To take a Review of this Theory of the Earth, which we have now finish’d, we must consider, first, the Extent of it, and then the principal Parts whereof it consists: It reaches, as you see, from one End of the World to the other; from the first Chaos to the last Day, and the Consummation of all Things. This probably, will run the length of seven thousand Years; which is a good competent Space of Time to exercise our Thoughts upon, and to observe the several Scenes which Nature and Providence bring into View within the Compass of so many Ages.
The Matter and principal Parts of this Theory are such things as are recorded in Scripture: We do not feign a Subject, and then discant upon it, for Diversion; but endeavour to give an intelligible and rational Account of such Matters of Fact, past or future, as are there specified and declared. What it hath seem’d good to the Holy Ghost to communicate to us, by History or Prophecy, concerning the several States and general Changes of this Earth, makes the Argument of our Discourse: Therefore the Things themselves must be taken for granted, in one Sense or other, seeing, besides all other Proofs, they have the Authority of a Revelation; and our Business is only to give such an Explication of them, as shall approve it self to the Faculties of Man, and be conformable to Scripture.
We will therefore first set down the Things themselves, that make the subject Matter of this Theory; and remind you of our Explication of them: Then recollect the general Proofs of that Explication, from Reason and Nature; but more fully and particularly shew how it is grounded upon Scripture. The primary Phænomena whereof we are to give an Account, are these five or six.
I. The Original of the Earth from a Chaos.
II. The State of Paradise, and the antediluvian World.
III. The universal Deluge.
IV. The universal Conflagration.
V. The Renovation of the World, or the new Heavens and new Earth.
VI. The Consummation of all Things.
These are unquestionably in Scripture; and these all relate, as you see, to the several Forms, States and Revolutions of this Earth. We are therefore oblig’d to give a clear and coherent Account of these Phænomena, in that Order and Consecution wherein they stand to one another.
There are also in Scripture some other Things, relating to the same Subjects, that may be call’d the secondary Ingredients of this Theory, and are to be referr’d to their respective primary Heads. Such are, for Instance,
I. The Longevity of the Ante-diluvians.
II. The Rupture of the great Abyss, at the Deluge.
III. The appearing of the Rainbow after the Deluge, as a Sign that there never should be a second Flood.
These things Scripture hath also left upon Record, as Directions and Indications how to understand the ante-diluvian State, and the Deluge it self. Whosoever therefore shall undertake to write the Theory of the Earth, must think himself bound to give us a just Explication of these secondary Phænomena, as well as of the primary; and that in such a Dependance and Connexion, as to make them give and receive Light from one another.
The former Part of the Task is concerning the World behind us, Times and Things past, that are already come to Light: The latter is concerning the World before us, Times and Things to come; that lie yet in the Bosom of Providence, and in the Seeds of Nature. And these are chiefly the Conflagration of the World, and the Renovation of it. When these are over and expir’d, then comes the End, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. Then the Heavens and the Earth fly away, as St. John says, Apoc. xx. Then is the Consummation of all Things, and the last Period of this sublunary World, whatsoever it is: Thus far the Theorist must go, and pursue the Motions of Nature, till all Things are brought to Rest and Silence: And in this latter Part of the Theory, there is also a collateral Phænomenon, the Millennium, or thousand Years Reign of Christ and his Saints upon Earth, to be consider’d. For this, according as it is reported in Scripture, does imply a Change in the natural World, as well as in the Morals and therefore must be accounted for in the Theory of the Earth: At least it must be there determin’d, whether that State of the World, which is singular and extraordinary, will be before or after the Conflagration.
These are the Principals and Incidents of this Theory of the Earth, as to the Matter and Subject of it; which, you see, is both important, and wholly taken out of Scripture: As to our Explication of these Points, that is sufficiently known, being set down at large in four Books of this Theory; Therefore it remains only, having seen the Matter of the Theory, to examine the Form of it, and the Proofs of it; for from these two things it must receive its Censure. As to the Form, the Characters of a regular Theory seem to be these three; Few and easy Postulatums; Union of Parts; and a Fitness to answer, fully and clearly, all the Phænomena to which it is to be apply’d.
We think our Hypothesis does not want any of these Characters: As to the first, we take but one single Postulatum for the whole Theory, and that an easy one, warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity; namely, That this Earth rise, at first, from a Chaos: As to the second, Union of Parts, the whole Theory is but one Series of Causes and Effects from that first Chaos. Besides, you can scarce admit any one Part of it, first, last, or intermediate, but you must, in Consequence of that, admit all the rest. Grant me but that the Deluge is truly explain’d, and I’ll desire no more Proof for all the Theory: Or, if you begin at the other End, and grant the new Heavens and new Earth after the Conflagration, you will be led back again to the first Heavens and first Earth that were before the Flood. For St. John says, that new Earth was without a Sea, Apoc. xxi. 1. And it was a Renovation, or Restitution to some former State of Things: There was therefore some former Earth without a Sea; which not being the present Earth, it must be the ante-diluvian. Besides, both St. John, and the Prophet Esaias, have represented the new Heavens and new Earth, as paradisiacal, according as it proved, Book IV. Chap. 2. And having told us the Form of the new-future-Earth, that it will have no Sea, it is a reasonable Inference that there was no Sea in the paradisiacal Earth. However, from the Form of this future Earth, which St. John represents to us, we may at least conclude, that an Earth without a Sea is no Chimæra, or Impossibility; but rather a fit Seat and Habitation for the Just and the Innocent.
Thus you see the Parts of the Theory link and hold fast one another, according to the Second Character: And as to the third, of being suited to the Phænomena, we must refer that to the next Head of Proofs. It may be truly said, that bare Coherence and Union of Parts is not a sufficient Proof; the Parts of a Fable or Romance may hang aptly together, and yet have no Truth in them: This is enough indeed to give the Title of a just Composition to any Work, but not of a true one; till it appear that the Conclusions and Explications are grounded upon good natural Evidence, or upon good Divine Authority. We must therefore proceed now to the third thing to be consider’d in a Theory, What its Proofs are? Or the Grounds upon which it stands, whether Sacred or Natural?
According to natural Evidence, things are proved from their Causes or their Effects; and we think we have this double Order of Proofs for the Truth of our Hypothesis: As to the Method of Causes, we proceed from what is more simple, to what is more compound, and build all upon one Foundation. Go but to the Head of the Theory, and you will see the Causes lying in a Train before you, from first to last; and tho’ you did not know the natural History of the World, past or future, you might, by Intuition, foretel it, as to the grand Revolutions and successive Faces of Nature, through a long Series of Ages. If we have given a true Account of the Motions of the Chaos, we have also truly form’d the first habitable Earth; and if that be truly form’d we have thereby given a true Account of the State of Paradise, and of all that depends upon it; and not of that only, but also of the universal Deluge. Both these we have shewn in their Causes; The one from the Form of that Earth, and the other from the Fall of it into the Abyss: And tho’ we had not been made acquainted with these things by Antiquity, we might, in Contemplation of the Causes, have truly conceiv’d them as Properties or Incidents to the first Earth. But as to the Deluge, I do not say, that we might have calculated the Time, Manner, and other Circumstances of it: These things were regulated by Providence, in subordination to the moral World; but that there would be, at one Time or other, a Disruption of that Earth, or of the great Abyss, and in Consequence of it, an universal Deluge; so far, I think, the Light of a Theory might carry us.
