _Talmudists_ say, that _many Giants sav’d themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion_. But this, the Exceptor confesses, _is wholly fabulous_. What need it then be mentioned as an Argument? Then he says, _Josephus_ reports, that _many sav’d themselves from the Flood upon the Mountain_ Baris _in_ Armenia. But this also, _p._ 207. 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 (_ibid._) the Exceptor calls a _Piece of confus’d Forgery_. Why then, say I still, is it alledged as an Argument against the Theory? But however, says the Exceptor, 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 Exceptor is not content with these Stories, but he must needs add a Fourth; which, he says, _p._ 208. 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 hundred of Years, upon the Mountains of_ India. _Another plain Intimation that THERE WERE MOUNTAINS_ 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 Exceptor 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 Exceptor, _p._ 208, 209, _&c._ hath vouchsafed to make for us: And, in short, it is this. When the Waters were drain’d off the Land on the third 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 Sense, _p._ 209. 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 turn’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 Fire; 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 Origin 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 third Day to have raised these Mountains upon the Earth; whereas the Sun was not created till the fourth Day, p. 51. _the fourth Day was the first Day of the Sun’s Existence_: 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, _p._ 209, 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; for the Sun might begin his Work about Noon; and before Night he had rais’d all the Mountains of one Hemisphere. It will require a strong philosophick Faith, to believe this could be all done by the Action of the Sun, an in so short a Time. Besides, we must consider, that the Sun, by Noon, had past all the Eastern Countries, yet covered with Water, or not well drain’d: So that after they were dried, he could only look back upon them with faint and declining Rays. Yet the Mountains of the East are as great and considerable as elsewhere. But there is still another great Difficulty in the Case, as to the Northern and Southern Mountains of the Earth; for they lie quite out of the Road of the Sun; being far remov’d towards either Pole; where, by reason of his Distance and Obliquity, his Beams have little Force. How would he heave up the _Riphæan_ Mountains, those vast Heaps of Stone and Earth, that lie so far to the North? You see what Observations the Exceptor hath made(_p._ 119, 120.) concerning the Cold of those Countries: And it falls out very untowardly for this new Hypothesis, that the Northern Parts of the Earth, as _Norway_, _Swedeland_, _Iseland_, _Scythia_, _Sarmatia_, &c. should be such mountainous and rocky Countries; where he had before declar’d the Sun had so little Force. And, indeed, according to his Scheme, all the great Mountains of the Earth should have been under the Equator, or, at least, betwixt the Tropicks.

But to examine a little the Manner and Method of this great Action, and what kind of Bodies these new Mountains would be; either the Sun drew up only the Surface and outward Skin of the Earth, as Cupping-Glasses raise Blisters; or his Beams penetrated deep into the Earth, and heaved up the Substance of it, as Moles cast up Mole-Hills. If you take the first Method, these superficial Mountains would be nothing but so many Bags of Wind; and not at all answerable to those huge Masses of Earth and Stone, whereof our Mountains consist. And if you take the second Method, and suppose them push’d out of the solid Earth, and thrown up into the Air, imagine then how deep these Rays of the Sun must have penetrated in a few Hours Time, and what Strength they must have had, to agitate the Vapours to that Degree, that they should be able to do such Prodigies as these. Several Mountains, upon a moderate Computation, are a Mile high from the Level of the Earth. So that it was necessary that the Beams of the Sun should penetrate at least a Mile deep, in so short a Time; and there loosen and rarify the Vapours, and then tear up by the Roots vast Loads and Extents of Ground, and heave them a Mile high into the open Air: And all this in less than half a Day. Such Things surely are beyond all imagination, and so extravagant, that one cannot, in Conscience, offer them to the Belief of a Man. Can we think that the Sun, who is two or three Hours in licking up the Dew from the Grass in a _May_ Morning, should be able, in as many more Hours, to suck the _Alps_ and _Pyreneans_ out of the Bowels of the Earth; and not to spend all his Force upon them neither? For he would have as much Work in other Countries. To raise up _Taurus_, for instance, and _Imaus_, and frozen _Caucasus_ in _Asia_; and the mighty _Atlas_, and the _Mountains_ of the _Moon_ in _Africk_; besides the _Andes_ in _America_, which, they say, far exceed all the Mountains of our Continent. One would be apt to think, that this Gentleman never saw the Face of a mountainous Country; for he writes of them, as if he had taken his Idea of Mountains, and the great Ridges of Mountains, upon the Earth, from the _Devil’s Ditch_, and _Hogmagog Hills_: And he raises them faster than Mushrooms out of the Ground. If the newborn Sun, at his first Appearance, could make such great Havock, and so great Changes upon the Face of the Earth, what hath he been doing ever since? We never heard nor read of a Mountain, since the Memory of Man, rais’d by the Heat of the Sun. We may therefore enquire, in the last Place,

Why have we no Mountains made now by the same Causes? We have no Reason to believe that the Heat or Strength of the Sun is lessen’d since that Time; why then does it not produce like Effects? But I imagine he hath an Answer for this: Namely, that the Moisture of the first Earth, when it was new drain’d and marshy, contributed much to this Effect; which now its Dryness hinders. But besides, that the Dryness of the Earth should rather give an Advantage, by the Collection of Vapours within its Cavities: However, we might expect, according to this Reason, that all our drain’d Fens and marshy Grounds, should presently be rais’d into Mountains; whereas we see them all to continue arrand Plains, as they were before. But if you think these are too little Spots of Ground to receive a strong Influence from the Sun, take _Ægypt_ for an Instance: That’s capacious enough, and ’tis overflow’d every Year, and by that Means made soft and moist to your Mind, as the new Earth when it rises from under the Abyss. Why then is not _Ægypt_ converted into Mountains, after the Inundation and Retirement of _Nile_? I do not see any Qualification wanting, according to the Exceptor’s Hypothesis: _Ægypt_ hath a moist Soil, and a strong Sun, much stronger than the _Alps_ or _Pyreneans_ have; and yet it continues one of the plainest Countries upon the Earth. But there is still a greater Instance behind against this Hypothesis, than any of the former; and that is, of the whole Earth after the Deluge: When it had been overflow’d a second Time by the Abyss, upon the Retirement of those Waters it would be much what in the same Condition, as to Moisture, that it was in the third Day, when it first became dry Land. Why then should not the same Effect follow again, by the Heat of the Sun; and as many new Mountains be rais’d upon this second Draining of the Earth, as upon the first? These are plain and obvious Instances, and as plainly unanswerable. And the whole Hypothesis which this Virtuoso hath propos’d concerning the _Origin_ of Mountains, is such an Heap of Incredibilities, and Things inconsistent one with another, that I’m afraid I shall be thought to have spent too much Time in Confutation of it.

In the Conclusion of this Chapter, _p._ 215. he hath an Attempt to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood, _because there were Metals_; which are commonly found about the Roots of Mountains. But the Theorist, he says, _to shun this great Inconvenience, fairly consents to the abolishing of Metals out of the first State of Nature_. Yet he is hard put to it, to prove that the Theorist hath any where asserted, whatsoever he thought, that there were no Metals then. The first Citation he produces, only recites the Opinion of others, and says, _p._ 216. he _thinks they do not want their Reasons_. Of the two other Citations out of the Preface, the first does not reach home, making no mention of Metals. And the second is wholly misconstrued, and perverted to a Sense quite contrary to what the Author intended, or the Context will bear. But however the Theorist appears doubtful, whether there were Metals or no in in the first World: And, upon this Doubt, the Exceptor lays this heavy Charge, _p._ 215. _li._ 24. _Thus the Fidelity of_ Moses_ is assaulted, and another intolerable Affront put upon the HOLY GHOST: For do not both inform us, that the City_ Enoch _was built, and the Ark prepared, before the Flood? But how could either be done without Iron-Tools?_ But does either _Moses_, or the Holy Ghost tell us, that there were Iron-Tools in building that City, or the Ark? If they do not, we only affront the Consequence, which the Exceptor draws from the Words, and not the Authors of them. By what divine Authority does the Animadverter assert, that there was Iron, or Iron-Tools, in Building this City, or that Ark? I’m sure Scripture does not mention either, upon those Occasions. And seeing it mentions only _Gopher Wood_ and _Pitch_ for the Building of the Ark, _Gen._ vi. 14. ’tis a Presumption rather, that there were no other Materials us’d. And as to the City, ’tis true, if he fancy the City which _Enoch_ built, to have been like _Paris_, or _London_, he has Reason to imagine, that they had Iron-Tools to make it. But suppose it was a Number of Cottages, made of Branches of Trees, of Osiers and Bulrushes, (and what needed they any other House, when the Air was so temperate?) or, if you will, of Mud-Walls, and a Roof of Straw, with a Fence about it to keep out Beasts, there would be no such Necessity of Iron-Tools. Consider, pray, how long the World was without knowing the Use of Iron, in several Parts of it, as in the North, and in _America_: And yet they had Houses and Cities after their Fashion. For the Northern Countries you may see _Olaus Magnus_, _li._ 12. _c._ 13. For _America_, _Pet. Martyr. Dec. 1._ But the Exceptor will save you your Pains, as to the _Indians_, for he says himself, _p._ 250. in another Place, that they had no Instruments of Iron, when the _Spaniards_ came amongst them. And if in those late Ages of the World, they were still without the Use of Iron, or Iron-Tools, we have less Reason to believe that the Children of _Cain_ had them four or five thousand Years before.

It is also worthy our Consideration, how many Things must have been done, before they could come at these Iron-Tools. How came the Children of _Cain_ to dig into the Earth, I know not to what Depth, to seek for a Thing they had never heard of before, when it was so difficult to dig into the Earth without such Tools? More difficult, methinks, than to build an House without them. But suppose they did this, we know not how; and, amongst many other Stones, or Earths, found that which we call Iron-Ore: How did they know the Nature and Use of it? Or, if they guess’d at that, how did they know the Way and Manner of preparing it, by Furnaces, Wind-Forges, and Smelting-mills? These would be as hard to make or build, without Iron Tools, as dwelling Houses. And when they had got a Lump of Iron, till they knew how to temper it, they could not make Tools of it still. Unless _Cain_’s Children had an Inspiration from Heaven, I do not see how they could discover all these Things, in so short a Time. And this is only to make good what the Theorist said, that such an Hypothesis _does not want its Reasons_. And as to _Tubal-Cain_, let those that positively assert that there was no Iron in the first World, tell us in what Sense that Place is to be understood. For, I believe, Iron or Brass is not once mention’d in all the Theory.

CHAP. XI.

This Chapter is to prove that the _Sea was open_ before the Deluge. ’Tis something barren of philosophical Arguments, but we will begin with such as it has, which are taken from this Topick, _That the Fishes could not live in our Abyss_: _p._ 224. and that for three Reasons. First, because it was too dark. Secondly, too close; and thirdly, too cold. As for Coldness, methinks he might have left that out, unless he suppose that there are no Fish in the frozen Seas, towards the North and South; which is against all Sense and Experience: For cold Countries abound most in Fish. And according to Reason, there would be more Danger of too much Warmth, in those subterraneous Waters, than of too much Cold, in respect of the Fishes.

Then as to Darkness and Closeness, this minds me of the Saying of _Maimonides_: _That no Man_ ever would believe, that a Child could live so many Months, shut up in its Mother’s Belly, if he had never seen the Experience of it. There’s Closeness and Darkness, in the Highest Degree. And in Animals, that, as soon as born, cannot live without Respiration. Whereas Fishes, of all Creatures, have the least need of Respiration, if they have any. And as for _Darkness_, how many subterraneous Lakes have we still, wherein Fishes live? And we can scarce suppose the main and fathomless Ocean to have Light to the Bottom; at least when it is troubled or tempestuous. How the Eyes of Fish are, or might be, form’d or conform’d, we cannot tell, but we see they feed and prey on the Night Time, and take Baits as greedily as on the Day. But it is likely they were less active and agile in that Abyss, than they are now; their Life was more sluggish then, and their Motions more slow, _Job_ xxxviii. 8. as being still in that _Womb_ of Nature that was broke up at the Deluge. And as to Air, they would have enough for their imperfect way of breathing in that State. But if they have a more perfect now, which is still a Question, they might have some Passages in their Body open’d, (at the Disruption of the Abyss) when they were born into the Light and free Air, which were not open’d before. As we see in Infants, upon their Birth, a new Passage is made into their Lungs, and a new Circulation of the Blood, which before took another Course.

So much for pretended Reasons and Philosophy. The rest of this long Chapter is spent either in Consequences made from Scripture, or in a prolix Discourse about Rain. As to Scripture, _p._ 219, 220. he makes this the first Objection, that, whereas _Adam_ had a Dominion given him over the Fish of the Sea, it could have no Effect, if they were inclosed in the Abyss. _Adam_ had no more Dominion given him over the Fish of the Sea, than over the Fowls of the Air; which he could not come at, or seize at his Pleasure, unless he could fly into the Air after them. _Adam_ was made Lord of all Animals upon this Earth, and had a Right to use them for his Conveniency, when they came into his Power: But I do not believe that _Adam_ was made stronger than a Lyon, nor could master the Leviathan, or command him to the Shore. He had a Right, however, and his Posterity, to dispose of all Creatures for their Use and Service, whensoever, upon Occasion offered, they fell into their Power.

Next he says, _p._ 225, 226. The Waters were gather’d into one Place, and a Firmament was made to divide the Waters from the Waters. Well, allow this, tell us then what was that Firmament? For it is said there, _Gen._ i. 17. that God set the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the Firmament. Therefore you can argue nothing from this, unless you suppose supercelestial Waters: Which, when you have prov’d, we will give you an Account of the subcelestial, and of the subterraneous. And here the Exceptor cites some Things from the Theory, that are not in the second Edition, and therefore the Theorist is not concern’d to answer them.

Lastly, The Exceptor comes to his long Harangue in Commendation of the _Clouds_ and of _Rain_: Which takes up a great Part of this Chapter. In his _Exordium_ he makes this Compliment to the Clouds, p. 234. _Sometimes they mount up and fly aloft, as if they forgat, or disdain’d the Meanness of their Origin. Sometimes again they sink and stoop so low, as if they repented of their former proud Aspirings, and did remorseful humble Penance for their high Presumption. And though I may not say they weep to expiate their Arrogance, or kiss the Earth with bedewed Cheeks, in Token of their Penitence, yet they often prostrate in the Dust, and sweep the lowest Grounds of all, with their misty foggy Trains. One while they_, &c. This Harangue about the Clouds and Rain, is pursued for fourteen or fifteen Pages, and, with Submission to better Judgments, I take it to be a Country Sermon, about the _Usefulness of Rain_: And, I believe, whosoever reads it, will, both from its Matter and Form, be of the same Opinion. I do not speak this in Derogation to his Sermon, but he would have done better, methinks, to have printed it in a Pamphlet by it self; there being no Occasion for it in this Theory.

Towards the Conclusion of the Chapter, _p._ 246. he answers an Objection made by the Theorist against the supposed Islands and Continents in the first Earth. Namely, _That it would render the Propagation of Mankind difficult, into those broken Parts of the World_. And the many imperfect shifting Answers which the Exceptor gives, or conjectures without Authority, do but confirm the Objection of the Theorist, or make his Words true, _quod Res esset difficilis explicatu_. Which is all that the Theorist said upon that Subject.

CHAP. XII.

This is a short Chapter, and will be soon dispatch’d. ’Tis to prove that the _Rainbow was before the Flood_. And notwithstanding that, a good Sign that there should never be a Flood again. This is to me a Paradox, but he confirms it by a greater Paradox: For he says, God might as well (as to Significancy, or Authenticalness) _have appointed the Sun, as the Rainbow, for a Sign that there never should have been another Flood_. So that if God had said to _Noah_, I do assure thee there shall never be a second Deluge, and for a Sign of this, _Behold I set the Sun in the Firmament_: This would have done as well, he says, as the Rainbow. That is, in my Judgment, it would have done nothing at all more than the bare Promise. And if it had done no more than the bare Promise, it was superfluous. Therefore if the Rainbow was no more than the Sun would have been, it was a superfluous Sign. They to whom these two Signs are of equal Significancy and Effect, lie without the Reach of all Conviction, and I am very willing to indulge them in their own Opinions.

But he says, _p._ 257. _God sometimes has made things to be Signs, that are common and usual. Thus the Fruit of a Tree growing in Paradise, was made a Sign of Man’s Immortality._ But how does it appear that this was a common Tree; or that it was given to _Adam_ as a Sign that he should be immortal? Neither of these appear from Scripture. Secondly, he says, 2 _Kings_ xiii. 17. _Shooting with Bow and Arrows upon the Ground, was made a Sign to_ Joash _of his prevailing against the_ Syrians. This was only a Command to make war against _Syria_, and a Prophecy of Success; both deliver’d in a symbolical or hieroglyphical Way. The Command was signify’d by bidding the King shoot an Arrow, which was the Sign of War. And the Sign of Victory or of divine Assistance, was the Prophet’s strengthening the King’s Hands to draw the Bow. This is nothing as to a Sign given in Nature, or from the natural World, in Confirmation of a divine Promise: Which is the thing we are only to consider.

All the rest of this Chapter is lax Discourse without Proof. And as to the Significancy of the Rainbow, upon Supposition that it was a new Appearance; and its Insignificancy upon Supposition that it was an old Appearance, we have spoken so fully in the Theory it self, _Eng. Theor._ _Book_ 2. _ch._ 5. that it would be needless here to make any longer Stay upon this Argument.

CHAP. XIII.

This Chapter is concerning _Paradise_; but our Author fairly baulks all the Difficulties in that Doctrine, and contents himself with a few Generals, which every body knows. The Doctrine of Paradise consists chiefly of two Parts; the Site or Place of it; and the State or Properties of it. As to the first, if the Exceptor would have confuted the Theory, he should have let down the Conclusions that are advanc’d by the Theory, (_Eng. Theor._ _Book._ 2. _c._ 7.) concerning the Place of Paradise, which are these; first, the Place of Paradise cannot be determin’d by Scripture only. Neither the Word _Mekeddem_, (_Gen._ ii. 8.) nor the four Rivers mentioned there, make the Place of it defineable. Secondly, The Place of Paradise cannot be determin’d by the Theory. Seeing then neither Scripture, nor Reason determine the Place of Paradise, if we will determine it, it must be by Antiquity. And if we appeal to Antiquity in this Case, we shall find, First, That it was not in _Mesopotamia_. Secondly, That according to the Plurality of Votes, both amongst the Heathen and Christian Authors, it was plac’d in the other Hemisphere. And this is all the Theory says upon that Point. As you may see, _Eng. Theor_ _Book_ 2. _ch._ 7. and _Lat. Theor._ _Edit._ 2. _p._ 194. and _p._ 214, 215. Wherefore if the Animadverter would undertake to confute the Theory in this Point, he should have confuted those four Particulars. But he slips over these, _p._ 265. and gives us only a Paraphrase upon Verses in the second and third _Chapters_ of _Genesis_, which says little to this Purpose, and yet more than it proves.

In the second Place, as to the State and Properties of Paradise, or the ante-diluvian World; _the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians_ is the Thing he insists upon. But this he handles so loosely, _p._ 273. that in the Conclusion of his Discourse, one cannot tell whether he affirms it, or denies it. This sceptical Humour of the Exceptor hath been taken notice of before, and ’tis continued in this Chapter, where there is little or nothing positively determin’d. The Theorist, on the contrary, expressly affirms the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, and gives these Reasons for his Assertion. First, Because all the Lives, and all the Generations recorded in Scripture, before the Flood, from Father to Son, in a Line of sixteen hundred Years, are longeval: Of six, seven, eight, nine hundred Years a-piece. Secondly, Antiquity, both _Greek_ and _Barbarian_ have attested the same thing, and recorded the Tradition; see the Table of both. Thirdly, The Generations recorded in Scripture after the Flood, as they exceed the Term of succeeding Ages, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 204. so they decline by degrees from the ante-diluvian Longevity. Lastly, _Jacob_ complains of the Shortness of his Life, and lowness of his Days, in Comparison of his Forefathers, when he had liv’d one hundred and thirty Years; _Gen._ xlvii. 9. which had been a groundless Complaint, if his Ancestors had not lived much longer.

These two last Reasons the Exceptor has not thought fit to take notice of. And, in Answer to the two former, he hath only the usual Subterfuges: As, that the long Lives of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs was a Thing extraordinary and providential, confin’d to their Persons; not of a general Extent, nor according to the Course of Nature. But how does this appear? It must be made out, either by Scripture or Reason. Scripture makes no Distinction, nor Exception of Persons in this Case; all, whereof it hath left any Account, as to Term of Life, are declar’d to have liv’d several hundred of Years. And why should we not conclude the same Thing concerning the rest? Then as to Reason, you cannot suppose Longevity, in that World, against Reason or Nature, unless you first suppose the Form and Constitution of that World to have been the same with the present: Which is to beg the Question. Admitting that Form and Constitution of the first Heavens and Earth, which the Theory hath given, Longevity will be a natural Consequence of it. _Theor._ _Book_ 2. _ch._ 3, _&_ 4. And having such a Course of Nature laid before us, as agrees with the Reports of Scripture, and with general Tradition, why should we quit that, to comply with an imaginary Presumption; that these were miraculously preserv’d, and all the rest were short-liv’d? I know he pretends, p. 277. we may as well conclude all Men were Giants in those Days, because _Moses_ says, _There were Giants upon the Earth in those Days_, Gen. vi. 4. as conclude that all Men were long liv’d in those Days, because _Moses_ mentions some that were so. There had been some Pretence for this, if _Moses_ had made a Distinction of two Races of Men in the first World, long Livers and short Livers; as he hath distinguish’d the Giant from the common Race of Mankind: Or, as he hath said in one Case, _There were Giants on the Earth in those Days_; so if he had said in the other, _There were long Livers upon the Earth in those Days_, and upon that, had given us a List of the long-liv’d Patriarchs: This indeed would have made the Cases pretty parallel. But, on the contrary, _Moses_ makes no such Distinction of long-living and short-living Races, before the Flood; nor yet notes it as a Mark of divine Favour, or extraordinary Benediction upon those Persons that liv’d so long. Therefore, not to suppose it general to Mankind at that Time, is a groundless Restriction, which is neither founded upon Scripture nor Reason.

As to the second Argument for ante-diluvian Longevity, taken from Tradition and the Testimony of the Antients, he objects, _p._ 276, 277. that _Josephus_ does not seem to be firm in that Opinion himself. But what then? The Theorist lays no Stress upon _Josephus_’s single Opinion, but refers to the Testimonies of those Authors, whether _Greeks_, or such as have given on Account of the _Ægyptian_, _Chaldean_, and _Phœnician_ Antiquities: Which are call’d in by _Josephus_, as Witnesses of this Truth or Tradition, concerning the long Lives of the first Men. And at last, the Exceptor seems content, this Tradition should be admitted, _p._ 278. seeing the _Authors are too many, or too considerable, to have their Testimonies question’d or rejected_. But then he will make a further Question, _Why_ there should not also be a Tradition concerning the _perpetual Equinox_, or _perpetual Spring_, upon which this Longevity depended? But this Question is fully answer’d, and the Tradition fully made out before, in the eighth Chapter, which I need not here repeat. In like manner, all the secondary Questions, which he then mentions, depending upon, and being included in this first, receive their Resolution from it. For when a perpetual Equinox is once truly stated, there is no Difficulty concerning the rest.

After these Contests about Traditions, he hath one or two _Reasons_ against this _ante-diluvian Longevity_, p. 279, 280. First, because the Earth, by this Means, would have been over-stock’d with People before the Time of the Deluge. Secondly, They should all have been of the same Longevity before the Flood. Neither of these, me-thinks, have any Strength in them. As to the first, That Earth was much more capacious than this is, where the Sea takes away half of its Surface, and renders it uninhabitable. And whereas he suggests, as a Recompence, _ibid._ _That Mountains_ have more Surface and Capacity than Plains; that’s true, but they are also less habitable, by Reason of their Barrenness and Ruggedness. Who can believe that there are as many People in _Wales_, as in other Parts of _England_, upon the same Compass of level Ground? Or no more in _Holland_, than upon a like Number of Acres upon the _Alps_ or _Pyreneans_? There would be room enough for twice as many People as there are in the World, and twice as many Animals, if there was Food enough to nourish them. But here I have two things to complain of, as foul Play: First, the Exceptor cites the Theory partially. Secondly, he does not mark the Place whence he takes that Citation; as if it was on purpose to hide his Partiality. The Words he cites are these: _If we allow the first Couple, at the end of one hundred Years, or of the first Century, to have left ten Pair of Breeders, which is an easy Supposition, there would arise from these in fifteen hundred Years, a greater Number than the Earth was capable of; allowing every Pair to multiply in the same decuple Proportion the first Pair did_, Eng. Theor. p. 32. Here the Exceptor stops, and makes this Inference; that upon an _easy Supposition_, which the Theorist makes and allows, the Earth would have been over-stock’d in fifteen hundred Years. This is an _easy Supposition_ for the _first Century_, as the Theorist put it; but it would be a very uneasy one for the following Centuries, when they came to be at any considerable Distance from the Beginning. And therefore the Theorist tells you, in that very Page, _The same Measure cannot run equally through all the Ages._ And in his Calculation you see, after the first Century, he hath taken only a _quadruple Proportion for the Increase of Mankind_. As judging that a _moderate and reasonable Measure betwixt the highest and the lowest_. This the Exceptor might easily have observ’d, _ibid._ and as easily avoided this Misapplication of the Words of the Theorist.

His second Reason against the ante-diluvian Longevity is slighter than the first, _p._ 280. For he pretends that all Ante-diluvians, upon that Supposition, should have been equally long-liv’d. You may as well say, that all the Children of the same Parents, and that live in the same Place, should now be equally long-liv’d; the external World being the same to them all. But, besides Accidents, their _Stamina_ and Constitutions might then be of a different Strength, as well as now; tho’ they were born of the same Parents, and liv’d in the same Air. Lastly, he moves a Difficulty about the Multiplication of Animals in the first World, _p._ 281. that they would have been too numerous before the Flood. I can say nothing to that, nor he neither, upon good Grounds: Unless we knew what Species of Animals were then made, and in what Degrees they multiplied. The Theorist always supposes a divine Providence to superintend, proportion, and determine, both the Number and Food of Animals upon the Earth; suitably to the Constitution and Circumstances of every World. And seeing that Earth was no less under the Care and Direction of Providence, than the present, we may conclude that due Measures were taken for adjusting the Numbers and Food of Animals in such manner, as neither to be a Burden to one another, nor to Man.

CHAP. XIV.

This Chapter is against the Explication of the Deluge by the _Dissolution of the Earth_. That Dissolution, as is pretended, being unfit or insufficient to produce such an Effect. And to prove this, the Ante-theorist gives us five Arguments, whereof the first is this; _p._ 285. _Moses_ having left us an accurate Description of Paradise, _according to the proper Rules of Topography_, such a Description would have been improper and insufficient to determine the Place of Paradise, and consequently useless, if the Earth had been dissolv’d; and by that means the Bounds of those Countries, and the Channels of those Rivers, broken and chang’d. This Objection, I’m afraid, will fall heavier upon _Moses_, or upon the Exceptor himself, than upon the Theorist. However, one would have expected that the Exceptor should have determin’d here the Place of Paradise in virtue of that Description. So learned and sagacious a Person, having before him an exact Draught of Paradise, _according to the proper Rules of Topography_, could not fail to lay his Finger upon the very Spot of Ground where it stood. Yet I do not find that he has ventur’d to determine the Place of Paradise, either in this Chapter, or in the preceding: Which gives me a great Suspicion, that he was not satisfy’d where it stood, notwithstanding the _Mosaical_ Topography. Now if it cannot be understood or determin’d by that Topography, one of these two things must be allow’d, either that the Description was insufficient and ineffectual; or that there has been some great Change in the Earth, whereby the Marks of it are destroy’d; namely, the Bounds of Countries, and the Courses of the the Rivers. If he take the second of these Answers, he joins with the Theorist. If the first, he reflects, according to his way of arguing, upon the Honour of _Moses_, or confutes himself.

But here is still a further Charge, _p._ 286. _Moses_’s Description of Paradise would have been _told_ (which he notes for _horrid Blasphemy_) if the Earth was broken at the Deluge: For then those Rivers, by which _Moses_ describes Paradise, could not have been before the Flood. But why so, I pray? The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood, in great Plenty; and why not like to these? And if their Channels were very much chang’d by the Flood, that’s no more than what good Interpreters suppose. Being unable, upon any other Submission, to give an Account why it is so hard (notwithstanding _Moses_’s Description) to determine the Place of Paradise. Now where is the _Blasphemy_ of this? _Ibid._ _Horrid Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?_ A rude and injudicious Defence of Scripture, by Railing and ill Language, is the true Way to lessen and disparage it: Especially when we make our own Consequences to be of the same Authority with the Word of God; and whatsoever is against them, must be charg’d with Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Is it not a strange Thing, that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy, when the Prophets and inspir’d Authors speak so often of the _Disruptions_, _Fractions_, _Concussions_, and _Subversions_ of the Earth? See _Review_, _p._ 380, _&c._ And that very Expression, that the _Earth is dissolv’d_, is a Scripture Expression, (_Psal._ lxxv. 3. _Isai._ xxiv. 19. _Amos_ ix. 5) which, methinks, might have been enough to have protected it from the Imputation of Blasphemy. But there is nothing safe against blind Zeal, and opinionative Ignorance; which, by how much they find themselves weaker in Reasons, by so much they become more violent in Passions.

But to return to the Objection; upon the whole Matter, he casts the Burden of the Charge upon _Moses_ himself, as we noted before: For take whether Hypothesis you will, that the Earth was, or was not broken, the Question still returns, if the Mosaical Topography was exact and sufficient, why can we not yet find out the Situation of Paradise? ’Tis now above three thousand Years since _Moses_ died, and Men have been curious and very inquisitive in all Ages, to find out the Place of Paradise; but it is not found out to this Day to any Satisfaction: So that, methinks, upon the whole, the Theory, which supposeth the Earth very much chang’d, makes the fairest Apology both for _Moses_ and Mankind, in this Particular. But to proceed to his second Argument.

