Chapter XVII: Book IV (8)

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

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

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

Footnote 16:

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

CHAP. VII.

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

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

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

So much for what is said by the Exceptor concerning this place of St. _Peter_. To all the rest he gives an easy Answer, (in the Contents of this Chapter) _viz._, That they are _figurative, and so not argumentative_. The Places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends, are fixed distinctly and in order, in the REVIEW: And, to avoid Repetitions, we must sometimes refer to that, _Review_, p. 371, 372. particularly, as to two remarkable Places, _Psal._ xxiv. 2. and _Psal._ cxxxvi. 6. concerning the _Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas_. Which the Exceptor quickly dispatches by the Help of a _Particle_ and a _Figure_. על.

The next he proceeds to, is, _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. _He gathereth the Waters of the Sea, as in a Bag: He layeth up the Abyss in Store-Houses._ But, he says, it should be render’d, as _on an Heap_: Which is the _English_ Translation. Whether the Authorities produced, in this case, by the Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 117. or by the Exceptor, are more considerable, I leave the Reader to judge. But, however, he cites another place, _Psal._ lxxviii. 13. where the same Word is us’d and apply’d to the Red Sea, which could not be enclos’d as in a Bag. Take whether Translation you please for this second place; it is no Prejudice to the Theory, if you render it _on an Heap_: For it was a Thing done by Miracle. But the other Place speaks of the ordinary Posture and Constitution of the Waters, which is not _on an Heap_, but in a Level or spherical Convexity with the rest of the Earth. This Reason the Animadverter was not pleas’d to take notice of, tho’ it be intimated in that same Place of the Theory which he quotes, _p._ 86. But that which I might complain of most, is his unfair Citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory, _Excep._ _p._ 140. which he applies peculiarly to this Text of _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg’d out of the _Psalms_, and is a modest Reflection upon the Explication of them, as the Reader may plainly see, if he please to look the Theory, and compare it with his Citation.

The next Place he attacks, is, _Job_ xxvi. 7. _He stretches the North over the Tohu_, or, as we render it, _over the empty Places: And hangeth the Earth upon nothing_. Here he says, _p._ 141. _Job_ did either accommodate himself to the Vulgar, or else was a perfect _Platonist._ Methinks _Plato_ should rather be a _Jobist_, if you would have them to imitate one another. Then he makes an Objection, and answers it himself: concluding, however, that _Job_ could not but mean this of the present Earth, because in the next Verse he mentions _Clouds_. But how does it appear, that every Thing that _Job_ mentions in that Chapter, refers to the same time?

The next Place, is, _Job_ xxxviii. 4, 5, 6. _Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth?_ &c. These eloquent Expostulations of the Almighty, he applies all to the present Form of the Earth: Where he says, there are the _Embossings of Mountains, the Enamelling of lesser Seas, the open Work of the vast Ocean, and the fret Work of Rocks_, &c. These make a great Noise, but they might all be apply’d to the Ruins of an old Bridge, fallen into the Water. Then he makes a large Harangue in Commendation of Mountains, and of the present Form of the Earth: Which, if you please, you may compare with the tenth _Chapter_ of the _Latin Theory_, and then make your Judgment upon both.

But it is not enough for the Exceptor to admire the Beauty of Mountains, but he, _p._ 146. will make the Theorist to do so too, because he hath exprest himself much pleas’d with the Sight of them. Can we be pleas’d with nothing in an Object but the Beauty of it? Does not the Theorist say there, in the very Words cited by the Exceptor, _Sæpe loci ipsius insolentia & spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis & communibus._ We are pleas’d in looking upon the Ruins of a _Roman_ Amphitheatre, or a triumphal Arch, tho’ time have defac’d its Beauty. A Man may be pleas’d in looking upon a Monster, will you conclude therefore that he takes it for a Beauty? There are many Things in Objects, besides Beauty, that may please; but he that hath not Sense and Judgment enough to see the Difference of those Cases, and whence the Pleasures arise, it would be very tedious to beat it into him by Multitude of Words.

