CHAP. I.

IN this Chapter there is nothing remarkable, but the Squib which he throws at the End of it. Where he tells the Excepter, that his looking upon his Discourse as a Collection of Notes &c. is a severe Censure. Answ. p. 2. And then adds, but every man best understands his own Works. Which without doubt must be true of himself; else he could never understand a late Work of his own, Eng. Theor. p. 96. to be a true piece of Natural History, and the greatest and most [Page 8] remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World. 1 Kings. 4.33. Tractavit Histo­riam Plantarum &c. Grot. in loc. As for Solomon's, it was nothing to it. Joy to him of the honour he here does himself, in taking place of all of his own Order. 'Tis an high Complement that he makes to his Pen, may it prove as happy a one to his Person. But having cast the Die, he must take his chance. And by this one Throw, he is either the best Natural Historian in the World; or a man that under­stands not his own Works. He is wiser, that is, than Solomon in his way; or else not right in his Understand­ing. But the latter, we may guess, is the likeliest of the two. For tho the King of Israel's ran upon things of another kind, yet surely it was as true, and withal as great and remarkable a piece of Natural History; as the Theory of the Earth.

CHAP. II.

IN the Second Chapter, to the First Exception against the Formation of the Earth, That it would have ta­ken too much time, the World being made in six Days: The general answer is 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. But the Excepter had noted, p. 59. lin. 24. & 33. &c. Discourse p. 49. how the Theory acknowledged, that to make the primitive Earth out of Particles, descending from a­bove, p. 51. must be a good whiles work; and that it was to become dry by degrees, after it had done growing; and that the Body or new Concretion of it was increased DAILY, being fed and supplied both from above and below. And can an Habitable Earth which is a good while in making, [Page 9] and the body of which must be DAILY increased; be made in six Minutes, even by Extraordinary Providence it self? What made the Answerer start out of the way of ordi­nary Providence, which he went in, as to the Earth's Formation; into this extraordinary one, to stumble into such a Contradiction of himself? But so it is, A Contradicti­on to himself. when men are pinched and put to pain, they must do and say some­thing, tho it be little to the purpose, yea, much against it. And this grave distinction being bestowed upon the first Exception, without more ado it is fairly dropt. And as for the Arguments contained in the residue of the Chapter, against undue protraction of the time of the Earth's Formation (which protraction is made necessa­ry by the Theorist's Hypothesis, Answ. p. 4. even against the Do­ctrine or History of Moses) They are left to the Author and his Readers, the Theory being not concerned in them. And so they are answered by his Last Expedient.

But before I go farther, I must tell our Answerer, that in allowing this extraordinary Providence, he con­demns his Hypothesis of extraordinary Impertinence. For what Need, or what Ʋse can there be of his New Hypo­thesis, as to solving the Phaenomenaes of the Flood; when by this Concession, the old one will be inabled to the Solution of them all, for which his was invented?

Thus, for example, was that World to be drowned, and the Flood to surmount the highest Hills, fifteen Cubits? Why, extraordinary Providence, in six Mi­nutes, could create water enough to do it. Was that work done by such a prodigious Flood, and the Mass of Water to be dried up again? Extraordinary Provi­dence could as soon annihilate it. Was the frame of the World to be inlarged upon the coming of so vast a quantity of new matter into it? And to be contracted again upon its going out? Extraordinary Providence could sufficiently provide both against the one and the [Page 10] other inconvenience. Were men to live a thousand years before the Flood? The same Providence could effect this, without a continual Equinox, or an Earth universally paradisiacal. And thus the Theory, instead of making any Figure here, is by its own Author made to dwindle into a Cypher and meer superfluity. We hope that henceforward the old method of explaining Noah's Flood, shall be allowed to be rational and intelli­gible: for that proceeded upon extraordinary Providence, and our Answerer is fain to make use of that kind of Providence in reference to his own Hypothesis at last.

Yea, the truth is, he is now glad, we see, to take up with it at first, and even to form his Earth by it. And yet he tells us, in the sixth Chapter of the first Book of his Latin Theory ( Edit. 2.) that this Earth was formed, solo ductu, by the sole conduct of the most known Laws of Gravity and Levity. And so this Na­tural History. the Theory, is in good part, a Natural History of what was done by Divine Power; or an History of an effect wrought by Extraordinary Provi­dence, which was done by the sole conduct of Natures Laws and Principles. And therefore how true this piece of Natural History is, and also how great, let the World judge; but if it be not extremely remarkable, I am much mistaken. Another Con­tradiction. And so I am if here be not con­tradiction again.

But tho our Answerer, as he pretends in this Chap­ter, be such a friend to extraordinary Providence; yet it is evident, that the Theorist otherwhiles was not. For tho now his Earth (as he grants) might be made in six minutes; yet heretofore it was to be increased daily, and to be dried by degrees, before it could be habita­ble: that is, it was to be formed in way of ordinary Providence. And in the second Chap. of the first Book of his English Theory, he tells the World plainly; that [Page 11] if we come to reflect seriously upon it, we shall find it extreamly difficult, if not impossible, p. 9. to give an account of the Waters that compos'd the Deluge, whence they came and whether they went. And adds, Ib. to find Water suffi­cient for this Effect as it is generally explained and under­stood, I think is impossible. But had he been hearty for Extraordinary Providence, here would have appear­ed no difficulty, I am sure; much less, extreme diffi­culty, and least of all, impossibility. For such a Pro­vidence could have created Waters to compose the De­luge, and then have annihilated them again: and as the quantity of them would thus have been sufficient, so the account whence they came, and whither they went; would have been as easie.

That this was one way in which some went, as to explaining the Deluge, according to the general or common Notion of it; the Theorist observed in his third Chapter. They say in short, says he, Eng. The. p. 18. That God ALMIGHTY created waters on purpose to make the De­luge, and then annihilated them again, when the Deluge was to cease. But how did he approve of this way? That will appear from what follows. Where he pre­sently complains, Ib. that this is to show us the naked arm of Omnipotency. A sight which he could not well brook in this case. And why? Why, Ib. because this is to cut the knot when we cannot loose it. Yet see the change; he is now fain to show the naked Arm of Omni­potency himself; and to make use of the Knife of Ex­traordinary Providence, tho with it he cuts his own Fingers, as well as several knots of his Hypothesis; as we shall see afterward.

And thus we have gained one extraordinary Point. An Earth that before was to increase DAILY, in the Body or Concretion of it; and so might be six Days, or six Weeks, or as many Months, or Years in forming; [Page 12] might now by Extraordinary Providence, be made in six Minutes. That is, our Author is brought to Cross his Hypothesis in this Matter. For now he supposes that his Earth might be formed in six Minutes by ex­traordinary Providence; whereas the Theory (as is plain from the cited Expressions) carries on its forma­tion in way of ordinary Providence; according to which, the Formation of it would require much more time than six days, as he confesses, Answ. p. 2.

CHAP. III.

THat the Moon was in the Heavens, and in our neighbourhood, P. 5. when the Earth was form'd, he proves from the six days Creation, says the Answerer, of the Excepter, here. But his Argument, he tells him, will be of no force, unless he can prove that the Fourth days Creation was before the Third. No? Who shall be Judge? Why one that the Answerer fairly appeals to, and one it seems of the Excepter's own chusing, namely Scripture. (I and let the same Judge, says the Excep­ter, decide the whole Controversie betwixt us.) And what says this Judge to the case before him? Let all Philosophers who please to be of the Jury, mind his sentence, and also the Appellant's Argument from it. The Moon was made the fourth day, and the Earth was formed the third. So says the Judge, and very truly. Therefore unless the fourth day was before the third, the Moon could not hinder the Formation of the Earth. So concludes the Appellant, and very falsely in the case depending. For the Earth formed the third day, was Moses's Earth; which the Excepter contends for, and could not possibly think that the Moon should hinder the Formation of that. But the Earth he disputes a­gainst, is the Theorist's, which could not be form'd the [Page 13] third day. For, according to him, it was not only to grow out of a Chaos, by the rising of Oyl out of an A­byss, and the falling of Particles out of the Air; but moreover was to be increast daily. And therefore had the Moon been made the fifth, or sixth day, or after; it might have been made time enough to hinder the Formation of this Earth. But however he intimates here, that his Earth was form'd the third day. And that's mighty well; for now it's to be hop'd, that Moses and he will agree better. Here's one step towards an ac­commodation. But then the mischief on't is, 'tis a step backwards on our Author's part, and I'm afraid will do him but little Service. For while he thus endeavours to shun Charybdis, he falls unluckily into Scylla; is re­duc'd to such an exigence, that let him choose which way he pleases of these two, he is sure to go in contra­diction to himself. Another Con­tradiction. For if he says his Earth was form'd the Third day, according to Scripture; he then contra­dicts himself in his Theory, which teaches it was daily increased. And if he says it was daily increased, accord­ing to his Theory; then he contradicts himself in his appeal to Scripture, which (as he now owns) tells us it was formed the third day. Ib. lin. 21. And should it be alledg­ed (to evade this) that here are two distinct Hy­potheses (that is to say, of Ordinary and Extraordinary Providence) whereon these two different Formations of the Earth are respectively founded; this would be but the same thing over again. As evidently showing, that in his way of shifting, he has set up two Hypotheses plainly contradictory to one another. Even as contra­dictory, as affirming a thing made in one day, and af­firming it made in many days; are contradictory affir­mations.

The Excepter had suggested, Disc. p. 74, 75, 76. that the Moon being present, and causing Tides and Fluctuations in the wa­ters [Page 14] of the Chaos; that would have hindred the For­mation of the Earth upon them. This, says the An­swerer, Answ. p. 6. we have no reason to believe, according to the Ex­periences we have now. For Tides hinder not the For­mation of Ice in cold Regions upon the Surface of the Sea: therefore why should they have hindred the For­mation of the Earth, upon the surface of the Chaos? Some Seas indeed do freeze in some measure; but then their waters are pretty still. And so the most that can be inferred from thence is but this; that if the waters of the Chaos were any where so quiet; some Earth might there have been formed upon them. Tho this Inference withal is far short of being an evidence of the thing; inasmuch as there is more reason for Ice to be formed up­on the Sea, than there was for Earth to be formed up­on the Chaos. For our Seas have Shoars, where Ice does usually begin its Formation, spreading wider or farther by a continued or progressive Concretion. Which may be one chief reason why our Creeks or Harbours are oft frozen up (when Seas that feed or flow into them, are not) even because they are bounded with no far distant Banks, where Ice can more easily grow from the Sides till it meets in the Middle. But the waters of the Chaos had no Shoars, Ice also is lighter than water, and so swims upon it; and therefore if fit chances to be bro­ken in its first Formation, and while it is thin; it may unite and grow together again, by a new congelement. But earth is heavier than water, and apt to sink; and therefore if broken when spread upon it in a thin Co­vering, it immediatly dives and goes down to the bot­tom. And upon this account, the same degrees of Flu­ctuation that permit Ice to gather upon Seas; would have prevented an Earth's being formed upon the Chaos. But we must go on.

The Theorist thought that the presence of the Moon was less needful in the first World. Eng. Theor. p. 241. And one reason he gave for it was this; because there were no long Win­ter nights. To which the Excepter opposed, Disc p. 79. that as there were no long Winter nights, 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 it is now. But this in the Answerer's opinion, tho witty, does not reach the point. And pray, p. 6. why? why, because a great Inconvenience attends long nights, when they fall upon the hours of travel, or the hours of work and business. But then at the same time that business and journeys are hindred in some pla­ces by long Nights; in other places they are helped for­ward as much by short ones. And therefore set but the business and travellings of the Inhabitants of some parts of the Earth, against the like Concerns of the In­habitants of other parts of it; and the Excepter's Ob­servation will reach the point. And truly where can the presence of a Moon be more needful, than in that World where half the time was still to be Night; and 12 of every 24 hours, was continually dark all over it at once? that is, all over its habitable Regions. For then the Earth standing in a Right Position to the Sun, and having none of its motion of Inclination, as Astro­nomy calls it; and the Sun always rising and setting in the Aequinoctial, and so in the same points of the Heavens, without any Latitude: as the days would constantly be twelve hours in length, so the nights, by this means must be as long; but the Crepusculum or Twilight in the praediluvian World would be very short, and so its Inhabitants immers'd in the deeper darkness, and consequently could very ill spare the Moon.

In the next place the Answerer notes, that Oily Particles in the Chaos, pag. 7. were excepted against as Pre­carious. And he endeavours to take off the Exception, by giving Reasons for their being Original and Primae­val. Ib. The first he borrows from D. Cartes, who sup­poses there were Original Salt Particles, and there­fore why may there not be Original Oily Particles? But if D. Cartes's authority must determine the Question, it will go clearly on our side: Mete. C. 1. §. 3. For he allows not Oil to be primaeval.

p. 7.Another Reason he brings, is the vast Quantity of Oleagineous matter that is disperst every where; in Vege­tables, in Animals, and many sorts of Earths. But this matter may be bred in them respectively. Thus we see living Creatures grow fat by Nourishment. And many Plants turn the sap they draw, into very Oil it self; so that we need but extract it out of their Leaves or fruits. (As other Animals again breed Milk; and other Vegetables, Wine, Cyder, &c.) And so in some Earths, oleagineous Particles may be generated; as others again are impregnated with Particles of a Sulphureous, Nitrous, or Aluminous Nature. And Chymists find other sorts of Particles disperst every where, which I believe the Answerer will scarce yield to have been Original in his Chaos.

Thirdly, it is alledged that these Oyly particles were Original, p. 7. because they were principles of Fertility to the New World, and so could not be extracted from the Infe­rior Regions in time, forasmuch as that would require a process of many Ages. Why, therefore it is the more likely that the Fatness necessary to the Earth's Fruitful­ness, was innate or bred in it. And we may justly look upon it as a gracious effect of that Divine Bene­diction pronounced upon the Earth, Gen. 1.11. by vir­tue of which, it could not but be indued with all the [Page 17] principles necessary to Fertility. And yet were it need­ful, this Oleagineous matter might be both easily and quickly setcht up from the Inferior Regions. For tho in a natural Course, it could not be derived thence without Difficulty, and a process of many ages; yet by extraordinary Providence it might be drawn up with greatest Expedition, as well as Facility: even in a very few Hours, or (as we are taught a great Work might be done in another case) in a very few Minutes.

Lastly, He argues that Oily particles might be Ori­ginal, because, according to D. Cartes, they were tenui­ous and branchy, too gross to be Air, p. 7. and too light for Water. It shall not be said that they are therefore a Compound of both; tho it may happen so in other Cases. For some Bodies seem to be made of a middle Constitution betwixt those which on both sides stand next them, in nearest degrees of Physical approxi­mation. And consequently their Nature is but a me­dium participationis, or a composition of such things as border closest upon them, and have the truest Affinity to them, as approaching nighest them in a kind of con­genial likeness of Substance and Qualities. And certain it is, that some Oyls, by keeping, dissolve into Liquors so thin and watry, that they will not burn; if that will give any countenance to the thought that water may be an Ingredient of Oyl. Tho it is worth no­ting, Prin. Phi. l. 4. § 76. that D. Cartes in the very Section which the Answerer cites, gives an account how, and out of what, Oyl is made; and so is against its being Orginal. And since the Answerer refers to him twice in this point, let Him (till we can find a fitter Judge) decide the Con­troversie. And indeed the very figure of Oily Parti­cles offers it self as an Argument against their Primaevi­ty. For they are supposed to be branchy; and whither can their Ramosity be so well imputed, as to the Pores [Page 18] of that Matter wherein they were generated; which being of such a Shape, cast them (as Molds in which they were formed) into the like fashion? Of this Opi­nion is that ingenious Philosopher Mr. Rohault; Tract. Phys. Par. 3. c. 5. but therefore far from believing that Oily Liquors or Par­ticles were ever Primaeval.

The Second thing which the Answerer observes to be charged with Precariousness, Answ. p. 8. is the Separation of this Oily Matter, in due time, so as to make a mixture and concretion with the Terrestial Particles which fell from above. And this Objection, he adds, was both made and answered by the Theorist. Eng. The. p. 58, 59. Now the Substance of his Answer was this. That the Mass of the Air was many thousand times greater than the Water, and would proportionably require a greater time to be pu­rify'd; the Particles in the Air having a far longer way to come to the watry Mass, than the Oily Parti­cles had to rise to the Surface of it. That there might be Degrees of littleness and lightness in the Earthy Particles, so as many of them might float in the Air a good while. And lastly, that the Air and the Water might begin to purify at the same time. But this Answer is short and insufficient; and therefore no no­tice was taken of it formerly. But since we are urged with it now; to shew its lightness and incompetency, we Reply to it as follows.

First, That the Air being a Finer Element than the Water; would begin its Purgation sooner than That.

Secondly, Tho the Air was far greater than the Wa­ter; yet the Terrestial Particles in it might sooner reach the Water, than the Oily ones in the Water could rise to the Surface of that, for sundry Reasons. As 1st, because the Earthy Particles moved downward, and the Oily ones upward; and (caeteris paribus) the motion downward would be the swiftest. 2ly, Because the [Page 19] Earthy Particles were more dry and less clammy than the Oily ones; and their unctious moisture by ren­dring them slimy, would make them sluggish, and slacken their ascent. 3ly, Because the Air was a thin and yielding Medium, through which the Earthy Par­ticles would more nimbly sift down, than the Oily ones could wriggle up through the Water, which was more thick and gross. 4ly, Because the very Make of the Oily and Watry Particles is such, that it would help towards their mutual Complication, which would retard their separating; and consequently the Aeral Mass, would begin to refine before the Liquid one; and the Terrestial Particles would have reacht the Water, before the Oily matter was risen. For the Particles of Oil are of a ramous Figure, and therefore about them the long and flexible Particles of Wa­ter would That Watry Particles are naturally apt to lay hold of Oily ones, appears from the way of cleansing Vessels, into the Pores of which the Particles of Oil have in sinua­ted or soaked. For out of those their lurking holes, or little fastnesses, there is no fetching them but by the help of Wa­ter. And the same is clear from the Chy­mists Method of distilling Oils out of dry Bodies. For in order to that, they first steep and macerate them in Water; with­out which Preparative, there would be no extracting the Oily Matter fairly, by any force of Elicitation. But when through heat, the Water ascends; in its fumes it snatches up the Particles of Oil, and makes that evaporate together with it self. be apt in some mea­sure to twine and wind them­selves. Especially at that time, when they both (upon the Se­cretion of the Chaos) met and encountred one another in single naked Particles, before ever they were once united in Bodies, or at all incorporated in their re­spective Masses. And altho by reason of their mutual Lubricity, the Watry Particles could not long keep fast the Oily ones, about which they cling'd with tortuous flexures; yet they might considerably check and protract their separation and ascent; it re­quiring some time for the Oily Particles to extricate themselves, and get loose from those little watry Wreaths wherewith they were involv'd and hampered.

Eng. Theor. p. 55, 56, 57.Thirdly, the liquid Mass of the Chaos being a Colle­ction of all Liquors that belong to the Earth; every one of these would at first be foul and muddy, and their re­spective Impurities must be discharged. Particularly the Water being a vast Body, would have sent down its grosser parts in great abundance of Sedimental Stuff. Now this Plenty of Sediment was thrown off by the Water, either before, or after the Oily Matter was ri­sen, or in the very Rising of it. Not after it was ri­sen; for this Sediment being more earthy, and so more heavy than the Oil; it must be allowed to separate as soon as that, or rather somewhat before it. And yet if it were discharged and sank before the Oily matter was risen, or when it was rising how could it chuse but sweep away that, and carry it down together with it self to the Bottom of the Abyss? Or say, these Dreggs should have been too weak or too light, to have overpowred the Oil alone, and to have sunk it with its self; yet it would certainly have arrested its motion upwards. By which means the Terrestrial Particles above, taking the ad­vantage thus given, would have come poudring down a main (fastest at first, and also the heaviest of them) into the bare Waters; and so joining their inconceiva­ble Luggage, to the sedimental Clog already hang'd up­on the Oily Matter, would have quite over-set it, and weighed it down to the Interior Earth. And this piece of work will appear the more fecible and easy to be done, if we consider that it might be half, or better than half effected before. For all the Bodies or Elements of the Chaos, being of an Original or Primaeval Nature; and not one compounded or made out of another: we must suppose that before the very first resolution of it, they did coexist in the Chaos in their several Principles or Particles; tho they were not locally severed, and made into distinct and specifick Masses till its Separation. [Page 21] So that at the same time that there were Earthy Particles, there were Oily ones too, disperst throughout thē whole Capacity of the Chaos. And consequently when the grosser earthy Particles gathered towards the Center of the Chaos; They salling through the whole Mass (even through every little point or line of it, from its Super­ficies downward) where these Oily Particles were dif­fused and lay in their way; they must needs catch hold of the greatest part of them (the rather for their being of a viscuous quality) and bear them down with them­selves: Especially they descending in so vast a Quantity, as to be able to constitute a central Earth.

Lastly, in case the Terrestrial Principle of the Chaos, would not thus have hindred the Oily Principle, from doing its part towards the Formation of the Theory's Earth; yet then the Liquid Part of the Chaos would have hindred the Terrestrial one in the same Work. For how is it possible that an Ocean of Water and Oil, should strain through the whole Circumference of the Chaos, settling down towards the middle of it; and leave earthy Particles behind, floating in the Air, and that in mea­sures sufficient, upon their Descent, to compose so im­mense an Earth as ours? Let the Air be filled never so full of dust, yet a thin Mist presently lays it all. And such a prodigious Sea of Water falling through the entire space of the Chaos; could not miss of the like effect upon the Earthy Particles then in the Air; especially that Water containing so much Oil in it. For by the Virtue of its Unctiousness in conjunction with its Gravity, it would have cleansed the Air of Earthy Particles (tho very throughly incorporate with it) as Izing-glass clarifies faeculent Liquors, by carrying their Dregs to the bot­toms of their Vessels. And therefore, whereas it is al­ledged in the pretended Answer, that through degrees of Littleness and Lightness in the Earthy Particles, [Page 22] many of them might float in the Air a good while: Eng. Theor. p. 59. we may rather think there would have been very few of them, if any at all, left there. And then where would have been matter for the first Earth, suppos'd to be form'd upon the Surface of the Abyss? So we pass to the Third Precariousness.

Which is concerning the Quantity and Proportion of these Particles, P. 8. says the Answerer. And from this Charge he seeks to free himself by demanding to this purpose. Ib. In what Theory or Hypothesis are Liquors Gag'd, and just Measures and Proportions of each ac­counted for? But then it may be demanded again, what Theory or Hypothesis has so much need of just Measures and Proportions of these, as his; and conse­quently so much reason to account for them?

Ib.Then he enquires particularly; has the great Philo­sopher (meaning D. Cartes) in his Hypothesis of 3 Ele­ments, Or in his several Regions of the Ʋnform'd Earth, defin'd the Quantity and Dimensions of each? Or in the Mineral Particles and Juices —does he determine the Quantity of them? Nor is there the like reason why he should. For that great Philosophers Hypo­thesis, and this little ones, are not of the like Nature, they stand not upon the like Foundations. D. Cartes publickly owns his Hypothesis, to be a meer Hypothe­sis indeed. And tho for the better Quinimo etiam, ad res natu­rales melius explicandas, earum. Causas altius hic repetam, quam ipsas unquam extitisse existimem. Non enim dubium est, quin Mundas ab initio fuerit creatus cum omni sua perfectione, ita ut in eo, & Sol, & Terra, & Lana, & Stellae extite­rint. Prin. Par. 3. Sect. 45. explaining of effects in Nature, he searcht deeper for their Causes than they ever lay; yet he declares that he did not doubt, but the World was at first created with all its Perfection; so that in it there was a Sun, and Earth, and Moon, and Stars. And therefore here was no need of having his 3 Elements apportion'd in their Quantity, or accurately adjusted to one another; [Page 23] because, by his own Confession, there was no World to be form'd out of them. Eng. Theor p. 85. But is it thus with the Hypothesis of the Theory? No, no, that's a Reality as its Author tells us. And it must needs be so accord­ing to his following Expressions, To speak the truth, P. 149. this Theory is something more than a bare Hypothesis. P. 150. The Theory riseth above the Character of a bare Hypothe­sis. Ib. We must in equity give more than a moral certitude to this Theory. P. 274. The Theory carries its own light and proof with it. And most fit it is therefore, that this Theory, being brought to the Test, should approve it self far beyond others. And an Earth being formed out of a strange Chaos, (the Creature of this Theory) and ac­cording to the Laws of its Hypothesis; as fit it is that the Ingredients of this Chaos, should, upon enquiry, be found well proportion'd to one another; beyond the Elements of D. Cartes's Hypothesis, which arrogates no such certainty to it self, but openly renounces it. Yet if we compare D. Cartes's Hypothesis, in the prin­cipal Instance here alledged; with that of the Theorist; we shall find it will acquit it self much better than his.

For suppose the World had been really to have been form'd out of the Cartesian Elements. Yet, upon exa­mination, it will appear, that they were less liable to just Exceptions, upon account of their possible Dispro­portionateness; than the Chaos of the Theory, upon the same account, in regard of its Ingredients. For of these 3 Elements the entire Ʋniverse was to be compo­sed. So that if they had all of them been more, or less in quantity; the Universe would only have had the larger, or straiter Bounds. And if any of them singly had been excessive, or defective; nothing worse would have followed upon this, but that the several Bodies made out of them respectively, must then have been proportion'd accordingly. Thus, if there had been [Page 24] more, or less of the 1st Element, there must have been more, or greater; or fewer, or lesser Suns. If there had been more, or less of the 2d Element; there must have been bigger, or lesser Vortices. If more or less of the 3d Element; there must have been more, or less of Terrestrial Matter in being. So that the worst result from an excessive quantity of any one of the three Ele­ments aforesaid; would have been but an alteration in the Great World, or at most but an inconvenience here and there in some parts of it; no way detrimental or pernicious to the whole. But as to this Earth of ours, the case would have been quite otherwise. For had not the Materials of that been duly proportion'd, but one left to exceed and predominate over the other; this redundance, or inequality in measure, would have been of very fatal Consequence. That is, it would have caused a miscarriage in the production of the Earth, and have ruin'd the whole work which Nature was about. And therefore in making the Chaos into an Earth, there was absolute necessity, as of Regularity of Process in its Formation; so of due proportion in the Ingredients of its Constitution: otherwise it could never have been brought to Perfection.

From D. Cartes the Answerer turns to the Excepter, and thinks to choak him with an example of his own. Does the Animadverter in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge, P. 9. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-water, and the just Proportions of his Rain-water, that concurred to make the Deluge? And does the Answerer think, that the like accurate Proportion of things, is needful to destroy a World, that is necessary to form or rear one? Yet here a World was to be destroyed only; to be de­stroyed by being drowned. Now supposing the de­structive Flood was to rise out of Rock-water, and Rain-water; it mattered not, as to the Destruction [Page 25] they were to bring on, if both were of equal Quantity, or which, and how much one exceeded the other, so they were together sufficient for the Work. But what says the Answerer farther? I find no Calculations there (that is in the Animadverter's Hypothesis) but general Expressions, that one (sort of Water) was far greater than the other: and that may be easily presumed concerning the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos. Here he must be minded of one of these two things: that is to say, either of Shuffling, or of Mistaking. First, of Shuffling. For he instanceth only in the Oily Substance and the Watry in the Chaos, which he thought might shift pretty well together, tho the one in Quantity ex­ceeded the other. But he knows there was a Terrestri­al Substance too; and what would have become of his Paradisiacal Earth which was to rise out of that, if the Oil had not been fitly proportion'd to it? If it had not been just enough, that is, to mix with the Earthy Par­ticles, and to make them into a good Soil. For if it had been more than was sufficient to that purpose, Disc. p. 80. it would have overflowed them, and rendred the Earth useless as a Greazy Clod. If less, it would not have imbib'd them, but they must have lain loose above in a fine and dry powder, that would have made the Earth barren as an Heap of Dust. And this, in these very words, the Excepter told the Theorist before. Yet here we see the Earthy Substance is taken no notice of, but rather slily shuffled out of the way. Unless he intended that what he said of the Oily and Watry Substances, in the Chaos, should be meant of the Earthy one too. And then

Secondly, he must be put in mind of a gross Mistake. For tho in our Waters that Drowned the Earth, one sort may easily be allowed to be greater than the other: yet the same thing cannot be easily presumed concerning [Page 26] his Materials supposed to form it. For Rock-water and Rain water were both alike for Drowning, and so equal­ly fitted to serve that End whereunto they were ap­pointed; and the Excess of one above the other, could be no hindrance of the Effect they were design'd to produce. Yea, without such an Excess, the Effect in­tended, could never have been wrought; according to our Hypothesis of the Flood. But Oily Liquor and Earthy Particles, are very different things; out of a well proportion'd mixture of which the Earth it self was to be made. And therefore to presume the The Oil, that is, far greater than the Ear­thy substance; or that unduly proportion'd to the Oil. one was far greater than the other, is to presume they were not duly proportion'd or mixt together; and con­sequently that the Earth could not be raised out of them.

But we must not forget the Close of this Paragraph, which runs in these Words. What Scruples therefore he raises in reference to the Chaos, Answ. p. 9. 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, cùm culpa redarguit ipsum.

Here he goes on in his shuffling or mistaking Way still. For he speaks of Scruples raised in reference to the chaos only; whereas this refers as well to the Formation of the Earth. Disc. p. 80. And he proceeds upon the Proportions of the liquors of the Abyss only; whereas our Scruples re­ferred as well to the Earthy Matter. Let that be in­cluded therefore, as it ought; and then what he says, will in plain terms amount to thus much. That tho the Rain-water were far greater than the Rock-water; yet there would have been greater reason why the Earth should not have been drowned: than there would have been why the Earth should not have been formed, tho the Oily substance had been far greater than the Earthy. For the Scruples against the Theorist's Formation of the [Page 27] Earth, can never, for greater reason, fall upon the Animad­verter's Hypothesis concerning the Flood; unless there be greater reason why vastly disproportionate Quantities of Oily and Earthy Substance should make an Earth; than there is why the like disproportion'd Quantities of Rock-water and Rain-water should make a Flood. Now have we greater reason to think that a little Ter­restial Matter, mixt with a vast deal of Oily matter, should compose the first Earth: than we have to think that a little Rock-water mixt with a vast deal of Rain-water, should drown it? There is great reason why one Tun of Rock-water, mingled with an hundred thousand Tuns of Rain-water, should drown a good Garden. But is there greater reason why one Tun of Earthy matter, mingled with an hundred thousand Tuns of Oily matter, should make a good Garden Soil? I hope, tho our Answerer be too great a Favourer of many Absurdities, he will not be forward to assert this.

Rock-water and Rain-water were similar Causes, and could not but with equal readiness of natural Disposi­tion, conspire to the effect of Drowning. And tho the one, in measure, was much inferior to the other; yet if both of them in conjunction, were but sufficient for the Inundation; that was enough: for the Deluge de­pended chiefly upon the quantity of Water in general, and not upon the Proportion of this or that kind of it in Particular. But Oily matter and Earthy matter are Heterogeneal Substances, and therefore could not so readily and immediately conspire to the Earth's Forma­tion. Some other Helps conducive thereunto, were to come betwixt them and that; and Concretion for one. But then Concretion depending upon the due proporti­on of Ingredients; Due Proportions of Oily, and Earthy matter, must be more needful in forming the Earth, and so ought to be better demonstrated; than the Pro­portions [Page 28] of Rock, and Rain-waters in raising the Flood. And thus it is manifest, that the Scruples raised against the Theorist by the Animadverter; fall not upon his own Hypothesis, for the same or greater reasons. He might well therefore have spared his old verse; which as appli'd here, was as insignificant as an old Alma­nack. But since, in Civility to the Excepter, he would needs send him it; he cannot, but in kindness, give him a piece of it back again: Letting him know, that to reason, or answer at such a rate as this, Turpe est Doctori.

To make an end of this point of Precariousness. The Excepter alledged, Disc. p. 81. That all these things, that is to say, The Ingredients of the Chaos, and the Proportions of those Ingredients, and the right timing of their Sepa­rations; should have been more fully explained and clearly made out, for a Personal reason which the Theo­rist made peculiar to himself. Namely because he de­clared it to be his Judgment, that things of moment (of which nature was the Formation of his Earth) are to be founded in aliquâ clarâ & invictâ evidentiâ, Lat. Theor. p. [...]. on some clear and invincible evidence. And what says he to this? To it he gives a double Answer. Answ. p. 9. First, that he set that sentence, of which these words are part, in opposition to such incertain Arguments as are taken from the interpre­tation of Fables and Symbols: or from Etymologies and Grammatical Criticisms. But is there nothing then of a middle nature betwixt Incertainties, and invincible evidence? No [...] or [...], Probable, or Credible things to come between them; that he must needs over-strain himself by taking such a Leap, not over, but into a Ditch? For thus he plunges into this deep absurdity, of tying himself up to such an evidence, as he is not able to produce. But therefore he gives in a Second Answer, more to the purpose. That this Sen­tence, [Page 29] because it might be taken in too great an extent, Ib. is left out in the Second Edition of the Theory. It seems then it was not taken in a worse sence than it might be taken.

Having done with the Precariousness, he comes next to the Ʋnphilosophicalness wherewith the Theory was charged. Answ. p. 9. The instance is the Descent of the Terrestri­al Particles from the whole capacity of those vast spaces betwixt the Moon and us. And how could this Phae­nomenon fall in with a smooth Philosophie Explication? said the Excepter. For either the bounds of the Chaos, Disc. p. 82. and the Sphaere of its Gravity reached as high as the Moon, or they did not. If they did not, how could these Particles ever come there at all, or come down from thence? If they did extend so high, then as the Excepter quaeried at first, so he does still; why did not the Moon come down with those Particles? It is an­swered by another Question; Answ. p. 10. why does not the Moon come down now? the same reason which keeps her up now, kept her up then. But this Answer, is no Answer: for that which kept the Moon up then, would have kept up these Particles too. And so either there must have been no Earth composed; or else the Moon as an over­plus must have dropt into its composition. I think I have read of a Bullet shot up so high, that it never came down upon the Earth more. And then how could those terrestrial Particles descend, that were dis­perst in all that vast space, contain'd between the heighth of the Bullets ascent, and the orb of the Moon?

The Last Charge upon the Theory in this part, was its being Anti-scriptural. That is, in making the Chaos Dark, whereas the Scripture says, there was light the first day. He answers to this sence. P. 10. That the Scrip­ture does not say the Chaos was throughly illuminated the first Day: That the light then was faint and feeble: [Page 30] and yet might be sufficient to make some distinction of day and night in the Skies. A fair Concession, and enough to end this part of our Controversy. Only we must observe that the Theorist in this matter has changed his Mind, and now plainly retracts his former Doctrine. For how could he think there was any light in the Skies the first Day; when he taught that the Matter where­of the whole Earth was to be made, was diffused in Particles through the Air; See Discourse Chap. 3. Parag. last. Vid. Lat. Theor. Edit. 2. p. 229. and that after the grossest of these Particles were sunk down, the Air was yet thick, gross, and dark; and that darkness was lasting Dark­ness? Not that I reflect upon the Doctor for his Re­tractation here; I note it rather in his commendation. And the more any man does of this nature (where there is cause for it) and the farther he goes in this way; the more laudable will his action and procedure be.

Having done with the Chapter, he must now take the Excepter to task. And it seems he was in a great fault, where he little thought of being so. The Theo­rist doubted whether the Moon was in our Neighbour­hood before the Flood, and he argued in Defence of this Doubt. Disc. p. 78. This, said the Excepter, is too bold an Affront to Scripture. But, says the Answerer, a dis­creet man is not forward to call every cross word an af­front. Answ. p. 10. And truly no more was the Excepter forward to that. But every word so cross to Scripture, as his spoken in the case mention'd, deserves to be so called. It is said in the Inspired Writings, 1 King. 7.16. that King Solomon made two Chapiters of Brass. Now should any man doubt and dispute this, and offer to prove that he made but one; surely here would be too bold an affront to Scripture, tho the things were little and of low con­sideration. The same Writings assure us, that GOD, upon the 4th Day, made two great Lights (things of an higher Nature and Use) for they were to give Light up­on [Page 31] the Earth; the one for the benefit of Mankind, ruling the Day; and the other, the night.) The The­orist questions this, disputes against it, and offers to prove that instead of two Lights, GOD made but one. And must not the words spoken by him here, be too bold an affront to Scripture? And if they be so, discreet men may be allowed to call things as they are. Besides, the Excepter had never ingag'd with the Theorist, but to shew how cross his Assertions lie to Scripture; and had he not pointed out what was too bold and affronting that way, he must net have been discreet indeed, as neglecting what was most proper for his purpose. And lastly, who must be most indiscreet of the two, he that puts the affront upon Scripture, or he that minds him of it?

But he has somewhat more against us yet, for mind­ing him of the Affront he put upon Scripture. And it is this. Suppose a man should say boldly, p. 11. GOD Almighty has no right hand. Oh might the Animadverter cry, that's a bold affront to Scripture: for I can show you many and plain Texts of Scripture, where express mention is made of GOD's right hand. But let him show us one plain Text of Scripture which means that God has a real right hand: That he has as really a right hand, as he did really make two great Lights. But because he can­not possibly do this, the Animadverter must needs cry, Oh how the Answerer here trifles. As if there were no difference betwixt Literal and Allusive Expressions in the Bible.

In passing to the next Chapter, he throws an Ob­servation in our way. Ib. Viz. Weak reasons commonly pro­duce strong Passions. Which serves to inform, why the Answerer's Passions are sometimes so strong against the Excepter: even because his reasons are weak. Where they fail, out come indiscreet, rude, injudicious, unchari­table, [Page 32] and the like Brats of Passion; to supply the place of Arguments. And yet as to any thing of this Nature, the Replicant durst not twit the Answerer, as he does the Excepter (in this Chapter) by saying it is Wit and Scolding. Ib. p. 5. Not the first, lest he should tell a lye: not the Second, lest he should speak in an unmannerly truth, and make a Philosopher write in an incongruous Stile.

CHAP. IV.

IN this Chapter he answers nothing as to what the Excepter objected against the Central fire of the Earth, See Disc. Ch. 4. and the Origin of the Chaos. And his reason is, because he had declared he would not treat of them. Answ. p. 11. Yet as to the Central fire, Theor. p. 64. he plainly admits or allows of it; yea, he owns it to be reasonable, and to be very rea­sonable. But when he has given so fair occasion for Objections to be made against it; if then he will not defend what he so highly approves, and what is so nearly related to his Hypothesis; who can help it?

His not treating of the Origin of the Chaos, the Ex­cepter said, Disc. p. 88. seem'd a Flaw in his Hypothesis. Here therefore he vindicates himself thus. Answ. p. 12. 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? By no means. But if a man undertakes to write the Roman History, and begins at the Middle, or leaves out the Beginning of it; his Work will have a scurvy Defect in it. And the very same he may imagine it will be in a Natural History; especially if it be the greatest and most remarkable in the World.

Ib.The residue of this Chapter he spends in speaking freely of the Excepter. And he is so free as to tell him first, that his fourth Chapter seems to him in a great [Page 33] measure Impertinent. But he is not to determine that alone: let it stand or fall as the Candid shall judge. Yet if it were impertinent but in a great measure, that im­plies it was not wholly so: but he answers to nothing in it.

Secondly, he reflects upon the Excepter for dabbling in Philosophy. And when he will be dabbling against Moses, why may not the Excepter dabble against him?

Thirdly, he condemns him of Scepticism. And he had much rather be too doubtful in some things, than a Sir positive at all. He does not pretend that all he writes, is true Natural History. Nor will he leave out in a second Edition, what is in his first.

Fourthly, he lets fly at him for rambling. But he rambled after him and his notions, as any Reader may see.

Lastly, he says, he ends in nothing as to the forma­tion of the Earth. How can that be, when he be­stows the greatest part of that Chapter in disproving the Chaos, out of which the Earth was to be formed? by showing that such a Chaos was not created, nor could it be produced in the Cartesian way; or if it could, yet it was not for the Theory to allow of that method of its production, as being enough to subvert its own hypothesis.

This is some of that freeness of Speech which the Answerer is pleas'd to use towards the Excepter. And therefore he must not wonder to see some freeness used towards himself, upon more just occasions.

But the Excepter in his fourth Chapter encountred Two other Notions, See Disc. p. 99. &c. which are stiffly asserted by the Theorist. Namely, Vid. Lat. The­or. lib. 2. cap. 8. Edit. 2. that Moses's Story of the Creation is to be limited to the Formation of our (lower) World, and those parts of Nature which could be [Page 34] made out of the Earthly Chaos. And that when he speaks of the Coelestial parts of the Universe (the Lumi­naries; Ib. cap. 7. p. 232. Edit. 1.) he meant no more than that they were then made Conspicuous: and this, if need be, he declares he could demonstrate. But the Objections made against these Confident Notions of his, are answered only by being in part left out of the second Edition of the La­tin Theory. A farther Evidence that what he wrote, was true and remarkable Natural History. And also plain Demonstration in the case too. But then 'tis of the weakness (to speak freely) not of the truth or vali­dity of his Assertions. And withal here's some proof, that notwithstanding the great impertinence of this Chapter, it reached the Theory in some things, which ought to be taken notice of, and spoken against; for they were so very culpable it seems, that they de­serv'd to be cashier'd, or left out.

CHAP. V.

HEre the Answerer observes the Form of the Earth to be Excepted against, upon the account that it would have wanted Waters, or Rivers to Water it; in that there would either be no Rivers at all; or none, at least, in due time. But before he opposes these Rea­sons, he gives a short account of the state of the Waters in his primeval Earth; and then declares ( p. 13.) This, I believe, is an Idea more easily conceiv'd, than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of this pre­sent Earth, if we had not experience of them. On the other side, I believe the contrary so easie to be con­ceived, that I shall not spend time in making it out. I only say thus much. In case his Idea were most easie to be conceived; yet what is most fair and easie in the Idea, or speculation of a thing, is not always most [Page 35] true, but may be most false in Nature. Look to the constitution or posture of the Heavens. There the Aequator and Ecliptick intersect each other in an angle of twenty three Degrees and better. But the Philoso­phers Idea represents a Parallelism in the axes of these two Circles, and a Coincidence in their Plains, most easie and natural. Yet this angular intersection holds, tho, it is thought, some Mechanic or Physical Causes would bring them nearer to the site we speak of. And this very position, tho it seems to be forc'd and vio­lent, and that as well to the Course of Nature, as the Philosophers Conception or Idea; is yet the most con­venient that possibly can be for the Earths Inhabitants; and by its lasting continuance, becomes a choice argu­ment to confute the Atheist, and evince a Providence.

The Reason why there would be no Rivers at all, Answ. p. 14. he notes, was because the Regions towards the Poles where the Rains are supposed to fall, and the Rivers to rise, would have been all frozen and congeal'd. And he goes on; Why we should think those Regions would be frozen, and the Rains that fell in them; he (the Excepter) 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. And what says he to these our Reasons? As to the Distance of the Sun, he would make the Excepter answer that Himself, bringing him in thus. He confesses, Ib. That is not the thing that does only or chiefly make a climate cold. Ay, and that Confession he keeps to still, sup­posing the Suns Distance be Perpendicular, which was the Distance he spake of. Disc. p. 118. But if the Sun moved al­ways in the Aequinoctial, his Distance from the Cir­cumpolar or Raining Regions, must be an Oblique Di­stance. And if that Distance were but as great, be­twixt the Sun and the imaginary Raining Regions, as [Page 36] it is betwixt the Sun and us, in the Depth of Winter; it may from hence be concluded, that the Cold in those Regions must be as great, as, in Winter time, it is in ours, by reason of his distance.