Secondly, says the Exceptor, p. 288. _The Dissolution of the Earth could not be the Cause of the general Flood, because it would have utterly destroy’d_ Noah_’s Ark, and all that were in it_. I thought the Theorist had effectually prevented this Objection, by putting the Ark under the Conduct of its Guardian Angels, and of a miraculous Providence; _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 147. These are his Words: _I think it had been impossible for the Ark to have liv’d upon the raging Abyss, or for_ Noah _and his Family to have been preserv’d, if there had not been a miraculous Hand of Providence to take Care of them._ Now, either the Exceptor did not take notice of this Passage in the Theory, or he does not allow that a miraculous Hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark; or thirdly, he made an Objection, which he knew himself to be impertinent. And, I confess, I am inclinable to think the last is true: For as to the first, he confesses (_p._ 354.) that the _Theory represents the Ark, with its Guardian Angels about it, in the Extremity of the Flood_. And as to the second, he himself makes use of a miraculous Power to preserve the Ark upon his Hypothesis; in Answer to the eighth Objection, _p._ 351, 352, _&c._ Why then may not we make use of the same Power, and with the same Effect? It remains therefore, that he was conscious to himself that he made this Objection to no purpose.

But that is not all: He has also us’d foul Play in his Citation: For whereas the great Danger of the Ark would be at the first Fall of the Earth, or the Disruption of the Abyss; the Theorist, he says, to prevent this, makes the Ark to be a-float by the Rains, before the Abyss was broken. But is that all the Theorist says in that Place? Does he not assign another Way how the Ark might be a-float? Namely, in a River, or in a Dock. These are the Words of the Theory, _p._ 133, 134. _So as the Ark, if it could not float upon these Rain-Waters, at least taking the Advantage of a River, or of a Dock or Cistern made to receive them, it might be a-float before the Abyss was broken open._ And these Words being in the same Place whence he makes his Citation, it must be a wilful Dissimulation not to take notice of them. But he saw they would have taken off the Edge of his Objection, and therefore thought fit not to touch upon them. But after all, there is no Necessity that the Ark should be a-float before the Earth broke: Those Things, were premis’d in the Theory, only to soften the Way to Men that are of hard Belief in such extraordinary Matters: For the Angels (whose Ministry we openly own, upon these grand Occasions) could as easily have held the Ark a-float, in the Air, as on the Water. And the Ark, being an Emblem of the Church, God certainly did _give his Angels Charge over it; that they should bear it up in their Hands, that it might not be dash’d against a Stone_. And this having been more than once profess’d by the Theorist, we must again conclude this Objection superfluous and useless.

The third Objection is this. If the Earth had been thus dissolv’d, _p._ 289. _The present Earth would have been, in likelihood of another Figure, than what now it bears._ These are his Words; but I suppose he means, that it would have been of another Form, as to Sea and Land. And the Reason he gives is this: Because, says he, it would have broke first in the Equator, and consequently that Part falling down first, would have been swallowed up by the Waters, and become all Sea. Whereas we find, that under the Equator that then was (which he supposeth (_ibid._) the present Ecliptick) _the dry Ground is of most spacious Extent and Continuity_. We need not examine his Account of Sea and Land, because it proceeds upon a false Supposition, (_See_ p. 27. _before_.) He relapses here into his former astronomical Error, or to his first adds a second; _viz._ That the Earth, when it chang’d its Situation, chang’d its Poles and Circles. This is a great Mistake; the Change of Position in Respect of the Heavens, did not change the Places of its Circles in Respect to its own Globe. As when you change a Sphere or a Globe out of a _right Situation_ into an _oblique_, the Circles do not change their Places, as to that Sphere or Globe; but have only another Position to the Heavens. The Earth’s Ecliptick runs thorough the same Places it did before; and the equinoctial Regions of that Earth were the same with the equinoctial Regions of this, only bear another Posture to the Heavens and the Sun. These Circles have not chang’d Places with one another, as he imagines; and which is worse, would father this imagination upon the Theory, in these Words, _Under the Ecliptick (which, in the present Situation of the Earth, (ACCORDING TO THE THEORY) was its Equinoctial, and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres, as the Equator does now) the dry Ground_, &c. He that affirms this, with Respect to the Earth, neither understands the _Theory, nor the Doctrine of the Sphere_. But let’s press no further upon a Mistake.

The fourth Objection is this; _p._ 290. That such a Dissolution of the Earth, would have caus’d great Barrenness after the Flood: Partly by turning up some dry and unfruitful Parts of the Earth; and partly by the Soil and Filth that would be left upon its Surface. As to the first, I willingly allow, that some of the interior and barren Parts of the Earth might be turn’d up; as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries; but this rather confirms the Theory, than weakens it. But as to the second, that the Filth and Soil would have made the Earth more barren, I cannot allow that. For good Husbandmen overflow their Grounds, to make their Crop more rich. And ’tis generally suppos’d, that the Inundation of _Nile_, and the Mud it leaves behind it, makes _Ægypt_ more fruitful. Besides, this Part of the Objection lies against the common Explication of the Deluge, as well as against that which is given by the Theory. For if you suppose an universal Deluge, let it come from what Causes you please, it must overflow all the Earth, and leave Mud and Slime and Filth upon the Surface of it: And consequently cause Barrenness, according to this Argumentation.

He adds another Consideration under this Head, _p._ 292. namely, that if the Earth had been dissolv’d in this manner, _All the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been shaken down, or else overwhelm’d. Yet we read of some that outstood the Flood, and were not demolish’d. Such were the Pillars of_ Seth, _and the Cities_ Henochia _and_ Joppa. As to _Seth_’s Pillars, they are generally accounted fabulous; and I perceive the Exceptor will not vouch for them: For he concludes, (_p._ 295) _I know the very Being is question’d of_ Seth_’s Pillars_, &c. If he will not defend them, why should I take the Pains to confute them? I do not love to play with a Man, that will put nothing to the Stake; that will have his Chance to win, but can lose nothing, because he stakes nothing. Then as to the City _Henochia_, it hath no Authority, but that of _Annius Viterbiensis_, and his _Berosus_: A Book generally exploded, as fictitious. Lastly, As to _Joppa_, the Authority indeed is better, tho’ still uncertain. But however, suppose the Ruins of one Town remain’d after the Flood, does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv’d? I do not doubt, but there were several Tracts of the Earth, much greater than that Town, that were not broken all to Pieces by their Fall. But you and your _English_ Historian, are mistaken, if you suppose the Altars and Inscriptions mention’d by _Mela_, to have been ante-diluvian Altars and Inscriptions: Unless you will make the Fable of _Perseus_ and _Andromeda_, and the _Sea-Monster_, to have been an ante-diluvian Fable. Neither hath your Historian been lucky in translating those Words of _Mela_, _cum religione plurima, with the Grounds and Principles of their Religion_, which signify only, _with a religious Care of Superstition_. But to leave Fables, and proceed:

His last Argument against the Dissolution is this, _p._ 296. Had the Dissolution of the Earth been the Cause of the Deluge, _It would have made God’s Covenant with_ Noah, _a 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._ iv. 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 Exceptor 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 fortify them in it against his own Omnipotence, or to divest himself of his Soveraign Prerogative of calling them forth when he pleased._ This being allowed, with what we said before, that Covenant was not vain nor 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 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 Exceptor; 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 Exceptor, behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy, he’s gentle and tractable. _Eng. Theor._ _Book_ 2. _c._ 9. _at the End._ The Theorist had declar’d his Intentions, and oblig’d himself, to give a full Account of _Moses_ his _Cosmopœia_, or _six Day’s Creation_; but did not think it proper to be done in the vulgar Language, nor before the whole Theory was compleated. This might have spared much of the Exceptor’s Pains; but till that Account be given, if the Exceptor thinks fit to continue his Animadversions, and go through 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 Sense of the Author.

CHAP. XV.

In this Chapter the Ante-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge, _p._ 299. And the War is chang’d, on his Side, from offensive, to defensive. ’Tis 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, _p._ 299, 300. 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 Proportion be received? 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 acknowleg’d; for the general Opinion is, that the Waters covered 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, p. 300. _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, _p._ 329. _lin._ 19. _c._ 31. _The general standing Hypothesis: The usual Hypothesis_: _p._ 339. _lin._ 18. _The usual Sense 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._ vii. 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 Sense.

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 the 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 _Exceptor_, or _Exceptor’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 Exceptor’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’m 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._ 300. _l._ 24.) The _general standing_ Hypothesis; the _usual_ Hypothesis; the _usual Sense they put upon the sacred Story_; all these he rejects and disputes against, as you may see in the Places fore-cited: And also he calls them, _p._ 312. _ult._ such _Inventions_, as _have been_, and _justly may be disgustful, not only to nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_. And _p._ 319. he says, by his Hypothesis, _We are excused from running to those Causes or Methods, which seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligible to others, and unsatisfactory to most._ And to name no more, he says, _p._ 330. the ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were cover’d with Water in the Deluge, brings on a _Necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood_. Now, whose Methods, Inventions, and Suppositions are these, which he reflects upon? Are they not the commonly receiv’d Methods and Suppositions? ’Tis plain, most of those which he mentions, (_p._ 310, 311, 313, 314, 318.) are not the Theorist’s: For the Theorist had rejected before, (_Eng. Theor._ _ch._ 2, and 3.) those very Methods and Inventions, which the Exceptor rejects now; and so far he justifies the Theory[18]: These Reflections therefore must fall upon some other Hypothesis; and what Hypothesis is that, if it be not the Church Hypothesis? To conclude, I argue thus, in short, to shew the Exceptor inconsistent with himself in this Particular. The Church Way of explaining the Deluge, is either _rational_, or _irrational_. If he say it is _rational_, why does he desert it, and invent a new one? And if he says it is _irrational_, then that dreadful Thing, which _he cannot well endure to speak, that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_, falls flat upon himself.

Thus much in general, for his Introduction. We proceed now to examine particularly his new Hypothesis: Which, as we told you before, consists chiefly in this, _That the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the common unmountainous Surface of the Earth._ _This_, which seems so odd and extravagant, he says, _p._ 301. is the _Foundation_ of the Hypothesis. And, which is still more surprizing, he says this Depth, or rather Shallowness of the Waters of the Deluge, is told us by Scripture, _as plainly as it can speak_, p. 302. l. 23. This must needs raise our Curiosity, to see that Place of Scripture, which has been overlook’d by all the Learned hitherto. Well, ’tis _Gen._ vii. 20. in these words, _Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail._ This, methinks, is somewhat general; for the Basis of these _fifteen Cubits_ not express’d in these Words. But why does our Author stop in the middle of a Verse? Why does he not transcribe the whole Verse; for the last Part of it is as good Scripture as the first? And that says plainly, that the _Mountains were cover’d with the Waters_. The whole Verse runs thus: _Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail; AND THE MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED._ Now, if the Basis of these fifteen Cubits was the common Surface, or plain Level of the Earth, as this new Hypothesis will have it; how could fifteen Cubits, from that Basis, reach to the Tops of the Mountains? Are the highest Mountains but fifteen Cubits higher than the common Surface of the Earth? 1 _Sam._ xvii. 4. _Goliah_ was six Cubits and a Span high; so _Pic Tenariff_ would not be thrice as high as _Goliah_: Yet _David_ flung a Stone up to his Forehead. Take what Cubit you please, sacred or common, it does not amount to two Foot. So the Height of the greatest Mountains, from Bottom to Top, must not be thirty Foot, or ten Paces, according to this new Hypothesis. Who ever measured Mountains at this Rate? The modern Mathematicians allow for their Height a Mile perpendicular, upon a moderate Computation; and that makes three thousand Foot: How then could Waters that were not thirty Foot high, cover Mountains that were three thousand Foot high? That the highest Mountains of the Earth were cover’d with the Waters, you may see express’d more fully in the precedent Verse, _Gen._ vii. 19. _And the Waters prevailed exceedingly upon the Earth. And all the high Hills that were under the whole Heavens were cover’d._ There can scarce be Words more plain and comprehensive. The Exceptor says, the Scripture tells us, as _plainly as it can speak_, that the Waters were but fifteen Cubits high from the common Surface of the Earth: And I say, the Scripture tells us as _plainly as it can speak_, That _all the high Hills under the whole Heaven were covered with Water_. And it must be a strange sort of Geometry, that makes fifteen Cubits of Water reach to the Top of the highest Hills. Lastly, the same History of _Moses_ says, the Tops of the Mountains were discover’d, when the Waters begun to decrease, _Gen._ viii. 5. Is not that a plain Demonstration that they were cover’d before, and cover’d with those Waters?

We may therefore safely conclude two Things: First, that this new Hypothesis, besides all other Faults, is contrary to the general Exposition of the Text of _Moses_[19]. Secondly, that it is contrary to the general receiv’d Doctrine of the Deluge. And if he has deliver’d a Doctrine, contrary to the two, methinks it should be hard for him to maintain his Ground, and not pronounce, at the same Time, what he dreads so much to speak, _That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_. But let’s reflect a little upon this fifteen-cubit Deluge; to see what Figure it would make, or what Execution it would do upon Mankind, and upon other Creatures. If you will not believe _Moses_ as to the overflowing of the Mountains, at least I hope you will believe him, as to the universal Destruction made by the Deluge. Hear his Words, _Gen._ vii. 21, 22, 23. we’ll take only the last Verse, which is this, _And every living Substance was destroyed, which was upon the Face of the Ground, both Man and Cattle, and creeping Things, and the Fowl of the Heavens; and they were destroyed from the Earth; and_ Noah _only remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark_. Now I would gladly know, how this could be verified in a fifteen-cubit Deluge? The Birds would naturally fly to the Tops of Trees, when the Ground was wet; and the Beasts would retire, by Degrees, to the Mountains and higher Parts of the Earth, as the lower begun to be overflow’d: And if no Waters could reach them there, how were they all destroy’d, while they had so many Sanctuaries and Places of Refuge?

Or if you suppose some of these Creatures had not Wit enough to save themselves, (though their Wit and Instincts lie chiefly in that) at least Mankind would not be so stupid; when Men see the Waters begin to rise, they could not fail to retire into Mountains: And tho’ the upper Stories of their Houses might be sufficient to save them from fifteen Cubits of Water; yet if Fear made them think themselves not secure there, whither could it drive them, but still into higher Places? And an House seated upon an Eminency, or a Castle upon a Rock, would be always a safe Retreat from this diminutive Deluge. I speak all this upon the Suppositions of the Exceptor, _p._ 215, 216, 292, _&c._ who allows, not only Mountains and Rocks, but also Castles and Cities before the Deluge, built of good Timber, and Stone, and Iron, and such substantial Materials. But how, in such a Case, and in such a State of Things, all Mankind (except _Noah_ and his Family) should be destroy’d by fifteen Cubits of Water, is a Lump of Incredibilities, too hard and big for me to swallow.

But there is still another Difficulty, that we have not mention’d: As those that were upon the Land might easily save themselves from Ruin, so those that were upon the Sea in Ships, would never come in Danger. For what would it signify to them, if the Sea was made a few Fathoms deeper, by these new Waters? It would bear their Vessels as well as it did before, and would be no more to them than a Spring-Tide. And lastly, how shall we justify the Divine Wisdom, which gave such punctual Orders, for the Building of an Ark, to save _Noah_, and a Set of Creatures for a new World, when there were so many more easy and obvious Ways to preserve them without that Trouble?

These Objections, in my Opinion, are so plain and full, that it is not needful to add any more: Nor to answer such Evasions as the new Theorist attempts to make to some of them. As, for Instance, to that plain Objection from _Moses_’s Words, _p._ 330. that _the Mountains were covered with the Waters_; he says, first, that it is a _Synecdoche_, where the Whole is put for a Part: Or, secondly, ’tis an _Hyperbole_, where more is said than understood: Or, thirdly, ’tis a _poetical History:_ Or, lastly, if none of these will do, by the _Tops_ of the Mountains is to be understood the _Bottoms_ of the Mountains, _p._ 331, 333. and that cures all. The Truth is, he has taken a great deal of Pains in the next Chapter, to cure an incurable Hypothesis. We will give you but one Instance more: ’Tis about the _Appearance of the Tops of the Mountains at the Decrease of the Deluge_; which argue strongly that they were cover’d in the Deluge. But take it in his own Words, with the Answer, _p._ 337. _It is recorded_, Gen. viii. 5. _that the Waters decreased continually until the tenth Month, and on the first Day of the Month WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN. Now if the Mountains had not been quite under Water, and so invisible for the Time they were overwhelmed, how could they be said to become visible again, or to be seen upon the Floods going off?_ This is a plain and bold Objection: And after two Answers to it, which he seems to distrust, his third and last is this, _p._ 339. _If these two Considerations will not satisfy, we must carry on the Enquiry a little farther, and seek for a third. And truly some one or other must needs be found out.—Thirdly, therefore we consider, that the Tops of the Mountains may be said to be seen at the Time mentioned, upon account of their EMERGENCY OUT OF DARKNESS, NOT OUT OF WATERS._ This is his final Answer. The Tops of the Mountains, at the Decrease of the Deluge, were seen; not that they were covered before with Water, says he, but with Darkness. Where finds he this Account: ’Tis neither in the Text, nor in Reason. If it was always so dark, and the Tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where, how could the Ark avoid them in that Darkness? Moreover, if the Deluge was made in that gentle way that he supposes, I see no Reason to imagine that there would be Darkness, after the forty Days Rain. For these Rains being fallen, and all the Vapours and Clouds of the Air discharg’d, methinks there should have ensued an extraordinary Clearness of the Air, as we often see after rainy Seasons. Well, ’tis true: But the Rains he supposes were no sooner fallen, but the Sun retracted them again in Vapours, with that Force and Swiftness, that it kept the Air in perpetual Darkness. Thus he says afterwards, _p._ 341. He’s mightily beholden to the Sun, upon many Accounts; and the Sun is no less beholden to him; for he gave him a miraculous Power to raise Mountains, and draw up Waters. ’Tis well the Sun did not presently fall to his old Work again, of raising Mountains out of this moist Earth, as the Exceptor says he did, when the Earth was first drain’d. _See Chap._ 10. That he contented himself to suck up the Waters only, and let the Earth alone: We are not a little beholden to him for this. For he seems to have had the same Power and Opportunity, at the Decrease of the Deluge, of making new Ravages upon the Earth, that he had before when it was first drain’d. But let’s see _how_, or _when_, these Waters were suck’d up, or resolv’d into Vapours.

Upon the Expiration of the forty Days Rain, whether was the Air purg’d of Vapours and clear, or no? Yes, it was purg’d, he says, (p. 343.) _The Atmosphere was never so exhausted of Vapours, and never so thin, as when the Waters were newly come down._ Then, in that clear Air the Tops of the Mountains might have been seen, if they lay above Water. But _Moses_ says, _Gen._ viii. 5. it was in the _tenth Month_ that they begun to be seen, when the Waters were decreas’d; ’twas therefore the Waters, not the gross Air, that hinder’d the Sight of them before. And according to this Method of the Exceptor, after the first forty Days, the Deluge begun to decrease. For the Sun forthwith set his Engines a-work, and resolv’d the Waters into Vapours and Exhalations at such a Rate, _p._ 341. that he presently made the Atmosphere dark with thick Mists and Clouds; and, in Proportion, lessen’d the Waters of the Deluge. But we do not read in _Moses_, of any Abatement in the Deluge, till the End of one hundred and fifty Days; (_Gen._ viii. 3.) which is four Months after this Term. The Truth is, the whole Notion of _spending the Waters of the Deluge by Evaporation_, is no better than what the Exceptor suspected it would be thought, p. 343. _A mere Fancy, a whimsical groundless Figment._ For what could the Sun do, in the Northern and Southern Parts of the World, towards the exhaling of these Waters? And in the temperate Climates, why should they not fall again in Rains, (if he had a Power to exhale them) as they do now? Was not the Earth in the same Position, and the Sun of the same force? Besides, where does he find this Notion in Scripture, that the Waters of the Deluge were consum’d by Evaporation? _Moses_ says, the _Waters returned from off the Earth, in going and returning_, Gen. viii. 3, 5. That is, after frequent Reciprocations, they settled at length in their Channels; where _Bounds were set them, that they might not pass over; that they return not again to cover the Earth_. Seeing therefore this Notion hath no Foundation, either in Scripture or Reason, ’tis rightly enough stil’d, in the Exceptor’s Words, a _mere Fancy_, and _groundless Figment_.

But I think we have had enough of these Shifts and Evasions. Let us now proceed to the second Part of his new Hypothesis, which is this, _p._ 303. 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._ lxxviii. 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 Exceptor, 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, signify a _low Place_, but an _high Place_: For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common Level of the Earth[20]. But I do not see how, with any tolerable Propriety, or good Sense, that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be called 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._ lxxviii. 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_[21], 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 Senses make any Thing to the Purpose of the new Hypothesis, and yet they are the fairest and easiest Sense 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 this 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 inferior Place; so the general Use of it in Scripture is, in the same Sense, either to signify the Sea, or some subterraneous Place. _Who shall descend into the_ (Abyss, or) _Deep_? says the Apostle, _Rom._ x. 7. Is that as much as if he had said, Who shall _ascend_ into the Holes of the Rocks? And when _Jacob_ speaks of the Blessings of the Abyss, or of the Deep, he calls them the Blessings of the _Deep that lyeth under_, _Gen._ xix. 25. In like Manner, _Moses_ himself calls it the _Deep that couched beneath_, _Deut._ xxxiii. 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 Judgement should break thorough both the common Use of a Word, and so many plain Texts of Scripture, that show 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. viii. 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, _p. 303, 305_. I see no Possibility of the Waters returning into them. But the Exceptor hath found out a marvellous Invention to invade this Argument. He will have the _returning_ of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles, (that is, into Vapours,) 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. viii. 3, and 5_. compar’d with Verse seventh and ninth.

Lastly, That we 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, _Ch. 3._) 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, _p. 343._ would be accounted _a mere Fancy_, and _groundless Figment_.

Footnote 18:

The Exceptor rejects, first the _Waters of the Sea_: Then the _Waters in the Bowels of the Earth_: Then the _supercelestial Waters_: Then a _new Creation of Waters_: Then the _Mass of Air_ chang’d into Water: And lastly, a _partial Deluge_. And therefore he puts Men fatally, either upon the Theory, or upon his new Hypothesis.

Footnote 19:

This he acknowledges, _p._ 325. (_We expound a Text or two of Scripture so as none ever did; and deferring the common received Sense, put an unusual Gloss upon them_, not to say, ἰδίαν ἐπίλυσιν, _a private Interpretation_,) and p. 359.

Footnote 20:

P. 303. _But though these Caverns be called Deeps, we must not take them for profound Places, that went down into the Earth, below the common Surface of it: On the contrary, they were situate above it._

Footnote 21:

Psal. cxiv. 7, 8. _Tremble, then Earth, at the Presence of the Lord, at the Presence of the God of_ Jacob: _Which turned the Rock into a standing Water, the Flint into a Fountain of Waters_.

Numb. xx. 10, 11. _And_ Moses _and_ Aaron _gathered the Congregation together before the Rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, you Rebels; must we fetch you Water out of this Rock? And_ Moses _lift up his Hand, and with his Rod he smite the Rock twice, and the Water came out abundantly_.

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. I have taken as much Notice of them as I thought necessary, in the precedent Chapter; and therefore leave the Exceptor now to deal with them all together. I omitted one Objection (_p._ 311.) concerning the shutting up of the Abyss, and the Fountains of the Abyss, because it was answer`d before in the _English_ Theory, _p._ 143. namely, there were Fountains in the Abyss, as much as Windows in Heaven; and those were shut up, as well as these; that is, ceas’d to act, and were put into a Condition to continue the Deluge no longer.

CHAP. XVII.

There is nothing in this Chapter against the Truth of the Theory; but the Author is blam’d for believing it to be true: I think it had been more blame-worthy, if he had troubled the World with a Theory which he did not believe to be true, and taken so much Pains to compose what he thought himself no better than a Romance. As to what the Theorist has said in Reference to his Assurance or Belief of the Theory, which the Exceptor calls _Positiveness_, upon Examination, I cannot find any Thing amiss in his Conduct, as to that Particular. For, first, he imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; he leaves every one their full Liberty of dissenting. _Preface to the Reader_ at the End. _Lastly, in Things purely speculative, as these are, and no Ingredients of our Faith, it is free to differ from one another in our Opinions and Sentiments; and so I remember St._ Austin _hath observed upon this very Subject of Paradise. Wherefore, as we desire to give no Offence our selves, so neither shall we take any at the Difference of Judgment in others; provided this Liberty be mutual, and that we all agree to study PEACE, TRUTH, and a GOOD LIFE._ And as the Theorist imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; so, as to Matter of Certainty, he distinguisheth always betwixt the _Substance_ of the Theory, and _Particularities_. So, at the latter End of the _first Book_, this Profession is made, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 207. _I mean this only_, speaking about Certainty, _as to the general Parts of the Theory. For as to Particularities, I look upon them only as problematical; and accordingly I affirm nothing therein, but with a Power of Revocation, and a Liberty to change my Opinion when I shall be better inform’d._ And accordingly he says in another Place, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 12. _I know how subject we are to Mistakes, in these great and remote Things, when we descend to Particularities. But I am willing to expose the Theory to a full Trial, and to shew the Way for any to examine it, provided they do it with Equity and Sincerity. I have no other Design than to contribute my Endeavours to find out Truth_, &c. Lastly, to cite no more Places, he says, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 402. _There are many particular Explications that are to be consider’d with more Liberty and Latitude; and may, perhaps, upon better Thoughts, and better Observations, be corrected_, &c. The Theorist having thus stated and bounded his Belief or Assurance, and given Liberty of dissenting to all others, according to their particular Judgments or Inclinations, I see nothing unfair or undecent in this Conduct. How could the Observator have made it more unexceptionable? Would he have had the Theorist to have profess’d Scepticism, and declar’d that he believ’d his own Theorist no more than a Romance or fantastical Idea? that had been both to bely his own Conscience, and to mock the World. I remember I have heard a good Author once with, that there were an _Act of Parliament_, that whoever printed a Book, should, when he took a License, swear, that he thought the _Contents of his Book to be true_, as to Substance: And I think such a Method would keep off a great many Impertinencies. We ought not to trouble the World with our roving Thoughts, merely out of an Itch of Scripturiency, when we do not believe our selves what we write. I must always profess my Assent to the Substance of that Theory; and am the more confirm’d in it by the Weakness and Inefficacy of these Exceptions.

We need not take Notice of the particular Citations he makes use of, to prove this _Positiveness_ of the Theorist; for they only affirm what we still own: That the Theory is more than an _Idea_, or that it is not an _imaginary Idea_, or that it is a _Reality_: And, together with its Proofs from Scripture, especially from St. _Peter_, hath more than the Certainty of a _bare Hypothesis_, or a _moral Certainty_. These are the Expressions he cites, and we own all, that, in fair Construction, they amount to; and find no Reason, either from the Nature of the Thing, or from his Objections, to change our Opinion, or make any Apology for too much Positiveness.

I wish the Exceptor had not more to answer for, as to his _Partiality_, than the Theorist hath, for his _Positiveness_. And now, that we draw to a Conclusion, it will not be amiss to observe, how well the Exceptor hath answered that Character, which he gave himself at the Beginning of his Work. These are his Words, _p._ 43. _This I will endeavour to do_, namely, To examine the Theory, _with all Sincerity; and that only as a Friend and Servant to Truth: And therefore, with such Candor, Meekness, and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character: And also with such Respect to the Virtuoso who wrote the Theory, as may testify to the World, that I esteem his Learning, while I question his Opinion._ ’Tis of little Consequence what Opinion he has of the _Virtuoso_, as he calls him: But let us see with what _Sincerity_ and _Meekness_, he has examin’d his Work. As to his Sincerity, we have given you some Proofs of it before, (_p._ 26.) both in his defective and partial Citations; and also, in his never taking Notice of the last Edition of the Theory; where several Citations he has made use of, are not extant. Now, by his own Rule, he ought to have had regard to this; for he says, (_p._ 356.) he will there take Notice only of the _English_ Edition, _as coming out after the other; and so with more Deliberation and mature Thoughts of Things_. By the same Reason, say I, he ought to have taken Notice of the last Edition of the Theory, as being the last Product, and the most _deliberate and mature Thoughts_ of the Author. But this, it seems, was not for his Purpose.

So much for his Sincerity: Now for his _Meekness_. So impatient he is to fall upon his Adversary, that he begins his Charge in the Preface, and a very fierce one it is, (_p._ 3.) _The Theorist hath assaulted Religion, and that in the very Foundation of it._ Here I expected to have found two or three Articles of the Creed assaulted or knock’d down by the Theory. But that is not the Case, it seems, he understands something more general, namely, our contradicting Scripture: For so he explains himself in the next Page. _In several Things (as will appear by our Discourse) it contradicts Scripture; and by too positive asserting the Truth of its Theorems, makes that to be false, upon which our Religion is founded._ Let us remember, that this contracting Scripture here pretended, is only in natural Things; and also observe, how far the Exceptor 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 somewhere he makes our Assertions, _p._ 78. _too bold an Affront to Scripture_. And in another Place represents them, as (either directly, or consequentially) _p._ 286. _Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost_, which is the unpardonable Sin, _Matt._ xii. 31.

