Chapter XVIII: Book IV (9)

He proceeds now to shew, _p._ 195. that it was improbable that the Figure of the first Earth should be oval, upon other Considerations. As first, because of its Position; which would be cross to the Stream of the Air, that turns it round, or carries it about the Sun: As a Ship, he says, that stands side-ways against a Stream, cannot sail. But if that Ship was to turn round upon her Axis, as a Mill-Wheel, and as the Earth does, what Posture more likely to have such an Effect, than to stand cross to the Stream that turns it? And the Stream would take more hold of an oblong Body, than of a round. Then, as to its annual Course, which he mentions, that’s nothing, but so many Circumvolutions: For in turning round it is also progressive, as a Cylinder in rowling a Garden: And three hundred sixty five Circumgyrations compleat its annual Course. So that this Argument turns wholly against him, and does rather confirm the oval Figure of the Earth.

His second Argument against the oval Figure of the first Earth, is the spherical Figure of the present Earth. And how does he prove that? First from Authorities, _Anaximander_, _Pythagoras_, and _Perminedes_ thought so. But how does he prove that their asserting the Earth to be _round_, was not meant in Opposition to its being _plain_; as the _Epicureans_ and the Vulgar would have it? That was the Question _Socrates_ promis’d himself to be resolv’d in by _Anaxagoras_, _Plat. in Phæd._ πότερεν ἡ γῆ πλατεῖα ἔπις, ἢ αρογγύλη. _Whether the Earth was flat or round._ And ’tis likely the Dispute was generally understood in that Sense. However the Theorist hath alledg’d many more Authorities than these, in favour of the oval Figure of the Earth. For besides _Empedocles_ in particular, and those whom _Plutarch_ mentions in general, the Philosophy of _Orpheus_, the _Phœnician_, _Ægyptian_, and _Persian Philosophers_, did all compare the Earth to an Egg; with respect to its oval external Form, as well as internal Composition. These you may see fully set down in the _Theory: Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 10_. And it had been fair in the Exceptor to have taken some notice of them, if he would contend in that way of Authorities. But he has thought fit rather to pass them over wholly in Silence.

His Reasons, _p._ 197. to prove the Figure of the present Earth to be spherical, and not oval, are taken first from the Conical Figure of the Shadow of the Earth, cast upon the Moon. But that cannot make a Difference sensible to us at this Distance, whether the Body that cast the Shadow was exactly spherical or oval. His second Reason is _from the Place of the Waters_; which, he says, would all retire from the Poles to the Equator, if the polar Parts were higher. But this has been answer’d before. The same Cause that drives the Waters thither, would make them keep there: As we should have a perpetual Flood, if the Moon was always in our Meridian: And whereas he suggests, that by this Means the Sea should be shallowest under the Poles; which, he says, is against Experience: We tell him just the contrary, That, according to our Hypothesis, the Sea should be deepest towards the Poles; which agrees with Experience. That the Sea should be deepest under the Poles, if it was of an oval Form, _p._ 186. he may see plainly by his own Scheme, or by the Theory Scheme: _Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 5_. So that if his Observation be true, of an extraordinary Depth of the Ocean in those Parts, it confirms our Suspicion, that the Sea continues still oval. Lastly, he urges, _p._ 198. If this Earth was oval, Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because upon an Ascent. But if there be a continual Draught of Waters from the Equator towards the Poles, this will ballance the Difficulty, and be equivalent to a gentle Tide, that carries Ships into the Mouth of a River, though upon a gradual Ascent.

Thus much we have said in Complacency to the Exceptor. For the Theorist was not oblig’d to say any Thing in Defence of the oval Form of the present Earth, seeing he had no where asserted it: It not being possible, as to what Evidence we have yet, to determine in what Order the Earth fell, and in what Posture the Ruins lay after their Fall. But however, to speak my Mind freely upon this Occasion, I am inclinable to believe, that the Earth is still oval or oblong. What Things the Anti-theorist hath suggested, will not decide the Controversy; nor, it may be, any natural History, nor any of those Observations that we have already. The Surface of the Sea lies more regular than that of the Land, and therefore I should think that Observations made there would have the best Effect. I should particularly recommend these two: First, That they would observe toward the Poles, whether the Sun rise and set, according to the Rules of a true Globe, or of a Body exactly spherical. Secondly, That they would observe whether the Degrees of Latitude are of equal Extent in all the Parts of a Meridian; that is, if the Quantity of Sea or Land that answers to a Degree in the Heavens, be of equal Extent towards the Equator as towards the Poles. These two Observations would go the nearest of any I know, to determine whether the Figure of the Earth be truly spherical or oblong.

CHAP. X.

