Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory: For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own; and the last of all excepts not against the Truth of the Theory, but the Certainty of it. In Reflection upon this whole Matter, give me leave to declare two Things: First, That I have not knowingly omitted any Objection that I thought of moment: Secondly, That I have not, from these Exceptions, found Reason to change any Part of the Theory, nor to alter my Opinion, as to any Particular in it. No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture, which, understood according to the Letter in a vulgar Way, stand cross, both to this, and other natural Theories. And a Child, that had read the first Chapters of Genesis, might have observ’d this as well as the Exceptor; but could not have loaded his Charge with so much Bitterness. Some Men, they say, though of no great Valour, yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall. The Exceptor, behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy, he’s gentle and tractable. Eng. Theor. Book 2. c. 9. at the End. The Theorist had declar’d his Intentions, and oblig’d himself, to give a full Account of Moses his Cosmopœia, or six Day’s Creation; but did not think it proper to be done in the vulgar Language, nor before the whole Theory was compleated. This might have spared much of the Exceptor’s Pains; but till that Account be given, if the Exceptor thinks fit to continue his Animadversions, and go through the two last Books, as he hath done the two first, it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist; provided it be done with Sincerity, in reciting the Words, and representing the Sense of the Author.
In this Chapter the Ante-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge, p. 299. And the War is chang’d, on his Side, from offensive, to defensive. ’Tis but fair that he should lie down in his Turn; and if some Blows smart a little, he must not complain, because he begun the Sport. But let’s try his Hypothesis, without any further Ceremony, p. 299, 300. The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it, is this: That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high, above the ordinary Level of the Earth. This is an unmerciful Paradox, and a very unlucky Beginning; for under what Notion must this Proportion be received? As a Postulatum, or as a Conclusion? If it be a Postulatum, it must be clear from its own Light, or acknowledg’d by general Consent. It cannot pretend to be clear from its own Light, because it is matter of Fact, which is not known, but by Testimony. Neither is it generally acknowleg’d; for the general Opinion is, that the Waters covered the Tops of the Mountains; nay, that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the Tops of the Mountains. And this he confesses himself, in these Words, p. 300. We shall find there is a great Mistake in the common Hypothesis, touching their Depth: Namely, of the Waters. For whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains: They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all, above the Surface of the Earth. And this Opinion, or Doctrine, he calls, p. 329. lin. 19. c. 31. The general standing Hypothesis: The usual Hypothesis: p. 339. lin. 18. The usual Sense they have put upon the Sacred Story. It must not therefore be made a Postulatum, that such an Hypothesis is false, but the Falsity of it must be demonstrated by good Proofs. Now I do not find that this new Hypothesis, of a fifteen Cubit Deluge, offers at any more than one single Proof, namely, from Gen. vii. 20. But before we proceed to the Examination of that, give me leave to note one or two Things, wherein the new Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself, or with good Sense.
At his Entrance upon this new Hypothesis, he hath these Words, (p. 300.) Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as true and real, &c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World, with an Hypothesis, which he does not believe to be true and real? Or, if he does believe it to be so, why will he not defend it? For we ought to defend Truth. But he says moreover, (p. 302. lin. 19.) Our Supposition stands supported by Divine Authority; as being founded upon Scripture. Which tells us, as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth. If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture; and upon Scripture, as plainly as it can speak, why will not he defend it as true and real? For to be supported by Scripture, and by plain Scripture, is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith; which every one surely is bound to defend.