As to the Obliquity of the Sun, the Answerer says it was neither so great nor so considerable in the first Earth as in the Present. Answ. p. 14. But tho the Obliquity of the Sun be greater now, because the body of this Earth lies in an oblique Position to him: yet his Distance from us in Winter is far less now, in this present Earth, than his Distance from the Raining Regions was in the primi­tive Earth. Because that being an oval or Oblong Earth, its circumpolar Regions must be far more re­mote from the Equator, See Discourse c. 5. § 4. than if it had been Round or Globular. And so the Raining Regions then, must be much colder than our Climate is now, in the dead of Winter. For as it is not the Distance of the Sun alone, that makes a Climate vehemently cold; so it is not his Obliquity alone, that does it neither; but a great ob­lique Distance. And so great and considerable must the Sun's Distance of this Nature be, from the Raining Regions in the Primitive Earth; as to leave them in a very freezing Condition. Especially if the Experiences alledged by the Excepter be well considered: Ibid. to which there is nothing distinctly answered. Instead of apply­ing himself to take off them, the Answerer is pleas'd to tell us thus. Answ. p. 14. That if the Excepter had well consider'd the differences betwixt the present and the primitive Earth; as to Obliquity of Position, and that which follows from it, 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. As to his belief, who can regard it? It comprehends such things, as no Christian Philoso­pher ever yet did, nor ever can, or will put into his [Page 37] Creed. And as for the Fxcepter, he has well consider'd the things he speaks of; and still finds he has sufficient reason, to charge the primitive Earth in its Rainy Regi­ons, with Nipping and freezing Cold: even with a Cold more nipping and freezing, than is felt in our Cli­mate in the Winter Season. Indeed he instances in one thing in this present Earth, which he thinks should cast the Advantage, for Coldness, on our Climate's side; that is, the Length of Nights. Ibid But consider all Circumstances aright, and the real Advantage as to Cold, will appear to be with the First Earth; its Rainy Regions must be colder than ours. For in that Earth the Nights were continually twelve hours in length; and in our Climate, if we take one with another, throughout the Winter Months, we shall find that our Nights do not much exceed those in Length. For tho in December, they be above four hours longer than they; yet in February, they are never longer by two hours and an half, and in the end of that Month, but little above half an hour. And then to counter-ballance, or weigh down this single Difference, in length of Nights (the pretended Cause of prevailing or excessive degrees of Cold, in this present state of Nature, beyond what could be in the praediluvian World) we hinted several other Causes of vehement Cold in that World, Disc. Chap. 5: which are not in this; tho the Answerer takes no notice of them. As

First, upon supposition that That Earth was Oval, the Wet Regions in it, must have been several hundreds of Miles farther removed from the Sun, than our Climate is; and so the Cold there must have been proportio­nably stronger.

Secondly, in the primitive Earth there was no Clouds; which contribute much towards warming the Air. That is, as they reverberate or beat back the Beams of the [Page 38] Sun, reflected from the Earth: As they straiten and compress Vapours in their Motion and agitation: And as, (at some times, and in some measure) they trans­mit the Coelestial Rays, not altogether unlike to Burning-glasses.

Thirdly, in the first Earth there was no open Seas; which fill the Air with Mists, and Foggs, and great store of Vapours, that do mightily thicken it, and con­sequently mitigate the sharpness of it.

Fourthly, There was no Hills nor Valleys, Rugged­nesses nor Inequalities upon the Surface of that Earth; which cause Heat again by confus'd and irregular Re­flections of the Sun-beams.

Now put but these Four Causes of Cold (extant in the first World) into the Scales, against the Length of Nights in the Second, which the Answerer insists upon; and they will not fail to weigh it down sufficiently. Espe­cially if we add, that in our Nights, shorter, by near Four hours, than those before the Flood; we have sometimes very brisk kind of Frosts. In the Beginning, that is to say, or in the Middle of May; when the Sun is far advanc'd on our side of the Equator, in a World that has Clouds, and Seas, and Hills.

Answ. p. 15.As to the other part of the Exception, These Rivers could not have been made in due time: He answers thus. That's wholly according to the Process you take; if you take a meer natural Process, the Rivers could not flow through­out the Earth, all on a sudden: but you may accelerate that process, as much as you please, by a Divine Hand, And so this is answered by the first Expedient; Extra­ordinary Providence: which is here at a Pinch, brought in again, to serve this Extraordinary Hypothesis. And thus indeed there might be Rivers for Fishes, and a River in Paradise; and the one as soon, and the other as great, as needed to be; even as big as Euphrates it [Page 39] self. Here therefore this Controversie must end, for who can stand out against such an Answer? Only, we must say, it is a very Philosophical one; and 'tis pitty he made not shorter Work in the Case. For he might have told us, that Men, and Animals, and all kind of Plants, by the power of a Divine Hand, lived without water before the Flood; and then he had sav'd himself the whole trouble, as well of raising, as of pro­pagating his Rivers. And truly so difficult a Work is the latter of these, Another Con­tradiction. that it will cost him no less than a Contra­diction to do it. For he tells us in his English Theory (p. 228.) that the derivations of the waters, at first would be ve­ry irregular and diffuse, till the Channels were a little worn and hollowed. And (p. 229.) that the Current would be easie and gentle all along, and if it chanc'd in some places to rest or be stopt, it would spread it self into a pleasant Lake, till by fresh supplies it had raised its waters so high, as to overflow and break loose again. Now when at first there were no Rivers, but diffused waters; and afterwards they were to flow in Channels worn and hollowed by themselves: When their Currents were to be easie and gentle all along, and to rest, and stop, and spread at places, till they waxed strong enough to run forward: Were these waters accelerated by a divine hand? No more than what is natural, is at the same time miraculous: No more than what is slow, is at the same time swift: Or than flat Contradictions can fall in with truth.

CHAP. VI.

PART of the Theorist's Design, in explaining the Deluge his way, was to silence the Cavils of Atheists. Eng. Theor. p. 17. That is, by superseding the Miracle of Creating Wa­ters, in that Case, and then of Annihilating the same; [Page 41] which seemed to him a Method irrational and unin­telligible; and by making it the effect of natural Causes; and so, in his opinion, more agreeable to reason, and more easie to be understood. Ib. p. 20. And accordingly he de­clares, that the Design of his Treatise is to show a way of making the Deluge fairly intelligible, and accountable without creating of new waters. And in another place, explaining the Deluge in a natural way, Chap. 8. or by natural Causes; he makes these Causes to be Vapours within the Earth, and Rains without it, and Cracks and Chasms made by the Sun in the Arch of it. All which natu­ral Causes together, brought on the Disruption of that Earth, and this Disruption occasion'd the Innundation. But if his Hypothesis which takes off one Miracle, brings on another; or (as the event of things might prove) makes it necessary to suppose another Miracle interwoven with the Contexture of it: it will then contribute just nothing towards silencing the Atheist, who cannot possibly be reconciled to Miracle, as pro­fessing principles most repugnant to it. Now the great Flood being made, by the Theory, an Effect of Natu­ral Causes; it must needs have come on in a Course of Nature. Yea, tho it was to come as a Judgment upon obstinate Sinners; yet it must have hapned in­evitably tho Mankind had been Innocent, or truly Penitent: unless the power of a miraculous hand, had forcibly stopt the Course of Nature, and held her from running on into this otherwise certain and inavoidable issue. And when it is as necessary to admit Miracle into this new Hypothesis; as it was to allow it in the Old; how is the Atheist silenced by it? Yea, when he sees this Hypothesis making Ruine the Lot, either of a righteous, or repenting World; this must open his mouth, instead of silencing his tongue, and make him more fierce and clamorous than ever. This is the [Page 40] Substance of the Excepter's Sixth Chapter, which runs upon what the Cavilling Athiest would be apt to alledge, against the Theory of the Flood.

It is answered thus. Answ. p. 19. What the Excepter suggests con­cerning Athiests, and their presum'd Cavils at such an ex­plication of the Deluge, is a thing only said at random and without grounds. And why so? Surely it must be be­cause of something the Answerer had said before. Ib. p. 18. p. 19. Name­ly, that GOD's Praescience is infallible, and God is the Author and Governour 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. But is this to satisfy or si­lence the Athiest? Can the Answerer think, that he who denies the being of a GOD, should acknowledge his Attribute? and consent to a Providence directed by Proescience? This is as much as to say, let an A­theist become no Atheist, and then he will silence this Athiest's Cavils

The Two Questions he puts in the Beginning of his Chapter, touching GOD's Praescience; are little to the purpose. Inasmuch as the Athiest, whom the Ex­cepter justly brings in (the silencing of his Cavils being the aim of the Theory) does absolutely disown and disavow the Property, together with the Essence of the GLORIOUS DEITY. However let us reply to these Questions; that nothing may seem to be pass'd over, which but looks as if it required an Answer.

The first Question is this. Suppose Adam had not sinn'd, what would have become of the Messiah, p. 17. and the Dispensation of the Gospel? Why, then the Messiah need not have been born, nor need the Gospel have been dispensed. And truly both the Incarnation of the one, and the Dispensation of the other, might have been prevented or put by; without any stop or interruption [Page 42] in the Course of nature, made by the intervention of a miraculous Power. But the like cannot be affirmed of the Deluge. For had that been put off, the order of Nature must thereby have been broken; and the hand of Om­nipotence must have supported the Earth by the strength of Miracle. Else in a certain period of time, (in that Juncture suppose, when the Flood, according to the Theory, fell out) it must have suffered Disruption; and have sunk into the Abyss.

But it is farther urged, that the Dispensation of the Gospel is said to be very early determin'd: Ibid. in Scrip­ture that is. It must be allowed therefore that that Determination had respect to mans Sin. But that the like may be allowed to the Theory of the Flood, it must be prov'd as well, that the Deluge was decreed or determin'd to come in, according to its Method. And where has Scripture determin'd that, as it did things relating to the Blessed MESSIAH, and his eter­nal Gospel? But This, believe it, is a lofty Instance to be fetcht down into comparison with a phansiful Hy­pothesis. The next therefore is of a lower strain, upon which the Second Question runs; which is This.

Ibid. Suppose Adam had not eaten the forbidden Fruit; how could he, and all his Posterity have liv'd in Paradise? A few Generations would have fill'd that place, and should the rest have been turn'd out into the wide World, without any sin or fault of theirs? To it we Reply,

First; that if Adam had not eaten the foibidden fruit; yet it does not appear that he and all his Po­sterity were to have liv'd in Paradise. For That, in a few ages, might not only have been sufficiently reple­nisht, but overcharg'd with Inhabitants.

Secondly; when that place had been filled, and the rest, (as the Answerer expresses it) must have been turn'd out into the wide World: yet they (being without [Page 43] sin) should not have felt the Inconveniences which we do. For as the Barrenness of the Earth; so, many In­conveniences (perhaps secondary Causes of it) might proceed from the Curse of GOD, pull'd down upon the Ground by the sin of man. And thus much Moses has left upon record; that as the Earth by GOD's blessing brought forth useful Products, while man stood, Gen. 1.12. so Thorns and Thistles were the just effect or punish­ment of his Fall, Gen. 3.18. But then as the An­swerer has noted, that a Supernatural curse might have its effect in any position of the Earth: so it is as certain, P. 29. that a supernatural Blessing might have its proper effects too. And if GOD, as he says, Ibid. can make a Land bar­ren, if he think fit, in spite of the Course of Nature: then in spite of the Course of nature, he can as well make it fruitful and pleasant. And therefore so he might have made the Praediluvian earth (had not Adam eat the for­bidden fruit) notwithstanding its oblique Position to the Sun. Then, as there should have been no Death amongst men; so there should have been nothing like it, or tending to it. No such excessive heat and cold, as now rage in several Climates: No such noxious Va­pours and Exhalations, as now rise from, or breath out of the Earth: No such impurities and unwholsom corruptions, as now breed in, and distemper the Air: No such blustring Storms and violent Tempests, as now disquiet, and toss, and cause Breaches by the Sea: No such mighty Floods and dreadful Earthquakes, as now do unspeakable Mischiefs at Land. But mens Souls being upright and clear from sin; their Bodies should have been safe from dangers, and free from sufferings; and the security and pleasure of their out­ward Condition, would have been answerable to their inward Peace and Purity.

When Israel pass'd through the Arabian Desert, be­cause they were a chosen and peculiar People, and dear unto his MAJESTY; the ALMIGHTY sav'd them from the great Inconveniences of that de­solate Region, by ministring to their Wants, most suta­ble and seasonable Defensatives and Supplies. Thus, the Drieness of the place, and the lack of Waters; he supplied by the streams from Rocks, Its Barrenness, or lack of Food; by Quails and Manna. Its heat and lack of shades; by a Cloudy Canopy. Its Wildness, and lack of Roads and Way-marks; by the Pillar of a Cloud, guiding them by day, when their Camp moved; and by a Pillar of fire leading them by night. The lack of new Cloaths, and the lack of new shooes; by the lastingness of their old ones, and by their not wearing out. And when the Good GOD had such care and kindness for a sinful People; yea, for a stub­born, perverse, and provoking Generation; as thus to sence and furnish them against the most grievous ex­ternal Inconveniences, that could readily beset them: we may well conclude how tender he would have been of an Innocent World, and how inconceivably gracious and indulgent to them, in the like Nature. The wide World therefore should not have been incon­venient to Adam and his Posterity (as this World now is to us) if he had not eaten the forbidden fruit. The supernatural Blessing of Heaven, would then have made their Circumstances happy upon Earth. Nor should they ever have overstockt it, tho they had multiply'd never so fast. For still as they grew aged, that they might not grow too numerous, they might, in due time, have been translated hence, as Enoch was, to the higher State of bliss and felicity. Nor is there any thing here overstrain'd in the least. For tho we must not be too bold with Extraordinary Providence in the [Page 44] Philosophic Schools; it was ever a standing Hypothe­sis in the Church. And upon the principle of it, the most glorious Phaenomenaes of heavens kindness, that have been, or can appear, are properly to be solved.

CHAP. VII.

HEre the Answerer applies himself to vindicate those Texts of Scripture, which being alledged in confirmation of the Theory; were excepted against.

The first is that in the Second Epistle of S. Peter. C. 3. v. 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, &c. But he quarrels with the Excepter for rendring it generally Wilfully ignorant. Answ. p. 19. Now who can say they were not thus ignorant? And is it not most probable that they really were so? Or who can clearly discern, and justly dinstinguish betwixt Willing and Wilful Ignorance; and rightly determine which of the two, men are guilty of in all cases? It is hard to set an exact boun­dary, between Willing and Wilful Sin; so as positively to say, where the one ends, and the other begins. The Difference here is so nice and obscure, as not easily to be discovered. If we look to the sins of the Tongue; they that Ly and Swear Willingly; commonly do it Wilfully. If we look to the sins of the Hand; they that Rob and Kill willingly; commonly do it wilfully. And so it is commonly as to sins of the mind, and par­ticularly as to the sin of Ignorance. They that are wil­lingly ignorant, are wilfully ignorant. For they are usu­ally ignorant, because they forbear to consult men; or because they neglect to peruse Books; or because they refuse to observe, or consider, or examine things. And these Omissions being deliberate, chosen, and af­fected; must consequently be wilful, and make their ignorance of the same stamp. Especially if men persist [Page 46] in their ignorance, till it becomes high and hainous, by being customary and habitual; which seems to be the Case of them here reprehended.

Ib.And whereas the Answerer says, that the Excepter lays a great stress upon the word, Wilfully: That he did not do, nor was there any need of it. For whe­ther they were willingly, or wilfully ignorant, it mat­ters not; because they could in neither sense be blame­ably ignorant of such things, as the Theorist presumes they were; inasmuch as they were in no capacity of acquiring the Knowledge of them, supposing they had been Real. This the Excepter fairly made out. To have proved them culpably ignorant therefore, in either of these senses; Disc. p. 128. 129. &c. the Answerer should have taken off what the Excepter objected against the likelihood of their attaining to the knowledge of those Matters: and should have shown that the Pseudo-Christians re­proved by St. Peter, might by the use of such means as they had, have come to a competent understanding of those Phaenomenaes, which he believes the Apostle chid them for being unacquainted with. But the doing of this, he either willingly, or wilfully omitted; it being much easier to run out into an empty debate about a word; than (as he should have done) to pursue the proper and material things. He says indeed (p. 20.) 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. Great news this, that the Changes of the World, which they were checked for being ignorant of, were knowable by the means which they injoyed. Did GOD ever blame ignorance, but in such Circumstances? But let him prove that the first Con­stitution of the Heavens and the Earth, and the changes and dissolution which happened to them at the Deluge; [Page 47] were knowable things to them, according to his Notions of them; let him prove that they had means to bring them to the knowledge of these, as he represents them; and then he does something. But he must first prove that there ever were such things.

And because he is for Instances out of Scripture, where the Phrase (used by S. Peter signifies wilful and obstinate ignorance; let him take these that follow, Answ. p. 19. as proofs of as much. The forgiven Servant, obstinately refusing to shew mercy to his fellow-servant; it is said of him, [...], he would not, S. Mat. 18.30. The Inhabitants of Jerusalem, obstinately refusing to come under GOD's Protection; it is said of them, [...], ye would not, S. Mat. 23.37. And so again, S. Luke. 13.34. Now if, [...], with a negative Par­ticle before it, signifies a Wilful and obstinate Refusal of a thing; then, [...], without a Negative, may sig­nify a wilful and obstinate Consent to a thing, or Com­pliance with it. And so the Phrase here, [...], might signify a wilful and obstinate igno­rance.

And because he is for Proofs out of Greek Authors; Ib. one Proof shall be given him out of an Author that he knows understood Greek well enough. I mean the very learned and judicious Dr. Hammond: Who, in his An­notations, writes thus upon this Text. The word [...] seems here to be taken in a sense, not ordinary in other places, for being of opinion, or affirming, per­haps with this addition of asserting it magisterially, without any reason rendred for it, but a sic volo &c. So I will, I command, my Will is my reason. And accord­ing to this excellent Annotator, the word, [...], imports extraordinary Wilfulness here.

Nor let him think that he gains any thing, by no­ting, p. 20. that it was not their ignorance that S. Peter [Page 48] chiefly reproves, but their deriding and scoffing at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour. For if he reproved them as Scoffers; yet in the words considered, he re­proves them chiefly for their Ignorance, and in all like­lihood, for their Wilful Ignorance.

p. 12 [...]Next he checks the Excepter, for Dispatching Scriptures quickly by the help of a Particle and a Figure. But if arguments be so weak that they will fall with a Fillip, why should greater force be used to beat them down? The fault is in him that should have brought stronger. To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly; or to charge a Pistol, to kill a Spider; I think would be preposterous.

He goes on next, to Psal. 33.7. He gathereth the waters of the Sea, Eng. The. p. 86. as in a Bagg: He layeth up the Abysses in Store-houses. Which, according to the Theory, hints that the Sea or Abyss before the Deluge, was in­closed within the Vault of the Earth. In confutation of this Phantsy, So the Vulgate and Septuagint both render it: which the Theo­rist quoted for rendring the forecited place, Psal. 33.7. as in a bag. the Excepter brought in that Passage, Psal. 78.13. He set the waters as in a Bag. Which proves (according to the known Rule of Expounding one Scripture by another) that by the waters being as in a bag, Psal. 33.7. could not be meant their being inclosed within the vault of the Earth. Because this Text, which says the same thing, speaks of an open Sea, viz. the Red Sea; See Disc. p. 139, 140. and that when it was so open, that Moses and the Israelites marched through it. How does the Answerer take off this Objection? Why, because the Excepter had said, that as in a Bag, Psal. 33.7. Should be rendred, as on an heap; and proved it by Autho­rities: he gives him leave to render this place so, as on an heap. For, says he, it was done by a miracle. But if when by miracle the waters in an open Sea stood on an heap, they were said to be in a Bag: then this shows more plainly still, that that Expression, He gathereth [Page 49] the waters of ahe Sea as in a bagg, can be no manner of proof that they were ever inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth. And at last indeed he in effect confesses that he mis-interpreted the Psalmist's words. For he declares now, that that other place (Psal. 33.7. Answ. p. 21.) speaks of the ordinary posture and constitution of the Waters; which is not on an heap, but in a level or spheri­cal convexity with the rest of the Earth. And thus he catches himself in a trap. For if the Text speaks of the Ordinary posture of the waters, lying in a Level with the rest of the earth; Eng. Theor. p. 86. why did he wrest and misapply it, by making it speak of an Extraordinary posture of them (an invention of his own) whereby they lay within the Vault of the Earth?

But the Excepter must not escape here neither. Answ. p. 21. For he complains of him for an unfair citation of a Paragraph of the Theory, which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal. 33.7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg'd out of the Psalms, and is a modest reflection upon the ex­plication of them. Now if the Paragraph belonging to all those Texts did agree properly with none, and with one less than with the rest; surely the Excepter might, without unfairness, cite and apply it to that one, without meddling with the rest. And so the Com­plaint is frivolous. Tho how modest the Reflection he speaks of, was, he may consider; when it backs such an explication of Scripture, as would make Moses and the Hebrews pass thorow a Sea, See Disc. p. 140. which at the time of their passing, was inclos'd within the Vault of the Earth.

He proceeds next to Job 26.7. He stretcheth out the North over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing. But how can this most aptly agree to the structure of the Theory's first Earth? when (as the Excepter noted) the Theory it self testifies concern­ing Ib. p. 142. [Page 50] it, that it rise upon the face of the Chaos: And could not have been formed unless by a Concretion upon the face of the Waters: And that it had the mass of the waters as a basis or foundation to rest upon. And so was no more stretcht out upon emptiness, and hang'd upon nothing, than an Arch when built upon its Center. And but just before, the Theory contended, from Psal. 24.2. that it was founded upon the Seas, and establisht upon the Floods. What says the Answerer to this? [...]. Not one Syllable. We must take it to be answered by the last Expedient.

The next place is Job 38.4, 5, 6. Where wast thou, when I laid the foundations of the Earth?—Who hath laid the Measures thereof?—Who hath stretched the line upon it?—Who laid the corner-stone thereof. Where Measures and Line, said the Excepter imply only that the Earth was made of a fitting Accuracy. And he affirmed that this Earth of ours, may be compared with, and be thought to outgo the imaginary first Earth of the Theorist's inventing, in Two things; Comeliness, and Ʋsefulness.

But because under the first Head of Comeliness, the Excepter makes Hills and Mountains to be a piece of the Earth's Beauty; P. 22. the Answerer seems much offend­ed with him. Not at all considering, that at the same time he allows them to be Irregularities, Dis. p. 144. and 146. and Rude­nesses, and void of Exactness and Order; and calls them the most horrid visible pieces of Nature, and hideously ama­zing, &c. Only they conduce to the natural Pulchri­tude of the Earth, because it consists in Asymetries and a Wild Variety. Yet in respect of these the Earth is more comely, than if it were one vast plain, or lay every where in a smooth and regular sphaerical Con­vexity. Ib. p. 147. Nor considering neither, that the inspired Psalmist (as the Excepter noted) did devoutly cele­brate [Page 51] the Wisdom of GOD, exhibited in making the Mountains and high Hills: which, if they had been nothing but monstrous Scarrs or deformities in the Earthly Body, or the Rubbish or Ruines of a decayed Building; he would scarce have done so solemnly.

But as to making the Theorist admire the Beauty of Mountains; it was never in the Excepter's thoughts. Answ. p. 22. Disc. p. 146. Tho he takes notice that he was mightily pleased and raised by the sight and contemplation of them. But be­tween the Beauty of an Object, and the Pleasure of seeing and contemplating it, there is great Difference. And (to turn the Answerers Complement upon him­self) he that hath not sense and, judgment enough to see the difference, Answ. p. 22. it would be very tedious to beat it into him by multitude of words.

The Ʋsefulness of the Earth in its present Form and State, beyond that of the Theory: the Excepter no­ted in Three Particulars. First, in that it had Seas for Traffick and Navigation. Secondly, in that it had Mountains, for Bounding Nations, for Dividing King­doms, for Deriving Rivers, for Yielding Minerals, &c. Thirdly, in that it had Rains and seasonable Showres. And that Rains and Showres were proper Rules whereby to measure the Ʋsefulness of the Earth, and to show that it excells that of the Theory; is manifest from GOD's making use of the same, in a Case not unlike, said the Excepter. Disc. p. 148. For GOD comparing Egypt and Palestine, prefers the latter before the former; because in Egypt the Seed sown was water'd with the foot as a Gar­den of Herbs: but Palestine was a Land of hills and valleys, and drank water of the Rain of heaven, Deut. 11.10, 11.

Here the Answerer at lasts chops in, and tells the Excepter how unluckily it falls out for him, p. 23. that a Coun­try, that had no Rain, should be compared in Scripture, or join'd in privilege, with Paradise it self, and the Gar­den [Page 52] of GOD. For so is this very Egypt, Gen. 13.10. tho it had no Rain, but was water'd by Rivers. And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, (before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha) even as the Garden of the LORD, like the Land of Egypt. Therefore, says he, the greatest commendation of a Land, for pleasure and fer­tility, according to Scripture, is its being well watered with Rivers. But that's more than the cited Scri­pture speaks, and more than it means; as will appear if we consider the Occasion of the Words, which is this. Abraham and Lot were both very rich in Cattel. Their Stocks were so numerous, that the Tract of land where they abode together, was not able suffici­ently to feed them: for their Shepherds strove one with another for pasture. This made it necessary that they should separate; and accordingly they agreed to do. Lot having liberty to chuse his station, or the place where to settle himself; takes a view of the Plain of Jordan, and makes choice of that. And the chief reason why he chose it, was upon the account of its being well water'd. And how well watered was it? Why, every where very well for the nourishing of Cattel, it being as well supply'd with River-waters, as a pleasant Garden, or Egypt. I say, as a pleasant Garden. For were the true Paradise meant here; Egypt, by being compara­ble to that (which was certainly the sweetest place in the World) would have been preferable to Palestine. Whereas 'tis evident that GOD prefers Palestine to Egypt, Deut. 11.10. But therefore there is no necessi­ty that this Garden of the LORD, should be the real Paradise. For the word Lord, or God, is commonly joined to several things in Scripture, in way of ampli­fication, or to show the greatness and extraordinariness of them. Thus we read of the Terror of GOD, Gen. 35. [Page 53] 5. that is, an extraordinary terror. And of the Sleep of the LORD, 1 Sam. 26.12. that is, an extraordinary Sleep. And of the Trees of GOD, Psal. 104.16. that is, extraordinary Trees. So here the Garden of the LORD, signifies no more than a pleasant garden extra­ordinarily watered. And therefore, says the Interline­ary Gloss, it was hortus deliciosus & irriguus; a delicate and well watered Garden.

But still notwithstanding this, a Land watered with Rivers and Showres at once, may excel a Land watred with Rivers only. And upon this account Scripture commends Palestine above, and prefers it much before Egypt. Even because it being happy in Rains, as well as in Rivers; it was free from that great trouble and slavery of watering with the foot, to which Egypt, through want of Rain, was subject. Thus the hard task which the Answerer conceited he put upon the Excepter, Ib. when he bad him consider how he would inter­pret and apply his place in Deuteronomy, and make it consistent with this in Genesis; is done with ease. For albeit Egypt was as well water'd as a pleasant garden, in respect of River-water (it being water'd by the overflowing of Nilus) yet it was not so well water'd as Palestine; which besides a sufficiency of Rivers, had moreover the benefit of seasonable showres superseding the trouble, of watering with the foot. Tho withal we must here note, that he would have put a trick upon us. For whereas he says, Egypt, a Country that had no Rain, is compared or join'd in priviledge with Pa­radise; it is not so. For the whole Country of Egypt is not brought into this Comparison or Privilege; but only a Part of it leading to Zoar, better water'd than the Rest. But these words, as thou comest unto Zoar, he left out of the Quotation; which should have been in it, not only to perfect the Clause, but to clear the [Page 54] sense. So that Palestine had still more reason to be pre­fer'd before Egypt in general, because it was but one particular Part of it, which was resembled to a fine garden; and that but in one particular thing neither, its being water'd by Rivers. Which tho they suted Cattel best, were not so convenient for Corn, as Rains: Which where they do not fall; the seed sown requires manual waterings. And thus at last, the thing is fairly come about again, and we are just where we were at first, and so is Egypt too. For GOD, in Deuterono­my, compar'd it to a Garden of herbs, where the seed sown was to be watered with the foot: and here in Genesis, to a pleasant Garden, which by reason of its Rivers, could want no water convenient for that use. But still 'twas short of Palestine.

And as for his Interpretation of the place in Deutero­nomy, which he likes so very well, (Namely, that they were not to expect such a land as Egypt, 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, Ib. p. 24. according as they kept God's Commandments:) it is improper, and ill grounded. For it supposes the fruitfulness of a Land, caused by Rains, to be less natural, than that caused by Rivers, and it supposes the overflow of Rivers, to depend less upon GOD's Bles­sing, than the Downfal of Rains. Whereas they be­ing both alike natural, and their Dependence upon GOD's Benediction, equal; the Hebrews had as much reason, and as great obligation upon them, to keep GOD's Commandments in Egypt, as in Canaan, whither they were going. Yea, (if a comparison must be made) all things considered, they might seem to have better grounds for expecting fertility in Canaan, upon their obedience; than they could have in Egypt. [Page 55] For rains depend solely upon Providence. (And there­fore the giving of Rain, is all along ascrib'd to GOD, in Scripture: And of the four Keys which the Rabbies put into the ALMIGHTY's hand, the Key of the Clouds is one.) But the regular and fruitful Overflow­ing of the Nile, depends not only upon the providence of GOD, but upon the pleasure of a great man, Heylyn, Cosmog. in his Descrip­tion of Aethio­pia Superior. the Abassine Emperour. For to him, as one tells us, the Egyptians pay tribute, to have the Flooding Nile kept within compass. And tho Providence can easily over­rule Emperors, yet it must be allow'd, that they may well be more refractory than the Clouds. And thus again Palestine has another Advantage of Egypt, that it pays no Fees for any Rivers or fruitful Showres. It is generally attended with that privilege, which Caleb gave his Daughter, as an accession to her Fortune: Judg. 1.15. the upper and the nether Springs. That is, according to Bochart, Rains above, and Rivers and Fountains below. And where these meet, ei solo nihil deest, says he; there is nothing wanting to make that Soil fruitful. So that if there be any unluckiness in this Case, it lights upon the Answerer.

To the objected Impropriety of Foundations and a Corner-stone in the Circle or sphaerical Arch of his Primi­tive Earth: he answers, Ib. that those Expressions seem an Elegancy to him. Whether understood as an Allusion to our manner of building; or as an Ironical Interrogation, implying that there was no Foundation (strictly so call'd) nor corner stone, in that great work. Ib. p. 21. l. 16.17. It was but just three Pages before, that he flung at the Excepter for saying some Texts of Scripture (of which this is one) were Figurative. And now, we see, he is fain to fetch in a Figure himself, to help to explain this very Text. So that 'tis evident he will do any thing (even what he openly condemns) to support (as he thinks) his [Page 56] tottering Hypothesis; which when he has done all that he can, will fall at last.

Ibid.Then he passes to the following verses in that 38th. Chapter. Who shut up the Sea with doors, when it brake forth as if it had issued out of a womb? &c. Here the Excepter gave reasons why these words must refer to what was done in the Beginning of the World. Disc. p. 150. p. 150. 151. (As also reasons why by the Womb here mentioned, could not be meant the inclosure of the Abyss, as the Theory would have it.) And none of them being answered (but by the Expedient, of passing them by) they (both) stand good. Now if the HOLY GHOST speaks here, of the Sea when it first brake forth into being (which all but the Theorist allow he does) what Womb could it issue out of, but the Womb of Nothing? But instead of removing our Objections, the Answerer brings in two of his own; which the Replicant will not answer, as he does the Excepter's.

The first is this. If you understand the Womb of Non-entity; Answ. p. 25. the Sea broke out of that womb the first day, and had no bars or doors set to it, but flow'd over all the Earth without check or controul. Therefore that could not be the time or state here spoken of. And to refer that restraint, or those bars and doors, to another time, which are spoken of here in the same verse, would be very inex­cusable in the Excepter: seeing he will not allow the Theo­rist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different Verses, to be understood of different times. Now pray, what is the difference betwixt the time of the Sea's breaking forth of the womb, and the time of its being restrain'd with doors; that the Excepter should be so very inexcusable, for allowing that difference? It was but the space of one poor day. And truly if he had not allowed of this difference; when GOD Himself signifies, that he made the breaking forth of the wa­ters [Page 57] into being, part of his first day's work; and the gathering them together into one place (the decreed place) where they were shut up with bars and doors, his Third days work: he must have been very inexcu­sable indeed. O but therefore the Excepter is very in­excusable, because he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those things that are spoken of in different verses, to be understood of different times. Be it so. But were the different times of the Theorist then no more di­stant, than the different times of the Excepter? The space between the Excepter's times, was one single day: that between the Theorist's times, was more than six­teen hundred years. And yet let him bring but as good authority for the Different times which he contends for, as the Excepter does for his different times (which GOD has clearly distinguisht by different works; his creating Waters on one of the times, and his col­lecting and confining them on the other:) and his dif­ferent times will by all be allowed. But because he can bring no such authority, nor any at all besides his own; not the Excepter, but he himself, must be the very inex­cusable person in this Matter.

His second Objection runs thus. Ib. 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. Must it so? What necessity is there for it? None at all but to support the Theorist's sinking Hypothesis. And for him to say it must be so understood in favour of that; is to beg the Question. And however that may be less metaphysical, it will be more impertinent, than our Notion is. For that we can presently make very pertinent, by a way which himself just now cut out. Foundations and Corner-stones are as local and corporeal things, as the rest which the Text [Page 58] speaks of. Yet these, he told us, in the immediately fore-going Page, P. 24. l. 15. 16. may be understood in way of Allusion. And let but this Womb be understood the same way, (as it ever was) and then the Notion will be pertinent enough. But who is impertinent for suggesting it was not so?

The last place is Prov. 8.27, 28. When he prepared the Heavens, I was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the deep, &c. That by the word, Compass here, could not be meant the first habitable Earth, as a Sphaere, Orb, or Arch in the beginning set round the Abyss, according to the Theory: the Excepter shewed very plainly. Disc. p. 153, 154, 155. But what he alledged of that nature, is answered only by the Second Expedient (which is made great use of) that is, it is passed by with silence. Yet that the Answerer might seem to say something; he sets up a shadow or phantsy of his own, Answ. p. 25. and then encounters it. The word [...] which we render compass, he (the Excepter) says, signifies no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss. Let the Answerer show where the Excepter says thus. In this he charges him falsly. A plain Un­truth. Disc. p. 154. He only said, that by the word compass, might be meant, either Earthly bounds about the open Waters; or the Firmament of Heaven, as a Sphaere, Orb, or Arch, set upon the face of the Deep. And are either of these, the Rotundity or Sphaeri­cal figure of the Abyss? Yet if they are not, (as they cannot be;) has not the Answerer done manifest wrong to the Excepter, by suggesting a vain Phantsy or Noti­on of his own, and fathering it upon him, as his? This, to speak freely, is fencing with an unlawful Weapon, which never commends either the Skill or Ingenuity of them that use it. He might therefore as well have wav'd the false charge here, by which he would turn the point of non-sense upon the Excepter. For what can be more highly nonsensical, than to say that the [Page 59] banks about the sides, or the Air about the Surface of the Sea, are but the shape or meer figure of it? This Gentleman in this very Chapter complains of un­fairness.

And is it possible? He that does this wrong, in the very next paragraph cries out of injury. Answ. p. 26. Of an injustice which the Excepter hath done the Theory—by a false accusation. For he says, the Theory makes the Constructi­on of the first Earth to have been meerly Mechanical. And did it not make it so? Proferte tabulas. How read we in the beginning of the Sixth Chapter of the Latin Theory? Edit. 2. Secutus sum leges notissimas gravitatis & levitatis, & earum solo ductu vidimus massam illam pri­migeniam—pervenisse tandem in formam stabilem regio­nis terrae. I have followed the most known laws of gravity and levity, and by the sole leading of them we have seen that primigenial Mass to have come at length into the steddy form of a Region of earth. Now that Body which is led into its form by the laws of Gravity and Levity, must certainly be made Mechanically. And the Earth being brought into its form, by the sole guidance of those Laws, its formation must be meerly Mechanical. And then upon whom rests the In­justice here, and the guilt of raising a false accusation? A plain Un­truth. But for all this, the Answerer says; That the Constru­ction of the Earth was not meerly Mechanical, in the opi­nion of the Theorist, you may see, Eng. Theor. p. 65. That is, he says and unsays; and is so like a Proteus in his Philosophy, that 'tis hard to discern his shape and colour.

Then he brings two other Complaints against the Excepter. One, for citing the first Edition of the Theo­ry; for things left out in the Second. The other, Answ. p. 26. for de­fective Citations. The first, In the Introdu­ction. had its answer in the beginning of the Reply. The Second, must be better made out before it can deserve one.

And whereas to shew that the aforesaid Places of Scripture, cited by the Theory, were but figurative; the Excepter confronted them with that one Text (in­stead of many) who shaketh the Earth out of her place, Disc. p. 155. and the Pillars thereof tremble; which cannot be lite­rally interpreted: The Answerer will not allow Pillars there to be understood literally, for this worthy reason. Even because there are no such Pillars of the Earth upon any Hypothesis. Answ. p. 27. So that it seems Hypotheses are not to be regulated by Scripture-Expressions, but the signifi­cation or sense of them, is to be overul'd and determin'd by Hypotheses. At which rate, the Hands and Eyes of ALMIGHTY GOD, in the holy Bible, must be, or at least may be understood literally; as being agreeable to the Hypothesis of the Anthropomorphites.

CHAP. VIII.

THis Chapter treats of the perpetual Equinox of the Theory, before the Flood. And the An­swerer would fain make the World believe, that the Excepter thinks that the Earth (when it changed its supposed Situation or Right Position to the Sun) was translated from the Equator into the Ecliptick: Ib. and that before the change, in the Antediluvian state, it mov'd directly under the Equator. A pretty Mistake indeed, had it been really thus. But we shall see it proved, just as some other false Charges have been. However to show that his Will is good, he endea­vours to squeeze Evidence out of these (the Excepter's) words. So that in her annual motion about the Sun, she was carried directly under the Equinoctial, without any manner of obliquity in her site, or declination towards ei­ther of the Tropics, in her course: And therefore could never cut the Equinoctial, by passing (as now she is pre­sum'd [Page 61] to do) from one Tropic to the other. Now pray, was not the Ecliptic, the Equinoctial in the Theorist's first World? And was not the Earth carried directly under the Equinoctial? And was not that World without Tropics? And must it not be true then that the Earth never cut the Equinoctial, by passing (as she is now presum'd to do) from one Tropic to the other? But where does the Excepter speak a word here, of her being translated from the Equator, at the change of her position? or of her moving directly under it, in the An­tediluvian state? So far was he from that, that what he says, is of the quite contrary Importance. As shewing that the Earth moved always under the Equi­noctial of the Praediluvian World, which was the Eclip­tick; and could not possibly have an Excursion to the Tropics, as now she has: For in that State there were no such things. And besides that the words cited carry this sense most plainly in them, the Excepter, Disc. p. 158. in the very Sentence immediatly preceding them, de­clares; 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. And could it then in the Antediluvian state, move directly under the Equa­tor? Or could the Answerer perceive (as his word is) that the Excepter thought it did so? Then his Percep­tion was more quick than true. And now it is to be hop'd that he will better perceive, that he might have spar'd those Leavers and Pullies, Answ. p. 27. he speaks of for re­moving the Earth. And so he might have done the unlucky Screws of this unhappy Mistake, A mistake. whereby he would have forc'd the Excepters words, into a crooked meaning: but they only make his own Ob­servation stand awry.

But that the Earth had a Direct Situation to the Sun, causing a perpetual Equinox; is very unlikely, said the [Page 62] Excepter, Disc. p. 159. for this Reason. Because then the same would have remained until now, or else in the World there would have been found a more full account of the Change thereof. To this the Answerer opposes, that other things are lost out of memory. Answ. p. 28. And instances in two, the Age of the World, and the place of Paradise. But Time and Place are but Circumstances of things, and so might sooner and more easily slip out of mind. Where­as the Loss of the Equinox, by the variation of the Earth's Position would not only have been a real, but a mighty thing. For it must have been attended not only with a strange Alteration as to Seasons of the year, as to the Temperature of the Air, and as to the condi­tion of the Earth; but also with sensible Effects upon the Bodies of men, as Heat, Cold, &c. Which Effects would not only have caused Noah and his Family to Observe this Change, (so mighty in its Consequences as well as in it self) but likewise would have so far im­printed, and set home the Observation upon them; as to have given occasion to a lasting traditional Remem­brance of the same. And what if the just Age of the World be lost, (the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins dif­fering about it;) and Chronology being a difficult thing, subject to innumerable intricacies and entanglements?) Yet 'tis clear enough that the World had a Beginning. And what if we be at a loss for the true Place of Para­dise, which was known to none but Adam and Eve; and which GOD perhaps design'd to bury out of the memory of men, as he did Moses's Body out of Israel's knowledge, to prevent Superstition? Yet still that there was a Paradise, is most certain. But this is that which the pretended Equinox fails in; in the truth or certainty of its Existence. We have no Evidence, no clear and convincing Evidence to prove that it ever was in Nature.

The Excepter farther objected, Disc. p. 166. that Scripture does not favour this Equinox, but rather discountenance it. And to make the Objection good, he cited Gen. 8.22. While the Earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and night and day shall not cease. Which place the Answerer owns, Answ. p. 29. may be understood of the restauration of a former order in the Seasons of the year; and so by his own Confession, it is good evidence on our side. Ib. And whereas he tells of Reasons which the Theorist set down, to make it probable, that the words ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order for the Seasons of the Year, as was brought in at that time; which Reasons the Excepter hath not thought fit to take notice of, or refute: These Reasons seem to be the per­petual Equinox, the Longaevity of the Antediluvians, and the Appearance of the Rainbow, first in the new World. But before such Phaenomonaes can be offered as good Reasons to prove other things, they must be better establisht themselves. To go about to prove one part of an Hypothesis, by another part of it, when the whole is questioned, and lies under debate; is no allow­able way of proceeding. Yet these Reasons the Ex­cepter did take sufficient notice of.

But the Answerer's finding fault with the Excepter here, for not taking notice of Reasons; puts him upon a more just, and most seasonable Recrimination. For five Instances heing alledg'd by the Excepter, Disc. p. 166, 167, 168. in proof of what he affirmed of the Scripture; viz. that it ra­ther discountenances the Equinox than favours it: He answers three of them, only by his last Expedient; that is, by passing them by.

