Chapter XVI: Book IV (7)

The Testimonies of Scripture concerning the _Renovation of the World_, are either express, or implicit: Those I call express, that mention the new Heavens and new Earth; and those implicit, that signify the same Thing, but not in express Terms. So when our Saviour speaks of a _Palingenesia_, or Regeneration; (_Matt._ xix. 28, 29.) or St _Peter_, of an _Apocatastasis_ or Restitution; (_Acts_ iii. 21.) these being Words used by all Authors, Prophane or Ecclesiastical, for the _Renovation_ of the World, ought, in reason, to be interpreted in the same Sense in the Holy Writings. And in like Manner, when St. _Paul_ speaks of his _future Earth_, or an _habitable World to come_, Hebr. ii. 5. ἡ οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα or of a _Redemption_ or Melioration of the present State of Nature, _Rom._ iii. 21, 22. these lead us again, in other Terms, to the same _Renovation_ of the World. But there are also some Places of Scripture, that set the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_ in such a full and open View, that we must shut our Eyes not to see them. St. _John_ says, he saw them, and observed the Form of the new Earth, _Apoc._ xxi. 1. _Isa._ lxv. 17. The Seer _Isaiah_ spoke of them in express Words, many hundred Years before. And St. _Peter_ marks the Time when they are to be introduc’d, namely, after the Conflagration, or after the Dissolution of the present Heavens and Earth, 2 _Pet._ iii. 12, 13.

These later Texts of Scripture being so express, there is but one Way left to elude the Force of them; and that is, by turning the _Renovation of the World_ into an Allegory; and making the new Heavens and new Earth to be allegorical Heavens and Earth, not real and material, as ours are. This is a bold Attempt of some modern Authors, who chuse rather to strain the Word of God, than their own Notions. There are Allegories, no doubt, in Scripture, but we are not to allegorize Scripture without some Warrant; either from an Apostolical Interpretation, or from the Necessity of the Matter; and I do not know how they can pretend to either of these, in this Case. However, that they may have all fair Play, we will lay aside, at present, all the other Texts of Scripture, and confine our selves wholly to St. _Peter_’s Words; to see and examine whether they are, or can be turn’d into an Allegory, according to the best Rules of Interpretation.

St. _Peter_’s Words are these, 2 _Pet._ iii. 11, 12, 13. _Seeing then all these Things shall be dissolved, what manner of Persons ought ye to be in all holy Conversation and Godliness? Looking for, and hasting the Coming of the Day of God; wherein the Heavens being on Fire shall be dissolved, and the Elements shall melt with fervent Heat. Nevertheless we, according to his Promise, look for new Heavens and a new Earth; wherein Righteousness shall dwell._ The Question is concerning this last Verse, _Whether the new Heavens and Earth_ here promis’d, are to be real and material Heavens and Earth, or only figurative and allegorical. The Words, you see, are clear; and the general Rule of Interpretation is this, _That_ we are not to recede from the Letter, or the literal Sense, unless there be a Necessity from the Subject-matter; such a Necessity, as makes a literal Interpretation absurd. But where is that Necessity in this Case? Cannot God make new Heavens and a new Earth, as easily as he made the old ones? Is his Strength decayed since that Time, or is Matter grown more disobedient? Nay, does not Nature offer her self voluntarily to raise a new World from the second Chaos, as well as from the first; and, under the Conduct of Providence, to make it as convenient an Habitation as the primæval Earth? Therefore no Necessity can be pretended of leaving the litteral Sense, upon an Incapacity of the Subject-matter.

The second Rule to determine an Interpretation to be literal or allegorical, is the use of the same Words or Phrase in the Context, and the Signification of them there: Let’s then examine our Case according to this Rule. St. _Peter_ had us’d the same Phrase of _Heavens and Earth_ twice before in the same Chapter. The _old Heavens and Earth_, _ver._ 5. The _present Heavens and Earth_, _ver._ 7. and now he uses it again, _ver._ 13. the _new Heavens and Earth._ Have we not then Reason to suppose, that he takes it here in the same Sense, that he had done twice before, for real and material Heavens and Earth? There is no Mark set of a new Signification, nor why we should alter the Sense of the Words. That he used them always before for the material Heavens and Earth, I think none will question; and therefore, unless they can give us a sufficient Reason, why we should change the Signification of the Words, we are bound by this second Rule also, to understand them in a litteral Sense.

Lastly, The very Form of the Words, and the Manner of their Dependence upon the Context, leads us to a litteral Sense, and to material Heavens and Earth. _Nevertheless_, says the Apostle, _we expect new Heavens, &c._ Why _Nevertheless!_ that is, notwithstanding the Dissolution of the present Heavens and Earth. The Apostle foresaw, what he had said might raise a Doubt in their Minds, whether all Things would not be at an End; nothing more of Heavens and Earth, or of any habitable World, after the Conflagration: And to obviate this, he tells them, _Notwithstanding_ that wonderful Desolation that I have describ’d, we do, accordding to God’s Promises, expect new Heavens and a new Earth, to be an Habitation for the Righteous.

You see then the new Heavens and new Earth, which the Apostle speaks of, are substituted in the Place of those that were destroyed at the Conflagration; and would you substitute allegorical Heavens and Earth in the Place of Material? Shadow for a Substance? What an Equivocation would it be in the Apostle, when the Doubt was about the material Heavens and Earth, to make an Answer about allegorical. Lastly, The timing of the Thing determines the Sense: When shall this new World appear? after the Conflagration, the Apostle says: Therefore it cannot be understood of any moral Renovation, to be made at, or in the Times of the Gospel, as these Allegorists pretend. We must therefore, upon all Accounts, conclude that the Apostle intended a literal Sense; real and material Heavens, to succeed these after the Conflagration; which was the Thing to be prov’d. And I know not what Bars the Spirit of God can set, to keep us within the Compass of a literal Sense, if these be not sufficient.