But this is not all the Difficulty we meet with. The whole Period which we quoted, runs thus: Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as true or real; any more than to believe (what I cannot well endure to speak) that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge: Which yet the must needs have done, if there be no other rational Method of explaining it, and no other intelligible Causes of it, than what the Theory has propos’d. Now for the Word Theory, put the Word Exceptor, or Exceptor’s Hypothesis, and see if this Charge, that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge, does not fall as much upon the Exceptor’s new Hypothesis, as upon the Theory. If the Church Hypothesis was rational, what need he have invented a new one? Why does he not propose that Hypothesis, and defend it? I’m afraid it will be found that he does not only contradict the Church Hypothesis, but reject it as mistaken and irrational. For what is the Church Hypothesis, but the common Hypothesis? (p. 300. l. 24.) The general standing Hypothesis; the usual Hypothesis; the usual Sense they put upon the sacred Story; all these he rejects and disputes against, as you may see in the Places fore-cited: And also he calls them, p. 312. ult. such Inventions, as have been, and justly may be disgustful, not only to nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest philosophick Judgments. And p. 319. he says, by his Hypothesis, We are excused from running to those Causes or Methods, which seem unreasonable to some, and unintelligible to others, and unsatisfactory to most. And to name no more, he says, p. 330. the ordinary Supposition, that the Mountains were cover’d with Water in the Deluge, brings on a Necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood. Now, whose Methods, Inventions, and Suppositions are these, which he reflects upon? Are they not the commonly receiv’d Methods and Suppositions? ’Tis plain, most of those which he mentions, (p. 310, 311, 313, 314, 318.) are not the Theorist’s: For the Theorist had rejected before, (Eng. Theor. ch. 2, and 3.) those very Methods and Inventions, which the Exceptor rejects now; and so far he justifies the Theory[18]: These Reflections therefore must fall upon some other Hypothesis; and what Hypothesis is that, if it be not the Church Hypothesis? To conclude, I argue thus, in short, to shew the Exceptor inconsistent with himself in this Particular. The Church Way of explaining the Deluge, is either rational, or irrational. If he say it is rational, why does he desert it, and invent a new one? And if he says it is irrational, then that dreadful Thing, which he cannot well endure to speak, that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge, falls flat upon himself.
Thus much in general, for his Introduction. We proceed now to examine particularly his new Hypothesis: Which, as we told you before, consists chiefly in this, That the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the common unmountainous Surface of the Earth. This, which seems so odd and extravagant, he says, p. 301. is the Foundation of the Hypothesis. And, which is still more surprizing, he says this Depth, or rather Shallowness of the Waters of the Deluge, is told us by Scripture, as plainly as it can speak, p. 302. l. 23. This must needs raise our Curiosity, to see that Place of Scripture, which has been overlook’d by all the Learned hitherto. Well, ’tis Gen. vii. 20. in these words, Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail. This, methinks, is somewhat general; for the Basis of these fifteen Cubits not express’d in these Words. But why does our Author stop in the middle of a Verse? Why does he not transcribe the whole Verse; for the last Part of it is as good Scripture as the first? And that says plainly, that the Mountains were cover’d with the Waters. The whole Verse runs thus: Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail; AND THE MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED. Now, if the Basis of these fifteen Cubits was the common Surface, or plain Level of the Earth, as this new Hypothesis will have it; how could fifteen Cubits, from that Basis, reach to the Tops of the Mountains? Are the highest Mountains but fifteen Cubits higher than the common Surface of the Earth? 1 Sam. xvii. 4. Goliah was six Cubits and a Span high; so Pic Tenariff would not be thrice as high as Goliah: Yet David flung a Stone up to his Forehead. Take what Cubit you please, sacred or common, it does not amount to two Foot. So the Height of the greatest Mountains, from Bottom to Top, must not be thirty Foot, or ten Paces, according to this new Hypothesis. Who ever measured Mountains at this Rate? The modern Mathematicians allow for their Height a Mile perpendicular, upon a moderate Computation; and that makes three thousand Foot: How then could Waters that were not thirty Foot high, cover Mountains that were three thousand Foot high? That the highest Mountains of the Earth were cover’d with the Waters, you may see express’d more fully in the precedent Verse, Gen. vii. 19. And the Waters prevailed exceedingly upon the Earth. And all the high Hills that were under the whole Heavens were cover’d. There can scarce be Words more plain and comprehensive. The Exceptor says, the Scripture tells us, as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters were but fifteen Cubits high from the common Surface of the Earth: And I say, the Scripture tells us as plainly as it can speak, That all the high Hills under the whole Heaven were covered with Water. And it must be a strange sort of Geometry, that makes fifteen Cubits of Water reach to the Top of the highest Hills. Lastly, the same History of Moses says, the Tops of the Mountains were discover’d, when the Waters begun to decrease, Gen. viii. 5. Is not that a plain Demonstration that they were cover’d before, and cover’d with those Waters?