There is no Pleasure in repeating such Expressions, and dreadful Sentences. Let us rather observe, if the Exceptor 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 Exceptor hath taken the _Affirmative_; and therefore, all those heavy Charges must fall upon himself, if he go contrary to the literal Sense 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; _p._ 314. He says, _It it 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 expressly contrary to Scripture, in many Places. The _Sun rejoices, as a strong Man, to run his Race_, says _David_ Ps. xix. 5, 6. _His going forth is from the End of the Heaven, and his Circuit unto the Ends of it_, _Josh._ x. 12, 13. 2 _Kings_ xx. 10, 11. _Isa._ xxxviii. 8. No such Thing, says the Exceptor; the Sun hath no Race to run; he is fix’d 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 Exceptor, ’twas the Earth stood still, upon that Miracle; for the Sun always stood still. And ’tis _absurd_, yea, _most absurd_, to think otherwise, _p._ 157. And he blames _Tycho Brahe_ for following Scripture in this Particular. Now, is not this, in the Language of the Exceptor, to _destroy the Foundations of Religion_, to _affront Scripture_, and _blaspheme against the Holy Ghost_? But this is not all: The Exceptor says, (_Chap._ 10.) the Sun rais’d up the Mountains on the third Day; and the Sun was not in being till the fourth Day, according to Scripture, _Gen._ i. 14. The Moon also, which, according to Scripture, was not created till the fourth Day, he says, would hinder the Formation of the Earth, which was done the third Day. Lastly, in this new Hypothesis, _p._74. 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 expressly to have cover’d the Tops of the highest Hills, or Mountains, under Heaven, _Gen._ vii. 19, 20. These two Things are manifestly inconsistent. The Scripture says, _Gen._ viii. 5. they cover’d the Tops of the highest Mountains: And the Exceptor says they reached 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, _p._ 216. _This is not only 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 Exceptor 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 human Reason, or such as lies within it: If it be the former of these, ’tis 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 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 Sense; 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, _Mat._ v. 29, 30. _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 obliged to the literal Practice of this Doctrine; and yet it is plainly delivered, 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 wilt 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 practice this, nor any Casuist so rigid as to enjoy 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 human Society.

In all other Things also, that lie within the Sphere of human Reason, we are allowed 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, join’d with that Action, are very formal and expressive; yet we do not scruple to forsake the literal Sense, and take the Words in another Way: But upon what Warrant do we this? because the literal Sense 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 Eternity of Torments, against the Letter of Scripture. And, lastly, whether the Resurrection Body consists of the same individual Parcels and Particles, whereof the mortal Body consisted, before it was putrefied or dispers’d? And, _Phil._ iv. 3. _Apoc._ iii. 5 and xx. 12. whether the _Books of Life_ are to be understood in a literal Sense?

The last Head is of such Things as belong to the natural World. And to this may be reduced innumerable Instances, where we leave the literal Sense, if inconsistent with Science or Experience. And the Truth is, if we should follow the vulgar Style and literal Sense of Scripture, we should all be _Anthropomorphites_, as to the Nature of God: And as to the Nature of his Works in the external Creation, we must renounce Philosophy and natural Experience, if the Descriptions and Accounts given in Scripture, concerning the _Heavens_, the _Earth_, the _Sea_, and other Parts of the World, be received as accurate and just Representations of the State and Properties of those Bodies. Neither is there any Danger, lest this should affect or impeach the Divine Veracity; for Scripture never undertook, nor was ever designed to teach us Philosophy, or the Arts and Sciences: And whatsoever the Light of Nature can reach and comprehend, is improperly the Subject of Revelation. But some Men, out of Love to their own Ease, and in Defence of their Ignorance, are not only for a Scripture Divinity, but also for a Scripture Philosophy. ’Tis a cheap and compendious Way, and saves them the Trouble of farther Study or Examination.

Upon the whole, you see, it is no Fault to recede from the literal Sense of Scripture; but the Fault is, when we leave it without a just Cause: As it is no Fault for a Man to separate from a Church, or for a Prince to make War against his Neighbour, but to do the one or the other, without a just Cause, is a real Fault. We all leave the literal Sense in certain Cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient Charge against any Man. But he that makes a Separation, if I may so call it, without good Reasons, he is truly obnoxious to Censure. The great Result of all, therefore, is this, to have some common Rule to direct us, when every one ought to follow, and when to leave, the literal Sense. And that Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters, is this, _Not_ to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject-Matter will bear it, without Absurdity or Incongruity. This Rule I have always proposed to my self, and always endeavoured to keep close to it. But some inconsiderate Minds make every Departure from the Letter, let the Matter or Cause be what it will, to be an Affront to Scripture: And there, where we have the greatest Liberty, I mean in Things that relate to the natural World, they have no more Indulgence or Moderation, than if it was an Intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith. In this Particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter; yet, I must needs say, he is a very Saint in Comparison of another Animadverter, who hath writ upon the same Subject; but neither like a Gentleman, nor like a Christian, nor like a Scholar. And such Writings answer themselves.

A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN’S DEFENCE OF HIS EXCEPTIONS AGAINST THE _THEORY_ of the _EARTH_.

_In a_ LETTER _to a Friend_.

_SIR_,

I have read over Mr. _Erasmus Warren’s_ Defence of his Exceptions against _the Theory of the Earth_; which, it may be, few will do after me; as not having Curiosity or Patience enough to read such a long Pamphlet, of private or little Use. Such Altercations as these, are to you, I believe, as they are to me, a sort of Folly; but the Aggressor must answer for that, who makes the Trouble unavoidable to the Defendant. And ’tis an unpleasant Exercise, a kind of Wild-goose-chase; where he that leads must be followed, through all his Extravagancies.

The Author of this Defence must pardon me, if I have less Apprehensions both of his Judgment and Temper, than I had before: For, as he is too verbose and long-winded ever so make a close Reasoner; so it was unexpected to me to find his Style so captious and angry, as it is in this last Paper. And the same Strain continuing to the End, I was sorry to see that his Blood had been kept upon the Fret, for so many Months together, as the Pamphlet was a making.

He might have made his Work much shorter, without any Loss to the Sense. If he had left out his popular Enlargements, juvenile Excursions, Stories and Strains of Country-Rhetorick, (whereof we shall give you some Instances hereafter) his Book would have been reduc’d to half the Compass: And if from that reduc’d half, you takeaway again trifling Altercations and pedantick Repartees, the Remainder would fall into the Compass of a few Pages. For my part, I am always apt to suspect a Man that makes me a long Answer; for the precise Point to be spoken to, in a multitude of Words, is easily lost, and Words are often multiplied for that very Purpose.

However, if his Humour be verbose, it might have been, at least, more easy and inoffensive; there having been no Provocation given him in that kind. But let us guess, if you please, as well as we can, what it was in the late Answer, that so much discomposed the Exceptor and altered his Style: Either it must be the Words and Language of that Answer, or the Sense of it, without Respect to the Language. As to the Words, ’tis true, he gives some instances of Expressions offensive to him; yet they are but three or four, and those, methinks, not very high, _p._ 31. tho’ he calls them the _Brats of Passion_; they are these, _indiscreet_, _rude_, _injudicious_ and _uncharitable_. These Characters, it seems, are applied to the Exceptor, in some part of the Answer, upon Occasion offer’d; and whether those Occasions were just or no, I dare appeal to your Judgment. As to the Word _rude_, which seems the most harsh, I had said indeed, that he was _rude_ to _Anaxagoras_; and so he was, not to allow him to be a competent Witness in matter of Fact, whom all Antiquity, sacred and prophane, hath represented to us as one of the greatest Men amongst the Antients. I had also said in another Place, that _a rude_, and _injudicious Defence of Scripture_, by _Railing and ill Language_, is the _true way to lessen and disparage it_. This I still justify as true; and if he apply it to himself, much good may it do him. I do not remember that it is any where said, that he was _rude_ to the Theorist; if it be, ’tis possibly upon his charging him with _Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost_, for saying, _the Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge_. And I appeal to any Man, whether this is not an _uncharitable_, and a _rude_ Charge. If a Man had cursed God, or call’d our Saviour an Impostor, what could he have been charg’d with more, than _Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy_? And if the same things be charg’d upon a Man, for saying, the Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge, either all Crimes and Errors must be equal, or the Charge must be rude. But however it must be rude in the Opinion of the Theorist, who thinks this neither Crime nor Error.

What says the _Defence_ of the Exceptions to this; _p._ 153. it makes use of Distinctions for Mitigation of the Censure; and says, it will _indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively be of blasphemous Importance_. Here Blasphemy is changed into _blasphemous Importance_, and _horrid Blasphemy_ into _consequential_, _&c._ But taking all these Mitigations, it seems however, according to his Theology, all Errors in Religion are _Blasphemy_ or of _blasphemous Importance_. For all Errors in Religion must be against Scripture one way or other; at least consequentially, indirectly, or reductively; and all that are so, according to the Doctrine of this Author, must be _Blasphemy_, or of _blasphemous Importance_. This is crude Divinity, and the Answerer had Reason to subjoin what he cited before, that a rude and injudicious Defence of Scripture, is the true way to lessen and disparage it.

Thus much for _rude_ and _uncharitable_; as for the other two Words, _indiscreet_ and _injudicious_, I cannot easily be induc’d to make any Apology for them. On the contrary, I’m afraid I shall have Occasion to repeat these Characters again, especially the latter of them, in the Perusal of this Pamphlet. However, they do not look like _Brats of Passion_, as he calls them; but rather as cool and quiet Judgments, made upon Reasons and Premisses. I had forgot one Expression more: The Answer, it seems, somewhere calls the Exceptor a _Dabler_ in _Philosophy_, which he takes ill: But that he is a Dabler, both in Philosophy and Astronomy, I believe will evidently appear upon this second Examination of the same Passages upon which that Character was grounded. We will therefore leave that to the Trial, when we come to those Passages again, in the following Discourse.

These, _Sir_, as far as I remember, are the Words and Expressions which he hath taken Notice of, as offensive to him, and Effects of Passion. But, methinks, these cannot be of Force sufficient to put him so much out of Humour, and change his Style so much, as we find it to be in this last Pamphlet: And therefore I am inclinable to believe, that ’tis the Sense, rather than the Words, or Language of the Answer, that hath had this Effect upon him; and that some unhappy Passages, that have expos’d his Mistakes, were the true Causes of these Resentments. Such Passages I will guess at, as well as I can, and note them to you as they occur to my Memory.

But give me leave, first, upon this occasion of his new way of Writing, to distinguish and mind you of three sorts of arguing, which you may call _reasoning_, _wrangling_, and _scolding_. In fair reasoning, Regard is had to Truth only, not to Victory, let it fall on whether side it will. But in wrangling and scolding, ’tis Victory that is pursued and aim’d at in the first Place, with little Regard to Truth. And if the Contention be managed in civil terms, ’tis but wrangling; if in uncivil, ’tis scolding. I will not so far anticipate your Judgment, as to rank this Arguer in any of the three Orders: It you have Patience to read over his Pamphlet, you will best see how and where to set him in his proper Place.

We now proceed to those Passages in the Answer, which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence, _Exc._ _p._ 77, _&c._ In his Exceptions he had said, the Moon being present, or in her present Place in the Firmament, at the time of the Chaos, she would certainly trouble and discompose it, as she does now the Waters of the Sea; and, by that Means, hinder the Formation of the Earth. To this we answer’d, that the _Moon that was made the fourth Day, could not hinder the formation of the Earth, which was made the third Day_. This was a plain intelligible Answer, and at the same time discover’d such a manifest Blunder in the Objection, as could not but give an uneasy Thought to him that made it.

However we must not deny, but that he makes some Attempt to silence it off in his Reply; for he says, _Def._ _p._ 12. _The Earth formed the third Day was_ Moses’s _Earth, which the Exceptor contends for; but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist’s, which could not be formed the third Day_. He should have added, and therefore _would be hinder’d by the Moon_, otherwise this takes off nothing. And now the Question comes to a clear State; for when the Exceptor says, the Moon would have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, either he speaks upon _Moses_’s Hypothesis, or upon the Theorist’s Hypothesis. Not upon the Theorist’s Hypothesis, for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then; _Eccl._ _p._ 77, 78. _Def._ _p._ 73. _l._ 12, 13. And if he speaks upon _Moses_’s Hypothesis, the Moon that was made the fourth Day, must have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth the third Day. So that the Objection is a Blunder upon either Hypothesis.

Furthermore, whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of _Moses_’s Hypothesis to confute his Adversary, but does not follow it himself: ’Tis so far true, that the Theorist never said that _Moses_’s six Days Creation was to be understood literally; but however it is justly urged against those that understand it literally, and they must not contradict that Interpretation, which they own and defend.

So much for the Moon, and this first Passage, which I suppose was troublesome to our Author. But he makes the same Blunder in another Place, as to the _Sun_: Both the Luminaries, it seems, stood in his Way. In the tenth Chapter of his Exceptions, he gives us a new Hypothesis about the _Origin of Mountains_, which, in short, is this; that they were drawn or suck’d out of the Earth by the Influence and Instrumentality of the Sun: Whereas the Sun was not made, according to _Moses_, till the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third Day. ’Tis an unhappy Thing to split twice upon the same Rock, and upon a Rock so visible. He that can but reckon to four, can tell whether the third Day, or fourth Day came sooner.

To cure this Hypothesis about the _Origin of Mountains_, he takes great pains in his _Defence_, _pag._ 97, 98, 99, 100, 101. and attempts to do it by help of a Distinction, dividing Mountains into _Maritime_ and _Inland_. Now ’tis true, says he, _These maritime Mountains, and such as were made with the Hollow of the Sea, must rise when that was sunk or deprest_; namely, the third Day. Yet inland ones, he says, might be raised some earlier, and some later, and by the Influence of the Sun. This is a weak and vain Attempt to defend his Notion; for, betides that this Distinction of _maritime_ and _inland Mountains_, as arising from different Causes, and at different Times, is without any Ground, either in Scripture or Reason, if their different Origin was admitted, the Sun’s extracting these inland Mountains out of the Earth, would still be absurd and incongruous upon other Accounts.

Scripture, I say, makes no such Distinction of Mountains, made at different Times, and from different Causes. This is plain, seeing _Moses_ does not mention Mountains at all in his six Days Creation, nor any where else, till the Deluge: What Authority have we then to make this Distinction; or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together? Besides, what length of Time would you require, for the Production of these inland Mountains? Were they not all made within the six Days Creation? Hear what _Moses_ says at the end of the sixth Day. _Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the Host of them_, Gen. c. xxi. _And on the seventh Day, God ended his Work which he had made._ Now if the Exceptor says, that the Mountains were all made within these six Days, we will not stand with him for a Day or two; for that would make little Difference as to the Action of the Sun. But if he will not confine their Production to _Moses_’s six Days, how does he keep to the _Mosaical_ Hypothesis? Or how shall we know where he will stop in his own Way? For if they were not made within the six Days, for any thing he knows, they might not be made till the Deluge; seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood.

And as Scripture makes no Distinction of _maritime and inland Mountain_, so neither hath this Distinction any Foundation in Nature or Reason: For there is no apparent or discernable Difference betwixt maritime and inland Mountains, nor any Reason why they should be thought to proceed from different Causes, or to be rais’d at different Times. The maritime Mountains are as rocky, as ruderous, and as irregular and various in their Shape and Posture, as the inland Mountains. They have no distinctive Characters, nor any different Properties, internal or external, in their Matter, Form, or Composition, that can give us any Ground to believe, that they came from a different Original. So that this Distinction is merely precarious, neither founded in Scripture nor Reason, but made for the nonce to serve a Turn.

Besides, what Bounds will you give to these maritime Mountains? Are they distinguished from inland Mountains barely by their Distance from the Sea, or by some other Character? If barely by Distance, tell us then how far from the Sea do the maritime Mountains reach, and where do the inland begin, and how shall we know the _Terminalis Lapis_? Especially in a continued Chain of Mountains, that reach from the Sea many hundreds of Miles, inland; as the _Alps_ from the Ocean to _Pontus Euxinus_, and _Taurus_, as he says, _Def._ _p._ 143. fifteen hundred Miles in length, from the _Chinese_ Ocean to the Sea of _Pamphylia_. In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains, where do the Land-Mountains end, and Sea-Mountains begin? Or what Mark is there, whereby we may know that they are not all of the same Race, or do not all spring from the same Original? Such obvious Enquiries as these, shew sufficiently, that the Distinction is merely arbitrary and ficticious.

But suppose this Distinction was admitted, and the maritime Mountains made the third Day, but inland Mountains I know not when: The great Difficulty still remains, _How_ the Sun rear’d up these inland Mountain’s afterward? Or if his Power be sufficient for such Effects, why have we not Mountains made still to this Day? Seeing our Mountain-maker, the Sun, is still in the Firmament, and seems to be as busy at Work as ever. The _Defender_ hath made some Answer to this Question, in these Words, _Def. p._ 99. _The Question is put, why have we no Mountains made now? It might as well have been ask’d_, says he, _Why does not the Fire make a Dough-bak’d Loaf swell and puff up?_ And, he says, _this Answer must be satisfactory to the Question propounded_. It must be, that is, for want of a better; for otherwise this Dough-comparison is unsatisfactory upon many Accounts. First, there was no Ferment in the Earth, as in this Dough-cake: at least it is not prov’d, or made appear, that there was any. Nay, when this Hypothesis was propos’d, there was no Mention at all made of any Ferment or Leaven in the Earth; but the Effect was wholly imputed to _Venus_ and the _Sun_. But to supply their Defects, he now ventures to add the Word, _fermentive_, as he calls it. A _fermentive, flatulent Principle_, which heav’d up the Earth, as Leaven does Dough. But, besides, that this is a mere groundless and gross _Postulatum_, to suppose any such Leaven in the Earth; if there had been such a Principle, it would have swollen the whole Mass uniformly, heav’d up the exterior Region of the Earth every where, and so not made Mountains, but a swollen bloated Globe.

This, Sir, is a second Passage, which I thought might make the Defender uneasy. We proceed now to a third and fourth in his Geography and Astronomy. In the 14th Chapter of his Exceptions, _p._ 289. speaking of the Change of the Situation of the Earth, from a right Posture to an oblique, he says, _according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the primitive Earth, was its Equinoctial now_. This, he is told by the Answer, is a great Mistake; namely, to think that the _Earth, when it chang’d its Situation, chang’d its Poles and Circles_. What is now reply’d to this? _He speaks against a Change_, says the Defence, _in the Poles and Circles of the Earth; a needless Trouble, and occasioned by his own Oversight. For had he but looked into the Errata’s, he might have seen there, that these Parentheses, upon which he grounded what he says, should have been left out._ So this is acknowledg’d an _Erratum_ it seems, but an _Erratum Typographicum_; not in the Sense, but only in the _Parentheses_, which, he says, should have been left out. Let us then lay aside the Parentheses, and the Sentence stands thus: _For under the Ecliptick, which in the primitive Situation of the Earth, according to the Theory_, was its _Equinoctial, and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres, as the Equator does now. The dry Ground, &c._ How does this alter or mend the Sense? Is it not still as plainly affirm’d, as before, that according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the primitive Earth was equinoctial? And the same thing is suppos’d throughout all this Paragraph, _Exc._ p. 289, 290. And if he will own the Truth, and give Things their proper Name, ’tis downright Ignorance, or gross Mistake in the _Doctrine of the Sphere_, which he would first father upon the _Theory_, and then upon the _Parentheses_.

And this leads me to a fourth Passage, much-what of the same Nature, where he would have the Earth to have been translated out of the Æquator into the Ecliptick, and to have chang’d the Line of its Motion about the Sun, when it chang’d its Situation. His Words are these, _Exc._ p. 158, 159. _So that in her annual Motion about the Sun, she_, namely the Earth, before her Change of Situation, _was carried directly under the Equinoctial_. This is his Mistake; the Earth mov’d in the Ecliptick, both before and after her Change of Situation; for the Change was not made in the Circle of her Motion about the Sun, but in her Posture or Inclination in the same Circle: Whereas he supposes that she _shifted both Posture, and also her Circuit about the Sun_, Ibid. _p._ 159. as his Words are in the next Paragraph. But we shall have Occasion to reflect upon this again in its proper Place. We proceed now to another astronomical Mistake.

A fifth Passage, which probably might disquiet him, is his false Argumentation at the end of the eighth Chapter concerning _Days_ and _Months_, _Exc._ p. 187. He says there, if the natural Days were longer towards the Flood than at first, (which no body however affirms) fewer than thirty would have made a Month; whereas the Duration of the Flood is computed by Months, consisting of thirty Days a-piece; _Therefore_, says he, _they were no longer than ordinary_. This Argumentation the _Answer_ told him, _was a mere Paralogism, or a mere Blunder_: For thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or shorter; and Scripture does not determine the Length of the Days. There are several Pages spent in the _Defence_, to get off the Blunder: Let’s hear how he begins, _p._ 78, 79, 80, 81. _Tho’ Scripture does not limit or account for the Length of Days expresly, yet it does it implicitly, and withal very plainly and intelligibly._ This is deny’d: And if he makes this out, that Scripture does very _plainly_ and _intelligibly_ determine the Length of Days at the Deluge, and makes them equal with ours at present, then, I acknowledge, he hath remov’d the Blunder; otherwise it stands the same, unmov’d and unmended. Now observe how he makes this out: _For_, says he, _Scripture gives us to understand, that Days before the Flood, were of the same Length, that they are of now, BY INFORMING US, that Months and Years, which were of the same Length then that they are of at present, were made up of the same Number of Days_. Here the Blunder is still continued, or, at best, it is but transferr’d from Days to Months, or from Months to Years. He says, _Scripture informs us that Months and Years were of the same Length then, that they are of at present_. If he mean by the _same Length_, the same _Number of_ Days, he relapses into the old Blunder, and we still require the Length of those Days. But if Scripture informs us that the Months and Years at the Flood, were of the same Length that they are of now, according to any absolute and known Measure, distinct from the _Number of Days_, then the Blunder is sav’d. Let’s see therefore by whether of these two Ways he proves it in the next Words, which are these: _For how could there be just twelve Months in the Year, at the time of the Deluge; and thirty Days in each of those Months, if the Days then had not consisted, as they do now, of twenty four Hours a-piece?_ We allow a Day might then consist of twenty four Hours, if the Distinction of Hours was so ancient. But what then? the Question returns concerning the Length of those _Hours_, as it was before concerning the Length of the _Days_; and this is either _idem per idem_, or the same Error in another Instance. If you put but _Hours_ in the place of _Days_, the Words of the _Answer_ have still the same Force: _Twenty four Hours were to go to a Day, whether the Hours were longer or shorter, and Scripture does not determine the Length of the Hours._ This, you see, is still the same Case, and the same Paralogism hangs upon both Instances.

But he goes on still in this false Tract, in these Words: _And as Providence hath so ordered Nature, that Days (that depend upon its diurnal Motion) should be measur’d by Circumgyrations of the Earth——So it hath taken Care that each of these Circumrotations should be performed in twenty four Hours; and consequently that every Day should be just so long, that thirty of them (in way of round reckoning) might complete a Month._ Admit all this, that thirty Days complete a Month; still if Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Days, nor the Slowness or Swiftness of the Circumgyrations that make them, it hath not determin’d the Length of those Months, nor of the Years that depend upon them. This one would take to be very intelligible; yet he goes on in the same Maze, thus: _But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge (by such Causes as the Exceptor suggested) so as every Day had consisted of thirty Hours_, &c. But how so, I pray? This is a wild Step; why thirty Hours? Where does Scripture say so, or where does the _Theorist_ say so? We say the Day consisted then, as now, of twenty four Hours, whether the Hours were longer or shorter; and that Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Hours, nor consequently of those Months, nor consequently of those Years. So after all this ado, we are just where we were at first, namely, that Scripture not having determin’d the absolute Length of any one, you cannot by that determine the Length of any other. And by his shifting and multiplying Instances, he does but _absurda absurdis accumulare, ne perpluant_.

We offer’d before, in our Answer, to give the Exceptor some Light into his Mistake, by distinguishing in these Things, what is _absolute_ from what is _relative_: The former whereof cannot, under these or any such like Circumstances, be determin’d by the latter. For Instance: A Man hath ten Children, and he will not say absolutely and determinatively what Portion he will give with any one of them; but he says, I will give my eldest Child a tenth Part more than my second; and my second a ninth Part more than my third; and my third an eighth Part more than my fourth; and so downwards, in proportion to the youngest: Not telling you, in any absolute Sum, what Money he will give the youngest, or any other; you cannot, by this, tell what Portion the Man will give with any of his Children. I leave you to apply this, and proceed to a nearer Instance, by comparing the Measures of _Time_ and _Longitude_. If you know how many Inches make a Foot, how many Feet a Pace, how many Paces a Mile, _&c._ you cannot by these Numbers determine the absolute Quantity of any one of the aforesaid Measures, but only their relative Quantity as to one another. So if Scripture had determin’d, of how many Hours a Day consisted; of how many Days a Month; of how many Months a Year; you could not by this alone determine the absolute Duration or Quantity of any one of these, nor whether they were longer or shorter than our present Hours, Days, Months, or Years. And therefore, I say still, as I said at first, thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or shorter; and thirty Circumgyrations of the Earth are thirty, whether they be slower or swifter: And that no Scripture-Proof can be made from this, either directly or consequentially, that the Days before the Flood were, or were not, longer than they are at present. But we have been too long upon this Head.

We proceed now from his Astronomy to his Philosophy. ’Twas observ’d in the _Answer_, p. 38. that the Exceptor in the Beginning of the ninth Chapter, suppos’d terrestrial Bodies to have _Nitency inwards, or downwards, towards the Center_. This was noted as a false Principle in Philosophy, and to rectify his Mistake, he now replies, _Def._ p. 82. That he understood that Expression only of _self-central_ and _quiescent Bodies_: Whereas, in truth, the Question he was speaking to, was about a fluid Body turning upon its Axis. But however, let us admit his new Sense, his Principle, I’m afraid, will still need Rectification; namely, he affirms now, that _quiescent earthly Bodies_ are _impregnated with a Nitency inward, or downward towards the Center_. I deny also this reform’d Principle; if Bodies be turn’d round, they have a Nitency upwards, or from the Center of their Motion. If they be not turn’d round, nor mov’d, but quiescent, they have no Nitency at all, neither upwards nor downwards, but are indifferent to all Lines of Motion, according as an external Impulse shall carry them, this Way or that Way. So that his _Impregnation with a Nitency downwards_, is an occult and fictitious Quality, which is not in the Nature of Bodies, whether in Motion or in Rest. The Truth is, the Author of the Exceptions makes a great Flutter about the _Cartesian Philosophy_, and the _Copernican System_, but the frequent Mistakes he commits in both, give a just Suspicion that he understands neither.

Lastly, we come to the grand Discovery of a _fifteen-cubit Deluge_, which, it may be, was as uneasy to him upon second Thoughts, as any of the rest; at least one would guess so, by the Changes he hath made in his Hypothesis. For he hath now, in this _Defence_, p. 181, 182. reduc’d the Deluge to a Destruction of the World by _Famine_, rather than by _Drowning_. I do not remember in Scripture any Mention made of _Famine_ in that great Judgment of Water brought upon Mankind; but he thinks he hath found out something that favours his Opinion; namely, _that a good Part of Mankind at the Deluge, were not drown’d, but starv’d for want of Victuals_. And the Argument is this, because in the Story of the Deluge, Men are not said to be _drown’d_, but to _perish_, _die_, or be _destroy’d_. But are they said any where in the Story of the Deluge, to have been _famish’d_? And when God says to _Noah_, Gen. vi. 17. _I will bring a Flood of Waters upon the Earth, to destroy all Flesh_; does it not plainly signify, that that Destruction should be by _drowning_? But however, let us hear our Author; when he had been making use of this new Hypothesis of _starving_, to take off some Arguments urged against his fifteen-cubit Deluge, (particularly, that it would not be sufficient to destroy all Mankind) he adds these Words by way of Proof: _Def._ p. 182. _And methinks there is one Thing which seems to insinuate, that a good Part of the animal World might perhaps came to an End thus; by being driven to such Straights by the overflowing Waters, as to be FAMISH’D or STARV’D to Death. The Thing is this, in the Story of the Deluge, it is no where said of Men and living Creatures, that they were drown’d, but they died, or were destroyed._ Those that are _drown’d_ are _destroy’d_, I imagine, as well as those that are _starv’d_; so this proves nothing. But that the Destruction here spoken of, was by drowning, seems plain enough, both from God’s Word to _Noah_ before the Flood, and by his Words after the Flood, when he makes his Covenant with _Noah_, in this Manner: _I will establish my Covenant with you, neither shall all Flesh be cut off any more by the Waters of a Flood_, Gen. ix. 11. Now, to be cut off, or destroy’d by the Waters of a Flood, is, methinks, to be drown’d; And I take _all Flesh_ to comprehend the animal World, or, at least, all Mankind. Accordingly our Saviour says, _Matth._ xxiv. 39. in _Noah_’s Time, _the Flood came and took them all away_; namely, all Mankind.

This is one Expedient our Author hath found out, to help to bear off the Inconveniencies that attend his fifteen-cubit Deluge; namely, by converting a good Part of it into a _Famine_. But he hath another Expedient to join to this, by increasing the Waters; and that is done by making the _common Surface_ of the Earth, or the _highest Parts_ of it, as he calls them, _Def._ 165 and 180, to signify ambiguously, or any Height that pleases him; and consequently fifteen Cubits above that, signifies also what Height he thinks fit. But in reality, there is no Surface common to the Earth, but either the _exterior Surface_, whether it be high or low; or the _ordinary Level_ of the Earth, as it is a Globe or Convex Body. If by his _common Surface_ he mean the _exterior Surface_, that takes in Mountains as well as Lowlands, or any other superficial Parts of the Earth. And therefore, if the Deluge was fifteen Cubits above this common Surface, it was fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains, as we say it was. But, if by the common Surface he mean the common Level of the Earth, as it is a Globular or Convex Body, then we gave it a right Name, when we call’d it the _ordinary Level_ of the Earth; namely, that Level or Surface that lies in an equal Convexity with the Surface of the Sea: And his fifteen Cubits of Water from that Level, would never drown the World. Lastly, if by the common Surface of the Earth, he understand a third Surface, different from both these, he must define it, and define the Height of it; that we may know how far this fifteen-cubit Deluge rise, from some known Basis. One known Basis is the Surface of the Sea, and that Surface of the Land that ties in an equal Convexity with it: Tell us then, if the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the Surface of the Sea, that we may know their Height by some certain and determinate Measure; and upon that examine the Hypothesis: But tell us they were fifteen Cubits above, not the Mountains or the Hills, but the Highlands, or the _highest Parts of the common Surface of the Earth_, and not to tell us the Height of these highest Parts from any known Basis; nor how they are distinguish’d from Hills and Mountains, which incur our Senses, and are the Measures given us by _Moses_: This, I say, is but to cover his Hypothesis with Ambiguities, when he had made it without Grounds, and to leave room to set his Water-Mark higher or lower, as he should see Occasion or Necessity. And of this indeed we have an Instance in his last Pamphlet; for he has rais’d his Water-Mark there, more than an hundred Cubits higher than it was before. In his _Exceptions_, he said, _p._ 300. _not that the Waters were no where higher than just fifteen Cubits_ above the Ground, they might in most Places be _thirty_, _forty_, or _fifty Cubits higher_. But, in his _Defence_, he says, _p._ 180. the Waters might be an _hundred_ or _two hundred Cubits higher_ than the _general ordinary Plain_ of the Earth. Now what Security have we, but that, in the next Pamphlet they may be five hundred or a thousand Cubits higher than the ordinary Surface of the Earth?