Thus much for the Explication of St. _Peter_’s Doctrine concerning the new Heavens and new Earth; which secures the second Part of our Theory: For the Theory stands upon two Pillars, or two Pedestals, the ante-diluvian Earth and the future Earth; or in St. _Peter_’s Phrase, the old Heavens and Earth, and the new Heavens and Earth; and it cannot be shaken, so long as these two continue firm and immoveable. We might now put an End to this Review, but it may be expected possibly that we should say something concerning the _Millennium_? which we have, contrary to the general Sentiment of the modern _Millennaries_, plac’d in the _future_ Earth. Our Opinion hath this Advantage above others, that all fanatical Pretensions to Power and Empire in this World, are, by these Means, blown away, as Chaff before the Wind. Princes need not fear to be dethroned, to make way to the Saints; nor Governments unhinged, that they may rule the World with a Rod of Iron. These are the Effects of the wild Enthusiasm; seeing the very State which they aim at, is not to be upon this Earth.

But that our Sense may not be mistaken or misapprehended in this Particular, as if we thought the Christian Church would never, upon this Earth, be in a better and happier Posture than it is in at present: We must distinguish betwixt a _Melioration_ of the World, if you will allow that Word; and a _Millennium_. We do not deny a Reformation and Improvement of the Church, both as to Peace, Purity, and Piety: That Knowledge may increase, Mens Minds be enlarged, and Christian Religion better understood: That the Power of Antichrist shall be diminish’d, Persecution cease, Liberty of Conscience allow’d amongst the Reformed; and a greater Union and Harmony established: That Princes will mind the publick Good, more than they do now; and be themselves better Examples of Virtue and true Piety. All this may be, and I hope will be e’er long. But the _apocalyptical Millennium_, or the _new Jerusalem_, is still another Matter: It differs not in Degree only from the present State, but in a new Order of Things; both in the moral World and in the natural; and that cannot be till we come into the _new Heavens_ and _new Earth_. Suppose what Reformation you can in this World, there will still remain many Things inconsistent with the true millennial State; Antichrist, tho’ weakned, will not be finally destroyed till the coming of our Saviour, nor Satan bound. And there will be always Poverty, Wars, Diseases, Knaves and Hypocrites, in this World, which are not consistent with the _new Jerusalem_, as St. _John_ describes it, _Apoc._ xxi. 2, 3, 4, _&c._

You see now what our Notion is of the Millennium, as we deny this Earth to be the Seat of it: ’Tis the State that succeeds the first Resurrection, when Satan is lock’d up in the bottomless Pit: The State when the Martyrs are to return into Life, and wherein they are to have the first Lot and chief Share: A State which is to last a thousand Years. _And Blessed and Holy is he, that hath a Part in it; on such the second Death hath no Power; but they shall be Priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand Years._ If you would see more particular Reasons of our Judgment in this Case, why such a Millennium is not to be expected in this World; they are set down in the _8th_ Chap. of the _4th_ Book, and we do not think it necessary that they should be here repeated.

As to that Dissertion that follows the Millennium, and reaches to the Consummation of all Things seeing it is but problematical, we leave it to stand or fall by the Evidence already given; and should be very glad to see the Conjectures of others more learned, in Speculations so abstruse and remote from common Knowledge. They cannot surely be thought unworthy or unfit for our Meditations, seeing they are suggested to us by Scripture it self: And to what end were they propos’d to us there, if it was not intended, that they should be understood, sooner or later?

I have done with this Review; and shall only add one or two Reflections upon the whole Discourse, and so conclude. You have seen the State of the Theory of the Earth, as to the _Matters_, _Form_, and _Proofs_ of it, both natural and sacred: If any one will substitute a better in its Place, I shall think my self more obliged to him, than if he had shewed me the Quadrature of the Circle. But it is not enough to pick Quarrels here and there; that may be done by any Writing, especially when it is of so great Extent and Comprehension: They must build up, as well as pull down; and give us another Theory instead of this, fitted to the same natural History of the Earth, according as it is set down in Scripture; and then let the World take their Choice. He that cuts down a Tree, is bound in Reason to plant two; because there is an Hazard in their Growth and Thriving.

Then as to those that are such rigorous Scripturists, as to require plainly demonstrative and irresistible Texts for every thing they entertain or believe; they would do well to reflect and consider, whether, for every Article in the three Creeds (which have no Support from natural Reason) they can bring such Texts of Scripture as they require of others; or a fairer and juster Evidence, all things consider’d, than we have done for the Substance of this Theory. We have not indeed said all that might be said, as to Antiquity; that making no part in this Review, and being capable still of great Additions. But as to Scripture and Reason I have no more to add: Those that are not satisfied with the Proofs already produc’d upon these two Heads, are under a Fate, good or bad, which is not in my Power to overcome. _FINIS._

Footnote 6:

There was a Sect amongst the _Jews_ that held this Perpetuity and
Immutability of Nature; and _Maimonides_ himself was of this
Principle, and gives the same Reason for it with the Scoffers here in
the Text, _Quod mundus retinet & sequitur Consuetudinem suam._ And as
to those of the _Jews_ that were _Aristoteleans_, it was very suitable
to their principles to hold the Incorruptibility of the World, as
their Master did. _Vid. Med. in loc._

Footnote 7:

