Chapter XIV: Book IV (5)

I will not tell you what Foundation there is in Nature, for this Change or Transformation from the interiour Constitution of the Earth, and the Instances we have seen of new Stars appearing in the Heavens. I should lead the _English_ Reader too far out of his Way, to discourse of these things: But if there be any Passages or Expressions in Scripture, that countenance such a State of things after the Day of Judgment, it will not be improper to take Notice of them. That radiant and illustrious _Jerusalem_, describ’d by St. _John Apoc._ xxi. _ver._ 10, 11, 12, &c. compos’d all of Gemms and bright Materials, clear and sparkling, as a Star in the Firmament: Who can give an Account what that is? Its Foundations, Walls, Gates, Streets, all the Body of it, resplendent as Light or Fire? What is there in Nature, or in this Universe, that bears any Resemblance with such a Phænomenon as this, unless it be a Sun or a fix’d Star? Especially if we add and consider what follows, _ver._ 23. That _the City had no need of the Sun, nor of the Moon to shine in it_, _ver. 25_. And that _there was no Night there_. This can be no terrestrial Body; it must be a Substance luminous in it self, and a Fountain of Light, as a fix’d Star: And upon such a Change of the Earth, or Transformation, as this, would _be brought to pass the Saying that is written_, DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. Which indeed St. _Paul_ seems to apply to our Bodies in particular, _1 Cor. xv. 54_. But in the eighth Chap. to the _Romans_ he extends it to all Nature, _ver. 21_. _The Creation it self also shall be deliver’d from the Bondage of Corruption, into the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God._ And accordingly St. _John_, speaking of the same Time with St. _Paul_ in that Place to the _Corinthians_, namely, of the general Resurrection and Day of Judgement, says, _Death_ and _Hades_, which we render Hell, _were cast into the Lake of Fire, Apoc. xx. 14._ This is their being _swallowed up in Victory_, which St. _Paul_ speaks of; when _Death_ and _Hades_, that is, all the Region of Mortality, the Earth and all its Dependences, are absorpt into a Mass of Fire; and converted, by a glorious Victory over the Powers of Darkness, into a luminous Body and a Region of Light.

This great Issue and Period of the Earth, and of all human Affairs, tho’ it seem to be founded in Nature, and supported by several Expressions of Scripture; yet we cannot, for want of full Instruction, propose it otherwise than as a fair Conjecture: The Heavens and the Earth shall flie away at the Day of Judgment, says the Text, _Apoc. xx. 11_. _And their Place shall not be found._ This must be understood of our Heavens and our Earth; and their _flying away_ must be their removing to some other Part of the Universe, so as their Place or Residence shall not be found any more here below. This is the easy and natural Sense of the Words; and this Translation of the Earth will not be without some Change preceeding, that makes it leave its Place, and, with a lofty Flight, takes its Seat amongst the Stars.——There we leave it; having conducted it for the Space of seven thousand Years thro’ various Changes, from a _dark Chaos to a bright Star_.

_FINIS._

A REVIEW Of the SACRED Theory of the Earth,

And of its

PROOFS:

Especially in Reference to

SCRIPTURE.

_LONDON_:
Printed for J. HOOKE in _Fleet-street_.

A Review.

To take a _Review_ of this _Theory_ of the _Earth_, which we have now finish’d, we must consider, first, the Extent of it, and then the principal Parts whereof it consists: It reaches, as you see, from one End of the World to the other; from the first Chaos to the last Day, and the Consummation of all Things. This probably, will run the length of seven thousand Years; which is a good competent Space of Time to exercise our Thoughts upon, and to observe the several Scenes which Nature and Providence bring into View within the Compass of so many Ages.

The Matter and principal Parts of this _Theory_ are such things as are recorded in Scripture: We do not feign a Subject, and then discant upon it, for Diversion; but endeavour to give an intelligible and rational Account of such Matters of Fact, past or future, as are there specified and declared. What it hath seem’d good to the Holy Ghost to communicate to us, by History or Prophecy, concerning the several States and general Changes of this Earth, makes the Argument of our Discourse: Therefore the Things themselves must be taken for granted, in one Sense or other, seeing, besides all other Proofs, they have the Authority of a Revelation; and our Business is only to give such an Explication of them, as shall approve it self to the Faculties of Man, and be conformable to Scripture.

We will therefore first set down the Things themselves, that make the subject Matter of this _Theory_; and remind you of our Explication of them: Then recollect the general Proofs of that Explication, from Reason and Nature; but more fully and particularly shew how it is grounded upon Scripture. The primary _Phænomena_ whereof we are to give an Account, are these five or six.

I. _The Original of the Earth from a Chaos._

II. _The State of Paradise, and the antediluvian World._

III. _The universal Deluge._

IV. _The universal Conflagration._

V. _The Renovation of the World, or the new Heavens and new Earth._

VI. _The Consummation of all Things._

These are unquestionably in Scripture; and these all relate, as you see, to the several Forms, States and Revolutions of this Earth. We are therefore oblig’d to give a clear and coherent Account of these _Phænomena_, in that Order and Consecution wherein they stand to one another.