After his Commendation of Mountains, he falls upon the Commendation of Rain: Making those Countries, that enjoy it, to be better water’d than by Rivers; and consequently the present Earth better than that paradisaical Earth describ’d by the Theorist. And in this he says, he follows the Rule of Scripture, for these are his Words, p. 148, _And that these Rules, whereby we measure the Usefulness of this Earth, and shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory, are the most true and proper Rules, is manifest from God’s making use of the same, in a Case not unlike: For he, comparing_ Ægypt _and_ Palestine, _prefers the latter before the former; because in_ Ægypt _the Seed sown was_ watered with the Foot, as a Garden of Herbs; _but Palestine was_ a Land of Hills and Valleys, and drank Water of the Rain of Heaven, _Deut._ xi. 10, 11.

Let this rest a while: In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily it falls out for the Observator, that a Country that had no Rain, should be compared in Scripture, or join’d in Privilege, with Paradise it self, and the Garden of God. For so is this very _Ægypt_, _Gen._ xiii. 10, tho’ it had no Rain, but was water’d by Rivers. The Words of Scripture are these. _And Lot lifted up his Eyes, and beheld all the Plain of Jordan, that it was well-watered every where (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) even as the Garden of the Lord, like the Land of Ægypt._ The Plain of _Jordan_ you see is commended for its Fruitfulness, and being well watered: And as the height of its Commendation, it is compar’d with _Ægypt_, and with the _Paradise of God_. Now in _Ægypt_ we know there was little or no Rain: And we read of none in Paradise: But they were both water’d by Rivers. Therefore the greatest Commendation of a Land, for Pleasure and Fertility, according to Scripture, is its being well water’d with Rivers: Which makes it like a Paradise. Surely then you cannot blame the Theorist, having this Authority besides all other Reasons, for making the _paradisaical Earth_ to have been thus water’d.

Now let the Exceptor consider how he will interpret and apply his place in _Deuteronomy_, and make it consistent with this _Genesis_. Till I see a better Interpretation, I like this very well, tho’ quite contrary to his: Namely, _That_ they were not to expect such a Land as _Ægypt_, that was a Plain naturally fruitful, as being well water’d; but the Land they were to possess, depended upon the Benediction of Heaven: And therefore they might expect more or less Fertility, according as they kept God’s Commandments. And so much for those two Texts of Scripture.

Lastly, The Exceptor, _p._ 149. in the Conclusion of his Discourse about that place in _Job_, makes a Reflection upon the Impropriety of those Expressions made in _Job_, about _Foundations_ and _Corner-stones_, if they be apply’d to the first Earth describ’d by the Theorist. But this seems to me an Elegancy in that Discourse, which he makes a Fault: Whether it be understood as an Allusion only to our manner of Building, by deep Foundations, and strong Corner-stones: Or an ironical Interrogation, as it seems to me; implying, that there was no Foundation (strictly so call’d) nor Corner-stone, in that great Work, tho’ we cannot build a Cottage or little Bridge, without such Preparations.