δὶ ῀ὠν, _per que_. Vulgat. _Quamobrem_, Beza. _Quâ de causâ_, Grot.
_Nemo interpretum reddidit_ δὶ ῀ὠν, per quas; _subintelligendo_ aquas.
_Hoc enim argumentationem Apostolicana tolleret, supponeretque
illusores illos ignorâsse quod olim fuerit Diluvium; Quod supponi non
posse supra ostendimus._

Footnote 8:

This Phrase or manner of Speech συνισάναι ἐκ vel ἐξ is not usual in
_Greek_ Authors; and upon a like Subject, _Plato_ saith, τὸν δὲ κόσμον
συνισάναι ἐκ πυρὸς ὕδατος, ἀέρος, γῆς, but he that should translate
_Plato_, _the World stands out of Fire, Water_, _&c._ would be thought
neither _Grecian_, nor Philosopher. The same Phrase is us’d in
reciting _Heraclitus_ his Opinion, τὰ πάντα ἐκ πυρὸς συνεσάναι, καὶ
εἰς τοῦτο ἀναλιέως. And also in _Thales_ his which is still nearer to
the Subject, ἐκ τοῦ ὑδατός, φηοι, συνιζάναι πάντα, which _Cicero_
renders, _ex aquâ, dixit, constare omnia_. So that it is easy to know
the true Importance of this Phrase, and how it is ill render’d in the
English, _standing out of the Water_.

Footnote 9:

Whether you refer the Words ἐξ ὕδατ. καὶ δὶ ὕδατ separately to the
Heavens and the Earth, or both to the Earth, or both to both, it will
make no great Difference as to our Interpretation.

Footnote 10:

I know some would make this Place of no effect by rendering the
_Hebrew_ Particle על _juxta, by_ or _near_ to; so they would read it
thus, _he had founded the Earth by the Sea-side_, and establish’d it
by the Floods. What is there wonderful in this, that the Shores should
lie by the Sea-side? Where could they lie else? What Reason or
Argument is this, why the Earth should be the Lord’s? The Earth is the
Lord’s, _for_ he hath founded it _near_ the Seas. Where is the
Consequence of this? But if he founded it upon the Seas, which could
not be done by any other Hand but his, it shews both the Workman and
the Master. And accordingly in that other, _Psal._ cxxxvi. 6, if you
render it, He _stretched_ out the Earth _near_ the Waters, How is that
one of God’s great Wonders, as it is there represented to be? Because
in some few Places this Particle is rendered otherwise, where the
Sense will bear it, must we therefore render it so when we please, and
where the Sense will not bear it? This being the most usual
Signification of it, and there being no other Word that signifies
_above_ more frequently or determinately than this does, why must it
signify otherwise in this Place? Men will wriggle any way to get from
under the Force of a Text, that does not suit to their own Notions.

Footnote 11:

This reading or translating is generally followed, (_Theor. Book_ i.
_p._ 86.) though the _English_ Translation read _on a heap_,
unsuitably to the Matter and to the Sense.

Footnote 12:

See _Philo Judæus_ his Description of the Deluge, both as to the
Commotions of the Heavens, and the Fractions of the Earth. In his
first Treatise _de Abrahamo_, _mih_, _p._ 279.

Footnote 13:

_Uti comparatio præcedens_, ver. 4, 5, 6. _de ortu Telluris, sumitur
ab ædificio, ita hæc altera de orsu maris, sumitur à partu; &
exhibetur Oceanus, primùm, ut fœtus inclusus in utero, dein ut
erumpens & prodeuns, denique ut fasciis & primus suis panniis
involvutus. Atque ex aperto Terræ utero prorupit aquarum moles, ut
proluties illæ, quam simul cum fœtu profundere solet puerpera_.

AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN,
Against the SACRED THEORY OF THE EARTH.

THE FOURTH EDITION.

_LONDON_:

Printed for J. HOOKE, at the _Flower de Luce_ in
_Fleetstreet_, MDCCXXVI.

AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE BY _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN, AGAINST THE
_THEORY_ of the _EARTH_.

If it be Civility to return a speedy Answer to a Demand or Message, I will not fail to pay that Respect to the late Author of the _Exceptions against the Theory of the Earth_. I know, short Follies, and short Quarrels, are the best: And to offer Satisfaction at the first Opportunity, is the fairest Way to put an End to Controversies. Besides, such personal Altercations as these, are but _Res perituræ_, which do not deserve much Time or Study; but, like Repartees, are best made off hand, and never thought on more. I only desire that Friendliness, that some Allowance may be made as to Unaccuracy of Style: Which is always allow’d in hasty Dispatches.

I shall make no Excursions from the Subject, nor use any other Method than to follow the learned _Exceptor_ from Chapter to Chapter, and observe his Steps and Motions, so far as they are contrary to the Theory. But if he divert out of his Way, for his Pleasure, or other Reasons best known to himself, I may take notice of it perhaps, but shall not follow him any farther than my Business leads me; having no design to abridge his Liberty, but to defend my own Writings where they are attack’d. Give me leave therefore, without any other Preface or Ceremony, to fall to our Work.

CHAP. I.

This Chapter is only an Introduction, and treats of other Things, without any particular Opposition to the Theory. And therefore I shall only give you the Conclusion of it, in the Author’s own Words: _So much for the first Chapter; which may be reckoned as an Introduction to the following Discourse. Which if any shall look upon as a Collection of Notes, somewhat confusedly put together, rather than a formal, well digested Treatise, they will entertain the best or truest Idea of it._ A severe Censure: But every Man best understands his own Works.

CHAP. II.