To the Fourth, being the Barrenness of the Earth, from the divine Malediction denounc'd against it for Adam's sin; which Barrenness is utterly inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Equinox: his Answer is this. Answ. p. 29. That [Page 64] Curse was supernatural, and might have its effect in any Position of the Earth. But then this Effect overthrows his Hypothesis, which maintains a perpetual Spring to all the World, and a continual verdure of the Earth. Eng. Theor. p. 196.

Disc. p. 169.Lastly, the Intemperature of the Air in Paradise, in­ferred from the Coats of Skins, made by GOD, to cloth the Protoplasts with, and defend them from cold; was brought in as an Instance to show that Scripture does not favour the Equinox but discountenance it. And to this it is answered thus. Answ. p. 30. He (the Excepter) must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood: and which way and how far, Adam and Eve were banisht from it. When those things are determin'd, we shall know what to Judge of his Argument, and of Coats of skins. In the mean time he may please to consider these Four things. Disc. p. 169, 170 First, that it has been already shewed, that in all likelihood these coats of skins were made to defend our first Parents from Cold. Secondly, that for ought appears in the sacred Story, they were clothed with these Coats, before they were turned out of Paradise, Thirdly, that they could not be banisht far from it, because when they were thrown out of it, Cherubim were set to guard the Entrance, lest they should return into it again. And therefore if Paradise stood in a pleasant and temperate Region of the Earth (as who can think otherwise?) they may be supposed (for a great while) to abide in the Neighbourhood of it. Fourthly, Suppose them banisht which way you will, and as far from it as you please; yet they could have needed no Coats to defend them from Cold, in case the Theo­ry's Hypothesis were true. Eng. Theor. p. 251: For according to that, in the primaeval Earth, we have every where through the temperate Climates, all the general Characters of Para­dise, so that the trouble will be rather in that competition, [Page 65] what part or Region to pitch upon in particular: than to find a seat that had all those beauties and conveniences. And therefore had Adam and Eve been banisht never so far from Paradise into any temperate Climates (and none were then intemperate but those that were also uninhabitable) yet they must still have been in Para­disiacal Regions and circumstances; and so could have needed no Coats of Skins. But GOD being pleased to make them such Coats to defend them from the Cold, this subverts the General Paradisiacalness of the primi­tive Earth, and consequently its Equinox; by imply­ing there was a cold or intemperate air, in the habita­ble parts of it.

The Answerer proceeds thus in the next Paragraph. After Lastly, I expected no more: Answ. p. 30. but he hath two or three Reasons after the Last. Thus he cannot forbear playing upon the Excepter, tho he does it with the worst luck that ever man had. For even by this Refle­ction (intended to disparage him) he only exposes him­self, by betraying and proclaiming his own Inadver­tency. For the Lastly he notes, plainly belongs (as any one may see) to the Last of the Instances shewing that Scripture does not favour the Equinox. Disc. p. 169. But still the Reasons against the Equinox alledged in that Chapter, might follow in their due Course or Order. So that tho it be about a little thing, he here again falls into a great mistake. Another Mi­stake.

The next Argument of the Excepter's against the Equinox, is, Ib. p. 171. That it would have kept one Hemispaere of the terrestrial Globe unpeopled. For grant Adam to have been planted on either side of the Torrid Zone, such was the fiery heat thereof, that neither he nor his could have gone through it to the other side. And here the Answerer is so put to it, that he is forc'd to betake himself to his first Expedient to solve the Obje­ction [Page 66] by Extraordinary Providence. Answ. p. 30. Telling us that the Theorist never excluded the Ministery of Angels; and they could as easily carry them through the Torrid Zone, as over the Ocean. As for Angels carrying men over the Ocean, let him blame those that assert it: he knows the Excepter to be very clear from it. See Disc. ch. 11. § 7. But if he will have them carried through the Torrid Zone by their miraculous Ministery; he must remember, that this is to show us the arm of Omnipotency, Eng. Theor. p. 18. and to cut the knot when we cannot loose it. Tho had Providence shown this signal favour to Mankind, we need not question but it would have been entred in the Records of Hea­ven. But the inspired Writings remember nothing of it.

Another Reason brought by the Excepter why there could be no Equinox, Disc. p. 174. is, that it would have put by the Rains which help'd to raise the Flood. And here the Philosopher is fain to run to his old Refuge again, and to answer (by the same Expedient) That those rains that made the Flood were Extraordinary, Answ. p. 30. and out of the course of Nature. But this is little less than giving up his Hypothesis; at least it is condemning it as weak and insufficient. And truly what Hypothesis, tho never so mean and full of Defects, would not support it self under all its flaws and imperfections, by such a lawless liberty as this? A liberty of recourse to Extraordinary Providence, and of bringing in Miracles, and the Mi­nistery of Angels, to help to take off and solve those Difficulties, which puzzle its Author, and baffle its Principles. To what purpose did he invent a Theory, and write a Treatise with design to shut out one Extraor­dinary Providence, Eng. Theor. p. 2 [...]. l. 33, 34. the creating of new Waters to make the Deluge; when in this Treatise, and to uphold that Theory, he is constrain'd to let in thus many?

But here the Answerer is plainly for shifting, to avoid a blow; which, for that, falls but the heavier upon him. The Theory, said the Excepter, Disc. p. 175: will have the Rains to be antecedent to the Description of the Abyss: Eng. Theor. p. 98. And he quoted these words, in proof of it. I do not suppose the Abyss broken open till after the forty days rain. But then, adds the Excepter, this is most directly against Scripture; for that plainly affirms, that the Fountains of the great Deep, and the windows of Heaven were both open'd on one day, Gen. 7.11. Now to salve this re­pugnancy to Scripture, the Answerer here declares, that he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open'd before, which made the Grand rains. Answ. p. 31. But then he must suppose that there were two forty-days-rains; one, before the Abyss was broke up, and ano­ther beginning with it, and continuing after it. But is not this also as much against Scripture, which owns but one forty-days rain, that commenc'd with the Dis­ruption? And truly had the Vapours of the Atmo­sphaere been exhausted (as they must have been) by the first continued forty-days rain (according to the An­swerer's Supposition;) where could have been a supply for the second forty-days rain (especially when the Rains that fell then, were to be grand rains) without a new Creation of Waters, which the Theory designedly oppo­ses? And then the LORD said unto Noah, Gen. 7.4. Yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the Earth forty days and forty nights. And is it likely that GOD would have given that Preserver of the World notice, that Rains to make the Flood, should begin a Week af­ter; if it had already rained for three and thirty days before, or for above a Month past?

Lastly, against the Equinox it was suggested, that Authors of all sorts have disputed, Disc. p. 176. in what Season of the year the Flood came in, and the World had its begin­ning. [Page 68] Which hints that there was not any one Season through all the Earth at once. But the Answerer inti­mates, that upon Supposition of an Equinox according to the Theory, Answ. p. 31. it might be so. And why, says he, may not that have given occasion to the general belief, that the World began in the Spring? Did he insist upon that Belief, he must prove it to be general, and to be occasion'd by the Equinox; and not take it for grant­ed. Ib. But because he says he does not depend upon it, we need not reply to it any farther neither.

In the next place the Excepter considered the Autho­rities, call'd in to establish the Doctrine of the Equinox. That is, by proving that the Earth had suffered a change as to its Position, and thereby had lost its former Right Situation. But these Authorities were not found clear enough to do the Theory's business; as will best appear to them that shall peruse the Examination of the same. Disc. Ch. 8. § 7. And here the Answerer is much offended, as if his Witnesses were not fairly heard, Answ. p. 32. but rather unjustly and illegally rejected, because they were unskilful in giving the Causes or Reasons of a matter of fact. We reply. All Testimonies must be taken as they are. And where evidence is not clear, for the same reason it is not certain, nor can it be valid. And when Witnesses give it in, if they trip and faulter in any part of it; we have good reason to suspect the whole. And as im­probable Circumstances in their Allegations, will inva­lidate them in matter of fact: so impossible ones, if mingled with them, will quite overthrow them. The true case of the Testimonies before us. They contain such improbable and impossible things, as do not only weaken, but destroy them. Should twenty Mariners confidently affirm, that they sailed in a Ship from Dover to Calice, by a brisk Gale out of a pair of Bellows: tho this be a matter of fact, must they not be reckoned [Page 69] notorious Lyars? Or if forty Engineers should positive­ly swear, that the Powder-mill near London, was lately blown up, by a Mine then sprung at Great Waradin in Hungary; must they not be grievously perjur'd Persons? And the Philosophers attesting the Earth's Inclination, having charged their Evidence with as great Impossibilities; the Reports they make, must be as little credible. Or let us take the Instance which the Answerer gives, the Peloponesian War. Ibid. If the Hi­storian that writes it, had told that the Souldiers 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 knockt 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? Yet as possible it was for multitudes of men to be kill'd by these Instruments; as for the Position of the Earth to be chang'd by those Causes, which were assign'd by the Theory's Philosophic Witnesses. For how could the Southern Pole of the Earth dip into the Air, through excess of heat, or excess of Fruits thereabouts; when at both Poles the heat of the Sun was equal, and so was the fatness and fertility of the Soil? (See Disc. p. 180, 181.) Or if these were the Causes of that great Effect, why then was it not wrought sooner, than at the end of above sixteen hundred and fifty years? And yet these very Causes being not only brought into their Evidence, but made as true and express a part thereof, as the Inclination of the Earth it self; their Testimonies must extend to both alike: and in case the one be of doubtful credit, the other must be the same. Yea, the one, according to their Allegations, being Causes, and the other but an effect of them; if they be false witnesses as to the Causes upon which the [Page 70] Effect, according to their evidence, had its whole de­pendence; their Testimonies, as to the Effect, must needs fail and be nothing worth. For they plainly ascribing it to causes that were not, Disc. p. 179, 189, &c. and so could not produce it; at the same time, and by the same words that they attest there was such an Effect; they witness withal that it could not be. And so their Evidence is as far from being valid and authentic; as contradiction is from truth.

But what ill has the Excepter said of Anaxagoras; that the Answerer taxes him not only with a Ground­less, Answ. p. 33. but also a Rude Censure of that famous man? Why, Disc. p. 184. he asserted that an huge stone at the River Aegos in Thracia fell down from the Sun. And he being a Principal Witness of the change of the Earth's Position: the Excepter brings in this against him to weaken his evidence. Which it may well do upon this account; because it bespeaks him a man as like to be Heterodox, as any of the Learned Ancients. And this Censure is neither Groundless, nor Rude. Not Groundless. For as his Assertion was most wild, and childish, and ri­diculous, and false; so it was as absurd, unreasonable, and extravagantly Heterodox as could readily be in­vented in Astronomy. Nor could he slip into this Error by chance, nor could he mean any thing else by the Assertion, than what he expressed; because it agrees so well (as the Excepter observed) to the strain of his Philosophy, Ib. it being sutable to his Hypo­thesis of generating Stars out of Stones. Now that man (be he who, or what he will, even Anaxagoras himself) who is guilty of one so abominably gross and shameful an Heterodoxness in Astronomy; is certainly as like to be guilty of another, as any of the Learned: and therefore the Censure cannot be Groundless. Nor is it Rude. For first, as we see, it is well grounded. Built [Page 71] (as the Excepter said before) upon a wretched foundati­on of his own laying. Ib. He pull'd down the censure upon himself, by giving most just occasion for it. Secondly, it was spoken of him as a Witness chiefly. As a Wit­ness in that Case where the Excepter was concern'd. And witnesses, we know, may be canvass'd and lookt into, as well as what they say. They may be sifted, and explored, and spoken against too; if they give in false evidence, instead of true. Thirdly, it was spoken with this Caution, not to disparage Anaxagoras, Ib. p. 185. but only to signify—that in any dark or doubtful opinion, we have no reason—to lay the stress of our belief upon his Au­thority, — contrary to the whole World of the Learned. Fourthly, Pliny pass'd an heavier Censure upon him, which hitherto was never said to be rude. For speak­ing of Anaxagoras, and this stone which he phantsied fell out of the Sun: Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 58. Farewel the knowledge of Natures works, says he, and welcome confusion of all, in case we should believe it. And how could he possibly reflect more highly upon an eminent Philosopher, than to make him the Author of such an Assertion, or to make him the Patron of such an opinion; as if People had believ'd it, would have let confusion into the World, by banishing natural Philosophy out of it? Is not this a more rugged Censure, than saying he was a man as like to be Heterodox, as any of the learned Ancients? Yet who ever call'd it Rude?

But how extravagant soever Pliny thought him, the Answerer takes him to be very excusable. And ac­cordingly offers to make his excuse two ways. First, by saying, that we are not to imagine, Answ. p. 34. that all the opini­ons of the ancient Philosophers, are truly conveyed to us. And so the Earth's Inclination or its changed Position, which he conceives to be the Opinion of several Philo­sophers; may be nothing but a falsity, or misrepresent­ed [Page 72] Notion of theirs. Secondly, by saying, that his Assertion of a Stone that fell from the Sun, cannot be literally true. Ib. And therefore like a witty Mytholo­gist, he interprets it of the Incrustation of a fixt star, and its descent into the lower World. But did ever any star come down so low, as to rest upon the Earth? Or did ever any star lie to be seen and wondred at by a Rivers side? Plutar. Lysand. Or could the smallest fixt star be con­tained in Thracia? Or would it amount to no bigger bulk or burthen, than might be carry'd at one Wag­gon-load? Pliny. Or can a Star intrusted with maculaes come out of the Sun? Yet all these Circumstances (besides the generating of Stars out of stones, which is capable of no very clever Mythological Exposition) belong to Anaxagoras's monstrous Assertion, according to the account that is given us of it. And if it be not truly his; and if it be not literally true: let the Answer­er blame Plutarch and Laertius for making it so. But they two are the very authors out of whole Books he cites his Testimonies, for the Earth's changing of its Position. And we only bring in a third Person, tel­ling the same story (of this stony fiery fallen star) for a literal truth; namely Pliny. And his Authority can­not but help much to confirm the thing, he being well known to be no trivial Writer.

But does not the Answerer forget himself in this case? Is there not a greater than Anaxagoras here? What thinks he of Moses? We might fill many Pages with his glorious Character, and yet come short of his real worth. Let us only note that Encomium therefore which the H. GHOST bestows upon him; where for his Excellency, he compares the very Mes­siah to him, Act. 3.22. A Prophet shall the LORD your GOD raise up unto you, like unto me. That is, for Wisdom, Miracles, &c. Now is not the Theorist [Page 73] more rude to this great and illustrious Prophet; than the Excepter was to the aforesaid Philosopher? The Excepter only noted Anaxagoras's Doctrine, as delivered to the World by unexceptionable Pens; and made a just Observation upon it, more mild, or less severe, than a considerable Author (upon the same Passage) had made before him. But the Theorist confronted the inspired Doctrine of Moses; and that not only by im­plied, but also by explicit contradiction, in sundry in­stances. For Moses teaches, Gen. 1.16. that GOD made Two great Lights. The Theorist argues that he made but one, Eng. Theor. p. 241. by doubting of and disputing against the Presence of the Moon in the first World. Moses, in his Cosmo­poeia, treats of Light, of Stars, of the Soul of man, Gen. 1.3. v. 16. Gen. 2.7. v. 1. Subjectum au­tem Geneseos Mosaicae, &c. Theor. Edit. 2. p. 234. Eng. Theor. p. 288. Gen. 4.22. and of the Host of the Heavens. The Theorist averrs, that the Subject of his Genesis is the Chaos, and that most confus'd and earthly; and the things made out of this Chaos and related to it as a Center. Moses teaches, that GOD gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea, as He did, over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. The The­orist makes it one Vital or Primary Assertion of his Hy­pothesis; Eng. Theor. p. 244. that the Primitive Earth was without Moun­tains, or a Sea. Moses assures us, that Tubal Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron. The Theorist says, that in the first Earth they had no Me­tals nor Minerals, as he believed. Are not these plain Contradictions of Moses? Yet the Replicant does not say that they were Rude ones. Tho whether they are not more Rude and Groundless, than the Excepter's Cen­sure of Anaxagoras was; let the Ingenuous and Impar­tial, judge. And besides, in his English Theory (p. 288.) he puts this amongst the Vital Assertions of it. That neither Noah 's flood, nor the present Form of the Earth, can be explain'd in any other method that is rational, [Page 74] nor by any other causes that are intelligible. And speak­ing of the Ancient Earth and Abyss (p. 93.) he de­livers himself thus. If they were in no other Form, nor other state than what they are under now, the expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning them are very strange and inaccountable, without any sufficient ground, or any just occasion for such uncouth representations. Some perhaps may see as much rudeness here, as in any thing that the Excepter said of Anaxagoras. And should absolute strangers to his Religion read this Author: they might possibly be apt to think, from many pas­sages in his books, that instead of believing these sacred Writers in several Matters; he designs to confute them. And should they at the same time be strangers to these Writers too, they might be apt to think also that they deserve to be confuted, or that they were not worth confuting. For to say that their representations of things are uncouth, and that their Expressions are occasi­onless and groundless, and very strange, and inaccounta­ble; is the same thing as to say that they writ non­sense. These are our Authors words: and if we will believe him (who must needs know best) he finds no reason to alter his Opinion in any one particular. And when he can thus express himself of sacred Writers, because their Doctrines differ from his Notions: is he not like to be thought by some, to be as deep in the dirt of rudeness, as the Excepter is in the mire, for saying what he did of an heathen Author?

To the Philosophers, the Answerer says, he might have added the Testimonies of Poets, who tell us of a perpetual Spring. And particularly he quotes Ovid for it. But if his Evidence must be admitted, it is but reason that we should have the whole of it. And if we take it in its full latitude, there is nothing more contrary to the Assertions of the Theory, than that. For as af­ter [Page 75] that Testimony of his, ver erat Aeternum, Answ. p. 35. &c. there was a perpetual Spring; he says, ‘Flumina jam Lactis, jam flumina Nectaris ibant.’

Sometimes Rivers flowed with Milk, sometimes with Nectar: so before it, he speaks many things, Metamor. l. 1. in initio. perfectly destructive to the Doctrine of the Theory. For he tells, that in the Beginning, and even before man was created; some Deity or other made Seas; such Seas as had Shores, and were tossed with Winds, and so were open Seas.

Then he says there were Valleys, and Stony Mountains.

And tells us farther, that at the same time, there were two Zones of the five, covered with deep Snows. And that there were not only Mists but Clouds, and dread­ful Thunders, and cold Winds, with Lightnings.

So that if he spake one word for the Theory, he spake many against it. And therefore it had been bet­ter that he had said nothing; and that the Answerer had wav'd this Testimony of his.

Answ. p. 36.In the next place he brings in the Christian Father's Character of Paradise, in proof of his perpetual praedi­luvian Equinox. And this Character he takes from Bel­la [...]mine, De Grat. prim. hom cap. 12. who delivers it in these words. Paradisus ita describitur a Sancto Basilio, &c. Paradise is so describ'd by S. Basil, in his Book of Paradise; by John Damascen in his second Book of the Faith, and the eleventh Chapter; By S. Austin in the fourteenth book of the City of GOD, and the tenth Chapter; by Alchimus Avitus, and Clau­dius Marius Victor, and others above cited; by Isidore in his fourteenth book of Etymologys, and third Chapter; and others commonly: as if in it there were a perpetual Spring, no colds, no heats, no rains, snows, hails, also no clouds; which very thing the Scripture signifies, when it says the first of mankind were naked in Paradise. We reply. First, that the Cardinal who here summs up the Evidence of these Witnesses, as a Judge; did him­self pronounce Extravagant things in the Case. And therefore no wonder if he picks up, and brings in such kind of Testimonies, as may be somewhat sutable to his own He believed that the waters of the Flood came not into Para­dise; But that Enoch was kept alive there when the Earth was drowned; and that he and Elias do dwell together there now, and shall continue to do so, till such time as they come from thence to oppose Antichrist. vid. Cap. 14. De Grat. prim. hom. De grat. prim. hom. Cap. 12. Answ. p. 37. Notions. Secondly, the Testimonies brought in by his own Pen, he blots out again with his own hand. For speaking of Bede's opinion, that Paradise was a place as high as the Moon; (which he makes the opinion of Bridefert rather, who glossed upon Bede) he says, that the Author of that opi­nion, was pleased to make use of an Hyperbole; that by the heighth of that, Paradisi excellentiam demonstra­ret, he might set forth the excellency of Paradise. Quem­idmodum intelligimus verba Sancti Basilii, &c. After the same manner that we understand the words of S. Basil— of John Damascen, — of Alchimus Avitus, &c. And when what they said was Hyperbolical; to the Theory's purpose it cannot be material.

After this he attaques the two Queries made by the [Page 77] Excepter against the praediluvian Equinox. The First was this. Disc. p. 185. Would it (in likelihood) have continued till the Flood? For the water of the Abyss being in pro­cess of time exhausted, and the exterior Earth hanging hollow over an empty space round it; by being pendu­lous and oblong, the waters upon that Earth abounding (for some reasons given) more at one Pole of it, Disc. p. 187. than at the other: might have sunk or sway'd down that Pole which was overcharged. To this the Answerer opposes; P. 37. the Waters were not more rarifi'd towards one Pole, than towards another. And we never said or thought they were. But in his English Theory we read (p. 229.) that the Current (of the waters from the Poles) might in some places rest and be stopt; and then it would spread it self into Lakes, and rise till it grew to such an heighth, as to be able by its force or weight, to overflow and break loose again, before it could pass farther. Now in case the Current might thue be stopt, and the obstruction be so great as to cause the Waters to swell into Lakes; how easily might there be more or greater Lakes near to one of the Poles than the o­ther? And so how easily would the overweight of wa­ter have sunk the Earth down at the praeponderating Pole, tho the Waters were no more rarify'd there than at the other? That therefore being wide of the Mark he should have hit; he sends another Arrow after it, taken out of the Quiver of Philosophy. Ib. The empty space betwixt the exterior Region of the Earth, and the Abyss below, would be fill'd with such gross vapors, that it would be little purer than water: and would stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphaere that is carried about with it. But this shaft also, tho levell'd more directly at it, misses the intended Scope. For if those Vapours were but a little purer than water, yet look how much they were so, and so much the weaker they [Page 78] would be, and less able to keep the pendulous Earth in its Aequilibrious or even posture. And that grossest Vapours are very much purer or thinner than water, is evident from hence; that they cannot sustain or buoy up a piece of light Cork; whereas upon waters, ships of greatest Burthen float and swim. And tho the At­mosphaere be carried about with the Earth; yet if that were inclosed with an oblong or Oval Orb of Earth; this Orb would not sit half so fast and steddy upon that Sphaere of Vapours, as it would do upon a Sphaere of Waters: the Consistency of Water being many times as thick again, as any Mass of Vapours can be, in their natural Constitution.

The Second Query is this. Granting there was such an Equinox in the first World, Disc. p. 187. Would not the na­tural day, towards the latter end of that World, have been longer, than in the former periods of the same? Yet 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 apiece. Whereas, says the Ex­cepter, had Days been grown longer, fewer of them would have made a Month. This, says the Answerer, is a meer Blunder. And he proves it thus. If thirty days were to go to a Month, Answ. p. 28. whether the days were longer or shorter, there must be thirty of them; and the Scrip­ture does not determine the length if the days. Tho Scripture does not limit or account for the length of days expresly, yet it does it implicitly, and withal very plainly and intelligibly. For it 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 numbers of days. For how could there be just twelve [Page 79] Months in the Year, at the time of the Deluge, and thirty days in each of those Months; if days then had not consisted, as they do now, of four and twenty hours a piece? And as Providence has so ordered Na­ture, that days (which depend upon its Diurnal moti­on) should be measured by Circumgyrations of the Earth: So it has order'd likewise that Months (which depend upon its Annual Motion) should be measured by its progress in the Heavens. And as it has so suted these Motions, that the Earth, while it makes a Month, by running from one Sign in the Zodiack to another; should turn about thirty times upon its own Axis, and thereby make so many Days: So it has ta­ken care, that each of these Circumrotations should be perform'd in four and twenty hours, and consequently that every day should be just so long; that thirty of them (in way of round reckoning) might compleat a Month. But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge (by such causes as the Excepter suggested) so that every day had consisted of thirty hours, suppose: it is manifest that fewer than thirty days (they being longer than former­ly) must have made a Month. Because then before the Earth could have turned round thirty times; she would have been translated, by her progressive motion, from one Celestial Constellation to another; and so the Month would have been consummated. But to talk, as the Answerer does, that the Month should be lengthened by the days being so; is a fearful Blunder indeed. Tho as luck will have it still, it falls upon him­self. For let the days (by slackning of 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; the very thing objected.

The Answerer therefore need not have been so offi­cious, as to undertake to teach the Excepter to speak: which he was pleased to do in these Words. Answ. p. 30. 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. The An­swerer it seems, had such a confused thought in his mind; but the Excepter ('tis plain) was clear from it. And truly had he been guilty of it, he should have counted it a Meer Blunder. For how could the Month be longer, for the Earth's Circumgyrations being slower; when the Month was measured by such a motion of the Earth, as would have continu'd as swift as ever, tho its Circumgyrations had been never so slack? The Moon never turns circularly upon her own Center, to make days and nights; and yet she makes regular Months and Years by her Periodical and Synodical Courses. And had the Circumgyrations of the Earth been never so swift at the Deluge, or had they been never so slow, or had they been none at all; still the Months would have been the same that they were; and neither longer nor shorter. Tho then indeed they could not have consisted of so many days and nights, following each other in an orderly succession; because through want of the Earth's Diurnal motion, there would have been no such vicissitude of them.

And since the Answerer took upon him to tell the Excepter what he had in his mind, as he supposed: the Replicant, in requital of his kindness, as well as in imitation of his Patern; may suggest to him what he should have had in his thoughts. When he said, if thirty days were to go to a Month, whether the days were longer or shorter, there must be thirty of them: he should have considered, that these thirty days were to be of such a length just, as that that Number of them might [Page 81] make a Solar Month. For supposing them either long­er or shorter than so, they could not be such days as the Scripture speaks of; because thirty of them still made such a Month. Whereas if they had been short­er, as there must have been more; so if they had been Longer, fewer would have done it. And thus the Answerer's design of throwing a Blunder upon the Ex­cepter, is quite defeated: and while he made an awk­ward Blow at him, he only struck and wounded himself.

Yet the Dust he here raises, can neither hide the Objection which the Excepter made; nor yet so blind the Reader's eyes, as that he should not see it remains unanswered. For after all, if the Contiguity of the Sphaere of the Exterior Earth with the Abyss, ceased; by reason the Waters of the Abyss were exhaled: that Sphaere of the Earth must be carried about with less Celerity than before it was. Especially if the Moon came late into the Earth's Neighbourhood; which be­ing an heavy Luggage in the outward part of the Earth's Vortex; like a Clog hang'd upon the Rim of a Wheel, would make it turn more slowly, as the Ex­cepter objected.

But because we have hinted, that Scripture gives us to understand, that there were twelve Months in the Antediluvian year, and thirty days in each of those Months; it will not be amiss to conclude this Chapter, with showing how Scripture makes the things out. In the eighth of Genesis then, and the fifth verse, it informs us, that the waters decreased until the tenth Month. And after this, that at the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark, v. 6th. And that he stayed yet other seven days, and sent forth the Dove, v. 10th. And that he stayed yet other seven days, and sent forth the Dove again, v. 12th. Which fifty four [Page 82] days following the first day of the tenth Month, on which the tops of the Mountains were seen, v. 5th. show that there must be twelve months in the year; and indeed they make them up so many, bating five days, which we must suppose were still to run out, be­fore the first Month of the next year came in, v. 13th. And then it shows that there were thirty days in each Month. For first we find twenty seven days in one Month in this Chapter, v. 14th. And as we read in the Seventh Chapter, the Waters prevailed upon the Earth one hundred and fifty days, v. 24th. Yet they began to come in, the seventeenth day of the second month, v. 11th. and they began to decrease by the se­venteenth day of the seventh month. Chap. 8th. v. 3d. Whence it is plain that the hundred and fifty days made just five months, during which the Waters pre­vailed; and so every month must consist of thirty days.

CHAP. IX.

IN the beginning of this Chapter, relating to the Oval Figure of the first Earth; he goes about to re­ctify a Principle of the Excepter's: Answ. p. 38. That terrestrial Bodies have a nitency inwards or downwards towards their Central point. But let this be understood of Self-centred and Quiescent Earthly Bodies; and the Assertion will need no Rectification. And so the Ex­cepter really meant it should be understood. For he was not yet come to Consider the Mass upon which the Primitive Earth was founded, as turning upon its own Center; See Disc. p. 190. but was going on towards the Consideration.

The Waters of that Mass (Globular at first) rising up above the Aequator, by its gyration upon its own Axis: became oval (and so made the Earth of that Fi­gure) [Page 83] defluendo ad latera, Disc. p. 193, 194. Answ. p. 39. by flowing down at the sides of the Globe. So the Theorist said at first. To this word the Excepter spake so home, that the Answerer, we see, was almost angry, by the Reflections he makes. We will therefore touch that tender place no more, for fear of giving farther Provocation. And we the rather for­bear to press upon it, because the Answerer, we find, is sensible it is sore, by the Plaister he is fain to apply to it. For now he has explain'd that word by another, as he tells us; namely, Detrusione. Ib. Let us therefore to the Thing. Only in our passage to it, it will not be amiss to observe his humour. When he was fain to flinch, and forc'd thus to shift from one word to another; he falls upon the Excepter with a causeless censure of Pedantry and little triumphs. He resolves, that is, to shoot Powder, where he wants Bullets: and at the same time that he gives Ground, he will be as fierce as if he gain'd it. Very pleasant to see to! that he who blamed strong Passions as producing weak Argu­ments; should thus, by his Anger, show his Impo­tence. But we are to consider the Thing.

And here the Answerer interrogates; Ib. 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? Without all Question they may: provided that force and detrusion be of power sufficient to compel them to ascend, against the Princi­ple of their natural Gravity, and such extrinsic acciden­tal Obstacles, as may chance to lye in their way and hinder them. But what then? He goes on: Ib. This is the case we are speaking to. They were impell'd to ascend, or recede from the Center, and it was easier for them to ascend laterally, than to ascend directly: upon an inclin'd Plain, than upon a perpendicular one. This assertion wants a great deal of Proof. For that the Waters of the Chaos, [Page 84] should, through the Circumgyration of it, rise or as­cend any way, is very improbable: as being bound down by the circumambient Air, which is carried about therewith. Fill a sphaerical Glass with water, and then turn it swiftly upon its own Center. However the water in this Glass, may have a strong and constant Conatus (during that its Motion) towards rising up: yet certain it is, the Glass that contains it, would keep it from swelling out beyond those Bounds to which it self confines it. In like manner, the Body of the Air (in which at that time, was the whole matter of the Exterior Earth diffused, surrounding the entire Element of the Water; would have kept that from actual rece­ding from the Center; tho it were impregnated with a conatus that way. 'Tis confess'd, if we take a Globe and turn it round swiftly; Water, or Sand, if we lay either upon it, will fly off it violently. And one reason is, because the ambient Air does not turn with this Globe: but gliding close upon its wheeling Surface, by a renitency against it, sweeps off whatever lies loose upon it. But were the Air about it, carried round with it; the lightest things, that lye loosest on its Superficies, would rest there unmoved; supposing it the proper Center of their Gravity. And for the same reason, finest Dust lies undisturb'd, even upon the tops of highest Moun­tains; tho they whisk about with such celerity, as no humane Art and strength can imitate. And if the Earth's Rotation, as rapid as it is, cannot cause small Dust to rise from Hills, in way of recession from the Center: much less could it produce that great effect upon the Mass of Water; which as it was a vast and ponderous Body, so it couched the closer to the Earth under it.

And the truth is, as to a competent or sufficient Cause of the Wate 's supposed Rise or Ascent; we are yet at a loss. For the Cause assigned, is Detrusion; De­trusion [Page 85] made by the superambient Air. Answ. p. 39. Methinks the Observator might have conceiv'd this Detrusion of waters towards the Poles, by the resistance of the superambient Air. But now if this Cause fail'd, and was not able to detrude the Waters at the Equinoctial, where they were to be thrust down: Or, which is worse, if it be sound a more effectual Cause to detrude them at the Poles, where they were to rise up: what then becomes of this Assertion we ore upon: or of that Essential of the Theory it relates to; the Oval form of the Primitive Earth? Yet in Reality thus it was. The Air that should have depress'd or thrust down the Waters, at the Aequator of the liquid Globe; was more dispos'd to do it at its Polar parts. For the Sun moving always in the Equinoctial of that Globe; the Air there­abouts must needs be very hot; and so, very thin; and so, very yielding; and so, less able to resist and detrude the Waters. And on the contrary, the Sun being always very distant from the Poles; the Air in those parts must needs be more cold: and so, more thick, and so, more stiff and heavy; and so, more fit to make Resistance and Detrusion there, than any where else. Yet see the unluckiness of this contrivance: the Waters were to rise higher there, much higher at the Poles, where the Air would most resist them; and to be thrust down lowest at the Aequa­tor, by the Air, where it could least depress them. And if by the Air's Resistance, be meant any thing else, but a meer Detrusion arising from its natural weight (which, as is said, had most force to keep the Waters down, where it was most needful they should have risen up) such a Resistance cannot be conceived; con­sidering that the whole Mass of the Air was carried about in Circumgyration with the Globe of Water. The Deserts of Biledulgerid, Lybia, &c. lie betwixt [Page 86] the Aequator and our Northern Tropic; and so within the compass of that Latitude, where the Waters of the liquid Globe, should have felt a Resistance of the Air. But what reason have we to believe they did so, when the light or running Sands there, are no more ruffled, or in the least stirred by such Resistance; than if they were a crust of Flint or Adamant? and the like may by said of Mare del Zur. It lies under the Line, and so in the Equinoctial part of this Terraqueous Globe. Which being there of the biggest Circumference, it must turn thereabouts most swiftly, and so cause the greater resistance of the Air (were there any such thing) and that would produce as great a disturbance in the Wa­ter. But on the contrary, so quiet, and still, and smooth, and even, is this vast Ocean; that it is called the Pacific Sea. And if these spatious Waters, so exactly fitted for this Resistance, both by their situ­ation, and immensely wide and far extended Surface; feel nothing of it now, why should or how could the waters of the Abyss do it at first? No, the Air resisted and detruded then, but as it does now: That is, so far as its own Gravity caused a Compression. Which as it was gentle, so it was general; comparing the entire Globe at once with a soft constringency. Only there was reason (as we have shewed) why this compression should be lightest at the Equinoctial, and why it should be heaviest at the Poles of the Globe; and why it could not make such Resistance, or Detrusion, as is imputed to the Air. In short. If it did make Re­sistance; either it was gentle, and would only have rim­pled the Surface of the turning Waters (as the Subsola­nus does, which blows constantly about the Equator) and so would not have been of force sufficient to de­press them into an oval Figure: or else it was violent; and so would have discompos'd the Abyss so much, [Page 87] that the Earth could never have been founded upon it. And truly what less than such a violence as would so have discompos'd it, could alter the Figure of it?

But yet that there neither was, nor could be such a violent resistance made by the Air, as to detrude the Waters of the Chaotic Mass; may, I think be demon­strated from the Motion of the Moon. Her Distance from hence in her Perigee, or nearest approach to us, is about 51 Semidiameters of the Earth: in her Apogee, or farthest remove from us, about 65. To take a mo­derate or middling Distance therefore betwixt both, let us suppose her always 56 of those Semidiameters off us. And then let us suppose again, that she per­forms her Periodical Circuit in 28 Days; tho she does it in less. Now she absolving her Circuit at 56 Semi­diameters distance from the Earth, in 28 Days; in case She were but 28 Semidiameters distant, which is but half the Space; she must do it in 14 Days, which is but half the time. And so were she distant but 14 Se­midiameters; she must do it consequently in 7 Days. According to which proportion, the Air towards the Earth, at the heighth of one Semidiameter above it, must wheel about as fast as the Earth it self does, to the space of half a Day. Now every Semidiameter of the Earth containing, says Mr. Rohault (Tract. Phys. par. 2. cap. 12.) near 1431 Leagues; or 4293 English Miles: hence it will follow, that the Air at the heighth of 2146 Miles, turns about as fast as the Earth, bating but 6 Hours. And at the heighth of 1073 Miles, as fast as that, bating 3 Hours. And so at the heighth of 357 Miles (to avoid fractions) to one Hour. Which divide into 60 parts, because in an Hour there are 60 Minutes; and the Air at the heighth of 6 Miles, must turn as fast as the Earth (in round reckoning) to the space of one Minute. And (if we drive down the Ac­count [Page 88] so low) at 3 quarters of a Miles heighth, it must turn as fast, to the eighth part of a Minute. And so just on its Surface, even with it. And when the Air encompassing the Earth, does thus conspire and circu­late with it in its Gyration; how could it possibly re­sist the Waters of the turning Abyss, so as to change their figure, from Sphaerical, to Oval?

Nor will the Answerer's Simile help here, unless it be to aggravate the thing against himself. He thinks this Detrusion of the Waters may be conceived, Answ. p. 39. as well as their flowing towards and upon the Shores, by the pressure of the Air under the Moon. And so indeed it may, by those that can conceive the Air alone to be as heavy in it self; as that and the Moon are both to­gether. But who in reason can conceive this?

And to say it was easier for waters to ascend laterally, than directly; to ascend upon an inclin'd Plain, than a perpendicular one: is vain in this case. For what real Inclination could there be on a Globe, towards the Poles, more than at the Equator; every point of whose Superficies is Equidistant from the Center? And how could the Ascent of Waters at the Poles of a Globe, be other than Direct and perpendicular; when its Polar parts are always as much a Plain, as its Aequi­noctial ones can possibly be? So that to suppose waters could ascend more easily at the Poles, than at the Aequator of the Chaotic Abyss; is in effect to suppose, that they could ascend perpendicularly more easily than they could ascend perpendicularly. For at the Poles they were to ascend as directly as at the Aequi­noctial; (the waters being exactly globular at first, till by this supposed ascent they grew oval.) Only there they must have met with these two Disadvantages, which at the Equinoctial they were free from. First, (as we have hinted already) a more cold, and thick [Page 89] and stark Air. Which we may be sure would crowd them down at the Poles; because an Air more warm, and fine, and soft, and open, is presum'd to do it at the Aequator. Secondly, a weaker Spring or power to impel them. For in the Middle of the turning Globe, there was a Conatus or tendency of the Waters towards receding from the Center; but at the Sides of it, none at all. So that at the sides they were to rise, by that Conatus or Nitency in the Middle. And if a thin and open Air could prevail against that force, in its direct and primary efforts at the Aequinoctial; how much more would a thicker, closer Air have overpowred it, where it could be exerted but obliquely, remote­ly, and as it were at second hand: at the Poles of the Abyss?

From what has been said, it will follow; that with­out a better Defence of this Vital Assertion of the The­ory, its whole Hypothesis will fall to the Ground, for want of an Oval Earth to support it. And whereas the Answerer in the Close of his 14th. Chapter, makes this Reflection. Some men, they say, though of no great valour, yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall: So the Excepter, behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: He may please to take notice, that (tho it be much better fighting behind the Wall of a Text, than against it) the Excepter is here behind no such Wall: but ingages him in the open field of Reason and Philosophy, and doubts not but to keep his Post. That is, if he does not run to his First Expedient (as his wont is) and turn the great Artillery of Extraor­dinary Providence upon him, before which there is no standing. For that mows down the best Argu­ments, and makes a Lane through them; as Chain­shot does through a Company of the bravest Souldiers, tho they fight never so well, and have all imaginable [Page 90] Right on their side. But then he must desert his Hy­pothesis again (as he has often done;) and the World knows what he is that runs from his Colours: One, they say, of no great Valour. But truly if it be mat­ter of reproach to a man, to fight behind a Text of Scri­pture; the Excepter desires that it may always stick close to him. To adhere to the divine and holy Word, and to oppose error by revealed truth; he thinks is far enough from Cowardise. Blessed be GOD that we have such a wall as His Scripture is, behind which, to fight against Truth's Enemies.

Yet in this very Instance of forming an Oval Earth, he flies to the help of Extraordinary Providence, and thereby turns this necessary and indispensable Notion of the Air's resistance or detrusion, quite out of doors. I mean by a certain Dilemma of his own, brought in in the second Page of his Answer. I apply it to him in his own words. 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. And so you must not take that Hypothesis, because as you your self own, in the fifth page of your Answer, Scripture tell us that the Earth was form'd the third day. But if according to an extraordinary, you may suppose it made in six minutes. But then the Resistance or Detrusion of the Air, could not make the Waters oval, that the Earth might be so. For that being an ordinary, natural Cause (supposing it could be a cause) would have required much more time than six days, for the production of such an Effect. And consequent­ly this Resistance, or Detrusion, is made vain here and utterly useless by your self.

But if against the Answerer's concession of an extra­ordinary [Page 91] or miraculous efficiency here, we should sup­pose an oval Earth to be made in a natural way; and that in order thereunto a globular Abyss were to be form'd into an oval figure: yet how could this be done according to the rule or method of the Theory? For if the Waters of the Chaos, by receding from the Cen­ter, did rise up at the Equinoctial part of it, and above fall off towards the Poles: then underneath there must be a draught of Waters back again from the Poles to­ward the Equinoctial; which continuing to rise there, might push or drive on the stream towards the Poles, that otherwise would not hold on its motion; foras­much as it flowed on a true Globe, the surface of which is equivalent to a Plain, where Waters never flow but by force or impulse. And yet if such counter-motions as these be allowed to those Waters, they might thus flow and reflow for ever, without producing the de­sign'd effect. For the draught of Waters below to­wards the Equinoctial, would draw in the liquid Mass at the Poles, and so hinder its growing into an oblong or oval figure; as much as the Drift of them above to­wards the Poles could swell them out there, and so help towards the same.

The first Argument against the Oval Figure of the Earth, was its inconvenient Position, which would have followed thereupon. For then it must have lain cross the vehicular Stream, by which it was carried round the Sun; and have been directed not unlike to Ships sailing side-ways: and so it could not have kept that Position long, but must have chang'd its Site in com­pliance with the duct or tendency of that Current wherein it swam. In answer to this it is suggested; that such a posture as lying cross the Stream, would be more likely to effect the Earth's turning upon its own axis, as it does. And the Stream would take more hold [Page 92] of an oblong Body, than of a round. (Answ. p. 40.) And because it would take more hold of it, for that very rea­son it would the sooner turn it out of its Position. For what makes the force of a stream, turn a long Body that lies cross it; sooner than another as long, which already lies length-ways in it; but only its taking more hold of it? And then as to the Earth's turning upon its own axis, it would rather have promoted than prevented the change of its situation; considering its wallowings in its Annual Circuit. For where a Body has two Motions upon the same Center, if one of them chances to be irregular; the other commonly disorders it farther, rather than helps to correct its Exorbitance. Somewhat like a Bowl, which being not set out of hand right; the oftner it turns round in its progressive mo­tion, the farther it runs on in a wrong Course.