He proceeds then to the following Verses in that thirty-eighth Chapter. _Who shut up the Sea with Doors, when it broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb?_ This the Theorist understands of the _Disruption_ of the _Abyss_ at the Deluge, when the Sea broke forth out of the Womb of the Earth: Or out of that subterraneous Cavity, where it was enclosed as in a Womb. ’Tis plainly imply’d in the Words of the Text, that the Sea was shut up in some _Womb_, before it broke forth. I desire therefore to know in what _Womb_ that was. You will find Interpreters much at a loss to give a fair Answer to that Question: What was that enclos’d State of the Sea? And what Place, or Part of Nature, was that Receptacle where it lay? But the Exceptor hath found out a new Answer. He says, it was that _Womb_ of Non-entity. These are his Words, _It just then_ (at its Creation) _gushed out of the Womb of Nothing, into Existence_. This is a subtle and far-fetch’d Notion. Methinks the _Womb of Nothing_, is much-what the same as _no Womb_. And so this is no Answer. But however let us consider how far it would suit this Case, if it was admitted. If you understand the _Womb of Non-entity_, _Gen._ i. 2. the Sea broke out of that Womb the first Day, and had no Bars or Doors set to it, but flow’d over all the Earth without Check or Control. Therefore that could not be the Time or State here spoken of. And to refer that Restraint, or those Bars and Doors, to another Time, which are spoken of here in the same Verse, would be very inexcusable in the Exceptor: _p._ 150. seeing he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those Things that are spoken of in different Verses, to be understood of different Times. To conclude, this metaphysical Notion of the _Womb of Nothing_, is altogether impertinent, at least in this Case: For the Text is plainly speaking of Things local and corporeal, and this Prison of the Sea must be understood as such.

He proceeds now to the last Place alleg’d, _Prov._ viii. 27, 28. _When he prepared the Heavens, I was there: When he set a Compass upon the Face of the Deep._ The word חוג which we tender _Compass_, he says, signifies no more than the Rotundity or spherical Figure of the Abyss. And so the Sense will run thus, _When God set a Rotundity_, or _spherical Figure, upon the Face of the Abyss_. But whereas the Word may as well signify a _Sphere_ or _Orb_, the Theorist thinks it more reasonable that it should be so translated: And so the Sentence would run thus, _When God set an Orb upon the Face of the Deep._ And this Discourse of _Solomon_’s, referring to the Beginning of the World, he thinks it rational to understand it of the _first habitable Earth_: Which is really an _Orb set over the Face of the Deep_.

One cannot swear for the Signification of a Word in every particular Place, where it occurs: But when there are two Senses whereof it is capable, and the one is much more important than the other, it is a fair Presumption to take it in the more important Sense; especially in such a Place, and upon such an Occasion, where the great Works of the Divine Wisdom and Power are celebrated: As they are here by _Solomon_. And it cannot be deny’d, that our Sense of the Words is more important than the other: For of what Consequence is it to say, _God made the Body of the Abyss_ round. Every one knows, that Fluids of their own accord run into that Figure. So as that would be a small Remark upon a great Occasion.

The Construction of this Orb we speak of, minds me of an Injustice which the Exceptor hath done the Theory, in the precedent Part of this Chapter, by a false Accusation. For he says, the Theory makes the Construction of the first Earth to have been _merely mechanical_. At least, his Words seem to signify as much, which are these, _p._ 143. _And so its Formation_, speaking of the first Earth, _had been merely mechanical, as the Theory makes it_. That the Construction was not merely mechanical, in the Opinion of the Theorist, you may see, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 88. which, because we have cited it before, we will not here repeat. The Theorist might also complain, that the Exceptor cites the first Edition of the Theory for such Things as are left out in the second: Which yet was printed a Twelvemonth before his Animadversions. And therefore in Fairness he ought always to have consulted the last Edition, and last Sense of the Author, before he had censured him, or his Work. But this unfair Method, it seems, pleas’d his Humour better: _p._ 81. _p._ 100, last Part, as you may see in this Chapter, _p._ 154. _p._ 227, 228. _p._ 244. and in several other Places; where Passages are cited and insisted upon, that are no where to be found in the second Edition. Not to mention his defective Citations, omitting that Part that qualifies the Sentence, as _p._ 99. last Citation, and elsewhere, _p._ 279, 280. _p._ 288. I make this Note, that the Reader may judge, how well this answers that _Sincerity_, with which he profest he would examine this Work: _Only as a Friend and Servant to Truth. And therefore with such Candor, Meekness, and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character_, _p._ 43.

