If it be Civility to return a speedy Answer to a Demand or Message, I will not fail to pay that Respect to the late Author of the Exceptions against the Theory of the Earth. I know, short Follies, and short Quarrels, are the best: And to offer Satisfaction at the first Opportunity, is the fairest Way to put an End to Controversies. Besides, such personal Altercations as these, are but Res perituræ, which do not deserve much Time or Study; but, like Repartees, are best made off hand, and never thought on more. I only desire that Friendliness, that some Allowance may be made as to Unaccuracy of Style: Which is always allow’d in hasty Dispatches.
I shall make no Excursions from the Subject, nor use any other Method than to follow the learned Exceptor from Chapter to Chapter, and observe his Steps and Motions, so far as they are contrary to the Theory. But if he divert out of his Way, for his Pleasure, or other Reasons best known to himself, I may take notice of it perhaps, but shall not follow him any farther than my Business leads me; having no design to abridge his Liberty, but to defend my own Writings where they are attack’d. Give me leave therefore, without any other Preface or Ceremony, to fall to our Work.
This Chapter is only an Introduction, and treats of other Things, without any particular Opposition to the Theory. And therefore I shall only give you the Conclusion of it, in the Author’s own Words: So much for the first Chapter; which may be reckoned as an Introduction to the following Discourse. Which if any shall look upon as a Collection of Notes, somewhat confusedly put together, rather than a formal, well digested Treatise, they will entertain the best or truest Idea of it. A severe Censure: But every Man best understands his own Works.
Here he begins to enter upon particular Exceptions: And his first Head is against the Formation of the Earth, pag. 45. as explained by the Theory. To this he gives but one Exception in this Chapter: Namely, That it would have taken up too much Time; the World being made in six Days. Whereas many Separations of the Chaos, and of the Elements, were to be made, according to the Theory, which could not be dispatch’d in so short a Time. To this Exception, the general Answer may be this; either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence, or of an extraordinary, as to the Time allowed for the Formation of the Earth: If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence, the Formation of the Earth would require much more Time than six Days: But if according to an extraordinary, you may suppose it made in six Minutes, if you please. ’Twas plain Work, and a simple Process, according to the Theory; consisting only of such and such Separations, and a Concretion: And either of these might be accelerated, and dispatch’d in a longer or shorter Time, as Providence thought fit.
However, this Objection does not come well from the Hands of this Author, who makes all the Mountains of the Earth (the most operose Part of it, as one would think) to be rais’d in a small Parcel of a Day by the Heat and Action of the Sun; as we shall find in the tenth Chapter, hereafter. He seems to proceed by natural Causes; for such are the Heat and Action of the Sun: And if so, he will find himself as much straiten’d for Time, as the Theorist can be. But if he say, the Work of Nature and of the Sun was accelerated by an extra-ordinary Power, he must allow us to say the same Thing of the Separations of the Chaos, and the first Concretion of the Earth. For he cannot reasonably debar us that Liberty which he takes himself, unless we have debarr’d and excluded our selves. Now ’tis plain, the Theorist never excluded an extraordinary Providence in the Formation and Construction of the Earth; as appears, and is openly express’d in many Parts of the Theory, Eng. Theor. p. 88. See, if you please, the Conclusion of the fifth Chapter, which treats about the Formation of the Earth. The last Paragraph is this: Give me leave only, before we proceed any farther, to annex here a short Advertisement, concerning the Causes of this wonderful Structure of the first Earth: ’Tis true, we have propos’d the natural Causes of it, and I do not know wherein our Explication is false or defective; but in Things of this Kind we may easily be too credulous: And this Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to be consider’d as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the Work of Nature. The whole Globe of the Water vaulted over, and the exterior Earth hanging above the Deep, sustain’d by nothing but its own Measures and Manner of Construction: A Building without Foundation or Corner-stone. This seems to be a Piece of Divine Geometry or Architecture; and to this, I think, is to be referr’d that magnificent Challenge which God Almighty made to Job; Where wast thou, when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? Declare, &c. Moses also, when be had describ’d the Chaos, saith, The Spirit of God mov’d upon, or sat brooding upon, the Face of the Waters; without all doubt, to produce some Effects there. And St. Peter, when he speaks of the Form of the Anti-deluvian Earth, how it stood, in reference to the Waters, adds, By the Word of God, or by the Wisdom of God, it was made so. And this same Wisdom of God, in the Proverbs, as we observed before, takes notice of this very Piece of Work in the Formation of the Earth: When he set an Orb over the Face of the Deep, I was there. Wherefore to the great Architect, who made the boundless Universe out of nothing, and form’d the Earth out of a Chaos, let the Praise of the whole Work, and particularly, of this Master-piece, for ever, with all Honour, be given. In like Manner, there is a larger Account of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, as to the Revolutions of the natural World, in the last Paragraph of the eighth Chapter; and like Reflections are made in other Places, when Occasion is offer’d.
We have not, therefore, any where excluded the Influence and Benefit of superior Causes, where the Case requires it: Especially, when ’tis only to modify the Effect, as to Time and Dispatch. And in that Case, none will have more need of it than himself; as we shall find in the Examination of his tenth Chapter, about the Origin of Mountains.
The rest of this second Chapter is spent in three Excursions. One in justifying the Cartesian Way of forming Light and the Sun, as agreeable to Moses. The second about the Jewish Cabala, and Cabalistical Interpretations. And the third about mystical Numbers. But the Theory not being concern’d in these Things, I leave them to the Author, and his Readers, to enjoy the Pleasure and Profit of them. And proceed to the third Chapter.
In this Chapter a second Exception against the Formation of the Earth, as propos’d in the Theory, is alledg’d: And ’tis this; The Fluctuation of the Chaos, or of that first watery Globe, would hinder, he says, any Concretion of Earth upon its Surface. Not that there were Winds or Storms then, to agitate those Waters; neither would the Motion of the Earth, or the Rotation of that Globe, disturb them, as he allows there; but the Disturbance would have Rise from Tides, p. 74. lin. 18, 19. or the Ebbings and Flowings of that great Ocean, which, he says, must have been then, as well as now; And the Reason he gives, is this; because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon; and the Moon was then present, as he says, in our Heavens, or in our Vortex: And therefore, would have the same Effect then, upon that Body of Waters which lay under it, that it hath now upon the Sea.
That the Moon was in the Heavens, and in our Neighbourhood, when the Earth was form’d, he proves from the six Days Creation: and spends two or three Pages in Wit and Scolding upon this Subject, p. 77, 78, 79. But, with his leave, when all is done, his Argument will be of no Force, unless he can prove, that the fourth Day’s Creation was before the third. I confess, I have heard of a Wager that was lost upon a like Case, namely, Whether Henry VIII. was before Henry VII? But that was done by Complot in the Company, to whom it was referr’d to decide the Question. We have no Plot here, but appeal fairly to that Judge the Exceptor hath chosen, namely, to Scripture, which tells us, that the Moon was made the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third. Therefore, unless the fourth Day was before the third, the Moon could not hinder the Formation of the Earth.