The second Argument against the Oval Figure of the first Earth, Disc. p. 196. is the Sphaericalness of the present Earth. And that the present Earth is Sphaerical, is not only the Opinion of Modern, but also of Ancient Philoso­phers, said the Excepter; and he named some. But the Theorist, Answ. p. 40. says the Answerer, alledg'd many more Authorities in favour of the Oval Figure of the Earth. For besides Empedocles in particular, he affirms that the Philosophy of Orpheus, the Phoenician, Aegyptian, and Persian Philosophers, did all compare the Earth to an Egg, with respect to its Oval External Form. Here we must reply, Another un­truth. 1st, That this is another very false Assertion. For those Philosophers made the comparison betwixt the World and the Egg, not betwixt the Earth and the Egg (tho our Author would put that sense upon them.) Only two of the Authorities cited by him, Lat. Theor. Edit. 2. p. 267. resemble the Earth to the Yolk of the Egg very unluckily; for that, we know, is of a round Figure. 2ly, Where the Ancients compare the World to an Egg, they do it [Page 93] usually with respect to its Production, as well as to its Form. A Notion which the Answerer, or any Theist, would be loth to admit of; that Heaven, and Earth, and all things therein, should spring out of a material Egg. A pregnant Instance of this, occurs in Athena­goras (which upon occasion we noted formerly) who tells us, that Orpheus (the Author, we may suppose, Legat. pro Christ. pa. (mihi) 72. Disc. p. 105. Sympos. l. 2. Qu. 3. of the Doctrine of the Mundane Egg; for Plutarch calls it▪ [...], the Orphic Doctrine) taught; that a vast Egg brought forth by Hercules, being broke by him, fell into two parts. Of the upper part, Heaven was made; and of the lower, the Earth. (So that Heaven was con­tained in, and sprung out of this Egg, as well as the Earth.) And then, [...], &c. Heaven being mingled with Earth, brought forth Men, Women, and GODS. And what is this less (tho the Gentil Divinity was tinctur'd with it) than a piece of rankest Atheistic Physiology? For it makes Mankind and Gods, to rise out of meer Matter, without allowing such a Princi­ple as Soul or Spirit to any one of them. And this Egg, out of which Aristophanes will have [...], In Avib. the Race of Gods to be hatched, as well as mortal and inanimate Creatures; was layed, he says, by Chaos and Night. And so gives us a plain account of the old Atheistic Theology; which made [...], and [...], the Production of the Gods, and the Production of the World, the same thing. Yet the Theorist was pleased to show, Vid. Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 7. & 10. Edit. 2. that between this Doctrine, and his, there is an Harmony or Affinity. Which if it will conciliate Reputation to his Hypothesis, let it. But so far as it agrees with the Aristophanic or Atheistic Cosmogony; so far it will be the less recon­cilable to the Mosaic Cosmology, or inspired Doctrine of the Creation.

Disc. p. 197.The Sphaericalness of this present Earth was argued; First, from the Conical Figure of its shadow cast upon the Moon. Answ p. 41. But that, says the Answerer, cannot make a Difference, sensible to us at this distance, whether the Body that cast the shadow was exactly Sphaerical or Oval. This is gratis dictum, and spoken against a common and approved Argument; and so of little weight.

Secondly, It was inferred from the place of the Wa­ters. Which are deepest, so far as we know, near the Poles: whereas were the Earth Oval, the middle Re­gions thereof being lowest, the Waters would have run thither, and settled under the Aequator. But this, he tells us, has been answer'd before. The same Cause that drive the Waters thither, would have kept them there. And that Answer has been reply'd to already: and the Replicant has shewed, that there was no sufficient Cause to drive the Waters thither; and so none to keep them there.

Thirdly, It was urged, That if this Earth was Oval, Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of Sailing up an Ascent. But, says the Answerer, If there be a continual draught of Waters from the Aequator towards the Poles, this will Ballance the Difficulty. But if there be no such draught, the difficulty holds: and that there is such a Draught, remains to be proved.

That the Figure of this Earth is truly Sphaerical, is fairly discovered and determin'd by this Observation. That the Gibbosity of the Sea rises as fast behind a Ship Sailing in direct Latitude, towards the Poles: as be­hind one whose course lies in direct Longitude, towards East or West.

CHAP. X.

THE Excepter proved that Mountains were before the Flood, from the words of Moses, Psal. 90. Read Disc. c. 10. § 1. Before the Mountains were brought forth—Thou art GOD from everlasting. And from Pro. 8.22, 25. where we read, that the LORD possessed WISDOM,— before the Mountains were settled. And the Answerer grants, that the design and intention of the H. GHOST is plain in both these places: in the one, Answ. p. 43 [...] to set out the Eternity of GOD; and in the other, of the Logos in particular. Now where it was the design and intention of the H. GHOST, to set out the Existence of GOD and the Divine Logos, which were from everlasting, by tem­poral things; would he do it by any but such as were soonest brought into being? Or would Moses himself, without the H. GHOST, have done it by any other things than such? Surely it would have been a very faint and improper Illustration of GOD's Eternity (un­becoming Moses, much more the H. SPIRIT) to say that he existed before the World was seventeen hun­dred years old. Yet when he said He was before the Mountains, what did he say less, if the Mountains were made in the time of the Flood: the World having stood above sixteen hundred and fifty years, before that came in?

And whereas the Answerer suggests, Ib. that the Psalm­ist's words might have a gradation in them from a lower Epocha to an higher; when he said, before the Mountains were brought forth, and the Earth and the World were made: Let him show when, and where, any such gradation was ever made use of, by an inspired Writer, to set out the Eternity of the EVERLASTING GOD. And whereas he adds, as for that place in Prov. 8. it [Page 96] would be very hard to reduce all those things that are mentioned there, (from ver. 22. to the 30) to the same time of existence: Let him show, if he pleases, why the things there mention'd, called GOD's Works of old, may not very easily be reduced (as to their first existence) within the time of the six days of Creation.

Disc. p. 202. Moses (the Excepter added) mentions lasting hills, and ancient Mountains, Deut. 33.15. But he would hardly have call'd them so had they risen at the Flood, because then they would have been but few ages older than himself; that is about seven hundred years. To this it is answered; the River Kishon is call'd the ancient River; Answ. p. 43. but I do not therefore think it necessary, that that brook should have been before the flood. Nor does he think it necessary that several other things should have been before the Flood. Yea, his Hypothesis makes it necessary that they should not then be. But does it follow ever the more from hence that they were not? He goes on. Things may very well deserve that Character of lasting, Ib. or ancient, tho they be of less antiquity than the Deluge; as lasting Pyramids, and ancient Babylon. But were the Mountains, supposing them made at the Flood, as last­ing and ancient in Moses's time; as the Pyramids and Babylon are now?

Disc. p. 205:The next Argument was drawn from the Mountains in the Moon. They, as we are told, are better than four times as high as the Mountains of the Earth. And therefore they seem to be her native Features, rather than Effects of her Dissolution. For had they been raised by her being dissolved, they could not have been so strangely over-proportion'd to the Mountains of the Earth, she being a much less Planet than that. And in case the Moon had Mountains from the beginning, why might not the Earth have so too?

Answ. p. 44. Tis easy to see, the Answerer says, that this is no [Page 97] good Argument. For besides that the Orb there might be more thick, all ruines do not fall alike. And 'tis as easy to see that this is no good Answer. For the Moon being more than forty times less than the Earth; the Chaos out of which She was formed at first, must be more than forty times less than the Earth's Chaos was: else she could never have been so little. For a larger Chaos would have contained more matter; and more matter would have made her Dimensions bigger. But if the Chaos out of which the Moon was made, was forty times less than that out of which the Earth arose; then its central Earth, together with its Abyss, and ex­terior Orb, must be so much less than the same parts of the Earth respectively were, as being made of In­gredients which were forty times less than theirs. And so the Orb of the Moon could not possibly be thicker than the Orb of the Earth; nor could its Mountains be higher than the Earths Mountains are, much less above four times higher, upon that account. And then as to the falling of its Ruines, if we allow it to have been done with all imaginable Advantages; which way could they have pil'd themselves up so much high­er than the ruines of the Earth? Especially if we consi­der that their Materials were alike (I speak of the primi­tive Bodies of the Earth and Moon) their Figures alike, and also the manner of their Dissolution. Only if we suppose the Earth to have been twenty thousand miles in perimeter; the Moon must be less than five hundred.

As to the Historical Arguments alledg'd in this case, he demands over and over why they were mention'd. But such Questions had an anticipative Answer made to them in our Discourse; and that excuses all farther reply. p. 207.

In the next place he falls upon the Excepter's Con­jecture about the Original of Mountain. And in this New Hypothesis as he calls it, Answ. p. 45, 46. he finds many palpable [Page 98] defects or oversights; whereof, he says, this is one of the grossest, that he supposes the Sun, by his heat, the third day to have raised the Mountains of the Earth; whereas the Sun was not created till the fourth day. But here he relapses into his wonted Infirmity of Mista­king egregiously. Another Mistake. For first the Excepter did not sup­pose that the Sun alone rais'd the Earth's Mountains. This plainly appears from what he said in his entrance upon the Conjecture. Disc. p. 208. That Nature might have a considerable stroke in the Work. And if Nature were to have but a considerable stroke in that work, the whole of it could not be done by the Sun. No, the main part of it was still to be effected by the hand of GOD. And the concurrence of his Power with the influence of the Sun, in producing Mountains, the Excepter ac­knowledged in these words. Disc. p. 209. Tho GOD could, and 'tis like did produce them another way; I will venture to guess HE might do it thus. So that still it was HE, that is, GOD, who thus produced the Mountains, not the Sun alone. And then follows an account how or wherein the Sun help'd forward this extraordinary Work; tho he must not be understood to accomplish the same by his own sole and proper efficiency; but as he was an Instrument in the hand of Omnipotence, and so inabled to do that which of himself▪ he could never have done. Tho I must add withal, that at that time he was capable of doing a great deal in this Work. For 1st, Perhaps he had then no Maculaes about him; which now swimming upon his face in great abun­dance, do check, and damp, and weaken his influence. 2dly, There being then a Fla [...]uous Moisture in the Earth, put into it on purpose to make it Heave; His piercing Beams soon gave it such an heat and agitation, as made it dilate it self with furious Rarefaction. 3ly, The Earth it self being then most light, and soft, and unctu­ous; [Page 99] was also of a more pliant yielding nature, and so more apt and easie to ascend. Lastly, The Pores of this Earth being then close shut; and the vehement Vapours rarefy'd within, having no other possible way to get out, but by elevating the Ground which lay upon them, and so confin'd and kept them down: no wonder if they threw it up with a mighty Force, and made it rise into many and prodigious inequalities. And these things are here mention'd the rather, as be­ing a full answer to a Question that is put. Namely, why we have no Mountains made now. Answ. p. 48. It might as well have been askt, Why does not the Fire make a down-bak'd Loaf swell and huff up; because it made it do so when it was Dough? But then it was a soft and puffy Mass; whereas since, it is hardned; and the strength of that Leaven, which was put into it, is wholly spent. And such is the changed State of the Earth. It is dried and hardned very much over what it was: and its Original fermentive flatulent Principle, designed to assist in blowing it up, is quite exhausted. And tho GOD himself did cooperate with the Sun, in the production of Mountains; yet still this Answer must be fully satisfactory, as to the Question propounded. For when subject matter grows indispos'd, or seconda­ry Causes flagg and fail: the first and great Cause most commonly stops, and ceases to act. GOD ordinarily limits his Almighty Power by the Creatures Capacity. And where he is pleas'd to make use of means, if those be wanting, he does nothing of himself; as being desti­tute of their concomitant Causality. And if He did not thus desist from acting, He must violate the Laws which he has given to Nature; and invert or dissolve that fixt Regularity, or methodical Order, that His Wisdom has appointed and establisht in the Universe. Thus, He gives us Fruits, but Plants bear them: He [Page 100] gives us Plants, but Rains nourish them: He gives us Rains, but Clouds disburse them: and those Clouds arise from Vapours; and those Vapours are exhal'd from the Earth; and that Exhalation is perform'd by the Sun. So that take but one Cause out of this whole Series of them, and this orderly train of Effects would cease, notwithstanding the Power of ALMIGHTY GOD; as depending secondarily upon the entireness of this chain of Causes, the agency of which must needs be sus­pended or finally stopt, upon the disjunction or inter­ruption of their effective connexion or concatenation. Thus also he gives Sight to Animals, but it is by their Eyes; He gives them hearing, but it is by their Ears: and if their Organs fail, their Senses must do so. In like manner he thought sit to give Mountains to the Earth; but then it was by imparting such an Habit to it, or by conferring such Qualities upon it, as might prepare and dispose it towards their Production. And those Qualities being perfectly altered; and that Habit decayed or destroyed: we are not now to expect that more Mountains should be raised. And tho we never suppos'd the Sun could make them alone; yet we hope it will be granted that GOD and the Sun could easi­ly do it. That They could raise the vastest Moun­tains of all, in the Northern parts of the Earth: Yea, even mighty Taurus it self. As in making Rivers, the Answer says (p. 15.) the Waters were accelerated by a divine hand; so in raising Mountains the Sun might be assisted by the same. But for the Excepter to have supposed that that, and other Mountains, were drawn up by the sole power of the Sun; would have been to run himself under the Dint of his own Invective against abusing Philosophy, Disc. p. 34. &c. by screwing it too high.

But Secondly; as the Answerer mistook greatly con­cerning the Thing: Another Mi­stake. so he mistook as greatly concerning [Page 101] the Time. For the Excepter was so far from supposing that the Sun did raise the Mountains on the third day: that he supposed them to issue forth into being, but as fast as Nature could permit. ib. p. 202. Not that they were pro­duced by a far distant succession neither (as he says in the same sentence) but all together; that is, in a short space of time, as fast as they could well be, one after another. And however the Earliest, that is to say, the Maritime Mountains, and such as were made with the Hollow of the Sea, must rise when that was sunk or depressed; yet touching the Inland ones, in raising which the Sun was cencern'd: he said, as plainly as he could speak, that in some Countries they were pro­duced earlier, and in some later. Ib. p. 208. And could he sup­pose then that the Sun by his heat, raised them the third day? How strange is it that an Answerer should thus run on in Mistaking? That having once got into the way of doing it, he should never know when to come out of it again? Surely by fair and just dealings with the Excepter, he had better consulted his own ease, as well as his Credit. For by making these false charges upon him, he occasion'd himself the trouble of spending most of this long Chapter, in confuting nothing? by things which he took to be plainly unanswerable. Answ. p. 4 [...]. For still we stand the ground of our Conjecture, and are like to abide unmoved by it. Namely, that Na­ture had a considerable stroke in making the Mountains; and tho GOD could, and tis like did produce them ano­ther way; yet He might do it partly by the instru­mental Efficiency of the Sun; raising the Inland ones some earlier, and some later; but all together as fast as Nature could permit. Tho when GOD caused the Sun to raise the Mountains, it was as he caused the Earth to bring forth Trees on the third day, Gen. 1.12. after the Waters were drained off it: that is by a special Bles­sing [Page 102] and Divine assistance. And so he might cause those Trees again to bring forth Fruits; and those Fruits to ripen by that time Adam was created; that so they might be in a readiness for his nourish­ment. And here it may be remembred that what the Excepter said in this matter, as to GOD's producing the Mountains by the instrumentality of the Sun; was but to humour Philosophy (Disc. p. 208.) and was meerly conjectural: I will venture to guess he might do it thus. (p. 209.)

The last argument to prove that there were Moun­tains in the First World, Disc. p. 215. was this. There were Metals in it; which are usually found at the Roots of Moun­tains. Answ. p. 49. And here he tells the Excepter, that he's hard put to it, to prove that the Theorist hath any where assert­ed, whatsoever he thought, that there were no Metals then. Yet he did prove it, and that so plainly, that the Answerer (if he considers) will be much harder put to it to deny it. The proof consists of his own words, cited out of the English Theory ( p. 244. Disc. p. 216.) As for subter­raneous things, Metals, and Minerals, I believe they had none in the first Earth: and the happier they; no Gold, nor Silver, nor Courser Metals. And then he proceeds to give Reasons why there could be none. And does not he that says, he believes there were no Metals in the Earth; and then gives Reasons why there could be none; and declares men were happier because there were none: assert that there were no Metals?

But that there were Metals before the Flood, was shewed from the Building of Noah's Ark; See Disc. c. 10. § ult. from the building of Cain's City; and from Tubal Cain's being an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron.

Answ. p. 49.To the First Instance it is answered. That Scripture does not mention Iron Tools in Building the Ark, but only Gopher Wood and Pitch: and therefore 'tis a Pre­sumption [Page 103] rather; that there were no other Materials us'd. Had the Theorist kept close to holy Scripture, and re­gulated his Principles and Hypothesis by that; none of this Controversie or Dispute had happened. But now, we see, where he has least reason for it; there he is forwardest to adhere to it. As if it were a Fate on him, for deserting it so much in other Cases, and going against it. If he can presume that the Ark was made of Gopher Wood and Pitch only, because Scripture mentions nothing else: why could he not admit of a Sea as well, which the Scripture mentions every whit as expresly? Or 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 Paradisiacal World, and the like; which the Scripture makes no mention of? Surely 'tis a presumption rather that there were no such things. But not to digress. What kind of Fabrick the Ark was, the H. GHOST informs us. Gen. 6.15, 6. Three hundred Cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high. Made with three Stories; divided into Rooms; and having a Window above, and a Door on its Side. Now it being so great a Vessel, it could not be made but of very strong and substantial Timber. Especially if we consi­der the use or service whereunto it was appointed. For besides Mankind, seven clean Beasts, and as many Fowls, and two unclean of every sort, were to be pre­served alive in it, and that for above the space of a whole Year. And so it was to hold their food like­wise, as well as themselves; and to carry them all, up­on deep, and spatious, and boundless Waters. And it being necessary upon these accounts, that it should be fram'd of strong Timber; in case it was done without Iron Tools, what can be thought, but that Noah and his Sons must pluck up well grown Trees by the Roots; [Page 104] and then whole, and round, and rough as they were, fasten them together with store of Pitch? But how all the pains and art in the World, could make this Ark of due form and strength, in such a Method, and of such Materials; who can imagine, besides our Answerer? Doubtless Noah had a singular knack at Ark-making, that he could raise such a Structure all out of whole Trees; and when he had plac'd them in their order, could six them in it, meerly by Pitching them within and without. Gen. 6.14. And so well did he fix them, that neither the fall of the Earth, nor the fury of the Flood, could move them one jot. Yet what was ever so raging and tumultuous as that mighty Flood? Let the Theorist describe it. Eng. Theor. p. 99. No Sea was ever so tumultuous as this, nor is there any thing in present Nature to be compar'd with the disorder of these Waters; All the Poetry, and all Hy­perboles that are us'd in the description of Storms and ra­ging Seas, were literally true in this, if not beneath it: The Ark was really carry'd to the tops of highest Moun­tains, and into the places of the Clouds, and thrown down again into the deepest Gulfs. Brave Ark! and as bravely built; that could endure all this, and yet never spring so much as one Tree. What would our Merchants give, I'll warrant you, for Ships of such Gopher Wood and Pitch? But alas! this strong way of build­ing, was calculated only for the Deluge. The Mystery of doing it lest the World together with the Equinox: and never since the Earth has stood awry, could Men lay Trees so well in Pitch.

In answer to the Second Instance it is supposed; that the City built by Cain, Answ. p. 50. was a number of Cottages, made of branches of Trees, of Osiers, and Bulrushes; and what needed they any other houses, when the Air was so temperate? But First, This Supposition is bottom'd upon a false Foundation. For they who conceive the [Page 105] City Enochia to be so mean; commonly think it was so for want of Workmen, not for lack of Tools to build it. But that being not built till after the death of Abel; and he being not slain before the hundred and twenty ninth year of Adam; by that time there might be Myriads of men upon the Earth; Poterant illo spatio non cen­tur [...]ae, sed My­riades, hominum esse. Mares. in Refut. Fab. Praead. Qu. 3. and so great store of Architects. And therefore Cain's City need not be supposed to consist of such Cottages; because there was a scarcity of good Artificers. Secondly, To say the Air was so temperate then, as that there needed no other than Osier Cottages; is to take that for determin'd, which is under debate. And besides, houses are rear'd for other uses, as well as for Defensatives against in­temperate Air. And in Cities commonly they are best and most sumptuous. Thirdly, Ad sui defensi­onem, quia sem­per erat in ti­more & tremore positus. Lyr. in Gen. 4.17. It is thought that Cain built this City for his own safety. Being full of guilt, and so of fear; he was for dwelling in a strong place. But what fortifications were Mud-walls and Osiers capable of? Such a Fortress could yield but a little satisfaction to his mind, as being a poor defence or security to his Person. Fourthly, If Henochia did not outstand the Flood, we are better assured that Joppa did. And then, we hope, it must be built of such Materials, as could not be fitted and made into Aedifices, without the help of Iron Tools.

And whereas it is urged, that the Excepter says, that the Indians had no Instruments of Iron, when the Spaniards came amongst them: That's very true. Answ. p. 50. But then they built no such Ark as Noah's was; nor had they any Tubals, Master-Black-smiths, Braziers, &c. in their Country. Nor were there such Cities found a­mongst them, as we have reason to believe were erect­ed in good plenty before the Deluge. For here me­thinks the Rule of Hornius, which he lays down in his Introduction to the Ancient Geography, may take place. [Page 106] Si quis mente concipere velit, qualis ante diluvium ter­rarum sacies suerit, is sibi totidem post diluvium secula proponat, & inde, de praeteritis conjecturam faciat. If any one would conceive in his mind, what kind of face the Earth had before the Flood, let him cast with himself how it was so many ages after the Flood, and from thence guess concerning those that are past. And so there must be as many Cities in the World, at the time of the Flood, as there was since the flood, about the time of Nebuchad­nezzar: it being as long from the Deluge to his time; as it was from the Creation to the Deluge. And tho he takes notice, that no Cities are remembred by Writers, but Henoch, by Moses; and Joppa by profane Authors; yet he puts the Question, Quis dubitet adeò jam aucto genere humano, plurimas regiones, imò to­tam penè Asiam & Egyptum, Urbibus, oppidis, pagis, ante diluvium suisse exornatas. Who can doubt, that very many countries, yea, almost all Asia and Egypt, were garnished with Cities, Towns, and Villages, before the flood; mankind being so increased?

To his Questions, how the Children of Cain came to find out Iron; Answ. p. 50. and then to know the Nature and use of it; and then the way of preparing and tempering it: I think we may reply; that in this matter they had instructions from Adam, as he had his knowledge from GOD. Or if we should say, they understood this by Inspiration, it would be no rash or extravagant as­sertion. For why might not some of Cain's Children be inspired to find out Brass, &c. as well as Aholiab was inspired to work in it, Exod. 31.3, 5.? And yet they might find out Iron, and other Metals in a lower way than that. For the Flaming Sword at the East of Eden, might be a burning of the Earth ( Discourse p. 270.) And that it could not be the Torrid Zone (as the Theo­ry allows it to have been) two Reasons were given [Page 107] ( Disc. p. 272.) Tho neither is answered but by the Last Expedient. Now the Earth being once fired, and burning continually; at length it might reach to some Mine below, and melting the Metal, cause it to run, and boil up upon the Ground. And then observation and wise experience, could not but lead men into a speedy acquaintance with its Nature and Use: And also make the first Iron that they had, instrumental in helping them to procure more. Thus (according to Herodotus, lib. 7. and Natalis Comes, lib. 9.) the Idaei Dactyli (the same with the Curetes or Corybantes) both found out Iron, and learnt the Art of using it; by the burning of Ida. And why then might not the Progeny of Cain, both get Iron, and skill in it, the same way? But however they came by Iron, or by skill to use it, and make Tools of it; 'tis certain that they had it, and that's enough for us. And truly if they had not made Tools of it also, Jubal could no more have attain'd to his Art; than his Brother Tubal could have taught his Trade. Jubal was the Father of all such as handle the Harp and Organ, Gen. 4.21. And how could such Musical In­struments be made without Iron Tools? But now I think on't, there might be Gopher Wood and Pitch as well in Jubal's time, as there was in Noah's: and they might serve as well to make the Harp and Organ of the one; as they did to make the Ark of the other, without Tools of Iron. Yet then the mischief on't is, Scripture does not mention either: and therefore accord­ing to the Answerer's Rule above, 'tis a presumption ra­ther, that there were no such Materials us'd upon those oc­casions. But then 'tis a presumption withal, that no such Harp or Organ were made. And another as shrewd a presumption will follow: that Jubal was a Father without Children. Or if you will, that he could not possibly be a Father of Musick himself, because he [Page 108] wanted Instruments whereon to learn: nor could he possibly beget any Sons of that Science, because he had no Instruments whereby to teach.

He answers the last instance thus. 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. I believe Iron or Brass is not once mention'd in all the Theory. But why so indirect an Answer? One would think that the Argument here, which consists of Iron, were red-hot, to see how he handles it. And the truth is, let him touch it never so Gingerly, it will all at once both burn his Fingers, and Brand his Hypothesis. Iron or Brass is not once mention'd in all the Theory. Very good: Yet for all that, the Theorist flatly denies the being of them both, before the Flood. The Clause fore-cited witnesseth as much. Metals and Minerals, I believe they had none in the first Earth. And if they had no Metals, for certain they had no Iron nor Brass. He adds; the happier they; no Gold, nor Silver, nor courser Metals. If therefore Iron and Brass, be Cour­ser Metals than Gold and Silver; he excludes them out of the first World, as much as he does the finer ones named. Nor does he more absolutely exclude them by his words; than he effectually barrs them out of the first State of Nature, by the tenour of his Hypothesis. For that lodges the Abyss betwixt the Central and Ex­ternal Earth, and so renders their Ascent from below, into the superior Terrestial Region, quite impossible. And so what sorry and unmanly shifting is this? And all to save the down-right acknowledgement of an Error; which would have been more ingenuous, and I think, more easie. 'Tis unlucky for one to run his Head against a Post. But when he has 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; [Page 109] and is fitter to be pitied, than confuted. Good is the advice of the Son of Sirach; In no wise speak a­gainst the Truth, but be abashed of the error of thine Igno­rance, Eccus. 4.25.

CHAP. XI.

THat there was an Open Sea before the Flood, the Excepter proved by Scripture and by Reason, in his Eleventh Chapter. But the Answerer inverts the Order of that Chapter, and thinks fit to begin with the last first. As if he designed by altering the Method, to perplex the Matter, and pervert the Arguments. Or at least to raise such a Mist of Confusion, as might dim the Eye of the Reader's Observation, and partly ob­scure the Weakness of his Answer. But let us follow him in his own way, and not fear in the least, but 'twill be every whit as easy for us. For indeed let him go even which way he pleases, we are bound in Justice to give him this Commendation; that he never leads us into any difficulties.

The Reason offered in proof of an Open Sea, was this. Because otherwise the subterraneous Abyss must have been the Receptacle for Fishes, Dsc. p. 224. or the only place of their abode. And that Abyss could by no means have been a fit Dwelling for them, upon Three Accounts: As being too Dark, too Close, and too Cold.

But the Answerer would perswade us to believe otherwise. As for Coldness, methinks, says he, he might have left that out, Answ. p. 51. unless he supposes that there are no Fish in the frozen Seas, towards the North and South; which is against all sense and experience: for Cold Coun­trys abound most in Fish. But are there any where any frozen Seas, on which the Sun never shin'd for sixteen hundred years together? He must show us such Seas, [Page 110] if he would bring his Answer home to the Objection. For in whatsoever Seas Fishes do breed, those Seas must certainly at times, feel a great deal of Warmth and In­fluence from the Sun: else these Creatures, so cold of themselves, could never Multiply. And therefore, we see, that even in our Seas, they breed not in Winter, for want of the Sun. And if the Sun's Declination or withdrawment from us, hinders their Production in our Seas (and Rivers) as sense and experience suffi­ciently testifie; his total Absence and constant Exclu­sion, would put a final stop to their Procreation. Yet such was his Absence, and such his Exclusion from the inclos'd Abyss. It may be made a Question, whether Fishes can live and breed in a Deep Well, which is open; by reason of its Coldness. And if they cannot, how much less in the Abyss? which being close, and much Deeper; was answerably colder. In case it be objected, that in such a Well they would lack Nourish­ment: the Objection turns much more forcibly upon the Abyss. For whereas the smaller Sorts of Fish live on Flies and Worms; where should they have found them so far under ground? And yet necessary it was that the lesser Kinds of Fish should exist; that so they might be food, and sustenance for the Greater.

As for Darkness and Closeness; he opposes to them the Saying of Maimonides, Answ. p. 51. That no man ever would be­lieve, that a Child could live so many months, shut up in its Mothers Belly, if he had never seen the experience of it. For, says the Answerer, there's Closeness and Dark­ness in the highest degree: and in Animals, that, as soon as born, cannot live without Respiration. But surely the Difference betwixt Children in the Womb, and Fishes in the Abyss; is very great. For 1st. Children unborn, are imperfect; (and so indeed they are, when new born, and long after; (they may be perfect in [Page 111] Shape, but they are imperfect in strength:) But with Fishes in the Abyss, it could not be so. Secondly, Children in the Womb, have no local Motion; which to Fishes in the Abyss, must be allowed. Thirdly, Children in the womb, are supply'd with sutable and sufficient Nourishment, by easy and natural Derivati­on from their Mothers: But Fishes in the Abyss, were to seek out for theirs, and to get it when, and where they could find it. Fourthly, Fishes in the Abyss, were to propagate there; (A sure Indication of their true Perfection in that State:) But Children unborn, were far enough from doing that. Lastly, That great Body of water, being close shut up, and always qui­escent, and having no way to purge and clarify it self; would have putrified, and poysoned all the Fish; es­pecially if it inclin'd to any degree of warmth, as the Answerer here surmises: There would he more danger of too much warmth. But from this Inconvenience, Ib. in their vital Habitation (supposing it to continue in its natural State) Children in the Womb are free.

And whereas he urges that Fishes Prey on the night time: That signifies nothing. For first, Ib. the Dark­ness of our nights above the Earth; is not comparable to the Darkness a Mile under it. And Secondly, in very dark nights. 'tis like they prey only upon dead Baits; or upon such living ones, as are set for them, and made so fast that they cannot get away. And to his Objection, of Fishes living in subterraneous Lakes; the reply is as easy. For no subterraneous Lakes in which Fishes live; are so close, and deep into the Earth; as this pretended subterraneous Abyss.

But farther; that there was an Open Sea in the pri­maeval World, the Excepter prov'd, against the Theo­ry, from Scripture. And the first Argument, Disc. p. 219, 220 was the Dominion which GOD gave unto Adam, over the Fish [Page 112] of the Sea. Gen. 1.26, 28. But if there were not an open Sea, impossible it was, that he should have or ex­ercise such a Dominion as GOD ALMIGHTY gave him. Whereunto it is answered thus. Adam had no more Dominion given him over the Fish of the Sea, Answ. p. 52. than over the Fowls of the Air. And did the Excepter affirm that he had? Let it be granted that he had but as much; and our Business is done, and so is the Theorist's. This, the Gentleman knew very well; and therefore we see how shie he is of a direct Answer, and how aloof he stands in what he says. As for Adam's Power over the Fowls, it was sufficient; such as shewed his Dominion to be real. For he exercis'd it thou, at least as much as we do now. That is, he could take them in Fields, or Fens, or Heaths, or Rivers; and have them in good plenty about Him. But had he an equal power over the Fish, when they kept only in a subterraneous Pond; and that was wall'd round at such a rate, that even through all his long life, Ib. he could not command so much as a Pair of Sprats? He adds, con­cerning the Fowls; that Adam could not come at them. or seize them at his pleasure, unless he could fly into the Air after them. Very much to the purpose. As if he could have had no Dominion over the Fowls, without the use of Wings. And because he had not a Power over the Fowls, above his capacity; and such a Command as neither his Nature and Circumstances, nor theirs would allow: therefore he had none at all over the Fish. Notably argu'd, and with mighty good Consequence. Adam was not tall enough to stand upon the ground, and take the Weather-cock of a Church-steeple; and therefore, good man, he could not stand upon tip-toe neither. Because he had not such a Domi­nion over the Sea, as was impossible; therefore he could not have one of which he was capable. Cer­tainly [Page 113] he must be akin to the Sages of Gotham, who argues that Man is not Lord of the Creatures, because they could not hedge in the poor Cuckow; or drown the Eel as they might have done a Kitling.

When a 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 inable him to encounter whole Regiments of Souldiers in his single Person; or to vanquish all the Militia under him, at once? Does it impower him to carry a Canon upon his Neck? Or when the great Gun is fir'd off, to catch the Bullet as it flies, and put it up in his Pocket? Can he not hold the place, and execute the Office of a Lord-Lieutenant, without such preternatural and mon­strous abilities? 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 Ostritches 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? Or else could he have no command over the Fowls? And in like manner when he gave the same 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 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 his Pad? Or to put a slip upon the Crocodiles Neck, and play with him as with a Dog? Or else must he have no Dominion over that Element, and the Crea­tures in it? Certainly betwixt having Dominion over the Fowls, and flying after them in the Air; there is great difference. And so there is betwixt the real Do­minion [Page 114] which Adam had over the Sea, and its Fish; and all excess or extravagance of Rule.

When GOD set Adam over the Fish of the Sea, he plac'd him under his Glorious SELF. For had his Dominion been supreme and absolute, he must have partook of GOD's Nature; as well as he did of his Image, and Empire. But as we very well know, all Subordinate Power must be limited: and so was Adam's. And therefore he could not go beyond his prescribed Bounds; but was to command the Fish, as he did other Creatures. That is, according to the Order of the World, and the Laws of Providence; according to the Capacity of his own Nature, and the Quality of theirs. And if so be he did but act in his Station, in pursuance of his Commission; governing his Subjects as in Duty he was obliged, and as in Power he was inabled; that is, according to the Will of GOD, and the measures of a Man: this will be sufficient for him who had the Do­minion; and so it will be for us who defend it.

The Answerer proceeds; Adam was made Lord of all Animals upon the Earth, P. 52 [...] and had a right to use them for his conveniency, when they came into his power. Here he speaks as out of a Cloud; and we may justly suspect that what he says, had need be clear'd from doubtful meaning. For Fishes, if his Hypothesis may be belie­ved, were never upon this Earth, but always under it, during Adam's time; and so they never came into his power neither. And therefore it may be question'd, whether he means that Adam was Lord of them or not. But if in, all Animals, he includes the Fishes; then we reply as follows. That in case the Doctrine of the Theory be true, Adam could be but a poor and sorry Lord over the Fishes; which are a considerable part of the living Creatures. Lib. 32. C. 11. Pliny attempts, in his Natural History, to reduce all of them, that belong to the Sea, to [Page 115] an hundred seventy and six kinds; and to particularize the several Names of them respectively. But so mean a Lord was Adam over them, that indeed to call him by this Title, in reference to those Animals; would be but to put an affront upon him, he enjoying no more (if the Theorist errs not) than a meer colour or shadow of that honour. Should an Emperor grant one of his Courtiers a Commission, to be his Vice-Roy, or De­puty, in a certain Country, which 'tis utterly im­possible he should ever come at; as this Patent would reproach the Majesty that gives it, so would it not be Mockage to the Favourite that receives it? Yet just such is the Case here. As impossible it was for Adam to come at the Abyss below; as it was for him to dart downward, for a Mile or two's Thickness, through the compact and solid Earth. So that his Lordship over the Fishes there, must be a bare nominal and titular thing. And he might as well have been Lord over the Fish in the Moon (supposing she had any) as over the Fish in the Infernal Sea. For his descent to the one, was as difficult, as his ascent would have been to the other; and his Power was exercis'd alike in both: for he died above seven hundred years, before the Ocean, or so much as one Fish, appeared in the World. Now pray, when, or to whom? in what Ages, and to which of his Servants, did the GOD of Heaven ever assign such mock Seigniories, and pitiful airy Royalties, as this? No, they are windy promises that convey empty Donatives; and neither can proceed from that Glori­ous Being, which is the fulness of Sincerity and all Munificence. Where GOD is pleas'd to impart Do­minion; we may assure our selves it shall not be a name or empty notion. But as there shall be a Scaene for Jurisdiction to act in; so there shall be Subjects for it to be exercis'd upon; and Matters also to imploy it about.

And so here is something more suggested (in way of Reply) as to the Favour which GOD bestowed upon Adam, in relation to the Fishes: namely, that he im­parted to him a Dominion over them. And that I hope, is quite different from a Titular Lordship. And so Ti­tular was his Lordship (according to the Theory) o­ver the Fish; that tho he held it near a thousand years, it did not all that time bring one of them to his Sight. A man may have a Title to things, and Right to use them when he can get them; tho he never had, nor ever shall have Dominion over them. I do by no means wish the Answerer to be unjustly barred from his Estate. But if he were so, he would find that a Title to it, and a Right to use it when it should come into his Power; must not be compar'd to a real Dominion or Command over it. But now it was an actual Dominion which GOD gave Adam over the Fish. And therefore he did not say, have thou the Title of Lord over them, and use them for thy conveniency, when they come into thy power; (which yet would have been a plain Jeer (such as Heaven never put upon an Innocent) because into his power they were not to come:) but have DOMI­NION over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing which moveth upon the Earth, Gen. 1.28. Where, [...], which the Tar­gum renders, [...], and have the Dominion; does signify an actual Rule, and the very exercise of it. And the Word is used in this Sense, in too many Places of the H. Bible to be here recited. So that Adam's Dominion over the Fish, was not (as the Answerer would most unreasonably make it) a Titular Lordship, or imagina­ry Right: which was to hang in the Air, and not be realiz'd even to his Posterity, till above sixteen hun­dred Years should be past; and till the World in which they lived should be quite destroyed, and a new one [Page 117] founded: but it was a real Power actually conferred up­on, and exercis'd in his own Person; and with him, by his Children, jointly; and after him, by them, suc­cessively. And truly when in the Grant of this power over the Fish, the Advantage lay so much on Adam's side, more than on his Offspring's; (it being made to him in his Person, and also in his Innocence:) it may seem somewhat strange, that he who shared most in the conveyance of the Priviledge; should (in the Judg­ment of a wise Civilian) have nothing to do with the Possesion of it. Especially when this Grant was made by the GOD of faithfulness and truth; with Whom, as there is no shadow of Change, so there can be no semblance of Fraud. Yet had the Case here been as the Theory makes it; there must have been wrong on GOD's part, as well as fallacy; and his creatures he must have injured, by imposing upon them; which who can think? As if that righteous Being, whose Nature is the Rule of eternal Justice, could violate that Law which Himself had made: And when he had com­manded, not to steal; could rob poor men of that com­mon Right, which his own free Goodness, and his own kind Promise, settled on them.

Not to be too toedious. Either Adam had actual Do­minion over the Fish; or he had not. If he had not, why did GOD say to him, Have Dominion over the Fish of the Sea? If he had, why does the Answerer so mince it, as if he intended to make away with it? Again; Either Adam had as much Power over the Fish of the Sea, as he had over the Fowls of the Air, and the Living things upon the Earth; or he had not. If he had as much; we have what we contend for. If he had not; the Answerer must show, that the Divine Grant now re­cited, vesting Adam with Dominion over the Creatures; did confer more Power in the latter part of it, than it did [Page 118] in the first. But that he cannot do; and therefore his Cause is lost. For if Adam had as much power over the Fish, as he had over the Fowls, and over other Animals; there must be an open Sea at first. And if there was an open Sea; there was Mountains too. And if there was Mountains; there was Clouds also. And if there was Clouds; there was Winds, and Rains, and Hails, and Snows, and Thunders, &c. And then where's the Theorists Primitive Earth, and his Paradisiacal World before the Flood? In the Fourth Chapter of his Answer he reflected upon the Excepter for Dabbling in Philosophy. And now I think he has dabbled in it fairly himself; even till he has drowned his hopeful Hypothesis, in an inclos'd Abyss. And as for Extra­ordinary Providence, it affords no help in this Case. However it be made too much a Pack-horse to carry the Theory through several Difficulties, which other­wise must have been impassable: yet here it fails, and is able to yield no manner of assistance. For he who can imagine, that Adam upon the Earth, could have Dominion over the Fish in this inclosed Sea, by Extra­ordinary Providence; must be guilty of most ama­zing and unmerciful Extravagance. Yet by another Expedient he may find relief. When, to leave things out, he prints his Theory next; he may leave this in­clos'd Abyss out of that Edition. And tho he can worse spare it; yet whether he has not as much reason to leave it out, as he had to leave any thing out, which he did leave out; Disc. p. 226. let any unbias'd Person judge.

That there was Open Seas before the Flood, we argu'd Secondly, from the Waters under the Firmament, Gen. 1.7. For had there been none but River-waters in the first World; the Earth might have been said to be un­der the Firmament, more properly, than the Waters. And the Firmament, which in the 6th. verse, is said to [Page 119] be in the midst of the Waters, and to divide the Waters from the Waters; Ibid. might better have been said to be in the midst betwixt the Earth and the Waters; and to divide the Waters from that. For, as for the River-waters, they would have been too inconsiderable, to have had the Partition made by the Firmament, prae­dicated of them, in exclusion of the Earth, or in prefe­rence to it.

Well, allow this, says the Answerer, Answ. p. 52. that a Firma­ment was made to divide the Waters from the Waters. Tell us then what that Firmament was, For it is said there, that GOD set the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the Firma­ment. We own it is said so, and that GOD did do so. But if he cannot tell what this Firmament was; a few words will inform him. It is plain that Moses, in his Cosmopaeia, makes mention of Two Firmaments; (and we have told him of them once already.) Disc. p. 22 [...].) One we may call the Aeral; the other, the Aethereal Firma­ment. The First is the Interaqueous Firmament, as lying between Waters: for it is bounded by the Waters here below; and by those supernal Fountains of Water, the Clouds above. Gen. 1.8.20. And yet it is properly called Hea­ven; as being not only limited to, but also consisting of the Lowest, or Subnubilar Heaven. The Second is the Firmament of Lights. Because in it the Moon, and all the Planets; the Sun, and all the fixt Stars are placed. And a most stately and glorious Expanse it is; as being of immense and indefinite Amplitude or Extent.

Here the Excepter encountred that New Notion of the Firmament, See Disc. p. 226, 227, 228. which the Theorist vouchsaft to re­commend to the World; where he makes it expressly to be the Orb of his exterior habitable Earth. But what was said against it, he answered the best way, viz. by declaring that the Things cited and opposed, Answ. p. 52. are not in [Page 120] the Second Edition of the Theory. Ausim enim di­cere quantum rerum natura innotescit adhuc, Firmamentum Mosaicum prout vulgo intelligi­tur, esse pror­sus [...] Theor. Edit. 1. p. 254. But the best on't is, when he had been so brisk as to give us all a Magisteri­al Reprimand; by telling us plainly that Moses's Fir­mament as commonly understood, is an Ʋnphilosophic thing: on the other-side he was so bashful, that he would not stand by his own opinion, tho more Philosophic, as he thought. But having conceived it, and brought it forth, he very fairly gives it the slip; and leaves the infant Notion, defenceless as it is, to shift for it self.

Concerning what we said in vindication of the Clouds from that contempt which the Thorist threw upon them; Answ. p. 53. he thus pronounceth. With submission to better Judgments, I take it to be a Country-Sermon, about the usefulness of Rain. But I do assure him (tho that's no strange nor new thing with him) he is very much mi­staken. Yet if he will needs have it be a Sermon; with submission to better Judgments, I take it to be a Funeral-Sermon for one of his Notions. Namely, that the Clouds were no such eminent and remarkable things, Eng. Theor. p. 234. as to deserve a particular commemoration by Moses in his six days work.