This is his second Expedient, raising his Water-Mark indefinitely. But if these two Methods be not sufficient to destroy Mankind, and the animate World, he hath yet a third, which cannot fail; and that is, _destroying them by evil Angels_, Def. p. 90. _Flectere si nequeo_—This is his last Refuge; to which Purpose he hath these Words, _When Heaven was pleas’d to give Satan leave, he caus’d the Fire to consume_ Job_’s Sheep, and caused the Wind to destroy his Children. And how easily could these Spirits, that are Ministers of God’s Vengeance, have made the Waters of the Flood fatal to those Creatures that might have escaped them, if any could have done it?_ As suppose an Eagle, or a Faulcon; the Devil and his Crew catch them all, and held their Noses under Water: However, methinks, this is not fair Play to deny the Theorist the Liberty to make use of the Ministry of _good Angels_, when he himself makes use of _evil Spirits_.

These, Sir, and such like Passages, where the Notions of the Exceptor have been exposed, were the Causes, I imagine, of his angry Reply. Some Creatures, you know, are more fierce after they are wounded; and some, upon a gentle Chase, will fly from you; but if you press them, and put them to Extremities, they turn, and fly in your face. I see, by our Author’s Example, how easily, in these personal Altercations, Reasoning degenerates into Wrangling, and Wrangling into Scolding. However, if I may judge from these two Hypotheses which he hath made, about the _Rise of Mountains_, and a _fifteen-Cubit Deluge_, of all Trades, I should never advise him to turn _Hypothesis-Maker_. It does not seem at all to lie to his Hand; and Things never thrive that are undertaken, _Diis iratis, Genioque sinistro_.

But as we have given you some Account of this Author’s philosophical Notions, so it may be you will expect that we should entertain you with some Pieces of his Wit and Eloquence. The Truth is, he seems to delight and value himself upon a certain kind of Country-Wit and popular Eloquence, and I will not grudge you the Pleasure of enjoying them both, in such Instances as I remember. Speaking in Contempt of the Theory and the Answer, (which is one great Subject of his Wit) he expresses himself thus, _Def._ p. 48. _But if Arguments be so weak, that they will fall with a Phillip, why should greater Force be used to beat them down? To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly, or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider, I think would be preposterous._ I think so too; in this we are agreed. In another Place, being angry with the Theorist, that he would not acknowledge his Errors to him, he hath these Words, p. 128. _’Tis unlucky for one to rest his Head against a Post; but when he hath done, if he will say he did not do it, and stand in, and defend what he says, ’tis a Sign he is as senseless as he was unfortunate, and is fitter to be pitied than confuted._ This Wit, it may be, you’ll say is downright Clownery. The Truth is, when I observ’d, in reading his Pamphlet, the Coarseness of his Repartees, and of that sort of Wit wherein he deals most, and pleases himself, it often rais’d in my Mind, whether I would or no, the Idea of a _Pedant_, of one that had seen little of the World, and thought himself much wittier and wiser than others would take him to be: I will give you but one Instance more of his rustical Wit. Telling the Theorist of an Itch of Writing, _p._ 214. _Methinks_, says he, _he might have laid that prurient Humour, by scratching himself with the Briars of a more innocent Controversy, or by SCRUBBING SOUNDLY against something else than the Holy Scripture._ He speaks very sensibly, as if he understood the Disease, and the Way of dealing with it: But I think _Holy Scripture_ does not come in well upon that Occasion.

All this is nothing, Sir, in comparison of his popular Eloquence: See with what Alacrity he runs it off-hand, in a Similitude betwixt _Adam_ and a Lord Lieutenant of a County, _p._ 113. _When the King makes a Gentleman Lord Lieutenant of a County, by virtue of his Commission is he presently the strongest Man that is in it? Does it enable him to encounter whole Regiments of Soldiers in his single Person? Does it impower him to carry a Cannon upon his Neck? Or when the great Gun is fired off, to catch the Bullet as it flies, and put it up in his Pocket? So when God gave_ Adam _Dominion over the Fowls, did he mean that he should dive like a Duck, or soar like a Falcon? That he should swim as naturally as the Swan, and hunt the Kite or Hobby, as Boys do the Wren? Did he mean that he should hang up Ostriches in a Cage, as People do Linnets, or fetch down the Eagles to feed with his Pullen, and make them perch with his Chickens in the Henroost?_

So much for the Fowls; now for the Fish. _Ibid._ When God _gave_ Adam _Dominion over the Sea, was he to be able to dwell at the Bottom, or to walk on the Top of it? To drain it as a Ditch, or to take all its Fry at once in a Drag-Net? Was he to snare the Shark, as we do young Pickarels; or to bridle the Sea-Horse, and ride him for a Pad; or to put a Slip upon the Crocodile’s Neck, and play with him as with a Dog?_ &c. Sir, I leave it to you, as a more competent Judge, to set a just Value upon his Gifts and Elocution. For my Part, to speak freely, dull Sense, in a phantastick Style, is to me doubly nauseous.

But lest I should cloy you with these luscious Harangues, I will give you but one more; and ’tis a Miscellany of several Pieces of Wit together. _Def._ p. 68. _Should twenty Mariners_, says he, _confidently affirm that they sailed in a Ship from_ Dover _to_ Calais, _by a brisk Gale out of a Pair of Bellows? Or if forty Engineers should positively swear, that the Powder-Mill near_ London _was late blown up, by a Mine then sprung at_ Great Waradin _in_ Hungary, _must they not be grievously perjur’d Persons?——Or if the Historian that writes the_ Peloponnesian _War, had told that the Soldiers who fell in it, fought only with Sun-beams, and single Currants which grew thereabouts, and that hundreds and thousands were stabb’d with the one, and knocked on the Head with the other; who would believe that ever there were such Weapons in that War, that ever there was such a fatal War in that Country? Even so_, &c. These, Sir, are Flights and Reaches of his Pen, which I dare not censure, but leave them to your Judgment.

Thus much is to give you a Taste only of his Wit and Eloquence; and if you like it, you may find more of the same Strain, here and there, in his Writings. I have only one Thing to mind him of, _that_ he was desired by the Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 401. to _write in Latin (if he was a Scholar) as being more proper for a Subject of this Nature_. If he had own’d and follow’d that Character, I’m apt to think it would have prevented a great many Impertinences: His Tongue, probably, would not have been so flippant in popular Excursions and Declamations, as we now find it. Neither is this any great Presumption or Rashness of Judgment, if we may guess at his Skill in that Language by his Translations here and there: _Except,_ _p._ 293. _Cum plurima Religione_ is rendered _with the Principle of their Religion_. And if he say he followed Sir _W. Rawleigh_ in his Translation, he that follows a bad Translator, without Correction or Notice, is suppos’d to know no better himself: And this will appear the more probable, if we consider another of his Translations, in this present Work. _Rei Personam_ he translates _the Representation of the Thing_, instead of the _Person of the Guilty_, or the Person of him that is _Reus_ not _Actor_: And in this, I dare say, he was seduc’d by no Example. But lest we should be thought to misrepresent him, take his own Words, such as they are, _Def._ 168, 169. _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._ Here, you see, he hath made a double Blunder; first, in jumbling together _Person_ and _Thing_; then, if they could be jumbled together, _Rei Persona_ would not signify the _full and lively Representation of the Thing_, but rather a Disguise or personated Representation of the Thing. However, I am satisfied from these Instances, that he had good Reason, notwithstanding the Caution or Desire of the Theorist to the contrary, to write his Books in his Mother’s Tongue.

Thus we have done with the first Part, which was to mark out such Passages, as we thought might probably have enflam’d the Author’s Style in this Reply: When Men are resolved not to own their Faults, you know there is nothing more uneasy and vexatious to them, than to see them plainly discovered and expos’d. We must now give you some Account of the Contents of his Chapters, so far as they relate to our Subject. _Chap._ i. _Nothing._ _Chap._ II. is against _extraordinary Providence_; or that the Theorist should not be permitted to have Recourse to it upon any Occasion. This Recourse to extraordinary Providence being frequently objected in other Places, and of use to be distinctly understood; we will speak of it apart at the latter end of the Letter. _Chap._ III. is about the _Moon’s hindring the Formation of the Earth before she was formed herself, or in our Neighbourhood_, as we have noted before. Another Thing in this Chapter, is, his urging _oily_ or _oleaginous_ Particles not to have been in the _Chaos_, but made since: I’ll give a short Answer to this; either there was or was not _oleaginous_ Matter in the new-made Earth, (I mean in its superficial Region,) when it came first out of a _Chaos_? If there was, there was also in the _Chaos_, out of which that Earth was immediately made: And if there was no oleaginous Matter in the new-made Earth, how came the Soil to be so fertile, so fat, so unctuous? I say not only _fertile_, but particularly _fat_ and _unctuous_: For he uses these very Words frequently in the Description of that Soil, _Exc._ p. 211. _Def._ p. 69, and p. 98. And all fat and unctuous Liquors are _oleaginous_; and accordingly we have used those Words promiscuously, in the Description of that Region: (_Eng. Theor._ _Chap._ V.) understanding only such unctuous Liquors as are lighter than Water, and swim above it, and consequently would stop and entangle the terrestrial Particles in their Fall or Descent: And seeing such unctuous and oleaginous Particles were in the new-made Earth, they must certainly have been in the Matter out of which it was immediately formed, namely, in the _Chaos_. All the rest of this Chapter we are willing to leave in its full Force; apprehending the Theory, or the Answer, to be in no Danger from such Argumentations or Reflections.

The fourth Chapter is very short, and hath nothing argumentative. The fifth Chapter is concerning the Cold in the circumpolar Parts, which was spoken to in the Answer sufficiently, and we stand to that: What is added about extraordinary Providence, will be treated of in its proper Place. The sixth Chapter is also short, against this Particular, _that it is not safe to argue upon Suppositions actually false_. And I think there needs no more to prove it, than what was said in the Answer. Chap. VII. is chiefly about Texts of Scripture, concerning which I see no Occasion of saying any more than what is said in the _Review of the Theory_. He says, (_p._ 49.) that the Theorist catches himself in a Trap, by allowing that _Ps._ xxxiii. 7. is to be understood of the ordinary Posture of the Waters, and yet applying it to their extraordinary Posture under the Vault of the Earth: But that was not an extraordinary Posture according to the Theorist, but their natural Posture in the first Earth: Yet I allow the Expression might have been better thus, in _a level or spherical Convexity, as the Earth_. He interprets גן יהוה (_p._ 53.) which we render _the Garden of the Lord_, Gen. xiii. x. not to be Paradise, but any pleasant Garden; yet gives us no Authority either of ancient Commentator or Version, for this novel and paradoxical Interpretation. The Septuagint render it παράδεισος τοῦ θεοῦ: The _Vulgate_, _Paradisus Domini_, and all ancient Versions that I have seen, render it to the same Sense. Does he expect then that his single Word and Authority should countervail all the ancient Translators and Interpreters? To the last Place alledged by the Theorist, _Prov._ viii. 28. he says, the Answerer charges him unjustly, that he understands by that Word חון no more than the _Rotundity_ or _spherical Figure_ of the Abyss; which, he says, is a _Point of Nonsense_: I did not think the Charge had been so high however, seeing some Interpreters understand in so: But if he understand by תונ the _Banks_ or _Shores_ of the sea, then he should have told us how those Banks or Shores are על פבי תהום _super faciem Abissi_, as it is in the Text.

_Page_ 59. He says the Exceptor does not misrepresent the Theorist when he makes him to affirm the Construction of the first Earth to have been merely mechanical; and he cites to this purpose two Places, which only prove, that the Theorist made use of no other Causes, nor see any Defect in them; but never affirm’d that these were the only Causes. You may see his Words to this purpose expressly, _Eng. Theor. p._ 88. whereof the Exceptor was minded in the _Answer_, p. 3. In the last Paragraph of this Chapter, _p._ 60. if he affirms any Thing, he will have _the Pillars of the Earth_ to be understood _literally_. Where then, pray, do these Pillars stand that bear up the Earth? Or if they bear up the Earth, what bears them up? What are their Pedestals, or their Foundations? But he says Hypotheses must not regulate Scripture, though in natural Things, but be regulated by it, and the by the Letter of it: I would gladly know then, how his Hypothesis of the Motion of the Earth, is regulated by Scripture, and by the Letter of it? And he unhappily gives an Instance, just contrary to himself, namely, of the Anthropomorphites; for they regulate natural Reason and Philosophy, by the Letter or literal Sense of Scripture, and therein fall into a gross Error: Yet we must not call the Author _injudicious_, for fear of giving Offence.

The eighth Chapter, _ibid._ begins with the Earth’s _being carried directly under the Equinoctial_, before its Change of Situation; _without any manner of Obliquity in her Site, or Declination towards either of the Tropicks in HER COURSE._ Here you see, when the Earth changed its Situation, it chang’d according to his Astronomy, two Things; its _Site_, and its _Course_; its Site upon its Axis, and its Course in the Heavens: and so he says again in the next Paragraph, _Put the Case the Earth shift her Posture, and also her Circuit about the Sun, in which the persisted till the Deluge_. Here is plainly the same Notion repeated; that the Earth changed not only its _Site_, but also its _Road_ or _Course_ about the Sun: And in consequence of this, he supposes its Course formerly to have been under the Equinoctial, and now under the Ecliptick; it being translated out of the one into the other, at its Change. Yet he seems now to be sensible of the Absurdity of this Doctrine, and therefore will not own it to have been his Sense; and as an Argument that he meant otherwise, he alledges, that he declared before, that by the Earth’s right Situation to the Sun, _is meant that the Axis of the Earth was always kept in a Parallelism to that of the Ecliptick_, p. 61. But what’s this to the Purpose? This speaks only of the _Site_ of the Earth, whereas his Error was is supposing its _Course_ or _Annual Orbit_ about the Sun, as well as its Site upon its own Axis, to have been different, and changed at the Deluge; as his Words already produced against him, plainly testify.

What follows in this Chapter, is concerning the perpetual Equinox: And as to the reasoning Part of what he says in Defence of his Exceptions, we do not grudge him the Benefit of it, let it do him what Service it can. And as to the historical Part, he will not allow a Witness to be a good Witness, as to Matter of Fact, if he did not assign true Causes of that Matter of Fact. To which I only reply, tho’ _Tiverton_ Steeple was not the Cause of _Goodwin Sands_, as the _Kentish_ Men thought, yet their Testimony was so far good, that there were such Sands, and such a Steeple. He also commits an Error as to the Nature of _Tradition:_ When a Tradition is to be made out, it is not expected that it should be made appear that none were ignorant of that Tradition in former Ages; or that all that mentioned it, understood the true Grounds and Extent of it; but is is enough to shew the plain Footsteps of it in Antiquity, as a Conclusion, tho’ they did not know the Reasons and Premisses upon which it depended. For Instance, the Conflagration of the World is a Doctrine of Antiquity, traditionally deliver’d from Age to Age; but the _Causes_ and _Manner_ of the Conflagration, they either did not know, or have nor deliver’d to us. In like manner, the first Age and State of the World was without Change of Seasons, or under a perpetual Equinox: Of this we see many Footsteps in _Antiquity_, amongst the Jews, Christians, Heathens, Poets, Philosophers; but the Theory of this perpetual Equinox, the Causes and Manner of it, we neither find, nor can reasonably expect, from the Antients: So much for the Equinox.

This Chapter, as it begun with an Error, so it unhappily ends with a Paralogism; namely, that, _because thirty Days made a Month at the Deluge, therefore those Days were neither longer nor shorter than ours are at present_. Tho’ we have sufficiently exposed this before, yet one thing more may be added, in answer to his confident Conclusion, in these Words: But to talk, _as the Answerer does, that the Month should be lengthened by the Days being so, is a fearful Blunder indeed: For let the Days (by slackening the Earth’s diurnal Motion) have been never so long, yet (its Annual Motion continuing the same) the Month must needs have kept its usual Length, only fewer Days would have made it up_. ’Tis not usual for a Man to persevere so confidently in the same Error, as if the Intervals of Time, Hours, Days, Months, Years, could not be proportionably increas’d, so as to contain one another in the same Proportion they did before, and yet be every one increas’d as to absolute Duration. Take a Clock, for Instance, that goes too slow; the Circuit of the Dial-plate is twelve Hours, let these represent the twelve Signs in his Zodiack, and the Hand to be the Earth that goes through them all; and consequently, the whole Circuit of the Dial-plate represents the Year. Suppose, as we said, this Clock to go too slow, this will not hinder, but still fifteen Minutes make a Quarter in this Clock, four Quarters make an Hour, and twelve Hours the whole Circuit of the Dial-plate: But every one of these Intervals will contain more Time than it did before, according to absolute Duration, or according to the Measures of another Clock that does not go too slow: This is the very Case which he cannot or will not comprehend, but concludes thus in Effect, that because the Hour consists still of four Quarters in this Clock, therefore it is no longer than ordinary.

The ninth Chapter also begins with a false Notion, that _Bodies quiescent_ (as he hath now alter’d the Case) _have a Nitency downwards:_ Which Mistake we rectified before, if he please. Then he proceeds to the _oval_ Figure of the Earth, and many Flourishes and Harangues are made here to little purpose; for he goes on upon a false Supposition, that the Waters of the Chaos were made oval by the Weight or Gravitation of the Air; a Thing that never came into the Words or Thoughts of the Theorist. Yet upon this Supposition he runs into the _Deserts of Bilebulgerid_, Def. _p. 85, 86._ and the Waters of _Mare del Zur_; Words that make a great Noise, but to no Effect. If he had pleas’d he might have seen the Theorist made no Use of the Weight of the Air upon this Occasion, by the Instance he gave of the Pressure of the Moon, and the Flux of the Waters by that Pressure: Which is no more done by the Gravitation of the Air, than the Banks are prest in a swift Current and narrow Channel, by the Gravitation of the Water. But he says, rarified Air makes less Resistance than gross Air; and rarified Water in an Æolipile, it may be he thinks, presses with less Force than unrarified. Air possibly may be rarified to that Degree as to lessen its Resistance; but we speak of Air moderately agitated, so as to be made only more brisk and active. Moreover, he says, the Waters that lay under the Poles must have risen perpendicularly, and why might they not, as well have done so under the Equator? The Waters that lay naturally and originally under the Poles, did not rise at all; but the Waters became more deep there, by those that were thrust thither from the middle Parts of the Globe. Upon the whole, I do not perceive that he hath weaken’d any one of the Propositions upon which the Formation of an oval Earth depended; which were these: _First_, That the Tendency of the Waters from the Centre of this Motion, would be greater and stronger in the Equinoctial Parts, than in the Polar, or in those Parts where they moved in greater Circles; and consequently swifter, than in those where they were moved in lesser Circles and slower. _Secondly_, Agitated Air hath more Force to repel what presses against it than stagnant Air; and that the Air was more agitated and rarified under the Equinoctial Parts, than under the Poles. _Thirdly_, Waters hinder’d and repell’d in their primary Tendency, take the easiest way they can to free themselves from that Force, so as to persevere in their Motion. _Lastly_, To flow laterally upon a Plain, or to ascend upon an inclin’d Plain, is easier than to rise perpendicularly. These are the Propositions upon which that Discourse depended, and I do not find that he hath disprov’d any one of them. And this, Sir, is a short Account of a long Chapter, Impertinences omitted.

_Chapter_ X. Is concerning the Original and Causes of Mountains, which the Exceptor unhappily imputes to the Heat and Influence of the Sun. Whether his Hypothesis be effectually confuted or not, I am very willing to stand to the Judgment of any unconcern’d Person, that will have the Patience to compare the _Exceptions_ and the _Answer_, in this Chapter. Then, as to his _Historical_ Arguments, as he calls them, to prove there were Mountains before the Flood, from _Giants that saved themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion, and Adam’s wandering several hundred of Years upon the Mountains of India_: These, and such like, which he brought to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood, he now thinks fit to renounce, _Def. p. 97._ and says he had done so before by an _anticipative_ Sentence: But if they were condemn’d before by an _anticipative_ Sentence, as Fables and Forgeries, why were they stuff’d into his Book, and us’d as traditional Evidence against the Theory?

_Lastly_, He contends in this Chapter for _Iron_ and _Iron Tools_ before the Flood, and as early as the Time of _Cain_; because he _built a City_, which, he says, could not be built without Iron and Iron-Tools: To which it was answer’d, _Ans. p. 49, 50._ that, _if he fancied that City of Cain_’s, like _Paris_ or _London_, _he_ had Reason to believe that they had _Iron-tools_ to make it: But suppose it was a Number of Cottages, made of Branches of Trees, of Osiers and Bulrushes; or, if you will, of Mud-Walls, and a Roof of Straw, with a Fence about it to keep out Beasts, there would be no such Necessity of Iron-Tools.

Consider, pray, how long the World was without knowing the Use of Iron, in several Parts of it, as in the Northern Countries and _America_, and yet they had Houses and Cities after their Fashion. And to come nearer Home, consider what Towns and Cities our Ancestors, the _Britains_, had in _Cæsar_’s Time, more than two thousand Years after the Time of _Cain: Com. li. 5. Oppidum Britanni vacant, cum Sylvam impeditam vallo atque fossa munierant; quo incarsionis hostium nitandæ causa, convenire consueverunt_: Why might not _Henochia_, _Cain_’s City, be such a City as this?

And as to the Ark, which he also would make a Proof that there were Iron and Iron-Tools before the Flood, _Ibid._ ’twas answer’d, that Scripture does not mention Iron or Iron-Tools in building of the Ark; but only _Gopher-Wood_ and Pitch: To which re replies, _Def._ p. 103. _If Scripture’s Silence concerning Things be a Ground of Presumption that they were not, what then shall we think of an oval and unmountainous Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a paradisaical World, and the like, which the Scripture makes no mention of?_ I cannot easily forbear calling this an _injudicious_ Reflection, tho’ I know he hath been angry with that Word, and makes it a _Brat of Passion’s_. But I do assure him, I call it so coolly and calmly. When a Thing is deduc’d by natural Arguments and Reason, the Silence of Scripture is enough: if he can prove the _Motion of the Earth_ by natural Arguments, and that Scripture is silent in that Point, we desire no better Proof. Now in all those Things which he mentions, an oval and unmountainous Earth, an inclosed Abyss, a paradisaical World, Scripture is at least silent; and therefore ’tis natural Arguments must determine these Cases: And this ill reasoning he is often guilty of, in making no Distinction betwixt Things that are, or that are not prov’d by natural Arguments, when he appeals to the Interpretation of Scripture.

_Chap. XI._ Is to prove an open Sea (such as we have now) before the Flood: All his Exceptions were answered before, _Answ. c._ 11. and I am content to stand to that Answer, reserving only what is to be said hereafter concerning the literal Sense of Scripture. However, he is too lavish in some Expressions here, as when he says, (_p. 115._) That _Adam_ died _before so much as one Fish appeared in the World:_ And a little before he had said, _p. 114._ _For Fishes, if his Hypothesis be believed, were never upon this Earth in Adam’s Time._ These Expressions, I say, cannot be justified upon any Hypothesis: For why might not the Rivers of that Earth have Fish in them, as well as the Rivers of this Earth, or as our Rivers now? I’m sure the _Theory_, or the _Hypothesis_ he mentions, never said any Thing to the contrary, but rather suppos’d the Waters fruitful, as the Ground was. But as to an _open Sea_, whether Side soever you take, that there was, or was not any before the Flood; I believe, however, _Adam_, to his dying Day, never saw either Sea or Sea-fish, nor ever exercis’d any Dominion over either.

_Chap. XII._ Is concerning the Rainbow, and hath no new Argument in it, nor Reinforcement: But a Question is moved, whether _as well_ necessarily signifies _as much_. The real Question to be consider’d here, setting aside Pedantry, is this _whether_ that Thing (Sun or Rainbow, or any other) could have any Significancy as a Sign, which signified no more than the bare Promise would have done without a Sign: This is more material to be consider’d and resolved, than whether _as well_ and _as much_ signify the same.

_Chap. XIII._ Is concerning Paradise, and to justify or excuse himself why he baulked all the Difficulties, and said nothing new or instructive upon that Subject: But he would make the Theorist inconsistent with himself in that he had said, _Def. p. 125._ that _neither Scripture nor Reason determine the Place of Paradise; and yet determines it by the Judgment of Christian Fathers_. Where’s the Inconsistency of this? The Theory, as a Theory, is not concerned in a _Topical_ Paradise; and says moreover that neither Scripture, nor Reason, have determin’d the Place of it; but if we refer our selves to the Judgment and Tradition of the Fathers, and stand to the Majority of their Votes, (when Scripture and Reason are silent,) they have so far detetmin’d it, as to place it in the other Hemisphere, rather than in this, and so exclude that shallow Opinion of some Moderns, that would place it in _Mesopotamia_: And to baffle that Opinion was the Design of the Theorist, (as) this Author also seems to take notice, _p. 131._

After this, and an undervaluing of the Testimonies of the Fathers, he undertakes to determine the Place of Paradise by Scripture, and particularly that it was in _Mesopotamia_, or some Region thereabouts. And his Argument is this, because in the last Verse of the third Chapter of _Genesis_, the _Cherubims_ and _flaming Sword_ are said to be plac’d מקדם לגן עדן, which he says is, _to the East of the Garden of Eden_. But the Septuagint (upon whom he must chiefly depend for the Interpretation of the Word מקדם in the first Place, _Chap. ii. 8._) read it here ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδεῖσου τῆς τρυφῆς; And the _Vulgate_ renders it, _Ante Paradisum voluptatis_; and according to the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, ’tis render’d _ex adverso_. Now, what better Authorities can he bring us for his Translation? I do not find that he gives any, as his usual Way is, but his own Authority. And as for the Word מקדם in the second _Chapter_ and eighth _Verse_, which is the principal Place, ’tis well known, that except the _Septuagint_, all the antient Versions, _Greek_ and _Latin_, (besides others) render it to another Sense: And there is a like Uncertainty of Translation in the Word עדן as we have noted elsewhere. Lastly, the Rivers of Paradise, and the Countries that are said to run through or encompass, are differently understood by different Authors, without any Agreement or certain Conclusion: But these are all beaten Subjects, which you may find in every Treatise of Paradise, and therefore ’tis not worth the Time to pursue them here.

Then he proceeds to the _Longevity of the Ante-Deluvians_, which, so far as I can understand him to affirm any Thing, he says, _p. 139._ was not _general_; but the Lives of some few were _extraordinary, lengthen’d by a special Blessing; the Elongation being a Work of Providence, not of Nature_. This is a cheap and vulgar Account, (and so are all the Contents of this Chapter) prov’d neither by Scripture, nor Reason, and calculated for the Humour and Capacity of those that love their Ease more than a diligent Enquiry after Truth. He hath indeed a bold Assertion afterwards, that _Moses_ does distinguish as much, or more, betwixt _two Races of Men before the Flood_; the one _Long-Livers_, and the other _Short-Livers_; as he hath distinguish’d the Giants before the Flood, from the common Race of Mankind. These are his Words, _p. 141._ _Is not his Distinction equally plain in both Cases?_ Speaking of this fore-mentioned Distinction: Or, _if there be any Difference, does he not distinguish better betwixt Long-Livers, and Short-Livers, than he does betwixt Men of gigantick and of usual Proportion?_ Let’s see the Truth of this; _Moses_ plainly made mention, _Gen. vi. 4._ of two Races of Mankind: The ordinary Race, and those of a gigantick Race, or _Giants_. Now, tell me where he plainly makes mention of _Short-Livers_ before the Flood: And if he no where makes mention of _Short-Livers_, but of _Long-Livers_ only, how does he distinguish as plainly of these two Races, as he did of the other two; for in the other he mentioned plainly and severally both the Parts or Members of the Distinction, and here he mentions but one, and makes no Distinction.

Then he comes to the Testimonies cited by _Josephus_ for the Longevity of the _Ante-Diluvians_, or first Inhabitants of the Earth: And these he roundly pronounces to be _utterly false_. This Gentleman does not seem to be much skill’d in Antiquity, either sacred or prophane; and yet he boldly rejects these Testimonies (as he did those of the Fathers before) as _utterly false_, _p. 142._ which _Josephus_ had alledged in Vindication of the History of _Moses_. The only Reason he gives is, because these Testimonies say, they liv’d a _thousand Years_; whereas _Moses_ does not raise them altogether so high. But the Question was not so much concerning the precise Number of their Years, as about the Excess of them beyond the present Lives of Men, and a round Number in such Cases is often taken instead of a broken Number. Besides, seeing, according to the Account of _Moses_, the greater Part of them liv’d above nine hundred Years, at least he should not have said these Testimonies in _Josephus_ were _utterly false_, but false in part, or not precisely true.

Now, he comes to his Reasons against the ante-diluvian Longevity, which have all had their Answers before, and those we stand to. But I wonder he should think it reasonable, _p. 144, 145._ that Mankind throughout all Ages, should increase in the same Proportion as in the first Age: And, if a decuple Proportion of Increase was reasonable at first, the same should be continued all along; and the Product of Mankind, after sixteen hundred Years, should be taken upon that Supposition. I should not grudge to admit that the first Pair of Breeders might leave ten Pair; but that every Pair of these ten should also leave ten Pair, without any Failure: and every Pair in their Children should again leave ten Pair; and this to be continued, without Diminution or Interruption, for sixteen hundred Years, is not only a hard Supposition, but utterly incredible. For still the greater the Number was, the more Room there would be for Accidents of all Sorts; and every Failure towards the Beginning, and proportionably in other Parts, would cut off Thousands in the last Product.

