Chapter XIX: Book IV (10)

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

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

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

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

His last Argument against the Dissolution is this, _p._ 296. Had the Dissolution of the Earth been the Cause of the Deluge, _It would have made God’s Covenant with_ Noah, _a very vain and trifling Thing_. So much is true, That the Deluge, in the course of Nature, will not return again in the same Way. But unless God prevent it, it both may, and will return in another Way. That is, if the World continue long enough, the Mountains will wear and sink, and the Waters in Proportion rise, and overflow the whole Earth; as is plainly shewn, by a parallel Case, in the _first Book_ of the _Theory_, _ch._ iv. Besides, God might, when he pleas’d, by an extraordinary Power, and for the Sins of Men, bring another Deluge upon the World. And that is the Thing which _Noah_ seems to have fear’d, and which God, by his Covenant, secur’d him against. For, as the Exceptor hath said himself, in answering an harder Objection, (p. 152.) _When God assigned to the Waters the Place of their Abode, he did not intend to fortify them in it against his own Omnipotence, or to divest himself of his Soveraign Prerogative of calling them forth when he pleased._ This being allowed, with what we said before, that Covenant was not vain nor trifling, either in Respect of an ordinary or extraordinary Providence.

Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory: For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own; and the last of all excepts not against the Truth of the Theory, but the Certainty of it. In Reflection upon this whole Matter, give me leave to declare two Things: First, That I have not knowingly omitted any Objection that I thought of moment: Secondly, That I have not, from these Exceptions, found Reason to change any Part of the Theory, nor to alter my Opinion, as to any Particular in it. No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture, which, understood according to the Letter in a vulgar Way, stand cross, both to this, and other natural Theories. And a Child, that had read the first Chapters of _Genesis_, might have observ’d this as well as the Exceptor; but could not have loaded his Charge with so much Bitterness. Some Men, they say, though of no great Valour, yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall. The Exceptor, behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy, he’s gentle and tractable. _Eng. Theor._ _Book_ 2. _c._ 9. _at the End._ The Theorist had declar’d his Intentions, and oblig’d himself, to give a full Account of _Moses_ his _Cosmopœia_, or _six Day’s Creation_; but did not think it proper to be done in the vulgar Language, nor before the whole Theory was compleated. This might have spared much of the Exceptor’s Pains; but till that Account be given, if the Exceptor thinks fit to continue his Animadversions, and go through the two last Books, as he hath done the two first, it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist; provided it be done with Sincerity, in reciting the Words, and representing the Sense of the Author.

CHAP. XV.

In this Chapter the Ante-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge, _p._ 299. And the War is chang’d, on his Side, from offensive, to defensive. ’Tis but fair that he should lie down in his Turn; and if some Blows smart a little, he must not complain, because he begun the Sport. But let’s try his Hypothesis, without any further Ceremony, _p._ 299, 300. The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it, is this: _That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high, above the ordinary Level of the Earth._ This is an unmerciful Paradox, and a very unlucky Beginning; for under what Notion must this Proportion be received? As a _Postulatum_, or as a _Conclusion_? If it be a _Postulatum_, it must be clear from its own Light, or acknowledg’d by general Consent. It cannot pretend to be clear from its own Light, because it is matter of Fact, which is not known, but by Testimony. Neither is it generally acknowleg’d; for the general Opinion is, that the Waters covered the Tops of the Mountains; nay, that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the Tops of the Mountains. And this he confesses himself, in these Words, p. 300. _We shall find there is a great Mistake in the common Hypothesis, touching their Depth_: Namely, of the Waters. _For whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains: They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all, above the Surface of the Earth._ And this Opinion, or Doctrine, he calls, _p._ 329. _lin._ 19. _c._ 31. _The general standing Hypothesis: The usual Hypothesis_: _p._ 339. _lin._ 18. _The usual Sense they have put upon the Sacred Story._ It must not therefore be made a _Postulatum_, that such an Hypothesis is false, but the Falsity of it must be demonstrated by good Proofs. Now I do not find that this new Hypothesis, of a _fifteen Cubit Deluge_, offers at any more than one single Proof, namely, from _Gen._ vii. 20. But before we proceed to the Examination of that, give me leave to note one or two Things, wherein the new Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself, or with good Sense.