We may therefore safely conclude two Things: First, that this new Hypothesis, besides all other Faults, is contrary to the general Exposition of the Text of Moses[19]. Secondly, that it is contrary to the general receiv’d Doctrine of the Deluge. And if he has deliver’d a Doctrine, contrary to the two, methinks it should be hard for him to maintain his Ground, and not pronounce, at the same Time, what he dreads so much to speak, That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the Deluge. But let’s reflect a little upon this fifteen-cubit Deluge; to see what Figure it would make, or what Execution it would do upon Mankind, and upon other Creatures. If you will not believe Moses as to the overflowing of the Mountains, at least I hope you will believe him, as to the universal Destruction made by the Deluge. Hear his Words, Gen. vii. 21, 22, 23. we’ll take only the last Verse, which is this, And every living Substance was destroyed, which was upon the Face of the Ground, both Man and Cattle, and creeping Things, and the Fowl of the Heavens; and they were destroyed from the Earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark. Now I would gladly know, how this could be verified in a fifteen-cubit Deluge? The Birds would naturally fly to the Tops of Trees, when the Ground was wet; and the Beasts would retire, by Degrees, to the Mountains and higher Parts of the Earth, as the lower begun to be overflow’d: And if no Waters could reach them there, how were they all destroy’d, while they had so many Sanctuaries and Places of Refuge?
Or if you suppose some of these Creatures had not Wit enough to save themselves, (though their Wit and Instincts lie chiefly in that) at least Mankind would not be so stupid; when Men see the Waters begin to rise, they could not fail to retire into Mountains: And tho’ the upper Stories of their Houses might be sufficient to save them from fifteen Cubits of Water; yet if Fear made them think themselves not secure there, whither could it drive them, but still into higher Places? And an House seated upon an Eminency, or a Castle upon a Rock, would be always a safe Retreat from this diminutive Deluge. I speak all this upon the Suppositions of the Exceptor, p. 215, 216, 292, &c. who allows, not only Mountains and Rocks, but also Castles and Cities before the Deluge, built of good Timber, and Stone, and Iron, and such substantial Materials. But how, in such a Case, and in such a State of Things, all Mankind (except Noah and his Family) should be destroy’d by fifteen Cubits of Water, is a Lump of Incredibilities, too hard and big for me to swallow.
But there is still another Difficulty, that we have not mention’d: As those that were upon the Land might easily save themselves from Ruin, so those that were upon the Sea in Ships, would never come in Danger. For what would it signify to them, if the Sea was made a few Fathoms deeper, by these new Waters? It would bear their Vessels as well as it did before, and would be no more to them than a Spring-Tide. And lastly, how shall we justify the Divine Wisdom, which gave such punctual Orders, for the Building of an Ark, to save Noah, and a Set of Creatures for a new World, when there were so many more easy and obvious Ways to preserve them without that Trouble?
These Objections, in my Opinion, are so plain and full, that it is not needful to add any more: Nor to answer such Evasions as the new Theorist attempts to make to some of them. As, for Instance, to that plain Objection from Moses’s Words, p. 330. that the Mountains were covered with the Waters; he says, first, that it is a Synecdoche, where the Whole is put for a Part: Or, secondly, ’tis an Hyperbole, where more is said than understood: Or, thirdly, ’tis a poetical History: Or, lastly, if none of these will do, by the Tops of the Mountains is to be understood the Bottoms of the Mountains, p. 331, 333. and that cures all. The Truth is, he has taken a great deal of Pains in the next Chapter, to cure an incurable Hypothesis. We will give you but one Instance more: ’Tis about the Appearance of the Tops of the Mountains at the Decrease of the Deluge; which argue strongly that they were cover’d in the Deluge. But take it in his own Words, with the Answer, p. 337. It is recorded, Gen. viii. 5. that the Waters decreased continually until the tenth Month, and on the first Day of the Month WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN. Now if the Mountains had not been quite under Water, and so invisible for the Time they were overwhelmed, how could they be said to become visible again, or to be seen upon the Floods going off? This is a plain and bold Objection: And after two Answers to it, which he seems to distrust, his third and last is this, p. 339. If these two Considerations will not satisfy, we must carry on the Enquiry a little farther, and seek for a third. And truly some one or other must needs be found out.—Thirdly, therefore we consider, that the Tops of the Mountains may be said to be seen at the Time mentioned, upon account of their EMERGENCY OUT OF DARKNESS, NOT OUT OF WATERS. This is his final Answer. The Tops of the Mountains, at the Decrease of the Deluge, were seen; not that they were covered before with Water, says he, but with Darkness. Where finds he this Account: ’Tis neither in the Text, nor in Reason. If it was always so dark, and the Tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where, how could the Ark avoid them in that Darkness? Moreover, if the Deluge was made in that gentle way that he supposes, I see no Reason to imagine that there would be Darkness, after the forty Days Rain. For these Rains being fallen, and all the Vapours and Clouds of the Air discharg’d, methinks there should have ensued an extraordinary Clearness of the Air, as we often see after rainy Seasons. Well, ’tis true: But the Rains he supposes were no sooner fallen, but the Sun retracted them again in Vapours, with that Force and Swiftness, that it kept the Air in perpetual Darkness. Thus he says afterwards, p. 341. He’s mightily beholden to the Sun, upon many Accounts; and the Sun is no less beholden to him; for he gave him a miraculous Power to raise Mountains, and draw up Waters. ’Tis well the Sun did not presently fall to his old Work again, of raising Mountains out of this moist Earth, as the Exceptor says he did, when the Earth was first drain’d. See Chap. 10. That he contented himself to suck up the Waters only, and let the Earth alone: We are not a little beholden to him for this. For he seems to have had the same Power and Opportunity, at the Decrease of the Deluge, of making new Ravages upon the Earth, that he had before when it was first drain’d. But let’s see how, or when, these Waters were suck’d up, or resolv’d into Vapours.