As for what follows (towards the end of our Chap­ter) against the Theorist's Objection, touching the dif­ficult Propagation of Mankind into the Islands and Conti­nents of the first world; the Answerer declares, that it does but confirm his Objection. Answ. p. 53 [...] But did the Excepter say any thing in confirmation of such a Difficulty in the business of this Propagation; as brings on a Neces­sity of calling in the help of the Angelic Ministery, to translate or convey men from place to place? He shewed plainly, See Disc. c. 11. §. 7. that a few sorry Sciphs, or rude kind of Boats, might very well do what was here to be done, without making Angels to be Carriers of men, and to transport their Colonies, through the Torrid Zone, [Page 121] into new Plantations. But this is a Difficulty which attends the Theory: or else the Answerer wrongs his Hypothesis, by flying to those Spirits for such their Assistance. Answ. p. 30.

CHAP. XII.

THIS is a short Chapter, and will soon be dispatch'd. Ibid. p. 53. So the Answerer begins. But his Dispatch was so quick, that he made more haste than good speed. For besides that he forgat to leave any thing behind him that needs a Reply: such was his Expedition, that he could not see his way before him neither; but ran unhandsomely into the Assertion of a plain Ʋntruth. Another Un­truth. Ib. p. 53, 54. For thus he positively affirms of the Excepter. He says, GOD might as well as to significancy have appointed the Sun, as the Rainbow, for a sign that there should ne­ver have been another Flood. And again, This would have done as well, he says, as the Rainbow. But this is ut­terly false; for, as any one may see, the Excepter said not so. His words are these. Disc. p. 253, 254 If GOD had appointed the Sun to that use, he would have signified the same thing that the Bow does. But he did not say, he would have signify'd it as well. Nay, in effect, he said the quite contrary, as appears by what follows. Ib. p. 254. Tho as all must grant, the Bow is the most fit Emblem of the two; and therefore it was chosen. And when the Excepter said, the Bow is the most fit Emblem of the two, and that GOD chose it for that Reason: what did he say less, than that it must do better than the Sun; and consequently that the Sun could not do so well as that? which is con­trary to the Answerers Affirmation. Another man, I hope, may write a piece of Natural History, tho he does it not as well and remarkably as the Theorist has done: for there are degrees of Comparison in doing [Page 122] things. But will he never leave falsifying, and speak the truth?

Ib. p. 259, 260.As to our Argument proving the Existence of Clouds before the Flood; and consequently the Appearance of the Rainbow then: He answers it by his last Expedient only.

CHAP. XIII.

Answ. p. 55.HE begins this Chapter, which is about Paradise, with a warm Charge upon the Excepter, thus. He fairly baulks all the the Difficulties in that Doctrine, and contents himself with a few generals, which every body knows. Betwixt the Doctrine and Difficulties of an Article, there may be great Difference. And where there is so, they must be warily noted and distinguished. There we must duly consider and examine, whether these Difficulties be inherent in the Doctrine, and inse­parable from it; or whether they be Appendages or Additionals to it. Whether the Doctrine delivered were interwoven or wrapt up in Difficulties by GOD; or whether those Difficulties were the meer phantsiful inventions of men, annexed to it, or clapt upon it. And in case they appear to be extrinsic Accessaries, humane Conjectures, or perhaps Extravagancies and Mistakes: what have we more to do with them, or how can we do better by them, than part the Shadows from the true Substance, and so throwing off the one, keep close to the other? Disc. p. 265. And this was what we pro­posed to our selves, when passing by the Fictions of Poets, and the Phantsies of Fathers, we betook our selves directly to the Oracles of Heaven; resolving to take up our Rest there, and to rely upon nothing that Writers say concerning Paradise (a Scripture Doctrine) but what is consonant to the Sacred Scriptures; where [Page 123] alone that Doctrine is clearly taught, so far as Divine Wisdom thought fit to reveal it, and acquaint us with it. Tis true, we may go farther if we please, and so stretch this Doctrine (as the Theorist does) that it shall comprehend several other things. But then if these things prove, Difficulties; at the same time they are but Superfluities. Such as GOD never put into the Doctrine of Paradise, and men had much better have kept out. And that they are much fitter to be quite cut off, than vigorously pursued, and seriously insisted on: may in part be gathered from hence. That they who labour most in them, get nothing by them. Their profit will not countervail their trouble: but Study here must be, what some Philosophers thought Virtue was; a Reward to it self. The Theorist has made himself a pregnant Instance to prove this. He has taken pains to find out what the Ancients determin'd concerning the Seat of the Terrestial Paradise; but to how little purpose? For notwithstanding that its Place was a Real Circum­stance (which his Properties of it were not;) he had no Requital for his Endeavours to discover it. The Search he made after it, was without Success, and so without Satisfaction or Benefit. The 7th. Chapter of the second Book of his English Theory, shows as much. There he informs us, p. 253. p. 257. p. 253. p. 254. that as for the Jews and Hebrew Doctors they place Paradise under the Aequinoctial. Where o­thers of the Learned plac'd the Ocean, and where he himself places the Fiery Zone. He might have added, that their common Opinion was, that GOD made Pa­radise before the World: And when there was neither Heaven nor Earth in being, Where was the Aequinocti­al to place it under? As for Ancient Heathens, Poets, and Philosophers, they, he tells us, were rather for several Paradises in the Earth. As for Christian Fathers, he says, they disputed, whether Paradise was That Paradise was Corporeal, seems to be the constant Doctrine of all the Fathers except Origen (whom some count a Cor­rupter of the Scriptures sim­plicity) and St. Ambrose. Corporeal, [Page 124] or Intellectual only, and Allegorical; This was the grand point amongst them. And so they were like to make good work of the place of Paradise. And of those of them that thought it local, Ib. and 255. most did not determine any thing concerning the Particular place of it. But the rest that did, exprest themselves in various ways, yet, upon a due interpretation, they agree, that Paradise was seated in the other Hemisphere: And having well observed, p. 260. their Ignorance of the Globe of the Earth (which could not but betray them into false Notions about the Form of it, and about Places in it) at length he concludes thus. Wherefore laying aside all Natural Topicks, p. 262. we are willing in this particular to refer our selves wholly to the report and majority of Votes amongst the An­cients whether Christians or others, who seem generally to incline to the South or South-East Land. And so the place of Paradise is still GOD knows where. Tho to bring it to this, even to the South, or South-East Land; he was fain to take pains, we see, and use some art. That is, in making a due Interpretation of those Passages in the Ancients Writings, by which they exprest themselves in various ways touching this Matter. And all that he could get out of them at last, was but this neither; Who seem generally to incline to the South or South-East Land. And those of the Fathers, who were ignorant of the Globe of the Earth, and variously expressive of them­selves in this point; so that their Expressions wanted a due interpretation, to make them speak this seeming In­clination of theirs: were but a few: The rest, as he calls them. A certain Remnant that did not dispute whether Paradise were intellectual, &c. So that the Place of it, I say, is still to seek: As much to seek as ever. And as for the Theorist, if he will but look im­partially upon Particulars, and fairly cast up what the whole amounts to; he may very justly for the Total [Page 125] Sum of his Gains, set down a Cypher, at the Bottom of his Account. And truly it would be well if that were all. If he could cross his Books, and make things so even; as after his Travels in this search for Paradise to cry he is clear with all the World. But alas he must come to another Reckoning, and will find he came home a much worse man, than he went out; Eng. Theor. p. [...]. as being deeply run in Debt in his Reputation. We will never depend wholly upon their Credit, nor assert any thing upon the au­thority of the Ancients, which is not first proved by na­tural Reason, or warranted by Scripture. A positive in­gagement made, and public enough: but let us see how well he stood to it. Does Reason prove the place of Paradise to be in the other World? No. Does Scripture warrant it to be there? No. For he himself tells us expressly, neither Scripture, nor Reason determine the Place of Paradise. Answ. p. 55. Yet notwithstanding his Com­plement to both; he leaves them both, and depends, and depends wholly upon the Credit of the Ancients in this Point, and upon their Authority; as his own Words testify. For sureness we will repeat them. Wherefore laying aside all natural Topics, we are willing in this Par­ticular to refer our selves wholly to the report and ma­jority of Votes amongst the Ancients, whether Christians or others, who seem generally to incline to the South, or South-East Land. As if he had set up his Resolution of adhering to Scripture and Reason, (as firm one would think) as a Rock; meerly to dash his Credit in pieces against it. It was a very good Declaration which he made that way, and contains a Rule proper for him to go by. But it is as strange that he should break it so soon, Another Con­tradiction. and so plainly contradict that and himself. Especially when he thus back'd and strengthened it by what fol­lows. This Theory being chiefly Philosophical, Eng. Theorp. 6. Reason is to be our first Guide; and where that falls short, we may [Page 126] receive further light and confirmation from the sacred Writings.—But as for Antiquity and the testimonies of the Ancients, we only make general Reflections upon them, for illustration rather than proof of what we pro­pose. Put this to what was declar'd before, and from both we learn this useful Lesson. That in the Theory, not any thing is to be taken up upon the Authority of the Ancients, or to depend wholly upon their Credit; but it is first to be proved by Reason, or warranted by Scri­pture. Natural Reason is to be the Chief Guide, and Confirmation of what is proposed must come from the Sacred Writings; and the Testimonies of the Ancients are for illustration rather than for Proof. But this being the declared Judgment of the Theorist, what means he so flatly to contradict it in his practice; by yielding Paradise was in the Southern Hemisphere wholly upon the Authority of the Ancients; without either natural Reason to prove it, or Scripture to warrant and confirm it? And thereby indeed he contradicts Great Moses too, as well as himself. For his inspired Pen describing that Garden, by the Rivers Euphrates, Hiddekel, &c. as principal Marks of its Situation; does place it ori­ginally in our Northern World.

Now had we not better content our selves with a few Generals which every body knows, that are certain; than go thus far, and pay thus dear, for singular Notions which are vain and void of truth? But if against the Divine Caveat from above, men will [...], be wise in their own conceits; and without Reason to prove them, or Scripture to warrant them, will form Opinions to themselves about sacred Doctrines; or recommend them to others, even against Scripture: no wonder that their Studies should tend to Vanity; and that their Dis­quisitions should run out into wild Extravagance; and that having roiled the limpid Streams of Truth, they [Page 127] should drink in the muddy waters of Error, to quench their inordinate thirst of knowledge.

This is spoken in remark of the Nature of those Diffi­culties, which according to the Theory, attend the Doctrine of Paradise; and with Baulking of which we are charged by the Answer. The place of Paradise our Author makes to be the first of them, and he yields it to be in the South-East-Land. But then in yielding it there, by his own Confession, he proceeds without Reason, and without Scripture, and we may add a­gainst both; inasmuch as it is against Reason, for a Christian Doctor to go against Scripture. Yet if the place of Paradise is such an hidden, hamper'd, difficult Thing (as the Theorist makes it) which in it self must needs be real, because Paradise was Local: If that, I say, in the Circumstance of its Situation, is so difficult, latent, and incertain; as to baffle his best Attempts of finding it, and render them insignificant: What shall we think of the rest of those Difficulties, which he calls the Properties of Paradise? Surely they must be strange and unreasonable Things, to be appropriated to the true Doctrine of Paradise; as having nothing of that certain Reality in them, which the place of Paradise had; the meer Site of which prov'd so puzzling to him, as to defeat his Labours in searching after it, and make them vain and unhappy. And These Difficulties being of this Quality; no certain, Real Things; no better than Chimaerical Figments, or Romantick Forgeries; no other than fine and light Ideas, which float only in the Imaginations of the Phantsiful: Such things as GOD never put into the Doctrine of Paradise; Such as want Scripture to warrant them, Reason to prove them, and even so much as clear and sound Autho­rities to vouch and recommend them; Such as yield no profit, but rather bring Prejudice to Doters upon [Page 128] them, and writers about them; as we see by a fair Example before us. These Difficulties, I say, being of this Strain; if we had baulked them, we might well have born the Censure of doing it, and as well have justifi'd the censured Action. But then they were not so Baulked neither, but that at the same time they were confuted also. For while our short paraphrase upon the holy Texts, relating to the Place of Paradise (and con­taining the Divine and only authentic Account there­of) lays down the Generals which Scripture affirms or teaches concerning it; it so far confutes the Theory's Singularitys, or Properties of it, as it shews, that (how­ever they may be Difficulties indeed) they are no real Parts of the true and genuine Doctrine of Paradise. If they were, why do not the sacred writings take some notice of them at least? But they make not the least mention of a Perpetual Aequinox, of a perpetual Spring, or of the Earth's spontaneous Production of Animals; which the Theory makes to be Properties of Paradise. Tho from hence we may conclude, that they are falsely so counted, they are falsely so called, because the Scripture owns them not; nor are they consentaneous to its Do­ctrine, either in themselves, or in the train of their Consequences. It approves of them no more, than it does of Paradise's Prae-existence to the World; than it does of its Situation under the Aequinoctial; than it does of its being placed near to the Moon, or set up so high, as to be above Darkness, and out of the reach of the Flood. (Which made the Sons of Infallibility (a sort of Theological Theorists) mount Enoch thither before the Deluge; whither after it, they sent Elias, to keep him Company.) These Conceits, in the Judgments of Some (both learned men and ancient Fathers) were Properties of Paradise. But for all that, they were meer empty Conceits still, nor could they be other. [Page 129] Yet let it be noted, they all stand in the same Rank, and are built on every whit as good Foundations, as the Theory's Properties of Paradise are. For tho neither Reason nor Scripture do allow or confirm them; yet they are rear'd on express Authorities of the Ancients, and ratifi'd by them. But are they of power to authen­ticate Phantsies, and turn them into Realities?

But to go on with this Point, upon which I little thought to have said thus much. Baulking all the Diffi­culties in the Doctrine of Paradise; Another Un­truth. is falsely charged upon us. And that not only because (as we have said) these Difficulties are Shadows, Phantsies, and Falshoods; And because we have confuted them in a general way, by alledging and explaining the true Doctrine of Para­dise delivered from above; which rather contradicts them, than gives countenance to them: But because (as 'tis evident) we did not baulk all those Difficulties. For the Properties of Paradise, that is to say, the Perpe­tual Aequinox, the Longaevity of the Antediluvians, and the Spontaneous or Vital Fertility of the Earth, were at least some of the Difficulties meant. Now to the First of these we spake in the Eighth Chapter of our Dis­course, and so had no reason to return to it in the Thir­teenth. And in the Thirteenth Chapter we handled the other Two; else what means the Answer given in to them here?

But before we consider the Answer he has made, there is one Objection to be removed, which he has thrown in our way. He tells the Animadverter, that if he would undertake to confute the Theory in this Point, Answ. p. 55. he should have confuted four of his Particulars concern­ing the Place of Paradise; But he slips over these. The Animadverter was to confute this Assertion of the Theo­ry. The Doctrine of Paradise cannot be understood, but upon supposition of the Primitive Earth and its Properties. [Page 130] Now if he could make it out, that the Doctrine of Pa­radise is intelligible without the Theory; as intelligible without it, as it is with it; this Assertion must needs be confuted. This therefore he undertook to do. And it being done, what he intended, and what he was obliged to, was performed. And even these particular Objections too, tho before not so distinctly made: were virtually answered, and confuted in the Substance of them. But however it being expected we should do it, let us speak more expressly to these Four Particulars.

Answ. p. 55:The First is this. The Place of Paradise cannot be determin'd by Scripture only. First, if it cannot be determin'd by Scripture only, it must be determin'd by Scripture chiefly. For that alone gives the best grounds whereon, and the best light whereby to describe the Place, so far as it can be done. And secondly, it is not to be doubted, but that at first it did more exactly define or bound it out: only since that time, such changes have happened to the Chanels of Rivers, and the Boundaries of it; as render the Draught or Description of the Country, which was then more exact and clear; dark now and insufficient. And Scripture having de­scribed Paradise so well at first, and contributing so pe­culiarly to the best possible description of it still; it is that which did determine it only, in a more satisfactory measure, once; and that which does determine it only, in a well qualifi'd sense, to this day; so far, that is, as it is deter­minable. And what can be expected from it more?

The Second is this. The place of Paradise cannot be determin'd by the Theory. And how should it, when GOD signifies it (as we shall see immediately) to be seated in one Hemisphere, and that fixes it in the other? But is it not pretty then, that the Animadverter, if he would confute the Theory, should be put to con­fute this Particular? That is, he must prove the Theory [Page 131] can do, what it cannot do. A notable way of securing an Hypothesis; to tie him who attaques it, to do a thing that is impossible, whereby to overthrow it.

The Third is this. If we appeal to Antiquity in this case, we shall find that it (Paradise) was not in Mesopo­tamia. But according to his own Rule, Antiquity without Reason and Scripture to back it, is not to be depended on. And for the same reason, his Fourth Particular falls of it self; which is this, According to the plurality of Votes, both amongst the Heathen and Christian Authors, it was plac'd in the other Hemisphere. But these Heathen and Christian Authors, having neither Reason nor Scripture to second what they say; (again we repeat it) they are not to be depended on: nor can the Answerer, if he stands to his word, assert Paradise to have been where they place it, upon their credit or authority. But we have something else to offer, which will reach both the Particulars at once. The Best An­tiquity in the whole World, is Scripture. And if we ap­peal to that, we shall find it most probable, that the seat of Paradise was Mesopotamia, or some Region there­abouts; by the several broad Signs which it gives us thereof, in the Second Chapter of Genesis. For

First, That is Eastward of the place where Moses wrote. And it is said, Gen. 2.8. that the LORD GOD planted a Garden Eastward. Eng. Theor. p. 251. And whereas our Author would have Mikkedhem there, to signify, in the beginning; Moses teaches us plainly that it signifies, in the East, by using the word in that sense himself, in the very next Chapter. For in the last Verse of it, he says, that GOD placed Cherubim and a flaming Sword, [...] in the East of the Garden of Eden. But to have rendred it thus, he placed in the Beginning of the Garden of Eden, Cherubim and a flaming Sword; would have been a very improper and ill Reddition. And as [Page 132] often as [...] do occur in the Pentateuch, which I think, is at least thirty times, besides Gen. 2.8. I do not find that they can, in any one place, be ren­dred otherwise than, East, Eastward, of the East, or in the East. Which if they cannot, it is enough to con­vince us, that Mikkedhem, Gen. 2.8. must be rendred, in the East; not, in the Beginning.

Secondly, Eden is there; the Country wherein Pa­radise was planted. So we read again, Gen. 2.8 that the LORD GOD planted a Garden Eastward in EDEN. And tho He would have Eden signify, Ibid. pleasure, and so read the Text thus; the LORD GOD planted a Garden in pleasure: that cannot be the true meaning. For the word is [...]; and so it must be read, the LORD GOD planted a Garden in pleasure; which would sound but harshly. And in the next Verie but one, it is said, that a River went out of Eden to water the Garden. But to say a River went out of pleasure to water the Gar­den; would be no good sense. And in the fourth of Genesis we meet with a Passage, which shows that Mo­ses, by Mikkedhem, must mean the East, and not the Beginning; and by Eden, a Country, and not pleasure. For telling us there at the 16th. Verse, which way the Land of Nod lay, where Cain dwelt; he says, it was on the East of Eden. But for him to have said, it was in the beginning of Pleasure; would have been an odd account of its Situation. After all which (if it will not seem superfluous) may be added the words spoken by Rabshakeh in the person of his Master, and re­corded by the Prophet, Jer. 37.12. Have the GODS of the Nations delivered them which my Fathers have de­stroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the Children of Eden which were in Talassar? Ch. 27. v. 23. Ezekiel also puts Haran, and Canneh, and Eden together. Whence it plainly appears, that Eden was as much the proper [Page 133] name of a place, as Rezeph, or Canneh, or any of those mention'd. And also that that place was in the Eastern part of our Continent; because the other places or Regions here joined with it, lay about it, or bordered upon it. And so it might be in Mesopotamia too; tho it could not be in the Southern Hemisphere. And it is observable that when Jacob journied to Haran in Meso­potamia; he is said to come into the land of the Children of the East, Gen. 29.1. And Balaam who was brought out of the Mountains of the East, Numb. 23.7; is said to be of Mesopotamia, Deut. 23.4.

Thirdly, the Land of Havilah is there; about which the River Pison is said to fetch a compass, Gen. 2.11. Not the Indian Havilah (as some have greatly mista­ken: and by that mistake have been led into another, that Pison was Ganges:) but that Havilah which was so called from the Son of Cush. Whereas the other Havi­lah took its denomination from the Son of Joctan. Strabo also placeth the Havilah that relates to Paradise, in the Confines of Arabia and Mesopotamia.

Fourthly, the Land of Cush is there; so denominated from Cush the Son of Ham, who settled himself and his Family in it. It is said to be compassed with the River Gihon, Gen. 2.13. and it is the Asiatic Aethiopia. Tho some presuming that the African Aethiopia was there meant, concluded that Gihon must be the Nile.

Fifthly, Hiddekel or Tigris is there; which is said to run towards the East of Assyria, Gen. 2.14. Upon whose Stream rising from the Gordian Mountains in the great­er Armenia, and flowing Southwards to the dividing of Mesopotamia from Assyria; stands the Principal City of that Country, the famous Ninive, built by Assur.

Sixthly, Euphrates, that Celebrated River of Asia, is there also, Gen. 2.14. I mean in that Eastern part of our Continent.

Now are not all these Regions and Rivers, in, or about Eden, or Mesopotamia? And are they not Marks of the Earthly Paradise? And were they not made so by Moses himself? And was not he directed by the H. GHOST? And might it not be in Mesopotamia then, or must it not be near it? For had it been out of it, and remote from it; what wise man inspired by GOD, would have described it by such Rivers, and describ'd it by such Regions as lay about Mesopotamia, and were contermi­nous with it, or bordering upon it? and if some of these Rivers, and some of these Regions, be very much chang'd in their Names and Postures, since Moses wrote; that's no marvel. It would rather be a won­der (considering Certum est insignes variationes in terrae par­tibus continuo evenire, propter bellorum incur­piones; aquarum inundationes; Marium prae­ruptiones ac recessus; imperiorum, regnorum, & dominiorum instabilitates. Etenim non so­lum regiones, urbes, oppida, flumina, & alia hujusmodi sua nomina pro tempore mutant, a­missis prorsus prioribus, verum etiam & sines ipsarum regionum variantur, & urbes, oppida (que) senectute dele [...]tur, bellorum calamitate evertun­tur, alia (que) de novo conduntur, & mare uno in le [...]o continentem terrae dilatat, in alio coarctat, & flumina quando (que) augescunt, quando (que) mi­nuuntur, quande (que) cursus variant, quando (que) etiam prorsus, deficiunt. Sic quoque, fontes, stagna, paludes alibi exiccantur, alibi vero pro­creantur, &c. Magin. in praef. ad Geogr. the Mutabili­ty of Nature here below) if in so long a time they were not great­ly altered. Tho these Alterati­ons do not argue in the least, that Paradise was not situate in Mesopotamia, or some adjacent Region. Where after so many thousands of years, we are no more to look for the same Fea­tures in the Earth's Face; than for the same Fruitfulness in its Soil. Tho if we will believe Herodotus, Clia. l. 1. Geog. l. 16. Strabo, and Q. Curtius; the Babylonian Soil does still retain a strange and happy Fertility. For they assure us, that it yields Corn at the rate of two hundred fold; and that it bears Palm Trees of its own accord; which afford Bread, Wine, Honey, &c. And as Pliny informs us, Nat. Hist. l. 18. c. 17. their Corn grows so rank, that men are fain to cut it twice, and after that, turn Sheep into it to eat it down. And then Crops are so plentiful, that one year, they sow themselves against the [Page 135] next; and sponte restibilis fit seges, Corn grows of its own accord, and yields an harvest without Tillage. And if this Soil be so fertile now; what was it before the Curse, when it was newly created, and in its prime Perfection?

So that upon the whole Matter, let Rabbies, and Fathers, and Poets, and Theorists say what they please; yet so long as Moses wrote the second Chapter of Gene­sis, and his hand was guided by the most HOLY and unerring SPIRIT; we cannot but think, that men in reason ought to conclude, and that in duty they ought to believe, that Paradise was seated in Mesopotamia, or thereabouts. And we hope it is as intelligible that it should be there seated, as that it was situate in the Southern Hemisphere. For who ever yet understood, or who can understand; That Eden, and Havilah, and Cush, and Assyria, were Countries; and that Pison, and Gihon, and Hiddekel, and Euphrates, were Rivers, in that Southern Hemisphere? In case they were so, how came they from thence hither? I remember Sir Richard Baker tells it, as a great Wonder, amongst the Casual­ties that hapned in our Queen Elizabeth's Reign; that a certain hill in Herefordshire, beginning to remove out of its place, on Saturday Evening, continued walk­ing till Munday noon. But if such large Countries as these, could take so long a Journey; the ambulatory Mount may stand by for a diminutive Prodigy.

Tho we must observe withal, that the Fathers ne­ver seated Paradise in the other Hemisphere neither. They only seem to incline to that, by the Theorists due interpretation of them, as was noted above. And as to the Seat of Paradise (as he says) they expressed themselves in various ways. That is, their Notions of it were incertain; and in plain terms, they knew not where to fix it. But so far were they from believing it [Page 136] to be in the Southern Hemisphere, that they did not believe that Hemisphere was ever inhabited; for they did not believe that there were Antipodes. And when some of them would have Paradise to be Mystical only; and others would have it to be the whole Earth; and others place it under the Aequinoctial; and others un­der the Globe or Circle of the Moon; and others in the exterior part of a flat or plain Earth, round the inward part of which, they supposed the Ocean to stand like a Ring: Which of them set it in the Southern Hemi­sphere? Tho if they had, we need not have been much surpriz'd at it neither. For being but men, they might have done as men; have erred, that is, in their Opi­nion. And truly ever since Adam, through desire of Knowledge, first planted error in Paradise; that poy­sonous Weed has been apt to Spring up and spread un­happily in other places, and the best Gardens of Anti­quity have been stained with it. Witness the Millenium; the Rebaptizing of Haeretics; the Limbus Patrum; the Communicating of Infants; and the like. And if we'll take in Errors of a lower Strain, we shall find the false Notions entertained by the Ancients, of the Form of the Earth, of the Figure and Situation of the Sea, of the non-existence of Antipodes, &c. ready to confirm and cor­roborate the Testimony. And what does the famous Aristotelian Hypothesis seem to be now in this present Age, Aristotle believed the Milky Way to be a Me­teor. He also allowed but Eight Heavenly Sphaeres; which Timocaris, above three hun­dred years before the Incarnation, improved to Nine; and Alphonsus (in the thirteeneth Cen­tury after it) into Ten; and afterward they were commonly reckoned Eleven. And not only Egyptians, Graecians, and Arabians, but even Hebrew and Christian Doctors, took the Stars to be living Bodies actuated with Souls; as Espencaeus informs us in his Treatise de Cal. animat. but a Mass of Errors? Where such a Systeme was contrived for the Heavens, and such a situation assigned to the Earth; as neither Reason can approve, nor Nature allow. Yet so pro­sperous and prevailing was this Hypothesis, that it was generally received and success­fully [Page 137] propagated for many Ages. And when the Hea­vens were so misconceived, and the Earth so misplaced; and the Errors touching both, were spread so far, and continued so long: why might not the same happen as to Paradise? Why might not the Ancients, and the choicest of the Ancients mistake concerning it, particu­larly concerning the place of it?

Were an Account to be given of the Original or Occasion of this their Mistake; it might seem me­thinks to have risen thus, or proceeded from hence. They thought and spake too Great things of Paradise, and supposed such Properties and Excellencies in it, as it never had, nor was capable of. And having rais'd their Phantsies to so high a Pitch, they could not tell how to let them fall again, and stoop so low as Mesopo­tamia. And so they conceited that Paradise was in some remote, unknown, inaccessible Region, or as it were in another World, because they could find out no place in this, which answered the gay Notions that they had, and their fine but false Idea's of it. Just as the Jews overlookt the Person of the true Messiah, be­cause it came not up to that vain and extravagant Character of Him, unhappily imprinted on their Minds: So these pious, learned, and incomparable men, took no notice of the real Place of Paradise, as being prepos­sest with misapprehensions of it. The lofty Opinions which they had concerning it, lifted up their Thoughts far above it, and carry'd them away quite beyond it. They imagin'd that it was they knew not well what, and so they placed it they knew not well where; be­lieving they should wrong it, if they fixt it any where in this ordinary World.

The Excepter having done with the Place of Para­dise; he objected next against the Longaevity of men before the flood, as a Property of it. But this, p. 55. says [Page 138] the Answerer, he handles so loosely, that in the conclusion of his Discourse, one cannot tell whether he affirms it or denies it. The Excepter begins his discourse of this matter, Disc. p. 273. with these very words. As for the Longaevity of the Antediluvians, that could be no Property or Ad­junct of Paradise. And did he not deny then, and posi­tively deny the Longaevity of the Antediluvians, as a Property of Paradise, which is his notion of it? And because the Answerer does affirm the thing, by divi­ding the Doctrine of the local Paradise into two parts, Answer. p. 55. the Place, and the Properties of it, and making this Ante­diluvian Longevity one of those Properties: the Repli­cant continues the positive Negation, and says express­ly as before, that the Longaevity of the Antediluvians could be no Property of Paradise. He makes it good thus. If it had been so, it would have ceased, or have been extinguisht in Mankind, by their loss of that Place. For where-ever Priviledges are the Properties of a Place, he that enjoys them, can hold them no longer than he continues in that place. If once he forfeits the Place, and be dispossess'd of that; together with it, he must actually lose all those Priviledges which are Properties of it, and be deprived of them. And this Longaevity being (according to our Author) a Property of the Place of Paradise; Adam and his Children could not be priviledg'd with it as such, when he himself was soon turn'd out of it, and none of them were ever in it. Besides, how could this Longaevity be a Property of the Particular Topical Paradise; when he makes it to be one of his three general Characters, Eng. Theor. l. 2. c. 2, 3. common to the whole Primitive Earth? Yet a Property of the particu­lar Paradise it must needs be, because it is one of the Properties meant, where he divides the Doctrine of that Paradise, into the Place, and the Properties of, that Place. But then is not here something like Contradi­ction [Page 139] again, where a Property of one particular Place of the Earth, is made common to the whole habitable Earth?

Indeed the Excepter did not positively deny the Lon­gaevity of the Antediluvians to be General. And there­fore the Answerer taxes him with Sceptical humour. Answ. p. 55. But if the contrary humour will please him better, the Replicant will so far put it on, as positively to affirm that the Praediluvian Longaevity cannot be founded upon the Hypothesis of the Theory. For in case it stands upon that foundation, it must be supported by a constant Aequinox and an Oval Earth. And that Earth must be without Metals and without a Sea. And then as Adam could have no Dominion over the Fish; so neither could Tubal-Cain trade in Brass or Iron. And if these things were thus, plain Scripture must be false, and Moses must be out in the history of the Creation. He was deceiv'd, that is, that we might be so; and the SPIRIT of Truth which actuated him, is become the Author of Lies to us; which GOD forbid any one should think.

After this he observes, ib. p. 56. that the Excepter did not take notice of the two last Reosons he gave, in confirmati­on of the Antediluvian Longaevity. One of them runs thus. The generations recorded in Scripture after the Flood, as they exceed the term of succeeding Ages, so they decline by degrees from the Antediluvian Longaevity. To this we answered sufficiently, (tho we did not ex­pressly apply it to that particular Reason) where we said, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber, living much longer just after the Flood, than others did then, See Disc. p. 27 [...]. or have done since; did live so long for the same reasons that the ten men in a lineal descent Gen. 5. were such long-livers. For so their lives are not to be lookt upon as declining from the Antediluvian Longaevity, as the Answerer conceits; but as extraordinarily lengthened, by [Page 140] a special Blessing; the elongation of them being a work of Providence, not of Nature.

The other Reason was this. Jacob complains of the shortness of his life, Answ. p. 56. and fewness of his days, in comparison of his Forefathers, when he had liv'd one hundred and thirty years; which had been a groundless complaint, if his Ancestors had not lived much longer. The Answer to this is so obvious and easy, that it was not worth trou­bling the Reader with it. The days of the years of my Pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years; few and evil have the days of the years of my Life been, and have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my Fa­thers: So Jacob complained, Gen. 47.9. Now his days being spent, or so far past, they could not but seem few to the good Patriarch, tho they were an hun­dred and thirty years. And being no more, he might truly say, that they had not attain'd to the years of his Fathers; without any manner of reference to, or so much as thought of, the Antediluvian long-livers. For his Great-Grandfather Terah lived two hundred and five years. Gen. 11.32. C. 25.7. His Grandfather Abraham, an hundred and threescore and fifteen. C. 35.28. And his Father Isaac, an hundred and fourscore. So that the shortest liver of these his Ancestors lived much longer than he had then done: even by more than a Third part of his Time mentioned.

That those remembred by Moses as Long-livers be­fore the Flood, do not show all in general to be so; the Excepter argued from these words of his: Disc. p. 277. Gen. 6.4. There were Giants on the Earth in those days. Now as his telling the World, there were some Giants then, does not imply that the whole Race of Mankind were such; but does rather import that the rest were otherwise: so his mentioning some so very Long-livers; may insinu­ate that the rest were not so. To this it is answered; [Page 141] there had been some pretence for this, Answ. p. 57. if Moses had made a distinction of two races of men in the first World: Long-livers and Short-livers; as he hath distinguisht the Giants from the Common race of Mankind. And is not his Di­stinction equally plain in both cases? Or if there be any difference, does he not distinguish better betwixt long-livers and short-livers; than he does betwixt men of Gigantic, and of usual Proportions? For whereas to distinguish Giants from ordinary men, he only said, there were Giants on the Earth in those days; he did more than say there were Long-livers on the Earth in those days: for he specifi'd their Names, and he set down their Ages, signifying clearly both who they were, and to what years they reached. But on the other side, he neither expressed who the Giants were, nor what their Stature and Dimensions. So that of the two, he distinguishes more plainly betwixt long-livers and short-livers; than betwixt the Giants and men of common size. For thus indeed he fairly inti­mated that the Generality of the praediluvians were short livers, by his care to particularize those that liv'd long; and both by their names, and by the length of their days, to discriminate them from the rest. And tho the Answerer says, in the close of his Paragraph, that not to suppose long life general to Mankind at that time, is a groundless restriction, which is neither founded upon Scripture nor reason: We reply, that it may be founded upon both. For Scripture says, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye, Gen. 2.17. And tho this Sentence was denounc'd against man condition­ally at first, in case he sinned; yet upon his actual disobedience, it became positive as it were, and abso­lute. And when Scripture makes this the Sentence of GOD; (Who had sufficient power to execute it, as well as just and mighty provocation to do it:) after [Page 142] once it took place, it must be consonant to Reason, that short life rather than long life, should be the gene­ral lot of men. And so both Scripture and Reason plainly suggest, that they who lived eight or nine hun­dred years, under this Sentence, must in all likelihood ow their Longaevity to the favour of Heaven, and a special Benediction; rather than to the strength of their own nature within, or any Course or Order of Nature without. Especially if we consider, that even the pretended Aequinoctial State of Nature, would have shortned mens days, Se [...] Disc. p. 281. as we noted. And if that alone would have hindred Longaevity: how much more would it have done it, when the sin of man concurred with it; and the curse of GOD upon the Earth, occasion'd by that sin?

As to the Testimonies of the Ancients cited by Jo­sephus, Eng. Theor. p. 315. and alledged by the Theorist in proof of the Antediluvian Longaevity; they were noted by the Ex­cepter to be utterly false. Disc. p. 276. For whereas they witness that in the first age of the World, men liv'd a thousand years; none of mankind, according to the account that the Divine Writings give, ever did so: but some of them (tho this is answered by his last Expedient only) fell very short of it. Thus, Seth came short of a thou­sand years, by almost Ninety; Enos, by almost an Hundred; Mahalaleel, by above an Hundred; Lamech, by above two Hundred and Twenty. The Answerer therefore need not have insisted upon the Ancients Tra­dition. And tho he tells the Excepter that he seems content, Answ. p. 57. Disc. p. 278. this Tradition should be admitted: Yet as the Context plainly shows, he yielded it only so far, as to make the Concession introductive to an Enquiry after farther Tradition, about a constant Equinox and Perpe­tual Spring; how it comes to pass that Tradition is so partial, as not to tell us explicitly of them, the Causes [Page 143] of this Longaevity? But this Question, he says, is fully answered, and the Tradition fully made out before, in the 8th. Chapter. And to that 8th Chapter of his An­swer, the 8th Chapter here does as fully Reply. But let us go on to the Reasons alledg'd against the General Longaevity of the Praediluvians.

The First was this. Disc. p. 279. Answ. p. 58. Their Multitudes would have overstockt the Earth. To which he answers, That Earth was more capacious than this is, where the Sea takes away half of its Surface. But as the Sea takes away from this Earth, so the Torrid Zone and Rainy Regions took away from that. That Earth also had no Mountains, which in this are great as well as nume­rous; and do very much inlarge its Capacity or room for Inhabitants. And whereas he suggests, that Moun­tains are less habitable than Plains, Ib. by reason of their barrenness: It must be considered first, that a Moun­tainous Earth must have Valleys in it. And as Moun­tains are more barren than Plains, so Valleys are often­times more fruitful than they; and also receptive of more Dwellers. That is, by reason of their hollow­ness and declivities, they are more capacious than Plains, whose superficial extent is equal to the tops of these Valleys, if measured by lines drawn from side to side. Secondly, tho some Mountains be barren, others are as fruitful. Taurus, for instance, which takes its Denomination, as some think, from its Magnitude; and is the Greatest Mountain in all Asia (being as we are told, fifty Miles broad in some places on the Top of it, and fifteen hundred long, reaching from the Ocean of Chinah, to the Sea of Pamphylia;) on the sides of it is prodigious fruitful, tho its highest parts are covered with Snow. For it affords Honey, Wheat, Gums, Wines, and Fruits in vast Quantities. What he intimates touching Holland, that there are more peo­ple [Page 144] in it, Ibid. than upon a like number of Acres upon the Alps or Pyreneans; is allowed to be true. But then the Populousness of that Place (as of many others) is not owing to the Fruitfulness of the Soil, but to the Traf­fique by Sea. And therefore he had the less reason to accuse the Sea of straightning the Earth; when by vertue of its Trade, it inables so great a multitude of People, Answ. p. 58. to live in so little a compass of Ground. Here he adds, that he has Two things to complain of as foul play; Citing the Theory partially; and not marking the place whence the Citation was taken. As to this Latter, it was not so needful to mark the place of the Citation, because the place of another Citation im­mediately before this, and relating to the same matter, was marked: See Disc. p. 279. And this Citation here meant, was but six lines distant from that, on the very next page. As to the Former, He had no cause to blame the Excepter for a Partial Citation; for he cited enough to confute the Theory fairly, as to this Point, out of it self; and what needed he to cite more? The Citation was this. If we allow the first Couple, Ib. 279, 280. 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. So that admitting this easy Supposition, either the Longaevity of the Antediluvians must not be universal, or the Earth was incapable of its Inhabitants, said the Excepter. But therefore, says the Answerer, the Theorist tells you, the same measure cannot run equally through all Ages. Answ. p. 58, 59. And in his calculation you see, after the first Century, he hath taken only a quadruple proportion for the increase of mankind. This the Excepter might have observed. And this the Excepter did observe. But then he ob­served [Page 145] withal, that he had no reason to go off from this easy supposition of a decuple proportion. And therefore he stopt at it, and did not concern himself with the Quadruple proportion, as being a groundless diminution of that Decuple Measure of increase, which would have easily held on through all following Centuries, in a proportion equal to that of the first. For if Adam and Eve, the first pair of Breeders at the end of the first Century, lest ten pair; why should not every other pair be allow'd to multiply at the same rate? The reason given seems to be this. Ib. p. 58. This is an easy sup­position for the first century, but it would be a very un­easy one for the following Centuries. And why? I find no reason again but this: Eng. The. p. 23. because this (decuple proportion) would rise far beyond the capacities of this Earth. That is, it would not be uneasy in the truth and reality of the thing; but uneasy in regard of the Theory's Hypothesis. It would not be uneasy for Man­kind to multiply in a decuple proportion; but it would be uneasy for the Theory to allow they did so; because then, as the Excepter urges, the Earth would have been overcharg'd with their numerous increase. And when the Excepter cited so much of the Theory, as carried the whole Truth of the Matter in it; he had no reason to go farther in citing more of it, which was added but to serve the Theory against the Truth: nor is there reason why he should be counted or called partial, because he did not do it. That every Pair of breeders should at the end of every Century leave ten pair more; is easy and allowable, because, in all like­lihood, true in it self: and was the Excepter to take in a lower proportion, because this higher one was not for the Theorist's purpose? The first Supposition be­ing easy, and in all probability true; why should a second be admitted, to render that uneasy and false, [Page 146] meerly because it favours not him who made it? But let him show why Seth and his Wife, and Enos and his Wife, and other pairs downward, may not be allowed to multiply in the same decuple proportion that the first pair are allowed to do; and then the Excepter will own himself faulty for not enlarging the Citation, and taking in the Quadruple proportion mentioned. But because in all probability, they multipli'd in equal measures; he had no reason to be blam'd as partial, for leaving it out. Tho the truth is, if but the Quadruple proportion be admitted, it will set the Number of the Praediluvians very much too high, if compar'd with the Number of the present Earth's Inhabitants; as the Theorist computes them both. For whereas he thinks that the present number of men upon the face of the Earth, is commonly estimated to be betwixt three and four hundred Millions: Eng. Theor. p. 23. the Quadruple proportion, in sixteen hun­dred and fifty years (which passed before the Flood came in) would raise it to 21474836480. A most prodigious Excess: as raising the number more than one and twenty thousand Millions above the common account. Or if we quite lay aside this Quadruple pro­portion, and go but according to that other Citation out of the Theory before this; the Earth would still be overlaid with the multitude of its Inhabitants. See Disc. p. 279. The Citation runs thus. 'Tis likely they were more fruitful in the first Ages of the World, than after the Flood; and they lived six, seven, eight, nine hundred years apiece, getting Sons and Daughters. And when men lived so many hundreds of years before the Flood, and lived getting of Sons and Daughters, and were more fruitful, then, than since; how is it possible but that the first Earth in sixteen hundred years, must be mightily over-peopled; especially when Digamy, and (as the H. GHOST seems to intimate) Poligamy too, Gen 6.2. were in [Page 147] fashion in the first World? So that go which way you please; by your Decuple, that is, or by your Quadru­ple proportion, or else by the last clause cited out of your Theory; and according to any, or according to all of them, the primitive Earth would have been greatly overstockt, in case the Longaevity of the Ante­diluvians had been universal.

The second Reason against that Longaevity was the inequality of it; or the difference as to length of days, Disc. p. 280. amongst them that lived before the Flood. To this it is answered, Answ. p. 59. their Stamina and Constitutions might then be of a different strength, as well as now. The length of Mens days depends naturally upon the strength of their Bodies; and the strength of their Bodies, upon the goodness of their Stamina, and Constitutions. And therefore if These were as different before the Flood, as they are since; many Millions might dye then as soon as they were born, and as many in their Infancy, and as many very young, and so the Longaevity of the Praediluvians could not be General: which was the Thing objected.