_Chap._ XIV. Is against the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge, such as the Theory represents. Here is nothing of new Argument, but some Strokes of railing Wit, after his Way: He had said in his _Exceptions_, that the _Dissolution of the Earth was horrid Blasphemy_: Now he makes it _reductive Blasphemy_, as being _indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively_, p. 153, 154. contrary to Scripture. By this Rule, we told him, all Errors in Religion would be Blasphemy; and if he extend this to Errors in Philosophy also, ’tis still more harsh and injudicious. I wonder how he thinks the Doctrine which he owns, about the Motion of the Earth, should escape the Charge of _Blasphemy_; that being not only indirectly, but directly and plainly contrary to Scripture. We thought that Expression, _the Earth is dissolved_, being a Scripture Expression, would thereby have been protected from the Imputation of _Blasphemy_, and we alledged to that Purpose, (besides _Psal._ lxxv. 3.) _Isa._ xxiv. 19. _Amos_ ix. 5. He would have done well to have proved these Places in the Prophets _Isaiah_ and _Amos_, to have been _figurative_ and _tropological_, as he calls it; for we take them both to relate to the Dissolution of the Earth, which literally came to pass at the Deluge: And he not having proved the contrary, we are in Hopes still that the _Dissolution of the Earth_ may not be _horrid Blasphemy_, nor of _blasphemous Importance_.

Then having quarrell’d with the Guard of Angels, which the _Theorist_ had assign’d for the Preservation of the Ark, in the Time of the Deluge, he falls next into his Blunder, that the _Equator_ and _Ecliptick_ of the Earth were interchang’d, when the Situation of the Earth was chang’d. This Error in the Earth is _Cousin-German_ to his former Error in the Heavens, _viz._ that the Earth chang’d its Tract about the Sun, and leap’d out of the _Equator_ into the _Ecliptick_, when it chang’d its Situation. The Truth is, this _Copernican System_ seems to lie cross in his Imagination: I think he would do better to let it alone. However, tho’ at other Times he is generally verbose and long-winded, he hath the Sense to pass this by in a few Words; laying the Blame upon certain _Parentheses_ or _Semicircles_, whose Innocency not withstanding we have fully clear’d, and shew’d the Poison to be spread throughout the whole Paragraph, which is too great to be made an _Erratum Typographicum_.

Then after, _p. 160, 161._ _Hermus, Caister, Menander and Caius; Nile and its Mud, Piscenius Niger, who contended with Septimus Severus for the Empire, and reprimanded his Soldiers for hankering after Wine; Du Val, an ingenious French Writer, and Cleopatra and her admired Anthony_: He concludes, that the Waters of the Deluge raged amongst the Fragments, with _lasting_, _incessant_, and _unimaginable Turbulence_.

And so he comes to an Argument against the Dissolution of the Earth, _p. 162._ That, _all the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been shaken down at that Time, or else overwhelmed_. He instanc’d in his _Exceptions_ in _Seth’s Pillars; Henochia, Cain’s City; and Joppa_: These he suppos’d such Buildings as were made before, and stood after the Flood. But now, _Seth_’s Pillars and _Henochia_ being dismiss’d, he insists upon _Joppa_ only, and says, this must have consisted of _such Materials, as could never be prepared, formed and set up, without Iron-Tools_. Tho’ I do not much believe that _Joppa_ was an ante-diluvian Town, yet whatever they had in _Cain_’s Time, they might, before the Deluge, have Mortar and Brick, which, as they are the first stony Materials, that we read of, for Building; so the Ruins of them might stand after the Deluge. And that they had no other Materials is the more probable, because after the Flood, at the Building of _Babel_, _Moses_ plainly intimates that they had no other Materials than those. For the Text says, _Gen._ xi. 3. _They said one to another, Go to, let us make Brick and burn them thoroughly; and they made Brick for Stone, and Slime had they for Mortar._ But now this Argument, methinks, may be retorted upon the Exceptor with Advantage: For, if there were no Dissolutions, Concussions, or Absorptions, at the Deluge, instead of the Ruins of _Joppa_, methinks we might have had the Ruins of an hundred ante-diluvian Cities; especially, if, according to his Hypothesis, they had good Stone, and good Iron, and all other Materials, fit for strong and lasting Building: And, which is also to be consider’d, that it was but a fifteen-cubit Deluge; so that Towns built upon Eminences or high Lands, would be in little Danger of being ruin’d, much less of being abolish’d.

His last Argument, (_p. 163._) proves, if it prove any Thing, that God’s Promise, that _the World_ should not be _drown’d_ again, was a _vain and trifling Thing_ to us, who know it must be burn’d: And consequently, if _Noah_ understood the Conflagration of the World, he makes it a _vain and trifling Thing_ to _Noah_ also. If the Exceptor delight in such Conclusions, let him enjoy them, but they are not at all to the Mind of the Theorist.

_Chapter_ XV. Now we come to his new Hypothesis of a _fifteen-cubit Deluge_; and what Shifts he hath made to destroy the World with such a diminutive Flood, we have noted before: First, by raising his Water-Mark, and making it uncertain: Then by converting the Deluge, in a great Measure into a _Famine_: And, Lastly, by destroying Mankind and other Animals, with _evil Angels_. We shall now take notice of some other Incongruities in his Hypothesis. When he made _Moses_’s Deluge but _fifteen Cubits deep_, we said that was an _unmerciful Paradox_, and ask’d whether he would have it receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_. All he answers to this, is, that the same Question may be ask’d concerning several Parts of the Theory; _p. 166._ Particularly, that the primitive Earth had no _open Sea_. Whether is that, says he, to be receiv’d as a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_? The Answer is ready, as a _Conclusion_, deduced from Premisses, and a Series of antecedent Reasons. Now, can he make this Answer for his fifteen-cubit Deluge? Must not that still be a _Postulatum_, and an unmerciful one? As to the Theory, there is but one _Postulatum_ in all, _viz._ that the _Earth rise from a Chaos_. All the other Propositions are deduc’d from Premisses, and that one _Postulatum_ also is prov’d by Scripture and Antiquity. We had noted further in the Answer, that the Author had said in his Exceptions, that he would not defend his Hypotheses as _true_ and _real_; and we demanded thereupon, _Why_ then did he trouble himself or the World with what he did not think _true_ and _real_? To this he replies, _Many have written ingenious and useful Things, which they never believ’d to be true and real_. Romances suppose, and poetical Fictions: Will you have your fifteen-cubit Deluge pass for such? But then the Mischief is, where there is neither Truth of Fact, nor Ingenuity of Invention, such a Composition will hardly pass for a Romance, or a good Fiction. But there is still a greater Difficulty behind. The Exceptor hath unhappily said, _Exc. p. 302. 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_. Upon which Words the Answerer made this Remark, _Ans. p. 67. If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture, and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak, why will he not 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_. To this he replies now, _Def. p. 168._ that he _begg’d Allowance at first, to make bold with Scripture a little_: This is a bold Excuse, and he especially, one would think, should take heed how he makes bold with Scripture, lest, according to his own Notion, he fall into _Blasphemy_, or something of _blasphemous Importance, indirectly, consequentially,_ or _reductively_, at least: However, this Excuse, if it was a good one, would take no Place here; for to understand and apply Scripture, in that Sense that it speaks _as plainly as it can speak_, is not to make bold with it, but modestly to follow its Dictates and plain Sense.

He feels this Load to lie heavy upon him, and struggles again to shake it off with a Distinction. When he said his fifteen-cubit Deluge was _supported by Divine Authority_, &c. this, he says, _ibid._ was spoken _by him, in an hypothetick or suppositious Way, and that it cannot possibly be understood otherwise by Men of Sense_. Here are two hard Words: Let us first understand what they signify, and then we shall better judge how Men of Sense would understand his Words. His _hypothetick_ or _suppositious Way_, so far as I understand it, is the same Thing as by _way of Supposition_: Then his Meaning is, he _supposes_ his fifteen-cubit Deluge is _supported by Divine Authority_; and he _supposes_ it is _founded upon Scripture, as plainly as it can speak_: But this is to suppose the Question, and no Man of Sense would make or grant such a Supposition; so that I do not see what he gains by this _hypothetick_ and _suppositious Way_. But to draw him out of this Mist of Words, either he affirms this, that his _Hypothesis is supported by Divine Authority, and founded upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak_, or he denies it, or he doubts of it: If he affirm it, then all his Excuses and Diminutions are to no purpose, he must stand to his Cause, and shew us those plain Texts of Scripture; if he deny it, he gives up his Cause, and all that Divine Authority he pretended to; if he doubt of it, then he should have express’d himself doubtfully: As, _Scripture may admit of that Sense, or may be thought to intimate such a thing_, but he says with a Plerophory, _Scripture speaks it as plainly as it can speak_: And to mend the Matter, he unluckily subjoins in the following Words, _p._ 168, 169. _Yea, tho’ it was spoken never so positively, it was but to set forth REI PERSONAM: To make a more full and lively Representation of the supposed thing._ He does well to tell us what he means by _Rei Personam_; for otherwise no Man of Sense, as his Phrase is, would ever have made that Translation of those Words. But the Truth is, he is so perfectly at a Loss how to bring himself off, as to this Particular, that in his Confusion, he neither makes good Sense nor good _Latin_.

Now he comes to another Inconsistency which was charg’d upon him by the _Answerer_: Namely, that he rejects the _Church Hypothesis_ concerning the Deluge, and yet had said before, _Exc._ _p._ 300. _I cannot believe (which I cannot well endure to speak) that the Church hath ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_: That he does reject this Church Hypothesis, was plainly made out from his own Words, because he rejects the _common Hypothesis_; (_see the Citation in the Answer_, _p._ 68.) the _general standing Hypothesis_; the _usual Hypothesis_; the _usual Sense they put upon Sacred Story_, &c. These Citations he does not think fit to take Notice of in his Reply; but puts all upon this general Issue, which the _Answerer_ concludes with: _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 hath ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge, falls flat upon himself._ Let’s hear his Answer to this Dilemma. _Def._ p. 170. _We say_, says he, _that the Church Way of explaining the Deluge_, (by creating and annihilating Waters for the Nonce) _is very rational_. Then say I still, why do you desert it, or why do you trouble us with a new one? Either his Hypothesis is more rational than the Church Hypothesis, or less rational: If less rational, why does he take us off from a better, to amuse us with a worse? But if he say, his Hypothesis is more rational than that of the Church: Then Woe be to him, in his own Words, _p._ 171. that so _black a Blemish should be fasten’d upon the wisest and noblest Society in the World_, as to make himself more wise than they, and his Hypothesis more rational than theirs. The Truth is, this Gentleman hath a mind to appear a _Virtuoso_, for the new Philosophy, and the _Copernican_ System; and yet would be a Zealot for Orthodoxy, and the Church-Way of explaining Things: Which two Designs do not well agree, as to the natural World; and betwixt two Stools he falls to the Ground, and proves neither good Churchman, nor good Philosopher.

But he will not still be convinc’d that he deserts the Church Hypothesis, and continues to deny the Desertion in these Words. _Ibid._ _We say we do not desert or reject the Church-Way of explaining the Deluge._ Now, to discover whether these Words are true or false; let us observe, _First_, What he acknowledges to have said against the Church Hypothesis: _Secondly_, What he hath said more than what he acknowledges here. He acknowledges, that he said, the Church Hypothesis _might be disgustful to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_; and this is no good Character. Yet this is not all, for he hath fairly dropp’d a principal Word in his Sentence, namely, _justly_, _Exc._ p. 312. His Words in his _Exceptions_, were these, _such Inventions_ (which he applies to the Church Hypothesis) _as have been, and JUSTLY may be disgustful, not only to nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments_. Now judge, whether he cited this Sentence before, truly and fairly, and whether in these Words, truly cited, he does not disparage the Church Hypothesis, and justify those that are disgusted at it.

He farthermore acknowledges, that the usual Ways of explaining the Deluge _seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligible to others, and unsatisfactory to the most_: But, it seems, he will neither be of these, _some_, _others_, or _most_. Lastly, He acknowledges that he said, _Def._ p. 171. _The ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were covered with Waters in the Deluge, brings on a Necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood._ If so, what was this _ordinary Supposition_? was it not the Supposition of the Church? And was that such, as made it necessary to set up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood? then the old Hypothesis was insufficient or irrational.

Thus much he acknowledges; but he omits what we noted before, his rejecting or disapproving the _common Hypothesis_, the _general standing Hypothesis_, the _usual Sense they put upon the Sacred Story_, &c. And do not all these Phrases denote the Church Hypothesis? He farther omits, that he confess’d, (_Excep._ _p._ 325.) _he had expounded a Text or two of Scripture about the Deluge, so as none ever did; and, deserting the common receiv’d Sense, puts an unusual Gloss upon them_. And is not that _common receiv’d Sense_ the Sense of the Church, and his _unusual Gloss_ contrary to it? Lastly, he says, by his Hypothesis, we need not fly to a _new Creation of Waters_, and gives his Reasons at large against that Opinion; which you may see, _Except._ _p._ 313. Now, those Reasons he thought either to be _good_ Reasons or _bad_ Reasons; if _bad_, why did he set them down, or why did he not confuse them? If good, they stand good against the Hypothesis of the Church; for he makes that _new Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of Waters at the Deluge to be the Hypothesis of the Church, _Def._ _p._ 170. I fear I have spent too much Time in shewing him utterly inconsistent with himself in this Particular. And I wonder he should be so sollicitous to justify the Hypothesis of the Church in this Point, seeing he openly dissents from it in a greater; I mean in that of the _System of the World_. Hear his Words, if you please, to this Purpose, _Def._ _p._ 136. _And what does the famous_ Aristotelian _Hypothesis seem to be now, but a Mass of Errors; where such a System was contriv’d for the Heavens, and such a Situation assign’d to the Earth, as neither Reason can approve, nor Nature allow. Yet so prosperous and prevailing was this Hypothesis, that it was generally receiv’d, and successfully propagated for many Ages._ This prosperous prevailing Error, or Mass of Errors, was it not espoused and supported by the Church? And to break from the Church in greater Points, and scruple it in less, is not this to strain at Gnats, and swallow Camels?

So much for his Inconsistency with himself: The rest of this Chapter in the _Answer_, shews his Inconsistency with _Moses_, both as to the Waters covering the Tops of the Mountains, which _Moses_ affirms, and the Exceptor denies; and as to the Decrease of the Deluge, which _Moses_ makes to be by the Waters retiring into their Chanels, after frequent Reciprocations, _going_ and _coming_. But the Exceptor says, the Sun suck’d up the Waters from the Earth, just as he had before suck’d the Mountains out of the Earth: These Things are so groundless, or so gross, that it would be tedious to insist longer upon them. And whereas it is not reasonable to expect that any others should be idle enough, as we must be, to collate three or four Tracts, to discern where the Advantage lies in these small Altercations; I desire only, if they be so dispos’d, that they would collate the _Exceptions_, _Answer_, and _Defence_ in this one Chapter, which is our Author’s Master-Piece: And from this I am willing they should take their Measures, and make a Judgment of his good or bad Success in other Parts.

What Shifts he hath us’d to make his _fifteen-cubit Deluge_ sufficient to destroy all Mankind, and all Animals, we have noted before; and here it is (_p._ 181, 182.) that he reduces them to _Famine_. And after that he comes to a long Excursion of seven or eight Pages, about the Imperfection of _Shipping_ after the Flood, _Def._ _p._ 183, 185, _&c._ a good Argument for the Theorist, that they had not an open Sea, Iron-Tools, and Materials for Shipping before the Flood: For what should make them so inexpert in Navigation for many Years and Ages after the Flood, if they had the Practice and Experience of it before the Flood: And what could hinder their having that Practice and Experience, if they had an open Sea, and all Iron and other Materials, for that Use and Purpose?

Lastly, he comes to his Notion of the _great Deep_, or _Tehom-Rabbah_, _Def._ _p._ 191. which he had made before, in express Words, to be the Holes and Caverns in the Rocks; I say, in express Words, such as these, _Exc._ _p._ 312. _Now supposing that the Caverns in the Mountains were this great Deep_, speaking of _Moses’s great Deep_, according to this new Hypothesis. He says farther, (_p._ 105.) _In case it be urg’d, that Caverns, especially Caverns so high situate, cannot properly he called the great Deep._ Where you see his own Objection supposes that he made those Caverns the _great Deep_. And in the same Page, speaking of the Psalmist’s _great Deeps_, (in his own Sense of making them Holes in Rocks,) and _Moses_’s _great Deep_, he says, _the same Thing might be meant by both_. By all these Expressions one would think it plain, that by his _great Deep_ he meant his _Caverns_ in Rocks; yet now, upon Objections urged against it, he seems desirous to fly off from that Notion, but does not yet tell us plainly what must be meant by _Moses_’s _great Deep_: If he, upon second Thoughts, would have the Sea to be understood by it, why does he not answer the Objections that are made by the Theorist against that Interpretation? _Engl. Theor._ p. 110, _&c._ Nay, why does he not answer what he himself had objected before (_Except._ p. 310.) against that Supposition? He seems to unsay now, what he said before, and yet substitutes nothing in the Place of it, to be understood by _Moses’s Tehom. Rabbah_.

_Chap._ XVI. is a few Words concerning these Expressions of _shutting the Windows of Heaven_, and the _Fountains of the Abyss_, after the Deluge: And these were both shut alike, and both of them no less than the _Caverns_ in the Mountains.

_Chap._ XVII. hath nothing of Argumentation or Philosophy, but runs on in a popular declamatory Way, and (if I may use that forbidden Word) injudicious. All amounts to this, _whether_ we may not go contrary to the Letter of Scripture, in natural Things, when that goes contrary to plain Reason. This we affirm, and this every one must affirm, that believes the _Motion of the Earth_, as our Virtuoso pretends to do: Then he concludes all with an harmonious Close, that he follows the great Example of a Reverend Prelate, _Def._ p. 215. and _militates under that Episcopal Banner_. I am willing to believe that he wrote at first, in hopes to curry Favour with certain Persons, by his great Zeal for Orthodoxy; but he hath made such an Hotch-potch of new Philosophy and Divinity, that I believe it will scarce please the Party he would cajole; nor so much as his Reverend Patron. I was so civil to him in the Answer, as to make him a Saint in comparison of the former Animadverter; but, by the Stile and Spirit of this last Pamphlet, he hath forfeited with me all his Saint-ship, both absolute and comparative.

Thus much for his Chapters; and as to his Reflections upon the _Review of the Theory_, they are so superficial and inconsiderable, that I believe he never expected that they should be regarded: I wonder however, that he should decline an Examination of the second Part of the _Theory_: It cannot be for want of good Will to confute it; he hath shewn that to the Height, whatsoever his Power was: Neither can it be for want of Difference or Disagreement in Opinion, as to the Contents of this latter Part; for he hath reckon’d the _Millennium_ amongst the Errors of the antient _Fathers_, (_Def._ p. 136) and the _Renovation of the World_ he makes _Allegorical_, (p. 214, _&c._) It must therefore be for want of some third Thing, which he best knows.

But before we conclude, Sir, we must remember that we promised to speak apart to two Things, which are often objected to the Theorist by this Writer, and to little Purpose; namely, his flying to _extraordinary Providence_, and his flying from the _literal Sense_ of Scripture. As to extraordinary Providence, is the Theorist alone debarr’d from recourse to it, or would he have all Men debarr’d, as well as the Theorist? If so, why doth he use it so much himself? And if it be allow’d to others, there is no Reason it should be deny’d the Theorist, unless he have disown’d it, and so debarr’d himself that common Privilege: But the contrary is manifest, in a multitude of Places, both of the first and second Part of the _Theory_, Eng. Theor. _p._ 144, _&c._ For, besides a Discourse on Purpose upon that Subject, in the eighth _Chapter_ of the first Book, in the last Chapter, and last Words of the same Book (_Latin_) he does openly avow, both Providence (Natural and Moral) and Miracles; in these Words, _Denique cum certissimum sit à divina Providentia pendere res omnes, cujuscunque ordinis, & ab eâdem vera miracula edita esse_, &c. And as to the second Part of the _Theory_, the Ministry of Angels is there acknowledg’d frequently, both as to natural and moral Administrations. From all which Instances it is manifest, that the Theorist did not debar himself, by denying either _Miracles_, _angelical Ministry_, or _extraordinary Providence_: But, if the Exceptor be so injudicious (pardon me that bold Word) as to confound all extraordinary Providence with the _Acts of Omnipotency_, he must blame himself for that, not the Theorist. The _Creation_ and _Annihilation_ of Waters is an Act of pure Omnipotency: This the Theorist did not admit of at the Deluge; and if this be his Fault, as it is frequently objected to him, (_Def._ p. 9, 66, 170, _&c._) he perseveres in it still, and in the Reasons he gave for his Opinion, which are no where confuted: _Eng. Theor._ p. 25, 26. But as for Acts of angelical Power, he does every where acknowledge them in the great Revolutions, even of the natural World: _Theor. Lat._ p. 73. _Engl._ p. 146, 147. If the Exceptor would make the Divine Omnipotency as cheap as the Ministry of Angels, and have recourse as freely and as frequently to that, as to this; if he would make all extraordinary Providence the same, and all Miracles, and set all at the Pitch of infinite Power, this may be an Effect of his Ignorance or Inadvertency, but is no way imputable to the Theorist.

In the next Place it may be observ’d, that the Theorist hath no where asserted, that _Moses_’s _Cosmopœia_ (which does not proceed according to ordinary Providence) is to be literally understood; and therefore what is urg’d against him from the Letter of that _Cosmopœia_, is improperly urg’d and without Ground. There are as good Reasons, and better Authorities, that _Moses_’s _six Days Creation_ should not be literally understood, than there are, why those Texts of Scripture that speak about the _Motion of the Sun_, should not be literally understood: And as to the Theorist, he had often intimated his Sense of that _Cosmopœia_, that it was express’d _more humano, & ad captum populi_, as appears in several Passages in the _Latin_ Theory: Speaking of the _Mosaical Cosmogonia_, he hath these Words, _Theor._ _lib._ 2. _c._ 8. _Constat hæc Cosmopœia duabus parcibus quarum prima, massas generales atque rerum inconditarum statum exbibet; seqniturque eadem principia, & eundem ordinem, quem Antiqui usque retinuerunt. Atque in hoc nobiscium conveniunt omnes fere interpretes Christiani; nempe_, Tohu Bohu _Mosaicum idem esse ac Chaos Antiquorum_. _Tenebras Mosaicas_, &c. _bucusque convenit Mosi cum anfiquis Philosophis,——methodium autem illam Philosophicam hic abrumpit, aliamque orditur, bumanam, aut, si mavis, Theologicam; quo, motibus Chaos, secundum leges natura, & divini amoris actionem, plane neglectis, & successivis ipsius mutationibus in varias regiones, & elementa: His inquam posthabitis, popularem narrationem de ortu rerum hoc modo instituit: Res omnes visibiles in sex classes_, &c. This is a plain Indication how the Theorist understood that _Cosmopœia_: And accordingly in the _English Theory_ the Author says, _p._402. &c. _I have not mention’d_ Moses_’s_ Cosmopœia, _because I thought it deliver’d by him as a Law-giver, not as a Philosopher; which I intend to shew at large in another Treatise, not thinking that Discussion proper for the vulgar Tongue_. The Exceptor was also minded of this in the Answer, _p._ 66. Now, ’tis much that he, who hath search’d all the Corners, both of the _English_ and _Latin_ Theory, to pick Quarrels, should never observe such obvious Passages as these, but still make Objections from the Letter of the _Mosaical Cosmopœia_, which affect the Theorist no more than those Places of Scripture that speak of the Motion of the Sun, or the Pillars of the Earth.

In the last Place, the Theorist distinguish’d two Methods for explaining the natural World, that of an _ordinary_, and that of an _extraordinary Providence_: And those that take the second Way, he said, might dispatch their Task as soon as they pleas’d, if they engag’d Omnipotency in the Work. But the other Method would require Time, it must proceed by distinct Steps, and leisurely Motions, such as Nature can admit; and, in that Respect, it might not suit with the busy Lives, or impatient Studies of most Men, whom he left notwithstanding to their Liberty, to take what Method they pleas’d, provided they were not troublesome in forcing their hasty Thoughts upon all others. Thus the Theorist hath express’d himself at the End of the first Book, _c._ 12. _Interea cum non omnes a natura ita compositi simus, ut Philosophia studiis delectemur: Neque etiam liceat multis, propter occupationes vitæ, iisdem vacare, quibus per ingenium licuisset; iis jure permittendum est, compendiario sapere, & relictis viis naturæ & causarum secundarum, quæ sæpe longiusculæ sunt, per cansas superiores philosophari; idque potissimum, cum ex piis affectivus hoc quandoque fieri possit; quibus, vel male fundatis, aliquid dandum esse existimo, modo non sint turbulenti._ Thus the Theorist, you see, sets two Ways before them; and ’tis indifferent to him whether they take, if they will go on their Way peaceably. And he does now, moreover, particularly declare, That he hath no Ambition, either to make the _Exceptor_, or any other of the same Dispositions of Will, and the same Elevation of Understanding, Proselytes to his Theory.

Thus much for _Providence_: As to the _literal Sense_ of Scripture, I find, if what was noted before in the _Answer_, _p._ 82, 83, _&c._ had been duly consider’d, there would be little need of Additions upon that Subject. The Matter was stated freely and distinctly, and the Remarks or Reflections which the Exceptor hath made in his _Defence_ upon this Doctrine, are both shallow and partial. I say _partial_, in perverting the Sense, and separating such Things as manifestly depend upon one another. Thus the Exceptor falls upon that Expression in the _Answer_, _Def._ _p._ 202. _Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture, here pretended, is only in natural Things_, where he should have added the other Part of the Sentence, _and also observe how for the Exceptor himself, in such Things, hath contradicted Scripture_. Here he makes an odious Declamation, as if the Answerer had confess’d that he _contradicted Scripture in natural Things_; whereas the Words are contradicting Scripture, _here pretended_; and ’tis plain by all the Discourse, that ’tis the literal Sense of Scripture that is here spoken of, which the Exceptor is also said to contradict. Such an unmanly Captiousness shews the Temper and Measure of that Spirit, which, rather than say nothing, will misrepresent the plain Sense of an Author. In like manner, when he comes to those Words in the Answer, 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 Foundation of Religion, affronting Scripture, and blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Def. p._ 206. He says, This is not to state the Case truly, for it is not, says he, _going contrary to the Letter of Scripture that draws such evil Consequences after it, but going contrary to the Letter of Scripture, where it is understood_: And _this the Theorist does_, he says, and the _Exceptor does not_. But who says so besides himself? This is fairly to beg the Question; and can he suppose the Theorist so easy as to grant this without Proof? It must be the Subject Matter that determines, what is, and what is not, to be literally understood. However, he goes on, begging still the Question in his own behalf, and says, Those Texts of Scripture, that speak of the Motion and Course of the Sun, are not to be understood literally. But why not? Because the literal Sense is not to his Mind? Of four Texts of Scripture which the Theorist alledg’d against him, for the Motion of the Sun, he answers but one, and that very superficially, to say no worse. ’Tis _Psal._ xix. where the Sun at his rising is said to be as a _Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, and to rejoice as a strong Man to run his Race: And his going forth is from the end of the Heaven, and his Circuit to the end of it_, p. 207. which he answers with this vain Flourish: _Then the Sun must be a Man, and must be upon his Marriage, and must be dress’d in fine Clothes, as a Bridegroom is: Then he must come out of a Chamber, and must give no more Light, and cast no more Heat, than a Bridegroom does_, &c. If a Man should ridicule at this rate, the Discourse of our Saviour concerning _Lazarus_ in _Abraham_’s Bosom, and _Dives_ in Hell, with a great Gulph betwixt them, yet talking audibly to one another; _Luk._ xvi. and that _Lazarus_ should be sent so far, as from Heaven to Hell, only to _dip the Tip of his Finger in Water_, and cool _Dives_’s Tongue. He that should go about thus to expose our Saviour’s Parable, would have a thankless Office, and effect nothing: For the Substance of it would stand good still; namely, that Mens Souls live after Death, and that good Souls are in a State of Ease and Comfort, and bad Souls in a State of Misery. In like manner, his ridiculing some Circumstances in the Comparison made by the Psalmist, does not at all destroy the Substance of that Discourse; namely, that the Sun moves in the Firmament, with great Swiftness and Lustre, and hath the Circuit of its Motion round the Earth. This is the Substance of what the Psalmist declares, and the rest is but a Similitude, which need not be literally just in all Particulars.

After this, he would fain persuade the Theorist, that he hath excused the Exceptor for his receding from the literal Sense, as to the Motion of the Earth; _Def._ p. 208. Because he hath granted, that in certain Cases, we may and must recede from the literal Sense. But where, pray, hath he granted, that the Motion of the Earth was one of those Cases? Yet suppose it be so, may not the Theorist then enjoy this Privilege of receding from the literal Sense upon occasion, as well as the Exceptor? If he will give, as well as take this Liberty, let us mutually enjoy it; but he can have no Pretence to deny it to others, and take it himself. It uses to be a Rule in Writing, that a Man must not _stultum fingere Lectorem_. You must suppose your Reader to have common Sense. But he that accuses another of _Blasphemy_ for receding from the literal Sense of Scripture in natural Things, and does himself at the same Time, recede from the literal Sense of Scripture, in natural Things; one would think, _quo ad hoc_, either had not, or would not exercise common Sense, in a literal Way.

Lastly, he comes to the common known Rule, assign’d to direct us, when every one ought to follow, or leave the literal Sense; which is, _p. 215. not to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject Matter will bear it, without Absurdity or Incongruity_. This he repeats in the next Page thus. The Rule is, _when no kind of Absurdities or Incongruities accrue to any Texts, from the literal Sense_. If this be _his_ Rule, to what Text does there accrue any Absurdity or Incongruity, by supposing the Sun to move? For Scripture always speaks upon that Supposition, and not one Word for the Motion of the Earth. Thus he states the Rule; but the _Answerer_ supposed, that the Absurdity or Incongruity might arise from the _Subject Matter_. And accordingly he still maintains, that there are as just Reasons, (from the Subject Matter,) and better Authorities, for receding from the literal Sense in the Narrative of the six Days Creation, than in those Texts of Scripture, that speak of the Motions and Course of the Sun: And to affirm the _Earth to be mov’d_, is as much _Blasphemy_, and more contrary to Scripture, than to affirm it to have been _dissolv’d_, as the Theorist hath done.