Here he begins to enter upon particular Exceptions: And his first Head is against the _Formation of the Earth_, _pag._ 45. as explained by the Theory. To this he gives but one Exception in this Chapter: Namely, That _it would have taken up too much Time; the World being made in six Days_. Whereas many Separations of the Chaos, and of the Elements, were to be made, according to the Theory, which could not be dispatch’d in so short a Time. To this Exception, the general Answer may be this; either you take the Hypothesis of an ordinary Providence, or of an extraordinary, as to the Time allowed for the Formation of the Earth: If you proceed according to an ordinary Providence, the Formation of the Earth would require much more Time than six Days: But if according to an extraordinary, you may suppose it made in six Minutes, if you please. ’Twas plain Work, and a simple Process, according to the Theory; consisting only of such and such Separations, and a Concretion: And either of these might be accelerated, and dispatch’d in a longer or shorter Time, as Providence thought fit.

However, this Objection does not come well from the Hands of this Author, who makes all the Mountains of the Earth (the most operose Part of it, as one would think) to be rais’d in a small Parcel of a Day by the Heat and Action of the Sun; as we shall find in the tenth Chapter, hereafter. He seems to proceed by natural Causes; for such are the Heat and Action of the Sun: And if so, he will find himself as much straiten’d for Time, as the Theorist can be. But if he say, the Work of Nature and of the Sun was accelerated by an extra-ordinary Power, he must allow us to say the same Thing of the Separations of the Chaos, and the first Concretion of the Earth. For he cannot reasonably debar us that Liberty which he takes himself, unless we have debarr’d and excluded our selves. Now ’tis plain, the Theorist never excluded an extraordinary Providence in the Formation and Construction of the Earth; as appears, and is openly express’d in many Parts of the Theory, _Eng. Theor. p._ 88. See, if you please, the Conclusion of the _fifth Chapter_, which treats about the Formation of the Earth. The last Paragraph is this: _Give me leave only, before we proceed any farther, to annex here a short Advertisement, concerning the Causes of this wonderful Structure of the first Earth: ’Tis true, we have propos’d the natural Causes of it, and I do not know wherein our Explication is false or defective; but in Things of this Kind we may easily be too credulous: And this Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to be consider’d as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the Work of Nature. The whole Globe of the Water vaulted over, and the exterior Earth hanging above the Deep, sustain’d by nothing but its own Measures and Manner of Construction: A Building without Foundation or Corner-stone. This seems to be a Piece of Divine Geometry or Architecture; and to this, I think, is to be referr’d that magnificent Challenge which God Almighty made to_ Job; Where wast thou, when I laid the Foundations of the Earth? Declare, _&c._ Moses _also, when be had describ’d the Chaos, saith_, The Spirit of God mov’d upon, _or sat brooding upon_, the Face of the Waters; _without all doubt, to produce some Effects there_. _And St._ Peter, _when he speaks of the Form of the Anti-deluvian Earth, how it stood, in reference to the Waters, adds_, By the Word of God, _or by the Wisdom of God_, it was made so. _And this same Wisdom of God, in the_ Proverbs, _as we observed before, takes notice of this very Piece of Work in the Formation of the Earth_: When he set an Orb over the Face of the Deep, I was there. _Wherefore to the great Architect, who made the boundless Universe out of nothing, and form’d the Earth out of a Chaos, let the Praise of the whole Work, and particularly, of this Master-piece, for ever, with all Honour, be given._ In like Manner, there is a larger Account of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, as to the Revolutions of the natural World, in the last Paragraph of the eighth Chapter; and like Reflections are made in other Places, when Occasion is offer’d.

We have not, therefore, any where excluded the Influence and Benefit of superior Causes, where the Case requires it: Especially, when ’tis only to modify the Effect, as to Time and Dispatch. And in that Case, none will have more need of it than himself; as we shall find in the Examination of his tenth Chapter, about the Origin of Mountains.

The rest of this second Chapter is spent in three Excursions. One in justifying the _Cartesian_ Way of forming Light and the Sun, as agreeable to _Moses_. The second about the _Jewish Cabala_, and _Cabalistical Interpretations_. And the third about _mystical Numbers_. But the Theory not being concern’d in these Things, I leave them to the Author, and his Readers, to enjoy the Pleasure and Profit of them. And proceed to the third Chapter.

CHAP. III.

In this Chapter a second Exception against the Formation of the Earth, as propos’d in the Theory, is alledg’d: And ’tis this; The Fluctuation of the Chaos, or of that first watery Globe, would hinder, he says, any Concretion of Earth upon its Surface. Not that there were Winds or Storms then, to agitate those Waters; neither would the Motion of the Earth, or the Rotation of that Globe, disturb them, as he allows there; but the Disturbance would have Rise from Tides, _p._ 74. _lin._ 18, 19. or the Ebbings and Flowings of that great Ocean, which, he says, must have been then, as well as now; And the Reason he gives, is this; because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon; and the Moon was then present, as he says, in our Heavens, or in our Vortex: And therefore, would have the same Effect then, upon that Body of Waters which lay under it, that it hath now upon the Sea.

That the Moon was in the Heavens, and in our Neighbourhood, when the Earth was form’d, he proves from the six Days Creation: and spends two or three Pages in Wit and Scolding upon this Subject, _p._ 77, 78, 79. But, with his leave, when all is done, his Argument will be of no Force, unless he can prove, that the _fourth Day’s Creation was before the third_. I confess, I have heard of a Wager that was lost upon a like Case, namely, Whether _Henry_ VIII. was before _Henry_ VII? But that was done by Complot in the Company, to whom it was referr’d to decide the Question. We have no Plot here, but appeal fairly to that Judge the Exceptor hath chosen, namely, to Scripture, which tells us, that the Moon was made the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third. Therefore, unless the fourth Day was before the third, the Moon could not hinder the Formation of the Earth.