There are also in Scripture some other Things, relating to the same Subjects, that may be call’d the secondary Ingredients of this _Theory_, and are to be referr’d to their respective primary Heads. Such are, for Instance,

I. _The Longevity of the Ante-diluvians._

II. _The Rupture of the great Abyss, at the Deluge._

III. _The appearing of the Rainbow after the Deluge, as a Sign that
there never should be a second Flood._

These things Scripture hath also left upon Record, as Directions and Indications how to understand the ante-diluvian State, and the Deluge it self. Whosoever therefore shall undertake to write the _Theory_ of the _Earth_, must think himself bound to give us a just Explication of these secondary _Phænomena_, as well as of the primary; and that in such a Dependance and Connexion, as to make them give and receive Light from one another.

The former Part of the Task is concerning the World behind us, Times and Things past, that are already come to Light: The latter is concerning the World before us, Times and Things to come; that lie yet in the Bosom of Providence, and in the Seeds of Nature. And these are chiefly the _Conflagration_ of the World, and the _Renovation_ of it. When these are over and expir’d, then _comes the End_, as St. _Paul_ says, _1 Cor. xv._ Then the _Heavens and the Earth fly away_, as St. _John_ says, _Apoc. xx._ Then is the _Consummation_ of all Things, and the last Period of this sublunary World, whatsoever it is: Thus far the Theorist must go, and pursue the Motions of Nature, till all Things are brought to Rest and Silence: And in this latter Part of the _Theory_, there is also a collateral Phænomenon, the _Millennium_, or thousand Years Reign of Christ and his Saints upon Earth, to be consider’d. For this, according as it is reported in Scripture, does imply a Change in the natural World, as well as in the Morals and therefore must be accounted for in the _Theory_ of the _Earth_: At least it must be there determin’d, whether that State of the World, which is singular and extraordinary, will be before or after the Conflagration.

These are the Principals and Incidents of this _Theory_ of the _Earth_, as to the Matter and Subject of it; which, you see, is both important, and wholly taken out of Scripture: As to our Explication of these Points, that is sufficiently known, being set down at large in four Books of this Theory; Therefore it remains only, having seen the Matter of the Theory, to examine the Form of it, and the Proofs of it; for from these two things it must receive its Censure. As to the Form, the Characters of a regular Theory seem to be these three; _Few and easy Postulatums; Union of Parts_; and _a Fitness to answer, fully and clearly, all the Phænomena to which it is to be apply’d_.

We think our Hypothesis does not want any of these Characters: As to the first, we take but one single _Postulatum_ for the whole Theory, and that an easy one, warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity; namely, _That this Earth rise, at first, from a Chaos_: As to the second, _Union of Parts_, the whole Theory is but one Series of Causes and Effects from that first Chaos. Besides, you can scarce admit any one Part of it, first, last, or intermediate, but you must, in Consequence of that, admit all the rest. Grant me but that the Deluge is truly explain’d, and I’ll desire no more Proof for all the Theory: Or, if you begin at the other End, and grant the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_ after the Conflagration, you will be led back again to the first Heavens and first Earth that were before the Flood. For St. _John_ says, that _new Earth_ was without a _Sea_, _Apoc. xxi. 1_. And it was a _Renovation_, or _Restitution_ to some former State of Things: There was therefore some former Earth without a Sea; which not being the present Earth, it must be the ante-diluvian. Besides, both St. _John_, and the Prophet _Esaias_, have represented the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_, as _paradisiacal_, according as it proved, _Book IV. Chap. 2_. And having told us the Form of the new-future-Earth, that it will have _no Sea_, it is a reasonable Inference that there was no Sea in the _paradisiacal Earth_. However, from the Form of this future Earth, which St. _John_ represents to us, we may at least conclude, that an _Earth without a Sea_ is no Chimæra, or Impossibility; but rather a fit Seat and Habitation for the Just and the Innocent.

Thus you see the Parts of the Theory link and hold fast one another, according to the Second Character: And as to the third, of being _suited to the Phænomena_, we must refer that to the next Head of _Proofs_. It may be truly said, that bare Coherence and Union of Parts is not a sufficient Proof; the Parts of a Fable or Romance may hang aptly together, and yet have no Truth in them: This is enough indeed to give the Title of a just Composition to any Work, but not of a true one; till it appear that the Conclusions and Explications are grounded upon good natural Evidence, or upon good Divine Authority. We must therefore proceed now to the third thing to be consider’d in a Theory, _What_ its Proofs are? Or the Grounds upon which it stands, whether Sacred or Natural?

According to natural Evidence, things are proved from their Causes or their Effects; and we think we have this double Order of Proofs for the Truth of our Hypothesis: As to the Method of Causes, we proceed from what is more simple, to what is more compound, and build all upon one Foundation. Go but to the Head of the Theory, and you will see the Causes lying in a Train before you, from first to last; and tho’ you did not know the natural History of the World, past or future, you might, by Intuition, foretel it, as to the grand Revolutions and successive Faces of Nature, through a long Series of Ages. If we have given a true Account of the Motions of the Chaos, we have also truly form’d the first habitable Earth; and if that be truly form’d we have thereby given a true Account of the State of _Paradise_, and of all that depends upon it; and not of that only, but also of the universal Deluge. Both these we have shewn in their Causes; The one from the Form of that Earth, and the other from the Fall of it into the Abyss: And tho’ we had not been made acquainted with these things by Antiquity, we might, in Contemplation of the Causes, have truly conceiv’d them as Properties or Incidents to the first Earth. But as to the Deluge, I do not say, that we might have calculated the Time, Manner, and other Circumstances of it: These things were regulated by Providence, in subordination to the moral World; but that there would be, at one Time or other, a Disruption of that Earth, or of the great Abyss, and in Consequence of it, an universal Deluge; so far, I think, the Light of a Theory might carry us.

