Book 4 — AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY Mr. Erasmus Warren, AGAINST THE THEORY of the EARTH. (continued 2)

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, 442that 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 443drain’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, 444yet 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 445cannot, 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 446strong 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 447Animadverter 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 448it? 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 449Eyes 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 450the 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 451should 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 452State 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 453of 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, 454or 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 455be 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 456determine, 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 457notes 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 458it 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 459have 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 460after 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 461and Andromeda, and the Sea-Monster, to have been an ante-diluvian Fable. Neither hath your Historian been lucky in translating those Words of Mela, cum religione plurima, with the Grounds and Principles of their Religion, which signify only, with a religious Care of Superstition. But to leave Fables, and proceed:

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

Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory: For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own; and the last of all excepts not against the Truth of the Theory, but the Certainty of it. In Reflection upon this whole Matter, give me leave to declare two Things: First, That I have not knowingly omitted any Objection that I thought of moment: Secondly, That I have not, from these Exceptions, found Reason to change any Part of the Theory, nor to alter my Opinion, as to any Particular in it. No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture, which, understood according to the Letter in a vulgar Way, stand cross, both to this, and other natural Theories. And a Child, that had read the first Chapters of Genesis, might have observ’d this as well as the Exceptor; but could not have loaded his Charge with so much Bitterness. Some Men, they 462say, though of no great Valour, yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall. The Exceptor, behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy, he’s gentle and tractable. Eng. Theor. Book 2. c. 9. at the End. The Theorist had declar’d his Intentions, and oblig’d himself, to give a full Account of Moses his Cosmopœia, or six Day’s Creation; but did not think it proper to be done in the vulgar Language, nor before the whole Theory was compleated. This might have spared much of the Exceptor’s Pains; but till that Account be given, if the Exceptor thinks fit to continue his Animadversions, and go through the two last Books, as he hath done the two first, it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist; provided it be done with Sincerity, in reciting the Words, and representing the Sense of the Author.

Chap. XV.

In this Chapter the Ante-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge, p. 299. And the War is chang’d, on his Side, from offensive, to defensive. ’Tis but fair that he should lie down in his Turn; and if some Blows smart a little, he must not complain, because he begun the Sport. But let’s try his Hypothesis, without any further Ceremony, p. 299, 300. The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it, is this: That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high, above the ordinary Level of the Earth. This is an unmerciful Paradox, and a very unlucky Beginning; for under what Notion must this Proportion be received? As a Postulatum, or as a Conclusion? If it be a Postulatum, it must be clear from its own Light, or acknowledg’d by general Consent. It cannot pretend to be clear from its own Light, because it is matter of Fact, which is not known, but by Testimony. Neither is it generally acknowleg’d; for the general Opinion is, that the Waters covered the Tops of the Mountains; nay, that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the Tops of the Mountains. And this he confesses himself, in these Words, p. 300. We shall find there is a great Mistake in the common Hypothesis, touching their Depth: Namely, of the Waters. For whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains: They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all, 463above 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 464found 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, 465That 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 466of 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?

467Or 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 468the 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 469let 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.

470But 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 471Flint^[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 472Text, 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.

473

Chap. XVI.

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

Chap. XVII.

There is nothing in this Chapter against the Truth of the Theory; but the Author is blam’d for believing it to be true: I think it had been more blame-worthy, if he had troubled the World with a Theory which he did not believe to be true, and taken so much Pains to compose what he thought himself no better than a Romance. As to what the Theorist has said in Reference to his Assurance or Belief of the Theory, which the Exceptor calls Positiveness, upon Examination, I cannot find any Thing amiss in his Conduct, as to that Particular. For, first, he imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; he leaves every one their full Liberty of dissenting. Preface to the Reader at the End. Lastly, in Things purely speculative, as these are, and no Ingredients of our Faith, it is free to differ from one another in our Opinions and Sentiments; and so I remember St. Austin hath observed upon this very Subject of Paradise. Wherefore, as we desire to give no Offence our selves, so neither shall we take any at the Difference of Judgment in others; provided this Liberty be mutual, and that we all agree to study PEACE, TRUTH, and a GOOD LIFE. And as the Theorist imposes his Sentiments upon no Man; so, as to Matter of Certainty, he distinguisheth always betwixt the Substance of the Theory, and Particularities. So, at the latter End of the first Book, this Profession 474is 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 475own 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, 476that 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 477Day; 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 478out: 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?