At his Entrance upon this new Hypothesis, he hath these Words, (_p._ 300.) _Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as true and real_, &c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World, with an Hypothesis, which he does not believe to be _true_ and _real_? Or, if he does believe it to be so, why will he not defend it? For we ought to defend Truth. But he says moreover, (_p._ 302. _lin._ 19.) _Our Supposition stands supported by Divine Authority; as being founded upon Scripture. Which tells us, as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth._ If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture; and upon Scripture, _as plainly as it can speak_, why will not he defend it as _true_ and _real_? For to be supported by Scripture, and by plain Scripture, is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith; which every one surely is bound to defend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I think we have had enough of these Shifts and Evasions. Let us now proceed to the second Part of his new Hypothesis, which is this, _p._ 303. That the _Abyss_, or _Tehom-Rabbah_, which was broken open at the Deluge, and (together with the Rains) made the Flood, was nothing but the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains; which open’d their Mouths at that Time, and pour’d out a great Quantity of Water. To support this new Notion of _Tehom-Rabbah_, he alledgeth but one single Text of Scripture, _Psal._ lxxviii. 15. _He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness, and gave them Drink, as out of the great Depths_; that is, copiously and abundantly, as if it were out of the great Deep. So the next Verse implies, and so it is generally understood: As you may see both by Interpreters, and also by the _Septuagint_ and _Vulgate_ Translations, and those of the _Chaldee Paraphrase_, and the _Syriack_. But the Exceptor, by all Means, will have these Holes in the Rocks to be the same with the _Mosaical Abyss_, or great Deep, that was broken open at the Deluge: So the _great Deep_ was not one Thing, or one continued Cavity, as _Moses_ represents it, but ten thousand Holes, separate and distant one from another. Neither must the great Deep, according to him, signify a _low Place_, but an _high Place_: For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common Level of the Earth[20]. But I do not see how, with any tolerable Propriety, or good Sense, that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be called the _great Deep_. An Abyss in the Earth, or in the Water, is certainly _downwards_, in respect of their common Surface, as much as a Pit is _downwards_; and what is downwards from us, we cannot suppose to be above us, without confounding all Dimensions, and all Names of Things; calling that low which is high, a Mountain a Valley, or a Garret a Cellar.

Neither is there any Thing in this Text, _Psal._ lxxviii. 15. that can justly induce us to believe the _great Abyss_ to be the same Thing with Caverns in Rocks. For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a miraculous Thing, that God should give them Water _out of a Rock, or out of a Flint_[21], as plentifully as if it had been out of the great Abyss; or whether you understand the Original of Fountains to be noted here, which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea, or the great Abyss; neither of these Senses make any Thing to the Purpose of the new Hypothesis, and yet they are the fairest and easiest Sense that can be put upon the Words; and that which agrees best with other Places of Scripture, where the same Matter of Fact, or the same History is related: And therefore there can be no Necessity, from this Text, of changing the general Notion and Signification of _Deep_, or _Abyss_; both from that which it hath in common Use, and that which it hath in Scripture Use.

I say, as in the common Use of Words, _Deep_, or _Abyss_, signifies some low or inferior Place; so the general Use of it in Scripture is, in the same Sense, either to signify the Sea, or some subterraneous Place. _Who shall descend into the_ (Abyss, or) _Deep_? says the Apostle, _Rom._ x. 7. Is that as much as if he had said, Who shall _ascend_ into the Holes of the Rocks? And when _Jacob_ speaks of the Blessings of the Abyss, or of the Deep, he calls them the Blessings of the _Deep that lyeth under_, _Gen._ xix. 25. In like Manner, _Moses_ himself calls it the _Deep that couched beneath_, _Deut._ xxxiii. 13. And I know no Reason why we should not understand the same _Deep_ there, that he mentioned before in the History of the Deluge; which therefore was subterraneous, as this is. Then, as for the other Use of the Word, namely, for the Sea, or any Part of the Sea, (whose Bottom is always lower than the Level of the Earth,) that is the most common Use of it in Scripture. And I need not give you Instances which are every where obvious.