Farthermore, in Consequence of this Disruption of the primæval Earth, at the Deluge, the present Earth was made hollow and cavernous, [_Theor. Book iii. chap. 7, and 8._] and by that means, (due Preparations being used) capable of _Combustion_, or of perishing by an universal Fire: Yet, to speak ingenuously, this is as hard a Step to be made, in virtue of natural Causes, as any in the whole _Theory_. But in Recompence of that Defect, the Conflagration is so plainly and literally taught us in Scripture, and avow’d by Antiquity, that it can fall under no dispute, as to the Thing it self; and as to a Capacity or Disposition to it in the present Earth, that I think is sufficiently made out.

Then, the Conflagration admitted, in that way it is explain’d in the third Book; the Earth, you see, is, by that Fire, reduc’d to a second Chaos. A Chaos truly so call’d; and from that, as from the first, arises another Creation, or _new Heavens_ and a _new Earth_; by the same Causes, and in the same Form, with the _paradisiacal_. This is the _Renovation_ of the World; the _Restitution_ of all Things mention’d both by Scripture and Antiquity; and by the Prophet _Isaiah_, St. _Peter_ and St. _John_, call’d the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_: With this, as the last Period, and most glorious Scene of all human Affairs, our _Theory_ concludes, as to this Method of Causes, whereof we are now speaking.

I say, here it Ends as to the _Method of Causes_: For tho’ we pursue the Earth still farther, even to its last Dissolution, which is call’d the Consummation of all Things; yet all that we have superadded upon that Occasion, is but problematical, and may, without Prejudice to the _Theory_, be argued and disputed on either Hand. I do not know, but that our Conjectures there may be well grounded; but however, not springing so directly from the same Root, or, at least, not by Ways so clear and visible, I leave that Part undecided: Especially seeing we pretend to write no more than the _Theory of the Earth_, and therefore as we begin no higher than the _Chaos_, so we are not oblig’d to go any farther than to the last State of a terrestrial Consistency; which is that of the new Heavens and the new Earth.

This is the first natural Proof, from the Order of Causes: The second is from the Consideration of Effects; namely, of such Effects as are already in being: And therefore this Proof can extend only to that Part of the _Theory_, that explains the present and past Form and Phænomena of the Earth. What is future, must be left to a farther Trial, when the Thing comes to pass, and present themselves to be examin’d and compar’d with the Hypothesis. As to the present Form of the Earth, we call all Nature to Witness for us; the Rocks and the Mountains, the Hills and the Valleys, the deep and wide Sea, and the Caverns of the Ground: Let these speak, and tell their Origin: How the Body of the Earth came to be thus torn and mangled? If this strange and irregular Structure was not the Effect of a Ruin; and of such a Ruin as was universal over the Face of the whole Globe. But we have given such a full Explication of this, in the first Part of the Theory, from _chap. ix._ to the End of that Treatise, that we dare stand to the Judgment of any that reads those four Chapters to determine if the Hypothesis does not answer to all those Phænomena, easy and adequately.

The next Phænomenon to be consider’d, is the _Deluge_, with its Adjuncts: This also is fully explain’d by our Hypothesis, in the iid, iiid, and vith Chapters of the first Book: Where it is shewn, that the _Mosaical Deluge_, that is, an universal Inundation of the whole Earth, above the Tops of the highest Mountains, made by a breaking open of the great Abyss, (for thus far _Moses_ leads us) is fully explain’d by this Hypothesis, and cannot be conceiv’d in any other Method hitherto propos’d. There are no Sources or Stores of Water sufficient for such an Effect, that may be drawn upon the Earth, and drawn off again, but by supposing such an Abyss, and such a Disruption of it, as the Theory represents.

Lastly, As to the Phænomena of _Paradise_, and the ante-diluvian World, we have set them down in Order in the second Book; and apply’d to each of them its proper Explication, from the same Hypothesis. We have also given an Account of that Character which Antiquity always assign’d to the first Age of the World, or the Golden Age, as they call’d it; namely, _Equality of Seasons_ throughout the Year, or a perpetual Equinox. We have also taken in all the Adjuncts or Concomitants of these States, as they are mention’d in Scripture. _The Longevity_ of the Ante-diluvians, and the Declension or their Age by degrees, after the Flood: As also that wonderful Phænomenon, the _Rainbow_; which appear’d to _Noah_ for a Sign, that the Earth should never undergo a second Deluge. And we have shewn [_Theor._ _Book ii. ch. 5._] wherein the Force and Propriety of that Sign consisted, for confirming _Noah_’s Faith in the Promise and in the Divine Veracity.