Upon the Expiration of the forty Days Rain, whether was the Air purg’d of Vapours and clear, or no? Yes, it was purg’d, he says, (p. 343.) The Atmosphere was never so exhausted of Vapours, and never so thin, as when the Waters were newly come down. Then, in that clear Air the Tops of the Mountains might have been seen, if they lay above Water. But Moses says, Gen. viii. 5. it was in the tenth Month that they begun to be seen, when the Waters were decreas’d; ’twas therefore the Waters, not the gross Air, that hinder’d the Sight of them before. And according to this Method of the Exceptor, after the first forty Days, the Deluge begun to decrease. For the Sun forthwith set his Engines a-work, and resolv’d the Waters into Vapours and Exhalations at such a Rate, p. 341. that he presently made the Atmosphere dark with thick Mists and Clouds; and, in Proportion, lessen’d the Waters of the Deluge. But we do not read in Moses, of any Abatement in the Deluge, till the End of one hundred and fifty Days; (Gen. viii. 3.) which is four Months after this Term. The Truth is, the whole Notion of spending the Waters of the Deluge by Evaporation, is no better than what the Exceptor suspected it would be thought, p. 343. A mere Fancy, a whimsical groundless Figment. For what could the Sun do, in the Northern and Southern Parts of the World, towards the exhaling of these Waters? And in the temperate Climates, why should they not fall again in Rains, (if he had a Power to exhale them) as they do now? Was not the Earth in the same Position, and the Sun of the same force? Besides, where does he find this Notion in Scripture, that the Waters of the Deluge were consum’d by Evaporation? Moses says, the Waters returned from off the Earth, in going and returning, Gen. viii. 3, 5. That is, after frequent Reciprocations, they settled at length in their Channels; where Bounds were set them, that they might not pass over; that they return not again to cover the Earth. Seeing therefore this Notion hath no Foundation, either in Scripture or Reason, ’tis rightly enough stil’d, in the Exceptor’s Words, a mere Fancy, and groundless Figment.
But I think we have had enough of these Shifts and Evasions. Let us now proceed to the second Part of his new Hypothesis, which is this, p. 303. That the Abyss, or Tehom-Rabbah, which was broken open at the Deluge, and (together with the Rains) made the Flood, was nothing but the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains; which open’d their Mouths at that Time, and pour’d out a great Quantity of Water. To support this new Notion of Tehom-Rabbah, he alledgeth but one single Text of Scripture, Psal. lxxviii. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness, and gave them Drink, as out of the great Depths; that is, copiously and abundantly, as if it were out of the great Deep. So the next Verse implies, and so it is generally understood: As you may see both by Interpreters, and also by the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations, and those of the Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Syriack. But the Exceptor, by all Means, will have these Holes in the Rocks to be the same with the Mosaical Abyss, or great Deep, that was broken open at the Deluge: So the great Deep was not one Thing, or one continued Cavity, as Moses represents it, but ten thousand Holes, separate and distant one from another. Neither must the great Deep, according to him, signify a low Place, but an high Place: For he confesses these Caverns were higher than the common Level of the Earth[20]. But I do not see how, with any tolerable Propriety, or good Sense, that which is higher than the Surface of the Earth can be called the great Deep. An Abyss in the Earth, or in the Water, is certainly downwards, in respect of their common Surface, as much as a Pit is downwards; and what is downwards from us, we cannot suppose to be above us, without confounding all Dimensions, and all Names of Things; calling that low which is high, a Mountain a Valley, or a Garret a Cellar.