But I hope, say you, this is a Misrepresentation. The Animadverter sure would not put the Matter upon this Issue. Yes, he does. For when he had oppos’d to our Formation of the Earth, the Fluctuation of the Waters, caus’d, as he phrases it, by the bulky Presence of the Moon, he concludes with these Words, (p. 77. Parag. 3.) But in reference to this Matter, there is a Doubt made by the Theorist, which must be consider’d and removed; otherwise most of what hath been said, touching the Instability and Fluctuation of these Waters, will be vain and groundless: The Doubt is, Whether the Moon were then in our Neighbourhood. You see that Matter is put upon this Issue, Whether the Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth, at the Time of its Formation. We say she was not; and prove it by this plain Argument, If she was not in Being at that Time, she was not in our Neighbourhood: But unless the fourth Day was before the third, she was not in Being. Ergo.
But after all, if the Moon had been present then, and there had been Tides, or any other Fluctuation towards the Poles, we have no Reason to believe, according to the Experiences we have now, that that would have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, upon the Surface of the Chaos. For why should they have hinder’d that more, than they do the Formation of Ice upon the Surface of the Sea? We know, in cold Regions, the Seas are frozen, notwithstanding their Tides; and in the Mouths of Rivers, where there is both the Current and Stream of the River on one hand, and the Counter-Current of the Tides on the other; these, together, cannot hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water: And our Water is a Substance more thin, and easily broken, than that tenacious Film was, that cover’d the Chaos. Wherefore, upon all Suppositions, we have Reason to conclude, that no Fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder the Formation of the first Earth.
Lastly, The Observator opposes the Reasons that are given by the Theorist, why the Presence of the Moon was less needful in the first World. Namely, because there were no long Winter Nights; nor the great Pool of the Sea to move or govern. As to the second Reason, ’tis only hypothetical; and if the Hypothesis be true, That there was no open Sea at that Time, (which must be elsewhere examin’d,) the Consequence is certainly true. But as to the first Reason, he will not allow the Consequence, tho’ the Hypothesis be admitted. For he says, p. 79. As there were no long Winter Nights then, so there were no short Summer ones neither: So that set but the one against the other, and the Presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then, in regard of the Length of Nights, as she is now. This looks like a witty Observation, but it does not reach the Point. Is there as much need of the Moon in Spain, as in Lapland, or the Northern Countries? There is as much Night in one Place as another, within the Compass of a Year, but the great Inconvenience is, when the Night falls upon the Hours of Travel, or the Hours of Work and Business; for if it fall only upon Hours of Sleep, or of Rest and Retirement, as it does certainly more in Spain, and in those Climates that approach nearer to an Equinox; the Moon is there less necessary in that Respect: We can sleep without Moonshine, or without Light, but we cannot travel, or do Business abroad, without Hazard and great Inconvenience, if there be no Light. So that the Reason of the Theorist holds good, viz. That there would be more Necessity of Moon-shine in long Winter Nights, than in a perpetual Equinox.
We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter, which is made up of some secondary Charges against this Part of the Theory, concerning the Chaos and the Formation of the first Earth. As, First, That it is, p. 80, 81. Precarious: Secondly, p. 83. Unphilosophical: And, Thirdly, Antiscriptural; which we shall answer in order. He seems to offer at three or four Instances of Precariousness, as to the Ingredients of the Chaos, their Proportions and Separations; but his Quarrel is chiefly with the oily Particles: These he will scarce allow at all; nor that they could separate themselves in due Time to receive the terrestrial, at least in due Proportions.
First, He would have no oily Particles in the Chaos. But why so, I pray? What Proof or just Exception is there against them? Why may not there be original oily Particles, as well as original salt Particles? Such as your great Master Des Cartes supposes, Prin. ph. l. 4. §. 84. Meteor. c. 1. §. 8. He who considers that vast Quantity of oleaginous Matter that is dispers’d every where, in Vegetables, in Animals, and in many sorts of Earths, and that this must have been from the Beginning, or as soon as the Earth had any Furniture; will see Reason to believe that such Particles must be thought original and primeval; not forg’d below the Abyss, and extracted from the inferior Regions of the Earth: For that would require a Process of many Ages; whereas, these being the Principles of Fertility, it is reasonable to suppose, that a new World abounds with them more than an old one. Lastly, If we suppose oily Particles to be tenuious and branchy, as your Philosopher does, too gross to be Air, and too light for Water; why should we imagine that in that vast Mass and Variety of Particles, whereof the Chaos consisted, there should not be any of this Figure, as well as of others? Or, what Reason is there to suppose, that there are none of that Figure, but what are brought from the inferior Regions of the Earth? For, of all others, these seem to be the most unlikely, if not incapable, of being extracted from thence. And if there be only a gradual Difference, in Magnitude and Mobility, betwixt the Particles of Air and Oil, as that Philosopher seems to suppose, Prin. phil. l. 4. §. 76. why must we exclude these Degrees, and yet admit the higher and lower?
The second Thing which he charges with Precariousness, is the Separation of this oily Matter, in due time, so as to make a Mixture and Concretion with the terrestrial Particles that fell from above. This Objection was both made and answered by the Theorist; Eng. Theor. p. 79. which the Observator might have vouchsaf’d to have taken notice of; and either confuted the Answer, or spar’d himself the Pains of repeating the Objection.
The third Precariousness is, concerning the Quantity and Proportion of these Particles: And the fourth, concerning the Quantity and Proportion of the Water. The Exceptor, it seems, would have had the Theorist to have gauged these Liquors, and told him the just Measure and Proportion of each; but, in what Theory or Hypothesis is that done? Has his great Philosopher, in his Hypothesis of Three Elements, (which the Exceptor makes use of, p. 52.) or in his several Regions of the unform’d Earth, the Fourth Book of his Principles, defin’d the Quantity and Dimensions of each? Or in the mineral Particles and Juices, which he draws from the lower Regions, does he determine the Quantity of them? And yet these, by their Excess, or Defect, might be of great Inconvenience to the World: Neither do I censure him for these Things, as precarious. For, when the Nature of a Thing admits a Latitude, the original Quantity of it is left to be determin’d by the Effects; and the Hypothesis stands good, if neither any Thing antecedent, nor any present Phænomena, can be alledged against it.
But if these Examples, from his great Philosopher be not sufficient, I will give him one from an Author beyond all Exceptions; And that is from himself. Does the Animadverter, in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge, Ch. 15. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-Water, and the just Proportions of his Rain-Water, that concurred to make the Deluge? I find no Calculations there, but general Expressions, that the one was far greater than the other; and that may be easily presumed, concerning the oily Substance, and the watery Chaos: What Scruples therefore, p. 80, 81. he raises, in reference to the Chaos, against the Theorist, for not having demonstrated the Proportions of the Liquors of the Abyss, fall upon his own Hypothesis; for the same or greater Reasons. And you know what the old Verse says,
But, however, he will have such Exceptions, p. 81. to stand good against the Theorist, though they are not good against other Persons; because the Theorist stands upon Terms[14] of Certainty, and in one Place of his Book, has this Sentence, Ego quidem, &c. These Words, I think, are very exceptionable, if they be taken with the Context: For this Evidence and Certainty, which the Theorist speaks of, is brought in there in Opposition to such uncertain Arguments, as are taken from the Interpretation of Fables and Symbols; or from Etymologies and Grammatical Criticisms, which are expresly mention’d in the preceding Discourse: And yet this Sentence, because it might be taken in too great an Extent, is left out in the second Edition of the Theory, and therefore, none had Reason to insist upon it. But I see the Exceptor puts himself into a State of War, and thinks there is no foul Play against an Enemy.