Farthermore, in Consequence of this Disruption of the primæval Earth, at the Deluge, the present Earth was made hollow and cavernous, [Theor. Book iii. chap. 7, and 8.] and by that means, (due Preparations being used) capable of Combustion, or of perishing by an universal Fire: Yet, to speak ingenuously, this is as hard a Step to be made, in virtue of natural Causes, as any in the whole Theory. But in Recompence of that Defect, the Conflagration is so plainly and literally taught us in Scripture, and avow’d by Antiquity, that it can fall under no dispute, as to the Thing it self; and as to a Capacity or Disposition to it in the present Earth, that I think is sufficiently made out.
Then, the Conflagration admitted, in that way it is explain’d in the third Book; the Earth, you see, is, by that Fire, reduc’d to a second Chaos. A Chaos truly so call’d; and from that, as from the first, arises another Creation, or new Heavens and a new Earth; by the same Causes, and in the same Form, with the paradisiacal. This is the Renovation of the World; the Restitution of all Things mention’d both by Scripture and Antiquity; and by the Prophet Isaiah, St. Peter and St. John, call’d the new Heavens and new Earth: With this, as the last Period, and most glorious Scene of all human Affairs, our Theory concludes, as to this Method of Causes, whereof we are now speaking.
I say, here it Ends as to the Method of Causes: For tho’ we pursue the Earth still farther, even to its last Dissolution, which is call’d the Consummation of all Things; yet all that we have superadded upon that Occasion, is but problematical, and may, without Prejudice to the Theory, be argued and disputed on either Hand. I do not know, but that our Conjectures there may be well grounded; but however, not springing so directly from the same Root, or, at least, not by Ways so clear and visible, I leave that Part undecided: Especially seeing we pretend to write no more than the Theory of the Earth, and therefore as we begin no higher than the Chaos, so we are not oblig’d to go any farther than to the last State of a terrestrial Consistency; which is that of the new Heavens and the new Earth.
This is the first natural Proof, from the Order of Causes: The second is from the Consideration of Effects; namely, of such Effects as are already in being: And therefore this Proof can extend only to that Part of the Theory, that explains the present and past Form and Phænomena of the Earth. What is future, must be left to a farther Trial, when the Thing comes to pass, and present themselves to be examin’d and compar’d with the Hypothesis. As to the present Form of the Earth, we call all Nature to Witness for us; the Rocks and the Mountains, the Hills and the Valleys, the deep and wide Sea, and the Caverns of the Ground: Let these speak, and tell their Origin: How the Body of the Earth came to be thus torn and mangled? If this strange and irregular Structure was not the Effect of a Ruin; and of such a Ruin as was universal over the Face of the whole Globe. But we have given such a full Explication of this, in the first Part of the Theory, from chap. ix. to the End of that Treatise, that we dare stand to the Judgment of any that reads those four Chapters to determine if the Hypothesis does not answer to all those Phænomena, easy and adequately.
The next Phænomenon to be consider’d, is the Deluge, with its Adjuncts: This also is fully explain’d by our Hypothesis, in the iid, iiid, and vith Chapters of the first Book: Where it is shewn, that the Mosaical Deluge, that is, an universal Inundation of the whole Earth, above the Tops of the highest Mountains, made by a breaking open of the great Abyss, (for thus far Moses leads us) is fully explain’d by this Hypothesis, and cannot be conceiv’d in any other Method hitherto propos’d. There are no Sources or Stores of Water sufficient for such an Effect, that may be drawn upon the Earth, and drawn off again, but by supposing such an Abyss, and such a Disruption of it, as the Theory represents.
Lastly, As to the Phænomena of Paradise, and the ante-diluvian World, we have set them down in Order in the second Book; and apply’d to each of them its proper Explication, from the same Hypothesis. We have also given an Account of that Character which Antiquity always assign’d to the first Age of the World, or the Golden Age, as they call’d it; namely, Equality of Seasons throughout the Year, or a perpetual Equinox. We have also taken in all the Adjuncts or Concomitants of these States, as they are mention’d in Scripture. The Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, and the Declension or their Age by degrees, after the Flood: As also that wonderful Phænomenon, the Rainbow; which appear’d to Noah for a Sign, that the Earth should never undergo a second Deluge. And we have shewn [Theor. Book ii. ch. 5.] wherein the Force and Propriety of that Sign consisted, for confirming Noah’s Faith in the Promise and in the Divine Veracity.
Thus far we have explain’d the past Phænomena of the natural World: The rest are Futurities, which still lie hid in their Causes; and we cannot properly prove a Theory from Effects that are not yet in Being: But so far as they are foretold in Scripture, both as to Substance and Circumstance, in Prosecution of the same Principles we have ante-dated their Birth, and shew’d how they will come to pass. We may therefore, I think, reasonably conclude, that this Theory has perform’d its Task and answer’d its Title; having given an Account of all the general Changes of the natural World as far as either Sacred History looks backwards, or Sacred Prophecy looks forwards; so far as the one tells us what is past in Nature, and the other what is to come; And if all this be nothing but an Appearance of Truth, ’tis a kind of Fatality upon us to be deceiv’d.
So much for natural Evidence, from the Causes or Effects: We now proceed to Scripture, which will make the greatest Part of this Review. The Sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands, is the Doctrine of St. Peter, deliver’d in his second Epistle and third Chapter, concerning the triple Order and Succession of the Heavens and the Earth; that comprehends the whole Extent of our Theory; which indeed is but a large Commentary upon St. Peter’s Text. The Apostle sets out a three-fold State of the Heavens and Earth, with some general Properties of each, taken from their different Constitution and different Fate. The Theory takes the same three-fold State of the Heavens and the Earth; and explains more particularly, wherein their different Constitution consists; and how, under the Conduct of Providence, their different Fate depends upon it. Let us set down the Apostle’s Words, with the Occasion of them; and their plain Sense, according to the most easy and natural Explication.
2 Pet. iii. ver. 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last Days Scoffers, walking after their own Lusts.
4. And saying, where is the Promise of his coming? For since the Fathers fell asleep, all Things continue as they were from the Beginning of the Creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God, the Heavens were of old, and the Earth consisting of Water and by Water.
6. Whereby the World that then was, being overflowed with Water, perished.
7. But the Heavens and the Earth that are now, by the same Word, are kept in Store, reserved unto Fire against the Day of Judgment, and Perdition of ungodly Men.—
10. The Day of the Lord will come as a Thief in the Night, in which the Heavens shall pass away with a great Noise, and the Elements shall melt with fervent Heat; the Earth also and the Works that are therein shall be burnt up.