But I hope, say you, this is a Misrepresentation. The Animadverter sure would not put the Matter upon this Issue. Yes, he does. For when he had oppos’d to our Formation of the Earth, the Fluctuation of the Waters, caus’d, as he phrases it, by the _bulky Presence_ of the Moon, he concludes with these Words, (_p._ 77. _Parag._ 3.) _But in reference to this Matter, there is a Doubt made by the Theorist, which must be consider’d and removed; otherwise most of what hath been said, touching the Instability and Fluctuation of these Waters, will be vain and groundless: The Doubt is, Whether the Moon were then in our Neighbourhood._ You see that Matter is put upon this Issue, Whether the Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth, at the Time of its Formation. We say she was not; and prove it by this plain Argument, If she was not in Being at that Time, she was not in our Neighbourhood: But unless the _fourth_ Day was before the _third_, she was not in Being. _Ergo._

But after all, if the Moon had been present then, and there had been Tides, or any other Fluctuation towards the Poles, we have no Reason to believe, according to the Experiences we have now, that that would have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, upon the Surface of the Chaos. For why should they have hinder’d that more, than they do the Formation of Ice upon the Surface of the Sea? We know, in cold Regions, the Seas are frozen, notwithstanding their Tides; and in the Mouths of Rivers, where there is both the Current and Stream of the River on one hand, and the Counter-Current of the Tides on the other; these, together, cannot hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water: And our Water is a Substance more thin, and easily broken, than that tenacious Film was, that cover’d the Chaos. WHEREFORE, upon all Suppositions, we have Reason to conclude, that no Fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder the Formation of the first Earth.

Lastly, The Observator opposes the Reasons that are given by the Theorist, _why the Presence of the Moon_ was less needful in the first World. Namely, _because there were no long Winter Nights; nor the great Pool of the Sea to move or govern_. As to the second Reason, ’tis only hypothetical; and if the Hypothesis be true, _That_ there was no open Sea at that Time, (which must be elsewhere examin’d,) the Consequence is certainly true. But as to the first Reason, he will not allow the Consequence, tho’ the Hypothesis be admitted. For he says, _p._ 79. _As there were no long Winter Nights then, so there were no short Summer ones neither: So that set but the one against the other, and the Presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then, in regard of the Length of Nights, as she is now._ This looks like a witty Observation, but it does not reach the Point. Is there as much need of the Moon in _Spain_, as in _Lapland_, or the Northern Countries? There is as much Night in one Place as another, within the Compass of a Year, but the great Inconvenience is, when the Night falls upon the Hours of Travel, or the Hours of Work and Business; for if it fall only upon Hours of Sleep, or of Rest and Retirement, as it does certainly more in _Spain_, and in those Climates that approach nearer to an Equinox; the Moon is there less necessary in that Respect: We can sleep without Moonshine, or without Light, but we cannot travel, or do Business abroad, without Hazard and great Inconvenience, if there be no Light. So that the Reason of the Theorist holds good, _viz._ That there would be more Necessity of Moon-shine in long Winter Nights, than in a perpetual Equinox.

We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter, which is made up of some secondary Charges against this Part of the Theory, concerning the Chaos and the Formation of the first Earth. As, First, That it is, _p._ 80, 81. _Precarious:_ Secondly, _p._ 83. _Unphilosophical_: And, Thirdly, _Antiscriptural_; which we shall answer in order. He seems to offer at three or four Instances of _Precariousness_, as to the Ingredients of the Chaos, their Proportions and Separations; but his Quarrel is chiefly with the oily Particles: These he will scarce allow at all; nor that they could separate themselves in due Time to receive the terrestrial, at least in due Proportions.

First, He would have no oily Particles in the Chaos. But why so, I pray? What Proof or just Exception is there against them? Why may not there be original oily Particles, as well as original salt Particles? Such as your great Master _Des Cartes_ supposes, _Prin. ph._ _l._ 4. §. 84. _Meteor._ _c._ 1. §. 8. He who considers that vast Quantity of oleaginous Matter that is dispers’d every where, in Vegetables, in Animals, and in many sorts of Earths, and that this must have been from the Beginning, or as soon as the Earth had any Furniture; will see Reason to believe that such Particles must be thought original and primeval; not forg’d below the Abyss, and extracted from the inferior Regions of the Earth: For that would require a Process of many Ages; whereas, these being the Principles of Fertility, it is reasonable to suppose, that a new World abounds with them more than an old one. Lastly, If we suppose oily Particles to be tenuious and branchy, as your Philosopher does, too gross to be Air, and too light for Water; why should we imagine that in that vast Mass and Variety of Particles, whereof the Chaos consisted, there should not be any of this Figure, as well as of others? Or, what Reason is there to suppose, that there are none of that Figure, but what are brought from the inferior Regions of the Earth? For, of all others, these seem to be the most unlikely, if not incapable, of being extracted from thence. And if there be only a gradual Difference, in Magnitude and Mobility, betwixt the Particles of Air and Oil, as that Philosopher seems to suppose, _Prin. phil._ _l._ 4. §. 76. why must we exclude these Degrees, and yet admit the higher and lower?

The second Thing which he charges with _Precariousness_, is the Separation of this oily Matter, in due time, so as to make a Mixture and Concretion with the terrestrial Particles that fell from above. This Objection was both made and answered by the Theorist; _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 79. which the Observator might have vouchsaf’d to have taken notice of; and either confuted the Answer, or spar’d himself the Pains of repeating the Objection.