So much for his Charge of Precariousness. We now come to the second, which is call’d Unphilosophicalness. And, why is the Theorist, in this Case, unphilosophical? Because, says the Exceptor, he supposes terrestrial Particles to be dispers’d through the whole Sphere of the Chaos, as high as the Moon: And why not, pray, if it be a mere Chaos? Where, antecedently to Separations, all Things are mix’d and blended without Distinction of Gravity or Levity; otherwise it is not a mere Chaos: And when Separations begin to be made, and Distinction of Parts and Regions, so far it is ceasing to be a mere Chaos. But then, says the Observator, why did not the Moon come down, as well as these terrestrial Particles? I answer by another Question, Why does not the Moon come down now? Seeing she is still in our Vortex, and at the same Distance; and so the same Reason which keeps her up now, kept her up then: Which Reason he will not be at a loss to understand, if he understand the Principles of his great Philosopher.
We come now to the last Charge: That the Theory, in this Part of it, is antiscriptural. And why so? Because it supposes the Chaos dark, whereas the Scripture says, there was Light the first Day. Well, but does the Scripture say, that the Chaos was throughly illuminated the first Day? The Exceptor, p. 52. as I remember, makes the primigenial Light to have been the Rudiment of a Sun; and calls it there, lin. 17. a faint Light, and a feeble Light; and in this Place, lin. 27. a faint Glimmering. If then the Sun, in all its Strength and Glory, cannot sometimes dispel a Mist out of the Air, what could this faint, feeble Glimmering do, towards the Dissipation of such a gross caliginous Opacity, as that was? This Light might be sufficient to make some Distinction of Day and Night in the Skies; and we do not find any other Mark of its Strength in Scripture, nor any other Use made of it.
So we have done with this Chapter. Give me leave only, without Offence, to observe the Style of the Exceptor, in reference to Scripture, and the Theory. He is apt to call every Thing antiscriptural, that suits not his Sense; neither is that enough, but he must also call it, p. 78. a bold Affront to Scripture. He confesses, he hath made, p. 299. pen. a little bold with Scripture himself, in his new Hypothesis; how much that little will prove, we shall see hereafter. But however, as to that hard Word, Affront, a discreet Man, as he is not apt to give an Affront, so neither is he forward to call every cross Word, an Affront: Both those Humours are Extreams, and breed Quarrels. Suppose a Man should say boldly, God Almighty hath no Right Hand. Oh, might the Animadverter cry, That’s a bold Affront to Scripture: For I can shew you many and plain Texts of Scripture, both in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, where express Mention is made of God’s Right Hand. And will you offer to oppose Reason and Philosophy to express Words of Scripture, often repeated, and in both Testaments? O Tempora, O Mores! So far as my Observation reaches, weak Reasons commonly produce strong Passions. When a Man hath clear Reasons, they satisfy and quiet the Mind; and he is not much concern’d, whether others receive his Notions, or no: But when we have a strong Aversion to an Opinion, from other Motives and Considerations, and find our Reasons doubtful or insufficient; then, according to the Course of human Nature, the Passions rise for a farther Assistance; and what is wanting, in point of Argument, is made up by Invectives and Aggravations.
This Chapter is chiefly concerning the Central Fire, and the Origin of the Chaos; of both which, the Theorist had declared he would not treat: And ’tis an unreasonable Violence to force an Author to treat of what Things we please, and not allow him to prescribe Bounds to his own Discourse. As to the first of these, see what the Theorist hath said, Engl. Theor. p. 451, and 86, 67. By which Passages it is evident, that he did not meddle with the central Parts of the Earth; nor thought it necessary for his Hypothesis: As is also more fully express’d in the Latin Theory, p. 45. For, do but allow him a Chaos from the Bottom of the Abyss, upwards to the Moon, and he desires no more for the Formation of an habitable Earth: Neither is it the Part of Wisdom, to load a new Subject with unnecessary Curiosities.
Then as to the Origin of the Chaos, see how the Theorist bounds his Discourse as to that, [15]Engl. Theor. p. 451. I did not think it necessary to carry the Story and Original of the Earth, higher than the Chaos, as Zoroaster and Orpheus seem to have done; but taking that for our Foundation which Antiquity, sacred and profane, does suppose, and natural Reason approve and confirm, we have form’d the Earth from it. To form an habitable Earth from a Chaos given, and to shew all the great Periods and general Changes of that Earth, throughout the whole Course of its Duration, or while it remain’d an Earth, was the adequate Design of the Theorist. And was this Design so short or shallow, that it could not satisfy the great Soul of the Exceptor, p. 88. but it must be a Flaw in the Hypothesis, that it did go higher than the Chaos? We content our selves with these Bounds at present. And when a Man declares, that he will write only the Roman History, will you say his Work’s imperfect, because it does not take in the Persian and Assyrian?
These Things consider’d, to speak freely of this Chapter, it seems to me, in a great Measure, impertinent; unless it was design’d to shew the Learning of the Observator, who loves, I perceive, to dabble in Philosophy, though little to the Purpose: For, as far as I see, his Disquistions generally end in Scepticism; he disputes first one way, then another; and, at last determines nothing. He rambles betwixt Des Cartes and Moses, the Rabbies, the Septuagint, the Platonists, Magnetisme, striate Particles, and Præ-existence of Souls: And ends in nothing, as to the Formation of the Earth, which was to be the Subject of the Chapter. We proceed therefore to the next, in hopes to meet with closer Reasoning.
From the manner of the Earth’s Formation, the Exceptor, p. 106. now proceeds to the Form of it, if compleated. And his first Exception is, That it would want Waters, or Rivers to water it. He says, there would either be no Rivers at all, or none, at least, in due time.
The Theorist hath replenish’d that Earth with Rivers, flowing from the extreme Parts of it, towards the middle, in continual Streams; and watering, as a Garden, all the intermediate Climates. And this constant Supply of Water was made from the Heavens, by an uninterrupted Stream of Vapours, which had their Course through the Air, from the middle Parts of the Earth towards the extreme; and falling in Rains, return’d again upon the Surface of the Earth, from the extreme Parts to the middle: For that Earth being of an oval or something oblong Figure, there would be a Declivity all along, or Descent, from the Polar Parts towards the Equinoctial; which gave Course and Motion to these Waters. And the Vapours above never falling in their Course, the Rivers would never fail below; but a perpetual Circulation would be establish’d, betwixt the Waters of the Heavens and of the Earth.