13. Nevertheless we, according to his Promise, look for new Heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth Righteousness.
This is the whole Discourse so far as relates to our Subject: St. Peter, you see, had met with some that scoff’d at the future Destruction of the World, and the coming of our Saviour; and they were Men, it seems, that pretended to Philosophy and Argument; and they use this Argument for their Opinion, Seeing there has been no Change in Nature, or in the World, from the Beginning to this Time, why should we think there will be any Change for the future?
The Apostle answers to this, that they willingly forget, or are ignorant, that there were Heavens of old, and an Earth, so and so constituted; consisting of Water and by Water; by reason whereof that World, or those Heavens and that Earth, perish’d in a Deluge of Water. But, saith he, the Heavens and the Earth, that are now, are of another Constitution, fitted and reserved to another Fate; namely to perish by Fire: And after these are perish’d, there will be new Heavens and a new Earth, according to God’s Promise.
This is an easy Paraphrase, and the plain and genuine Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; and no Body, I think, would ever look after any other Sense, if this did not carry them out of their usual Road, and point to Conclusions which they did not fancy. The Sense, you see, hits the Objection directly, or the Cavil which these Scoffers made; and tells them, that they vainly pretend that there hath been no change in the World since the Beginning; for there was one sort of Heavens and Earth before the Flood, and another Sort now, the first having been destroy’d at the Deluge. So that the Apostle’s Argument stands upon this Foundation, that there is a Diversity betwixt the present Heavens and Earth, and the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth; take away that, and you take away all the Force of his Answer.
Then as to his new Heavens and new Earth after the Conflagration, they must be material and natural, in the same Sense and Signification with the former Heavens and Earth; unless you will offer open Violence to the Text. So that this Triplicity of the Heavens and the Earth, is the first, obvious, plain Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; which every one would readily accept, if it did not draw after it a long Train of Consequences, and lead them into other Worlds than they ever thought of before, or are willing to enter upon now.
But we shall have Occasion by and by, to examine this Text more fully in all its Circumstances: Give me leave in the mean time to observe, that St. Paul also implies that triple Creation which St. Peter expresses. St. Paul, I say, in the viiith Chapter to the Romans, ver. 20, 21. tells us of a Creation that will be redeem’d from Vanity, which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come. A Creation in Subjection to Vanity; which is the present State of the World; and a Creation that was subjected to Vanity, in hopes of being restored, which was the first Paradisiacal Creation: And these are the three States of the natural World, which make the Subject of our Theory.
To these two Places of St. Peter and St. Paul, I might add that third in St. John, concerning the new Heavens and new Earth, with that distinguishing Character, that the Earth was without a Sea: As this distinguisheth it from the present Earth, so, being a Restitution or Restauration, as we noted before, it must be the same with some former Earth; and consequently it implies, that there was another precedent State of the natural World, to which this is a Restitution. These three Places I alledge, as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full Extent; But we do not suppose them all of the same Force and Clearness; St. Peter leads the Way, and gives Light and Strength to the other two: When a Point is prov’d by one clear Text, we allow others, as Auxiliaries, that are not of the same Clearness; but being open’d, receive Light from the primary Text, and reflect it upon the Argument.
So much for the Theory in general: We will now take one or two principal Heads of it, which virtually contain all the rest, and examine them more strictly and particularly, in reference to their Agreement with Scripture. The two Heads we pitch upon, shall be our Explication of the Deluge, and our Explication of the new Heavens and new Earth: We told you before, these two were as the Hinges, upon which all the Theory moves, and which hold the Parts of it in firm Union one with another. As to the Deluge, if I have explain’d that aright, by the Disruption of the great Abyss, and the Dissolution of the Earth that cover’d it, all the rest follows in such a Chain of Consequences as cannot be broken. Wherefore, in order to the Proof of that Explication, and of all that depends upon it, I will make bold to lay down this Proposition, That our Hypothesis concerning the universal Deluge, is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy, than any other yet propos’d to the World, but is also more agreeable to Scripture: Namely, to such Places of Scripture as reflect upon the Deluge, the Abyss, and the Form of the first Earth: And particularly to the History of Noah’s Flood, as recorded by Moses. If I can make this good, it will, doubtless, give Satisfaction to all that are free and intelligent; and I desire their Patience, if I proceed slowly and by several Steps. We will divide our Task into Parts, and examine them separately; first, by Scripture in general, and then by Moses his History and Description of the Flood.
Our Hypothesis of the Deluge consists of three principal Heads, or differs remarkably in three Things from the common Explication. First, in that we suppose the ante-diluvian Earth to have been of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth; with the Abyss placed under it.
Secondly, In that we suppose the Deluge to have been made, not by any Inundation of the Sea, or overflowing of Fountains and Rivers; nor (principally) by an Excess of Rains; but by a real Dissolution of the exteriour Earth, and Disruption of the Abyss which it cover’d: These are the two principal Points; to which may be added, as a Corollary,
Thirdly, That the Deluge was not in the nature of a standing Pool; the Waters lying every where level, of an equal Depth, and with an uniform Surface; but was made by a Fluctuation and Commotion of the Abyss upon the Disruption: Which Commotion being over, the Waters retired into their Channels, and let the dry Land appear.
These are the most material and fundamental Parts of our Hypothesis; and these being prov’d consonant to Scripture, there can be no doubt of the rest.
We begin with the first: That the ante-diluvian Earth was of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth, with the Abyss placed under it: This is confirm’d in Scripture, both by such Places as assert a Diversity in general; and by other Places that intimate to us, wherein that Diversity consisted, and what was the form of the first Earth. That Discourse of St. Peter’s, which we have set before you concerning the past, present and future Heavens and Earth, is so full a Proof of this Diversity in general, that you must either allow it, or make the Apostle’s Argumentation of no Effect: He speaks plainly of the natural World, The Heavens and the Earth; and he makes a plain Distinction, or rather Opposition, betwixt those before and after the Flood. So that the least we can conclude from his Words, is a Diversity betwixt them; in answer to that Identity or Immutability of Nature, which the Scoffers pretended to have been ever since the Beginning.
But tho’ the Apostle, to me, speaks plainly of the natural World, and distinguishes that which was before the Flood, from the present; yet there are some that will allow neither of these to be contain’d in St. Peter’s Words; and by that means would make this whole Discourse of little or no Effect, as to our Purpose: And seeing we, on the contrary, have made it the chief Scripture-Basis of the whole Theory of the Earth, we are oblig’d to free it from those false Glosses or Mis-interpretations, that lessen the Force of its Testimony, or make it wholly ineffectual.
These Interpreters say, that St. Peter meant no more than to mind these Scoffers, that the World was once destroy’d by a Deluge of Water; meaning the Animate World, Mankind and living Creatures: And that it shall be destroyed again by another Element, namely, by Fire. So as there is no Opposition or Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, taught or intended by the Apostle; but only in reference to their different Fate or Manner of perishing, and not of their different Nature or Constitution.