The last Reason against the Praediluvian Longaevity supposed to proceed from a constant Equinox; Answ. p. 59. Disc. p. 281, 282, 283, The second Character is the Longaevity of men; and, as is probable, of all other A­nimals in pro­portion. Eng. Theor. p. 180. was the proportionable long life of other Animals. For that would have been an Effect of the same Cause. And they multiplying much faster than Mankind; had they lived long, they would have grown so numerous as to have been pernicious. To which it is answered thus. I can say nothing to that, nor he neither upon good grounds, unless we knew what species's of Animals were then made, and in what degrees they Multiplied. He formerly yielded, that the Earth then brought forth the principles of life, and all living Creatures, Man excepted: Eng. The. p. 179, But now it appears that he then said he knew not what; for he owns that he knows not what species's of Animals were then made.

And then as to the Degrees which they multiply'd in, they must needs be strangely high. For besides that the Ground was then most fat and fruitful, and the Air most warm and cherishing, and all advantages imaginable concurr'd to constant and numerous propa­gations of them; the Earth brought forth the princi­ples of life, we see, and all living creatures: and so by spontaneous Births they would have increased even sans number; and such a consuming multitude of them would have been produced, as would not only have greatly annoyed, but utterly ruined Mankind. For while Horses, Asses, Cows, Sheep, Goats, Swine, Dogs, Lions, Bears, Wolves, Crocodiles, Serpents, Scorpions, Rats, Mice, Fowls, Hornets, &c. grew out of the Earth in strange plenty; and this Terrige­nous Breed (by the help and influence of a perpetual Equinox) were naturally far more prolific than now these Creatures are, and there were no hands to hinder their Procreations, or to destroy either young or old: how could Mankind who multiply'd (in comparison) so very slowly, have defended either themselves or their Provisions (naked and destitute of Weapons as they were) from the Assaults and Invasions of such incon­ceiveable Herds or Swarms of Vermin, as would have come upon them? But here therefore the old Expedi­ent, Extraordinary Providence, is call'd in again for Remedy or Prevention. Ib. 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. That is, when ordinary Providence had put Nature into such a condition, as to bring forth the aforesaid animals, and many other, out of the Earth; Extraor­dinary Providence was to stand by, and either hinder them from rising into animation; or else knock them [Page 149] on the head as fast as they quickned, and send them packing out of life again. As if divine Providence imi­tated Penelope; unravelling by night, what it weav'd by day. Thus he pulls down his own Censure upon himself: Methinks they make very bold with the Deity, Eng. The. p. 20. when they make Him do and undo, go forward and back­wards by such countermarches and retractions, as we do not willingly impute to the Wisdom of GOD ALMIGHTY.

CHAP. XIV.

HEre another Vital Assertion of the Theory's is ex­cepted against; and Reasons are given why the Deluge cannot be rightly explicated by the Dissolution of the Earth, or its Disruption and fall into the Abyss. The first is, Disc. p. 285. because it would be inconsistent with Moses 's Description of Paradise; which he has made according to proper Rules of Topography. But, says the Answerer, this Objection, I'm afraid, will fall heavier upon Moses, Answ. p. 60. or upon the Excepter himself, than upon the Theorist. And why so? Why, Ib. because that place of Paradise cannot be understood or determin'd by the Mosaical Topography, one of these two things must be allowed; either that the de­scription was insufficient and ineffectual: or that there has been some great change in the Earth, whereby the Marks of it are destroy'd.—If he take the second of these Answers, he joins with the Theorist. If the first, he reflects upon the honour of Moses, or confutes himself. Moses's To­pography of Paradise, as it was done by proper Rules, so it was sufficient and effectual enough for marking it out, as it once stood. And that it is not so now, is because (as the second Answer intimates) there has been a great change in the Earth, in that part of the Earth where the Paradisiacal Region was. And such a change may be allowed without joining with the Theo­rist, [Page 150] as he Himself assures us. For he tells us in the same page, that good interpreters suppose, that the Chanels of Rivers were very much changed by the Flood. And a great change in the Chanels of Rivers, must make a great change in a Country: Especially where that Country is describ'd by those Rivers; which is the case of Paradise. And this change is the very thing which makes the place of Paradise so hard to be found. Yet this, I say, is very far from joining with the Theorist. For according to him, the Chanels of Rivers were not only changed, Eng. Theor. p. 252. but all broke up, and so quite put by, by that Fraction of the Earth which made the Flood. And not only the Chanels of Rivers were destroyed, but even the Sources of them too, by his Hypothesis. For where­as the general Sources of all Rivers in the primitive World, were the Rainy Regions about the Poles; Those Polar Regions fell in together with the rest, and so Ri­vers which were before, could not afterward continue. Let him please to say therefore whether Tygris and Eu­phrates were before the Flood or not. If they were not, how could Moses describe Paradise by them? If they were, had the Flood come in by the Earth's Dissolution, they must inevitably have been destroyed. But instead of that, they are still in being; and this is an evidence that the Earth was not delug'd, by being dissolv'd. Nor is this the only difficulty upon the Theorist here. For as to the place of Paradise, he refers himself wholly (as we have heard) to the Ancients; and they incline to seat it in the South, or South-East Land, in the other World. And can it enter into the mind of man to think, that Havilah, and Aethiopia, and Assyria, and Hidde­kel, and Euphrates, which Moses takes into the de­scription of Paradise; could ever be situate in the other Hemisphere, when they are now found in this? If the Earth fell in, without question it gave a deadly jounce. [Page 151] But could it make these Countries and Rivers rebound with such force, as to leap quite beyond the torrid Zone, and settle some degrees on this side of our Tro­pic? There are a sort of Divi­nity Theorists, Annus ipse nonagesimus primus ejus seculi erat, quod eodem anno, ac pene mense, natalis Deiparae Virginis domus, deficiente cultu, ex Asia in Europam, coelestium ministerio transit. Quae primo in Dalmatia, inde quadrienno post in Piceno consedit. Hor. Tursel. Epit. Hist. lib. 9. pag. (mihi) 302. who would fain perswade us, that the Lady of Loretto's Chamber went thither a Pilgrimage out of Nazareth. This is strangely marvellous: but the wonder of it will be much a­bated, if we can find the Regions and Rivers we speak of, going on procession out of the South-East Land, into this Northern Continent. I confess we are taught strange things of Paradise; but this its translation would surpass all. And how good soever its Soil was at first, certainly it grew very light at last, to hop thus far. Were this an effect of the Earth's fall, believe it, here is either a very fair tumbling Cast; or else our Au­thor is in a foul mistake. And so indeed he must be; and the Objection which he was afraid would fall on Moses, or the Excepter; lights heavy on the Theorist.

But out of this fear, he quickly rises into another Passion, if we may guess by his expressions in the next Paragraph. Tho I cannot but say, his Passion is as causeless, as his fear was groundless. For, speaking truth in a controversy, should never move choler. And did the Excepter do more than so, when he said, that to affirm Moses's Description of Paradise to be false, Disc. p. 286. must be horrid Blasphemy, it being Dictated by the H. GHOST? Yet this is the word which he takes so ill. And truly so far as he has said any thing, that implies Mose's To­pography of Paradise to be false; So far he ought to resent what was spoken; tho not with anger. And, pray, how can he (allowing own Hypothesis to be [Page 152] true) defend Moses's description of Paradise from being false; seeing he describes it by Rivers, and those Ri­vers, according to the Theory, could not be before the Flood? He attempts the Defence thus. The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood, Answer. p. 60. in great plenty, and why not like to these? He himself has given Reasons why they could not be like them. Eng. The. p. 252. 'Tis true, if you admit our Hypothesis, concerning the fraction and disruption of the Earth at the Deluge, then we cannot expect to find rivers, as they were before, their general source is changed, and their Chanels are all broke up. And if Rivers after the Flood, are not as they were before it; how can they be alike? And when their source was changed at the De­luge, and their Chanels all broke up; how is it possible but that they must differ greatly from what they were, in their situations, Courses, &c? Which must utterly spoil them for being topographical marks; I mean the same true topographical marks to any Country, to which they formerly were so: And can they then be alike? That Person who can think that the Earth was dissolved, and by that dissolution fell a Mile or two downward, and by that fall was broken to pieces, and by that fraction was thrown into wildest disorders; so that whereas before it had one entire, smooth, level, uniform Surface; it was thus made into Mountains, Hills, Valleys, Islands, Rocks, Seas, Gulphs, Lakes, &c. And yet can think again, that those Rivers which were before this happened, should in their situations and cha­nels (the principal circumstances we are now concern'd in) be just like these after it; he must be one of a very strong Phantsy, but withal of as weak a Judgment. And farther, Moses does not describe Paradise by Ri­vers like to Tygris, and Euphrates, and Pison, and Gi­hon; but by those very same Rivers as originally flowing there. And every like, we know, is far from [Page 153] being the very same. Men and Animals now upon Earth, are like to them before the Deluge: yet I hope they are not the same revived.

And then lastly, the Theorist yields Paradise was in the Southern Hemisphere, and so the Rivers of it before the Flood must be there too, and so they must rise from the rainy Region at the Antarctic Pole, and so they must be very remote from the Land of Havilah and Assyria. Whereas since the Flood, Moses describes Pa­radise by Tygris and Euphrates, and these are Rivers in this Northern Hemisphere, and they spring up from the Mountains of Armenia, and they run by or through the aforesaid Countries. And is it to be thought then that those Rivers before the Flood, and these Rivers since the Flood, could be alike? Especially alike in show­ing the Situation and the bounds of Paradise? from Moses's Description or Topography of which, was the first Reason borrow'd against the Earth's Dissolution. Concerning which he expostulates; Answ. p. 61. Is it not a strange thing that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made Blasphemy? Yes, very strange, and let them that make it so, be blamed for it. But still to affirm that Moses's Description of Paradise is false, would be hor­rid Blasphemy, it being dictated by the H. GHOST. And this was the thing which the Excepter made Blas­phemy, (which the Answerer, if he thinks fit, may contradict.) And now the Replicant says farther, that to assert such a Dissolution of the Earth, as destroys Moses's Description of Paradise, or implies it to be false; will indirectly, consequentially, and reductive­ly at least, be of Blasphemous importance. But the Answerer alledges; that very Expression, Ibid. the Earth is dissolved, is a Scripture Expression (Psalm. 75.3. Isai. 24.19. Amos 9.5.) which, methinks, might have been enough to have protected it from the imputation of Blasphe­my. [Page 154] How well this Allegation will protect him or what he has said, in any capacity or respect; I know not. I only ask, what dissolution of the Earth, do the Psalm­ist and Prophets mean, in the Places cited? Do they mean a figurative, tropological Dissolution; or a literal, and such a real one as the Theorist has invented, and which, according to him, did drown the World? If the first, their notion is nothing to the Answerer's pur­pose: if the Second, the Earth must have been delug'd, as often as they say it has been dissolv'd. I cannot think, that our Answerer believes, that Palestine was literally or really dissolv'd, in the prophet Esay's time. Yet 'tis plain it was so, according to Scripture-expression. Thou whole Palestina are dissolved, Isai. 14.31. Which shows him clearly what Dissolution of the Earth, Scripture means in the places cited; and what kind of protecti­on that Scripture expression will afford him: and con­sequently how weak the Sanctuary is that he here flies to. In this Paragraph he insinuates odious things of the Excepter. As if he were guilty of a rude and injudicious defending of Scripture, by railing and ill language, such as tends to the diminution and disparagement of it. As if he made his own Consequences to be of the same authori­ty with the word of GOD; and so whatsoever is against them, must be charg'd with Blasphemy against the H. GHOST. And as if there were nothing safe against his blind zeal and opinionative ignorance. How easy were it here to retort and retaliate? But we must not render [...] Yet he having observed, that weak reasons commonly produce strong passions; we may without offence, Answ. p. 11. measure his Arguments by his own Rule, and judge of their weakness by the sentence pro­ceeding out of his own mouth; and conclude that his Reasons are like to be invalid, because his Passions are so violent. By them, one would think he had taken [Page 155] a turn in his Torrid Zone, and was just now come piping hot out of it.

Secondly, the Dissolution of the Earth could not be the cause of the general flood; because it would have utterly destroyed Noah 's Ark and all that was in it: Disc. p. 288. said the Excepter. But this was prevented by the Theorist's putting the Ark under the Conduct of its Guardian Angels, and a miraculous Providence, says the Answerer. p. 61. And in proof that he did thus put the Ark under the Conduct of Angels; he cites these words out of the English Theory. Ib. 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 preserved, if there had not been a miraculous hand of Providence to take care of them. And then again he must needs fall pell-mell on the Excepter, tho he comes off as he uses to do. Ib. p. 62. Now either the Excepter did not take notice of this passage in the Theory, or he does not allow that a miraculous hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark: or thirdly, that he made an objection, which he knew himself to be impertinent. And I confess, I am inclinable to think the last is true. But by his leave, none of these three things are true, and the real truth is this. Tho he put the Ark under the conduct of Angels in the ex­tremity of the Flood, and when it was upon the raging Abyss; yet he lest it without a miraculous hand to take care of it, in its fall. Yea, instead of that, it is evi­dent, that he only put it into a River, or Dock, Ib. or Cistern, that it might be afloat there before the Abyss was broken open; as if that could have sav'd it from be­ing dasht to pieces. And because the Excepter did not take notice of this Contrivance, of this River, or Dock: he tells him of it in both ears: p. 31. In the eighth Chapter of his Answer, and here in the fourteenth. p. 62: But was there so great an injury done him, and had he such mighty cause to complain, that that Thing [Page 156] was omitted, which himself now looks upon as unneces­sary? For he says, after all, there is no necessity that the Ark should be afloat, Ib. before the Earth broke. And for what reason? Why, ordinary providence be­ing thus laid aside, what can be expected but Extraor­dinary providence should be brought in next? And so it is with a witness, Ib. in these words. The Angels, (whose ministery we own openly upon these grand occasions) could as easily have held the Ark afloat, in the Air, as on the Water. But because Angels could do this, may we argue from thence with good consequence that they did do it? and from their power to act it, conclude they effected it? Without question they could have kept Judea dry, when all the rest of the World was drown'd; yet, we know, this was not done. But the Ark however was held afloat in the Air, by them. For it follows, 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. Surely this Hypothesis must needs be very strong and lasting, that has so much miracle, and ministery of Angels to support it. And then what matter for Philosophy (tho the Theory is to be chiefly Philosophical, Eng. Th. p. 6.) when it may stand much better without it? But the same pen writes thus in another place. Eng. The. p. 98. Noah and his Family were sav'd by water; so as the water which destroy'd the rest of the World, was an instrument of their Conservation, inas­much as it bore up the Ark, and kept it from that impe­tuous shock, which it would have had, if it had either stood upon dry land when the Earth fell, or if the Earth had been dissolv'd without any water on it or under it. Now if Noah and his Family were saved by water; if the water which destroy'd the rest of the world, was an instrument of their Conservation; if it conserv'd them as [Page 157] it bore up the Ark; and if it so bore it up, as that it kept it from an impetuous shock, which otherwise it would have had when the Earth fell: how could the Answerer say, there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke; and now make the conservation of Noah and his Ark, at the fall of the Earth, to be wholly Angelical? In short; the Theorist affirms, that mankind was saved by water that bore up the Ark, and kept it from an impetuous shock when the Earth fell; it having the Advantage of a River, or of a Dock, or Cistern, wherein to float. The Answerer, that there was no necessity that the Ark should be afloat before the Earth broke, because the Angels could hold it in the Air; and they having charge over it, did bear it up in their hands. The Question therefore might be put, which of the two speaks truest. But e'en let them agree the difference as they please, Another Con­tradiction. and reconcile the plain Contradiction between them. But for the Ark's being afloat in a River, or Dock, or Cistern, before the Earth fell; he has this pretence. Those things were premis'd in the Theory, Answ: p. 62. only to soften the way to men that are hard of be­lief in such extraordinary matters. Truly these mat­ters are very Extraordinary; and the way to believing them had need be well softned. But when that is soft­ned, if so be men are not softned withal, and made extraordinarily soft too; they will hardly ever believe them at last. And pray, what are the Extraordinary matters, to the belief of which, the Arks being afloat in a River, or Dock, or Cistern; was to soften the way? They seem to be the saving of Noah, and the saving of his Family, and the saving of the Ark, when the Earth fell. But then in truth these things could not be those matters. For we are here told (at the same time) that there was no necessity of the Arks being [Page 158] afloat in water, in order to these things: and that Noah, and his Family, and the Ark, were saved by the Mini­stery of Angels. And to the belief of the Angels saving them, such a mollification would be vain and needless; inasmuch as every one who believes their Existence, believes also what the Answerer says of them; that they could as easily have held the Ark afloat in the Air, as in the Water. And so what was premised in the Theory, of this softning Nature; and what the Excepter is blamed for not noting, was of as little use, as it is of truth. And to shut up this particular; by calling in this extraordinary help of the Angels, he renders the Rains at the Deluge (the principal Cause of it, Gen. 7.4.) wholly unnecessary. For tho at first he would have them to save the Ark by setting it afloat; yet now we see there was no necessity of that. And then if the Earth fell into the Abyss, and by its fall made the waters of it so raging and destructive to all things, as he represents them; there could be no more need of forty days rain in order to the Flood; than of forty Candles to give light to the Sun. And so GOD did a great work to no end or purpose. Especially this 40 days rain fol­lowing the Disruption; Which happened the very first day that Noah entred the Ark.

A Third Reason against the Floods coming in by the Dissolution of the Earth, was this. The Earth (or dry Land of this Terraqueous Globe) would in likelihood have been of another Figure than what it now bears. Disc. p. 289. But instead of answering it, Answ. p. 63. he speaks against a change in the Poles and Circles of the Earth; a needless trouble, and occa­sion'd by his own oversight. For had he but lookt into the Errata's, he might have seen there, that those Pa­rentheses, upon which he grounded what he says, should have been left out. And in case he did peruse the Er­rata's, and observe that these Parentheses were marked [Page 159] for such; I may say of him, as he said of the Excepter, it must be a wilful dissimulation not to take notice of them. Ib. p. 62. And if he had taken notice of them as Errata's, he need not have troubled himself farther about them. And so we pass to

The Fourth Reason. Had the Earth been dissolved to make the Flood; Read Disc. p. 290, 291, 292. its Dissolution would have brought it into lamentable barrenness. For the dry and dead Soil would have been turned up by whole Countries at once: and where the outward part of the Earth continu'd out­ward still; the top of the Ground would have been rinsed off, by the vehement workings and incessant beatings of the Flood upon it. And then the furious commotions and aestuations of the Waters, washing off an abundance of Earth, from the innumerable Frag­ments which fell into the Abyss; and this Earthy stuff being carried into all places, and spread thick upon the Ground, and mix'd and incorporated with much other Filth; it would have hardned (upon the going off of the Flood) into a Crust or Cap on the surface of the Earth, and so have been very destructive to its Fruitful­ness. It is answered first, I willingly allow, Answ. p. 64. that some of the interiour and barren parts of the Earth might be turn'd up; as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries: but this rather confirms the Theory, than weakens it. He must allow (according to the tenour of his Hypothe­sis) not only that some, but that many of the interiour barren parts of the Earth were turned up everywhere. And then the Waters being so strangely tumultuous, and the fluctuations of them so extremely boisterous, The Tumult of the Waters, and the extre­mity of the Deluge lasted for some Months. Eng. Theor. p. 76. Ib. p. 75. and their mighty rage of so long continuance; While they were carried up to a great height in the Air, and fell down again with prodigious weight and force; they could not but harrass the Ground at such a rate, as to wear away the upper part of it, and make the top of [Page 160] the Earth as bare and barren as the bottom of a river, by their monstrous and unspeakable Surgings. Second­ly, he answers, that the filth and soil would have made the Earth more barren, p. 64. I cannot allow. For good husbandmen overflow their grounds, to make their Crops more Rich. And 'tis generally supposed that the inundation of the Nile, and the mud it leaves behind it, makes Egypt 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. But when good Husbandmen overflow their grounds to improve their Crops; they do it seasonably, and they do it moderately, and to be sure they do not at the same time turn them up for half a mile or a mile deep. And tho several Rivers do in­rich grounds by their Inundations, by vertue of a great plenty of unctuous mud which they bring upon them, that makes the Soil new as it were; Nearchus de fluviorum effusione haec affert ex­empla, quod dictum est, Hermi, & Caystri, & Maeandri, & Caici, campos similes esse, propter limum qui e montibus delatus campos [...]get, imo facit. Strabo Geogr. li. 15. (so Hermus does, and also Cayster, Menander, and Caicus, as Strabo informs us from Nearchus) yet that mud which the Deluge would have left, would have been of a silty and sandy nature, and so of a lean, and hungry, and starven quali­ty, as being mostly washt off from the Edges of those pieces into which the dissolved Earth was shattered: and consequently would rather have prevented and hin­dred, than helped or promoted the Earth's fruitfulness. And therefore the Geographer notes, that the mud of the aforesaid Rivers, which makes the fields over which they flow; is not coarse and dry (like that which would have been eaten off of the verges of the terre­strial Fragments) but of a softer and fatter sort. Deferre autem flumina eum qui mollior sit, & pinguior ex quo campi fiunt. Id. Ib. And then as to the Nile, that the Mud it brings down upon the Land of Egypt, is light and soft, and fat; and so fit to impregnate it with a strong Fertility: we may [Page 161] properly infer from the sweetness of its Waters. For as Diodorus reports, they are the sweetest of all that are in the whole Earth. Which made that famous Gene­ral, Piscenius Niger, (who contended with Septimus Se­verus for the Empire) reprimand his Souldiers for han­kering after wine, and for muttering for the want of it; when they might drink their fill of this pleasant Stream. Tho it is well known, that an ingenious French Writer, I mean Duval (in his Geogr. Ʋnivers.) ascribes both the Muddiness, Fruitfulness, and Overflow of it; to its Nitrous Quality. His words are to this purpose. It has lately been found out, that the Nitre wherewith the Nile abounds so much, is the cause of all those wonderful Effects; and that being heated by the sun, it mingles it self with the water, renders it troubled, swells it, and makes it pass over its Banks. But yet concerning this noble River it is as well known; that as sometimes it has not increased at all, (as in the tenth and eleventh year of Cleopatra, against the downfal and the death of that Princess, and her admired Anthony:) and as some­times it is defective in its increase, to lamentable failures in the usual Products of that plentiful Country: So if at any time it happens to exceed in its increment, but two or three Cubits; that excess is at once both a clear Prognostic, and a certain Cause, of a dearth or scarcity in the ensuing year. But then that such a Deluge as the Theory supposes, (it being Universal, and of long continuance, and made of lean subterraneous water, and full of dead, and harsh, and heavy soil, fetcht off from numberless pieces of the broken Earth) should occasion barrenness, for a considerable time, in the post-diluvian World; is but reasonable to conclude. Nor lastly does this part of the Objection lie against the common Explication of the Deluge, with such force as it does against the Theory's Explication of it. For [Page 162] tho a General Flood overtopping the Mountains, must have left mud, and slime, and filth behind it; yet where the water rise upon an Earth that remained un­broken, they could be nothing in quantity, to what they must have been where the Earth was dissolv'd and fell all to pieces; and where the water boiling up from under these Fragments, and then falling down again violently upon them, raged amongst them with lasting, incessant, and unimaginable turbulence.

As a Fifth Reason against the Earth's being drowned, by its being dissolved, Disc. p. 292: the Excepter added this. All the Buildings erected before the Flood, would have been shaken down, or else overwhelmed. Here, as to the City Joppa (which is the main hinge upon which the Ob­jection turns) he Answers: it is incertain whether it was built before the Flood. [...]. 64. But besides the au­thorities of Mela and Solinus cited for it, it is generally granted to be so ancient; and none that speak of its Antiquity, take upon them to deny it. Nor will the Fiction concerning Perseus and Andromeda, subvert the receiv'd opinion in this matter. For as many Fables are made out of true stories, so many again are tacked to them. [...]. 64, 65. He goes on; However suppose the ruines of one Town remain'd after the Flood; does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv'd? I do not doubt, but there were several tracts of the Earth, much greater than that Town, that were not broken all to pieces by their fall. Had that tract, whereon Joppa stood, continued whole; yet falling down so very low (a mile at least;) by the force of its weight it would have suffer'd such a shock, as could not but have levell'd its Buildings with the ground. Thus very good houses are oftentimes shatter'd down in Earthquakes, meerly by the concussion or shaking of the Ground, tho it never breaks. And truly if only the bare ruines of it had remained (which we do not, [Page 163] nor need not grant) yet these must have given as fatal a blow to the Theory, as the fall of the Earth would have done to this City. For their very out-lasting the fury of the Deluge, would prove that Joppa consisted, not of a Number of Cottages, made of branches of trees, Answ: p. 50. of Osiers, and Bull-rushes; or of Mud-Walls and Straw Roofs (which then must all have been quite washt away:) but of Edifices made of such Materials, as could never be prepared, formed, and set up, without Iron tools. And so we come to

The Last Reason against the supposed dissolution of the Earth. It would have made GOD's Covenant with Noah, See Disc. p. 296, 297, 298. a very vain and trifling thing. Because then the Earth was not capable of, or liable to such another Deluge. It is here answered: So much is true, p. 65. that the Deluge in the course of Nature, will not return again in the same way. If it returns not in the same way, that is, in the course of nature; it cannot be such another Deluge as Noah's was: for that came in by the Course of Nature. Read the be­ginning of the 6th. Chapter of this Reply. Answ. p. 65. He proceeds; But unless GOD prevents it, it both may and will return in another way. That is, if the World, continues long enough, the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters, in proportion, rise; and overflow the whole Earth. How possible soever such a Deluge may be in long process of time; yet Christians, who believe the Doctrine of the Gospel, and that principal Article of it, the World's Conflagration; can never think that it shall come to pass. For if the World in the end, were to be overflow'd with Water; how could it, according to St. Peter, be reserved unto fire? 2 Pet. 3. [...] And GOD having thus declar'd that he will prevent it, His Covenant with Noah could have no relation to such a natural Overflow. This piece of answer therefore is so very thin, that a weak eye may easily see through it, and discern that there is shifting at the bottom of it. [Page 164] He adds therefore; Answ. p. 65. GOD might, when He pleased, 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 feared, and which GOD, by his Cove­nant, secur'd him against. Noah's Flood was brought upon the World for the sins of men; And if another Flood may be brought in, upon that account, by GOD's ex­traordinary power; then Noah's Flood might come in by that power too, even by its creating waters to make it. Which in case it had been but yielded at first, it might have sav'd the pains, of setting up this Hypothesis. And not only so, but likewise have superseded the col­lateral trouble, of too weak and ineffectual endeavours to support it. And when all is said, the sole reason why such another flood as Noah's was, shall never come in again; is not any change in Nature, rendring the thing difficult or impossible; but the unchangeable covenant of GOD, as appears, Isai. 54.9. Where GOD, to illustrate the stability of his kindness to the Jewish Church, and to show that its calamity shall never be reiterated; compares it to the sure and perpetual ex­clusion of the waters of Noah, to the return of which, his immutable Oath is the eternal bar. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the Earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Thus we have done with the Answer to our Excep­tions. In which I am not conscious to my self, that I have omitted any one thing, which deserves notice and a Reply. And here I might speak freely of this An­swer. But because its defects are plain and obvious e­nough to the intelligent; I only say this much. That I expected a better from the Author of the Theory, or none at all.

CHAP. XV.

HEre the Scaene changes; and our Answerer now becomes an Objector; and manages this part, as he did the other. And as an instance of as much, he trips in the first step that he makes, and stumbles into a Mistake. For he affirms, Answ. p. 66. that the first Proposition laid down for the establishing of our Hypothesis, is this. That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high, above the ordinary level of the Earth. But as any one, that pleases, may see, the Proposition laid down as the foun­dation of our Hypothesis, is verbatim this. Disc. p. 30 [...] That the highest parts of the Earth, that is, of the common surface of it, were under Water but fifteen Cubits in depth. And between the common surface (or ordinary level) of the Earth; and the highest parts of that surface, or level; there is great difference. For according to the first, the Waters were not 30 foot high, as he noted: Ib. l. 12. but ac­cording to the latter, they might, in most places, be thir­ty, forty, or fifty Cubits high, or higher, as we observed. Disc. p. 300. l. 31. Ib. l. 27. And whereas it is said of the Waters of the Flood, that they were but fifteen Cubits high in all, above the surface of the Earth; it is manifest that the highest parts of its surface were there intended, by what follows, in ex­planation of that Clause, even to the end of the Para­graph. Touching the Proposition he cries out, This is an unmerciful Paradox. Answ. p. 66. But who could have lookt for such an Exclamation, from him whose own Paradoxes are so many and unmerciful! Here therefore [...]. His Censure returns double upon himself. And while he finds fault with the sliver in my Teeth; I may justly give him the Talmudic answer, usually directed to the more guilty Reprehender, [...] take the Beam out of thine eyes. [Page 166] Then he enquires, Ib. p. 66, 67. under what notion must this Proposi­tion be receiv'd? as a Postulatum, or as a Conclusion? If it be a Postulatum, it must be clear from its own light, or acknowledg'd by general consent. It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light, because it is matter of fact, which is not known, but by Testimony. Neither is it gene­rally acknowledg'd: for the general opinion is, that the Waters covered the tops of the Mountains, and were fifteen Cubits higher. We might bring this home to the vital Assertions of the Theory; but let us try but one of them. Namely, that the Primitive Earth was without a Sea. Under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd? As a Postulatum, or as a Conclusion? If it be a Postulatum, it must be clear from its own light, or acknowledg'd by general consent. It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light, because it is matter of fact, which is not known but by testimony. Neither is it generally acknowledg'd; For the general opinion is, that the First Earth had an Open Sea. Wherefore we may well goon (with a little variation) against the An­swerer, as he does against the Excepter. It must not therefore be made a Postulatum, that such an Assertion is true, but the truth of it must be demonstrated by good proofs. Ib. p. 67. But the good and demonstrating proofs of this, are still wanting. And so that blame which he would fling upon the Excepter, falls upon himself; recoiling back by just recrimination.

Next he is for noting one or two things, wherein the Excepter seems to be inconsistent with himself, or with good sense. Ib. An high Charge, and such as inevitably draws shame after it, either upon him against whom it is made, or else upon the Maker of it. And where will he find this inconsistency to clear himself? He looks for it first in these words of the Excepter. Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as true and real. Now where's [Page 167] the inconsistency of these words, either with him that spake them, or with good sense? Rather how consistent is it with a mans self, and with good sense; not to be bound to defend, what he thinks may not be true and real? Yet as if he would make good his charge out of these very words; he Querys immediately, But why does he then trouble himself, or the World, with an Hy­pothesis, which he does not believe to be true and real? Many have written ingenious and useful things, which they never believed to be true and real: but were they for this troublers of the World, and inconsistent with themselves, or with good sense? And why then should the Excepter's Hypothesis be so, for his not believing it to be true and real? Especially when he so far insi­nuates his mistrust or doubt of it, as to declare he would not defend it as true and real. Besides, an Hy­pothesis, in the very term of it, being but a Supposition; it would have been more like inconsistency with himself, or with good sense; if he had believed it to be true and real. For in case it be a true and real thing, why should it any longer be an hypothesis? And therefore he who fancies the Theory to be a Reality; affirms it to be something more than a bare Hypothesis: Eng. Theo. p. 149. Ib. p. 150. and will have it to rise above the character of a bare Hypothesis; and be a true piece of natural history, and the greatest and most remarkable that hath yet been since the beginning of the World. The Inconsistency he talks of, is not to be found here; whither goes he to seek it next? Why, he has recourse to this saying of the Excepter's. Answ. p. 67. Our Supposition stands supported by Divine authority: as being founded upon Scripture. Which tells us, as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits up­on the Earth. Now tho nothing of the suggested In­consistency, appears here neither, prima facie, or at first glance; yet he labours to discover it by what fol­lows. [Page 168] If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture; Ib. p. 67, 68. and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak; why will not he defend it as true and real? For to be supported by Scrip­ture, and plain Scripture, is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our faith; which every one surely is bound to defend. In our entrance on this new Hypothesis, we desired allowance to make bold with Scripture a little, as the Theory had done a great deal. Disc. p. 299. And afterward we declared, that we had no reason to take our singularity in expounding a Text or two of Scripture, Ib. p. 325. as an Objecti­on against us; if brought by the Theorist, or them that hold with him. For that indeed is but an imperfect Transcript of his own Copy, and a faint imitation of his extravagant Pattern; showing him, as in a dark and short resemblance, a shadow of that large unusual Li­berty, which he assum'd to himself, not easy to be pa­rallell'd. And therefore for him to lay hold of our sup­porting our Hypothesis by plain Scripture (as if we forc'd or wrested, misinterpreted or misapply'd it in so doing, when at the same time we openly profess, that we make bold with it;) is no better than a forestalled Argument; otherwise a Cavil. And farther, (as the Answerer himself noted just now) we would not be bound to defend what we say, of the new Hypothesis, as true and real. And therefore the founding it upon Scripture, and making that to support it plainly; can­not possibly be understood, by men of sense, to be done otherwise than in an hypothetic or suppositious way. And thus the Excepter is so far from proving inconsistent with himself or good sense; that how could he be more consistent with both, than in refusing to defend, as true and real, what he only supposed to be thus founded up­on Scripture and supported by it. And whatever he said of that nature, was spoken only in way of suppo­sition conjectural. Yea, tho it was spoken never so [Page 169] positively, it was but to set forth, rei personam; to make the more full and lively representation of the suppo­sed thing. And therefore before he began his new Ex­plication of the Flood, he premised this caution ( Disc. p. 300.) Where we speak never so positively, still what we deliver is to be lookt upon, not as an absolute, but as a comparative Hypothesis. And so not as really founded upon Scripture, and supported by it; but as supposed to be so only. The Answerer therefore, in this busi­ness need not have brought in so over-strain'd a compa­rison, as the Articles of our Faith. p. 68. Betwixt which and Hypotheses, there is greatest Difference; the one, be­ing no less than truths of GOD; and the other, no more than Imaginations of men. And as they are very different things, so Scripture supports them very different ways. Articles of Faith it supports directly, and mainly, by Divine Revelation: Hypotheses, col­laterally and presumptively, by humane fiction or im­putation. And as Scripture supports them in a diffe­rent manner; so we are bound to defend them in as different a measure. For Articles of Faith we are bound to defend to the very Death; but who are ob­lig'd to be Martyrs for Philosophy? Yea, some who build Hypotheses upon Scripture-Foundations; I believe will rather let them fall, and moreover help to pull them down; than stand a fiery Trial to uphold them. We are told, that S. Peter convinces us, Eng. Theor. p. 85. that the Theo­rist's Description of the Antediluvian Earth, and of the Deluge; is a reality. And that other places of Scripture seem manifestly to describe the form of his Abyss with the Earth above it. Ib. p. 86. And that Scripture it self doth assure us that the Earth rise at first out of his Chaos. Ib. p. 150. Yet I am apt to think (and I hope without breaking the Law of Charity) That the Learned Author of these Notions, would hardly venture to defend them in [Page 170] Smithfield; as glorious Witnesses have done the Arti­cles of our Faith.

The pretended Inconsistency is hitherto invisible; and concerning it we may return, a non est inventa. On he goes therefore, as by a melius Inquirendo, and makes farther search after it in the ensuing Paragraph. The strength it has, lies much in the close of it, and expres­ses it self in this Argument. Answ. p. 69. The Church-way of explain­ing the Deluge, is either rational, or irrational. If he say it is rational, why does he desert it, and invent a new one? And if he say it is irrational, then that dreadful thing, which, he cannot well endure to speak, That the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge, falls flat upon himself. The last vital Assertion of the Theory, which the Ex­cepter undertook in his Fifteenth Chapter, is this. That neither Noah 's Flood, nor the present form of the Earth, can be explained in any other method that is rational, nor by any other causes that are intelligible, besides those which the Theory assigns. Whence follows ( what I cannot well endure to speak, said the Excepter,) that the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge. Now, says the Answerer, this charge falls flat upon himself: and he attempts to prove it, by the Argument produced. But we take it off with this direct and plain Reply.

First, we say, that the Church way of explaining the Deluge is very rational. For it implies no more than GOD's creating Waters sufficient for it, and his annihi­lating them again: which is not in the least inconsistent with reason or repugnant to it. Tho evident it is, that his vital Assertion, expressly condemns this way, in which GOD's Church has ever gone, as both irrati­onal and unintelligible at once. Methinks an excuse or defence of this should have been more seasonable, than [Page 171] what we here meet with. Unless he thinks that so black a blemish, can be fastned on the wisest and noblest So­ciety in the whole World, without offence; or means that the Readers Judgment, for his unadvised rashness should pass upon him in course, by nihil dicit.

Secondly, we say, that we do not desert or reject the Church-way of explaining the Deluge. We allow in­deed, as he notes, That it may be disgustful to the best and soundest Philosophic Judgments: Disc. p. 313. and the reasons are given, why. But then it is manifest, that we shut out Philosophy from ruling in this Case, as being in a good degree miraculous. Ib. p. 355. The Flood was a Miracle in good measure. Or had so much miracle running through it, and interwoven with it; that all passages in it, are not to be accounted for by Reason and Philosophy. And truly where Nature was over-rul'd by Providence; it is but fit that Philosophy should give place to Omnipotence. And whereas he observes, that we say, that by our Hypo­thesis, Answ. p. 68. we are excused from running to those Causes or Methods, which seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligi­ble to others, and unsatisfactory to most: This is no proof that the Excepter deserts the Churches way of Explain­ing the Deluge. For however some, or others, may think it unreasonable, and unintelligible, as the Theorist makes it: and how unsatisfactory soever some of the causes or methods alledg'd by the Excepter, may be to most: yet the Excepter is of the mind that the Churches me­thod, is very rational, and easy to be understood. And tho he farther remarks, that the Excepter says, that the ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were covered with water in the Deluge, Ib. brings on a necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood: yet that necessary new Hypothesis, which the Excepter means, will plainly show, that he justifies and defends the Church-Hypothesis; instead of deserting it. For it is only this. [Page 172] We must suppose that the Mountains of Ararat, where­on the Ark rested in the height of the Deluge, were then the highest Mountains in the World: but since that time they are either worn down, or sunk and settled lower than some others. Admit but this; and then Scripture, Geography, and the Churches method of explaining the Flood, will all be reconcil'd: and the usual Hypothesis will stand clear of material Difficulties and Objections.

Thirdly, we say, that tho we invented a new Hypo­thesis; it was not set up in competition with this of the Church, but in comparison with that of the Theory, and in Confutation of its last vital Assertion. For it makes it evident, that there is another way of explaining Noah's Flood, both rational in its method, and intelligible in its causes; Disc. p. 300. l. 18. at least as rational and intelligible as his. And as such a Comparative Hypothesis (as we have made it) it may possibly stand almost as long as the Theorist's (which draws more and greater Absurdities after it.) Especially if it should have but a Second Edition to sup­port it on the one side, and a Review to prop it up on the other, and have many things left out of it, and have one word in it explain'd by another, and have here and there a Contradiction allow'd it, &c. And thus the Ex­cepter is freed from the objected inconsistency with him­self and good sense.

This same Reply will take off those Objections also, which are brought on by the Answerer, at the bottom of his seventieth Page; as being of near affinity with what he last alledged.

Having thus made his general Observations, he comes now to Particulars. The first he pitches upon, is the Height of the Deluge-waters, which we set at fif­teen Cubits above the highest parts of the common Surface of the Earth; making it the Foundation of our Hypo­thesis, [Page 173] and supposing it to rest upon Scripture, and to be supported by that. This therefore, he says, Answ. p. 69. must needs raise our Curiosity, to see that place of Scripture, which has been overlookt by all the Learned hitherto. But if learned mens overlooking this Text, as to the sense that we apply it to, be a just Objection against our alledging it: how much more strongly must the same Objection come against the Theorist, for alledging so many Texts as he does, in confirmation of such new and strange notions, as none of the learned could ever see contained in them, or confirmed by them; but always overlookt them as to such meanings? Answ; p. 67. Then he urges; Scripture says plainly that the Mountains were covered with waters; Ib. p. 69. and how could fifteen Cubits reach to the tops of the Mountains? This Objection is fully answered in our Discourse: only thus much may be here put in. Chap. 16. Pa­gr. 3. Gen. 7.20. As the high Mountains were co­vered with Waters, so the Camp of Israel was covered with Quails. Yet those Quails which covered the Camp, Exod. 16.13. were but two Cubits high upon the face of the Earth, Numb. 11.31. Now if two Cubits of Quails could cover this Camp; then fifteen Cubits of Water might cover these Mountains. And as for the Tops of the Mountains, they are no where said to be covered, any more than the top of the Camp was. But he says, the Tops of the Mountains were discover'd, Answ. p. 70. when the Waters began to decrease, Gen. 8.5. Is not that a plain demonstration that they were cover'd before, and cover'd with those Waters? To this Objection also an answer was given by the Excepter. Disc. Ch. 16. §. 5. However to make it more full, we are content to recite part of what was former­ly said, and to add somewhat new, as occasion requires. We say therefore that the tops of the Mountains being discovered upon the decrease of the Waters, is no demon­stration that they were covered with them: for they [Page 174] might be discovered by their Emergency out of darkness. Upon that Answer he brings this Quaery. Answ. p. 73. Where finds he this Account? 'tis neither in the Text nor in Reason. It was fairly gathered out of both, as plainly appears in our Discourse. The holy Text we went upon, was Gen. 8. ult. Where day being settled upon the recovering World: the very settling of it then, implies, that in time of the Flood, the Earth was strangely benighted. And for a Reason, was suggested, the Exclusion of Frost. Which, had not the Air been very thick (thick enough to hide the Tops of the Mountains from the Eyes of men) would have seiz'd the Waters with exceeding vehemence, and have thereby hindred the so speedy drying of the Earth. But he goes on in his way of ob­jecting: If it was always so dark, and the Tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where, Ib. how could the Ark avoid them in that darkness? And could it, by an ordinary Providence, have avoided them in the Light? For tho the H. GHOST, in that De­scription which he was pleas'd to give of the Ark, de­scends even to Particulars, and that to the very Door, and the Window of it; yet He hints not the least con­cerning a Rudder belonging to it. And being destitute of that, there could be nothing whereby to turn or govern it; but at all times it must be left to drive right on, whatever Dangers (tho great and visible) might come in its way. Or say it had an Helm; yet what Pilot, without inspiration, could have steer'd its Course safely, in those perilous, new-made Seas upon Earth? Where, as Rocks, and Banks, and Flats, and Sands, were thick set and innumerable; so there was not so much as one Buoy or Sea-mark, which, by showing any of them, might help to shun them. And as these dangers, according to the Common Hypothesis, would have been equal, when first this Vessel was set afloat; [Page 175] so according to the Theory, they would have been much greater. He continues to object. Ib. I see no reason to ima­gine, that there would be darkness after the forty days rain.—For he (the Excepter) says, the Atmosphaere was never so exhausted of Vapours, and never so thin; as when the waters were newly come down. Tho the Atmosphaere was never so exhausted of Vapours, and never so thin as at that time, in the vast Body, or general Compre­hension of it upwards; yet here below, the Air might still be foggy and thick. So we are often invelop'd with caliginous Mists in this lower Region next the Earth; when let them but disperse and wear off, and the heaven above is most serene, and in the Skie there's nothing but glorious day. He objects still. Ib. p. 74. It was in the Tenth month that they (the Mountains) begun to be seen, when the Waters were decreas'd; 'twas therefore the Waters, not the gross Air, that hindred the sight of them before. For if according to the method of the Ex­cepter, the Deluge begun to decrease after the first forty days rain, by the Sun's resolving waters into Vapours and Exhalations: this, in proportion, must lessen the wa­ters of the Deluge. But we do not read in Moses of any abatement in the Deluge, till the end of one hundred and fifty days (Gen. 8.3.) which is four Months after this term. Nor do we imagine that there was any con­siderable abatement of the Waters till that time. For after the Flood was come to its height, it was necessa­ry it should stand there a good while, the better to ef­fect that fatal destruction of the Animal World, for which it was sent. Yet during the time that the Flood was thus Stationary, we suppose that GOD did work no Miracle (for we read of none) to weaken Nature in its force, and put by its proper Operations. And so the Sun, which had then a more than ordinary power upon the outragious and prevailing Waters; as shining [Page 176] on them through a thinner Medium than ever yet he did; could not but turn them a great pace into Misty Vapours and Exhalations. And these ascending swiftly and copiously, to replenish the Atmosphaere so lately em­ptied by excessive Resolution; might render the Mountains (as Mists always do) quite invisible at a little Distance. Yet this work being done only by Nature's hand; or, to use the Answerer's elegant style, by the Sun's setting his Engines awork; tho it was car­ried on for several Months, the diminution of the Wa­ters, I say, might be inconsiderable. So inconsiderable, as not to be worth the Spirits notice. And withal so ineffectual, that if some better course had not been ta­ken, the Waters would have remain'd a very long time upon the drowned Earth, beyond the hundred and fifty days mention'd, without any considerable degree of a­batement. For if in the hundred and ten days, suc­ceeding those in which the rains fell, the Waters went up in misty Vapours (towards restoring the Atmo­sphaere to its lost Consistency) in such a quantity as to sink the Flood suppose but one or two Cubits; tho this reeking evaporation might so darken the Air, as to hide the Mountains; yet how little would such a dimi­nution of the Deluge, be taken notice of by Heaven, or how little would it contribute to drying of the Earth? And therefore to speed the work, which by the strength of Nature went on but slowly; GOD made use of a certain Wind (Gen. 8.1.) as an extraordinary Instru­ment. And by this, added at length to the Attractive influence of the Sun, the Waters asswaged so very fast; that as the SPIRIT notes, on the first day of the Tenth Month the Tops of the Mountains were seen, Gen. 8.5. And whereas the sacred Story makes the appearance of these Mountain-tops, to follow the decrease of the Deluge-waters; nothing could be done more properly [Page 177] according to the tenour of this new Hypothesis. For in case the Waters had not been decreased; and so de­creased as to have refill'd the Atmosphaere with Va­pours; and so decreased, as to have dampt the at­tractive power of the sun; and so decreased, as to be drawn so low, and grown so gross, and foul, and heavy, as to resist the attenuating force of the Wind aforesaid: these tops of the Mountains could not have shown themselves as yet. For had not the Waters been thus decreased, they would still have gone away into Va­pours and Exhalations at such a rate; as that the air by them would have been so bemisted, and the Moun­tains by that would have been so obscured, that the tops of them could not have been so soon discovered. And why the tops of them were discerned before their lower and their larger parts, Disc. p. 342. an account has been already given. Answ. p. 74.