This Chapter is concerning the _original Mountains_, and that they were before the Flood, or from the Beginning; which the Exceptor endeavours to prove from Scripture; not directly, but because Mention is made of them in the same Places where the Beginning of the Earth is mentioned, _p._ 291. as _Psal._ xc. 1, 2. and _Prov._ viii. 25. therefore they must be co-eval and contemporary. We have, I think, noted before, that Things are not always Synchronal that are mentioned together in Scripture. The Style of Scripture is not so accurate, as not to speak of Things in the same Place, that are to be referr’d to different Times. Otherwise we must suppose the Destruction of _Jerusalem_, and of the _World_, to have been intended for the same Time; seeing our Saviour joins them in the same Discourse, (_Mat._ xxiv.) without any Distinction of Time; or with such a Distinction, as rather signifies an immediate Succession, (_ver._ 29.) than so great a Distance as we now find to be betwixt the Destruction of _Jerusalem_ and the End of the World. Greater than that, betwixt the Beginning and the Flood: So in the Prophets sometimes, in the same Discourse, one Part is to be referr’d to the first Coming of our Saviour, and another Part to the second. _Isa._ ix. 6, 7. _Isa._ ix. 1. &c. _Luke_ i. 31, 32, 33. without making any Distinction of Time, but what is to be gather’d from the Sense. Neither is there any Incongruity in the Sense, or in the Tenor of the Words, if those Expressions in the Psalmist be referr’d to different Times. God existed _before the Mountains were brought forth, and the Earth and the World were made_. This is certainly true, whether you take it of the same or different Times. And if you take it of different Times, ’tis a way of Speaking we often use. As suppose a Man should say, concerning the Antiquity of _Troy_, that it existed before _Rome_ and _Carthage_; that does not necessarily imply, that _Rome_ and _Carthage_ were built at the same Time; but only that _Troy_ was before them both. And so this of the Psalmist may be very well thus exprest, by a Gradation from a lower Epocha to an higher. Then as for that Place, _Prov._ _ch._ viii. it would be very hard to reduce all those Things that are mentioned there, (from _ver._ 22. to 30.) to the same Time of Existence; and there is no Necessity from the Words that they should be so understood. The Design and Intention of the Holy Ghost is plain in both these Places: In the one to set out the Eternity of God, and in the other, of the _Logos_ in particular. And this is done by shewing their Præ-existence to this Earth, and to all its greatest and most remarkable Parts.

He mentions also, _p._ 202. _Deut._ xxxiii. 15. where the Hills are call’d _Lasting_, and the Mountains _Antient_. And _therefore they were before the Flood_. This is a hard Consequence. The River _Kishon_ is call’d the _antient_ River, _Judg._ v. 21. but I do not therefore think it necessary, that that Brook should have been before the Flood. Things may very well deserve that Character of _lasting_ or _antient_, though they be of less Antiquity than the Deluge. If one should say the _lasting Pyramids_, and _antient Babylon_, none could blame the Expression, nor yet think that they were therefore from the Beginning of the World.

After these Allegations from Scripture, _p._ 205. he descends to a natural Argument taken from the _Mountains in the Moon_; which, he says, are much higher than the Mountains upon the Earth: And therefore, seeing her Body is less, they could not be made by a Dissolution of that Planet, as these of the Earth are said to have been. Though we are not bound to answer for the Mountains in the Moon, yet however, ’tis easy to see that this is no good Argument: For, besides that the Orb there might be more thick, all Ruins do not fall alike. They may fall double, or in Ridges and Arches, or in steep Piles, some more than others, and so stand at a greater Height. And we have Reason to believe that those in the Moon fell otherwise than those of the Earth; because we do not see her turn round: Nor can we ever get a Sight of her Backside, that we might better judge of the Shapes of her whole Body.

From this natural Argument, _p._ 206. he proceeds to an historical Argument, taken from the _Talmudists_ and _Josephus_. The _Talmudists_ say, that _many Giants sav’d themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion_. But this, the Exceptor confesses, _is wholly fabulous_. What need it then be mentioned as an Argument? Then he says, _Josephus_ reports, that _many sav’d themselves from the Flood upon the Mountain_ Baris _in_ Armenia. But this also, _p._ 207. he says, is _false in the Gross_, and a _formal Fiction_. Why then, say I, is it brought in as an Argument? Lastly, he quotes a Passage out of _Plato_, who says, when the _Gods shall drown the Earth, the Herdsmen and Shepherds shall save themselves upon Mountains_. And this (_ibid._) the Exceptor calls a _Piece of confus’d Forgery_. Why then, say I still, is it alledged as an Argument against the Theory? But however, says the Exceptor, these Things argue that many thought there were Mountains before the Flood. But did the Theorist ever deny, that it was the vulgar and common Opinion? Therefore such Allegations as these may be of some Use to shew Reading, but of no Effect at all to confute the Theory.