Here are two main Points, you see, wherein our Interpretations of this Discourse of the Apostle’s differ. First, in that they make the Apostle (in that sixth verse) to understand only the World Animate, or Men in brute Creatures: That these were indeed destroy’d, but not the natural World, or the Form and Constitution of the then Earth and Heavens. Secondly, that there is no Diversity or Opposition made by St. Peter betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present, as to their Form and Constitution. We pretend that these are Mis-apprehensions or Mis-representations of the Sense of the Apostle in both respects, and offer these Reasons to prove them to be so.
For the first Point; That the Apostle speaks here of the natural World, particularly in the 6th verse; and that it perished, as well as the animate, these Considerations seem to prove.
First, because the Argument or Ground these Scoffers went upon, was taken from the natural World, its Constancy and Permanency in the same State from the Beginning; therefore if the Apostle answers ad idem, and takes away their Argument, he must understand the same natural World, and shew that it hath been chang’d, or hath perish’d.
You will say, it may be, the Apostle doth not deny, nor take away the Ground they went upon, but denies the Consequence they made from it; that therefore there would be no Change because there had been none. No, neither doth he do this, if by the World in the 6th verse, he understands Mankind only; for their Ground was this, There hath been no Change in the natural World; their Consequence this, Therefore there will be none, nor any Conflagration. Now the Apostle’s Answer according to you, is this, You forget that Mankind hath been destroy’d in a Deluge. And what then? What’s this to the natural World, whereof they were speaking? This takes away neither Antecedent nor Consequent, neither Ground nor Inference nor any way toucheth their Argument, which proceeded from the natural World, to the natural World. Therefore you must either suppose that the Apostle takes away their Ground, or he takes away nothing.
Secondly, What is it that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? That there was a Deluge that destroy’d Mankind? They could not be ignorant of that, nor pretend to be so: It was therefore the Constitution of those old Heavens and Earth, and the Change or Destruction of them at the Deluge, that they were ignorant of, or did not attend to; and of this the Apostle minds them. These Scoffers appear to have been Jews by the Phrase they use, Since the Fathers fell asleep, which in both Parts of it is a Judaical Expression; and does St. Peter tell the Jews that had Moses read to them every Sabbath, that they were ignorant that Mankind was once destroyed with a Deluge in the Days of Noah? Or could they pretend to be ignorant of that without making themselves ridiculous both to Jews and Christians[6]? Besides, these do not seem to have been of the Vulgar amongst them, for they bring a Philosophical Argument for their Opinion; and also in their very Argument they refer to the History of the Old Testament, in saying, Since the Fathers fell asleep, amongst which Fathers, Noah was one of the most remarkable.
Thirdly, The Design of the Apostle is to prove to them, or to dispose them to the Belief of the Conflagration, or future destruction of the World; which I suppose you will not deny to be a Destruction of the natural World; therefore to prove or persuade this, he must use an Argument taken from a precedent Destruction of the natural World; for to give an instance of the perishing of Mankind only, would not reach home to his Purpose. And you are to observe here, that the Apostle does not proceed against them barely by Authority; for what would that have booted? If these Scoffers would have submitted to Authority, they had already the Authority of the Prophets and Apostles in this Point: but he deals with them at their own Weapon, and opposes Reasons to Reasons; What hath been done may be done, and if the natural World hath been once destroyed, ’tis not hard, nor unreasonable to suppose those Prophecies to be true, that say, it shall be destroyed again.
Fourthly, Unless we understand here the natural World, we make the Apostle both redundant in his Discourse, and also very obscure in an easy Argument: If his Design was only to tell them that Mankind was once destroy’d in a Deluge, what’s that to the Heavens and the Earth? The 5th verse would be superfluous; which yet he seems to make the foundation of his Discourse. He might have told them how Mankind had perished before with a Deluge, and aggravated that Destruction as much as he pleas’d, without telling them how the Heavens and the Earth were constituted then; what was that to the Purpose, if it had no Dependence or Connection with the other? In the precedent Chapter, ver. 5. when he speaks only of the Floods destroying Mankind, he mentions nothing of the Heavens or the Earth; and if you make him to intend no more here, what he says more is superfluous.
I also add, that you make the Apostle very obscure and operose in a very easy Argument: How easy had it been for him, without this Apparatus, to have told them, as he did before, that God brought a Flood upon the World of the ungodly; and not given us so much Difficulty to understand his Sense, or such a Suspicion and Appearance, that he intended something more? For that there is at least a great Appearance and Tendency to a farther Sense, I think none can deny; And St. Austin, Didymus Alex. Bede, as we shall see hereafter, understood it plainly of the natural World; also modern Expositors and Criticks; as Cajetan, Estius, Drusius, Heinsius, have extended it to the natural World, more or less, tho’ they had no Theory to mislead them, nor so much as an Hypothesis to support them; but attended only to the Tenor of the Apostle’s Discourse, which constrained them to that Sense, in whole or in Part.
Fifthly, The Opposition carries it upon the natural World: The Opposition lies betwixt the οἱ ἔκπαλαι οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ and οἱ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ the Heavens that were of old, and the Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, or the two natural Worlds: And if they will not allow them to be oppos’d in their Natures (which yet we shall prove by and by) at least they must be oppos’d in their Fate; and as this is to perish by Fire, so that perished by Water; and if it perish’d by Water, it perish’d; which is all we contend for at present.
Lastly, If we would be as easily govern’d in the Exposition of this Place, as we are of other Places of Scripture, it would be enough to suggest, that in Reason and Fairness of Interpretation, the same World is destroy’d in the 6th verse, that was describ’d in the foregoing verse; but it is the natural World that is describ’d there, the Heavens and the Earth, so and so constituted; and therefore in Fairness of Interpretation they ought to be understood here; that World being the Subject that went immediately before, and there being nothing in the Words that restrains them to the animate World or to Mankind. In the iid ch. ver. 5. the Apostle does restrain the Word κόσμος by adding ἀσεβῶν, the World of the ungodly; but here ’tis not only illimited, but, according to the Context, both preceding and following, to be extended to the natural World. I say by the following Context too; for so it answers to the World that is to perish by Fire; which will reach the Frame of Nature as well as Mankind.