Thus far we have explain’d the past Phænomena of the natural World: The rest are Futurities, which still lie hid in their Causes; and we cannot properly prove a Theory from Effects that are not yet in Being: But so far as they are foretold in Scripture, both as to Substance and Circumstance, in Prosecution of the same Principles we have ante-dated their Birth, and shew’d how they will come to pass. We may therefore, I think, reasonably conclude, that this Theory has perform’d its Task and answer’d its Title; having given an Account of all the general Changes of the natural World as far as either Sacred History looks backwards, or Sacred Prophecy looks forwards; so far as the one tells us what is past in Nature, and the other what is to come; And if all this be nothing but an Appearance of Truth, ’tis a kind of Fatality upon us to be deceiv’d.

So much for natural Evidence, from the Causes or Effects: We now proceed to Scripture, which will make the greatest Part of this Review. The Sacred Basis upon which the whole Theory stands, is the Doctrine of St. _Peter_, deliver’d in his _second Epistle_ and _third Chapter_, concerning the _triple Order_ and Succession of the Heavens and the Earth; that comprehends the whole Extent of our Theory; which indeed is but a large Commentary upon St. _Peter_’s Text. The Apostle sets out a three-fold State of the Heavens and Earth, with some general Properties of each, taken from their different Constitution and different Fate. The Theory takes the same three-fold State of the Heavens and the Earth; and explains more particularly, wherein their different Constitution consists; and how, under the Conduct of Providence, their different Fate depends upon it. Let us set down the Apostle’s Words, with the Occasion of them; and their plain Sense, according to the most easy and natural Explication.

_2 Pet. iii. ver. 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in
the last Days Scoffers, walking after their own Lusts._

4. _And saying, where is the Promise of his coming? For since the
Fathers fell asleep, all Things continue as they were from the
Beginning of the Creation._

5. _For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of
God, the Heavens were of old, and the Earth consisting of Water and
by Water._

6. _Whereby the World that then was, being overflowed with Water,
perished._

7. _But the Heavens and the Earth that are now, by the same Word,
are kept in Store, reserved unto Fire against the Day of Judgment,
and Perdition of ungodly Men._—

10. _The Day of the Lord will come as a Thief in the Night, in which
the Heavens shall pass away with a great Noise, and the Elements
shall melt with fervent Heat; the Earth also and the Works that are
therein shall be burnt up._

13. _Nevertheless we, according to his Promise, look for new Heavens
and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth Righteousness._

This is the whole Discourse so far as relates to our Subject: St. _Peter_, you see, had met with some that scoff’d at the future Destruction of the World, and the coming of our Saviour; and they were Men, it seems, that pretended to Philosophy and Argument; and they use this Argument for their Opinion, _Seeing there has been no Change in Nature, or in the World, from the Beginning to this Time, why should we think there will be any Change for the future?_

The Apostle answers to this, that they willingly forget, or are ignorant, that there were Heavens of old, and an Earth, so and so constituted; consisting of Water and by Water; by reason whereof that World, or those Heavens and that Earth, perish’d in a Deluge of Water. But, saith he, the Heavens and the Earth, that are now, are of another Constitution, fitted and reserved to another Fate; namely to perish by Fire: And after these are perish’d, there will be new Heavens and a new Earth, according to God’s Promise.

This is an easy Paraphrase, and the plain and genuine Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; and no Body, I think, would ever look after any other Sense, if this did not carry them out of their usual Road, and point to Conclusions which they did not fancy. The Sense, you see, hits the Objection directly, or the Cavil which these Scoffers made; and tells them, that they vainly pretend that there hath been no change in the World since the Beginning; for there was one sort of Heavens and Earth before the Flood, and another Sort now, the first having been destroy’d at the Deluge. So that the Apostle’s Argument stands upon this Foundation, that there is a Diversity betwixt the present Heavens and Earth, and the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth; take away that, and you take away all the Force of his Answer.

Then as to his _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_ after the Conflagration, they must be material and natural, in the same Sense and Signification with the former Heavens and Earth; unless you will offer open Violence to the Text. So that this Triplicity of the Heavens and the Earth, is the first, obvious, plain Sense of the Apostle’s Discourse; which every one would readily accept, if it did not draw after it a long Train of Consequences, and lead them into other Worlds than they ever thought of before, or are willing to enter upon now.

But we shall have Occasion by and by, to examine this Text more fully in all its Circumstances: Give me leave in the mean time to observe, that St. _Paul_ also implies that _triple Creation_ which St. _Peter_ expresses. St. _Paul_, I say, in the viiith Chapter to the _Romans_, ver. 20, 21. tells us of a _Creation_ that will be _redeem’d from Vanity_, which are the new Heavens and new Earth to come. A _Creation in Subjection to Vanity_; which is the present State of the World; and a _Creation_ that was subjected to Vanity, in hopes of being restored, which was the first _Paradisiacal_ Creation: And these are the three States of the natural World, which make the Subject of our Theory.

To these two Places of St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_, I might add that third in St. _John_, concerning the new Heavens and new Earth, with that distinguishing Character, that the Earth was _without a Sea_: As this distinguisheth it from the present Earth, so, being a _Restitution_ or _Restauration_, as we noted before, it must be the same with some former Earth; and consequently it implies, that there was another precedent State of the natural World, to which this is a Restitution. These three Places I alledge, as comprehending and confirming the Theory in its full Extent; But we do not suppose them all of the same Force and Clearness; St. _Peter_ leads the Way, and gives Light and Strength to the other two: When a Point is prov’d by one clear Text, we allow others, as Auxiliaries, that are not of the same Clearness; but being open’d, receive Light from the primary Text, and reflect it upon the Argument.