This is a short Account of the State of the Waters in the primeval Earth. Which you may see represented and explain’d more at large, in the second Book of the Theory, Chap. 5. And this, I believe, is an Idea more easily conceiv’d, than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of the present Earth, if we had not Experience of them. Suppose a Stranger, that had never seen this terraqueous Globe, where we live at present, but was told the general Form of it; how the Sea lies, how the Land, and what was the Constitution of the Heavens: If this Stranger was asked his Opinion, whether such an Earth was habitable; and particularly, whether they could have Waters commodiously in such an Earth, and how the inland Countries would be supplied? I am apt to think, he would find it more difficult (upon an Idea only, without Experience) to provide Waters for such an Earth, as ours is at present, than for such an one as the primeval Earth was. ’Tis true, he would easily find Rains, possible and natural, but with no Constancy or Regularity; and these, he might imagine, would only make transient Torrents, not any fix’d and permanent Rivers. But as for Fountains deriv’d from the Sea, and breaking out in higher Grounds, I am apt to believe, all his Philosophy would not be able to make a clear Discovery of them: But Things that are familiar to us by Experience, we think easy in Speculation, or never enquire into the Causes of them. Whereas, other Things, that never fall under our Experience, though more simple and intelligible in themselves, we reject often as Paradoxes or Romances. Let this be applied to the present Case, and we proceed to answer the Exceptions.
Let us take that Exception first, as most material, p. 114. that pretends there would have been no Rivers at all in the primeval Earth, if it was of such a Form as the Theorist had describ’d. And for this, he gives one grand Reason, Because the Regions towards the Poles, where the Rains are suppos’d to fall, and the Rivers to rise, would have been all frozen and congeal’d; and consequently, no fit Sources of Water for the rest of the Earth. Why we should think those Regions would be frozen, and the Rains that fell in them, he gives two Reasons, the Distance, and the Obliquity of the Sun. As also the Experience we have now, of the Coldness and Frozenness of those Parts of the Earth. But as to the Distance of the Sun, He confesses, p. 118. that is not the Thing that does only or chiefly make a Climate cold. He might have added, particularly in that Earth, where the Sun was never at a greater Distance than the Equator. Then, as to the Obliquity of the Sun, neither was that so great, nor so considerable, in the first Earth, as in the present. Because the Body of that lay in a direct Position to the Sun; whereas the present Earth lies in an oblique. And though the Polar Circles or Circumpolar Parts of that Earth, did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial, and consequently were cooler, yet there was no Danger of their being frozen or congeal’d. It was more the Moisture and excessive Rains of those Parts that made them uninhabitable, than the extreme Coldness of the Climate, of it self. And if the Exceptor had well consider’d the Differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth, as to Obliquity of Position, and that which follows from it, the Length of Nights, he would have found no Reason to have charg’d that Earth with nipping and freezing Cold; where there was not, I believe, one Morsel of Ice, from one Pole to another: But that will better appear, if we consider the Causes of Cold.
There are three general Causes of Cold: The Distance of the Sun, his Obliquity, and his total Absence; I mean in the Nights. As to Distance, that alone must be of little Effect, seeing there are many Planets (which must not be look’d upon as mere Lumps of Ice) at a far greater Distance from the Sun, than ours: And as to Obliquity, you see it was much less considerable in the respective Parts of the Primitive Earth, than of the present. Wherefore, these are to be consider’d but as secondary Causes of Cold, in respect of the third, the total Absence of the Sun in the Night Time: And where this happens to be long and tedious, there you must expect Excess of Cold. Now, in the primitive Earth there was no such Thing as long Winter Nights, but every where a perpetual Equinox, or a perpetual Day. And consequently, there was no Room or Cause of excessive Cold in any Part of it. But on the contrary, the Case is very different in the present Earth; for in our Climate, we have not the Presence of the Sun, in the Depth of Winter, half as long as he is absent; and towards the Poles they have Nights that last several Weeks or Months together: And then ’tis that the Cold rages, binds up the Ground, freezes the Ocean, and makes those Parts more or less uninhabitable. But where no such Causes are, you need not fear any such Effects.
Thus much to shew that there might be Rains, Waters, and Rivers, in the primigenial Earth, and towards the extreme Parts of it, without any Danger of freezing. But however, says the other Part of the Exception, These Rivers would not be made in due Time. That’s wholly according to the Process you take; if you take a mere natural Process, the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth, all on a sudden; but you may accelerate that Process, as much as you please, by a Divine Hand. As to this Particular indeed of the Rivers, one would think there should be no Occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth, because Mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth: And if they did but lead the Way, and prepare the Ground in every Country, before Mankind arrived there, that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their Account: Neither can it be imagined, but that the Rivers would flow faster than Mankind could follow; for it is probable, in the first hundred Years, Men did not reach an hundred Miles from Home, or from their first Habitations: And we cannot suppose the Defluxion of Water, upon any Declivity, to be half so slow. As to the Channels of these Rivers, the Manner of their Progress, and other Circumstances, those Things are set down fully enough in the fifth Chapter of the second Book of the English Theory, and it would be needless to repeat them here.
But the Anti-Theorist says, this slow Production and Propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture; both because of the Rivers of Paradise, and also, because Fishes were made the sixth Day. As to that of the Fishes, he must first prove that those were River-Fishes; for the Scripture, Gen. i. 21. and 22. makes them Sea-Fish, and instances in great Whales. But he says (p. 113, 114.) it will appear in the Sequel of his Discourse, that the Abyss could be no Receptacle of Fishes. To that Sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the Examination of this Particular. Then as to Paradise, that was but one single Spot of Ground, ch. xiii. according to the ordinary Hypothesis; which he seems to adhere to: And Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases, seeing its Seat is not yet determin’d. But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass, that they might be the Work of Time, when their Channels and Courses were extended and settled; as they would be, doubtless, long before the Time that Moses writ that Description: But as to the Rivers of Paradise, it would be a long Story to handle that Dispute here. And ’tis fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves, before we determine the Original of its River, or Rivers.
We come now to the Deluge, where the great Exception is this, p. 121. That according to the Theory, the Deluge would have come to pass, whether Mankind had been degenerate, or no.
We know Mankind did degenerate, and ’tis a dangerous Thing to argue upon false Suppositions; and to tell what would have come to pass, in case such a Thing had not come to pass: Suppose Adam had not sinn’d, what would have become of the Messiah? Eph. i. 4. 1 Pet. i. 20. Apoc. xiii. 8. and the Dispensation of the Gospel, which yet is said to have been determin’d more early than the Deluge? Let the Anti-Theorist answer himself this Question, and he may answer his own.
But to take a gentler Instance, suppose Adam had not eaten the forbidden Fruit, how could he and all his Posterity have liv’d in Paradise? A few Generations would have fill’d that Place; and should the rest have been turn’d out into the wide World, without any sin or Fault of theirs? You suppose the Ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth to have been the same with the present, and, consequently, subject to the same Accidents and Inconveniences. The Action of the Sun would have been the same then as now, according to your Hypothesis: The same Excesses of Heat and Cold, in the several Regions and Climates; the same Vapours and Exhalations extracted out of the Earth; the same Impurities and Corruptions in the Air: And in Consequence of these, the same external Disposition to epidemical Distempers. Besides, there would be the same Storms and Tempests at Sea, the same Earthquakes, and other Desolations at Land. So that had all the Sons and Daughters of Men, to use the Exceptor’s elegant Style, p. 122. been as pure and bright as they could possibly have dropt out of the Mint of Creation, they should still have been subject to all these Inconveniences and Calamities. If Mankind had continued spotless and undegenerate ’till the Deluge, or for sixteen hundred Years, they might as well have continued so for sixteen hundred more. And in a far less Time, according to their Fruitfulness and Multiplication, the whole Face of the Earth would have been thick covered with Inhabitants: Every Continent and every Island, every Mountain and every Desert, and all the Climates from Pole to Pole. But could naked Innocency have liv’d happy in the frozen Zones, where Bears and Foxes can scarce subsist? in the midst of Snows and Ice, thick Fogs, and more than Ægyptian Darkness, for some Months together? Would all this have been a Paradise, or a paradisaical State, to these virtuous Creatures? I think it would be more advisable for the Exceptor, not to enter into such Disputes, grounded only upon Suppositions. God’s Prescience is infallible, as his Counsels are immutable.