For a Conclusion of this first Point, I will set down St. Austin’s Judgment in this Case; who in several Parts of his Works hath interpreted this Place of St. Peter, of the natural World. As to the Heavens, he hath these Words in his Expositian upon Genesis, Hos etiam aërios cœlos quondam periisse Diluvio, in quâdam earum, quæ Canonica appellantur, Epistolâ legimus. We read in one of the Epistles called Canonical, meaning this of St. Peter’s, that the aërial Heavens perished in the Deluge. And he concerns himself there to let you know that it was not the starry Heavens that were destroy’d; the Waters could not reach so high, but the Regions of our Air. Then afterwards he hath these Words, Faciliùs eos (cœlos) secundum illius Epistolæ authoritatem credimus periisse, & alios, sicut ibi scribitur repositos. We do more easily believe, according to the Authority of that Epistle, those Heavens to have perished; and others, as it is there written, substituted in their Place. In like manner, and to the same Sense, he hath these Words upon Psal. ci. Aerii utique cœli perierunt ut propinqui Terris, secundum quod dicuntur volucres cœli; sunt autem & cœli cœlorum, superiores in Firmamento, sed utrùm & ipsi perituri sint igne, an hi soli, qui etiam diluvio perierunt, disceptatio est aliquanto scrupulosior inter doctos. And in his Book de Civ. Dei, he hath several Passages to the same purpose, Quemadmodum in Apostolicâ illâ Epistolâ à toto Pars accipitur, quod diluvio periisse dictus est mundus, quamvis sola ejus cum suis cœlis pars ima perierit. These being to the same Effect with the first Citation, I need not make them English; and this last Place refers to the Earth as well as the Heavens, as several other places in St. Austin do, whereof we shall give you an Account, when we come to shew his Judgment concerning the second Point, the diversity of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian World: This being but a Foretaste of his good Will and Inclinations towards this Doctrine.
These Considerations alledg’d, so far as I can judge, are full and unanswerable Proofs, that this Discourse of the Apostle’s comprehends and refers to the natural World; and consequently they warrant our Interpretation in this Particular, and destroy the contrary. We have but one Step more to make good, That there was a Change made in this natural World at the Deluge, according to the Apostle; and this is to confute the second Part of their Interpretation, which supposeth that St. Peter makes no Distinction or Opposition betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, in that respect.
This second Difference betwixt us, methinks is still harsher than the first; and contrary to the very Form, as well as to the Matter of the Apostle’s Discourse. For there is a plain Antithesis, or Opposition made betwixt the Heavens and the Earth of old (ver. the 5th) and the Heavens and the Earth that are now (ver. the 7th) οἱ ἔκπαλαι οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and οἱ νῦν οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and the adversitive Particle, δὲ but, you see marks the Opposition; so that it is full and plain according to Grammar and Logick. And that the Parts or Members of this Opposition differ in Nature from one another, is certain from this, because otherwise the Apostle’s Argument or Discourse is of no Effect, concludes nothing to the Purpose; he makes no Answer to the Objection, nor proves any thing against the Scoffers, unless you admit that Diversity. For they said, All Things had been the same from the Beginning in the natural World; and unless he say, as he manifestly does, that there hath been a Change in Nature, and that the Heavens and Earth that are now, are different from the ancient Heavens and Earth which perish’d at the Flood, he says nothing to destroy their Argument, nor to confirm the prophetical Doctrine of the future Destruction of the natural World.
This, I think, would be enough to satisfy any clear and free Mind concerning the Meaning of the Apostle; but because I desire to give as full a Light to this Place as I can, and to put the Sense of it out of Controversy, if possible, for the future, I will make some farther Remarks to confirm this Exposition.
And we may observe that several of those Reasons which we have given to prove, that the natural World is understood by St. Peter, are double Reasons; and do also prove the other Point in Question, a Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, the ante-diluvian and the present. As for Instance, unless you admit this Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, you make the 5th verse in this Chapter superfluous and useless; and you must suppose the Apostle to make an Inference here without Premises. In the vith verse he makes an Inference, [7]Whereby the World, that then was perish’d in a Deluge; What does this whereby relate to? by Reason of what? Sure of the particular Constitution of the Heavens and the Earth immediately before describ’d. Neither would it have signified any thing to the Scoffers, for the Apostle to have told them how the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were constituted, if they were constituted just in the same Manner as the present.
Besides, what is it, as I ask’d before, that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? does he not say formally and expresly (ver. 5.) that they were ignorant that the Heavens and the Earth were constituted so and so, before the Flood? But if they were constituted as these present Heavens and Earth are, they were not ignorant of their Constitution? Nor did pretend to be ignorant, for their own (mistaken) Argument supposeth it.
But before we proceed any further, give me leave to note the Impropriety of our Translation, in the 5th verse, or latter Part of it; Ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δὶ ὕδατων (vel δὶ ὔδατος) συνισῶτα. This we translate standing in the Water, and out of the Water, which is done manifestly in compliance with the present Form of the Earth, and the Notions of the Translators, and not according to the natural Force and Sense of the Greek Words. If one met with this Sentence[8] in a Greek Author, who would ever render it standing in the Water, and out of the Water? Nor do I know any Latin Translator that hath ventur’d to render them in that Sense, nor any Latin Father; St. Austin and St. Jerome I’m sure do not, but Consistens ex aquâ, or de aquâ, & per aquam; for that later Phrase also συνεσάναι δὶ ὕδατος, does not with so good Propriety signify to stand in the Water, as to consist or subsist by Water, or by the Help of Water, Tanquam per causam sustinentem, as St. Austin and Jerome render it. Neither does that Instance they give from 1 Pet. iii. 20. prove any thing to the contrary, for the Ark was sustain’d by the Waters, and the English does render it accordingly.
The Translation being thus rectified, you see the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth consisted of Water, and by Water; which makes Way for a second Observation to prove our Sense of the Text; for if you admit no Diversity betwixt those Heavens and Earth, and the present, shew us pray, how the present Heavens and Earth consist of Water, and by Water? What watry Constitution have they? The Apostle implies rather, that the new Heavens and Earth have a fiery Constitution. We have now Meteors of all Sorts in the Air, Winds, Hail, Snow, Lightning, Thunder, and all Things engender’d of fiery Exhalations, as well as we have Rain; but according to our Theory, Book ii. c. 5. the ante-diluvian Heavens, of all these Meteors had none but Dews and Vapours, or watry Meteors only; and therefore might very aptly be said by the Apostle to be constituted of Water, or to have a watry σίζασις. Then the Earth was said to consist by Water, because it was built upon it, and at first was sustain’d by it. And when such a Key as this is put into our Hands, that does so easily unlock this hard Passage, and makes it intelligible, according to the just Force of the Words, why should we pertinaciously adhere to an[9] Interpretation, that neither agrees with the Words, nor makes any Sense that is considerable.
Thirdly, If the Apostle had made the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth the same with the present, his Apodosis in the 7th verse, should not have been οἱ δε νῦν οῦρανοι, but καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί, &c. I say, it would not have been by way of Antithesis, but of Identity or Continuation; And the same Heavens and Earth are kept in store reserv’d unto Fire, &c. Accordingly we see the Apostle speaks thus, as to the Logos, or the Word of God, ver. 7. τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, by the same Word of God; where the Thing is the same, he expresseth it as the same; and if it had been the same Heavens and Earth, as well as the same Word of God, why should he use a Mark of Opposition for the one, and of Identity for the other? To this I do not see what can be fairly answer’d.
Fourthly, The ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were different from the present, because, as the Apostle intimates, they were such, and so constituted, as made them obnoxious to a Deluge; whereas ours are of such a Form, as makes them incapable of a Deluge, and obnoxious to a Conflagration; the just contrary Fate, Theor. Book i. c. 2.