So much for the Theory in general: We will now take one or two principal Heads of it, which virtually contain all the rest, and examine them more strictly and particularly, in reference to their Agreement with Scripture. The two Heads we pitch upon, shall be our Explication of the Deluge, and our Explication of the new Heavens and new Earth: We told you before, these two were as the Hinges, upon which all the Theory moves, and which hold the Parts of it in firm Union one with another. As to the Deluge, if I have explain’d that aright, by the Disruption of the great Abyss, and the Dissolution of the Earth that cover’d it, all the rest follows in such a Chain of Consequences as cannot be broken. Wherefore, in order to the Proof of that Explication, and of all that depends upon it, I will make bold to lay down this Proposition, _That our Hypothesis concerning the universal Deluge, is not only more agreeable to Reason and Philosophy, than any other yet propos’d to the World, but is also more agreeable to Scripture_: Namely, to such Places of Scripture as reflect upon the _Deluge_, the _Abyss_, and the Form of the _first Earth_: And particularly to the _History of Noah’s Flood, as recorded by Moses_. If I can make this good, it will, doubtless, give Satisfaction to all that are free and intelligent; and I desire their Patience, if I proceed slowly and by several Steps. We will divide our Task into Parts, and examine them separately; first, by Scripture in general, and then by _Moses_ his History and Description of the Flood.

Our Hypothesis of the Deluge consists of three principal Heads, or differs remarkably in three Things from the common Explication. First, in that we suppose the ante-diluvian Earth to have been of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth; with the Abyss placed under it.

Secondly, In that we suppose the Deluge to have been made, not by any Inundation of the Sea, or overflowing of Fountains and Rivers; nor (principally) by an Excess of Rains; but by a real Dissolution of the exteriour Earth, and Disruption of the Abyss which it cover’d: These are the two principal Points; to which may be added, as a Corollary,

Thirdly, That the Deluge was not in the nature of a standing Pool; the Waters lying every where level, of an equal Depth, and with an uniform Surface; but was made by a Fluctuation and Commotion of the Abyss upon the Disruption: Which Commotion being over, the Waters retired into their Channels, and let the dry Land appear.

These are the most material and fundamental Parts of our Hypothesis; and these being prov’d consonant to Scripture, there can be no doubt of the rest.

We begin with the first: That the ante-diluvian Earth was of another Form and Constitution from the present Earth, with the Abyss placed under it: This is confirm’d in Scripture, both by such Places as assert a Diversity in general; and by other Places that intimate to us, wherein that Diversity consisted, and what was the form of the first Earth. That Discourse of St. _Peter_’s, which we have set before you concerning the past, present and future Heavens and Earth, is so full a Proof of this Diversity in general, that you must either allow it, or make the Apostle’s Argumentation of no Effect: He speaks plainly of the natural World, _The Heavens and the Earth_; and he makes a plain Distinction, or rather Opposition, betwixt those before and after the Flood. So that the least we can conclude from his Words, is a Diversity betwixt them; in answer to that Identity or Immutability of Nature, which the Scoffers pretended to have been ever since the Beginning.

But tho’ the Apostle, to me, speaks plainly of the _natural World_, and distinguishes that which was before the Flood, from the present; yet there are some that will allow neither of these to be contain’d in St. _Peter_’s Words; and by that means would make this whole Discourse of little or no Effect, as to our Purpose: And seeing we, on the contrary, have made it the chief Scripture-Basis of the whole Theory of the Earth, we are oblig’d to free it from those false Glosses or Mis-interpretations, that lessen the Force of its Testimony, or make it wholly ineffectual.

These Interpreters say, that St. _Peter_ meant no more than to mind these Scoffers, that the World was once destroy’d by a Deluge of Water; meaning the _Animate World_, Mankind and living Creatures: And that it shall be destroyed again by another Element, namely, by Fire. So as there is no Opposition or Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, taught or intended by the Apostle; but only in reference to their different Fate or Manner of perishing, and not of their different Nature or Constitution.

Here are two main Points, you see, wherein our Interpretations of this Discourse of the Apostle’s differ. First, in that they make the Apostle (in that _sixth verse_) to understand only the World _Animate_, or Men in brute Creatures: That these were indeed destroy’d, but not the natural World, or the Form and Constitution of the then Earth and Heavens. Secondly, that there is no Diversity or Opposition made by St. _Peter_ betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present, as to their Form and Constitution. We pretend that these are Mis-apprehensions or Mis-representations of the Sense of the Apostle in both respects, and offer these Reasons to prove them to be so.

For the first Point; That the Apostle speaks here of the natural World, particularly in the 6th verse; and that it perished, as well as the animate, these Considerations seem to prove.

First, because the Argument or Ground these Scoffers went upon, was taken from the natural World, its Constancy and Permanency in the same State from the Beginning; therefore if the Apostle answers _ad idem_, and takes away their Argument, he must understand the same natural World, and shew that it hath been chang’d, or hath perish’d.