But the Exceptor further suggests, p. 121. that the Theory does not allow a judicial and extraordinary Providence in bringing on the Deluge, as a Punishment upon Mankind. Which, I must needs say, is an untrue and uncharitable Suggestion, as any one may see, both in the Latin Theory [16] Chap. 6. and in the English, in several Places. So at the Entrance upon the Explication of the Deluge (Theor. p. 92.) are these Words, Let us then suppose, that at a Time appointed by Divine Providence, and from Causes made ready to do that great Execution upon a sinful World, that this Abyss was open’d, and the Frame of the Earth broke, &c. And accordingly in the Conclusion of that Discourse about the Deluge, are these Words, (Theor. p. 144.) In the mean time I do not know any more to be added in this Part, unless it be to conclude with an Advertisement to prevent any Mistake or Misconstruction, as if this Theory, by explaining the Deluge in a natural Way, or by natural Causes, did detract from the Power of God, by which that GREAT JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT UPON THE WORLD, IN A PROVIDENTIAL AND MIRACULOUS MANNER. And in the three following Paragraphs (Theor. p. 144, 145, 146.) which conclude that Chapter, there is a full Account given both of an ordinary and extraordinary Providence, in reference to the Deluge, and other great Revolutions of the natural World.
But it is a Weakness however to think, that, when a Train is laid in Nature, and Methods concerted, for the execution of a Divine Judgment, therefore it is not providential. God is the Author and Governor of the natural World, as well as of the Moral: And he sees thorough the Futuritions of both, and hath so dispos’d the one, as to serve him in his just Judgments upon the other. Which Method, as it is more to the Honour of his Wisdom, so it is in no way to the Prejudice of his Power or Justice. And what the Exceptor suggests concerning Atheists, and their presum’d Cavils at such an Explication of the Deluge, is a Thing only said at random and without Grounds. On the contrary, so to represent the Sense of Scripture, in natural Things, as to make it unintelligible, and inconsistent with Science and Philosophick Truth, is one great Cause, in my Opinion, that breeds and nourishes Atheism.
This Chapter is about the Places of Scripture, alledg’d in Confirmation of the Theory: And chiefly concerning that remarkable Discourse in St. Peter, 2 Epist. iii. which treats of the Difference of the Ante-diluvian World, and the present World. That Discourse is so fully explain’d in the Review of the Theory, that I think it is plac’d beyond all Exception. And the Animadverter here makes his Exception only against the first Words, ver. 5. Λανσθάνει γὰρ αὐτοῦς τοῦτο θέλοντας, which we thus render, For this they willingly are ignorant of. But he generally renders it, wilfully ignorant of, and lays a great Stress upon that word wilfully. But if he quarrel with the English Translation, in this particular, he must also fault the Vulgate, and Beza, and all others that I have yet met withal. And it had been very proper for him, in this Case, to have given us some Instances or Proofs, out of Scripture or Greek Authors, where this Phrase signifies a wilful and obstinate Ignorance. He says it must have been a wilful Ignorance, otherwise it was not blameable: Whereas St. Peter gives it a sharp Reproof. I answer, There are many Kinds and Degrees of blameable Ignorance; a contented Ignorance, an Ignorance from Prejudices, from Non-attendance, and want of due Examination. These are all blameable in some Degree, and all deserve some Reproof; but it was not their Ignorance that St. Peter chiefly reproves, but their deriding and scoffing at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour, and the Conflagration of the World. And therefore he calls them, Scoffers, walking after their own Lusts.
But the Exceptor seems at length inclinable to render the forementioned Words thus, p. 137. They are willingly mindless or forgetful. And I believe the Translation would be proper enough. And what gentler Reproof can one give, than to say, you are willing to forget such an Argument, or such a Consideration; which implies little more than Non-attention, or an Inclination of the Will towards the contrary Opinion? We cannot tell what Evidence, or what Traditions they might have then concerning the Deluge, but we know they had the History of it by Moses, and all the Marks in Nature, that we have now, of such a Dissolution. And they, that pretended to philosophize upon the Works of Nature, and the Immutability of them, might very well deserve that modest Rebuke, that they were willing to forget the first Heavens and first Earth, and the Destruction of them at the Deluge, when they talk’d of an immutable State of Nature.
Neither is there any Thing in all this, contrary to what the Theorist had said, Theor. c. 1. concerning the ancient Philosophers: That none of them ever invented or demonstrated from the Causes, the true State of the first Earth. This must be granted; but it is one Thing to demonstrate from the Causes, or by way of Theory, and another Thing to know at large: Whether by Scripture, Tradition, or Collection from Effects. The Mutability and Changes of the World, which these Pseudo-Christians would not allow of, was a knowable Thing, taking all the Means which they might and ought to have attended to: At least, before they should have proceeded so far as to reject the Christian Doctrine concerning the future Changes of the World, with Scorn and Derision. Which is the very Thing the Apostle so much censor’d them for.
So much for what is said by the Exceptor concerning this place of St. Peter. To all the rest he gives an easy Answer, (in the Contents of this Chapter) viz., That they are figurative, and so not argumentative. The Places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends, are fixed distinctly and in order, in the Review: And, to avoid Repetitions, we must sometimes refer to that, Review, p. 371, 372. particularly, as to two remarkable Places, Psal. xxiv. 2. and Psal. cxxxvi. 6. concerning the Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon the Seas. Which the Exceptor quickly dispatches by the Help of a Particle and a Figure. על.
The next he proceeds to, is, Psal. xxxiii. 7. He gathereth the Waters of the Sea, as in a Bag: He layeth up the Abyss in Store-Houses. But, he says, it should be render’d, as on an Heap: Which is the English Translation. Whether the Authorities produced, in this case, by the Theorist, Eng. Theor. p. 117. or by the Exceptor, are more considerable, I leave the Reader to judge. But, however, he cites another place, Psal. lxxviii. 13. where the same Word is us’d and apply’d to the Red Sea, which could not be enclos’d as in a Bag. Take whether Translation you please for this second place; it is no Prejudice to the Theory, if you render it on an Heap: For it was a Thing done by Miracle. But the other Place speaks of the ordinary Posture and Constitution of the Waters, which is not on an Heap, but in a Level or spherical Convexity with the rest of the Earth. This Reason the Animadverter was not pleas’d to take notice of, tho’ it be intimated in that same Place of the Theory which he quotes, p. 86. But that which I might complain of most, is his unfair Citation of the next Paragraph of the Theory, Excep. p. 140. which he applies peculiarly to this Text of Psal. xxxiii. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg’d out of the Psalms, and is a modest Reflection upon the Explication of them, as the Reader may plainly see, if he please to look the Theory, and compare it with his Citation.