One must needs think it strange, therefore, that any Man of Judgement should break thorough both the common Use of a Word, and so many plain Texts of Scripture, that show the Signification of it, for the sake of one Text, which, at most, is but dubious; and then lay such Stress upon that new Signification, as to found a new Doctrine upon it: And a Doctrine that is neither supported by Reason, nor agrees with the History of the Deluge. For, as we noted before, at the Decrease of the Deluge, the Waters are said to _return from off the Earth, Gen. viii. 3_. Did they not return to the Places from whence they came? But if those Places were the Caverns in the Rocks, whose Mouths lay higher than the Surface of the Deluge, as he says they did, _p. 303, 305_. I see no Possibility of the Waters returning into them. But the Exceptor hath found out a marvellous Invention to invade this Argument. He will have the _returning_ of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles, (that is, into Vapours,) not to their Places: In good Time: So the Dove’s _returning_ was her returning into her Principles; that is, into an Egg, not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded, argue two Things, Wit and Want of Judgment. _Moses_ speaks as plainly of the local Return of the Waters, _in going and returning_; as of the local going and returning of the Raven and Dove. See _Gen. viii. 3, and 5_. compar’d with Verse seventh and ninth.

Lastly, That we end this Discourse; the whole Notion of these Water-Pots in the Tops of Mountains, and of the broaching of them at the Deluge, is a groundless Imagination. What Reason have we to believe, that there were such Vessels then, more than now, if there was no Fraction of the Earth at the Deluge, to destroy them? And he ought to have gag’d these Casks, (according to his own Rule, _Ch. 3._) and told us the Number and Capacity of them, that we might have made some Judgment of the Effect. Besides, if the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks, why did not _Moses_ express it so; and tell us, that the _Rocks were cloven, and the Waters gushed out_, and so made the Deluge? This would have been as intelligible, if it had been true, as to tell us that the _Tehom-Rabbah_ was broken open. But there is not one Word of _Rocks_, or the _cleaving of Rocks_, in the History of the Flood. Upon all Accounts, therefore, we must conclude, that this Virtuoso might have as well suspected, that his whole Theory of the Deluge, as one Part of it, _p. 343._ would be accounted _a mere Fancy_, and _groundless Figment_.

Footnote 18:

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

Footnote 19:

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

Footnote 20:

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

Footnote 21:

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

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

CHAP. XVI.

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

CHAP. XVII.

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

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

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

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

There is no Pleasure in repeating such Expressions, and dreadful Sentences. Let us rather observe, if the Exceptor hath not made himself obnoxious to them. But first, we must state the Case truly, that so the Blame may not fall upon the Innocent. The Case therefore is this, _Whether_, to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture, in Things that relate to the natural World, be _destroying the Foundations of Religion_, _affronting Scripture_, and _blaspheming the Holy Ghost_? In the Case propos’d, _We_ take the _Negative_, and stand upon that Plea. But the Exceptor hath taken the _Affirmative_; and therefore, all those heavy Charges must fall upon himself, if he go contrary to the literal Sense of Scripture, in his philosophical Opinions or Assertions. And that he hath done so, we will give you some Instances, out of this Treatise of his; _p._ 314. He says, _It it most absurd to think, that the Earth is the Center of the World._ Then the Sun stands still, and the Earth moves, according to his Doctrine. But this is expressly contrary to Scripture, in many Places. The _Sun rejoices, as a strong Man, to run his Race_, says _David_ Ps. xix. 5, 6. _His going forth is from the End of the Heaven, and his Circuit unto the Ends of it_, _Josh._ x. 12, 13. 2 _Kings_ xx. 10, 11. _Isa._ xxxviii. 8. No such Thing, says the Exceptor; the Sun hath no Race to run; he is fix’d in his Seat, without any progressive Motion. He hath no Course from one End of the Heavens to the other. In like manner, _Sun, stand thou still upon_ Gibeon, says the sacred Author, _and the Sun stood still_. No, says the Exceptor, ’twas the Earth stood still, upon that Miracle; for the Sun always stood still. And ’tis _absurd_, yea, _most absurd_, to think otherwise, _p._ 157. And he blames _Tycho Brahe_ for following Scripture in this Particular. Now, is not this, in the Language of the Exceptor, to _destroy the Foundations of Religion_, to _affront Scripture_, and _blaspheme against the Holy Ghost_? But this is not all: The Exceptor says, (_Chap._ 10.) the Sun rais’d up the Mountains on the third Day; and the Sun was not in being till the fourth Day, according to Scripture, _Gen._ i. 14. The Moon also, which, according to Scripture, was not created till the fourth Day, he says, would hinder the Formation of the Earth, which was done the third Day. Lastly, in this new Hypothesis, _p._74. he makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain, or common Surface of the Earth; which Scripture affirms expressly to have cover’d the Tops of the highest Hills, or Mountains, under Heaven, _Gen._ vii. 19, 20. These two Things are manifestly inconsistent. The Scripture says, _Gen._ viii. 5. they cover’d the Tops of the highest Mountains: And the Exceptor says they reached but fifteen Cubits about, or upon the Skirts of them. This, I think, is truly to contradict Scripture; or, according to his Talent of loading Things with great Words, _p._ 216. _This is not only flatly, but loudly contradictory to the most express Word of the infallible God._