The third _Precariousness_ is, concerning the Quantity and Proportion of these Particles: And the fourth, concerning the Quantity and Proportion of the Water. The Exceptor, it seems, would have had the Theorist to have gauged these Liquors, and told him the just Measure and Proportion of each; but, in what Theory or Hypothesis is that done? Has his great Philosopher, in his Hypothesis of _Three Elements_, (which the Exceptor makes use of, _p._ 52.) or in his several Regions of the unform’d Earth, the _Fourth Book of his Principles_, defin’d the Quantity and Dimensions of each? Or in the mineral Particles and Juices, which he draws from the lower Regions, does he determine the Quantity of them? And yet these, by their Excess, or Defect, might be of great Inconvenience to the World: Neither do I censure him for these Things, as _precarious_. For, when the Nature of a Thing admits a Latitude, the original Quantity of it is left to be determin’d by the Effects; and the Hypothesis stands good, if neither any Thing antecedent, nor any present _Phænomena_, can be alledged against it.

But if these Examples, from his great Philosopher be not sufficient, I will give him one from an Author beyond all Exceptions; And that is from himself. Does the Animadverter, in his new Hypothesis concerning the Deluge, _Ch._ 15. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-Water, and the just Proportions of his Rain-Water, that concurred to make the Deluge? I find no Calculations there, but general Expressions, that the one was far greater than the other; and that may be easily presumed, concerning the oily Substance, and the watery Chaos: What Scruples therefore, _p._ 80, 81. he raises, in reference to the Chaos, against the Theorist, for not having demonstrated the Proportions of the Liquors of the Abyss, fall upon his own Hypothesis; for the same or greater Reasons. And you know what the old Verse says,

_Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redurguit ipsum._

But, however, he will have such Exceptions, _p._ 81. to stand good against the Theorist, though they are not good against other Persons; because the Theorist stands upon Terms[14] of Certainty, and in one Place of his Book, has this Sentence, _Ego quidem_, &c. These Words, I think, are very exceptionable, if they be taken with the Context: For this Evidence and Certainty, which the Theorist speaks of, is brought in there in Opposition to such uncertain Arguments, as are taken from the Interpretation of _Fables_ and _Symbols_; or from _Etymologies_ and _Grammatical Criticisms_, which are expresly mention’d in the preceding Discourse: And yet this Sentence, because it might be taken in too great an Extent, is left out in the second Edition of the Theory, and therefore, none had Reason to insist upon it. But I see the Exceptor puts himself into a State of War, and thinks there is no foul Play against an Enemy.

So much for his Charge of _Precariousness_. We now come to the second, which is call’d _Unphilosophicalness_. And, why is the Theorist, in this Case, unphilosophical? Because, says the Exceptor, he supposes terrestrial Particles to be dispers’d through the whole Sphere of the Chaos, as high as the Moon: And why not, pray, if it be a mere Chaos? Where, antecedently to Separations, all Things are mix’d and blended without Distinction of Gravity or Levity; otherwise it is not a mere Chaos: And when Separations begin to be made, and Distinction of Parts and Regions, so far it is ceasing to be a mere Chaos. But then, says the Observator, why did not the Moon come down, as well as these terrestrial Particles? I answer by another Question, Why does not the Moon come down now? Seeing she is still in our Vortex, and at the same Distance; and so the same Reason which keeps her up now, kept her up then: Which Reason he will not be at a loss to understand, if he understand the Principles of his great Philosopher.

We come now to the last Charge: That the Theory, in this Part of it, is _antiscriptural_. And why so? Because it supposes the Chaos _dark_, whereas the Scripture says, there was Light the first Day. Well, but does the Scripture say, that the Chaos was throughly illuminated the first Day? The Exceptor, _p._ 52. as I remember, makes the primigenial Light to have been the Rudiment of a Sun; and calls it there, _lin._ 17. a _faint Light_, and a _feeble Light_; and in this Place, _lin._ 27. a _faint Glimmering_. If then the Sun, in all its Strength and Glory, cannot sometimes dispel a Mist out of the Air, what could this _faint, feeble Glimmering_ do, towards the Dissipation of such a gross caliginous Opacity, as that was? This Light might be sufficient to make some Distinction of Day and Night in the Skies; and we do not find any other Mark of its Strength in Scripture, nor any other Use made of it.

So we have done with this Chapter. Give me leave only, without Offence, to observe the Style of the Exceptor, in reference to Scripture, and the Theory. He is apt to call every Thing _antiscriptural_, that suits not his Sense; neither is that enough, but he must also call it, _p._ 78. a _bold Affront_ to Scripture. He confesses, he hath made, _p._ 299. _pen._ a _little bold_ with Scripture himself, in his new Hypothesis; how much that _little_ will prove, we shall see hereafter. But however, as to that hard Word, _Affront_, a discreet Man, as he is not apt to give an Affront, so neither is he forward to call every cross Word, an Affront: Both those Humours are Extreams, and breed Quarrels. Suppose a Man should say boldly, God Almighty _hath no Right Hand_. Oh, might the Animadverter cry, _That’s a bold Affront to Scripture_: For I can shew you many and plain Texts of Scripture, both in the _Old Testament_, and in the _New Testament_, where express Mention is made of God’s _Right Hand_. And will you offer to oppose _Reason_ and _Philosophy_ to express Words of Scripture, often repeated, and in both Testaments? _O Tempora, O Mores!_ So far as my Observation reaches, weak Reasons commonly produce strong Passions. When a Man hath clear Reasons, they satisfy and quiet the Mind; and he is not much concern’d, whether others receive his Notions, or no: But when we have a strong Aversion to an Opinion, from other Motives and Considerations, and find our Reasons doubtful or insufficient; then, according to the Course of human Nature, the Passions rise for a farther Assistance; and what is wanting, in point of Argument, is made up by Invectives and Aggravations.