Neither is there any Thing in this Text, Psal. lxxviii. 15. that can justly induce us to believe the great Abyss to be the same Thing with Caverns in Rocks. For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a miraculous Thing, that God should give them Water out of a Rock, or out of a Flint[21], as plentifully as if it had been out of the great Abyss; or whether you understand the Original of Fountains to be noted here, which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea, or the great Abyss; neither of these Senses make any Thing to the Purpose of the new Hypothesis, and yet they are the fairest and easiest Sense that can be put upon the Words; and that which agrees best with other Places of Scripture, where the same Matter of Fact, or the same History is related: And therefore there can be no Necessity, from this Text, of changing the general Notion and Signification of Deep, or Abyss; both from that which it hath in common Use, and that which it hath in Scripture Use.
I say, as in the common Use of Words, Deep, or Abyss, signifies some low or inferior Place; so the general Use of it in Scripture is, in the same Sense, either to signify the Sea, or some subterraneous Place. Who shall descend into the (Abyss, or) Deep? says the Apostle, Rom. x. 7. Is that as much as if he had said, Who shall ascend into the Holes of the Rocks? And when Jacob speaks of the Blessings of the Abyss, or of the Deep, he calls them the Blessings of the Deep that lyeth under, Gen. xix. 25. In like Manner, Moses himself calls it the Deep that couched beneath, Deut. xxxiii. 13. And I know no Reason why we should not understand the same Deep there, that he mentioned before in the History of the Deluge; which therefore was subterraneous, as this is. Then, as for the other Use of the Word, namely, for the Sea, or any Part of the Sea, (whose Bottom is always lower than the Level of the Earth,) that is the most common Use of it in Scripture. And I need not give you Instances which are every where obvious.
One must needs think it strange, therefore, that any Man of Judgement should break thorough both the common Use of a Word, and so many plain Texts of Scripture, that show the Signification of it, for the sake of one Text, which, at most, is but dubious; and then lay such Stress upon that new Signification, as to found a new Doctrine upon it: And a Doctrine that is neither supported by Reason, nor agrees with the History of the Deluge. For, as we noted before, at the Decrease of the Deluge, the Waters are said to return from off the Earth, Gen. viii. 3. Did they not return to the Places from whence they came? But if those Places were the Caverns in the Rocks, whose Mouths lay higher than the Surface of the Deluge, as he says they did, p. 303, 305. I see no Possibility of the Waters returning into them. But the Exceptor hath found out a marvellous Invention to invade this Argument. He will have the returning of the Waters to be understood of their returning into their Principles, (that is, into Vapours,) not to their Places: In good Time: So the Dove’s returning was her returning into her Principles; that is, into an Egg, not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded, argue two Things, Wit and Want of Judgment. Moses speaks as plainly of the local Return of the Waters, in going and returning; as of the local going and returning of the Raven and Dove. See Gen. viii. 3, and 5. compar’d with Verse seventh and ninth.
Lastly, That we end this Discourse; the whole Notion of these Water-Pots in the Tops of Mountains, and of the broaching of them at the Deluge, is a groundless Imagination. What Reason have we to believe, that there were such Vessels then, more than now, if there was no Fraction of the Earth at the Deluge, to destroy them? And he ought to have gag’d these Casks, (according to his own Rule, Ch. 3.) and told us the Number and Capacity of them, that we might have made some Judgment of the Effect. Besides, if the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of Rocks, why did not Moses express it so; and tell us, that the Rocks were cloven, and the Waters gushed out, and so made the Deluge? This would have been as intelligible, if it had been true, as to tell us that the Tehom-Rabbah was broken open. But there is not one Word of Rocks, or the cleaving of Rocks, in the History of the Flood. Upon all Accounts, therefore, we must conclude, that this Virtuoso might have as well suspected, that his whole Theory of the Deluge, as one Part of it, p. 343. would be accounted a mere Fancy, and groundless Figment.
This Chapter is made up of eight Objections, against his own Hypothesis. And those that have a mind to see them, may read them in the Author. I have taken as much Notice of them as I thought necessary, in the precedent Chapter; and therefore leave the Exceptor now to deal with them all together. I omitted one Objection (p. 311.) concerning the shutting up of the Abyss, and the Fountains of the Abyss, because it was answer`d before in the English Theory, p. 143. namely, there were Fountains in the Abyss, as much as Windows in Heaven; and those were shut up, as well as these; that is, ceas’d to act, and were put into a Condition to continue the Deluge no longer.