You will say, it may be, the Apostle doth not deny, nor take away the Ground they went upon, but denies the Consequence they made from it; that _therefore there would be no Change because there had been none_. No, neither doth he do this, if by the _World_ in the 6th verse, he understands Mankind only; for their Ground was this, _There hath been no Change in the natural World_; their Consequence this, _Therefore there will be none_, nor any Conflagration. Now the Apostle’s Answer according to you, is this, _You forget that Mankind hath been destroy’d in a Deluge._ And what then? What’s this to the natural World, whereof they were speaking? This takes away neither Antecedent nor Consequent, neither Ground nor Inference nor any way toucheth their Argument, which proceeded from the natural World, to the natural World. Therefore you must either suppose that the Apostle takes away their Ground, or he takes away nothing.

Secondly, What is it that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? That there was a Deluge that destroy’d Mankind? They could not be ignorant of that, nor pretend to be so: It was therefore the Constitution of those old Heavens and Earth, and the Change or Destruction of them at the Deluge, that they were ignorant of, or did not attend to; and of this the Apostle minds them. These Scoffers appear to have been _Jews_ by the Phrase they use, _Since the Fathers fell asleep_, which in both Parts of it is a _Judaical_ Expression; and does St. _Peter_ tell the _Jews_ that had _Moses_ read to them every Sabbath, that _they were ignorant that Mankind was once destroyed with a Deluge in the Days of Noah_? Or could they pretend to be ignorant of that without making themselves ridiculous both to _Jews_ and Christians[6]? Besides, these do not seem to have been of the Vulgar amongst them, for they bring a Philosophical Argument for their Opinion; and also in their very Argument they refer to the History of the Old Testament, in saying, _Since the Fathers fell asleep_, amongst which Fathers, _Noah_ was one of the most remarkable.

_Thirdly_, The Design of the Apostle is to prove to them, or to dispose them to the Belief of the Conflagration, or future destruction of the World; which I suppose you will not deny to be a Destruction of the natural World; therefore to prove or persuade this, he must use an Argument taken from a precedent Destruction of the natural World; for to give an instance of the perishing of Mankind only, would not reach home to his Purpose. And you are to observe here, that the Apostle does not proceed against them barely by Authority; for what would that have booted? If these Scoffers would have submitted to Authority, they had already the Authority of the Prophets and Apostles in this Point: but he deals with them at their own Weapon, and opposes Reasons to Reasons; What hath been done may be done, and if the natural World hath been once destroyed, ’tis not hard, nor unreasonable to suppose those Prophecies to be true, that say, it shall be destroyed again.

_Fourthly_, Unless we understand here the natural World, we make the Apostle both redundant in his Discourse, and also very obscure in an easy Argument: If his Design was only to tell them that Mankind was once destroy’d in a Deluge, what’s that to the Heavens and the Earth? The 5th verse would be superfluous; which yet he seems to make the foundation of his Discourse. He might have told them how Mankind had perished before with a Deluge, and aggravated that Destruction as much as he pleas’d, without telling them how the Heavens and the Earth were constituted then; what was that to the Purpose, if it had no Dependence or Connection with the other? In the precedent Chapter, _ver. 5._ when he speaks only of the Floods destroying Mankind, he mentions nothing of the Heavens or the Earth; and if you make him to intend no more here, what he says more is superfluous.

I also add, that you make the Apostle very obscure and operose in a very easy Argument: How easy had it been for him, without this _Apparatus_, to have told them, as he did before, that God brought a Flood upon the World of the ungodly; and not given us so much Difficulty to understand his Sense, or such a Suspicion and Appearance, that he intended something more? For that there is at least a great Appearance and Tendency to a farther Sense, I think none can deny; And St. _Austin_, _Didymus Alex. Bede_, as we shall see hereafter, understood it plainly of the natural World; also modern Expositors and Criticks; as _Cajetan_, _Estius_, _Drusius_, _Heinsius_, have extended it to the natural World, more or less, tho’ they had no Theory to mislead them, nor so much as an Hypothesis to support them; but attended only to the Tenor of the Apostle’s Discourse, which constrained them to that Sense, in whole or in Part.

Fifthly, The Opposition carries it upon the natural World: The Opposition lies betwixt the οἱ ἔκπαλαι οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ and οἱ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ the Heavens that were of old, and the Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, or the two natural Worlds: And if they will not allow them to be oppos’d in their Natures (which yet we shall prove by and by) at least they must be oppos’d in their Fate; and as this is to perish by Fire, so that perished by Water; and if it perish’d by Water, it perish’d; which is all we contend for at present.

Lastly, If we would be as easily govern’d in the Exposition of this Place, as we are of other Places of Scripture, it would be enough to suggest, that in Reason and Fairness of Interpretation, the same World is destroy’d in the 6th _verse_, that was describ’d in the foregoing _verse_; but it is the natural World that is describ’d there, the Heavens and the Earth, so and so constituted; and therefore in Fairness of Interpretation they ought to be understood here; that World being the Subject that went immediately before, and there being nothing in the Words that restrains them to the animate World or to Mankind. In the iid _ch. ver. 5._ the Apostle does restrain the Word κόσμος by adding ἀσεβῶν, _the World of the ungodly_; but here ’tis not only illimited, but, according to the Context, both preceding and following, to be extended to the natural World. I say by the following Context too; for so it answers to the World that is to perish by Fire; which will reach the Frame of Nature as well as Mankind.