The next Place he attacks, is, Job xxvi. 7. He stretches the North over the Tohu, or, as we render it, over the empty Places: And hangeth the Earth upon nothing. Here he says, p. 141. Job did either accommodate himself to the Vulgar, or else was a perfect Platonist. Methinks Plato should rather be a Jobist, if you would have them to imitate one another. Then he makes an Objection, and answers it himself: concluding, however, that Job could not but mean this of the present Earth, because in the next Verse he mentions Clouds. But how does it appear, that every Thing that Job mentions in that Chapter, refers to the same time?
The next Place, is, Job xxxviii. 4, 5, 6. Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? &c. These eloquent Expostulations of the Almighty, he applies all to the present Form of the Earth: Where he says, there are the Embossings of Mountains, the Enamelling of lesser Seas, the open Work of the vast Ocean, and the fret Work of Rocks, &c. These make a great Noise, but they might all be apply’d to the Ruins of an old Bridge, fallen into the Water. Then he makes a large Harangue in Commendation of Mountains, and of the present Form of the Earth: Which, if you please, you may compare with the tenth Chapter of the Latin Theory, and then make your Judgment upon both.
But it is not enough for the Exceptor to admire the Beauty of Mountains, but he, p. 146. will make the Theorist to do so too, because he hath exprest himself much pleas’d with the Sight of them. Can we be pleas’d with nothing in an Object but the Beauty of it? Does not the Theorist say there, in the very Words cited by the Exceptor, Sæpe loci ipsius insolentia & spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus notis & communibus. We are pleas’d in looking upon the Ruins of a Roman Amphitheatre, or a triumphal Arch, tho’ time have defac’d its Beauty. A Man may be pleas’d in looking upon a Monster, will you conclude therefore that he takes it for a Beauty? There are many Things in Objects, besides Beauty, that may please; but he that hath not Sense and Judgment enough to see the Difference of those Cases, and whence the Pleasures arise, it would be very tedious to beat it into him by Multitude of Words.
After his Commendation of Mountains, he falls upon the Commendation of Rain: Making those Countries, that enjoy it, to be better water’d than by Rivers; and consequently the present Earth better than that paradisaical Earth describ’d by the Theorist. And in this he says, he follows the Rule of Scripture, for these are his Words, p. 148, And that these Rules, whereby we measure the Usefulness of this Earth, and shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory, are the most true and proper Rules, is manifest from God’s making use of the same, in a Case not unlike: For he, comparing Ægypt and Palestine, prefers the latter before the former; because in Ægypt the Seed sown was watered with the Foot, as a Garden of Herbs; but Palestine was a Land of Hills and Valleys, and drank Water of the Rain of Heaven, Deut. xi. 10, 11.
Let this rest a while: In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily it falls out for the Observator, that a Country that had no Rain, should be compared in Scripture, or join’d in Privilege, with Paradise it self, and the Garden of God. For so is this very Ægypt, Gen. xiii. 10, tho’ it had no Rain, but was water’d by Rivers. The Words of Scripture are these. And Lot lifted up his Eyes, and beheld all the Plain of Jordan, that it was well-watered every where (before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) even as the Garden of the Lord, like the Land of Ægypt. The Plain of Jordan you see is commended for its Fruitfulness, and being well watered: And as the height of its Commendation, it is compar’d with Ægypt, and with the Paradise of God. Now in Ægypt we know there was little or no Rain: And we read of none in Paradise: But they were both water’d by Rivers. Therefore the greatest Commendation of a Land, for Pleasure and Fertility, according to Scripture, is its being well water’d with Rivers: Which makes it like a Paradise. Surely then you cannot blame the Theorist, having this Authority besides all other Reasons, for making the paradisaical Earth to have been thus water’d.
Now let the Exceptor consider how he will interpret and apply his place in Deuteronomy, and make it consistent with this Genesis. Till I see a better Interpretation, I like this very well, tho’ quite contrary to his: Namely, That they were not to expect such a Land as Ægypt, that was a Plain naturally fruitful, as being well water’d; but the Land they were to possess, depended upon the Benediction of Heaven: And therefore they might expect more or less Fertility, according as they kept God’s Commandments. And so much for those two Texts of Scripture.
Lastly, The Exceptor, p. 149. in the Conclusion of his Discourse about that place in Job, makes a Reflection upon the Impropriety of those Expressions made in Job, about Foundations and Corner-stones, if they be apply’d to the first Earth describ’d by the Theorist. But this seems to me an Elegancy in that Discourse, which he makes a Fault: Whether it be understood as an Allusion only to our manner of Building, by deep Foundations, and strong Corner-stones: Or an ironical Interrogation, as it seems to me; implying, that there was no Foundation (strictly so call’d) nor Corner-stone, in that great Work, tho’ we cannot build a Cottage or little Bridge, without such Preparations.
He proceeds then to the following Verses in that thirty-eighth Chapter. Who shut up the Sea with Doors, when it broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb? This the Theorist understands of the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge, when the Sea broke forth out of the Womb of the Earth: Or out of that subterraneous Cavity, where it was enclosed as in a Womb. ’Tis plainly imply’d in the Words of the Text, that the Sea was shut up in some Womb, before it broke forth. I desire therefore to know in what Womb that was. You will find Interpreters much at a loss to give a fair Answer to that Question: What was that enclos’d State of the Sea? And what Place, or Part of Nature, was that Receptacle where it lay? But the Exceptor hath found out a new Answer. He says, it was that Womb of Non-entity. These are his Words, It just then (at its Creation) gushed out of the Womb of Nothing, into Existence. This is a subtle and far-fetch’d Notion. Methinks the Womb of Nothing, is much-what the same as no Womb. And so this is no Answer. But however let us consider how far it would suit this Case, if it was admitted. If you understand the Womb of Non-entity, Gen. i. 2. the Sea broke out of that Womb the first Day, and had no Bars or Doors set to it, but flow’d over all the Earth without Check or Control. Therefore that could not be the Time or State here spoken of. And to refer that Restraint, or those Bars and Doors, to another Time, which are spoken of here in the same Verse, would be very inexcusable in the Exceptor: p. 150. seeing he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those Things that are spoken of in different Verses, to be understood of different Times. To conclude, this metaphysical Notion of the Womb of Nothing, is altogether impertinent, at least in this Case: For the Text is plainly speaking of Things local and corporeal, and this Prison of the Sea must be understood as such.
He proceeds now to the last Place alleg’d, Prov. viii. 27, 28. When he prepared the Heavens, I was there: When he set a Compass upon the Face of the Deep. The word חוג which we tender Compass, he says, signifies no more than the Rotundity or spherical Figure of the Abyss. And so the Sense will run thus, When God set a Rotundity, or spherical Figure, upon the Face of the Abyss. But whereas the Word may as well signify a Sphere or Orb, the Theorist thinks it more reasonable that it should be so translated: And so the Sentence would run thus, When God set an Orb upon the Face of the Deep. And this Discourse of Solomon’s, referring to the Beginning of the World, he thinks it rational to understand it of the first habitable Earth: Which is really an Orb set over the Face of the Deep.