Footnote 14:

_Eg: quidem i et sum sententis, so in barum resum de quibus agnt
regnitienem, a alarum qunque, quo mements snt, sum s Des aut Natur ut
pat estes perviniendi, ratio i ce est, aliq claris invi: Non
eujecturatis, v, Quetras nimpe i, que opesmi sui, qui meimi sicavent
ab, quam amcteren._

CHAP. IV.

This Chapter is chiefly concerning the _Central Fire_, and the _Origin_ of the _Chaos_; of both which, the Theorist had declared he would not treat: And ’tis an unreasonable Violence to force an Author to treat of what Things we please, and not allow him to prescribe Bounds to his own Discourse. As to the first of these, see what the Theorist hath said, _Engl. Theor._ _p._ 451, and 86, 67. By which Passages it is evident, that he did not meddle with the central Parts of the Earth; nor thought it necessary for his Hypothesis: As is also more fully express’d in the _Latin Theory_, _p._ 45. For, do but allow him a Chaos from the Bottom of the Abyss, upwards to the Moon, and he desires no more for the Formation of an habitable Earth: Neither is it the Part of Wisdom, to load a new Subject with unnecessary Curiosities.

Then as to the Origin of the Chaos, see how the Theorist bounds his Discourse as to that, [15]_Engl. Theor._ _p._ 451. _I did not think it necessary to carry the Story and Original of the Earth, higher than the Chaos, as_ Zoroaster _and_ Orpheus _seem to have done; but taking that for our Foundation which Antiquity, sacred and profane, does suppose, and natural Reason approve and confirm, we have form’d the Earth from it_. To form an habitable Earth from a Chaos given, and to shew all the great Periods and general Changes of that Earth, throughout the whole Course of its Duration, or while it remain’d an Earth, was the adequate Design of the Theorist. And was this Design so short or shallow, that it could not satisfy the great Soul of the Exceptor, _p._ 88. but it must be a _Flaw_ in the Hypothesis, that it did go higher than the Chaos? We content our selves with these Bounds at present. And when a Man declares, that he will write only the _Roman_ History, will you say his Work’s imperfect, because it does not take in the _Persian_ and _Assyrian_?

These Things consider’d, to speak freely of this Chapter, it seems to me, in a great Measure, impertinent; unless it was design’d to shew the Learning of the Observator, who loves, I perceive, to dabble in Philosophy, though little to the Purpose: For, as far as I see, his Disquistions generally end in Scepticism; he disputes first one way, then another; and, at last determines nothing. He rambles betwixt _Des Cartes_ and _Moses_, the _Rabbies_, the _Septuagint_, the _Platonists_, _Magnetisme_, _striate Particles_, and _Præ-existence of Souls_: And ends in nothing, as to the Formation of the Earth, which was to be the Subject of the Chapter. We proceed therefore to the next, in hopes to meet with closer Reasoning.

Footnote 15:

_Si admittamus insupor Ignam Centratem, sive Maisom ignir in centra
Terra, quod quidem ain est basus argumenti. Neque partem intimam
Chaos, niji ibiter & pro formo, conjiaeravi, cum ad um, nesram non
spestet._ _Vid. etiam_ p. 186.

CHAP. V.

From the manner of the Earth’s Formation, the Exceptor, _p._ 106. now proceeds to the _Form_ of it, if compleated. And his first Exception is, That it would want _Waters_, or Rivers to water it. He says, there would either be no Rivers at all, or none, at least, in due time.

The Theorist hath replenish’d that Earth with Rivers, flowing from the extreme Parts of it, towards the middle, in continual Streams; and watering, as a Garden, all the intermediate Climates. And this constant Supply of Water was made from the Heavens, by an uninterrupted Stream of Vapours, which had their Course through the Air, from the middle Parts of the Earth towards the extreme; and falling in Rains, return’d again upon the Surface of the Earth, from the extreme Parts to the middle: For that Earth being of an oval or something oblong Figure, there would be a Declivity all along, or Descent, from the Polar Parts towards the Equinoctial; which gave Course and Motion to these Waters. And the Vapours above never falling in their Course, the Rivers would never fail below; but a perpetual Circulation would be establish’d, betwixt the Waters of the Heavens and of the Earth.

This is a short Account of the State of the Waters in the primeval Earth. Which you may see represented and explain’d more at large, in the _second Book of the Theory_, _Chap._ 5. And this, I believe, is an Idea more easily conceiv’d, than any we could form concerning the Waters and Rivers of the present Earth, if we had not Experience of them. Suppose a Stranger, that had never seen this terraqueous Globe, where we live at present, but was told the general Form of it; how the Sea lies, how the Land, and what was the Constitution of the Heavens: If this Stranger was asked his Opinion, whether such an Earth was habitable; and particularly, whether they could have Waters commodiously in such an Earth, and how the inland Countries would be supplied? I am apt to think, he would find it more difficult (upon an Idea only, without Experience) to provide Waters for such an Earth, as ours is at present, than for such an one as the primeval Earth was. ’Tis true, he would easily find Rains, possible and natural, but with no Constancy or Regularity; and these, he might imagine, would only make transient Torrents, not any fix’d and permanent Rivers. But as for Fountains deriv’d from the Sea, and breaking out in higher Grounds, I am apt to believe, all his Philosophy would not be able to make a clear Discovery of them: But Things that are familiar to us by Experience, we think easy in Speculation, or never enquire into the Causes of them. Whereas, other Things, that never fall under our Experience, though more simple and intelligible in themselves, we reject often as Paradoxes or Romances. Let this be applied to the present Case, and we proceed to answer the Exceptions.