Sir, I beg your Excuse for this long letter, and leave it to you to judge whether the Occasion was just or no. I know such Jarrings as these must needs make bad Musick to your Ears: ’Tis like hearing two Instruments play, that are not in Tune, in Concert with one another: But you know Self-Defence, and to repel an Assailant, is always allow’d; and he that begins the Quarrel, must answer for the Consequences. However, Sir, to make amends for this I trouble, I am ready to receive your Commands upon more acceptable Subjects.

_Your most humble Servant_, &c.

FINIS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE THEORY OF THE EARTH

REFLECTIONS UPON THE THEORY OF THE EARTH,

Occasion’d by a

_Late_ EXAMINATION _of it_.

_In a_ LETTER _to a_ FRIEND.

_LONDON:_

Printed for J. HOOKE, at the _Flower-de-Luce_ in _Fleet-Street_. M.DCC.XXVI.

Advertisement of the Bookseller.

_The following Tract hath been much enquired after by some curious Persons, but was so scarce, that a Copy could not be procured at the Time of the Printing the former Edition of the Theory. Since that, an intimate Friend of Dr. Burnet’s hath favoured me with a Copy; so that the Reader may be assured, it it genuine, and was wrote by Dr. Burnet; and it is apprehended, it may very well deserve a Place in his Works._

REFLECTIONS, _&c._

Sir,

I Receiv’d the Honour of your Letter, with the Book you was pleas’d to send me, containing an Examination of _the Theory of the Earth:_ And, according as you desire, I shall give you my Thoughts of it, in as narrow a Compass as I can. The Author of the _Theory_, you know, hath set down in three Propositions, the Foundation of the whole Work; and so long as those Propositions stand firm, the Substance of the _Theory_ is safe, whatsoever becomes of particular Modes of Explication in some Parts; which are as Problems, and may be explained several Ways, without prejudice to the Principles upon which the _Theory_ stands.

The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum, _viz._ That the _Earth rose from a Chaos:_ This is not call’d into Question; and this being granted, he lays down three Propositions consecutively. First, _That the primitive or ante-diluvian Earth was of a different Form and Construction from the present Earth_. Secondly, _That the Face of that Earth, as it rose from a Chaos, was smooth, regular and uniform; without Mountains or Rocks, and without an open Sea_. Thirdly, _That the Disruption of the Abyss, or Dissolution of that primeval Earth, and its Fall into the Abyss, was the Cause of the universal Deluge, and of the Destruction of the old World_: As also of the irregular Form of the present Earth.

These are the three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the fourth, fifth and sixth Chapters of the _Theory_. And for a farther Proof and Confirmation of them, especially of the last, another Proposition is added (_Chap._ VII.) in these Words, _The present Form and Structure of the Earth, both as to the Surface, and as to the interior Parts of it, so far as they are accessible and known to us, do exactly answer to the foregoing Theory, concerning the Form and Dissolution of the first Earth, and is not so justly explained to any other Hypothesis yet known._ This is offer’d as a Proof _à Posteriori_, as they call it, or from the Effects; to shew the Consent and Agreement of the Parts and Construction of the present Earth, to that Supposition of its being a sort of Ruin, or the Effect and Remains of a Disruption or Dissolution. And to make this good, the Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general Form of the present Earth, and its Irregularity: Then shews more particularly the Marks or Signatures of Ruin or Disruption in several Parts of it; as in Mountains and Rocks, in the great Chanel of the Sea, and in subterraneous Cavities, and other broken and disfigur’d Parts of the Earth.

These Conclusions, with their Arguments, are the Sum and principal Contents of the first Book; but I must also mind you of a Corollary in the second Book, drawn from these primary Propositions, which concerns the Situation of the primitive Earth: For the Theorist supposes, that the Posture of that Earth, or of its Axis, was not oblique to to the Axis of the Sun, or of the Ecliptick, as it is now, but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun, and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick; by reason of which Position, there was a perpetual Spring, or perpetual Equinox, in that primitive Earth. This, tho’ a Consequence only from the first Propositions, I thought fit to mind you of, as being one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this _Theory_.

This being the State of the _Theory_, or of those Parts of it that support the rest, and wherein its Strength consists, he that will attack it to purpose, must throw down, in the first Place, these leading Propositions. If the Examiner had taken this Method, and confuted the Proofs that are brought in Confirmation of each of them, he needed have done no more; for the Foundation being destroyed, the Superstructure would fall of its own accord. But if, instead of this, you only pick out a loose Stone here or there, or strike off a Pinacle, this will not weaken the Foundation, nor have any considerable Effect upon the whole Building. Let us therefore consider, in the first Place, what this Examiner hath said against these fundamental Propositions, and accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work.

His first Chapter is to shew, that the Deluge might be made by a Miracle: But whoever denied that? No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do whatsoever he pleases, to the utmost Extent of Possibilities. But he does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted? Doth he suppose that the Deluge could be made without any Increase of Waters upon the Earth? If there was an Increase of Waters, either they were created a-new, or brought thither from some other Part of the Universe: So far is plain; and if he supposes a new Creation of Waters for this Purpose, and an Annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood, it had been fair to have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis, in the third Chapter of the _English Theory_. And seeing there is no mention made of any such thing in the sacred History, if he asserts it, he must bring some Proof of his Assertion; for we are not upon such Terms, as to trust upon bare Word. On the other Hand, if he proceed upon such Waters as were already in being, and for his purpose either bring down supercelestial Water, or bring subterraneous, he must tell us what those Waters are, and must answer such Objections as are brought against either sort in the second and third Chapters of the _Theory_; we must have some fix’d Point, some Mark to aim at, if the Case be argued. Upon the whole, I think this his first Chapter might have been spar’d, as either affirming nothing particularly, or giving no Proof of what is affirm’d.

In his next Chapter about the _Chaos_, I was in hopes to have found something more considerable, but (besides his long _excerpta_ out of the _Theory_, both here and elsewhere, which make a good part of his Book) I find nothing but two small Objections against the Formation of the first Earth, as it is describ’d by the Theorist. This Examiner says, _p. 37, 38._ That the little earthy Particles of the Chaos would not swim upon the Surface of Oil, or any such unctuous Liquor; for how little soever, yet being earthy, and Earth being heavier than Oil, they must descend through it. But he grants that Dust will swim upon Oil; and I willingly allow, if these descending Parts were _huge Lumps of solid Matter_, such as we shall meet with in his next Chapter, they would easily break through both the Oil and the Water under it; but that little tenuious Particles or small Dust should swim upon Oil, I think is no wonder: And he is so kind as to note an Instance of this himself; and to subjoin his Reasons for it. We see Dust, saith he, _p. 38, 39._ though specifically heavier than Oil, yet not to sink when cast upon it. And the Reason is, because all terrestrial Bodies, tho’ fluid in their kind yet in some degree resist Separation; and consequently, I add, viscous Liquors which have some sort of Entanglement amongst themselves, resist Separation more than others. Then he remarks farther, that according as Bodies are less, they have more Surface in Proportion to their Bulk, and consequently, that _small Bodies, whose Weight or Force to separate the Parts of the Fluid is but very little, may have a Surface so large, that they cannot overcome the Resistance of the Fluid: That is, they cannot make Way for their Descent through the Fluid, and therefore must swim upon the Surface of it_. Be it so, then the Particles here mentioned by the Theorist, being little, and of large Surfaces in Proportion to their Bulk, would swim upon the Surface of the Fluid, or mix with it, which is all the Theorist affirms or supposes: And as this tender Film grew into a Crust, and that into a solid Arch, the Parts of it would mutually support one another; the Concave Superficies of the Orb overspreading and leaning upon the Waters: And this also shews that his Instance of a solid Globe sinking in a Fluid, is little to the Purpose in this Case.

But he hath a second objection behind, _p._ 40. or another Consideration to prove that those little Particles would pierce and pass through this oily Liquid. This Consideration is, the great Height of the Place from which they descended; whereby, he thinks, they would acquire such a Celerity and Force in their Descent, that they must needs break through this Orb of oily Liquors when they came at it. But this is to suppose that they descended without Interruption, or without having their Course stopp’d, and their Force broken in several Parts of their journey. This is an arbitrary and groundless Supposition: For these floating Particles did not fall like a Stone, or a ponderous Body, in one continued Line, but rather like Fleaks of Snow, hovering and playing in the Air, their Course being often interrupted and diverted, and their force broken again and again, before they came to the end of their Journey; so that this Suggestion can be of no Force or Effect in the present Case. However, if that will gratify him, we can allow that thousands and millions of these little Particles might slip or creep through this clammy Liquor, yet there would enough of them entangled there to make it, first, a gross Liquid, then a sort of Concretion, so as to stop the succeeding Particles from passing through it.

I have done with all that is argumentative in this Chapter: But this Writer is pleased to go sometimes out of his way of Philosophising, to make Reflections of another kind. Accordingly, here and elsewhere he makes Insinuations and Suggestions, as if the Theorist did not own the Hand of Providence, or of a particular and extraordinary Providence in the Formation of the Earth; or as if all Things in the great Revolutions of the natural World were carried on solely by material and mechanical Causes. This Suggestion ought to be taken Notice of, as being contrary to the Sense of the Theorist, as it is express’d in several Places. In speaking of the Motions of the Chaos, the Theorist makes the _steady Hand of Providence which keeps all Things in Weight and Measure, to be the invisible Guide of all its Motions_, p. 45. And in concluding his Discourse about the Formation of the Earth (_Chap._ V. _p._ 45.) the Theorist says, _This Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to be consider’d, as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the Work of Nature_; with many other Remarks there to the same purpose. Then as to the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Conduct of the Deluge, ’tis made miraculous also by the Theorist[22]: And upon that Occasion an Account is given of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, in reference to the Government of Nature; and that not only as to the formation and Dissolution of the Earth, but also as to its Conflagration and Renovation: For the Theorist always puts those great Revolutions under the particular Conduct and Moderation of Providence. Lastly, As to the whole Universe, he is far from making that the Product either of _Chance_ or _Necessity_, or of any purely material or mechanical Causes; as you may see at large in the two last Chapters of the _Theory_, _Book_ II. So that what this Author hath said (rudely enough, according to his Way) of _Mr. Wotton_, _Introd._ _p._ 15. that _he either understands no Geometry, or else that he never read_ D.C. _his Principles_, may with a little Change be apply’d to himself in this Case, that either he never read over, or does not remember, or, which is still worse, does wilfully misrepresent what the Theorist hath wrote upon this Subject. The Sum of all is this, _Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in superfluis_: God is the God of Nature; and the Laws of Nature are his Laws: These we are to follow so far as they will go, and where they fall short, we must rise to higher Principles; but we ought not to introduce a needless Exercise of the divine Power, for a Cover to our Ignorance.

To conclude this Chapter, I will leave one Advertisement with the Examiner concerning the Chaos. When he speaks of the World’s rising from the _Mosaick_ Chaos, if by _World_ he understand the whole Universe, as he seems to do; not this inferior World only, but the fix’d Stars also, and all the Heavens: If that, I say, be his Meaning and Opinion, he will meet with other Opponents besides the Theorist, that will contest that Point with him.

We come now to the third Chapter, concerning the _Mountains_ of the Earth, which is a subject indeed that deserves Consideration, seeing it reaches to the three fundamental Propositions before mentioned, and the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth; which Form the Examiner would have to be the same with that of the present Earth, to have had Mountains and Rocks, an open Chanel of the Sea, with all the Cavities and Irregularities within or without the Surface of it, as at present. If he can prove this, he needs go no farther; he may spare his Pains for the rest: I’ll undertake that the Theorist shall make no farther Defence of his Theory, if the Examiner can make good Proof of this one Conclusion. But, on the other Hand, the Examiner ought to be so ingenuous as to acknowledge that all that he hath said besides, till this be prov’d, can be of little or no Effect, as to the Substance of the Theory. Let us then consider how he raises Mountains and Rocks, and gives us an Account of all the other Inequalities that we find in the present Form of the Earth, by an immediate Formation or Deduction from the Chaos.

To shew this, he supposes, _p._ 49, 51. that the Chaos had Mountains and Rocks swimming in it, or, according to his Expression, _huge Lumps of solid Matter_. These are Things, I confess, which I never heard of before in a Chaos; which hath been always describ’d and suppos’d a Mass of fluid Matter all over. But this Author confidently says, p. 48. _We must conclude THEREFORE, that the Chaos was not so fluid a Mass, &c._ This _therefore_ refers us to an antecedent Reason, which is this; he says, _ibid._ to make the Chaos an entirely fluid Mass is hard to be granted, _since the greatest Parts of Bodies we have in the Earth, at least so far as we can discern, are hard and solid, and there is not such a Quantity of Water in the Earth, as would be requisite to soften and liquify them all; besides a great part of them, as Stones and Metals, are uncapable of being liquified by Water_. Very good, what is this to the _Theory_? Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos; or that they were liquified by Water? This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own, or to some other Author’s Hypothesis that ran in his Mind: The Theorist owns no such Doctrine or Supposition.

However, let’s consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with the Laws of Nature: What made these _huge Lumps of solid Matter_, whether Stone or Metal, to swim in the fluid Mass? This is against all Rules of Gravity, and of Staticks, as he seems to acknowledge, and urged it when he thought it to his Purpose. In the precedent Chapter (_p._ 42.) when he speaks of Stones and Minerals, he says, _’Tis certain that these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the Bottom, if they were left to themselves_: And he that will not allow Dust or little earthy Particles, to float upon an oily Liquor, I wonder how he will make, not little Particles, but these huge solid Lumps of Stone, Metals, or Minerals, to float in the Chaos.

He seems to own and be sensible of this Inconvenience, (_p._ 50) and thereupon finds an Expedient or Evasion which a lesser Wit would not have thought on. He supposes, _p._ 51 that these _huge_ firm solid Lumps were hollow, like empty Bottles, and that would keep them from sinking. But who told him they were hollow? Is not this precarious? Or, if one would use such Terms as he does, is not this _chymerical and ridiculous_? What made those solid firm Lumps hollow? When, or where, or how were their inward Parts scrap’d out of them? Nor would this Hollowness, however they came by it, make them swim, unless there was a mere Vacuum in each of them. If they were filled with the liquid Matter of the Chaos, they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid; but they would still be heavier than any equal Bulk of the fluid Chaos, and consequently would sink in it; the Preponderancy that would arise from the Shell or solid Part still remaining.

Now let’s consider how such Mountains, or long Ridges of Mountains as we have upon the Earth, were formed and settled by these floating Lumps. He says, _p._ 50, 51. _Part of these Lumps or Masses standing out, or being higher than the Fluid, would compose a Mountain_, as there are _Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas_. But are not Mountains of Rock and Stone, such as ours commonly are, heavier than Mountains of Ice, that is specifically lighter than Water? This might have been consider’d by the Examiner in drawing the Parallel: And still I’m at a Loss what _Fluid_ it is he means, when he says, These Lumps or Masses _standing out, or being higher than the Fluid_. Does he mean by this Fluid the Whole Chaos? Did these Mountains stand at the Top of the Chaos, partly within, and partly above it? Then what drew them down below, if they stood equally pois’d there in their Fluid, and as high as the Moon, if the Chaos reach’d so high. This, one would think, could not be his Meaning, ’tis so extravagant; and yet there was no other Fluid than the general Chaos, till that was divided and distinguish’d into several Masses. Then, indeed, there was an Abyss, or Region of Waters that covered the interior Earth, and was separate from the Air above. Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the Waters or Fluid this Author means, upon which his Mountains stood; then the rest of the Earth, as it came to be form’d, must be continu’d and join’d with these Mountains, and in like Manner laid over the Waters; so as in this Method, you see, we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss. This is a very favourable Stroke for the Theorist, and grants him in Effect his principal Conclusion, _viz._ That the _first ante diluvian Earth was built over the Abyss_: This being admitted, there could be no universal Deluge without a Disruption of that Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss, which is a main Point gain’d. And ’tis plain we make no false Logick in collecting this from his Principles and Concessions: For, as we said before, if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss, they must have a Continuity and Conjunction with the rest of the Surface of the Earth, if they were such as our Mountains are now, and so all the habitable Earth must be spread upon the Abyss.

But still he hath another Difficulty to encounter, how the great Chanel of the Sea was made upon this Supposition: Why was not that Part of the Globe fill’d up by the Descent of the earthy Particles of the Chaos as well as the rest? The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos’d to take up half of the Globe, how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill’d, seeing it was encompass’d with the Chaos as well as any other Parts? Was the Motion of the Particles suspended from descending upon that Part of the Globe; or were they fill’d up at first, and afterwards thrown out again to make room for the Sea? This may deserve his Consideration, as well as the Mountains: And how dextrous soever this Author may be in other Things I know not, but, in my Mind, he hath no good Hand in making Mountains; and I’m afraid he would have no better Success in forming the Chanel of the Sea, which he is wisely pleased to take no Notice of.

And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no good Luck in assigning the _efficient Causes_ of Mountains from the Chaos, and therefore he is willing to bear off from that Point, and to lay the whole Stress upon their _final Causes_, without any regard to their Origin, or how they came first into being. His Words are these, _p._ 52. _But supposing the efficient Causes of Mountains unknown, or impossible to be assign’d, yet still there remain the final Causes to be enquir’d into, which will do as well for our Purpose_, with what follows there concerning those Authors that exclude final Causes. If there be such Authors, let them answer for themselves, the Theorist is not concern’d. Grant the first Point, that Mountains could not arise from any known efficient Causes in the first Concretion of the Chaos, or in the first habitable Earth that rose from it, the Theorist readily allows (as appears fully in the two last Chapters of the second Book of the _Eng. Theor._) the Use of final Causes in the Contemplation of Nature, as being great Arguments of the Wisdom and Goodness of God. But this ought not to exclude the efficient Causes in a _Theory_, otherwise it would be no _Theory_, but a Work of another Nature. Though a Man knew the final Cause of a Watch or Clock, namely, to tell him the Hour of the Day, yet, if he did not know the Construction of its Parts, what was the Spring of Motion, what the Order of the Wheels, and how they mov’d the Hand of the Dial, he could not be said to understand that little Machine; or at least not to understand it so well as he that knew the Construction and Dependence of all its Parts, in virtue whereof that Effect was brought to pass. In many Cases we do not understand the final Causes, and in many we do not understand the efficient; but, notwithstanding, we must endeavour, so far as we are able, to join and understand them both; the End and the Means to it: For by the one, as well as the other, the divine Power and Wisdom are illustrated; and seeing every Effect hath its efficient Cause, if we cannot reach it, we must acknowledge our Speculations to be so far imperfect.

After this Excursion about final Causes, he concludes, _p._ 54. _That it is impossible to subsist or live without Rocks or Mountains_; consequently no Earth is habitable without Rocks and Mountains. But how can he tell this? Hath he been all over the Universe to make his Observations? or hath he had a Revelation to tell him that there is no one habitable Planet throughout all the Works of God, but what is of the same Form with our Earth as to Rocks and Mountains. Who hath ever observ’d Mountains and Rocks in _Jupiter_, or in the Remains of _Saturn_? I should think such a general Assertion as he makes, a bold and unwarrantable Limitation of the divine Omniscience and Omnipotency. Who dares conclude that the infinite Wisdom and Power of God is confin’d to one single Mode or Fabrick of an habitable World? We know there are many Planets about our Sun besides this Earth, and of different Positions and Constructions: Neither do we know but there may be as many about other Suns, or fix’d Stars: Must we suppose that they are all cast in the same Mold? that they are all formed after the Model of our Earth, with Mountains and Rocks, and Gulphs and Caverns?

_Urbem, quam dicunt Romam, Melibœe, putavi Stultus ego, huic nostræ similem._

This was the Judgment of the Shepherd, who could imagine nothing different, or nothing better than his own Town or Village; those may imitate him that please. ’Tis true, _Suum cuique pulchrum_, is an usual Saying, but we think that to proceed from Fondness rather, and Self-Conceit, than from a true and impartial Judgment of Things. In contemplating the Works of God, we ought to have Respect to his Almighty and Infinite Wisdom, τῆν πολυπαίκιλον σοφίαν, _multiformem sapientiam Dei_, rather than to the Measures of our own Experience and Understanding. We may remember how an[23] Heathen hath upbraided and derided that Narrowness of Spirit, _Quæ tantæ sunt animi angustiæ, ut si Seryphi natus esses, nec unquam egrossus ex Insulá, in quâ Lepusculos Vulpeculasque sæpe vidisses, non crederes Leones & Pantheras esse, cúm tibi quales essent diceretur: Si verò de Elephanto quis diceret, etiam rideri te putares._ We may as well say, that there can be no Animals of another Form from those we have upon this Earth, as that there can be no Worlds, or habitable Earths of another Form and Structure from the present Earth. _An quicquam tam puerile dici potest_, says the same Author, _quám si ea genera belluarum quæ in Rubro mari, Indiâve gignantur, nulla esse dicamus? Atqui ne curiosissimi quidem homines exquirendo andire tam multa possunt, quam sunt multa quæ Terræ, Mari, Paludibus, Fluminibus existunt; quæ negemus esse quia nunquam vidimus?_ I mention such Instances to shew, that ’tis Rashness or Folly, to confine the Varieties of Providence and Nature, to the narrow Compass of what we have seen, or of what falls under our Imagination. This is a more _strange and assuming Boldness_, as he terms it, _p._ 54 than what he ascribes to the Theorist for saying, We can observe no Order in the Situation of Mountains, nor Regularity in their Form and Shape. If the Examiner knows any, why does he not tell us what it is, and wherein it consists? Is it necessary that Mountains should be exact Pyramids or Cones, or any of the regular Bodies? or rang’d upon the Earth in Rank and File, or in a quincuncial Order, or like pretty Garden-Knots? If they had been design’d for Beauty, this might have done well; but Providence seems on Purpose to have left these Irregularities in their Figure and Site, as Marks and Signatures to us, that they are the Effects of a Ruin.

But to shew farther and more particularly the Necessity of Mountains, the Examiner says, _p._ 55. and 61. Without them ’tis impossible there should be Rivers, or without Rivers an habitable World. Neither of these Propositions seems to me to be sure; they run still upon Impossibilities, which is a nice Topick, and lies much out of our Reach. I think Vapours may be condens’d other Ways than by Mountains, and an Earth might be so fram’d, as to give a Course to Rivers, though there were no particular Mountains, if the general Figure of it was higher in one Part than another. Then as to the absolute Necessity of Rivers, to make an Earth habitable, that is questionable too. We are told by good Authors, of some Countries or Islands that have no Rivers or Springs, and yet are habitable and fruitful, being water’d by Dews. This may give us an Advertisement, from a Part to the Whole, that an Earth may be made habitable without Rivers. If at first Vapours ascended, and fell down in Dews, so as to _water the whole Face of the Earth_, _Gen._ ii. 6. God might, if he had pleas’d, have continued the same Course of Nature. And it is the Opinion of many Interpreters, and seems to have been an antient Tradition, that there was no Rain till the Deluge. If there was no Rainbow in the first Earth, (which I think the Theorist hath undeniably prov’d, _Theor._ _Book_ II. _c._ 5.) it will be hard to prove that there were then any watery Clouds in the habitable Parts of the Earth. And our best[24] Observators will allow no Clouds or Rains in the Moon, (and some of them no Rivers,) yet will not suppose the Moon unhabitable. To conclude, ’tis a great Vanity to say no worse, for short-sighted Creatures, and of narrow Understandings, to prescribe to Providence what is necessary and indispensable to the Frame and Order of an habitable World.

We proceed to his fourth Chapter; which is to shew the Inconveniencies that would fall upon the Inhabitants of the Earth, in case it had such a Posture as the Theorist hath assign’d to the ante-diluvian Earth: Namely, that its Axis was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick, or perpendicular to its Plane, and not oblique as it stands now. But will this Author vouch, that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe, or even about our Sun, that have this Posture which he blames so much? _Jupiter_ is known to have a perpetual Equinox, and his Axis parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick; and _Mars_ hath little or no Obliquity that is observable. And must this be a Reflection upon Providence? Or must we suppose, that these Planets have no Inhabitants, or that their Habitations are very bad and incommodious? _Jupiter_ is the noblest Planet we have in our Heaven, whether you consider its Magnitude, or the Number of its Attendants. If then a Planet of that Order and Dignity, have such a Position and Aspect to the Sun, why might not our Earth have had the same, proper to that State, and agreeable to the Divine Wisdom? Yet he is so bold as to say, or suppose, _p._ 66. That _this cannot well agree with the infinite Wisdom of its Maker_; as if he was able to make a Measure or Standard for all the Works of God. ’Tis a crude and injudicious Thing, from a few Particulars, the rest unknown, to make an universal Conclution, which forward Wits are apt to do. Πρὸς ὀλίγα ἐπιθλεψάμενετ.—_Ad pauca respiciens, facile pronuncias_, was _Aristotle_’s Observation of old, and it holds in all Ages.

This Examiner, _p._ 76. censures the Theorist very rudely, for making use of _physical Causes_, and not arguing from _final Causes_, which, he says, _are the true Principles of natural Philosophy_. But, if this be the Use he makes of final Causes, to tell God Almighty what is best to be done, in this or that World, I had rather content myself with _physical Causes_, to know what God hath done, and conclude it to be the best, and that we should judge it so, if we had the same Extent of Thought and Prospect its Maker had. There are indeed some _final Causes_ that are so manifest, that I should think it Sottishness or Obstinacy for a Man to deny them; but I should also think that Man presumptuous, that should pretend to draw the Scheme and Plan of every World, from his Idea of _final Causes_. There are some Men that mightily cry out against _Reason_, yet none more fond of it than they are, when they can get it on their Side: So some Men inveigh against _physical Causes_, when others make use of them, and yet as gladly as any make use of them themselves, when they can make them serve their Purpose; and when they cannot reach them, then they despise them, and are all for _final Causes_. This Author says, _p._ 63. God always _chuses such Constitutions and Positions of Things, as bring with them the greatest Good and Utility to the Universe_. Very true, to the _Universe_? but who made him judge what is best to the Universe? Does he look upon this Earth as the Universe, whereof it is but a small Particle, or an Atom in comparison? Must there be no Variety in the numberless Worlds which God hath made? Must they all be one and the same Thing repeated again and again? That I’m sure does not _well agree with the infinite Wisdom and Power of God_.

But suppose we did confine our Thoughts to this Earth, we may be assur’d that it hath undergone and will undergo, within the Compass of its Duration, very different States, and yet all accommodate to Providence. Those that suppose the Heavens and the Earth never to have had any other Constitution and Construction than what they have now, or that there hath never been any great Change and Revolution in our natural World, follow the very Doctrine which St. _Peter_ opposes and confutes in his _second Epistle_, Chap. 3. I mean the Doctrine of those _Scoffers_, as he calls them, who said, _All Things_, the Heavens and the Earth, _have remained in the same State they are in now, from the Beginning_, or from the Creation, and are to continue so. In Confutation of this Opinion, St. _Peter_ there minds them of the Change made at the Deluge, and of the different Constitution and Construction of the Heavens and the Earth, before and after the Deluge, whereby they were dispos’d to undergo a different Fate, one by Water, and the other by Fire. And he tells us in the same Place, that after the Conflagration, there will be _new Heaven_; and a _new Earth_: So that there is no one fix’d and permanent State even of this Earth, according to the Will and Wisdom of Providence. But enough hath been said by the Theorist upon this Subject (_Theor. Lat._ _l._ 1. _c._ 1 & 2. _Review_, p. 160. _&c._ _Archæol._ _l._ 2. _c._ 3, 5, 6.) And if they will not consider the Arguments propos’d there, ’twould be in vain to repeat them here.

These Things premis’d, let’s consider what Inconveniencies are alledged, or what Arguments against that Equality of Seasons, or the grand Cause of them, the Parallelism of the Axis of the Earth, with the Axis of the Sun. He says, upon this Supposition, there is more Heat now in the Climates of the Earth, than could have been then. And what if there be? Whether his Computation (which is aim’d against another Author) be true or false, ’tis little to the _Theory_: If the Heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates, who would desire the extreme Heats of Summer? But he says, _p._ 66. That Heat would not be sufficient for the Generation of Vegetables. How does that appear? supposing that Heat constant throughout the whole Year. Does he think there are no Vegetables in _Jupiter_, which hath still the same Position the Theorist gave to the ante-diluvian Earth. And as to Heat, that Planet is at vastly a greater Distance from the Sun than our Earth, and consequently hath so much less Heat; yet I cannot believe that great Planet to be only a huge Lump of bald and barren Earth. As to our ante-diluvian Earth, ’tis probable that the Constitution of Plants and Animals, was different then from what it is now, as their Longevity was different, to which any Excesses of Heat or Cold are noxious; and the Frequency and Multiplicity of Generations and Corruptions in the present Earth, is Part of that Vanity to which it was subjected. But this Examiner says moreover, If the first Earth had that Position, the greatest Part of it would not be habitable. But how much less habitable would it be than the present Earth? where the open Sea, which was not then, takes up half of its Surface, and makes it unhabitable. ’Tis likely the torrid Zone was unhabitable in that Earth; but ’tis probable the Poles or Polar Parts were more habitable than they are now, seeing they would have the Sun, or rather Half-Sun perpetually in their Horizon: And as to the temperate Climates, as we call them, they would be under such a gentle and constant Warmth, as would be more grateful to the Inhabitants, and more proper and effectual for a continual Verdure and Vegetation, than any Region of the present Earth is now.