Yet the Exceptor is not content with these Stories, but he must needs add a Fourth; which, he says, _p._ 208. is a _plain Intimation that there were Mountains in the Beginning of the World_. Take his own Words for the Story, and the Application of it. _I will only add that traditional Story which is told of_ Adam; _namely, how that after his Fall, and when he repented of his Sin, he bewailed it for several hundred of Years, upon the Mountains of_ India. _Another plain Intimation that THERE WERE MOUNTAINS_ in the Beginning of the World. This is a plain Intimation indeed, that those that made this Fable, thought there were Mountains then: But is it a Proof that there really was so? As you seem to infer. Does the Exceptor really believe, that _Adam_ wander’d an hundred Years upon the Mountains of _India_? If the Matter of Fact be false, the Supposition it proceeds upon may as well be false. And he does not so much as cite an Author here, for the one or the other.

We are now come to the main Point, a new Hypothesis concerning the _Original of Mountains_, which the Exceptor, _p._ 208, 209, _&c._ hath vouchsafed to make for us: And, in short, it is this. When the Waters were drain’d off the Land on the third Day, while it was moist and full of Vapours, the _Sun_, by his Heat, made the Earth heave and rise up in many Places, which thereupon became Mountains. But lest we mistake or misrepresent the Author’s Sense, _p._ 209. we will give it in his own Words. _Now the Earth, by this Collection of the Waters into one Place, being freed from the Load and Pressure of them, and laid open to the Sun, the Moisture within, by the Heat of his Beams, might quickly be turn’d into Vapours. And these Vapours being still increased by the continued rarifying Warmth from above, at length they wanted Space wherein to expand or dilate themselves. And at last, not enduring the Confinement they felt, by Degrees heaved up the Earth above; somewhat after the Manner that Leaven does Dough, when it is laid by a Fire; but much more forcibly and unevenly. And lifting it up thus in numberless Places, and in several Quantities, and in various Figures, Mountains were made of all Shapes and Sizes_; whose Origin and Properties, he says, upon this Hypothesis, _will be obvious, or at least intelligible, to thinking and philosophick Minds_.

I must confess I am none of those _thinking and philosophick Minds_, to whom this is either obvious or intelligible: For there seem to me to be a great many palpable Defects or Oversights in this new Hypothesis: Whereof this is one of the grossest, that he supposes the Sun, by his Heat, the third Day to have raised these Mountains upon the Earth; whereas the Sun was not created till the fourth Day, p. 51. _the fourth Day was the first Day of the Sun’s Existence_: So that it had this powerful Effect, it seems, one Day before it came into Being.

But suppose the Sun had then existed: This is a prodigious Effect for the Sun to perform, in so short a Time, and with so little Force. The greatest Part of that Day was spent in draining the Waters from off the Land; which had a long Way to go, from some inland Countries, to reach the Sea, or their common Receptacle. And he says, _p._ 209, without an extraordinary Power, _perhaps they could not have been drained off the Earth in one Day_. Let us then allow, at least, half a Day for clearing the Ground; for the Sun might begin his Work about Noon; and before Night he had rais’d all the Mountains of one Hemisphere. It will require a strong philosophick Faith, to believe this could be all done by the Action of the Sun, an in so short a Time. Besides, we must consider, that the Sun, by Noon, had past all the Eastern Countries, yet covered with Water, or not well drain’d: So that after they were dried, he could only look back upon them with faint and declining Rays. Yet the Mountains of the East are as great and considerable as elsewhere. But there is still another great Difficulty in the Case, as to the Northern and Southern Mountains of the Earth; for they lie quite out of the Road of the Sun; being far remov’d towards either Pole; where, by reason of his Distance and Obliquity, his Beams have little Force. How would he heave up the _Riphæan_ Mountains, those vast Heaps of Stone and Earth, that lie so far to the North? You see what Observations the Exceptor hath made(_p._ 119, 120.) concerning the Cold of those Countries: And it falls out very untowardly for this new Hypothesis, that the Northern Parts of the Earth, as _Norway_, _Swedeland_, _Iseland_, _Scythia_, _Sarmatia_, &c. should be such mountainous and rocky Countries; where he had before declar’d the Sun had so little Force. And, indeed, according to his Scheme, all the great Mountains of the Earth should have been under the Equator, or, at least, betwixt the Tropicks.

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

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

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

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

CHAP. XI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. XII.

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

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

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

CHAP. XIII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. XIV.

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

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

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

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