Let us take that Exception first, as most material, _p._ 114. that pretends there would have been no Rivers at all in the primeval Earth, if it was of such a Form as the Theorist had describ’d. And for this, he gives one grand Reason, Because the Regions towards the Poles, where the Rains are suppos’d to fall, and the Rivers to rise, would have been all frozen and congeal’d; and consequently, no fit Sources of Water for the rest of the Earth. Why we should think those Regions would be frozen, and the Rains that fell in them, he gives two Reasons, the Distance, and the Obliquity of the Sun. As also the Experience we have now, of the Coldness and Frozenness of those Parts of the Earth. But as to the Distance of the Sun, He confesses, _p._ 118. that is not the Thing _that does only or chiefly_ make a Climate cold. He might have added, _particularly in that Earth, where the Sun was never at a greater Distance than the Equator_. Then, as to the Obliquity of the Sun, neither was that so great, nor so considerable, in the first Earth, as in the present. Because the Body of that lay in a direct Position to the Sun; whereas the present Earth lies in an oblique. And though the Polar Circles or Circumpolar Parts of that Earth, did not lie so perpendicular to the Sun as the Equinoctial, and consequently were cooler, yet there was no Danger of their being frozen or congeal’d. It was more the Moisture and excessive Rains of those Parts that made them uninhabitable, than the extreme Coldness of the Climate, of it self. And if the Exceptor had well consider’d the Differences betwixt the present and primitive Earth, as to Obliquity of Position, and that which follows from it, the Length of Nights, he would have found no Reason to have charg’d that Earth with _nipping and freezing Cold_; where there was not, I believe, one Morsel of Ice, from one Pole to another: But that will better appear, if we consider the Causes of Cold.

There are three general Causes of Cold: The Distance of the Sun, his Obliquity, and his total Absence; I mean in the Nights. As to Distance, that alone must be of little Effect, seeing there are many Planets (which must not be look’d upon as mere Lumps of Ice) at a far greater Distance from the Sun, than ours: And as to Obliquity, you see it was much less considerable in the respective Parts of the Primitive Earth, than of the present. Wherefore, these are to be consider’d but as secondary Causes of Cold, in respect of the third, the total Absence of the Sun in the Night Time: And where this happens to be long and tedious, there you must expect Excess of Cold. Now, in the primitive Earth there was no such Thing as long Winter Nights, but every where a perpetual Equinox, or a perpetual Day. And consequently, there was no Room or Cause of excessive Cold in any Part of it. But on the contrary, the Case is very different in the present Earth; for in our Climate, we have not the Presence of the Sun, in the Depth of Winter, half as long as he is absent; and towards the Poles they have Nights that last several Weeks or Months together: And then ’tis that the Cold rages, binds up the Ground, freezes the Ocean, and makes those Parts more or less uninhabitable. But where no such Causes are, you need not fear any such Effects.

Thus much to shew that there might be Rains, Waters, and Rivers, in the primigenial Earth, and towards the extreme Parts of it, without any Danger of freezing. But however, says the other Part of the Exception, _These Rivers would not be made in due Time._ That’s wholly according to the Process you take; if you take a mere natural Process, the Rivers could not flow throughout the Earth, all on a sudden; but you may accelerate that Process, as much as you please, by a Divine Hand. As to this Particular indeed of the Rivers, one would think there should be no Occasion for their sudden flowing through the Earth, because Mankind could not be suddenly propagated throughout the Earth: And if they did but lead the Way, and prepare the Ground in every Country, before Mankind arrived there, that seems to be all that would be necessary upon their Account: Neither can it be imagined, but that the Rivers would flow faster than Mankind could follow; for it is probable, in the first hundred Years, Men did not reach an hundred Miles from Home, or from their first Habitations: And we cannot suppose the Defluxion of Water, upon any Declivity, to be half so slow. As to the Channels of these Rivers, the Manner of their Progress, and other Circumstances, those Things are set down fully enough in the fifth Chapter of the second _Book_ of the _English Theory_, and it would be needless to repeat them here.

But the Anti-Theorist says, this slow Production and Propagation of Rivers is contrary to Scripture; both because of the Rivers of Paradise, and also, because Fishes were made the sixth Day. As to that of the Fishes, he must first prove that those were River-Fishes; for the Scripture, _Gen._ i. 21. and 22. makes them Sea-Fish, and instances in great Whales. But he says (_p._ 113, 114.) it will _appear in the Sequel of his Discourse_, that the Abyss could be no Receptacle of Fishes. To that Sequel of his Discourse therefore we must refer the Examination of this Particular. Then as to Paradise, that was but one single Spot of Ground, _ch._ xiii. according to the ordinary Hypothesis; which he seems to adhere to: And Rivers might be there as soon as he pleases, seeing its Seat is not yet determin’d. But as for the Lands which they are said to traverse or encompass, that they might be the Work of Time, when their Channels and Courses were extended and settled; as they would be, doubtless, long before the Time that _Moses_ writ that Description: But as to the _Rivers of Paradise_, it would be a long Story to handle that Dispute here. And ’tis fit the Authors should first agree amongst themselves, before we determine the Original of its River, or Rivers.

CHAP. VI.

We come now to the Deluge, where the great Exception is this, _p._ 121. That according to the Theory, the Deluge would have come to pass, whether Mankind had been degenerate, or no.

We know Mankind did degenerate, and ’tis a dangerous Thing to argue upon false Suppositions; and to tell what would have come to pass, in case such a Thing had not come to pass: Suppose _Adam_ had not sinn’d, what would have become of the _Messiah_? _Eph._ i. 4. 1 _Pet._ i. 20. _Apoc._ xiii. 8. and the Dispensation of the Gospel, which yet is said to have been determin’d more early than the Deluge? Let the Anti-Theorist answer himself this Question, and he may answer his own.