But this Objector does not consider, on the other hand, what an hard Life they would lead in those Days, at least in many Parts of the Earth, if the Seasons of the Year were the same they are now, and they confin’d to Herbs, Fruits, and Water; for that was the Diet of Mankind till the Deluge. Should we not think it an unmerciful Imposition now, to be interdicted the Use of Flesh-Meat all the Year long? Or rather is it possible that the Life of Man could be supported by Herbs and Fruits, and Water in the colder Climates, where the Winters are so long and barren, and the Cold so vehement? But, if you suppose a perpetual Spring throughout the Earth, the Heavens mild, and the Juices of Fruits and Plants more nutritive, that Objection would cease, and their Longevity be more intelligible.

We come now to the Causes of the Change in the Posture of the Earth, where the Theorist hath set down his Conjectures, what he thought the most probable to be the Occasion of it: Namely, either some Inequality in the Libration of the Earth, after it was dissolved and broken; or a Change in the Magnetism of its Body, consequent upon its Dissolution, and the different Situation of its Parts. But this Examiner will neither allow any Change to have been made in the Position of the Earth since the Beginning of the World; nor, if there was a Change, that it could be made from such Causes. The first of these Points you see is Matter of Fact; and so it must be prov’d, partly by History, and partly by Reason. Some Things are noted before, which argue that the ante-diluvian Earth was different from the present, in its Frame and Constitution, as also in reference to the Heavens; and the Places are referred to, where the Matter is treated more largely by the Theorist. If it be granted, that there was a permanent Change made in the State of Nature at the Deluge, or any other Time, but deny’d that it was made by a Change of the Situation of the Earth, and the Consequences of it, then this Writer must assign some other Change made, which would have the same Effects; that is, which will answer and agree with the Phænomena of the first Earth, and also of the present. When this is done, if it be clear and convictive, we must acquiesce in it: But I do not see that it is so much as attempted by this Author.

This suppos’d Change, I say, is Matter of Fact, and therefore we must consult History and Reason for the Proof or Disproof of it. As to History, the Theorist hath cited to this Purpose _Leucippus_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, _Empedocles_, _Plato_ and _Diogenes_. These were the most renowned Philosophers amongst the Antients; and all these speak of an Inclination of the Earth or the Poles, which hath been made in former Ages. These, one would think, might be allow’d as good Witnesses of a former Tradition concerning a Change in the Situation of the Earth, when nothing is brought against them. And this Change is particularly call’d by _Plato_ ἀναρμοσία or ἀνωμαλία, a Disharmony or Disconcerting of the Motions of the Heavens, which he makes the Source and Origin of the present Evils and Inconveniencies of Nature. Besides, he dates this Change from the Expiration of the Reign of _Saturn_, or when _Jupiter_ came to take the Government upon him: And this, you know, in the Style of those Times, signifies the End of the Golden Age. Thus far _Plato_ carries the Tradition: Now, the Poets tell us expressly that there was a _perpetual Spring_, or a perpetual Equinox in the Time of _Saturn_, and that the Inequality of the Year, or the Diversity of Seasons was first introduc’d by _Jupiter_. The Authors and Places are known and noted by the Theorist; I need not repeat them here. You see what this Evidence amounts to, both that there hath been a Change, and such a Change, as alter’d the Course of the Year, and brought in a Vicissitude of Seasons; and this according to the Doctrines or Traditions remaining amongst the Heathens. The _Jews_ and _Christians_ say the same Thing, but in another Manner: They do not speak of the Golden Age, nor of the Reign of _Saturn_ or _Jupiter_, but of the State of Paradise, or _Gan-Eden_; and concerning that, they say the same Things, which the Heathen Authors say, in different Words. The _Jews_ make a perpetual Equinox in Paradise, the _Christians_ a perpetual Serenity, a perpetual Spring; and this cannot be without a different Situation of the Earth from what it hath now. He may see the Citations if he please, in the _Theory_, or _Archæologia_.

It were to be wish’d, that this Examiner would look a little into Antiquity, when he hath Time: It may be, that would awaken him into new Thoughts, and a more favourable Opinion of the Theory as to this Particular. Give me leave to mind him in his own Way, what some antient Astronomers have said relating to this Subject. _Baptista Mantuanus_, speaking of the Longevity of the Ante-Diluvians, says, _Erant illis, ut Astronomia & Experimento constat, Cœli propitiores; volunt namque Astronomi_, _&c._ This he explains by an uniform and concentrical Motion of the Heavens and the Earth, at that Time; to which he imputes the great Virtue of their Herbs and Fruit, and the long Lives of their Animals. _Petrus Aponensis_, who liv’d above an Age before _Mantuan_, give us much what the same Account: For making an Answer to this Question, _utrum natura humania sit debilitata ab eo quod antiquitus, necne?_ He says, _Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis & immobilis ordinati & directè concurrebant, tunc virtus perfectiori modò à primo principio per medias causastaliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora, cum causæ tunc sib invicem correspondeant——Propter quod concludendum est, tunc naturam humanam illo tempore, ut sic fortiorem & longæviorem extitisse._ I give it in his own Words as they are in his _Conciliator. Differ. 9._

_Georgius Pictorius_, or an Author under his Name, unto the same Question about the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, gives a like Answer from the same Astronomer, in these Words: _Petrus Aponensis adsert rationem, & pro vario cursu & dispositione coelorum modo vitam humanam breviari, modo produci seribit. Ex Astronomiá argumentum colligens, cùm ait duos Zodiacos, unum in noná sphærâ, alterum in octava (quam Firmamentum vocani) in initio rerum & temporum, sic à Deo fuisse dispositos, ut Aries Arieti, Taurus Tauro, Geminis Gemini jungerentur: & amborum cocuntibus in unum viribus fortior in Terras fieret fluxus. Unde herbas tunc salubriores & fructus terræ meliores, & longiores vitas animantium fuisse affirmat. Sed dennò illá syderali dissolutá ab invicem per motum societate, totum ait inferiorem mundum ægrotare, atque per decrementum claudicare cæpisse._ This, you see, is Astronomy in an old-fashion’d Dress; but you can easily take off the Disguise, and apply it to the true System of the Heavens. The same Author refers you, for a more full Explication of that Matter, to his _Lectiones succisivæ, Dial. prim._ which Book I have not yet had an Opportunity to see. I believe it is in his _Opera Philologica_, printed in _Octavo_ at _Basil_.

But since the first writing of the Theory, there have been _Æthiopick_ Antiquities produc’d from an Abyssine Philosopher, and transmitted to us by _Francisco Patricio_ in his Dialogues. If that Account he gives of the _Æthiopian Archæologia_ be true and genuine, they exceed all other upon this Subject: for they do not only mention this Particular, of the Unity of Seasons in the primitive Earth, but the other principal Parts of the Theory: As the Concussion and Fraction of the Earth; that the Face of it before was smooth and uniform, and upon that Disruption it came into another Form, with Mountains, Rocks, Sea and Islands. These and other such Characters are mentioned there, whereof the Examiner may see an Account, if he please, in the last Edition of the _English Theory_, p. 189. The Story indeed is surprizing, which way soever you take it, whether it was the Invention of that Abyssine Philosopher, or a real Tradition deriv’d from the _Æthiopian_ Gymnosophists. However that be, there are otherwise such conspicuous Footsteps in philosophick History, and in what may be call’d Ecclesiastick, amongst the _Jews_ and _Christians_, of some Revolution in the System of the World, as must give occasion to any thinking Man to suppose, that there hath been a Change made in the Situation of the Earth. This, by some of the forementioned Authors, is ascrib’d expresly to the Earth; and what by others (according to their Hypothesis) is ascrib’d to the higher Heavens, we know upon a just Interpretation belongs to the Earth. Those also that ascribe such Phænomena to Paradise, or the Golden Age, as are not intelligible upon any other Supposition, must also be referr’d to this Change of the Site or Posture of the Earth: So that upon all Accounts (mediately or immediately) the Matter of Fact, that the Earth hath undergone such a Change, is testified by History, Antiquity and Tradition. It deserves also to be observ’d, that there was a general Tradition amongst the Antients, concerning the Inhabitability of the Torrid Zone; which may be an Argument or Confirmation, that there was a State of Nature at one time or other, when this was true, and that such a general Opinion could not arise, and be continued so long without some Foundation.

So much for History to determine Matter of Fact: Now as to Reason (which we mentioned as the other Head, to prove or disprove this Conclusion.) That the Form of the primitive Earth which is assign’d by the Theorist, being suppos’d, namely, that it was regular, uniform, and had an equal Libration, it would naturally take an even and parallel Position with the Axis of its Orbit, or of the Ecliptick, as is set down more at large in the Theory: Nor can any Reason be alledg’d to the contrary. ’Tis true, this Examiner, _p. 83._ notwithstanding any Uniformity and Equilibration of that Earth, pretends it would be indifferent to any Position, or _retain any Position given, as a Sphere will do, put in a Fluid_. This might be, if that Sphere or Globe was resting; but if it was turn’d about its Axis, and the Axis of the Fluid (which is the present Case) it would certainly take a Position parallel to the Axis of its Fluid, if there was no other Impediment.

The Matter of Fact being settled with the Cause of it, what the Causes of the Change were, is more problematical. The Philosophers forecited gave their Reason; _Aristarchus Samius_ gives another, and a _Comet_ by some is made the occasion of it: The Theorist thinks that the Dissolution of the Earth was the fundamental Cause, and that the Change came to pass at that time, as many Indications and Arguments shew. And as to the immediate Cause or Causes of it, I know none more probable than what the Theorist hath proposed; _Eng. Theor._ _p. 267._ Either the Change of its Center of Gravity, or of its Magnetism; the Line of Direction to those magnetick Particles, and their passing through the Earth being so alter’d, as to turn the Earth into another Posture, and hold it there. As to those Expressions that he seems to quarrel with, of the Inclination of the Earth, or the Pole, towards the Sun, ’tis the Expression of the antient Philosophers, tho’ I think it might more properly be called an Obliquation. Then that the former State is called _situs rectus_, is another Expression which he finds fault with; though every one sees that a _right Situation_ in such Places, is opposed to an _oblique_, or inclined Position to the Axis of the Sun or Ecliptick, and had been called _parallel_ in several other Places; and which he himself, _p. 71._ sometimes, as well as other Authors, call a right Position. This is but trifling about Words: If he grants that the primitive Earth being uniform, and consequently equally pois’d, its Axis would be parallel (which for shortness, is sometimes call’d _right_) to the Axis of its Orbit, and is now in a different and oblique Posture, this is all the Theorist desires, as to Matter of Fact. I conceive the whole Matter thus: When the Earth was in that even and parallel Posture with the Axis of the Sun, it had a perpetual Equinox and Unity of Seasons, the Equator and Ecliptick being coincident: And as to the Heavens, they with the fix’d Stars mov’d or seem’d to move uniformly and concentrically with the Earth. But when the Earth chang’d its Posture to that which it hath now, the Year became unequal, and the Equator and Ecliptick became distinct Circles, or, if you will, a new Circle arose from the Distinction. The Earth in the mean time continuing its annual Course in the Ecliptick, had the Position of its Axis chang’d to a Parallelism with the Axis of the Equator, which it holds throughout the whole Year. As to the Heavens, they seem’d to turn upon another Axis, or other Poles than they did before, and different from those of the Sun or the Earth: And this fundamental Change in the Site of the Earth, had a farther Chain of Consequences, as is noted by the Theorist, in reference to the State both of the animate and inanimate World, This is, in short, the State of the Case, which is sometimes express’d in different Terms, especially by the Antients, who generally followed another System of the Heavens and the Earth, and were not always accurate in their Expressions.

This Author would square and conform all the Planets to the Model of the present Earth: Whereas there is _Diversity of Administrations_ in the natural World, as well as spiritual, yet the same Providence every where. The Axes of the Planets are not all parallel to that of the Sun, nor all oblique; and those that are so, have not all the same Degrees of Obliquity, yet we have Reason to think them all habitable. In some there are no different Seasons of the Year, and in some they differ in another manner than ours; and the Periods of their Years are very different. In like manner, as to the Days, in some they are longer, in others shorter: In the _Moon_ a Day lasts fourteen or fifteen of our Days, and their Nights are proportionably longer than our Nights. In _Jupiter_, the Days are but of five Hours, and so the Nights; that Planet being turned in ten Hours about his Axis. In _Mercury_ we know little what the Seasons or Days are, but its Year must be much shorter than ours; as also is that of _Venus_; and their Heat from the Sun, must be much greater. _Jupiter_ and _Saturn_ are at vast Distances from the Sun, and must proportionably have less Heat; and _Saturn_ must have a greater Difference of Summer and Winter than we have, by reason of his greater Obliquity to the Sun. These and such like Observations, show what Vanity it is to make an universal Standard from the State of our Earth: Or to say, this is best, and to make Things otherwise, would be inconsistent with the _infinite Wisdom of their Maker_, as this Examiner, _p. 66._ pretends to do.

But to return to his Objections: This he suggests, _ibid._ as one, that in case of a perpetual Equinox, the annual Motion of the Earth about the Sun would be to no Purpose. Of this we are no competent Judges, no more than of the other Differences foremention’d in the Conditions of the Planets. Yet, in that Case, a Distinction and Computation of Time might be made, by their Aspect to the different Signs of the Zodiack. There may be, (for any Thing we know,) in the Extent of the Universe, Planets, or great opaque Bodies, that have no Course about their Suns, for Reasons best known to their Maker; and others that have no diurnal Motion about their Axes: Nor ought such States, tho’ very different from ours, to be concluded incongruous. If this Objection of his were of any Force, it would lie against _Jupiter_ as well as against the ante-diluvian Earth. And this minds me of his Objection taken from _Saturn_ and _Jupiter_, whose Axes, he says, are Inclined to the Axis of the Ecliptick; and yet, according to the Theorist, they have suffer’d no Deluge. This is an unhappy Argument, for I think it hath two Errors in it: But let us set down his Words, that there may be no Mistake or Misrepresentation, _p. 76._ _Another Argument which may be brought to convince the Theorist that the Axis of the Earth was at first inclined to the Plane of the Ecliptick is, that it is certain by Observation, that Saturn and Jupiter (whom the Theorist will allow to have suffered no Deluge as yet) have their Axes not perpendicular, but inclined to the Planets of their Orbits; and the Position is true of all the other Planets, as far as they can be observ’d. And therefore, &c._ First, as to _Saturn_, I’m sure the Theorist never thought that Planet to be now in its original Form, but to be broken, and to have already suffer’d a Dissolution, as you may see in both Theories, _English_ and _Latin_[25]. Then as to the Position of _Jupiter_, I know not whence he has this _certain_ Observation, that its Axis is oblique to the Plane of its Orbit: For[26] _Hugenius_ tells us just the contrary, and that it hath a perpetual Equinox. Let these Things be examin’d, and hereafter let us be cautious how we take Things upon the Examiner’s Word, if he be found to have committed two Faults in one Objection.

Farthermore, he intimates, (_p. 94._) that the Theorist hath no Mind to the Notion of _Attraction_; I believe so too, nor in Philosophy to any other Notion that is unconceivable. He must tell us how this _Attraction_ differs from an _occult Quality_, whether it is a mechanical Principle or no; and if not, from what Principle it arises. When he hath told us this, we shall be better able to judge of it.

After all, to conclude this Chapter, the one grand Question with the Theorist (whatsoever there may be with other Authors) is this, _whether_ the Earth has chang’d its Situation since the Beginning of the World: And that it has done so, the Theorist does still positively maintain.

Having insisted more largely upon these four first Chapters, as being most fundamental in the Controversy, we shall dispatch more readily this fifth and the seventh, leaving the sixth Chapter to a more particular Disquisition in the last Place.

This fifth Chapter is designed against the Rivers of the primitive Earth, according to that Origin and Derivation that is given them by the Theorist. But it is to be noted in the first Place, that supposing they had any other Origin or Course than what is there assign’d (excepting only an Origin from Mountains,) the _Theory_ continues still in Force. For this Point about the Waters of the first Earth, and the Explication of them, is one of those Explications that admit of Latitude and Variety; and therefore as to the _Theory_, the Question is only this, _Whether_ an habitable Earth may have Rivers without Mountains. For if any Earth may have them without Mountains, why not the primitive Earth? Now it will be hard for the Examiner, or any other, to prove, that in every World, where there are Waters and Rivers, there are Mountains. We intimated before, that the general Frame of an Earth might be such as would give a Course to Waters without particular Mountains. But we will leave that at present to a farther Consideration, and observe now what his Proofs are, that there could be no Rivers in the primitive Earth.

First he says, _p. 87._ _According to the Theorist’s Own Hypothesis, there could be no Rivers for a long Time after the Formation of the Earth_. Where is this said by the Theorist? His Hypothesis supposes, that the soft and moist Earth could not but afford Store of Vapours at first, as this Author in another Place hath noted for the Sense of the Theorist, (_p. 86._) and now he says the quite contrary: The Chanels of the Rivers indeed would not be so deep and hollow at first as they are now, their Cavities being wrought by Degrees; but still there would not want Vapours to supply them.

Then he says, _p. 88._ when that first Moisture of the Earth was lessened, there could be no Supply of Vapours from the Abyss; seeing the Heat of the Sun could not reach so far, nor raise Vapours from it, or at least not in a sufficient Quantity, as he pretends to prove hereafter: But in the mean Time he speaks of great Cracks or Pits, whose Dimensions and Capacities he examines at Pleasure, and by these he makes the Theorist to suppose the Vapours to ascend. Now I do not find that the Theorist makes any Mention of these Pits, nor any Use of those Cracks for that Purpose. The only Question is, whether the Heat of the Sun in that Earth would reach so low as the Abyss, when the Earth was more dried, a»d its Pores enlarg’d: So that this Objection, as he states it, seems to refer to some other Author.

But now supposing the Vapours rais’d, he considers what Course they would take, or which Way they would move in the open Air. But before that be examin’d, we must take Notice how unfairly he deals with the Theorist, when he seems to make him suppose, _p. 94, 95._ that Mountains _make way for the Motion and Dilatation of the Vapours_; which he never suppos’d, nor is it possible he should suppose it in the first Earth, where there were no Mountains. Neither does the Theorist suppose, as this Author would insinuate, that Mountains or Cold dilate Vapours, but on the contrary, that they _stop_ and _compress them_, as the Words are cited, even by the Examiner a little before, _p. 86._

Then as to the Course of the Vapours, when they are rais’d, the Theorist supposes that would be towards the Poles and the coldest Climates. But this Author says, _p. 97._ they would all move Westward, or from East to West; _there being a continual Wind blowing from the East to West, according to the Motion of the Sun_. Whether that Wind come from the Motion of the Sun, or of the Earth, (which is contrary,) is another Question; but however, let them move at first to the West, the Question here is, _Where they would be condens’d_, or where they would fall. And there is little Probability that their Condensation would be under the Equator, where they are most agitated, but rather by an Impulse of new Vapours, they would soon divert towards the Poles, and losing their Agitation there, would fall in Dews or Rains. Which Condensation being made, and a Passage open’d that Way for new ones to supply their Places, there would be a continual Draught of Vapours, from the hotter to the colder Parts of the Earth.

We proceed now to the seventh Chapter, which is in a good Measure upon the same or a like Subject with this, namely, concerning the Penetration of the Heat of the Sun into the Body of the Earth. This, he says, _p. 148._ cannot be to any considerable Depth; nor could it pass the exterior Orb of the first Earth, and affect the Abyss, or raise Vapours from it. To prove this, he supposes that exterior Earth divided into so many Surfaces as he pleases, then supposing the Heat diminished in every Surface, he concludes it could not possibly pass through so many. Thus you may divide an Inch into an hundred or a thousand Surfaces, and prove from thence, that no Heat of the Sun could pierce through an Inch of Earth. We must rather consider Pores than Surfaces in this Case; and whether those Pores were straight or oblique, the Motion would pass however, though not the Light: And the Heat of the Sun might have its Effect, by a direct or indirect Motion, to a great Depth within the Earth, notwithstanding the Multitude of Surfaces that he imagines. Those that think a Comet, upon its nearer Approach to the Sun, would be pierc’d with its Heat through and through; and to such a Degree, as to become much hotter than red hot Iron, will not think it strange, that at our Distance from the Sun, its Heat should have some proportionable Effect upon the inward Parts of the Earth. And all those imaginary solid Surfaces do not hinder, you see, the magnetick Particles from running through the Body of the Earth, and making the Globe one great Magnet.

But let those Considerations have what Effect they can, this Supposition however is nothing peculiar to the Theorist. I know some learned Men think the Heat of the Sun does penetrate deep into the Bowels of the Earth; others think it does not, and either of them have their Arguments. These alledge the equal Temper of Vaults and Mines at different Seasons of the Year: The other say, ’tis true, subterraneous Places keep their Equality of Temper much better than the external Air, and those Differences that appear to us, are in a great Measure by comparison with the Temper of our Bodies. Then for their own Opinion, they take an Argument from the Generation of Metals and Minerals in the Bowels of the Earth, and other subterraneous Fossiles. These, we see, are ripen’d by degrees in several Ages, and cannot, as they think, be brought to Maturity, and raised into the exterior Earth, without the Heat and Influence of the Sun: Of the same Sun that actuates all the vegetable World, that quickens Seeds, and raises Juices into the Roots of our deepest, and Tops of our highest Oaks and Cedars.

But let this remain a Problem; I will instance in another remarkable Phænomenon, which is most for the present Purpose, I mean Earthquakes. Let us consider the Causes of them, and the Depths of them: I think all agree, that Earthquakes arise from the Rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations, and that this Rarefaction must be made by some Heat; and no other is yet proved to us by this Author than that of the Sun. Then as to the Depth of Earthquakes, we find they are deeper than the Bottom of the Sea: For, besides that they communicate with different Countries divided by the Sea, they are found sometimes to arise within the Sea, and from the Bottom of it, at great Depths. This seems to prove, that there may be a strong Rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations far within the Bowels of the Earth; and the Theorist desires no more. If in the present Constitution of the Earth, there may be such Concussions and Subversions for a great Extent, we have no Reason to believe, but there might be (at a Time appointed by Providence) an universal Disruption, as that Earth was constituted. Finally, whatsoever the Causes of this Disruption and Dissolution were, ’tis certain there was a _Disruption of the Abyss_, and that Disruption universal as the Deluge was; which answers sufficiently the Design of the _Theory_. However, if he have a mind to see, how this agrees with History, both sacred and prophane, he may consult, if he pleases, what the Theorist hath noted upon that Argument, _Archæol. l. 2. c. 4._ besides other Places.

But this Author says farther, That supposing such a Disruption of the Abyss, and Dissolution of the exterior Earth, no universal Deluge however could follow upon it; because there could not be Water enough left in the Abyss to make or occasion such a Deluge: For the Rivers of the Earth being then supply’d from the Abyss, by such a Time, or before the Time of the Deluge, he says, there would be no Water left in it. Thus he goes from one Extreme to another: Before he said, the Power of the Sun could not reach or affect the Abyss to draw out any Vapours from it; now he would make the Evaporation so excessive, that it would have emptied the great Abyss before the Deluge. This is a great Undertaking, and to make it good he takes a great Compass: He pretends to shew us, what Quantity of Water all the Rivers of the Earth throw into the Sea every Day; and beginning with the River _Po_, and taking his Measure from that, he supposes there are such a certain Number of equivalent Rivers upon the Face of the whole Earth; and if the _Po_ casts so much Water into the Sea, the rest will cast so much more, and in Conclusion so much as would empty the Abyss.

You will easily believe, _Sir_, there must be great Uncertainties in this Computation: But, if that was certain, as it is far from it, still he goes upon Suppositions that are not allow’d by the Theorist. For, first, he supposes the Waters of the present Sea to be equal to the Waters of the great Abyss: Whereas, supposing them of the same Depth, there would be near twice as much Water in the _great Deep_, as is now in the Ocean; seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth, and the Sea reaches but to half of it. Secondly, He should prove that the Rivers of the ante-diluvian Earth were as many, and as great, as we have now. The Torrid Zone then had none, and much less would serve the temperate Climates than is requisite now for the Earth. Besides, the Rivers of that Earth were not supplied by Vapours only from the Abyss, but also from all the Earth, and all the Waters upon the Earth: And when the Rivers were partly lost and spent in the Torrid Zone, they were in a great Measure exhal’d there, and drawn into the Air by the Heat of the Sun, and would fall again in another Place, to make new Rains and a new Supply to the Rivers. So, in like manner, when he supposes, _p. 158._ the Rivers that were upon the Earth, at the Time of the Disruption or the great Deep, to have thrown themselves off the Land, as if they were lost; and makes a Computation how much Water all the Rivers of the Earth amount to: This, I say, is a needless Computation as to the present Purpose. For whatsoever Mass of Waters they amounted to, it would not be lost: If they fell down and joined with the Abyss, they would increase its Store, and be thrown up again by the Fall of the Fragments, making so much a greater Mass to overflow the Earth; So that nothing is gain’d by this Supposition. The Effect would be the same as to the Deluge: Whether the Waters above the Earth, and those under the Earth met together sooner or later, when their Forces were joined, they would still have the same Effect, as we said before of the Vapours. And to conclude that Point, the whole Sum of Waters, or Vapours convertible into Waters, that were from the Beginning, or at any Time, would still be preserv’d above Ground, or under Ground: And that would turn to the same Account, as to the Flood.

These Waters and Vapours all collected, the Theorist supposes sufficient, upon a Dissolution of the Earth, to make the Deluge: Not indeed in the Nature of a Standing Pool, as it is usually conceiv’d; a quiet Pool, I say, overtopping and standing calm over the Heads of the highest Mountains; but as a rushing Sea, overflowing and sweeping them with its raging Waves and impetuous Fluctuations, when it was violently forc’d out of all its Chanels, and the Vapours condensed into Rain. Such an Inundation as this, would be sufficient to destroy both Man and Beast, and other Creatures, those few excepted, that were miraculously preserv’d in the Ark. This is the Theorist’s Explication of the Deluge, and I see nothing in this Argument, that will destroy or weaken it.

Now, this being the State of the Deluge, according to the Theorist, what this Author says in the next Paragraph (_p. 167._) is either a Misrepresentation, or an Equivocation. For the eight Oceans requir’d by the Theorist, is the Quantity of Water necessary for a Deluge in the Way of a Standing Pool: Whereas this Author represents it, as if the Theorist required so much Water to make a Deluge upon his Hypothesis. This, I suppose, upon Reflection, the Author cannot but see to be a Mistake, or a wilful Misrepresentation.

This is the Sum of his seventh Chapter: There are besides some Suggestions made, which it may be were intended for Objections by the Author: As when he says, (_p. 151._) that the Heat of the Sun would be intolerable upon the Surface of the Earth, if it could pierce and operate upon the Abyss. We allow, that its Heat was intolerable in the Torrid Zone, which thereby became unhabitable; and there only the Sun was in its full Strength, and had its greatest Effect upon the Abyss. But in the other Climates, the Heat would be moderate enough; nay, so moderate, that this Author says in another Place, _p. 66, 69_, _&c._ it would not be sufficient to ripen Fruits, and in the Whole, of less Force than it is now in the present Constitution of the Earth. So apt is Contention to carry one out of one Extreme into another.

His last Objection is about the Duration of the Flood, that it could not last in its Force a hundred and fifty Days, if it had been made by a Dissolution of the Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss. But as this is affirm’d by him without Proof, so the contrary is sufficiently explain’d and made out, both in the _Latin_ and _English_ Theory, p. 52, 56.

I had forgot to tell him, that he ought not to suppose, as he seems to do, when he is emptying the Abyss, (_p. 165._) that after the Torrid Zone was soak’d with Waters by the Issues of the Rivers, no more Waters or Vapours were drawn from it then, than were before, or consequently no less from the Abyss. For when the middle Parts of the Earth had drunk in those Waters, the Force of the Sun would be less upon the Abyss through those Parts, and the Vapours would be more and greater from them, than before when they were drier, and in the same Proportion they needed less Supplies from the Abyss.

CHAP. VI. _Concerning the Figure of the Earth._

I Deferr’d the Consideration of this Chapter to the last, because I thought it of a more general Concern, and might deserve a fuller Disquisition. ’Tis now, you know, become a common Controversy or Enquiry, _what the Figure of the Earth is_. Many think it not truly Spherical, as it was imagin’d formerly, but a Spheroid, either oblong or oblate; that is, either extended in Length toward the Poles, like an oval; or, on the contrary, swelling in Breadth under the Equator, and so shorter than a just Sphere betwixt Pole and Pole, and broader in the middle Parts. ’Tis true, the Theorist is not directly concern’d in this Controversy, because he does not in the _Theory_ affirm the present Earth to be oblong or oval, not knowing what Change might be made at its Dissolution. However, it may be worth the while to enquire what Arguments are bought, either from Causes or Effects, to determine the Figure of the Earth, whether past or present.

’Tis easy indeed by Observation to determine, that the Earth is a convex Body, not plain, as the _Epicureans_ fansied; and convex on all Sides, and therefore in some sort orbicular; but whether it be truly spherical, those common Observations will not determine. The Theorist nam’d and pointed at such Observations, as he thought would be most likely to discover the precise Figure of the Earth: As to observe, for Instance, whether the Extent of a Degree was the same all the Earth over, in different Latitudes, or at different Distances from the Equator. Then to observe whether the Shade of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round, or any other ways irregular. And also to observe, if towards the Poles, the Return of the Sun into their Horizon, be according to the Rules of a spherical Surface of the Earth. Let us consider these separately, as to the present Earth.