For a Conclusion of this first Point, I will set down St. _Austin_’s Judgment in this Case; who in several Parts of his Works hath interpreted this Place of St. _Peter_, _of the natural World_. As to the Heavens, he hath these Words in his Expositian upon _Genesis_, _Hos etiam aërios cœlos quondam periisse Diluvio, in quâdam earum, quæ Canonica appellantur, Epistolâ legimus. We read in one of the Epistles called Canonical_, meaning this of St. _Peter_’s, _that the aërial Heavens perished in the Deluge_. And he concerns himself there to let you know that it was not the starry Heavens that were destroy’d; the Waters could not reach so high, but the Regions of our Air. Then afterwards he hath these Words, _Faciliùs eos (cœlos) secundum illius Epistolæ authoritatem credimus periisse, & alios, sicut ibi scribitur repositos. We do more easily believe, according to the Authority of that Epistle, those Heavens to have perished; and others, as it is there written, substituted in their Place_. In like manner, and to the same Sense, he hath these Words upon _Psal. ci._ _Aerii utique cœli perierunt ut propinqui Terris, secundum quod dicuntur volucres cœli; sunt autem & cœli cœlorum, superiores in Firmamento, sed utrùm & ipsi perituri sint igne, an hi soli, qui etiam diluvio perierunt, disceptatio est aliquanto scrupulosior inter doctos._ And in his Book _de Civ. Dei_, he hath several Passages to the same purpose, _Quemadmodum in Apostolicâ illâ Epistolâ à toto Pars accipitur, quod diluvio periisse dictus est mundus, quamvis sola ejus cum suis cœlis pars ima perierit._ These being to the same Effect with the first Citation, I need not make them English; and this last Place refers to the Earth as well as the Heavens, as several other places in St. _Austin_ do, whereof we shall give you an Account, when we come to shew his Judgment concerning the second Point, _the diversity of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian World_: This being but a Foretaste of his good Will and Inclinations towards this Doctrine.

These Considerations alledg’d, so far as I can judge, are full and unanswerable Proofs, that this Discourse of the Apostle’s comprehends and refers to the natural World; and consequently they warrant our Interpretation in this Particular, and destroy the contrary. We have but one Step more to make good, _That there was a Change made in this natural World at the Deluge_, according to the Apostle; and this is to confute the second Part of their Interpretation, which supposeth that St. _Peter_ makes no Distinction or Opposition betwixt the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth, in that respect.

This second Difference betwixt us, methinks is still harsher than the first; and contrary to the very Form, as well as to the Matter of the Apostle’s Discourse. For there is a plain Antithesis, or Opposition made betwixt the Heavens and the Earth of old (_ver. the 5th_) and the Heavens and the Earth that are now (_ver. the 7th_) οἱ ἔκπαλαι οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and οἱ νῦν οῦρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ, and the adversitive Particle, δὲ _but_, you see marks the Opposition; so that it is full and plain according to Grammar and Logick. And that the Parts or Members of this Opposition differ in Nature from one another, is certain from this, because otherwise the Apostle’s Argument or Discourse is of no Effect, concludes nothing to the Purpose; he makes no Answer to the Objection, nor proves any thing against the Scoffers, unless you admit that Diversity. For they said, _All Things had been the same from the Beginning in the natural World_; and unless he say, as he manifestly does, that there hath been a Change in Nature, and that the Heavens and Earth that are now, are different from the ancient Heavens and Earth which perish’d at the Flood, he says nothing to destroy their Argument, nor to confirm the prophetical Doctrine of the future Destruction of the natural World.

This, I think, would be enough to satisfy any clear and free Mind concerning the Meaning of the Apostle; but because I desire to give as full a Light to this Place as I can, and to put the Sense of it out of Controversy, if possible, for the future, I will make some farther Remarks to confirm this Exposition.

And we may observe that several of those Reasons which we have given to prove, that the _natural World_ is understood by St. _Peter_, are double Reasons; and do also prove the other Point in Question, a _Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds_, the ante-diluvian and the present. As for Instance, unless you admit this Diversity betwixt the two natural Worlds, you make the 5th _verse_ in this _Chapter_ superfluous and useless; and you must suppose the Apostle to make an Inference here without Premises. In the _vith verse_ he makes an Inference, [7]_Whereby_ the World, that then was perish’d in a Deluge; What does this _whereby_ relate to? _by Reason_ of what? Sure of the particular Constitution of the Heavens and the Earth immediately before describ’d. Neither would it have signified any thing to the Scoffers, for the Apostle to have told them how the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were constituted, if they were constituted just in the same Manner as the present.

Besides, what is it, as I ask’d before, that the Apostle tells these Scoffers they were ignorant of? does he not say formally and expresly (_ver. 5._) that they were ignorant that the Heavens and the Earth were constituted so and so, before the Flood? But if they were constituted as these present Heavens and Earth are, they were not ignorant of their Constitution? Nor did pretend to be ignorant, for their own (mistaken) Argument supposeth it.