If you say there was nothing of natural Tendency or Disposition in either World to their respective Fate, but the first might as well have perished by Fire as Water, and this by Water as by Fire, you unhinge all Nature and natural Providence in that Method, and contradict one main Scope of the Apostle in this Discourse. His first Scope is to assert, and mind them of that Diversity there was betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present; and from that, to prove against those Scoffers, that there had been a Change and Revolution in Nature: And his second Scope seems to be this, to shew that Diversity to be such, as, under the divine Conduct, leads to a different Fate, and expos’d that World to a Deluge; for when he had describ’d the Constitution of the first Heavens and Earth, he subjoins, δὶ ὧν ὅ τοτε κόσμος ὑδατι κατακλυοθεὶς ἀπόλετο. Quia talis erat, saith Grotius, qualem diximus, constitutio & Terræ & Cœli. WHEREBY the then World perish’d in a Flood of Water. This whereby notes some kind of casual Dependance, and must relate to some Means or Conditions precedent. It cannot relate to Logos, or the Word of God, Grammar will not permit that; therefore it must relate to the State of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth immediately premis’d: And to what purpose indeed should he premise the Description of those Heavens and Earth, if it was not to lay a Ground for this Inference?
Having given these Reasons for the Necessity of this interpretation: in the last place, let us consider St. Austin’s Judgment and his Sense upon this Place, as to the Point in Question; as also the Reflections that some other of the Ancients have made upon this Doctrine of St. Peter’s. Didymus Alexandrinus, who was for some time St. Jerome’s Master, made such a severe Reflection upon it, that he said this Epistle was corrupted, and should not be admitted into the Canon, because it taught the Doctrine of a triple or triform World in this third Chapter; as you may see in his Enarr. in Epist. Canonicas. Now this three-fold World is first that in the 6th verse, The World that then was. In the 7th verse, The Heavens and the Earth that are now. And in the 13th verse, We expect new Heavens and a new Earth, according to his Promise. This seems to be a fair Account that St. Peter taught the Doctrine of a triple World; and I quote this Testimony, to shew what St. Peter’s Words do naturally import, even in the Judgment of one that was not of his Mind; and a Man is not prone to make an Exposition against his own Opinion, unless he thinks the Words very pregnant and express.
But St. Austin owns the Authority of this Epistle, and of this Doctrine, as deriv’d from it, taking notice of this Text of St. Peter’s in several Parts of his Works. We have noted three or four Places already to this purpose, and we may further take notice of several Passages in his Treatise, de Civ. Dei, which confirm our Exposition. In his xxth Book, ch. xxiv. he Disputes against Porphyry, who had the same Principles with these Eternalists in the Text; or, if I may so call them Incorruptarians; and thought the World never had, nor ever would undergo any Change, especially, as to the Heavens. St. Austin could not urge Porphyry with the Authority of St. Peter, for he had no Veneration for the Christian Oracles, but it seems he had some for the Jewish; and arguing against him, upon that Text in the Psalms, Cœli peribunt, he shews, upon Occasion, how he understands St. Peter’s Destruction of the old World. Legitur Cœlum & Terra transibunt, Mundus transit, sed puto quod præterit transit, transibunt aliquantò mitius dicta sunt quam peribunt. In Epistolà quoque Petri Apostoli, ubi aquâ inundatus, qui tum erat, periisse dictus est Mundus, satis clarum est quæ pars mundi a toto significata est, & quatenus periisse dicta sit, & qui Cœli repositi igni reservandi. This he explains more fully afterwards by subjoining a Caution (which we cited before) that we must not understand this Passion of St. Peter’s concerning the Destruction of the ante-diluvian World, to take in the whole Universe, and the highest Heavens, but only the aerial Heavens, and the sublunary World. In Apostolicâ illâ Epistola a toto pars accipitur, quod Diluvio periisse dictus est Mundus quamvis sola ejus, cum suis Cœlis pars ima perierit. In that Apostolical Epistle, a part is signified by the whole, when the World is said to have perished in the Deluge, although the lower part of it only, with the Heavens belonging to it, perished; that is, the Earth with the Regions of the Air that belong to it. And consonant to this, in his Exposition of that ci. Psalm, upon those Words, The Heavens are the work of thy Hands; they shall perish, but thou shalt endure. This perishing of the Heavens, he says, St. Peter tells us, hath been once done already, namely, at the Deluge: Apertè dixit hoc Apostolus Petrus, Cœli erant olim & Terra, de aquâ & per aquam constituti, Dei verbo; per quod qui factus est mundus, aquâ inundatus deperiit; Terra autem & Cœli qui nunc sunt, igni reservantur. Jam ergo dixit periisse Cœlos per Diluvium.
These Places shew us, that St. Austin understood St. Peter’s Discourse to aim at the natural World, and his periit or periisse (ver. 6) to be of the same Force as peribunt in the Psalms, when ’tis said the Heavens shall perish; and consequently that the Heavens and the Earth, in this Father’s Opinion, were as really changed and transformed at the Time of the Flood, as they will be at the Conflagration. But we must not expect from St. Austin, or any of the Antients, a distinct Account of this Apostolical Doctrine, as if they knew and acknowledg’d the Theory of the first World; that does not at all appear, but what they said was either from broken Tradition, or extorted from them by the Force of the Apostle’s Words and their own Sincerity.
There are yet other Places in St. Austin worthy our Consideration upon this Subject; especially his Exposition of this iiid Chapter of St. Peter, as we find it in the same Treatise, de Civ. Dei, cap. xviii. There he compares again, the Destruction of that World at the Deluge, with that which shall be at the Conflagration, and supposeth both the Heavens and Earth to have perish’d: Apostolus commemorans factum ante Diluvium, videtur admonuisse quodammodo quatenùs in fine hujus seculi mundum istum periturum esse credamus. Nam & illo tempore periisse dixit, qui tunc erat, mundum; nec solum orbem terræ, verum etiam cœlos. Then giving his usual Caution, that the Stars and starry Heavens should not be comprehended in that mundane Destruction, he goes on, Atque hoc modo (penè totus aër) cum terra perierat; cujus Terræ utique prior facies (nempe ante-diluviana) fuerat deleta Diluvia. Qui autem nunc sunt cœli & terra eodem verba repositi sunt igni reservandi; Proinde qui Cœli & quæ Terra id est, qui mundus, pro eo mundo qui Diluvio periit, ex eádem aquâ repositus est, ipse igni novissimo reservatur. Here you see St. Austin’s Sense upon the whole Matter; which is this, that the natural World, the Earth with the Heavens about it, was destroyed and chang’d at the Deluge into the present Heavens and Earth; which shall again, in like Manner, be destroyed and chang’d by the last Fire. Accordingly, in another place, to add no more, he saith, the Figure of the (sublunary) World shall be changed at the Conflagration, as it was chang’d at the Deluge: Tunc figura hujus mundi, &c. cap. xvi.
Thus you see, we have St. Austin on our side, in both Parts of our Interpretation; that St. Peter’s Discourse is to be referr’d to the natural inanimate World, and that the present natural World is distinct and different from that which was before the Deluge. And St. Austin having applied this expresly to St. Peter’s Doctrine by way of Commentary, it will free us from any Crime or Affectation of Singularity in the Exposition we have given of that Place.