As to the Measure of a Degree in different Latitudes, we find that Authors are not all of the same Mind. Some will have them unequal, and in such a manner, according to their Distance from the Equator, as from that to infer, that the Earth is oblong. This Examiner takes Notice of Dr. _Eisensmidius_, as one that hath made that Observation, and that Inference from it, and gives him very rude Words upon that occasion, making him a Man of _prodigious Stupidity, and Crackpot_, _p. 140_, and one that did _not understand the first six Elements of Euclid, or indeed those of common Sense, p. 143._ Whatsoever this Professor was, he was not the first that made that Observation and Inference. For another Mathematician, better known, had made the same, some time before him: I mean _Milliet Deschales_, in his _general Principles of Geography_, _Fr. l. 1. propos. 29._ But, ’tis true, he says, this Conjecture of his, that the Figure of the Earth is oval or ecliptick, would not be well grounded, if the Shade of the Earth in Lunar Eclipses was found to be always perfectly round; of which we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. For this, which he makes a Scruple against his own Opinion, is by others made an Occasion of suspecting that the Earth is really Oval. But we must also acknowledge, that the same _Deschales_ in his _Latin_ Works does not own the Observation, but owns the Inference, which is that the Examiner quarrels with. He owns it, I say, in these Words,[27] _Si figura terræ esset ovalis, plura milliaria decurrenúa essent versus Æquinoctialem ad inveniendum in elevatione poli mutationem unius gradûs quàm versus polos._ And he gives this Reason, _Quià ovalis figura prope vertices minorem sphæram imitatur: versus Æquinoctialem autem in majorem sphæram degenerat._ And again, having taken Notice of the various Computations of a Degree upon the Earth, he subjoins[28], _Hæc observationum discrepantia nonnullis suspicionem fecit, Tellurem non omninò sphæricam esse, sed sphæroidem ellipticam, ita ut versus polos in minorem circulum abiret. Sed opus est pluribus observationibus adid persuadendum._ The Theorist did not assert either the Observation to be true or the Inference, but mark’d it as an Observation that deserv’d to be enquir’d into, in order to determine the Figure of the Earth. For it seems apparent, that if the Body of the Earth be oblong or oblate, the Extent of a Degree will not be really the same as if it was truly spherical. Neither do I know any single Observation that would give us more Light, or better help us to discover what the Configuration of the Earth is, than the Measure of a Degree exactly taken in different Latitudes.

I happened lately to be in Company with a learned Gentleman, and amongst other Things that fell into Discourse, I ask’d his Opinion, what Inequality there would be in the Degrees of the Earth, in case it was oval, and where it would fall; whether they would be greater towards the Poles, or towards the Equator. We were suddenly interrupted by the coming in of new Company, but he said he would send me his Thoughts upon a little Reflection; and accordingly, after a few Days he was pleased to send me this Letter.

_SIR_,

[Illustration: A Circle, with various Points marked.]

Having now some Leisure (the Elections for Parliament, wherein I had any Concern, being over) I have here sent you my Thoughts on a Subject we lately discours’d of at _Kensington_. Whether in case the Earth is a long Spheroid, the Degrees of Latitude would be greater near the Equator, or near the Poles. I conceive they would be greater near the Equator. Let the Ellipsis _BDCF._ represent the Earth, draw the Line _gp._ which may be a Tangent to the Ellipsis, and likewise meeting with the Axis _BC_, and its Transverse _FD_ (after they are produc’d) make the Triangle _gAp_ an Isosceles, and consequently the Angles at the Base _Agp_, _Apg_ each 45 Degrees. I say _HC_ will measure the 45 Degrees of Latitude near the Pole, and _DH_ (which by Inspection without farther Demonstration is evidently bigger) those near the Equator. (I ought to have premis’d that _B_ and _C_ represent the Poles.) It is plain the Inhabitants at _H_ will be in the Latitude of 45 Degrees, by reason their horizontal Plane _gp_ is by Construction 45 Degrees distant to the Horizon of the Inhabitants under the Line at _D_, which lies parallel to the Axis _BC_.

If the Earth be a broad Spheroid, _D_ and _F_ representing the Poles, then by the same Method of Reasoning, the Degrees of Latitude will be greatest near the Poles: But as the longest and shortest Diameter of the Earth has in no wise so great a Disproportion as in their Figure (their Difference not exceeding the two hundredth Part at most) the Inequality of the Degrees of Latitude will be proportionally less; but in all Cases, the long Spheroid makes the Degrees greatest near the Equator; and the broad Spheroid those greatest near the Poles. I hope in a Fortnight to have the Satisfaction of seeing you in _London_, and remain,

_Sir, Your most Humble Servant._

The Examiner would do well to consider this, lest all the reproachful Characters he casts upon _Eisensmidius_, should recoil upon himself. ’Tis Prudence, as well as good Manners not to be fierce and vehement in Censures, for fear of a Mistake, and a Blackblow. However, the pretended Demonstration which this Examiner brings to prove, that, in case the Earth was oblong, the Degrees would be greater toward the Poles, does not affect _Eisensmidius_, for it proceeds upon a Supposition which that Author does not allow; namely, that the Vertical Lines, or the Lines of Gravity are to be drawn directly to the Center of the Earth: Whereas _Eisensmidius_ supposes they ought to be drawn at right Angles, to the Tangent of each respective Horizon, and would not in all Figures lead directly to the Center. However, we do not wonder that he is so rude to Strangers, seeing he bears so hard in other places, upon some of our own learned Countrymen.

We proceed now to the Theorist’s second Observation, about Lunar Eclipses and the Shade of the Earth. This Shade is generally presumed to be exactly round, as the Section of a Cone: And yet the best Astronomers have doubted of it, and some upon that Occasion have doubted of the Figure of the Earth. _Kepler_[29] in an Observation of a Lunar total Eclipse, not finding the Shade of the Earth perfectly round, but rather oblong, _ut ejus dimetiens à Zona Torrida consurgentis sit minor dimetiente ejus à Polis Terræ surgentis_, suspects that the Figure of the Earth was so too. And that we must conclude it to be so from this Observation, if there was not some Obliquity in the Rays of the Sun, whereof he shews no Cause or Occasion. _Si retinenda esset, inquit, rectitudo radiorum, Globus ipse Terræ fiet oviformis, diametro per Polos longiore._ And a like Observation to this he cites from _Tycho Brahé_, in a central, or next to central Eclipse of the Moon. These two great Astronomers, it seems, did not find the Shade of the Earth to be justly conical; and thereby take away the Reason or lessen the Doubt, which hindered M. _Deschales_ from concluding (upon another Observation) the Figure of the Earth to be oval.

The third Observation of the Theorist remains, which is about the Return of the Sun unto the polar Parts of the Earth, whether that be according to the Rules of a spherical Surface. The Observations that have been made hitherto in the Northern Climates about the Return of the Sun to them, make it quicker than will easily consist with a spherical Figure of the Earth; much less are they favourable to a gibbous Form: For that Gibbosity under the Equator must needs hinder the Appearance and Discovery of the Sun in the respective polar Parts, more than a spherical Figure would do. Now it hath been observ’d in _Nova Zembla_, that the returning Sun appear’d to them seventeen Days sooner than they expected, according to the Rules of Astronomy, the Earth being supposed truly spherical; and this may be thought an Argument that the Earth is rather depress’d in its middle Parts. I leave the Matter to farther Examination. I know ’tis usually imputed to Refractions, but that is upon the Presumption that the Earth is justly spherical; and a better Answer (upon that Supposition) I think cannot be found. Though, I think, it will not be easy in that Way, and upon that Solution to make all the Phænomena agree, or to shew that the Refractions could make so great a Difference. However, this is no improper Topick to be consider’d in reference to the Determination of the Figure of the Earth, and for that purpose it was noted by the Theorist.

We have now done with that side of the Question, that respects the oblong Figure of the Earth, and it remains to consider the other Part; I mean the Opinion of those that make the Earth protuberant about the Equator, or an oblate Spheroid. This the learned Monsieur _Hugens_[30] thinks may be prov’d by Experiments made about the different Vibrations of _Pendulums_ in different Latitudes of the Earth. ’Tis found, he says, by Experience that a _Pendulum_ near the Equator, makes its Vibrations slower than another of the same Length, farther from the Equator; and gives an Instance of it from an Experiment made at _Caiene_ in _America_ (which is four or five Degrees from the Equator) compar’d with another made at _Paris_. From this Trial he concludes, first, that the Gravitation is less under and near the Equator than towards the Poles, according to their several Degrees of Latitude. Then he infers, by Consequence, that the Land and the Sea are higher towards the Equator, than towards the Poles. And in Conclusion, that the Figure of the Earth is protuberant and gibbous in the Middle, and more flatted, or of a shorter Diameter betwixt Pole and Pole.

In this Conclusion, you see, there are several Things to be considered according to the Premisses. First, Matter of Fact, concerning the Inequality of Vibrations in equal Pendulums, according to their different Latitudes; then the following Inferences made from that Inequality. As to the Matter of Fact, Monsieur _Hugens_ seems to be doubtful himself: He does not vouch it from his own Experience, but he takes it from the Report of Monsieur _Richer_; whose Person or Character I do not know, nor whether his Relation be extant in Print. However, Monsieur _Hugens_ speaks dubiously of the Experiment, as such an one whereof we ought to expect farther Confirmation. For he says[31], _we cannot trust entirely to this first Observation, whereof we have not any Circumstance noted to us; and still less to those that are said to be made at Guadeloupe, (at a greater Latitude,) where the Pendule is said to be shorter by two Lines than that at Paris.[32] We must expect to be more justly inform’d of these different Lengths of Pendules, as well under the Line as in other Climates._ And he refers us to a farther Trial by his Clocks, rectified for a second Voyage, whereof I have yet heard no Report. If Matter of Fact be dubious, or Experiments discordant, we cannot be assur’d of the Conclusion. It were to be wish’d, that this different Gravitation in different Latitudes, might be prov’d by other Experiments than that of the Pendulum. Methinks, in ponderous Bodies, this Difference might become sensible: Not indeed by a Balance or Scales, for the supposed Decrease of Gravity would have the same Effect upon the Counterpoise as upon the Body weighed; but by other Powers that do not depend immediately upon Gravity, as _Springs_, or any other Engines, or by Rarefactions, or whatsoever hath the Force to raise, sustain, or remove ponderous Bodies. For such Powers have a less Effect with us than near the Equator, where the Gravitation of Bodies that make the Counterpoise, is supposed to be much lessen’d. Neither do I know if they have try’d the Barometer, whether that will discover any such Elevation, at, or near the Equator; the Mercury sinking there much lower than with us, or indeed to nothing, if the Height be comparatively so great as is supposed. It seems strange, that the Difference of seventeen Miles (call it little, or call it great, compar’d with the Semidiameter of the Earth) should have a sensible Effect upon Pendulums and upon nothing else.

Methinks, that Height of the Equator should make a different Horizon (as to the Heavens, or the Earth, and Sea) East and West, from North and South; the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid in the other. The Sea also must be a prodigious Depth at the Equator; deeper by seventeen Miles, than at or near the Poles. I would gladly know what Experience there is of this. Then in reference to our _Rivers_, how swift and rapid, upon this Hypothesis, must the _Rivers_ be that rise at or near the Equator, or how slow the Motion of those that ascend towards it, if at all they can be supposed to climb so great an Hill. The great River of the _Amazons_, in Southern _America_, is in some Parts of it four or five Degrees from the Equator, others say much more; yet runs up to the Equator with that vast load of Water, and throws it self there into the Ocean. In the Northern _America_, _Rio Negro_ is represented to us, as having a longer Course against the bent of the Earth, and crossing the Equator, falls down Southward several Degrees: So the _Nile_ in _Africa_ crosses the Line, and hath a long Course on this side of it. _Rivers_ do not rise higher by a natural Course than their Fountain’s Head, and Hydrographers usually assign two Foot, or two Foot and an half in a Mile for the Descent of _Rivers_, but upon this Hypothesis there will be fourteen or fifteen Foot (in respect of the Center of the Earth) for every Mile, in Rivers descending from the Equator; which is a Precipitation rather than a navigable Stream. Suppose a Canal cut from the Equator to the Pole, ’twould be a Paradox to say the Water would not flow in this Chanel, nor descend towards the Pole, having fourteen or fifteen Foot Descent for every Mile, according to your Figure of the Earth: And also it would be as great or a greater Paradox, to suppose that Rivers would rise to the Equator, and with the same Celerity (as we see they do) upon an Ascent of so many Feet. And after all, to conclude the Argument, if this Difference of Pendulums be found, it will still bear a Dispute from what physical Causes that Difference proceeds.

Thus far we have considered what Arguments have been brought for the oblate Figure of the Earth from Effects; and have noted such Observations to be made, as we thought might be useful for Discovery of Truth, on what side soever it may fall. We are now to consider an Argument taken from the Causes, and brought by these Authors to prove the same spheroidical Figure of the Globe. To this purpose they observe, as is obvious and reasonable, that in the diurnal Motion of the Earth, the middle Parts about the Equator (where the Circles are greatest, and consequently the Motion swiftest) would fly off with a greater Force, and so rise higher than the other Parts that were mov’d in lesser Circles in the same time, and would have less Force to remove themselves from the Center of their Motion. This is agreed on all Hands, and was own’d by the Theorist in a fluid Globe turn’d about its Axis, in case there was no Impediment to hinder the rising or recession of those middle Parts. But before we speak to that, on both sides you see it must be suppos’d and granted, that the Globe of the Earth was once fluid, or the exterior Orb of it; and we ought to consider when, or at what Time this was. It must have been surely at the first Formation of the Earth, when it rose from a Chaos, and before its Parts were consolidated and grown hard. Supposing then that the interior Orb of the Earth was once cover’d over with an Orb of Water, the Question will be, how this Orb of Water came to be cover’d with dry Land, or came to be divided into Land and Water, as it is now.

[Illustration: A: The Earth, covered with Water.]

[Illustration: B: The Earth, as it is now.]

Let (A) represent an Hemisphere of the Earth, in its first State, when covered with Water; and (B) the same Hemisphere as it is now. This Author must tell us, consistently with his Hypothesis, how the Earth could pass out of one of these States into the other, without passing through some intermediate State; or how this Change was made in its Surface, from what Causes, and in what manner. If the first Earth was a Concretion upon the Face of the Waters, then indeed it would have the same Figure with the watery Globe under it; but if it was from the Beginning in this present Form firm and solid, as it is now rocky and mountainous, then the Question is, _how_ the Parts or Regions of the Earth about the Equator could be raised above a spherical Figure, or into an oblate Spheroid, as they say the Earth is now. I take it for granted, that they suppose the Land raised as well as the Water; for otherwise the Ocean would overflow at those Parts of the Earth. Suppose then the Waters raised by the Circumvolution of the Earth, how was the _Terra firma_ rais’d, or how could it be rais’d by that or any such Cause?

These Questions are no matter of Difficulty to the Theorist, who supposes the first Earth to have covered the Waters, and to have taken their Shape, whatsoever it was, as upon a Mold: Then upon its Dissolution and Disruption at the Deluge, to have fallen into that uneven and uninterrupted Form it hath now. But feeling this Method does not please the Examiner, he must tell us how, upon his Hypothesis, the Land or solid Parts of the Earth could be rais’d above a spherical Convexity into such a gibbous Figure, as he supposes them now to have under the Equator.

Monsieur _Hugens_[33] makes this broad Spheroid of the Earth to have been the Effect of Gravity in the Formation of the Earth; the Matter whereof being then turned round, it would, as he thinks, be brought to settle in this oblate Figure. Very well! But this must be in its very first Concretion from a Chaos, before it was fix’d and compact as it is now; for the Rotation of the Earth could have no such effect upon it after it was hard. Now if you admit the exterior Globe of the Earth, to have been in such a State betwixt Fixtness and Fluidity, it will lead us directly to the Theorist’s Hypothesis, which supposes a soft and tender Concretion at first, over all the Face of the Waters. I say, _over all the Face of the Waters_: For it must be universal; both because there is no Reason why these earthy Particles that made the Concretion, should not fall upon one Part of the Globe, as well as upon another; and also if they did not fall upon the Equinoctial Parts, how came there to be Land in that part, or that Land rais’d higher than the rest, as this Hypothesis will have it?

In these Remarks upon the protuberant Figure of the Earth, you see it is allow’d, that there would be a greater Tendency from the Center in the middle Parts of the Globe, and the Waters would rise there, if there was no Impediment. But the Theorist did believe that the Vortex, or circumfluent Orb was streighter, or of a shorter Diameter there than through the Poles; and consequently the Waters having less room to dilate, would be press’d and detruded towards the Poles. These Authors, it may be, will allow no Vortices to the Planets; but then they must assign some other sufficient Cause to carry the Planets in their periodical Motions (and with the same Velocity for innumerable Ages) about their common Center; and the Secondary about their Primary: As also what gives them their diurnal Rotation, and the different Position of their Axes. Neither would it be easy to conceive, how a great Mass of fluid and volatile Matter, having no Current, or Determination any one way, and being often check’d in its progressive Motion, should not fall into circular Motions, or into Vortices of one sort or other; especially if you place in this Mass some great solid Bodies turned about their Axes.

These are more general Problems; and when they are determin’d with Certainty, we shall better judge of the Particulars that depend upon them. But I say still, that neither Figure of the Earth, oblong or oblate, can be prov’d from the Rotation of the Earth and its Gravity, without supposing the Globe form’d into that Shape before it came to be harden’d, before it came to be loaded and stiffen’d by Rocks and stony Mountains. Therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allow’d, that there was such a Time, such a State of the Earth, when its tender Orb was capable of those Impressions and Modifications; and that Orb must have lain above the Waters, not under them, nor radicated to the Bottom of them, for then such Cause could not have had such an Effect upon it. And in the last place, this Concretion upon the Waters must have been throughout all the Parts of the Earth, or all the Parts of the Land which are now rais’d above a spherical Surface; and no reason can be given, as we noted before, why the rest should not be cover’d as well as those. So that in effect both the Hypotheses suppose that all the watery Globe was at first cover’d with an earthy Concretion.

Now this being admitted, you have confirm’d the main Point of the _Theory_: Namely, that the Abyss was once, or at first cover’d with a terrestrial Concretion, or an Orb of Earth. Grant this, and we’ll compound for the rest, let the Earth at present be of what Figure it will: If there was such an original Earth that cover’d the Waters, both the Form and Equilibration of the Earth may easily appear, and how by a Dissolution of it a Deluge might arise. But as to the present Earth, the Theorist never affirm’d that its Figure was oval, but he[34] noted such Observations made or to be made, as he thought might be proper to determine its Figure, and still desires that they may be pursued. He added also, that he would be glad to receive any new ones, that would demonstrate the precise Figure of the Earth. And accordingly, he is willing to consider in this Particular and all others, the Arguments and Remarks of such eminent Authors, as have lately given a new Light to the System of the World.

This may suffice to have spoken in general concerning these two spheroidical Figures of the Earth. We must now consider what particular Objections are made by the Examiner against its oval Figure. He says, _p. 103, 104_, _&c._ admitting the oval Figure of that first Earth, it would not be capable however, to give a Course to the Rivers from the polar Parts, towards the Equinoctial. And his Reason is this; because the same Causes which cast the Abyss or the Ocean towards the Poles, would also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles: But there is no Parity of Reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean, and the Rivers. We see in the Flux and Reflux of the Ocean, let the Cause of it be what it will, it hath not that Effect upon Rivers, nor upon Lakes, nor upon lesser Seas; yet the Circum-rotation of the Earth continues the same. And his confounding the Ocean and Rivers in the ante-diluvian Earth is so much the worse, seeing there never was an Ocean and Rivers together in that Earth. While there was an open Ocean, there were no Rivers, and when there were Rivers, there was no open Ocean, but an inclos’d Abyss: So though he makes large Transcripts there and elsewhere out of the Theory, he does not seem always to have well digested the Method of it.

After this Objection, the Examiner charges the Theorist with want of Skill in Logick; but his Charge is grounded upon another Misunderstanding or Misrepresentation. He pretends there, _p. 107._ that the Theorist hath made such a Ratiocination as this. _All Bodies by reason of the Earth’s diurnal Rotation, do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion; but by reason of the Pressure of the Air, and the Streightness of the Orb, they cannot recede from the Axis of their Motion, therefore they will move towards the Poles, where they will come nearer to the Axis of their Motion._ These are the Examiner’s Words in that Place, where he says he will put the Theorist’s Reasoning in other Words: But I do not like that Method, unless the Examiner were a more judicious or faithful Paraphrast than he seems to be: Let every one be tried by their own Words, and if there be any false Logick or Nonsense in the forecited Words of the Examiner, let it fall upon their Author. The Theorist said[35], that Bodies, by reason of the Earth’s Motion did, _conari à centro sur motûs recederè_: These Words this Translator renders, _endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion_; and by changing the Word _Center_ into _Axis_ (whether carelesly or wilfully I know not) of plain Sense he hath made Nonsense; and then makes this Conclusion, _p. 108._ (which follows indeed from his own Words, but not from those of the Theorist) _because all Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion, therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their Motion_.

The Theorist’s Argumentation was plainly this: Seeing in the Rotation of the Earth, Bodies tend from the Center of their Motion, if they meet with an Impediment there, they will move laterally in the next easiest and openest way; and therefore the Waters under the Equator being stopp’d in their first Tendency, would divert towards the Poles; wherein, I think, there is no false Logick. That there was no Impediment there, he must prove by other Arguments than his own Dictates or bare Assertion, which will not pass for a Proof.

He proceeds now to discourse of the centrifugal Force and the Effects of it, together with Gravity: But he should have given us a better Notion of the centrifugal Force, than what he sets down there; for he says (_p. 110. l. 24._) _A centrifugal Force, is that Force by which a Body is drawn towards the Center_: This is a strange Signification of that Word. And in the next Page (_p. 111. l. 22._) he says, by this centrifugal Force, Bodies _endeavour to recede from the Center of their Motion_; which is true, but contrary to what he said just before. I think ’tis Gravity, not centrifugal Force, that brings Bodies towards the Center.

But to pass by this Contradiction, and to proceed: What he says, from others, about the Proportions of the centrifugal Force and Gravity in Bodies turn’d round, and particularly in Fluids, how they would fly off more or less, according to the Circles of their Motion, was always (as hath been mention’d before) suppos’d and allow’d by the Theorist, if there was no Restraint or Pressure upon one Part more than another of the fluid Globe: So that he might have spared here six or seven Pages.

In like manner, he might have spar’d what he hath transcrib’d in his following Pages from those excellent Authors we referr’d to before, about calculating the Diminutions of Gravity made by the centrifugal Force, in different Latitudes; with other such Excursions. These, I say, might have been spar’d, as needless upon this Occasion, or to the Confutation of the _Theory_, till the principal Point, upon which they depend, be better prov’d. I made bold to say, they were transcrib’d from those Authors, as any one may see that pleases to consult the Originals, _Newt. Philos. Nat. Princ. Math. l. 3. prop. 18, 19, 20._ _Hugens Discour. de la cause de la Pesanteur, p._ 147, 148, _&c._ And this _French_ Discourse of Monsieur Hugens, he hath not so much as once nam’d, though he hath taken so much from it. And after all, when these Things are determin’d in Speculation, it will still be a Question what the true physical Causes of them are.

At last, for a farther Confirmation of the broad spheroidical Figure of the Earth, he adds an Observation from the Planet _Jupiter_, which is found to be of such a Figure. And _therefore_, he says, _p. 137, 138._ _We need not doubt, but that the Earth, which is a Planet like the rest, and turns round its Axis, as they do, is of the same Figure_. He might as well conclude, that every Planet, as well as the Earth, is of the same Figure. And what Reason can he give, why all the Planets that have a Rotation upon their Axis, are not broad Spheroids, as well as those two which he supposes to be so? If that be a sufficient Cause, and be found in other Planets as well as those, why hath it not the same Effect? Or he might as well conclude, that the Earth hath a perpetual Equinox, because _Jupiter_ hath so. This is the same Fault which he hath so often committed, of measuring all the Works of God by one or two. If a Man was transported into the Moon, the nearest Planet; or into _Mercury_ that is so near the Sun, or into _Saturn_, (or any of his _Satellites_) that is so remote from it; would he not find, think you, a much different Face and State of those Planets, from what we have upon this Earth? Inhabitants of a different Constitution, the Furniture of every World different, Animals, Plants, Waters, and other inanimate Things: As also different Vicissitudes of Days and Nights, and the Seasons of the Year; according to their different Positions, Revolutions and Forms? Therefore not without Reason we noted before, how much the Narrowness of some Mens Spirits, Thoughts and Observations, confine them to a particular Pattern and Model, nor considering the infinite Variety of the divine Works, whereof we are not competent Judges.

Now comes in his rude Censure of Dr. _Eisensmidius_, both for his Mathematicks and bad Logick, or want of _common Sense_; but to this we have spoken before. He also, in the same Paragraph, _p. 142._ wonders at the Theorist’s strange Logick, to make the centrifugal Force of Bodies upon the Earth, to be the Cause of its oblong Figure. That indeed would be strange Logick if it was made the proximate Cause of it. But that is not the Theorists’s Logick but the Examiner’s, as it is distorted and misrepresented by him. The Theorist suppos’d the Pressure of that Tumour of the Waters, occasion’d by the centrifugal Force (as its original Cause) to be the immediate Cause of the oblong Figure of the Earth; and that Pressure suppos’d, there is nothing illogical in the Inference. He had formerly taken Notice, _p. 101, 103._ of this Reason, from the Streightness of the Orb in that Part, when he gave the Theorist’s Account of that Figure; but he thought fit to forget it now, that his Charge might not appear lame.

This, Sir, is a short Account of this Author’s Objections; but there are some Things so often repeated by him, that we are forc’d to take Notice of them more than once; as that about Miracles and final Causes. He truly notes, _p. 31._ that to be _a much easier and shorter Way of giving an account of the Deluge_, or other Revolutions of Nature: But the Question is not, which is the shortest and easiest Way, but which is the truest. No Man in his Senses can question the divine Omnipotency, God could do these Things purely miraculously, if he pleas’d; but the Thing to be consider’d is, whether, according to the Methods of Providence, in the Changes and Revolutions of the natural World, the Course of Nature and of natural Causes is not made use of so far as they will go. Both _Moses_ and St. _Peter_ mention material Causes, but always including the divine Word and Superintendency. The Theorist does not think (as is sufficiently testified in several Places) that purely material and mechanical Causes, guided only by the Laws of Motion, could form this Earth, and the Furniture of it; and does readily believe all Miracles recorded in Holy Writ, or elsewhere, well grounded: But Miracles of our own making or imagining, want Authority to support them. Some Men when they are at a loss in the Progress of their Work, call in a Miracle to relieve them in their Distress. You know what hath been noted both by [36]Philosophers and others to that purpose.

As to final Causes, the Contemplation of them is very useful to moral Purposes, and of great Satisfaction to the Mind, where we can attain to them. But we must not pretend to prove a thing to be so or so in Nature, because we fancy it would be better so; nor deny it to be in such a manner, because to our Mind it would be better otherwise. Almighty Power and Wisdom, that have the whole Complex and Composition of the Universe in View, take other Measures than we can comprehend or account for. Even in this small Earth that we inhabit, there are several Plants and Animals, which to us appear useless or noxious, and yet no doubt would be found proper for this State, if we had the whole Prospect and Scheme of Providence. As to efficient Causes, they must be either material or immaterial, and whatsoever is prov’d to be the immediate Effect of an immaterial Cause, is so much the more acceptable to the Theorist, as it argues a Power above Matter. But as to purely material Causes, they must be mechanical; there being no other Modes, or Powers of Matter (at least in the Opinion of the Theorist) but what are mechanical: And to explain Effects by such Causes, is properly natural Science.

We have taken Notice before of this Author’s ambiguous use of Words, without declaring in what Sense he uses them: And he is no less ambiguous as to his Opinions. When he speaks of the Origin and Formation of the WORLD, he does not tell us what he means by that Word; whether the great Compound of the Universe, or that small Part only where we reside. His _centrifugal_ Force he interprets in contrary Senses, or in contrary Words, and reserves the Sense to himself. Sometimes he speaks of the Motion of the Sun, and sometimes of the Motion of the Earth, and sticks to no System: Neither does he tell us what he means by the _Mosaical_ Abyss, or _Tehom Rabbah_, which the Theorist supposes to have been broken up at the Deluge. We ought to know in what Sense and Signification he uses Words or Phrases: at least if he use them in a different Sense from that of the Theorist’s.

I know, _Sir_, you will also take Notice of his hard Words and coarse Language, as, _that’s false, that’s absurd, that’s ridiculous_. This, you will say, is not the usual Language amongst Gentlemen; but we find it too usual with some Writers, according to their particular Temper and Experience in the World. For my part, I think Rudeness or Disingenuity in examining the Writings of another Person, fall more heavy (in the Construction of fair Readers) upon him that uses them, than upon him that suffers them. I am,

_SIR_,

_Your most humble Servant_,

_FINIS_.

Footnote 22:

_Engl. Theor._ _Chap._ VIII. p. 112, _&c._

Footnote 23:

_Cic. de Nat. Dict. l. 1._

Footnote 24:

_Galil. Syst. Cos._ _p._ 133. _Hugen. Cosmetô._ _c._ 2. _p._ 115.

Footnote 25:

_Engl. p. 230, &c. Lat. p. 107._

Footnote 26:

_Cosmoth. p. 135._

Footnote 27:

_l. s. Prop. 4._

Footnote 28:

_Ibid._ Prop. 56.

Footnote 29:

_Ephames. par. 2. ad An. 1624._

Footnote 30:

P. 145.

Footnote 31:

_Disc. de la Pesant. p. 149._

Footnote 32:

_Ibid. p. 165._

Footnote 33:

_M. Hugens de la Pesant, p. 152. Il est a croire, que la Terre a pris cette figure, lors qu’ elli a esté assemblee par l’effect de la Pesanteux: sa matiere sient des mouvement circulatoire de 24 heures._

Footnote 34:

_Lat. Theor. lib. 2. p. 185._

Footnote 35:

_Theor. l. 2. 5. p. 186._

Footnote 36:

_Plat. Cratyl. m. p. 425. Ἐπειάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐτὶ τάς μηχανὰς καταθεύγουσι, θεοῦς αἴροντεσ. Cum rei alicujus engusios, ad machines consugiunt & D inducunt._ This is also remark’d and render’d in other Words by _Tully_ in _Nat. Dor. l. 1._ Cum _explicare argumenti exitum non pet, confugitis ad Deum_. St. _Austin_ also speaking about the supercelestial Waters, hath noted this Method, and reprov’d it, in these Words, _Nec quisquam echos refellere, ut decat secundum omnpotentism Dei sunt possibatis nos credere equas etiam am era quam novimus atque sentimus, corpori in que sunt sydera, super sufas: Nunc enim quam Deus rerum secundum Scripturam ejus, nec qu convenit, non solus quad in vel ad misacutum omnipotent._ You see Discretion and Moderation is to be used in these and such like Matters.

● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are referenced.