But before we proceed any further, give me leave to note the Impropriety of our Translation, in the _5th verse_, or latter Part of it; Ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δὶ ὕδατων (vel δὶ ὔδατος) συνισῶτα. This we translate _standing in the Water, and out of the Water_, which is done manifestly in compliance with the present Form of the Earth, and the Notions of the Translators, and not according to the natural Force and Sense of the _Greek_ Words. If one met with this Sentence[8] in a _Greek_ Author, who would ever render it _standing in the Water, and out of the Water_? Nor do I know any _Latin_ Translator that hath ventur’d to render them in that Sense, nor any _Latin_ Father; St. _Austin_ and St. _Jerome_ I’m sure do not, but _Consistens ex aquâ_, or _de aquâ, & per aquam_; for that later Phrase also συνεσάναι δὶ ὕδατος, does not with so good Propriety signify _to stand in the Water_, as to consist or subsist by Water, or by the Help of Water, _Tanquam per causam sustinentem_, as St. _Austin_ and _Jerome_ render it. Neither does that Instance they give from _1 Pet. iii. 20._ prove any thing to the contrary, for the Ark was sustain’d by the Waters, and the _English_ does render it accordingly.

The Translation being thus rectified, you see the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth consisted of Water, and by Water; which makes Way for a second Observation to prove our Sense of the Text; for if you admit no Diversity betwixt those Heavens and Earth, and the present, shew us pray, how the present Heavens and Earth consist of Water, and by Water? What watry Constitution have they? The Apostle implies rather, that _the new Heavens and Earth_ have a fiery Constitution. We have now Meteors of all Sorts in the Air, Winds, Hail, Snow, Lightning, Thunder, and all Things engender’d of fiery Exhalations, as well as we have Rain; but according to our Theory, _Book ii. c. 5._ the ante-diluvian Heavens, of all these Meteors had none but Dews and Vapours, or watry Meteors only; and therefore might very aptly be said by the Apostle to be _constituted of Water_, or to have a watry σίζασις. Then the Earth was said to _consist by Water_, because it was built upon it, and at first was sustain’d by it. And when such a Key as this is put into our Hands, that does so easily unlock this hard Passage, and makes it intelligible, according to the just Force of the Words, why should we pertinaciously adhere to an[9] Interpretation, that neither agrees with the Words, nor makes any Sense that is considerable.

Thirdly, If the Apostle had made the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth the same with the present, his Apodosis in the 7th verse, should not have been οἱ δε νῦν οῦρανοι, but καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί, &c. I say, it would not have been by way of Antithesis, but of Identity or Continuation; _And the same Heavens and Earth are kept in store reserv’d unto Fire_, &c. Accordingly we see the Apostle speaks thus, as to the _Logos_, or the _Word of God, ver. 7._ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, _by the same Word of God_; where the Thing is the same, he expresseth it as the same; and if it had been the same Heavens and Earth, as well as the same Word of God, why should he use a Mark of Opposition for the one, and of Identity for the other? To this I do not see what can be fairly answer’d.

Fourthly, The ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth were different from the present, because, as the Apostle intimates, they were such, and so constituted, as made them obnoxious to a Deluge; whereas ours are of such a Form, as makes them incapable of a Deluge, and obnoxious to a Conflagration; the just contrary Fate, _Theor._ _Book i. c. 2._

If you say there was nothing of natural Tendency or Disposition in either World to their respective Fate, but the first might as well have perished by Fire as Water, and this by Water as by Fire, you unhinge all Nature and natural Providence in that Method, and contradict one main Scope of the Apostle in this Discourse. His first Scope is to assert, and mind them of that Diversity there was betwixt the antient Heavens and Earth, and the present; and from that, to prove against those Scoffers, that there had been a Change and Revolution in Nature: And his second Scope seems to be this, to shew that Diversity to be such, as, under the divine Conduct, leads to a different Fate, and expos’d that World to a Deluge; for when he had describ’d the Constitution of the first Heavens and Earth, he subjoins, δὶ ὧν ὅ τοτε κόσμος ὑδατι κατακλυοθεὶς ἀπόλετο. _Quia talis erat_, saith _Grotius_, _qualem diximus, constitutio & Terræ & Cœli._ _WHEREBY the then World perish’d in a Flood of Water._ This _whereby_ notes some kind of casual Dependance, and must relate to some Means or Conditions precedent. It cannot relate to _Logos_, or _the Word of God_, Grammar will not permit that; therefore it must relate to the State of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth immediately premis’d: And to what purpose indeed should he premise the Description of those Heavens and Earth, if it was not to lay a Ground for this Inference?

Having given these Reasons for the Necessity of this interpretation: in the last place, let us consider St. _Austin_’s Judgment and his Sense upon this Place, as to the Point in Question; as also the Reflections that some other of the Ancients have made upon this Doctrine of St. _Peter_’s. _Didymus Alexandrinus_, who was for some time St. _Jerome_’s Master, made such a severe Reflection upon it, that he said this Epistle was corrupted, and should not be admitted into the Canon, because it taught the Doctrine of a _triple_ or _triform World_ in this third Chapter; as you may see in his _Enarr. in Epist. Canonicas_. Now this three-fold World is first that in the _6th_ verse, _The World that then was_. In the _7th_ verse, _The Heavens and the Earth that are now_. And in the _13th_ verse, _We expect new Heavens and a new Earth, according to his Promise._ This seems to be a fair Account that St. _Peter_ taught the Doctrine of a triple World; and I quote this Testimony, to shew what St. _Peter_’s Words do naturally import, even in the Judgment of one that was not of his Mind; and a Man is not prone to make an Exposition against his own Opinion, unless he thinks the Words very pregnant and express.