Venerable Bede hath followed St. Austin’s Footsteps in this Doctrine; for, interpreting St. Peter’s original World (Αρχαῖος Κόσμος) 2 Pet. ii. 5. he refers both that and this (chap. iii. 6.) to the natural inanimate World, which he supposeth to have undergone a Change at the Deluge. His Words are these, Idem ipse mundus est (nempe quoad materiam) in quo nunc humanum genus habitat, quem inhabitaverunt hi qui ante diluvium fuerunt, sed tamen rectè Originalis Mundus, quasi alius dicitur; quia sicut in consequentibus hujus Epistolæ scriptum continetur, Ille tunc mundus aquâ inundatus periit. Cælis videlicet qui erant prius, id est, cunctis aëris hujus turbulenti spatiis, aquarum accrescentiun altitudine consumptis, ac Terrâ in alteram faciem, excedentibus aquis, immutatâ. Nam etsi montes aliqui atque convalles ab initio facti creduntur, non tamen tanti quanti nunc in orbe cernuntur universo. ’Tis the same World (namely, as to the Matter and Substance of it) which Mankind lives in now, and did live in before the Flood, but yet that is truly called the ORIGINAL WORLD, being as it were another from the present. For it is said in the Sequel of this Epistle, that the World that was then, perished in the Deluge; namely, the Regions of the Air were consumed by the Height and Excess of the Water; and by the same Waters the Earth was changed into another Form or Face. For although some Mountains and Valleys are thought to have been made from the Beginning, yet not such great ones as now we see throughout the whole Earth.
You see this Author does not only own a Change made at the Deluge, but offers at a farther Explication wherein that Change consisted, viz. That the Mountains and Inequalities of the Earth were made greater than they were before the Flood; and so he makes the Change, or the Difference betwixt the two Worlds gradual, rather than specifical, if I may so term it. But we cannot wonder at that, if he had no Principles to carry it farther, or to make any other Sort of Change intelligible to him. Bede [De 6 dier. creat.] also pursues the same Sense and Notion in his Interpretation of that Fountain, Gen. ii. 5. that watered the Face of the Earth before the Flood. And many other Transcribers of Antiquity have recorded this Tradition concerning a Difference, gradual or specifical, both in the ante-diluvian Heavens (Gloss. Ordin. Gen. ix. de Iride. Lyran. ibid. Hist. Scholast. c. 35. Rab. Maurus & Gloss. Inter. Gen. ii. 5, 6. Alcuin. Quæst. in Gen. inter. 135.) and in the ante-diluvian Earth, as the same Authors witness in other Places: As Hist. Schol. c. 34. Gloss. Ord. in Gen. vii. Alcuin. Inter. 118, &c. Not to Instance those that tell us the Properties of the ante-diluvian World under the Name and Notion of Paradise.
Thus much concerning this remarkable Place in St. Peter, and the true Exposition of it; which I have the more largely insisted upon, because I look upon this Place as the chief Repository of that great natural Mystery, which in Scripture is communicated to us concerning the triple State or Revolution of the World. And of those Men that are so scrupulous to admit the Theory we have propos’d, I would willingly know, whether they believe the Apostle in what he says concerning the new Heavens and the new Earth to come? ver. 13. and if they do, why they should not believe him as much concerning the old Heavens and the old Earth past? ver. 5, and 6. which he mentions as formally, and describes more distinctly than the other. But if they believe neither past nor to come, in a natural Sense, but an unchangeable State of Nature from the Creation to its Annihilation, I leave them then to their Fellow-Eternalists in the Text, and to the Character or Censure the Apostle gives them, Κατὰ τὰς ἴδιας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι, Men that go by their own private Humour and Passions, and prefer that to all other Evidence.
They deserve this Censure, I am sure, if they do not only disbelieve, but also scoff, at this Prophetick and Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Vicissitudes of Nature and a triple World. The Apostle in this Discourse does formally distinguish three Worlds (for ’tis well known that the Hebrews have no Word to signify the natural World, but use that Periphrasis, the Heavens and the Earth) and upon each of them engraves a Name and Title that bears a Note of Distinction in it: He calls them the old Heavens and Earth, the present Heavens and Earth, and the new Heavens and Earth. ’Tis true, these three are one, as to Matter and Substance; but they must differ as to Form and Properties; otherwise what is the Ground of this Distinction and of these three different Appellations? Suppose the Jews had expected Ezekiel’s Temple for the third, and last, and most perfect; and that in the Time of the second Temple they had spoke of them with this Distinction, or under these different Names, the old Temple, the present Temple, and the new Temple we expect; would any have understood those three of one and the same Temple; never demolish’d, never chang’d, never rebuilt; always the same, both as to Materials and Form? No, doubtless, but of three several Temples succeeding one another. And have we not the same Reason to understand this Temple of the World, whereof St. Peter speaks, to be three-fold in Succession; seeing he does as plainly distinguish it into the old Heavens and Earth, the present Heavens and Earth? and the new Heavens and Earth. And I do the more willingly use this Comparison of the Temple, because it hath been thought an Emblem of the outward World.
I know we are naturally averse to entertain any Thing that is inconsistent with the general Frame and Texture of our own Thoughts; that’s to begin the World again; and we often reject such things without Examination. Neither do I wonder that the generality of Interpreters beat down the Apostle’s Words and Sense to their own Notions; they had no other Grounds to go upon, and Men are not willing, especially in natural and comprehensible things, to put such a Meaning upon Scripture, as is unintelligible to themselves; they rather venture to offer a little Violence to the Words, that they may pitch the Sense at such a convenient Height, as their Principles will reach to: And therefore though some of our modern Interpreters, whom I mention’d before, have been sensible of the natural Tendency of this Discourse of St. Peter’s, and have much ado to bear off the Force of the Words, so as not to acknowledge that they import a real Diversity betwixt the two Worlds spoken of; yet having no Principles to guide or support them in following that Tract, they are forc’d to stop or divert another way. ’Tis like entring into the Mouth of a Cave, we are not willing to venture farther than the Light goes: Nor are they much to blame for this, the Fault is only in those Persons that continue wilfully in their Darkness; and when they cannot otherwise resist the Light, shut their Eyes against it, or turn their Head another Way.—But I am afraid I have staid too long upon this Argument; not for my own sake, but to satisfy others.
You may please to remember that all that I have said hitherto, belongs only to the first Head: To prove a Diversity in general betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present; not expressing what their particular Form was. And this general Diversity may be argued also by Observations taken from Moses his History of the World, before and after the Flood: From the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians; the Rainbow appearing after the Deluge; and the breaking open an Abyss capable to overflow the Earth. The Heavens that had no Rain-bow, and under whose benign and steady Influence, Men liv’d seven, eight, nine hundred Years and upwards, [See Theor. Book ii. ch. 5.] must have been of a different Aspect and Constitution from the present Heavens: And that Earth that had such an Abyss, that the Disruption of it made an universal Deluge, must have been of another Form than the present Earth; and those that will not admit a Diversity in the two Worlds, are bound to give us an intelligible Account of these Phænomena: How they could possibly be in Heavens and Earth, like the present? Or if they were there once, why they do not continue so still, if Nature be the same?
