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

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

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

Upon the whole Matter, let us now sum up the Evidence, and see what it will amount to. Here are five or six Testimonies of considerable Philosophers: Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus. To which he might have added Plato, both in his Politicus and Phædo, Li. 2. c. 10. p. 274. if he had pleased to have look’d into the second Edition of the Latin Theory. These Philosophers do all make mention of a Change that hath been in the Posture of the Earth and the Heavens. And tho’ they differ in assigning Causes, or other Circumstances, yet they all agree as to Matter of Fact; that there was such a Thing, or, at least, a Tradition of such a Thing. And this is all that the Defendant desir’d or intended to prove from them, as Witnesses in this Cause.

To these Philosophers, he might have added the Testimonies of the Poets, who may be admitted as Witnesses of a Tradition, though it be further questioned, whether that Tradition be true or false. These Poets, when they speak of a Golden Age, or the Reign of Saturn, tell us of a perpetual Spring, or a Year without Change of Seasons. This is expresly said by Ovid, Ver erat æternum, &c. And upon the Expiration of the Golden Age, he says;

Ovid liv’d in the Time of our Saviour. And the Tradition, it seems, was then a-foot, and very express too. Plato, who was much more antient, hath said the same Thing in his Politicus, concerning the Reign of Saturn. And if we may have any Regard to Mythology, (vid. Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 10. in fine.) and make Janus the same with Noah, which is now an Opinion generally received, that Power, that is given him by the Antients, of changing Times and Seasons, cannot be better expounded, than by that great Change of Time, and of the Seasons of the Year, that happened in the Days of Noah. Neither must we count it a mere Fable, what is said by the Antients, concerning the Inhabitability of the Torrid Zone: And yet that never was, if the Earth was never in any other Posture, than what it is in now.

Lastly, as the Philosophers and Poets are Witnesses of this Tradition, so many of the Christian Fathers have given such a Character of Paradice, as cannot be understood upon any other Supposition, than of a perpetual Equinox. This Card. Bellarmine^[17] hath noted to our Hands; and also observ’d, that there could not be a perpetual Equinox in the Countries of Asia, nor indeed in any topical Paradise, (unless it stood in the middle of the Torrid Zone) nisi alius tunc fuerit cursus solis, quam nunc est; unless the Course of the Sun, or, which is all one, the Posture of the Earth, was otherwise at that Time than what it is now: Which is a true Observation. The Jewish Doctors also, as well as the Christian, seem to go upon the same Supposition, when they place Paradise under the Equinoctial; see Eng. Theor. p. 351. Because they suppos’d it certain, as Eben Ezra tells us, that the Days and Nights were always equal in Paradise.

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

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

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

Chap. IX.

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

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

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

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

His second Argument against the oval Figure of the first Earth, is the spherical Figure of the present Earth. And how does he prove that? First from Authorities, Anaximander, Pythagoras, and Perminedes thought so. But how does he prove that their asserting the Earth to be round, was not meant in Opposition to its being plain; as the Epicureans and the Vulgar would have it? That was the Question Socrates promis’d himself to be resolv’d in by Anaxagoras, Plat. in Phæd. πότερεν ἡ γῆ πλατεῖα ἔπις, ἢ αρογγύλη. Whether the Earth was flat or round. And ’tis likely the Dispute was generally understood in that Sense. However the Theorist hath alledg’d many more Authorities than these, in favour of the oval Figure of the Earth. For besides Empedocles in particular, and those whom Plutarch mentions in general, the Philosophy of Orpheus, the Phœnician, Ægyptian, and Persian Philosophers, did all compare the Earth to an Egg; with respect to its oval external Form, as well as internal Composition. These you may see fully set down in the Theory: Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 10. And it had been fair in the Exceptor to have taken some notice of them, if he would contend in that way of Authorities. But he has thought fit rather to pass them over wholly in Silence.

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

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

Chap. X.

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

He mentions also, p. 202. Deut. xxxiii. 15. where the Hills are call’d Lasting, and the Mountains Antient. And therefore they were before the Flood. This is a hard Consequence. The River Kishon is call’d the antient River, Judg. v. 21. but I do not therefore think it necessary, that that Brook should have been before the Flood. Things may very well deserve that Character of lasting or antient, though they be of less Antiquity than the Deluge. If one should say the lasting Pyramids, and antient Babylon, none could blame the Expression, nor yet think that they were therefore from the Beginning of the World.

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

From this natural Argument, p. 206. he proceeds to an historical Argument, taken from the Talmudists and Josephus. The Talmudists say, that many Giants sav’d themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion. But this, the Exceptor confesses, is wholly fabulous. What need it then be mentioned as an Argument? Then he says, Josephus reports, that many sav’d themselves from the Flood upon the Mountain Baris in Armenia. But this also, p. 207. he says, is false in the Gross, and a formal Fiction. Why then, say I, is it brought in as an Argument? Lastly, he quotes a Passage out of Plato, who says, when the Gods shall drown the Earth, the Herdsmen and Shepherds shall save themselves upon Mountains. And this (ibid.) the Exceptor calls a Piece of confus’d Forgery. Why then, say I still, is it alledged as an Argument against the Theory? But however, says the Exceptor, these Things argue that many thought there were Mountains before the Flood. But did the Theorist ever deny, that it was the vulgar and common Opinion? Therefore such Allegations as these may be of some Use to shew Reading, but of no Effect at all to confute the Theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chap. XI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chap. XII.

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

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

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

Chap. XIII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chap. XIV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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