The rest of this Chapter is a general Censure of Citations out of Scripture, that are only tropical or figurative Schemes of Speech. These must be made so indeed, if our Sense of them be not allow’d. But what Necessity is there of a figurative interpretation of all these Texts? The Rule we go by, and I think all good Interpreters, is this, that we are not to leave the literal Sense, unless there be a Necessity, from the Subject-Matter. And there is no such Necessity in this Case, upon our Hypothesis: For it suits with the literal Sense. And ’tis to beg the Question, to say, the literal Sense is not to be admitted, because it complies too much with the Theory. But as for that Text of his own, which he instances in, _The Pillars of the Earth tremble_, that cannot be understood (by the same Rule) of Pillars _literally_; because there are no such Pillars of the Earth, upon any Hypothesis.

CHAP. VIII.

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

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

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

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

Lastly, He makes that an Argument, _p._ 169. that the Air was cold and intemperate in Paradise, and consequently no constant Equinox, _because_ Adam _and_ Eve _made themselves Aprons to cover their Nakedness_. So, he confesses, Interpreters generally understand, that it was to _cover their Nakedness_. But he will not allow that to be the true Sense, but says those Fig-Leaves were to keep them warm. And the other Interpretation of _covering their Nakedness_, he will not admit, for three Reasons: First, because the Scripture, as he pretends, does not declare it so. See, pray, _Gen._ iii. 7. Secondly, _What Shame_, says he, _need there have been betwixt Husband and Wife_? Thirdly, _If it was Modesty; when they were innocent, they should have been more modest._ Some Arguments answer themselves, and I do not think these deserve a Confutation. But, he says, _p._ 170. however God made them _Coats of Skins_ afterwards, and that was to be a _Defence against Cold._ He must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood: And which way, and how far _Adam_ and _Eve_ were banish’d from it. When those Things are determin’d, we shall know what to judge of this Argument, and of _Coats of Skins_.

After _Lastly_, I expected no more: But he hath two or three Reasons after the _Last_. As first, he says, _p._ 171. upon our Hypothesis, one Hemisphere of the Globe must have been unpeopled: Because the torrid Zone was unpassable. And was not the Ocean as unpassable, upon your Hypothesis? How got they into _America_? And not only into _America_, but into all the Islands of the Earth, that are remote from Continents? Will you not allow us one Miracle, for your many? I’m sure the Theorist never excluded the Ministry of Angels; and they could as easily carry them thorough the torrid Zone, as over the Ocean. But secondly, he says, There could be no Rains to make the Flood, if there was a perpetual Equinox. Were not those Rains, that made the Flood, extraordinary, and out of the Course of Nature? You would give one angry Words that should deny it. Besides, the _Flood-Gates of Heaven_ were open’d when the _great Deep_ was broken up, (_Gen._ vii. 11.) and no Wonder the Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in the Air, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 135. and either compress the Vapours, or stop their usual Course towards the Poles, and draw them down in Streams upon several Parts of the Earth. But the Exceptor says, this could not be, because the Theorist makes the Rains fall before the Disruption of the Abyss. But he does not suppose the _Cataracts of Heaven_ to have been open’d before, which made the grand Rains. And how unfairly that Passage of the Theory is represented, we shall see hereafter in the fourteenth Chapter.

Lastly, He concludes all with this Remark, _p._ 176. That all sorts of Authors have disputed in what Season of the Year the Deluge came, and in what Season of the Year the World began: Therefore they thought there were then different Seasons of the Year. These Disputes, he confesses, did _manifestly proceed from Inadvertency_, or something worse: Because there could not be any one Season throughout all the Earth at once. He might have added, unless upon the Supposition of the Theory, which makes an universal Equinox at that Time. And why may not that have given Occasion to the general Belief, _That the World begun in the Spring_? And when the true Reason of the Tradition was lost, they fell into those impertinent Questions, _In what Season of the Year the World began_. But however, we do not depend upon the Belief, either of the Antients or the Moderns, as to the Generality: For we know they had other Notions of these Things than what the Theory proposes; otherwise it would have been a needless Work. But notwithstanding the general Error, that Providence did preserve some Traditions and Testimonies, concerning that ancient Truth, we shall see in the next following Discourse.