Lastly, as to this matter, he objects. That the whole notion of spending the waters of the Deluge by Evaporation hath no foundation in Scripture or Reason But in short, it is founded upon both. 1st, Upon Reason. For how reasonable is it that Waters should be turned into Vapours; it being a thing most natural? And how reasonable that they should be so turned at an extraor­dinary rate, where the Sun had an extraordinary power; and when to the force of the Sun, was join'd the assistance of a mighty Wind? 2ly, Upon Scripture. For their Returning off the Earth continually, Gen. 8.3. might be but their returning into that Principle out of which they were made; namely, into Vapours. See Disc. p. 340, 341. And that Expression, the Waters were going and decreasing, Gen. 8.5. may be understood of their going away quite by a wasting or diminishing of them. And the learned Schindler makes the word, [...], in that very place, to signify this very thing. And so the Notion was not [Page 178] only founded upon Scripture, and Reason, but more­over upon good Authority. And whereas the Answe­rer would have the first of these two cited Texts, to denote the local motion of the Waters, or their returning to the place from whence they came; Answ. p. 76. this they did do when they were resolved into Vapours, and were re­tracted into the Atmosphaere, whence they descended. Tho such a Return they could not be so fully capable of, according to the Theory's Hypothesis; the inclos'd Abyss being fill'd up in a great measure by the fallen Earth. And whereas he says farther, that then the Dove's returning, Ib. p. 77. was her returning into her principles; that is, into an Egg: It is said expressly of the Dove, that she returned unto him (Noah) into the Ark: Gen. 8.9. and neither her's, nor the Raven's return into Eggs, could have been agreeable to Nature, or Reason, or have been of any manner of use. Tho as nothing was more rational, and nothing more natural; so nothing could possibly be more useful than the Evaporation of the Waters; both to the Earth and Atmosphaere at once. For by their thus returning, or going away into Va­pours, the one was dried by their reascending the other. And so whereas he demands, concerning the Evapora­tion of the Waters, where does he find this notion in Scripture? (Answ. p. 74.) I might better put the like question to him; where does he in Scripture find the vital Assertions of his Theory? Which yet for the rela­tion it has to Scripture, he calls, Theoria sacra, the holy Theory; tho in sundry things, it be inconsistent with Scripture and opposite to it.

I must take my leave of this point, with remarking an Ʋntruth which he lays upon the Excepter: Another Un­truth. Answ. p. 73 [...] li. 24 [...] It is this. He gives him (the Sun) a miraculous power to draw up waters. But where does he ascribe such a power to him? The Answerer must show it, or else [Page 179] incur the Censure of a false Accuser. Indeed that the Sun has power to exhale Water now, by agitating its Particles, and so dilating and putting them into a flying motion; is not to be doubted. Nor is it to be questi­on'd but this his power of Exhalation was most opera­tive, just after the full Rise of the Deluge. For then the Atmosphaere having newly suffered a thorow Solu­tion of its Continuity, and the stock of its Vapours being greatly exhausted; and the whole Earth, except the higher parts of the Mountains, being covered with the Flood; his Beams, having now a freer Passage through a finer Air, could not but shoot down much more forcibly upon the diffused Water, and agitating it more vehemently, make Vapours to rise at a far greater Rate than they us'd to do. And these Vapours being once raised by the action of the Sun, would immediately take wing and fly into the empty Atmo­sphaere above, there being such room and reception for them. And as fast as some gave way, others fol­lowing, while the void Atmosphaere suckt them up as it were, and helpt them to ascend by its readiness to receive them; an excessive plenty of misty Vapours must needs go up, in continued streams, from the steaming surface of the rarefying Water. Thus, I con­fess, the Sun had power to draw up Water, and power to attract it very copiously at the time we speak of, till confused Nature came to be resettled in its first Order. Yea, so plentifully did he draw up Water in that juncture, and such a mistiness thereby did he cause in the Air; as he never did do before, nor never (in like­lihood) shall do again; because there never was, nor will be the like reasons for it. But that the Excepter gave him miraculous power to do it, is incumbent upon the Answerer, who was pleas'd to say it, to make it out. A miraculous Wind indeed the Excepter owned, Dsc. p. 341. [Page 180] sent on purpose to hasten the work of drying up the Water, Hic ventus non tam naturali, quam divina visiccavit aquas. a Lapide in loc. Gen. 8.1. which in course of Nature could ne­ver have been done in so short a time, if it could have been done at all: but as for a miraculous influence of the Sun, as it would have been needless in conjunction with such a Wind, so he knows of none, nor did he ever think of any.

But besides all this, at length he would find out an Insufficiency in the new Hypothesis; as if the measure of its Waters could not reach to the Execution, which was necessary to be done upon the Animal World. For whereas an Ʋniversal Destruction was made by the Flood; Answ. p. 71. I would gladly know, says he, how this could be in a fifteen-Cubit Deluge. For Birds would naturally fly to the tops of Trees. And Beasts would retire by degrees to Mountains. Men also could not fail to retire into Mountains. Or the upper stories of their houses might be sufficient to save them. Or an house seated upon an Emi­nency, or a Castle upon a Rock, would always be a safe re­treat from this diminutive Deluge. Ib. 72. And those that were upon the Sea, in Ships, would never come in danger. This is the substance of the Answerers Objections, where he reflects upon the incompetency of the new Hypothesis, in regard of the Quantity or height of those Waters of which it supposes the flood to be made. But how easily are they taken off? For the common unmountainous Surface of the Earth, See Disc. p. 301. being by necessary and providen­tial contrivance, made inequal: hence it will follow, that when the Waters were fifteen Cubits higher than the highest parts of that common Surface (which is the Fundamental Assertion of the new Hypothesis) they might be forty, or fifty, or an hundred, or two hun­dred Cubits higher than the general ordinary Plain of the Earth. And when fifteen Cubits Water above the highest parts of the Earths common surface, would [Page 181] drown the Level of it generally to so prodigious a pitch; instead of a diminutive (as the Answerer calls it) here must be a most dreadful and destructive Deluge, both to Mankind and all Living Creatures. For put case that the Birds, upon the rise of the waters, flew unto trees; yet where are the trees whose tops are an hundred or two hundred Cubits high? Or say, the tops of some trees stood out of the Waters, as growing upon the highest parts of the Earth's common Surface: yet could the poor Fowls be able to roost there, during the time of the whole forty days Rain; and then on to the end of the Flood? And grant that Men and Beasts retired to the Mountains, when the Waters began to swell and threaten them: Yet then they were great Mountains to which they betook themselves, or else they were lesser ones. If they were great ones, See Disc. c. 16. §. 6. they could not run to a more improper Refuge. If they were lesser ones, how could they possibly subsist there, without Shelter or Sustenance, till the Deluge was drawn off, and the Earth dried up? And the like may be said of those in the upper Stories of their houses. Admit that the Flood did not reach them; yet how could they live there, to come down again at last, when their Dome­stick Stores, in their Cellars &c. were all overflowed, and were so to continue for a great while? And as for them in Castles, and high situate Habitations, if any were seated above the Water-mark of the Deluge; how could they shift for food and fewel, and keep themselves from famishing for a year together? For either they were well furnisht with Provisions, or they were not. If they were not, they could not hold out. If they were, it was because a number was to be maintain'd by them. And many will as soon devour much; as a few spend a little. And where is the Castle, that being well stockt with men, as well us stor'd with necessaries [Page 182] (which commonly go together) does not fall into want before a year comes about, where there is no kind of Forage, or provisionary Recruits? And therefore these Castles on Rocks, as to the Answerer's purpose, are but Castles in the air: for being on every side so sur­rounded with water, they who were in them would be starved to death. And methinks there is one thing which seems to insinuate, that a good part of the Ani­mal World might perhaps come to an end thus: By being driven to such streights by the overflowing wa­ters as to be famished or starved to death. The thing is this. Tho the Instrument of Vengeance upon the wicked World was an Universal Flood; and tho the proper way of that Instrument's killing, is by drown­ing: yet in all the sacred story of the Deluge, it is no where said of men and living creatures, [...], they were drowned; but all-a-long, [...], they died, [...], and they were destroyed. As if the SPIRIT would give us to understand, that all the living Creatures which perisht at the Flood, were not directly overwhelm'd and absorpt by it; but by means of its Waters were forced to die, very many of them, and were fearfully destroyed some other way; even that which we have hinted. And then lastly as to Ships, I will not deny that there were any before the Flood; (for all I find Hornius does it posi­tively in his Introduction; Noachi aevo nullae adhuc na­ves; in Noah 's Age there were not as yet any ships: tho could we allow them, at the Deluge, to be as good as ours, which are the best in the World; yet the persons in them at that time, must needs be in most imminent Dangers. For at first, for forty days together, they were to sail in darkness. And after that, for several Months, in such foggy Mists, as obscured the Tops of the vastest Mountains. By the increase of the Waters also the whole World became one boundless Ocean. And [Page 183] the Sea, by that means, having lost its Shores, the Mariners skill would be strangely lost or non-plust too. For instead of finding the Seas in their usual Figures and Chanels, and of making their Ports, at the wonted places and Distances; wild Waters would lead them in­to unknown Rodes, and trapan them on to land. And there being Rocks in great plenty to split them, Hills to stave them, Banks to strand them, Buildings to annoy them, Woods and Forrests to hamper and intan­gle them: their dangers being new, they could not ap­prehend them; and being so many, and various, and unexpected, how could they avoid them? And then we must consider farther yet, that Shipping, at the Flood, was very far short of that strength and per­fection, which now it has attain'd to. The first con­siderable Vessel that we read of, I think, was the Argo. And indeed some necessary Appendages of a Ship, were not found out, till about the time that she was equip'd for Colchis. For famous Daedalus, who invented the Mast and Main-yard; and his Son Icarus, who invent­ed the Sails; lived then. Typhis also, who invented the Rudder, was one of those Heroes which attended Jason, when the young Gallants of Thessaly, or the flow­er of its Nobility, went along with him in the Argo­nautick Expedition. And yet this Ship, as Pliny tells us, in the Six and fiftieth Chapter of the Seventh Book of his Natural History; was but a Gally. And he adds (which it will not be wide of our purpose to recite) That Troughs or flat Planks were used by King Ery­thras to cross from one Island to another in the Red Sea. That in the British Ocean were made certain Wicker-Boats of twigs covered with Leather, and stitcht round about. In Nilus, Boats of Paper, Cane-reed, and Rushes. That the Erythraeans made the Bireme, or Gally with two Banks of Oars. Aminacles the Corinthi­an, [Page 182] [...] [Page 183] [...] [Page 184] the first Trireme. The Carthaginians, the Quadri­reme. Nesichton the Salaminian, the first Quinque­reme. And so they were raised, by Zenagoras of Sy­racuse, by Mnesigeton, by Alexander the great, by Pto­lomy Soter, by Demetrius Son of Antigonus, by Ptolomy Philadelphus, and by Ptolomy Philopater, till they came to fifty Banks or Courses of Oars on a side. So that here we have an account of Two things not unworthy of our notice. The First is the low, and mean, and rude Beginnings of Shipping. In some places it com­menc'd in Troughs or Hollowed trees. So it did in E­gypt; Lib. 16. c. 40. and as this same Writer tells us, Pyrates on the Coasts of Germany, made some of these Trunks so large, that they would carry thirty men. And where they had not Instruments fit for the Excavation of these trees; we must conclude it was done by fire. In other places it began in Wicker Sciphs, covered with Leather well sticht together. Carinae primum ac statumina ex levi materia fi­ebant: reliquum corpus navium viminibus con­textum coriis in­tegebatur. De Bello Civil. l. 1. So it did here in our Country. For Caesar in his Commentaries says thus of the British ships. Their Keels and Footstocks were made of light timber, but the rest of their body was covered with Hides, and made of Osiers wrought together. Nor were the Veneti­ans Ships, any better than the Britains, if we may take Lucan's word for it.

In other places again, it began in Rushen, or Reeden Canoes, and the Vessels they used, were Paper things, even in the very letter. So it was upon the Nile. And Scripture tells us of Ambassadors being sent upon ne­gotiations, [...] in vessels of Bul-rushes, Isai. 18.2

The Second thing worthy of remark, is that degree of Perfection to which Shipping arrived. And as our aforesaid Author informs us, it was grown up no high­er than to great Gallies in Ptolomy Philopator's time. And he reigning after the Year of the World 3750; Vid. Helvic. Theatr. Histor. this World had then stood near five hundred years longer than that before the Flood. And whereas he affirms the first Quadrireme to be built by the Carthaginians; we must consider that Carthage it self was not built till An. Mun. 3080. Id. ib. So that if we allow that Common­wealth but 150 years to settle in, and to improve in mechanical Attainments, and in Ship-Carpentry, for one: Then if we reckon (which is no ill way of count­ing) that the first World made equal proficience in the same Art with this latter, in proportion to its stand­ing; it might so be furnisht with such kind of Gallies as the Carthaginians were, just a little before the Deluge. But then they seem to have been Vessels not over strong. Nor indeed is it possible that Ships in those days, should be of any great strength, if we consider with what strange Expedition they were built. For as that excel­lent Historian Florus tells us, Lib. 2. cap. 2 [...] a Navy of the Romans of an hundred and sixty Ships (in the time of the first Pu­nic War) was set out and lay at anchor, intra sexegesi­mum diem; within sixty days after the timber they were made of, was cut down in the wood. Insomuch that they might seem to be non arte factae; not framed [Page 186] by art, sed quodam munere Deorum, &c. but by a cer­tain favour of the GODS, turned out of trees into Ships. And yet that they were as strong as any that the Carthaginians, or that the King of Syracuse, their Confederate, had; the event proved. For then it was that Duilius the Roman Admiral, so quickly overcame that Prince, that he confessed he was conquered before he saw the Enemy. And having broken in pieces, and put to flight the Fleet at Lipara, he was the first that was honoured with a Sea-triumph, as the same Writer says. Adding withal, that for this he triumph­ed every day; never at any time returning from sup­per without Torches and Musick before him. Nor is Florus alone in reporting the strange and wonderful ce­lerity, wherewith the Romans of old builded their ships. Pliny joins with him; Nat. Hist. l. 16; c. 3 [...]. and testifies that in the second Punic War, the Armado which Scipio commanded, was under sail within forty days after the timber was felled, whereof it was made. And acquaints us far­ther, that L. Piso left it in writing, that against King Hiero, two hundred and twenty Ships were built and furnisht, within five and forty days after the timber grew. Surely these could be no very stout or strong Ships. And yet, I say, they matched the strongest in the World. For the only Commonwealth which could then pretend to cope with Rome, was that of Carthage. And indeed with Rome it did contend in two very sharp and tedious Wars (tho it sell in the third) the first holding four and twenty years, and the second, eighteen; be­tween which, says Florus, there was vix quadriennis requies, scarce four years respite. And Carthage being built by the Tyrians, or at leastwise peopled with a Colony of Phaenicians, who were ever well skill'd in Sea affairs, and eminent in Shipping: This City being older than Rome Condita est urbs haec LXXII. annis antequam Roma Justin. lib. 18. seventy two years, and mighty pow­erful; [Page 187] was the most likely of all other, to exceed Rome in Naval force. Yet so far was it from doing this; that the Carthaginians were frequently vanquisht by the Romans, in Sea Ingagements. Particularly in that which the incomparable Livy gives account of; Hist. Dec. 3. lib. 1. when the Roman Fleet put to flight that of Carthage, and took seven of their Ships, extemplò, as his word is, even im­mediately. And yet those Ships were not so incon­siderable, but in them were taken seventeen hundred Souldiers. And when they had done that (as he con­tinues the story) they sailed to Lilybaeum, or Messala, and gave their enemies Navy there a great overthrow. And when the Romans could thus worst the Carthagini­ans, who had reason to have the best shipping; 'tis a sign that their shipping was as good as theirs. But then the Roman Ships being so hastily built, they could not excel in strength neither. And yet at the time of the first Punic War, this World had stood four hundred years longer than the first did. And so we cannot imagine that the Shipping of that World, was ever better than the Roman shipping was then in this. And in case it was not, we have no cause to think, that any of its Ships could possibly endure and out-last the Flood. And truly if we look forward, we shall find that Ships in some succeeding Ages, were of no great bulk or bur­then. For had they been so in Julius Caesar's time, (who lived about three hundred years after the Punic War) he needed not to have invaded Britain with above eight hundred at once, as we find he did. Commentar. lib. 5. De. Bell. Gall. And there­fore when we read of Agamemnon's Fleet of a thousand Sail, and of Xerxes's that covered the Hellespont; or the like; we need not be surpriz'd at the number of Ships, so we do but think of the Dimensions of them. And as for those which were very large and strong, they seem to have been made for some special service, and [Page 188] that being done to be useless after it; as being perhaps, too big to be manag'd in those days. Such were the two wonderful ones that Pliny speaks of, Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 9. which transpor­ted huge Obelisks from Egypt to Rome. The first of them Augustus laid up in the haven of Puteoli, to be lookt on; where it remained till it was accidentally burnt. The second, Id. ib. l. 16. c. 4 [...] which required an hundred and twenty thou­sand Modij of Lintels for its Ballast, after Caligula had kept it some years as a kind of wonder to be gaz'd at; Claudius caused it to be brought to Ostia, and to be sunk there for the security of the Harbour. But not to dwell too long upon this head.

If so be we measure the first Worlds perfection in Shipping and Navigation, by what men in this World gain'd of that nature, in the like Period of time (which I think is the best Rule we can go by:) we shall find the praediluvians deficient in, yea, destitute of two most necessary things. For first, they had no Anchors. And secondly, they had none of the Sea-chart or Compass.

[...]. Diog. Laert. in vit.First, they could have no Anchors. For the Inven­ter of the Anchor (as also of the Potters Wheel) was Anacharsis, that noble Scythian (or rather that Royal one, for he was brother to Caduides the King of Scythia) and the only learned man and rare Philosopher of that barbarous Country. Which gave occasion to the Pro­verb, Anacharsis inter Scythas. Now he (being con­temporary with Solon, as Laertius tells us) flourisht after the year of the World 3340. For then it was that Solon wrote the Athenian Laws, Solonem ergo accepimus unum ex illo nobili numero sapientum leges scripsisse Atheniensium, Tarquinio Prisco regnante, anno regni ejus tricesimo tertio. Aul. Gell. Noct. At. lib. 17. cap. 21. toward the latter end of the Reign of Tarquinius Priscus, And so the Anchor could not be found out, till such time as this World had out-lasted the other. And consequently, according to the best Measures we can take, the Ante­diluvians had no Anchors to their Ships.

And Secondly, by the same Rule, they must want the Compass too; that being a much later Invention than the Anchor. For however some will have it to be ancient, their opinion is certainly without all good grounds. As for the Comaedians Authority, De occult. Na­tur. Mirac. li. 3. ca. 4. Plaut. in Merc. Advers. li. 20. ca. 4. which Lev. Lemnius alledges, cape modo versoriam; it is of no force. For by Versoria, he might mean the Rudder only; or as Turnebus expounds it, and some Dictionaries render the word: funis quo vertitur velum, the Rope that turns the Sail to the Wind-ward. Nor is there the least men­tion made of this Compass (that I find) amongst any of the Ancients, be they Philosophers, Historians, or others. Yea, instead of that, divers modern Authors of note, make it the Discovery of latter Ages. So does Bodinus; usum ejus plane divinum Antiqui ignorarunt: Method. Hist. cap. 7. Ital. illustr. Re­gion. 13. The Ancients were ignorant of the Divine (or excellent) use of it. And so does Blondus, in his Description of Italy. Certum est id navigandi auxilium priscis omnino fuisse incognitum: De Subtil. li. 17. Certain it is that help of navigating was altogether unknown to the Ancients. Cardan also de­clares, his tribus tota Antiquitas nihil par habet. All Antiquity has nothing equal to these three things. Of which the Mariners Compass was one, the other two being Guns, and Printing. And therefore Voyages here­tofore could be performed only by crossing over some narrow Seas, or else by Coasting it along by the Shores side, from one Country to another. And for this reason King Solomon's Navy was three years in making a Voyage to Ophir; because for lack of the Compass they were fain to creep along close by the Shores, and durst not venture to take a shorter Cut, by lanching out into the main Ocean. Nor could those Glorious Voyages not long since made (as well by the English as other Nations) ever have been accomplisht, without the help of this admirable Instrument; which yields a [Page 190] most strange direction, and thereby a sutable safety unto Sailors.

And thus I think enough has been said, to show that the circumstances of men in Ships, at the coming in of the Flood, were not only dangerous but desperate. For if we consider aright, that their ships were much weaker than ours are; and that those weak Ships had no Anchors; and that they themselves had no Compass; and that the Seas they navigated had no Shores, by which they used to steer their course: And so tho they could stop no where, yet their motion carry'd them they knew not whither; even amongst Rocks and Clifts, and Hills, and Mountains, and Cities, and Trees, and Villages. If this, I say, be rightly consi­dered, we may well conclude their condition hopeless. And not only that all hope of their being saved was taken away, as it was from them in the Ship of Adramyttium, Acts 27. but likewise all possibility of their being so.

But if after all, any hill, or Castle, or house, or Ship, could be able to save any creatures from the Deluge; we need but flie to Extraordinary Providence, (as the Answerer does often) and the power of that would effectually dispatch them. When Heaven was pleas'd to give Satan leave, he caused the fire to consume Job's Sheep, and caused the Wind to destroy his Children. And how easily could those Spirits, that are Ministers of GOD's vengeance, have made the waters of the Flood (in that terrible day of general execution) fatal to those Creatures that might have escap'd them, if any could have done it. For when GOD thinks fit to ap­point him to the work, there's never a one of those Spi­rits, but really is, (what Homer so commonly calls Jupiter) [...], a Gatherer of Clouds. And so with greatest ease, could so drive, and thrust, and squeeze them together; as to force them to discharge them­selves [Page 191] in such mighty Defluxions, as would not fail to drown men, and all Land-animals, in whatever Secu­rities they were lodged.

And now (as it is high time) let us see what the An­swerer says, to our notion of the Fountains of the great Deep. Disc. p. 303. They are supposed to be Caverns in Rocks and Mountains. But to this notion he opposes, first, That we alledge but one single text of Scripture to support it. Answ. p. 75. And is not that sufficient to do it? How many Truths stand upon such single Testimonies? nor need they any better evidence to authenticate and confirm them. And 'twere well if every vital Assertion of the Theo­ry's, had one single text to support it. And yet how easie were it to cite seveval texts of Scripture, that fall in most naturally with our sense? I will instance but in two. He layeth up the Deeps in treasuries, Psal. 33.7. And what could these [...] Treasuries be, so properly, as huge Caverns in Rocks and Mountains; where GOD, by the hand of Nature, did of old, and still does lay up Deep Waters? And Pro. 3.20. GOD says, by his knowledge the Depths are broken up, or clea­ved. And to what can this Text be applied more fitly, and of what can it be understood more fairly, or ex­pounded more emphatically, than these Caverns? Which as they were more generally broke up at the time of the Flood, according as GOD in his Wisdom thought fit; so at certain times, and in certain places, many have been cleaved or opened since. Sometimes miraculously, as in Rephidim and Cadesh; and some­times otherwise by ordinary Providence; New Springs breaking forth and running continually out of the o­pened Caverns. Whence as some Water issued or flowed out? other again was still generated within, by the Resolution of Vapours drawn up from the Great Deep below, to which the Roots of many high Rocks and [Page 192] Mountains may descend. Yea, if they did not go down below the bottom of the Deep; how could we come by the Metals that we have? Next he intimates, that the Text we alledge, Ib. has been generally understood other­wise. And so have many Texts which he alledges in favour of his Hypothesis. And yet he thought that they might be interpreted to his sense, and were very applicable to his purpose. Ib. Then he says, that the Ex­cepter, by all means, will have these holes in the Rocks, to be the same with the Mosaical Abyss, or Great Deep, that was broken up at the Deluge. This is a meaning quite beyond our intention: For we mean only this. That our Caverns were but the fountains of the great Deep, broken up at the Flood; not the Great Deep it self. And this is evident from several Expressions; three of which occur in the same page where our Noti­on is delivered. 303. li. 2. What those Fountains of the Great Deep were, which at the time of the Flood were cleaved, &c. Li. 8. And again, The breaking up of the Fountains of Tehom Rabbah, or the great Deep (which the Theory in­sists so much upon) was no more than the breaking up of such Caverns. And presently after, the breaking open of the Fountains of the great Deep, Li. 20. Gen. 7.11. and the cleav­ing of those Rocks in the Wilderness, Psal. 78.15. were in effect but the same thing. p. 310. li. 12. And afterwards, Still the great deep Caverns of the Mountains, may very well pass for the Fountains of Moses 's Tehom Rabbah. So that whereas it is said ( p. 312. Li. 1.) supposing that the Caverns in the moun­tains were this great Deep, &c. And where speaking of the Psalmist's great Deeps, and Moses's great Deep; it is said, p. 305. li. 30. that the same thing might be meant by both: it is plain that by those Caverns and the Psalmist's Great Deeps, must be meant, that they were the same with the Fountains of Moses's Tehom Rabbah, or Great Deep; and not that Great Deep it self. And whereas it is said [Page 193] in our Discourse (p. 153.) that the great Deep, or the fountains then broken up, had no relation to the Sea: it is to be understood that they had no such relation to it, as that the breaking them up, should occasion the proud waves of the Sea to pass their bounds in making the De­luge; the thing there spoken of. And lastly tho Mo­ses's word be Deep, and the Psalmist's word be, Deeps; yet as the different Numbers they use, need not set them at variance? so according to our meaning, p. 306. they are very reconcileable. For such Deeps as the Psalmist mentions, were but the fountains of Moses's Deep; and so in effect (as was said even now) but the same thing. As much the same, as fountains rising from a Spring-head, and that Spring-head can be the same. And we may observe (in concent with this) that Moses does not say that the Great Deep was broken up, but that the Fountains of the great Deep were so. And what true Fountains of the Great Deep, were our Caverns of Wa­ter? For the waters that filled them, might all be drawn up (by the influence of the Sun) out of Moses's Great Deep; and then when Providence cleaved these Caverns, and set them a flowing; how properly and really might it be said, that the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up? seeing that might be the Source, from whence originally the waters of these Fountains were extracted. The Answerer adds, Answ. p. 75. that according to the Excepter, the Great Deep was not one thing, or one continued Cavity, as Moses represents it, but ten thousand holes separate and distant from one another. Tho our Great Deeps were many, and separate, and distant from one another; yet they do not hinder Moses's Great Deep, from being one continued Cavity: for ours were but the fountains of his. Tho enough was said besides, to take off the edge of this Objection, Disc. p. 305, 306. where we shewed that Scripture does use the singular and plural Num­bers [Page 194] promiscuously, sometimes putting one for the o­ther. Were there not above ten thousand Quails about the Hebrews Camp, when they fell round about it as it were two Cubits high? Num. 11.31. Yet the Scripture says only, [...], and the Quail came up, Exod. 16.13. As if (as many as they were) they had been but one. The Answerer proceeds; 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. Answ. p. 75. Moses's Great Deep may lie as low as you please; But our Great Deeps were but as Foun­tains of his, and so might be as high as we plac'd them. And yet some of them might be full out as deep as the Sea it self is, in most places, if we consider the wonder­ful heighth of some Mountains. And so they might be strangely vast also, considering how big some Moun­tains are. And this our notion of the Fountains of the Great Deep falls in most fairly with the Scripture Do­ctrine of the Original of Fountains. For that makes them to come from the Sea, or Great Abyss; and we suppose ours to be derived from thence. Let these things be duly weighed, and I hope it will appear, that the Answerer had no reason at all to charge us, with breaking thorough so many plain Texts of Scripture. Ib. p. 76. Will he who finds this great fault, be found free from the like himself? But here I appeal to any indifferent Judge, if our Notion of the fountains of the great Deep be not as consonant to Scripture, as any other.

And thus we come to his concluding Objection a­gainst our Caverns. What reason have we to believe, that there were such Vessels then, Ib. p. 77. more than now? To this we have spoken so very fully, Disc. p. 306, 307, 308. that nothing more needs here be added in way of reply. Who would have thought there had been such fountains in the Rocks of Rephidim and Cadesh; if God had not opened them? [Page 195] But he draws out the Objection farther, thus. Answ. p. 77. 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. To which we reply, first; Moses does not say, that the Tehom Rabbah was broken open, but only the fountains of it were broken up. And what fountains belonging to the Tehom Rabbah, could more properly be so broken up, than these Caverns? Secondly, the Intelligibility of a thing, is no reason why it must needs be expressed. How many things are passed by with silence in Scri­pture, even where occasion is offered to speak of them; which yet are true, and had they been expressed, might easily have been understood? And thirdly, the same Objection which he throws at the Excepter; rebounds back with violence upon himself. If the breaking up of the Abyss, at the Deluge, had been the Disruption and fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it (ac­cording to the Vital Assertion of the Theory, in that case;) why did not Moses express it so: and tell us that this Disruption and Fall of the Earth into the Abyss which lay under it, made the Deluge? This would have been as intelligible, if it had been true, as to tell us that the Fountains of the Jehom Rabbah were broken up. But there is not one word of this Fall of the Earth, in the History of the Flood.

Thus have we seen the Assaults that are made upon the new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge: But so far are they from overthrowing it, that they seem to me, not to shake it in the least. And I cannot but own, that I am never so inclinable to believe it may be [Page 196] true, as when I consider how weak the answers are to the reasons and arguments alledg'd to confirm it; and how inconsiderable the Objections against it. But yet I do no more affirm it to be true now, than I did at first. Tho I am apt to think it may as well pass for true, and may as easily be maintained to be true, as that Hypo­thesis to which it is compared, and which arrogates to it self, the glorious Title, not only of a true piece of Natural History; but also of the greatest and most re­markable, that hath yet been since the beginning of the World.

CHAP. XVI.

THE principal matter, and the only thing to be noted in this Chapter; is what our Author omitted in its proper place, and is here thought on by him to be answered. According to his usual way of mistaking, Answ. p. 78. he calls it one objection, tho there be two very distinct ones. He answers the last first, and therefore I begin with that, Disc. p. 311. which was this. If the Abyss under the Earth (to wave the other things mention'd) had been the great Deep meant by Moses; it had not had any true or proper Fountains in it. And so what will become of all the Fountains of the great Deep? His Answer is, Answ. p. 78. there were fountains in the Abyss, as much as Windows in Heaven. The word, [...], rendred, Windows; signifies as well, Cataracts; and it might have been rendred so more properly. And indeed in the Margent, Gen. 7.11. it is rendred, Floodgates; which in signification is somewhat nearer to, Cataracts Tho that, I say, would have been the properest reddi­tion in this Text. For Cataracts are high and broken places, from whence waters do impetuously rush down. And therefore thick, and broken Clouds, condensed [Page 197] into hardness or an Icy consistency, from which, pro­digious waters, (by falls from one concameration of them to another) came tumbling down in excessive quantities, and at last were discharged hideously on the Earth, in many places, especially about the lofty Mountains; were at that time true coelestial Cataracts, which by ALMIGHTY GOD were then opened even in a literal sense. And therefore these Cataracts (or Windows of Heaven) by some learned Commentators, are expounded to be, Nubes densae & Copiosae; thick and huge Clouds. But now in the inclos'd Abyss, there were no answerable Fountains broken up; no such real Foun­tains, as these were real Cataracts of Heaven: and therefore the Answer given, is not home to the purpose.

The other Objection was this. Whereas it is said, Disc. p. 311. Gen. 8.2. That the Fountains of the Deep were stopped: the Earth broken down into the Abyss was never made up again. He answers; those were shut up; that is, Answ. p. 78. ceas'd to act, and were put into a condition to continue the Deluge no longer. But then if the Stoppage of these Fountains was Figurative, the Fountains themselves must be the same. And so they were not so real as the Cataracts of Heaven were. Nor could they be stopped so properly as our Caverns might be: the thing that we argued for, and the drift of our Objection was to make it out. And as for this answer, it rather strengthens the Objection, than takes it off.

CHAP. XVII.

IN justification of that Positiveness wherewith he was charged; in the beginning of this Chapter, he makes profession of his belief of the Theory. And let them that can do it, envy him the satisfaction and benefit of it. But if he has no better proofs of its certainty, [Page 198] than what he has produced; when by his faith he ap­prehends it for a Reality, he may do no better than he did, who embrac'd a shadow for the Goddess. There are many thousands and they not unlearned, who take Legends, for truths; and equal Tradition to the writ­ten Word. Who put Apocryphal Books into the holy Canon; and give fullest assent to that pregnant absur­dity, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But this is so far from changing the Nature of the things, that it on­ly betrays the folly of the Persons. For it evidently shows the blindness of their Minds, that they are so strangely impos'd on; and the weakness of their Judg­ments, that can be led captive into such gross and groundless Errors. And from these and other Instances we may infer; that a strong faith and confident assu­rance, may be no arguments of the objects truth; but of the Believers Credulity. It is a notable word that Demosthenes spake in his Third Oration to the Olynthi­ans. [...]. See Disc. p. 358. 'Tis easiest of all to deceive ones self; For that which every one wills, he phantsies, is: But the nature of things is often otherwise. The eloquent Man gave this hint in another Case: but it is not inapplicable to that in hand. Our Answerer believes his Theory to be true. But may he not here practise that upon himself, which is so easie to be done? The Man that would fain have a thing be real, will soon believe it is so; strong incli­nation being equivalent to evidence. And (which we may well wonder at) as one symptom of the strong faith he has for his Hypothesis; he declares, that his believing his Theory to be no more than a Romance or phantastical Idea, would be both to bely his own Consci­ence, and to mock the World. Now in short, if his Theory be not true, it is but a Romance or phantastic Idea. And if it be true, I speak it with reverence, the HO­LY GHOST, the SPIRIT of truth, must be no lon­ger [Page 199] so; and GOD did most certainly mock the World, the thing which our Answerer is asham'd to do. For He granted to Adam, and his Off-spring, a Dominion over the Fish of the Sea, as well as over the Fowls of the Air, and the Beasts of the Earth: and the H. GHOST recorded as much, Gen. 1.28. But when GOD passed that Grant to Adam and his Posterity; if there was no Sea nor Fish, for him, or them, to command, or come at, in the Primitive Earth; must not this be down right Mocking of the first World? And yet if he did not pass that Grant, the H. GHOST, for recording it done, must be as was said, and what I love not to re­peat. Tho at last this Grant could never pass and take place, unless the Theory be a Romance and phantastic Idea. For it asserts expresly of the first Earth, that it was without a Sea. Yea, this is put amongst its Vital assertions, and therefore if it fails, the Theory dies, and the whole Hypothesis is ruin'd at once. But how much better is it, that this piece of Natural History (as true, and great, and remarkable as it is, in its Authors esteem) should prove a Romance; than that any piece of the Divine History should prove an untruth; and the H. GHOST, and the HOLY GOD should be sup­pos'd to do such unworthy things, as would mightily disgrace any honest man. The next Passage that pre­sents it self to notice, is this. Ib: I remember I have heard a good Author once wish, 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 the substance. And I think such a method would keep off a great many impertinencies. Had our Honourable Senate a power to over-rule the minds of men, and to enact that none should think things true, which in themselves are false; I doubt not but they would soon secure us by Law, from erroneous imper­tinencies: [Page 200] But so long as Authors can believe their Wri­tings, and think them true; when if they be so, even in the substance of them, the Word from Heaven must be false: There is little hope that the wished Act impo­sing such an Oath, should be an effectual Expedient. However it might keep off some impertinent errors, ma­ny would come on; and the greatest and most remarkable Natural History, would have been a proof and pregnant exemplification of as much; had such an Act been passed.