There is nothing in this Chapter against the Truth of the Theory; but the Author is blam’d for believing it to be true: I think it had been more blame-worthy, if he had troubled the World with a Theory which he did not believe to be true, and taken so much Pains to compose what he thought himself no better than a Romance. As to what the Theorist has said in Reference to his Assurance or Belief of the Theory, which the Exceptor calls Positiveness, upon Examination, I cannot find any Thing amiss in his Conduct, as to that Particular. For, first, he imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; he leaves every one their full Liberty of dissenting. Preface to the Reader at the End. Lastly, in Things purely speculative, as these are, and no Ingredients of our Faith, it is free to differ from one another in our Opinions and Sentiments; and so I remember St. Austin hath observed upon this very Subject of Paradise. Wherefore, as we desire to give no Offence our selves, so neither shall we take any at the Difference of Judgment in others; provided this Liberty be mutual, and that we all agree to study PEACE, TRUTH, and a GOOD LIFE. And as the Theorist imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; so, as to Matter of Certainty, he distinguisheth always betwixt the Substance of the Theory, and Particularities. So, at the latter End of the first Book, this Profession is made, Eng. Theor. p. 207. I mean this only, speaking about Certainty, as to the general Parts of the Theory. For as to Particularities, I look upon them only as problematical; and accordingly I affirm nothing therein, but with a Power of Revocation, and a Liberty to change my Opinion when I shall be better inform’d. And accordingly he says in another Place, Eng. Theor. p. 12. I know how subject we are to Mistakes, in these great and remote Things, when we descend to Particularities. But I am willing to expose the Theory to a full Trial, and to shew the Way for any to examine it, provided they do it with Equity and Sincerity. I have no other Design than to contribute my Endeavours to find out Truth, &c. Lastly, to cite no more Places, he says, Eng. Theor. p. 402. There are many particular Explications that are to be consider’d with more Liberty and Latitude; and may, perhaps, upon better Thoughts, and better Observations, be corrected, &c. The Theorist having thus stated and bounded his Belief or Assurance, and given Liberty of dissenting to all others, according to their particular Judgments or Inclinations, I see nothing unfair or undecent in this Conduct. How could the Observator have made it more unexceptionable? Would he have had the Theorist to have profess’d Scepticism, and declar’d that he believ’d his own Theorist no more than a Romance or fantastical Idea? that had been both to bely his own Conscience, and to mock the World. I remember I have heard a good Author once with, that there were an Act of Parliament, that whoever printed a Book, should, when he took a License, swear, that he thought the Contents of his Book to be true, as to Substance: And I think such a Method would keep off a great many Impertinencies. We ought not to trouble the World with our roving Thoughts, merely out of an Itch of Scripturiency, when we do not believe our selves what we write. I must always profess my Assent to the Substance of that Theory; and am the more confirm’d in it by the Weakness and Inefficacy of these Exceptions.
We need not take Notice of the particular Citations he makes use of, to prove this Positiveness of the Theorist; for they only affirm what we still own: That the Theory is more than an Idea, or that it is not an imaginary Idea, or that it is a Reality: And, together with its Proofs from Scripture, especially from St. Peter, hath more than the Certainty of a bare Hypothesis, or a moral Certainty. These are the Expressions he cites, and we own all, that, in fair Construction, they amount to; and find no Reason, either from the Nature of the Thing, or from his Objections, to change our Opinion, or make any Apology for too much Positiveness.
I wish the Exceptor had not more to answer for, as to his Partiality, than the Theorist hath, for his Positiveness. And now, that we draw to a Conclusion, it will not be amiss to observe, how well the Exceptor hath answered that Character, which he gave himself at the Beginning of his Work. These are his Words, p. 43. This I will endeavour to do, namely, To examine the Theory, with all Sincerity; and that only as a Friend and Servant to Truth: And therefore, with such Candor, Meekness, and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and glories in so fair a Character: And also with such Respect to the Virtuoso who wrote the Theory, as may testify to the World, that I esteem his Learning, while I question his Opinion. ’Tis of little Consequence what Opinion he has of the Virtuoso, as he calls him: But let us see with what Sincerity and Meekness, he has examin’d his Work. As to his Sincerity, we have given you some Proofs of it before, (p. 26.) both in his defective and partial Citations; and also, in his never taking Notice of the last Edition of the Theory; where several Citations he has made use of, are not extant. Now, by his own Rule, he ought to have had regard to this; for he says, (p. 356.) he will there take Notice only of the English Edition, as coming out after the other; and so with more Deliberation and mature Thoughts of Things. By the same Reason, say I, he ought to have taken Notice of the last Edition of the Theory, as being the last Product, and the most deliberate and mature Thoughts of the Author. But this, it seems, was not for his Purpose.