So much for Scripture and Reasons. He now comes to examine Authorities: Namely, such Testimonies as are alledg’d by the Theorist, to shew that there was a Tradition among the Antients, of _a Change that had been, as to the Position of the Earth_: And consequently, as to the Form and Seasons of the Year. The first Testimony that he excepts against, is, that of _Diogenes_ and _Anaxagoras_; who witness plainly, _p._ 177. That there had been an _Inclination_ of the Earth, or a Change of Posture, since it was form’d and inhabited. But the Exceptor says, they have not assign’d a true _final Cause_, nor such as agrees with the Theory. The second Testimony, is, that of _Empedocles_, p. 178. which he excepts against, because he hath not given a good _efficient Cause_ of that Change. The third Witness is _Leucippus_; against whom he makes the same Exception, _p._ 179. that he doth not assign the Causes a-right. The fourth Witness, is _Democritus_; whom he, _p._ 180. quarrels with upon the same Account. But is this a fair hearing of Witnesses? Or are these just and legal Grounds of rejecting their Testimony, as to matter of Fact, because they are unskilful in giving the Causes and Reasons of that matter of Fact? That is not requir’d in Witnesses: And they are often impertinent when they attempt to do it. The Theorist does not cite these Authors to learn of them the Causes, either efficient or final, of that _Inclination_, or Change of Posture in the Earth, but only matter of Fact: To let you see, that according to their Testimony, there was a Tradition in that Time, which they took for true, concerning a Change made in the Posture of the Earth. And this is all we require from them. If you pretend to invalidate their Testimony, because they do not philosophize well about that Change; that’s as if you should deny that there was such a War as the _Peloponnesian_ War, because the Historian hath not assigned the true Causes and Reasons of it: Or as if a Man should give you the History of a Comet, that appear’d in such a Year, was of such a Form, and took such a Course in the Heavens; and you should deny there was any such Comet, because the same Author had not given a good Account of the Generation of that Comet, nor of the Causes of its Form and Motion. The Exceptions made against the Testimonies of these Philosophers, seem to me to be no less injudicious.

After these Testimonies, he _p._ 181. makes three or four Remarks or Reflections upon them. But they all concern, either the Time of this Change, or the Causes of it. Neither of which the Theorist either engag’d or intended to prove from these Witnesses.

There is still one Testimony behind, which the Exceptor hath separated from the rest, that he might encounter it singly. ’Tis another Passage from _Anaxagoras_, which both notes this _Inclination_, and the Posture of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination. But here the Exceptor quarrels, first, with the word θολοειδῶς: Because _Ambrosius_ the Monk, would have it to be θολερπῶς, but without the Authority of any Manuscript: And, as _Casaubon_ says, _malè_. Then, he says, _Aldobrandinus_ translates it _turbulentè_, but gives no Reason for that Translation, in his Notes. Therefore he cannot rest in this, but in the third Place, he gives another Sense to Φορὰ Θολοειδής. And if that will not please you, he hath still a fourth Answer in reserve. I do not like when a Man shifts Answer so often; ’tis a sign he has no great Confidence in any one. But let us have his fourth Answer. ’Tis this, That _Anaxagoras_ was a kind of heterodox Philosopher, and what he says is not much to be heeded. These are the Words of the Exceptor, p. 184. _If this will not satisfy, I have one Thing more to offer. Grant that_ Anaxagoras _should mean that very Declination, which the Theory would have him, yet this truly would contribute little towards the Proof of the Thing. For he was a Man as like to be heterodox; as like to broach and maintain false and groundless Opinions, as any of the learned Antients._ Had he made this Exception against this Witness at first, it might have sav’d both himself and us a great deal of Pains. For we do allow, if you can prove a Witness to be _persona infamis_, or _non compos mentis_, ’tis sufficient to invalidate his Testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 17:

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

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

CHAP. IX.

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

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

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