One cannot swear for the Signification of a Word in every particular Place, where it occurs: But when there are two Senses whereof it is capable, and the one is much more important than the other, it is a fair Presumption to take it in the more important Sense; especially in such a Place, and upon such an Occasion, where the great Works of the Divine Wisdom and Power are celebrated: As they are here by Solomon. And it cannot be deny’d, that our Sense of the Words is more important than the other: For of what Consequence is it to say, God made the Body of the Abyss round. Every one knows, that Fluids of their own accord run into that Figure. So as that would be a small Remark upon a great Occasion.
The Construction of this Orb we speak of, minds me of an Injustice which the Exceptor hath done the Theory, in the precedent Part of this Chapter, by a false Accusation. For he says, the Theory makes the Construction of the first Earth to have been merely mechanical. At least, his Words seem to signify as much, which are these, p. 143. And so its Formation, speaking of the first Earth, had been merely mechanical, as the Theory makes it. That the Construction was not merely mechanical, in the Opinion of the Theorist, you may see, Eng. Theor. p. 88. which, because we have cited it before, we will not here repeat. The Theorist might also complain, that the Exceptor cites the first Edition of the Theory for such Things as are left out in the second: Which yet was printed a Twelvemonth before his Animadversions. And therefore in Fairness he ought always to have consulted the last Edition, and last Sense of the Author, before he had censured him, or his Work. But this unfair Method, it seems, pleas’d his Humour better: p. 81. p. 100, last Part, as you may see in this Chapter, p. 154. p. 227, 228. p. 244. and in several other Places; where Passages are cited and insisted upon, that are no where to be found in the second Edition. Not to mention his defective Citations, omitting that Part that qualifies the Sentence, as p. 99. last Citation, and elsewhere, p. 279, 280. p. 288. I make this Note, that the Reader may judge, how well this answers that Sincerity, with which he profest he would examine this Work: Only as a Friend and Servant to Truth. And therefore with such Candor, Meekness, and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character, p. 43.
The rest of this Chapter is a general Censure of Citations out of Scripture, that are only tropical or figurative Schemes of Speech. These must be made so indeed, if our Sense of them be not allow’d. But what Necessity is there of a figurative interpretation of all these Texts? The Rule we go by, and I think all good Interpreters, is this, that we are not to leave the literal Sense, unless there be a Necessity, from the Subject-Matter. And there is no such Necessity in this Case, upon our Hypothesis: For it suits with the literal Sense. And ’tis to beg the Question, to say, the literal Sense is not to be admitted, because it complies too much with the Theory. But as for that Text of his own, which he instances in, The Pillars of the Earth tremble, that cannot be understood (by the same Rule) of Pillars literally; because there are no such Pillars of the Earth, upon any Hypothesis.
This Chapter is concerning that grand Property of the ante-diluvian Earth, a perpetual Equinox, or a right Position to the Sun. This perpetual Equinox the Exceptor will by no means admit. But I’m afraid he mistakes the Notion: For as he explains it in the two first Sections of this Chapter, he seems to have a false Idea of the whole Matter. He thinks, I perceive, that when the Earth chang’d its Situation, it was translated from the Equator into the Ecliptick: And that before that Change in the ante-diluvian State, it moved directly under the Equator. For these are his Words, p. 158. So that in her annual Motion about the Sun, namely, the Earth, before that Change, she was carried directly under the Equinoctial, without any Manner of Obliquity in her Site, or Declination towards either of the Tropicks in her Course; and therefore could never cut the Equinoctial, by passing (as now she is presumed to do) from one Tropick to the other. By which Words, you see, he imagines that the Earth mov’d perpetually under the Equator, when it had a perpetual Equinox. And when it came out of that State, into this wherein it is now, it did not only change its Position, and the Posture of its Axis, but was also really translated from one Part of the Heavens into another, namely, from under the Equator to the Ecliptick, and so took another Road in its annual Course about the Sun. This is a great Mistake: And I cannot blame him, if he was so averse to admit this Change, seeing it lay so cross in his Imagination. For what Pullies or Leavers should we employ to remove the Earth out of the Equator into the Ecliptick? Archimedes pretended, if he had Ground to plant his Engines upon, that he would move the Earth out of its Place; but that it was done before, I never knew, nor heard of: And if the Exceptor had consider’d what is said in the Theory upon that Occasion, Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 4. he might easily have prevented his Mistake. But we shall meet with the same Error again in another Place. Let us consider now, what Arguments he uses against this Change.
He says, p. 159. If there had been such a Change, either Providence, or Mankind, would have preserv’d the Memory of it. How far the Memory of it hath been preserv’d, we shall see hereafter. In the mean Time, we will give him Instances of other Things to reflect upon, that are lost out of Memory, unless he be the happy Man that shall retrieve them. The Age of the World hath been preserv’d, either by the Memory of Man, or by the Care of Providence. And was not that both a Thing of Importance, and of easy Preservation? Noah could not but know the Age of the World, for he was contemporary with five or six Generations, that were contemporary with Adam. And knowing the Age of the World himself, he could not easily forbear, one would think, to tell it to his Sons and Posterity. But, to this Day, we do not know what the true Age of the World is. There are three Bibles, if I may so say, or three Pentateuchs, the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek: Which do all differ very considerably in their Accounts, concerning the Age of the World: And the most learned Men are not yet able to determine with Certainty, which of the three Accounts is most authentick. Then, what think you of the Place of Paradise? How well is the Memory or Knowledge of that preserv’d? Could Noah be ignorant of it? And was it not a fit Subject to discourse of, and entertain his Sons and Nephews, and by them to communicate it to Posterity? Yet we seek it still in vain. The Jews were as much at a Loss as we are: p. 263, 264, 265. and the Christian Fathers, you think, were out in their Opinions, both about the Place and Conditions of it: Neither do you venture to determine them your self: So that Paradise is lost in a Manner out of the World. What Wonder then if this single Property of it be lost? If the Exceptor had well consider’d (Eng. Theor. p. 400, 401.) what the Theorist has said concerning the providential Conduct of Knowledge in the World, this Doubt or Objection might have been spar’d.
After a long Excursion, little to the Purpose, but to shew his Reading, p. 166. he tells us next, that Scripture does not favour this Notion of a perpetual Equinox before the Flood: And cites Gen. viii. 22. which the Theorist had cited as a Place that did suggest to us that Vicissitude of Seasons that was established after the Flood. The Words indeed are not so determinate in themselves, but that they may be understood, either of the Restoration of a former Order in the Seasons of the Year, or of the Establishment of a new one. And in whether Sense they are to be taken, is to be determin’d by collateral Reasons and Considerations. Such the Theorist had set down, to make it probable, that they ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order of the Seasons of the Year, as was brought in at that Time, and was to continue to the End of the World. The Exceptor hath not thought fit to take notice of, or refute those Reasons, and therefore they stand good, as formerly. Besides, the Exceptor must remember, that this Text stands betwixt two remarkable Phænomena, the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians in the old World, and the Appearance of the Rainbow in the new. Both which were Marks of a different State of Nature in the two Worlds.