These Observations, I know, are of small Use, unless, perhaps, to the Exceptor himself. But, if you please, upon this Occasion, let us reflect a little upon the literal Style of Scripture; and the different Authority of that Style, according to the Matter that it treats of. The Subject Matter of Scripture is either such as lies without the Cognizance and Comprehension of human Reason, or such as lies within it: If it be the former of these, ’tis what we call properly and purely _Revelation_; and there we must adhere to the literal Style, because we have nothing to guide us but that. Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation; wherein we have nothing to authorize our Deviation from the Letter and Words of Scripture: And therefore the School-Divines, who have spun those Doctrines into a Multitude of Niceties and Subtleties, had no Warrant for what they did, and their Conclusions are of no Authority.

The second Matter or Subject of Scripture is such as falls under the View and Comprehension of Reason, more or less; and, in the same Proportion, gives us a Liberty to examine the literal Sense; how far it is consistent with Reason. and the Faculties of our Mind. Of this Nature there are several Things in the holy Writings, both moral, theological, and natural, wherein we recede from the Letter, when it is manifestly contrary to the Dictates of Reason. I will give some Instances in every kind: First, as to moral Things. Our Saviour says, _Mat._ v. 29, 30. _If thy right Eye offend thee, pluck it out: If thy Right Hand offend thee, cut it off._ There is no Man that thinks himself obliged to the literal Practice of this Doctrine; and yet it is plainly delivered, you see, in these Terms in the Gospel. Nay, which is more, our Saviour backs and enforces the Letter of this Doctrine with a _Reason_: _For it is profitable for thee that one of thy Members should perish, and not that thy whole Body should be cast into Hell_: As if he had intended, that his Precept should have been really executed according to the Letter. In like manner our Saviour says, _If any Man wilt sue thee at Law, and take away thy Coat, let him have thy Cloak also._ And yet there is no Christian so good-natur’d as to practice this, nor any Casuist so rigid as to enjoy it, according to the Letter. Other Instances you may see in our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, where we do not scruple to lay aside the Letter, when it is judg’d contrary to the Light of Nature, or impracticable in human Society.

In all other Things also, that lie within the Sphere of human Reason, we are allowed to examine their _Practicability_, or their _Credibility_. To instance in something theological, the Words of _Consecration_ in the Sacrament. Our Saviour, when he instituted the last Supper, us’d these Words: _This is my Body_, taking the Bread into his Hand; which Words, join’d with that Action, are very formal and expressive; yet we do not scruple to forsake the literal Sense, and take the Words in another Way: But upon what Warrant do we this? because the literal Sense contains an Absurdity; because it contradicts the Light of Nature; because it is inconsistent with the Idea of a Body, and so destroys it self. In like Manner, upon the Idea of the Divine Nature, we dispute absolute Reprobation, and Eternity of Torments, against the Letter of Scripture. And, lastly, whether the Resurrection Body consists of the same individual Parcels and Particles, whereof the mortal Body consisted, before it was putrefied or dispers’d? And, _Phil._ iv. 3. _Apoc._ iii. 5 and xx. 12. whether the _Books of Life_ are to be understood in a literal Sense?