We need say no more, as to the ante-diluvian Heavens; but as to the Earth, we must now, according to the second part of the first Head, enquire, if that particular Form, which we have assign’d it before the Flood, be agreeable to Scripture. You know how we have described the Form and Situation of that Earth; namely, that it was built over the Abyss, as a regular Orb, covering and incompassing the Waters round about, and founded, as it were, upon them. There are many Passages of Scripture that favour this Description; some more expresly, others upon a due Explication. To this purpose there are two express Texts in the Psalms; as Psal. xxiv. 1, 2. The Earth is the Lord’s, and the Fulness thereof; the habitable World, and they that dwell therein. FOR he has founded it upon the[10] Sea, and established it upon the Floods. An Earth founded upon the Seas, and establish’d upon the Waters, is not this Earth we have describ’d? The first Earth, as it came from the Hands of its Maker? Where can we now find in Nature such an Earth, as the Seas and the Water for its Foundation? Neither is this Text without a second, as a Fellow Witness to confirm the same Truth; for in Psal. cxxxvi. ver. 4, 5, 6. we read to the same Effect, in these Words, To him who alone does great Wonders; to him that by Wisdom made the Heavens; to him that stretched out the Earth above the Waters. We can hardly express that Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, in Words more determinate than these are: Let us then, in the same Simplicity of Heart, follow the Words of Scripture; seeing this literal Sense is not repugnant to Nature, but, on the contrary, agreeable to it upon the strictest Examination. And we cannot, without some Violence, turn the Words to any other Sense. What tolerable Interpretation can these admit of, if we do not allow the Earth once to have encompass’d and over-spread the Face of the Waters? To be founded upon the Waters, to be establish’d upon the Waters, to be extended upon the Waters, what rational or satisfactory Account can be given of these Phrases and Expressions from any thing we find in the present Situation of the Earth? Or how can they be verified concerning it? Consult Interpreters, antient or modern, upon these two Places; see if they answer your Expectation, or answer the natural Importance of the Words, unless they acknowledge another Form of the Earth, than the present. Because a Rock hangs its Nose over the Sea, must the Body of the Earth be said to be stretched over the Waters? Or, because there are Waters in some subterraneous Cavities, is the Earth therefore founded upon the Seas? Yet such lame Explications as these you will meet with; and while we have no better Light, we must content our selves with them; but when an Explication is offer’d, that answers the Propriety, Force and Extent of the Words, to reject it, only because it is not fitted to our former Opinions, or because we did not first think of it, is to take an ill Method in expounding Scripture. This Foundation or Establishment of the Earth upon the Seas, this Extention of it above the Waters, relates plainly to the Body, or whole Circuit of the Earth, not to Parcels and Particles of it; as appears from the Occasion, and its being join’d with the Heavens, the other Part of the World. Besides, David is speaking of the Origin of the World, and of the divine Power and Wisdom in the Constitution and Situation of our Earth; and these Attributes do not appear from the Holes of the Earth, and broken Rocks, which have rather the Face of a Ruin, than of Wisdom; but in that wonderful Libration and Expansion of the first Earth over the Face of the Waters, sustained by its own Proportions, and the Hand of his Providence.
These two Places in the Psalms being duly consider’d, we shall more easily understand a third Place, to the same effect, in the Proverbs; delivered by WISDOM, concerning the Origin of the World, and the Form of the first Earth, in these Words, Chapter viii. 27. When he prepared the Heavens I was there, when HE SET an Orb or Sphere upon the Face of the Abyss. We render it, when we set a Compass upon the Face of the Abyss; but if we have rightly interpreted the Prophet David, ’tis plain enough what Compass is here to be understood; not an imaginary Circle, (for why should that be thought one of the wonderful Works of God?) but that exterior Orb of the Earth that was set upon the Waters: That was the Master-piece of the divine Art in framing of the first Earth, and therefore very fit to be taken Notice of by Wisdom. And upon this Occasion, I desire you to reflect upon St. Peter’s Expression, concerning the first Earth, and to compare it with Solomon’s, to see if they do not answer one another. St. Peter calls it, γῆ καθεστῶσα δὶ ὕδάτων, an Earth consisting, standing, or sustained by the Waters. And Solomon calls it חונ על בני תהום An Orb drawn upon the Face of the Abyss. And St. Peter says, that was done τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, by the Wisdom of God; which is the same Λόγος or Wisdom, that here declares her self to have been present at this Work. Add now to these two Places, the two foremention’d out of the Psalmist; An Earth founded upon the Sea, (Psal. xxiv. 2.) and an Earth stretched out above the Waters; (Psal. cxxxvi. 6.) Can any Body doubt or question; but all these four Texts refer to the same Thing? And seeing St. Peter’s Description refers certainly to the ante-diluvian Earth, they must all refer to it; and do all as certainly and evidently agree with our Theory concerning the Form and Situation of it.
The pendulous Form and Posture of that first Earth being prov’d from these four Places, ’tis more easy and emphatical to interpret in this Sense that Passage in Job ch. xxvi. 7. He stretcheth out the North over the Tohu, (for so it is in the Original) and hangeth the Earth upon nothing. And this strange Foundation or no Foundation of the exterior Earth seems to be the Ground of those noble Questions propos’d to Job by God Almighty, chap. xxxviii. Where wast thou, when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? Declare if thou hast understanding, whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastned, and who laid the Corner-Stone? There was neither Foundation, nor Corner-Stone, in that piece of Architecture; and that was it which made the Art and Wonder of it. But I have spoken more largely to these Places in the Theory it self, Book i. p. 119. And if the four Texts before mention’d be consider’d without Prejudice, I think there are few Matters of natural Speculation that can be so well prov’d out of Scripture, as the Form which we have given to the ante-diluvian Earth.
But yet it may be thought a just, if not a necessary Appendix to this Discourse, concerning the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, to give an Account also of the ante-diluvian Abyss, and the Situation of it according to Scripture; for the Relation which these two have to one another, will be a farther Means to discover, if we have rightly determined the Form of that Earth. The Abyss or Tehom Rabbah is a Scripture Notion, and the Word is not us’d, that I know of, in that distinct and peculiar Sense in Heathen Authors. ’Tis plain that in Scripture it is not always taken for the Sea (as Gen. i. 2. and vii. 11. and xlix. 25. Deut. xxxiii. 13. Job xxviii. 14. and xxxviii. 16. Psal. xxxiii. 7. and lxxi. 20. and lxxviii. 15. and cxxxv. 6. Apoc. xx. 1, 3.) but for some other Mass of Waters, or subterraneous Store-house. And this being observ’d, we may easily discover the Nature, and set down the History of the Scripture-Abyss.