He further excepts, p. 168. against that perpetual Equinox before the Flood, for another Scripture-reason: viz. Because the Earth was curst before that Time, and consequently, he says, had not a perpetual Equinox. But if that Curse was supernatural, it might have its Effect in any Position of the Earth. For God can make a Land barren, if he think fit, in spite of the Course of Nature. And so he also must suppose it to have been in this Case. For, upon all Suppositions, whether of a perpetual Equinox, or no, the Earth is granted to have been very fruitful at first: And so would have continued, if that Curse had not interven’d.
Lastly, He makes that an Argument, p. 169. that the Air was cold and intemperate in Paradise, and consequently no constant Equinox, because Adam and Eve made themselves Aprons to cover their Nakedness. So, he confesses, Interpreters generally understand, that it was to cover their Nakedness. But he will not allow that to be the true Sense, but says those Fig-Leaves were to keep them warm. And the other Interpretation of covering their Nakedness, he will not admit, for three Reasons: First, because the Scripture, as he pretends, does not declare it so. See, pray, Gen. iii. 7. Secondly, What Shame, says he, need there have been betwixt Husband and Wife? Thirdly, If it was Modesty; when they were innocent, they should have been more modest. Some Arguments answer themselves, and I do not think these deserve a Confutation. But, he says, p. 170. however God made them Coats of Skins afterwards, and that was to be a Defence against Cold. He must tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood: And which way, and how far Adam and Eve were banish’d from it. When those Things are determin’d, we shall know what to judge of this Argument, and of Coats of Skins.
After Lastly, I expected no more: But he hath two or three Reasons after the Last. As first, he says, p. 171. upon our Hypothesis, one Hemisphere of the Globe must have been unpeopled: Because the torrid Zone was unpassable. And was not the Ocean as unpassable, upon your Hypothesis? How got they into America? And not only into America, but into all the Islands of the Earth, that are remote from Continents? Will you not allow us one Miracle, for your many? I’m sure the Theorist never excluded the Ministry of Angels; and they could as easily carry them thorough the torrid Zone, as over the Ocean. But secondly, he says, There could be no Rains to make the Flood, if there was a perpetual Equinox. Were not those Rains, that made the Flood, extraordinary, and out of the Course of Nature? You would give one angry Words that should deny it. Besides, the Flood-Gates of Heaven were open’d when the great Deep was broken up, (Gen. vii. 11.) and no Wonder the Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in the Air, Eng. Theor. p. 135. and either compress the Vapours, or stop their usual Course towards the Poles, and draw them down in Streams upon several Parts of the Earth. But the Exceptor says, this could not be, because the Theorist makes the Rains fall before the Disruption of the Abyss. But he does not suppose the Cataracts of Heaven to have been open’d before, which made the grand Rains. And how unfairly that Passage of the Theory is represented, we shall see hereafter in the fourteenth Chapter.
Lastly, He concludes all with this Remark, p. 176. That all sorts of Authors have disputed in what Season of the Year the Deluge came, and in what Season of the Year the World began: Therefore they thought there were then different Seasons of the Year. These Disputes, he confesses, did manifestly proceed from Inadvertency, or something worse: Because there could not be any one Season throughout all the Earth at once. He might have added, unless upon the Supposition of the Theory, which makes an universal Equinox at that Time. And why may not that have given Occasion to the general Belief, That the World begun in the Spring? And when the true Reason of the Tradition was lost, they fell into those impertinent Questions, In what Season of the Year the World began. But however, we do not depend upon the Belief, either of the Antients or the Moderns, as to the Generality: For we know they had other Notions of these Things than what the Theory proposes; otherwise it would have been a needless Work. But notwithstanding the general Error, that Providence did preserve some Traditions and Testimonies, concerning that ancient Truth, we shall see in the next following Discourse.
So much for Scripture and Reasons. He now comes to examine Authorities: Namely, such Testimonies as are alledg’d by the Theorist, to shew that there was a Tradition among the Antients, of a Change that had been, as to the Position of the Earth: And consequently, as to the Form and Seasons of the Year. The first Testimony that he excepts against, is, that of Diogenes and Anaxagoras; who witness plainly, p. 177. That there had been an Inclination of the Earth, or a Change of Posture, since it was form’d and inhabited. But the Exceptor says, they have not assign’d a true final Cause, nor such as agrees with the Theory. The second Testimony, is, that of Empedocles, p. 178. which he excepts against, because he hath not given a good efficient Cause of that Change. The third Witness is Leucippus; against whom he makes the same Exception, p. 179. that he doth not assign the Causes a-right. The fourth Witness, is Democritus; whom he, p. 180. quarrels with upon the same Account. But is this a fair hearing of Witnesses? Or are these just and legal Grounds of rejecting their Testimony, as to matter of Fact, because they are unskilful in giving the Causes and Reasons of that matter of Fact? That is not requir’d in Witnesses: And they are often impertinent when they attempt to do it. The Theorist does not cite these Authors to learn of them the Causes, either efficient or final, of that Inclination, or Change of Posture in the Earth, but only matter of Fact: To let you see, that according to their Testimony, there was a Tradition in that Time, which they took for true, concerning a Change made in the Posture of the Earth. And this is all we require from them. If you pretend to invalidate their Testimony, because they do not philosophize well about that Change; that’s as if you should deny that there was such a War as the Peloponnesian War, because the Historian hath not assigned the true Causes and Reasons of it: Or as if a Man should give you the History of a Comet, that appear’d in such a Year, was of such a Form, and took such a Course in the Heavens; and you should deny there was any such Comet, because the same Author had not given a good Account of the Generation of that Comet, nor of the Causes of its Form and Motion. The Exceptions made against the Testimonies of these Philosophers, seem to me to be no less injudicious.
After these Testimonies, he p. 181. makes three or four Remarks or Reflections upon them. But they all concern, either the Time of this Change, or the Causes of it. Neither of which the Theorist either engag’d or intended to prove from these Witnesses.
There is still one Testimony behind, which the Exceptor hath separated from the rest, that he might encounter it singly. ’Tis another Passage from Anaxagoras, which both notes this Inclination, and the Posture of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination. But here the Exceptor quarrels, first, with the word θολοειδῶς: Because Ambrosius the Monk, would have it to be θολερπῶς, but without the Authority of any Manuscript: And, as Casaubon says, malè. Then, he says, Aldobrandinus translates it turbulentè, but gives no Reason for that Translation, in his Notes. Therefore he cannot rest in this, but in the third Place, he gives another Sense to Φορὰ Θολοειδής. And if that will not please you, he hath still a fourth Answer in reserve. I do not like when a Man shifts Answer so often; ’tis a sign he has no great Confidence in any one. But let us have his fourth Answer. ’Tis this, That Anaxagoras was a kind of heterodox Philosopher, and what he says is not much to be heeded. These are the Words of the Exceptor, p. 184. If this will not satisfy, I have one Thing more to offer. Grant that Anaxagoras should mean that very Declination, which the Theory would have him, yet this truly would contribute little towards the Proof of the Thing. For he was a Man as like to be heterodox; as like to broach and maintain false and groundless Opinions, as any of the learned Antients. Had he made this Exception against this Witness at first, it might have sav’d both himself and us a great deal of Pains. For we do allow, if you can prove a Witness to be persona infamis, or non compos mentis, ’tis sufficient to invalidate his Testimony.