After this, he compares his own Positiveness, with my Partiality: Wishing the Excepter had not more to answer for, as to that; than the Theorist hath for the other. Here I am most ready to join Issue with him, and to go to Trial immediately at any Bar. And let the Judge be even who he will, so he be no more par­tial, than the Excepter has been. Then I shall fear neither his Examination, nor yet his Sentence: let the one be as strict, and the other as severe, as Justice can make them. Then he comes upon us with a double charge, Ib. as if we had fail'd in the Sincerity, and also in the Meekness, which we promised to use. But 'tis a sign he wants matter for accusation, when he is fain to make these things Instances of it. As to failing in Sin­cerity, tho the charge be heavy; the Proofs of it (for our comfort) are light enough. For they are only de­fective and partial Citations; and our not taking notice of the last Edition of the Theory: to which we have suffici­ently answered already, that is, in the last Paragraph save one, of the seventh Chapter of this Reply. But his pursuing us thus with this clamour, of our not taking notice of his last Edition; minds me of what a certain Friend did once suggest. Who observing how many particulars were left out of that Edition, which were censured in my Exceptions; and understanding that those Exceptions in writing, were about the Town [Page 201] (where at last they were printed) for above a year and half together at one time, long before his Edition came forth: would fain perswade me, that during that time, my Exceptions straggled into the Theorist's hands; or that by one or other he was made acquainted with them; and so shifted as many of his Errors as he con­veniently could, out of the way, as being sensible they could not bear that blow, which he foresaw was coming. Our want of Meekness, is a new crimination; and he proves it by this fierce Charge, as he calls it, in our Pre­face. The Theorist hath assaulted Religion, and that in the very foundation of it. If any thing like fierceness can be found here; it must be forced out of the form of the words. And that, I do declare, is not owing in the least to any heat of Spirit; but meerly to the real truth of the Matter, which in other terms, could not be bet­ter exprest. For I hope it will be granted, that holy Scripture is the Foundation of our Religion. And then, of necessity, Contradicting Scripture, must be assaulting that Foundation. And there was no more of Fierceness, (let him assure himself,) than there is of Falseness, in our Assertion. But I plainly see, that he who touches a Sore, tho with greatest tenderness, and with no other intention than purely to heal it; must have hard words, as well as heavy complaints, from the Party affected. But this charge, it seems, ran too high. For here, Ib. says he, I expected to have found two or three Articles of the Creed assaulted or knockt down by the Theory. I must tell him freely (and I do it meekly) that contradicting Scripture (the burthen of our charge) is the readiest way not only to knock down two or three; but even all the Articles of the Creed at once. Undermining the Foundation, must needs sink the whole Building. But what course does the Doctor take, to free himself from this Charge; which because it lies justly against him, [Page 202] lies heavy upon him? Why, he makes Two faint Offers at removing it. Ib. p. 81. The first is this. Let us remember, that this contradicting Scripture, here pretended, is only in natural things. And is his contradicting Scripture then, but pretended only? I heartily wish, for his sake, that it were so. But what is said in the Eighth Chapter of this Reply, makes it too real and apparent. To extenu­ate it therefore, he here remembers us, that his contra­dicting Scripture, is only in natural things. And now I must confess my self to be at a stand. I have often been surpriz'd at occurrencies in his Writings; but now I am almost amaz'd: To see that so wild a word as this, should come from the Pen of a Christian Doctor. That he should alledge for himself, as a kind of defence, that he contradicted Scripture only in natural things. As if when the H. SPIRIT spake of such things, he did not mind what it was he said; or men might interpret it even as they list, and turn it to a contrary meaning if they please, without offence. As if it were lawful in some things to give GOD the lie, so we but allow him to speak truth in others. Believe it, I take no pleasure at all in these expressions; but yet I cannot forbear nei­ther, to think the Oracles of Heaven should be thus treated. I formerly minded him of too bold an affront to Scripture, and how he might approach towards ano­ther enormity: and, GOD knows, I did it in meek­ness and kindness. And however it was taken, 'tis now plain, 81. it was necessary. For in that very page where he reflects on those things; he runs unhappily into this new exorbitance, of excusing his contradicting Scrip­ture, by saying he did it only in natural things. As he bids us remember this, so I hope he will remember it seriously. Else by the memento he here puts in, he will but heat a Brand as it were, to mark himself for extra­vagance. And truly admit but this one Extravagance [Page 203] of contradicting Scripture in natural things: and it will draw such a number of others after it, and those so no­torious; that no tongue can be able either to reckon them up, or represent them. It would even match the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; that Hydra of non-sensical errors, and monstrous Jargon of absurdities. As a specimen of this, take what follows. From the very beginning, as Scripture assures us, the Sun shone in the Heavens; the Light filled the Air; and Day and Night were alternately on the Earth. But these were Natural things; and may we venture therefore to contradict Scripture in them, and say they were not so? Then how could the World possibly sub­sist? As Scripture informs us, the Ground yielded trees, and trees brought forth fruits, and of one sort of fruit did our first Parents eat (tho it was forbidden them.) But these were Natural things; and may we therefore presume to contradict Scripture, and deny that they were thus? Then how came these Products into being, which gave occasion to the sin and fall of man? As Scri­pture instructs us, Adam begat some Children, and they begat others, and they again others, and so on. But these Generations were Natural things; and may we there­fore take upon us to contradict Scripture, and say there was no such way of propagation? Then how could Mankind be increas'd and multipli'd? As Scripture teaches us, the Body of our LORD was flesh and blood. But flesh and blood are Natural things; and may we therefore be so bold as to contradict Scripture, and say that his body was not carnal? Then how can his blood cleanse us from our sins? or how shall we e­ver be saved by his Cross? And when to such a mon­strous and mischievous pitch of absurdity, contradicting Scripture in Natural things, would rise; this aloud pro­claims it to be an evil practice, and a method too licen­tious, [Page 204] to be allowable. And farther; Natural things may be matter of divine Declarations and Promises in Scripture. And when they are so, to contradict Scrip­ture, by saying they are otherwise than that declares or promises they should be; must be indirect impeachment of the Truth, Fidelity, and Righteousness of Heaven. Thus, for example, it was of old declar'd or promis'd to Noah, that while the Earth continueth, seed-time, and harvest, and summer, and winter, shall not cease, Gen. 8.22. But therefore should we say that these various Sea­sons shall not be constant, and run parallel with this Earthly Worlds existence; but shall either be suspended by discontinuance or interruption; or else cease by prae­mature abolition or expiration: by contradicting Scri­pture in these tempestival Natural Vicissitudes, we should break in too rudely upon GOD's most glorious Attributes aforesaid. We may very easily bring this home, to the Dominion over the Fish of the Sea. That was a Priviledge which GOD declared or promised should be Adam's. He therefore that denies the being of a Sea, till long after his death; by contradicting Scripture in a Natural thing, must reflect dishonourably upon that GOD, Who keepeth truth for ever, Psal. 146.6. In spite of this his Character (which I would not should fail for ten thousand Worlds) he makes him at once to be false to his Word, unfaithful to his Promise, and unjust to his Creature. But as He that is righteous in all his Ways, must needs abhor to be thus; so we must abhor to think it of him. And farther yet; should GOD evidently violate, but one express Declaration or Promise he has made, tho in Natural things; what a Damp would it cast upon mens belief of him in Celestial Concerns? What a jealousy might it raise, and what a vehement suspicion might it justly create in them, as to all his highest promissory engagements; making [Page 205] them apt to question whether he would stand to any, if not ready to conclude that he would keep none. And thus again the evil, of contradicting Scripture, in Na­tural things, will discover it self. He was pleas'd to signify, Gen. 3.15. that the seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head. Of how high a Nature, and of what infinite Consequence, was this most gracious Declaration or Promise? It was the authentic Patent of Heavens renewed kindness to Sinners; and the grand Assurance the Praediluvians had, of its Spiritual and E­ternal favours. But if Adam and his Children of the first world, had found by experience, that the GOD who made it, could break faith with men; why should they regard it? And what convincing experience had they of this, if when he promis'd the Dominion over Sea-fish to them, he did so grievously tantalize and abuse them, as to hide both the Sea, and all its Fish from them, to the end of that World? Manifest it is, that He assur'd the Inhabitants of the primitive World, as much of Dominion over the Sea; as he did of the benefit of an incarnate Saviour: but then if he cheated them so egregiously at present, how could they in prudence trust him for the future; and take his word to be what the Psalmist styles it, [...] the word of righteousness, Psal. 119.123? or as some render it (and not impro­perly) the word of bounty, or kindness. Fraudulent dealing makes Confidence shie; and they that have been chous'd, will be cautelous after it. If one says he will give me but two Guineas, and basely deceives me; when he tells me he designs a thousand for me, in rea­son I must think he puts a trick upon me. So if GOD brake promise with the Antediluvians, in a lesser mat­ter; how could they expect he should perform a great­er? His unfair disappointing them of a temporal bles­sing; would rather have flung them into fatal despair [Page 206] of his everlasting Mercy. His imposing on them so openly once, would have aw'd their faith into such fear and diffidence: that they could no more have reli'd upon his broken fidelity. No more than they could believe, that he made Adam and them, to be Lords of the Fish, and Soveraigns of the Sea; when neither he nor they, saw one or the other, to their dying day. And thus for the Credit of contradicting Scripture in Natural things, we see what the tendency of it is, and how excellent the products of it will be. It turns the most solemn Grants of Heaven, into shameful Mocke­ries; and besides the dishonour it brings to GOD, lets in fatal despondency upon men. So much for the first piece of his apology: the second part of it follows.

And here in way of farther answer to the Charge of contradicting Scripture; Answ. p. 81. he is dispos'd to observe, how far the Excepter himself, in such (natural) things, hath contradicted Scripture. And because the Excepter us'd dreadful Sentences towards the Theorist, he goes a­bout to show, that he hath made himself obnoxious to them: And that this might be done the more fairly, we must (says he) state the case truly. And he does it thus. Whether to go contrary to the letter of Scripture, in things that relate to the Natural World, [...]b. be destroying the Foun­dations of Religion; affronting Scripture; and blaspheming the H. GHOST. Now however he pretends to state this case truly; it is evident that he does it falsly. For it is not 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 to be lite­rally understood. This Circumstance therefore (which was left out) should have been taken into the Case. And this is the great oversight of the Theorist; going contrary to Scripture in Natural things, where it is to be taken in a literal sense. By this means he exposeth [Page 207] himself. But the Excepter is guilty of no such proce­dure, and therefore the Scriptures alledg'd against him, can take no hold of him. In demonstration of as much, let us but consider the first of them, that he cites in his Answer, which is, Psal. 19.5. Ib. The whole verse runs thus, being spoken by David, of the Sun. Which is as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, and rejoyceth, as a strong man, to run a race. So that according to the letter of this Text, the Sun moves. But says the An­swerer, the Sun stands still, and the Earth moves, Ib. accord­ing to the Excepter's Doctrine. Very true. But yet that Doctrine is not contrary to this Scripture, for the reason just now suggested; even because its meaning is not literal. For which reason also the alledging it is improper and insignificant. And that its meaning can­not be literal, it proves irrafragably for its self. For take it in that sense, and what a numerous throng of ridiculous Absurdities, will issue from it upon the ac­ception? Then the Sun must be a man, and must be upon his Marriage, and must be drest 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. Then he must have life too, and he must have sense; he must have passions, and he must have leggs; else how can he rejoyce, and rejoice, as a strong man, to run a race? So that, in short, what is here said of the Sun's motion, needs not be literally un­derstood. It may be spoken only quoad apparentiam vel ad captum vulgi: according to appearance, or com­mon apprehension. And the like may be said of the rest of those Scriptures, which the Answer quotes to the same purpose, either in the Body, or the Margent of it. What therefore was said before, we may think still; that the alledging this Text was improper and superfluous. And the Answerer himself confirms this [Page 208] thought. For he says ( p. 85.) that we all leave the literal sense in certain cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man. And thus he is so kind or complaisant, as to censure and take off his own Objection; and to save us the trouble of confuting his Argument, by baffling it himself. And which is kinder yet, he tells us ( p. 84.) the truth is, if we should follow the Vulgar style, and literal sense of Scripture, we must renounce Philosophy and natural Experience. And so by a pretty and unusual sort of method, the skain which he ruffled, he brings to rights again. First he observ'd that we contradicted Scripture. Then he show'd wherein we did it. Then he charg'd us for so doing. Then he proclaim'd his Charge insufficient. And lastly he allows the very thing he attaqu'd. For he makes it necessary to contradict Scripture in some Cases, and not to follow its literal sence in all things; Unless we will renounce Philosophy and Experience. A thing which the Excepter is loth to do. As to the In­stances he brings, of the Sun's raising Mountains, and the Moon's hindring the formation of the Earth: they are so far from being Arguments against the Excepter, that they are but meer mistakes of his own, as we have here shewed. But another Argument he has found out (tho by an odd way of invention) or mustered up to bring up the Rear, Chap. 3d. and 10th. in this Battalion. And by it he in­tends to make an absolute conquest of us, and to beat us down into humble subjection to his own sentiment: in which he thus triumphs over us, tho before the Victory. Answ. p. 82. This, I think, is truly to contradict Scrip­ture. Here therefore, I trow, he goes upon good grounds and treads sure. For should his heels fly up, as they have frequently done, his fall would be the worse, for running so high against his adversary; as he calls the Excepter, in the foregoing Paragraph. And pray, [Page 209] what is this last Argument? Why, the Excepter, in his new Hypothesis, 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 covered the tops of the highest hills. And again he vouches it; The Scripture says, they covered the tops of the high­est Mountains. But this the Scripture does not do. It does not affirm expressly, that the Waters covered the Tops of the highest Hills. It does not say, that they co­vered the tops of the highest Mountains. And there­fore for the Answerer to say, it did affirm and say so expressly; This, I think, is truly to force and falsify Scri­pture. And thus his ill fortune haunts him still; and where he thought to have catcht his adversary in a Net? he only hampers and intangles himself. For he relapses unhappily, into his old infirmity, and asserts what is not. For where is it, that Scripture says, that the waters of the Flood did cover the tops of the highest Hills? Yet he twice together asserts it did; Two Un­truths. and so his recidivation is double, and two untruths he tells at once. 'Tis confest Scripture says, that the Mountains, at the Flood, were covered with waters. But so it says also (as we have observed) that the Camp of Israel, in the Wilderness, was covered with Quails. But as Quails, two Cubits high upon the ground, could not cover the Tops of the highest Tents; so Waters fifteen Cubits high upon the Earth, might not cover the Tops of the highest Hills. For certain Scripture does not say, it does not affirm expressly that they did. Yet by this, the Gentleman gives us to understand, that what the Scri­pture says, and expressly affirms; is to be believed, and ought to be received. And then why is the being of a Sea, before the Flood rejected, and Adam's dominion over its fish denied? I instance often in that Sea; be­cause I find it is of the Substance of the Theory, and a [Page 210] piece of one of its Vital Assertions; that the primitive Earth was without a Sea. Ib. These Observations, says the Answerer, I know, are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself. But without a perhaps, the Repli­cant finds they are of no use at all, unless to the Obser­vator. May he that made them, make the best use of them.

Here he takes occasion to reflect upon the Literal Style of Scripture. And the last Head he speaks to (and the only head that concerns us) is of such things as belong to the Natural World. Ib. p. 84. And to this, he says, may be reduc'd innumerable Instances, where we leave the lite­ral sence, if inconsistent with Science, or Experience. What meant he then, to charge us with going contrary to the Letter of Scripture, for supposing the fixedness of the Sun, and the motion of the Earth? by his own confession before, that charge was incompetent; and by his own Rule here, it must be impertinent. By and by he has this Fling, but I know not at whom. Some men, out of love to their own ease, [...] and in defence of their ig­norance, are not only for a Scripture-Divinity, but also for a Scripture-Philosophy. For my own part, as I hate too lazy a Philosophy, so I despise too busy a one. Sound Philosophy is a noble thing; and let all advance in it as far as they can: the more expert Philosophers they are, the wiser and better they are like to be. But still we must remember, that true Philosophy being bound­ed by the Light of Nature, must never interfere with Revelation. As on the one side, it should not be sloth­ful? so on the other side, it must not be pragmatical. Scripture is no enemy to Philosophy; and Philosophy by no means must affront Scripture. GOD allows men the freest use of their Reason; but 'tis unreasonable they should oppose it to Inspiration; and by using it confront his authority who gave them it. So concern'd [Page 211] was Plato to shun all such indecency; that being (in his Timaeus) to debate concerning the Universe, [...], whether it were made, or not made; he thought it necessary to invoke all the GODS and God­desses, that what should be said, might be [...]: agreeable to them, and spoken consistently. Change but the Object of the pe­tition, and the matter of it will be fit for any Philoso­phers Litany. Direct the address to the One True GOD, and there can be no fault in its application. And let Notions be squar'd by the Rules that it contains, and then Philosophy may take its liberty. Scripture allows it sufficient latitude, and the Christian Church will do no less. So I am sure she did of old. For then in her earlier and purer times, she was so far from discouraging Philosophy, that she took mens passing through its Schools, to be a laudable preparative or qualification for their preferment. Witness Origen (cont. Cel. l. 3.) [...], &c. We will not turn a­way young men from those that teach Philosophy; but where they have been exercis'd, and have gone the round with them, I will try to advance them higher &c. But if any will abuse this noble liberty, they must answer it to him who is philosophorum Deus (as Tertullian told Marcion) the GOD of Philosophers. And if we would not ag­gravate our account here, we must take heed of one thing: Of entertaining Philosophy with trifling Noti­ons. For if once we suffer it to seed upon such trash, we may expect it will soon get a surfeit, and fall sick of Phantsy; and that's a Disease which commonly rises up into paroxysms of extravagance. And then the vi­tal heat of reason, as I may call it, turns into a violent and raging Fever. And so the fire that should be kept orderly on the hearth, furiously flies up to the house top. And the flame which should burn only upon the Altar, consumes the Temple.

Then he Observers; Ʋpon the whole, you see, it is no fault to recede from the literal sence of Scripture, but the fault is when we leave it without a just cause. As it is no fault for a man to separate from a Church:— but to do it without a just cause, is a real fault. The beginning of this Observation does still farther justifie us, against his late insufficient Charge. And the rest of it gives us occasion to enquire, what just cause he had to recede from the literal sence of Scripture, as in too many in­stances he has done. For if he left that sence without just: cause, he is [...], condemn'd by a sentence out of his own mouth. The Letter of Scrip­ture plainly says, that GOD made two great Lights: that He gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea: that Tubal Cain, was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron: That the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up, and the Windows of Heaven open'd, the same day. Now, pray, what good reason, or what just cause is there for his departing from the Literal sence of Scripture in these things? For to recede from it without Cause, is as real a fault, by his own confession; as it is, without cause to separate from a Church. And therefore as causless separation from a Church, is criminous Schism; so causeless recession from that sence of Scripture, must be culpable deserti­on. And so if any Writer knowingly and causelesly de­serts the literal sence of Scripture or dissents from it; he cannot be innocent. For to use the Answerers own words, Ib. p. 85. tho we all leave the literal sence in certain cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man: Yet he that makes a separation, if I may so call it, without good reasons, he is truly obnoxious to censure. And so, in short, he becomes his own Judge, and pro­nounceth a most just sentence on himself.

Ib.And thus he comes to the great result of all which is [Page 213] this. To have some common Rule to direct us, when every one ought to follow, and when to leave the Literal Sence. And such a Rule, it seems, is not wanting. For as he tells us in the next words, That Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters, is this. Not to leave the literal sence, when the subject matter will bear it, without absurdity or incongruity. But must not the knowledge then of this good Rule, aggravate the breaking it? Ignorance, which sometimes excuses error, does always extenuate it. But if with open eyes we go against the light, and swerve from the Rule we see standing before us; our senses take from us all plea of oversight, and our pre­sumptuous enormity will admit of little or no apology. But yet the Answerer offers somewhat to clear him in this matter; and it follows immediately in the next words. This Rule I have always proposed to my self, and always endeavoured to keep close to it. May his next proposal then, and endeavour of this nature, be more fortunate. And to that end perhaps it may be proper they should be better inforced. For must not his pro­posal here be too slight, and must not his endeavour be too faint, when both of them proved so insuccessful? For had the one been as serious, and the other as vigo­rous as it ought; what could have defeated him, in so just an Enterprise, or diverted him from it? For ex­ample; had he really proposed, and heartily endeavour­ed to keep close to the letter, where Scripture says, GOD made two great Lights; or where it says, he gave Adam Dominion over Sea-fish; or the like; what could have hindred him, or beat him off it? As for absurditys or incongruitys in the subject Matters (the only Bar (ac­cording to the Rule) which can exclude that sence) nothing can be more vain than to pretend any here. For as we have plainly seen, the readiest way to open a wide Door, and let them in, is to receede from the literal [Page 214] sence. 'Tis confest indeed, that the literal sence, in these, and other cases, would have brought in absurdi­ties and inconveniencies upon the Theory, in good plenty. But then this is so far from being any reason, why the literal sence of those places should not be received; that it is a most clear and convincing Argument, that that Hypothesis is to be rejected. For by the Rule laid down, I say, where no kind of absurdities or incongrui­tys do accrue to any Texts, from the literal sence; there it must be kept to. And therefore if the Theory cannot stand, and maintain it self free from absurdities and incongruities, without perverting or depraving the literal sence of the now cited Texts, or any other; and without causing a needless departure from it: it must sink and fall. And then (as he somewhere interrogates the Excepter) why does he trouble himself, Answ. p. 67. or the World, with such an Hypothesis? Ib. p. 79. Did he do it meerly out of an itch of Scripturiency, as he speaks; methinks he might have laid that prurient humour, by scratching himself with the briars of a more innocent Controversie; or by scrubbing soundly against something else than the holy Scripture. Ib. p. 85. He goes on. But some inconsiderate minds make every departure from the letter, let the Matter or Cause be what it will, to be an affront to Scripture. And there, where we have the greatest liberty, I mean in things that relate to the natural World, they have no more indul­gence or moderation, than if it was an intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith. Let them that are thus incon­siderate in their minds, and immoderate in their ways; answer this charge. Prove the Excepter concern'd, and besides acknowledging his past fault, he'll be cautious of recommitting it for the future. But yet the greatest liberty we have, or may pretend to, in things relating to the natural World; can by no means authorize us to go against the letter of Scripture in any case, where [Page 215] it is to be literally taken, or may be so understood with­out absurdity. If we do, we go directly against the Rule of faith, and so shall soon come to intrenchment upon its Articles. He concludes thus. Ib. In this par­ticular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter; yet I must needs say, he is a very Saint in comparison of another Animadverter, who hath written upon the same subject, &c. In this particular, as the Animadverter needs no excuse, so he asks none. Yet if he used the Theorist so well; he again should have used him the better. But who­ever reads over the present Answer, will easily find, that he is treated rather as a grievous sinner against the holy Theory; than as a Saint Excepter. Who that Ani­madverter is, of whom he complains, I know not. I have seen no other Writings or Animadversions upon the Subject he speaks of, but the Lord Bishop of Hereford's. And I own that his Lordships publishing his Animadversions, was good encouragement to me to Print my Exceptions at first, and to Defend them now. To see that therein I should follow the great Example of a Reverend Prelate; and in fighting for the Truth, against the Theory of the Earth, should militate under the Episcopal Banner.

I was now thinking that I had done, and just about to lay down my Pen. But then calling to mind that the Answerer quoted a Review of the Theory against us, as to some Texts of Scripture, on which the Theory is bottom'd or does depend: I held my self oblig'd to take notice of this Review. And because in it he offers to justify his Exposition, which he formerly made of S. Peter's words, and we endeavoured to confute; It will not be improper briefly to except against what is there said to that purpose. And tho enough has been alledg'd against the Theory's sense of those words al­ready; [Page 216] yet, ex abundanti, we'll here cast in a little more, speaking to S. Peter's words chiefly, tho not to them only. And yet we shall speak only to Scriptures, because in reference to them alone, was this Review cited against us. Answ. p. 21. and 61. Review. p. 8.

In it he tells us, that the sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands, is the Doctrine of S. Peter, deliver'd in his second Epistle and third Chapter, concerning the Triple Order and succession of the heavens and earth; and is comprehended in seven verses of that Chapter, which run thus, in the Review.

Ver. 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. 4. And saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation. 5. For this they are willing­ly ignorant of, that by the Word of GOD, the heavens were of old, and the earth consisting of water and by wa­ter. 6. Whereby the World that then was, being over­flowed with water perished. 7. But the heavens and the earth that are now, by the same word, are kept in store, re­served unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.— 10. The day of the LORD will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up. 13. Nevertheless we ac­cording to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. But that such a triplicity of heavens and earth, as the Review con­tends for, is signifi'd or set out by S. Peter's words, is very unlikely; and the following Exceptions lie against it.

First, those words are so opposite to the first state of the heavens and earth, that they cannot admit of it, un­less one passage in them be false: which is this. [...] which the Review renders [Page 217] consisting of water and by water. This must be appli'd both to the Heavens, and to the Earth, as being spoken of both. And if it be to be understood, not of the Po­sture of them (according to our Translation) but as the Review interprets it; it must be void of truth. For first, apply it to the heavens, and they must consist by water as well as of water; that is, by the help of water, tanquam per causam sustmentem, as by a sustaining cause, says the Review. p. 20. But how did water sustain the first heavens; or Neptune, in that State, perform the task of Atlas? Secondly, apply it to the earth, and that must consist of water, as well as by water. But how did the first Earth in order, consist of water more than the second? Instead of that, this second Earth is of a far more watry constitution than the first; half the surface of the present Globe being nothing but Sea. And if it be urged, that [...], of water, relates to the Hea­vens; and [...], by water, relates to the Earth: the very form of the words will not allow it. For as the H. GHOST has set them, both the Expressions re­late as much to the Heavens, as they do to the Earth; and as much to the Earth, as they do to the Heavens; and to both alike. And the Review gives us leave to re­fer both to both, because it will make no great difference in its interpretation. p. 21.

Secondly, S. Peter's words are so opposite to the se­cond state of the Heavens and Earth; that they cannot admit of it, unless one Passage in them be inverted. For the SPIRIT says, that the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished. And so plainly makes the watry inundation, the cause of the Worlds destruction. But grant there were Heavens and Earth of a second Order according to the Review; and the Earth's De­struction or Dissolution must be the cause of that inunda­tion. And is it likely that St. Peter would so teach Philo­sophy, [Page 218] that it should not be understood without trans­posing the terms in which it is delivered, or drawing them to a kind of contrary sense? Who can believe that he allowed this second state of heavens and earth, much less asserted it in disputing with Philosophers; when if he did so, in his expression (as properly and most na­turally taken) he mistook the Cause for the Effect; and made the Earth to perish by its being drowned, when indeed it was drowned by its perishing, or being dissolved?

Thirdly, the Apostle's words are so opposite to the Third state of Heavens and Earth; that they cannot admit of it, unless one Passage in them be contradicted. For this Third state, which is the same with the new Heavens, and new Earth, is by the Review, post-pon'd to the Conflagration. For it tells us that the Earth, by that fire, being reduc'd to a second Chaos; from that, as from the first, arises a new Creation, or new Heavens, and a new Earth. (p. 6.) And therefore the Theorist's assert­ing that these shall rise before the day of Judgment; must needs be plain Contradiction to what the Apostle lays down in the 7th. verse. For there he says, that the Heavens and the Earth that are now, are kept in store, reserved unto fire, against the day of Iudgment, and perdition of ungodly men. And when he has said that [...], the present Heavens and the Earth, shall be kept and reserved till the day of Iudgment; the Doctrine of New Heavens and a new Earth to be intro­duc'd before then, must be downright Contradiction to this. And truly the same it must be, to affirm that these New Heavens and Earth, shall be consequent to the ge­neral Conflagration. Nor is there any way to avoid these barefac'd Contradictions; unless in complaisance to this pretty Hypothesis, there must be two Conflagra­tions, and two Days of Judgment, and two ends of the World; which is one of each sort more than GOD has revealed.

By S. Peter's New heavens therefore and his new Earth, we are to understand a new and excellent state of things, upon which the blessed Saints are all to en­ter, at the consummation of this present World. And as to what the Review says, p. 10. they must be material and natural, in the same sense and signification with the former Heavens and Earth: this does not appear from the Apo­stle's words. The other sense now mention'd, may rather be inferred from them, considering the way or usage of the holy Writers. For with them it is common, in passing from one thing to another, to carry a word or Notion used just before, along with them farther; or to rise from a Literal, to an Allegorical, or Anagogi­cal meaning. Such Transitions as these (to confine our Observation to one sacred Author) occur very frequent­ly in the Gospel of S. John. Thus (in the 4th. Chap­ter) our SAVIOUR discoursing with the Samaritan Woman, about drawing water out of a Deep Well; carries on the matter to Water that he could give. To such Water as he that drinketh of it shall never thirst; but it shall be in him a VVell springing up into everlasting life. But tho the Well and the Water first mention'd were Material; it does not follow from thence: that the latter were the same, or that they could be such. So (Chap. 6.) from speaking of Loaves, and of eating bread; he raises his Discourse, to that meat which endureth unto everlasting life. But yet it is never the more Material food; because the first spoken of, was of that nature. And (in the same Chapter) the Jews telling of Manna, or bread from Heaven, which their Fathers eat; JESƲS said unto them, I am the bread of life, he that cometh unto me shall never hunger. But this does not make our SA­VIOUR, real Manna, nor was it possible he should be Material bread. Yea, being but in the Jewish Temple, he took occasion from thence, to call his body by that name (Chap. 2.) Destroy this Temple, and I will build [Page 220] it again in three days. But was his sacred Body ever the more a stony building? And when this was the way of our Great REDEEMER, what wonder that his chief Apostle should imitate him? And that speaking of the old Heavens and Earth kept in store, and reserved un­to fire: should, in raising his Discourse to a future, spi­ritual, blessed state; speak of it in the terms, and under the notions, of new Heavens, and a new Earth.

But fourthly, that the Apostles words should point at a triform state of Heavens and Earth; is very improba­ble from that change which he makes in the Terms that he uses. For in the 5th verse he uses the words Hea­vens and Earth: and in the 7th. verse again, Heavens and Earth: but in the verse betwixt both, he says, the World that then was. Now if he meant the same thing in all three verses, why did he not use the same Words? and say, the Heavens and the Earth that were then. This fairly intimates, that he intended not the natural, but animate World; and principally Mankind, whom he called, the old World, in this Chapter; and in the pre­ceding Chapter, the world of the ungodly.

Fifthly, that this threefold state of Heavens and Earth, should be denoted in these words, is not to be thought; because they certify us, that the World that then was perished. Now could that be true of the natural World? Yet it must be true of some World because GOD says it: and therefore it must relate to a World which could, and did actually perish; which must be the Animal World. Indeed by this Perishing, the Review under­stands a change only in the constitution and form of the Heavens and Earth. But is, or can that be a perishing? Suppose ones temper or constitution be changed from Phlegmatic to Choleric; is the man therefore perished? Or suppose the Shell of an Egg should crack and sink inward a little; is the Egg therefore perished? No more [Page 221] could the Material Heavens and Earth perish, by a meer change of their Constitution and form: And had but such a change as that befallen them; the Apostle would certainly have express'd it accordingly, and not have said, the World that then was perished. But since he has thus express'd it, the animate World must be here un­derstood, that so the Word spoken may come up to the thing, and express it in a just and true sense.

But because he says, that the Apostle speaks here of the Natural World, particularly in the 6th verse: and offers Reasons to prove that it perished (Review. p. 14.) We shall lay down the Substance of these Reasons, and briefly answer them.

First, the ground these Scoffers went upon, was taken from the permanency of the natural World in the same state from the beginning. And therefore if the Apostle would take away their Argument, he must show that the natural World hath been changed, or hath perished.

Answ. And does he not show them a sufficient change in nature at the Deluge; when (as he minds them) the Earth stood so deep, and the Heavens so high in Water, that thereby the animate world perished? Only this change was a change in the condition, not of the Constitution of the natural World.

Secondly, these Scoffers could not be ignorant that there was a Deluge, which destroyed Mankind; and therefore it was the Constitution of those old Heavens and Earth and the change and destruction of them at the Deluge, that they were ignorant of.

Answ. If they were not ignorant of the destructive Deluge, they might have forgotten it, See Disc. p. 137. and therefore the Apostle minds them of it. Or else they were ignorant or forgetful of the divine Cause of the Flood; Ib. p. 134, &c: which he therefore expressly tells them was the Word of GOD. [Page 222] But as to the pretended change or destruction of the Heavens and Earth, I doubt not but S. Peter was as ignorant of them, as any of the Persons he reprehends.

Thirdly, the Apostle's design is to prove the Confla­gration, which will be a destruction of the natural World: and therefore he must use an Argument taken from a precedent destruction of that World.

Answ. The Design of the Apostle is not to oppose reason to reason strictly, in a just parity of Instances; but fairly to infer one judicial and calamitous Providence or Dispensation from another. And GOD having drowned the old Heavens, in some measure, as well as the Earth; by the word of his power bringing in the flood upon the ungodly: he would from hence con­vince them, that by the same word, the present Hea­vens and Earth are reserved unto fire; which shall then be the instrument of perdition to the impious, and the whole living World; as water was before. And so from one general destruction past, he strenuously argues the certain futurity of another to come.

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.

Answ. His Discourse, for this, will not be redundant, but very close to his purpose. For that is not only to mind these Scoffers, that men and other Animals were destroyed in a Deluge caused by GOD's Power; but to represent the greatness of that Deluge, which swell'd so mightily upon the Earth, that in some measure it in­vaded the Heavens. And therefore to what he said of the flood's destroying Mankind, in the foregoing Chap­ter, v. 5th; he adding here a description of the vastness of that Flood, in the drowned posture which the Hea­vens and Earth then stood in; what he says, is far from being superfluous or redundant.

Nor is his Argument thus made obscure. On the contrary rather it receives light from hence. For he here bringing in the Heavens and Earth into his account of the Deluge; does thereby make the Greatness, of it, he was representing the more conspicuous.

Fifthly, the opposition carries it upon the Natural World.

Answ. The Heavens and Earth that were of old, and the Heavens and Earth that are now, we grant are op­posed. But then 'tis as to their Fate, not in their Na­tures. And tho the Heavens and Earth that are now, shall perish more throughly than they did of old; Fire being more consuming than Water: yet then for a time they perished too. That is, in S. Austin's sense; with whose Authority the Review makes so loud a noise to little purpose. For so far as I can find, neither he, nor any of the Fathers, who affirm the Aereal Heavens pe­risht; do think that they perisht any otherwise, than by the Water's rising up into the lowest Regions of the Air. And that place of Bede which the Review cites, seems to speak the common sense, as well as his own: which gives us to understand that the Heavens perished, p. 25. cunctis aeris hujus turbulenti spatiis, aquarum accrescentium alti­tudine consumptis: All the spaces of this turbulent Air, being taken up by the heighth of the swelling waters. Ac­cording to which, the Heavens perished, just as the Air does in a Vessel, when it fills with Water. But let out the Water, and the Air immediately returns into it. So the lowest Heavens that perished at the Flood, by standing in the Water; when that was dried up, pre­sently recovered their first Aereal Constitution again.

The Last reason is answered in the 4th of the forego­ing Exceptions. And from what has been here said, Answers may with ease be made, to those Considerati­ons which the Review alledges, in proof of a Diversity [Page 224] or Opposition made by S. Peter, betwixt the Ancient Heavens and Earth, and the Present.

But farther yet; the Review observes, that S. Paul also implys that triple Creation which S. Peter expresses. p. 10, 11. For Rom. 8.20, 21, he tells us of a Creation that will be redeemed from vanity: which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come. A Creation in subjection to va­nity: which is the present State of uhe World. And a Creation that was subjected to vanity; in hopes of being restored; which was the first Paradisiacal Creation.

But by Creation or Creature here, to understand the Heavens and Earth; must be improper. For first, it is [...] the whole Creation, or every Creature, that is here spoken of, v. 22d. And where does that signi­fy the material Heavens and Earth, in Scripture?

Secondly, the Creature mention'd, is capable of waiting, and of earnest expectation, and of hope, and of pain, and of groaning; as the verse cited, and the con­text, show. Yea, it seems to be capable of groaning as we our selves do, v. 23. Which is above the power of Matter, tho never so subtil or celestial.

Thirdly, the Creature here, is to be delivered from bondage into glorious liberty, v. 21. And this again is a Character which falls not in with the Heavens and Earth. He says indeed that the Creature that will be Redeemed from Vanity, is the new Heavens and new Earth to come. But how will they, (supposing them come into the Paradisiacal State) be delivered from vanity? For even then they can be in no better condition, than the first Paradisiacal Heavens and Earth were, (as coming but into a state of Renovation or Restitution.) And they were so far from being freed from Vanity, that they were subject to corruption, and perished at the Deluge, as the Theorist holds. And truly so must the last Paradisiacal ones too, unless it be prevented. [Page 225] The new Earth, if it stands long enough, must be dis­solved and lose its Form: and the new Heavens must be changed, at another Deluge, and lose their Constitution. Or if the day of Judgment should happen first, and hin­der this; yet where would be their Redemption or De­liverance here phantsied? For still they would be vain and corruptible in their Nature; as Enoch and Elias were both Mortal, tho neither died.

To which add, that the Theory ( l. 4. p. 219, 220.) plants Gog, and Magog in the New Earth, and allows them to grow numerous there, as the sand by the Sea. And so it can no more be redeem'd or deliver'd from Moral Vanity and Corruption upon it; than from Natu­ral Vanity and Corruptibility in it.

Lastly, This Creature of the Apostles is to be deliver­ed into the glorious liberty of the Children of God, v. 21. now the liberty of GOD's Children is Moral, Spiri­tual, and Divine, which is not compleated but in the future exalted state of bliss: Where, being heirs of GOD, and joint heirs with CHRIST, we shall be glorified with him, v. 17th. But such a liberty as this, is no way compatible to things meerly Physical; and so the Heavens and Earth, tho never so new and paradisiacal, must not pretend to it, cannot partake of it.

Thus we see that the Theorists Interpretation of this Place of Scripture, is not right: and therefore of ne­cessity we must look out for some other Creature, as here intended. Nor need we search much to find one. Preach the Gospel to every Creature, said the H. JESUS to his Apostles, S. Mar. 16.15. Here the word is the same with S. Paul's to the Romans. But Heavens and Earth cannot possibly be meant by it, because to them there must be no Preaching. But by every Creature, the Heathen World may fitly be understood. And so this Precept or Commission given to the Apostles, is [Page 226] parallel to that in the last chapter of S. Matthew; go, and teach all Nations. And then by the Vanity to which the Creature was Subject, and the Bondage of Corruption from which they were to be delivered; we must understand, See Dr. Ham­monds Annota­tions on the place. Idolatry; to which the Gentiles were miserably inslaved. And that indeed, in Scripture, is emphatically exprest, by Vanity, and Corruption. So the Apostles, Act. 15th. having preached to Idolaters; declare the end of their Doctrine was to turn them from their VANITIES. And Moses in Deuteronomy, does usu­ally point at Idolatry, by mens CORRUPTING them­selves. And if we frame the Exposition of S. Paul's words to this sense; it will run very smoothly through the whole Paragraph, without any considerable check or Difficulty.

Review, p. 11.But after S. Paul, he brings in S. John also, to coun­tenance his Phantsie of this triple State of Heavens and Earth. For he speaks of the new Heavens and new Earth. with that distinguishing Character, that the Earth was without a Sea. And as this distinguisheth it from the present Earth, so, being a Restitution or Restauration, it must be the same with some former Earth, &c. To this we Answer. The one and twentieth Chapter of the Apocalyps, where we meet with S. Johns new Heavens and Earth; consists of two very glorious Scenes. The New Heavens and Earth, make the first; and the holy City, or the New Jerusalem, the latter. But this City being Allegorical; we have no reason to think, that the new Heavens, down from which; and the new Earth, down to which it came, should be otherwise. Also this Allegation does no more prove The Triple State of Heavens and Earth; or that the primitive Earth was without a Sea: than it proves there shall be a City built of pure Gold, whose twelve Gates shall be twelve Pearls, (in a Literal sense) according to the tenour of that chapter.

And now let us offer but Two short Exceptions, which will not fail to subvert the chief Scripture-basis of the whole Theory of the Earth, as the Review calls it, ( p. 13th;) by showing that S. Peter's words, as well as S. Paul's, and S. John's, are misinterpreted and mis-apply'd.

The first is this. In case this Triple state, or successive Order of Heavens and Earth, be rightly grounded upon the aforesaid Apostles words; then those three most eminent Evangelical Writers, must implicitly contradict the Doctrine of Moses. And so either what he, or what they have delivered in some points, must be false; and all of them being inspir'd from above, the H. GHOST must contradict Himself. By Moses's Do­ctrine 'tis very plain, that the first Earth had an open Sea. For GOD, he says, gave man Dominion over the Fish of the Sea; and his Dominion over the Fish, ap­pears to be as full, and withal as soon conferr'd upon him, as that he had over the Beasts or Fowls. And therefore if these Apostles, warrant this threefold State of Heavens and Earth, in the first of which there could be no open Sea; their Doctrine must necessarily clash with Moses's, and implicitly contradict it. So again, by Moses's Doctrine, 'tis undeniably plain, that there was Brass and Iron in the Praediluvian Earth. For, as he teaches, Tubal-Cain, was an Instructer of every Ar­tificer in those Metals. And therefore if these three famous Apostles maintain this triple State of Heavens and Earth; they must implicitly interfere with Moses again: because the first of these states could not possibly produce either of those Metals; both which, according to Moses, were extant in it.

The second Exception is this. In case such a Triple state as this be truly founded upon the Writings of these [Page 228] three famous men; then as all of them must contradict Moses implicitly, so one of them must contradict himself expresly. I mean S. John. For speaking of the state of the new Heavens and Earth, he says, there was no more Sea, Apoc. 21.1. Yet describing the final Judg­ment, which is to be at the end of the same state; he says, the Sea gave up the dead which were in it, Apoc. 20.13. And so in short, there is no more probability, that there should be such a tripple state as the Theory has invented, built upon these Foundations of the Apostles laying: than there is possibility that in­spired Writers should contradict themselves, or one another.

And therefore if what our Author says be true; that the principal parts of this Theory, are such things as are recorded in Scripture; and so must be taken for granted, in one sense or other (Review p. 1:) yet it is so far evi­dent, that he has not hit upon the Right sense of them, as it is evident the sense that he puts upon them, is not consonant to Scripture. And that is so evident, that in his interpreting Scriptures, and applying several of them to his notions; Review, p. 8. he seems to have veri­fi'd his own words, where he says, 'tis a kind of fatality upon us to be deceived. Ib. p. 11. Yea, even to be deceiv'd in the passages of those principal Apostles, of which he thus pronounces. These three places I alledge, as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full extent.

And that he speeds no better in dealing with Prophane Writers about this Matter; than he did in tampering with Divine ones: one Instance will evince, which we meet with in his Review (p. 20.) where to show the true importance of [...] vel [...], and how ill it is rendred in the English, standing out of the [Page 229] water, 2 S. Pet. 3.5: he says, that he that should translate Plato 's [...], the World stands out of fire; would be thought no Graecian. And adds, that Thales's, [...], Cicero renders, ex aqua constare omnia. But this we except against as nothing to the purpose. For the Authors named, by their [...], meant that the World was made out of a thing as out of its principle. But did the Theorist's first Heavens, [...], in that sense? was water the Principle out of which they were made? So far from that, that they were com­pleatly made, and the Earth too, without any water in their Composition. Yea, the Sun was fain to dart his fiery Beams through the Earth, to rarify the water in the Abyss below, and from thence to fetch it up by exhalation; before so much as Vapour could spread through those Heavens. So that they were no more made out of water, than the Air is made out of Clouds, because they fly in it; or than a County is made out of a River, because it runs through it. [...], in Plato's or in Thales's sense, has nothing to do here. For besides that in the primitive Heavens, there was no formal or specific Water, save only about the Poles of the Earth where it fell; but only Vapour: even that Vapour was but passant through those Heavens, no Ingredient of them; no Principle of their Being, or Part of their Essence. But this was that which, the Philoso­pher meant, by his, [...]: and the Orator confirms it by his reddition of the Words.

We cannot conclude, without making this plain, but true Observation. That the Theory of the Earth is a very vain and false Hypothesis.

The Vanity of it is notorious. For notwithstand­ing [Page 230] that it pretends to be chiefly Philosophical; yet all its Primary Phaenomenaes that we have con­sidered; and which make up the biggest and most Philosophical part of it; are fain to call in the help of Miracle to support them.

Review, p. 2.The first, is the Original of the Earth from a Chaos. But that the Formation of this Earth might in due time be effected, it is supposed to be done by the hand of Extraordinary or miraculous Pro­vidence.

The second, is the state of Paradise, and the Antediluvian World. And here Miracle must come in again: for that World could never have been peopled, had not Angels carry'd Mankind over the Torrid Zone.

The Third, is the Ʋniversal Deluge. But without Miracle, no Rains could have been before the foun­tains of the great Deep were broken up; nor could the falling Ark have been preserved after it.

Nor is the Falseness of the Hypothesis, inferiour to its Vanity. For there is never a one of the Phaenomenaes aforesaid, but includes too manifest Contradiction in it, to the sacred Oracles, or else to it self.

First, the Formation of the Earth out of the Theory's Chaos, contradicts Scripture. For that tells us the Earth was made the Third day; but the Theory says it was increased daily. And if to take off this Contra­diction to Scripture, it be alledged that the An­swerer allows it might be made in six minutes; this throws the Contradiction upon the Theory. For how could the Earth be made in six minutes, that was daily increased?

Secondly, the Paradisiacal state, and the Antedilu­vian World Contradict Scripture. For the one gives Paradise a Situation Contrary to what Moses assigns it; and the other, against his most plain Asserti­ons, excludes both Metals, and an open Sea, with Adam's Dominion over its Fish.

Thirdly, the Ʋniversal Deluge contradicts Scripture. For according to the Theorist, See Disc. c. 8. §. 5. Answ. p. 31. Reply. p. 67. there were four­score days Rain towards making the Flood; but the H. GHOST mentions and allows but forty.

This is no more than a Recapitulation, or short Rehearsal of some former Remarks. Yet they fully exhibit the nature of the Theory. And when its Primary and Essential Phaenomenaes are such; what must its Secondarys and Collaterals be? If the Con­stituent and substantial parts of an Hypothesis, be so very faulty; impossible it is that the Coinci­dents or Appendants of it should be justifiable. Yet thus our Author vouches this Hypothesis, in his Review (p. 12.) It is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy, than any other yet propos'd to the World; but it is also more agreeable to Scripture. Having found out words in Scripture, that is, some­what like to his own; he runs directly away with them, and right or wrong applys them to his pur­pose. Just as some persons who listning unto Bells, think that they ring what runs in their minds; so if Scripture phrases do but chime as it were, or sound to his sense, our Author concludes that they favour his Notions, tho all be but Phantsy. But let him make good that fair Character, and I am ready to retract what I have said against him, and to turn my Exceptions into applause. In the mean time, I have pursued the Theory as far as I need. [Page 232] For as for going through the two last Books, which he says will not be unacceptable to the Theorist, (Answ. p. 66.) I deem it wholly superfluous. Where the Foundations of an house are taken away, the Su­perstructures can never stand. The upper Stories must needs follow the fate of the lower ones; and both will certainly fall together.