So much for his Sincerity: Now for his Meekness. So impatient he is to fall upon his Adversary, that he begins his Charge in the Preface, and a very fierce one it is, (p. 3.) The Theorist hath assaulted Religion, and that in the very Foundation of it. Here I expected to have found two or three Articles of the Creed assaulted or knock’d down by the Theory. But that is not the Case, it seems, he understands something more general, namely, our contradicting Scripture: For so he explains himself in the next Page. In several Things (as will appear by our Discourse) it contradicts Scripture; and by too positive asserting the Truth of its Theorems, makes that to be false, upon which our Religion is founded. Let us remember, that this contracting Scripture here pretended, is only in natural Things; and also observe, how far the Exceptor himself, in such Things, hath contradicted Scripture. As for other Reproofs which he gives us, those that are more gentle, I easily pass over; but somewhere he makes our Assertions, p. 78. too bold an Affront to Scripture. And in another Place represents them, as (either directly, or consequentially) p. 286. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is the unpardonable Sin, Matt. xii. 31.
There is no Pleasure in repeating such Expressions, and dreadful Sentences. Let us rather observe, if the Exceptor hath not made himself obnoxious to them. But first, we must state the Case truly, that so the Blame may not fall upon the Innocent. The Case therefore is this, Whether, to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture, in Things that relate to the natural World, be destroying the Foundations of Religion, affronting Scripture, and blaspheming the Holy Ghost? In the Case propos’d, We take the Negative, and stand upon that Plea. But the Exceptor hath taken the Affirmative; and therefore, all those heavy Charges must fall upon himself, if he go contrary to the literal Sense of Scripture, in his philosophical Opinions or Assertions. And that he hath done so, we will give you some Instances, out of this Treatise of his; p. 314. He says, It it most absurd to think, that the Earth is the Center of the World. Then the Sun stands still, and the Earth moves, according to his Doctrine. But this is expressly contrary to Scripture, in many Places. The Sun rejoices, as a strong Man, to run his Race, says David Ps. xix. 5, 6. His going forth is from the End of the Heaven, and his Circuit unto the Ends of it, Josh. x. 12, 13. 2 Kings xx. 10, 11. Isa. xxxviii. 8. No such Thing, says the Exceptor; the Sun hath no Race to run; he is fix’d in his Seat, without any progressive Motion. He hath no Course from one End of the Heavens to the other. In like manner, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, says the sacred Author, and the Sun stood still. No, says the Exceptor, ’twas the Earth stood still, upon that Miracle; for the Sun always stood still. And ’tis absurd, yea, most absurd, to think otherwise, p. 157. And he blames Tycho Brahe for following Scripture in this Particular. Now, is not this, in the Language of the Exceptor, to destroy the Foundations of Religion, to affront Scripture, and blaspheme against the Holy Ghost? But this is not all: The Exceptor says, (Chap. 10.) the Sun rais’d up the Mountains on the third Day; and the Sun was not in being till the fourth Day, according to Scripture, Gen. i. 14. The Moon also, which, according to Scripture, was not created till the fourth Day, he says, would hinder the Formation of the Earth, which was done the third Day. Lastly, in this new Hypothesis, p.74. he makes the Waters of the Deluge to be but fifteen Cubits higher than the Plain, or common Surface of the Earth; which Scripture affirms expressly to have cover’d the Tops of the highest Hills, or Mountains, under Heaven, Gen. vii. 19, 20. These two Things are manifestly inconsistent. The Scripture says, Gen. viii. 5. they cover’d the Tops of the highest Mountains: And the Exceptor says they reached but fifteen Cubits about, or upon the Skirts of them. This, I think, is truly to contradict Scripture; or, according to his Talent of loading Things with great Words, p. 216. This is not only flatly, but loudly contradictory to the most express Word of the infallible God.
These Observations, I know, are of small Use, unless, perhaps, to the Exceptor himself. But, if you please, upon this Occasion, let us reflect a little upon the literal Style of Scripture; and the different Authority of that Style, according to the Matter that it treats of. The Subject Matter of Scripture is either such as lies without the Cognizance and Comprehension of human Reason, or such as lies within it: If it be the former of these, ’tis what we call properly and purely Revelation; and there we must adhere to the literal Style, because we have nothing to guide us but that. Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation; wherein we have nothing to authorize our Deviation from the Letter and Words of Scripture: And therefore the School-Divines, who have spun those Doctrines into a Multitude of Niceties and Subtleties, had no Warrant for what they did, and their Conclusions are of no Authority.
The second Matter or Subject of Scripture is such as falls under the View and Comprehension of Reason, more or less; and, in the same Proportion, gives us a Liberty to examine the literal Sense; how far it is consistent with Reason. and the Faculties of our Mind. Of this Nature there are several Things in the holy Writings, both moral, theological, and natural, wherein we recede from the Letter, when it is manifestly contrary to the Dictates of Reason. I will give some Instances in every kind: First, as to moral Things. Our Saviour says, Mat. v. 29, 30. If thy right Eye offend thee, pluck it out: If thy Right Hand offend thee, cut it off. There is no Man that thinks himself obliged to the literal Practice of this Doctrine; and yet it is plainly delivered, you see, in these Terms in the Gospel. Nay, which is more, our Saviour backs and enforces the Letter of this Doctrine with a Reason: For it is profitable for thee that one of thy Members should perish, and not that thy whole Body should be cast into Hell: As if he had intended, that his Precept should have been really executed according to the Letter. In like manner our Saviour says, If any Man wilt sue thee at Law, and take away thy Coat, let him have thy Cloak also. And yet there is no Christian so good-natur’d as to practice this, nor any Casuist so rigid as to enjoy it, according to the Letter. Other Instances you may see in our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, where we do not scruple to lay aside the Letter, when it is judg’d contrary to the Light of Nature, or impracticable in human Society.
In all other Things also, that lie within the Sphere of human Reason, we are allowed to examine their Practicability, or their Credibility. To instance in something theological, the Words of Consecration in the Sacrament. Our Saviour, when he instituted the last Supper, us’d these Words: This is my Body, taking the Bread into his Hand; which Words, join’d with that Action, are very formal and expressive; yet we do not scruple to forsake the literal Sense, and take the Words in another Way: But upon what Warrant do we this? because the literal Sense contains an Absurdity; because it contradicts the Light of Nature; because it is inconsistent with the Idea of a Body, and so destroys it self. In like Manner, upon the Idea of the Divine Nature, we dispute absolute Reprobation, and Eternity of Torments, against the Letter of Scripture. And, lastly, whether the Resurrection Body consists of the same individual Parcels and Particles, whereof the mortal Body consisted, before it was putrefied or dispers’d? And, Phil. iv. 3. Apoc. iii. 5 and xx. 12. whether the Books of Life are to be understood in a literal Sense?
The last Head is of such Things as belong to the natural World. And to this may be reduced innumerable Instances, where we leave the literal Sense, if inconsistent with Science or Experience. And the Truth is, if we should follow the vulgar Style and literal Sense of Scripture, we should all be Anthropomorphites, as to the Nature of God: And as to the Nature of his Works in the external Creation, we must renounce Philosophy and natural Experience, if the Descriptions and Accounts given in Scripture, concerning the Heavens, the Earth, the Sea, and other Parts of the World, be received as accurate and just Representations of the State and Properties of those Bodies. Neither is there any Danger, lest this should affect or impeach the Divine Veracity; for Scripture never undertook, nor was ever designed to teach us Philosophy, or the Arts and Sciences: And whatsoever the Light of Nature can reach and comprehend, is improperly the Subject of Revelation. But some Men, out of Love to their own Ease, and in Defence of their Ignorance, are not only for a Scripture Divinity, but also for a Scripture Philosophy. ’Tis a cheap and compendious Way, and saves them the Trouble of farther Study or Examination.
Upon the whole, you see, it is no Fault to recede from the literal Sense of Scripture; but the Fault is, when we leave it without a just Cause: As it is no Fault for a Man to separate from a Church, or for a Prince to make War against his Neighbour, but to do the one or the other, without a just Cause, is a real Fault. We all leave the literal Sense in certain Cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient Charge against any Man. But he that makes a Separation, if I may so call it, without good Reasons, he is truly obnoxious to Censure. The great Result of all, therefore, is this, to have some common Rule to direct us, when every one ought to follow, and when to leave, the literal Sense. And that Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters, is this, Not to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject-Matter will bear it, without Absurdity or Incongruity. This Rule I have always proposed to my self, and always endeavoured to keep close to it. But some inconsiderate Minds make every Departure from the Letter, let the Matter or Cause be what it will, to be an Affront to Scripture: And there, where we have the greatest Liberty, I mean in Things that relate to the natural World, they have no more Indulgence or Moderation, than if it was an Intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith. In this Particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter; yet, I must needs say, he is a very Saint in Comparison of another Animadverter, who hath writ upon the same Subject; but neither like a Gentleman, nor like a Christian, nor like a Scholar. And such Writings answer themselves.