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.

But St. _Austin_ owns the Authority of this Epistle, and of this

Doctrine, as deriv’d from it, taking notice of this Text of St.

_Peter_’s in several Parts of his Works. We have noted three or four

Places already to this purpose, and we may further take notice of

several Passages in his Treatise, _de Civ. Dei_, which confirm our

Exposition. In his xxth Book, _ch._ xxiv. he Disputes against

_Porphyry_, who had the same Principles with these Eternalists in the

Text; or, if I may so call them Incorruptarians; and thought the World

never had, nor ever would undergo any Change, especially, as to the

Heavens. St. _Austin_ could not urge _Porphyry_ with the Authority of

St. _Peter_, for he had no Veneration for the Christian Oracles, but it

seems he had some for the _Jewish_; and arguing against him, upon that

Text in the Psalms, _Cœli peribunt_, he shews, upon Occasion, how he

understands St. _Peter_’s Destruction of the old World. _Legitur Cœlum &

Terra transibunt, Mundus transit, sed puto quod præterit transit,

transibunt aliquantò mitius dicta sunt quam peribunt. In Epistolà quoque

Petri Apostoli, ubi aquâ inundatus, qui tum erat, periisse dictus est

Mundus, satis clarum est quæ pars mundi a toto significata est, &

quatenus periisse dicta sit, & qui Cœli repositi igni reservandi._ This

he explains more fully afterwards by subjoining a Caution (which we

cited before) that we must not understand this Passion of St. _Peter_’s

concerning the Destruction of the ante-diluvian World, to take in the

whole Universe, and the highest Heavens, but only the aerial Heavens,

and the sublunary World. _In Apostolicâ illâ Epistola a toto pars

accipitur, quod Diluvio periisse dictus est Mundus quamvis sola ejus,

cum suis Cœlis pars ima perierit. In that Apostolical Epistle, a part is

signified by the whole, when the World is said to have perished in the

Deluge, although the lower part of it only, with the Heavens belonging

to it, perished_; that is, the Earth with the Regions of the Air that

belong to it. And consonant to this, in his Exposition of that ci.

_Psalm_, upon those Words, _The Heavens are the work of thy Hands; they

shall perish, but thou shalt endure._ This perishing of the Heavens, he

says, St. _Peter_ tells us, hath been once done already, namely, at the

Deluge: _Apertè dixit hoc Apostolus Petrus, Cœli erant olim & Terra, de

aquâ & per aquam constituti, Dei verbo; per quod qui factus est mundus,

aquâ inundatus deperiit; Terra autem & Cœli qui nunc sunt, igni

reservantur. Jam ergo dixit periisse Cœlos per Diluvium._

These Places shew us, that St. _Austin_ understood St. _Peter_’s

Discourse to aim at the natural World, and his _periit_ or _periisse_

(ver. 6) to be of the same Force as _peribunt_ in the _Psalms_, when

’tis said the Heavens _shall perish_; and consequently that the Heavens

and the Earth, in this Father’s Opinion, were as really changed and

transformed at the Time of the Flood, as they will be at the

Conflagration. But we must not expect from St. _Austin_, or any of the

Antients, a distinct Account of this Apostolical Doctrine, as if they

knew and acknowledg’d the Theory of the first World; that does not at

all appear, but what they said was either from broken Tradition, or

extorted from them by the Force of the Apostle’s Words and their own

Sincerity.

There are yet other Places in St. _Austin_ worthy our Consideration upon

this Subject; especially his Exposition of this iiid Chapter of St.

_Peter_, as we find it in the same Treatise, _de Civ. Dei_, _cap._

xviii. There he compares again, the Destruction of that World at the

Deluge, with that which shall be at the Conflagration, and supposeth

both the Heavens and Earth to have perish’d: _Apostolus commemorans

factum ante Diluvium, videtur admonuisse quodammodo quatenùs in fine

hujus seculi mundum istum periturum esse credamus. Nam & illo tempore

periisse dixit, qui tunc erat, mundum; nec solum orbem terræ, verum

etiam cœlos._ Then giving his usual Caution, that the Stars and starry

Heavens should not be comprehended in that mundane Destruction, he goes

on, _Atque hoc modo_ (penè totus aër) _cum terra perierat; cujus Terræ

utique prior facies_ (nempe ante-diluviana) _fuerat deleta Diluvia. Qui

autem nunc sunt cœli & terra eodem verba repositi sunt igni reservandi;

Proinde qui Cœli & quæ Terra id est, qui mundus, pro eo mundo qui

Diluvio periit, ex eádem aquâ repositus est, ipse igni novissimo

reservatur._ Here you see St. _Austin_’s Sense upon the whole Matter;

which is this, that the natural World, the Earth with the Heavens about

it, was destroyed and chang’d at the Deluge into the present Heavens and

Earth; which shall again, in like Manner, be destroyed and chang’d by

the last Fire. Accordingly, in another place, to add no more, he saith,

the Figure of the (sublunary) World shall be changed at the

Conflagration, as it was chang’d at the Deluge: _Tunc figura hujus

mundi_, &c. _cap._ xvi.

Thus you see, we have St. _Austin_ on our side, in both Parts of our

Interpretation; that St. _Peter_’s Discourse is to be referr’d to the

natural inanimate World, and that the present natural World is distinct

and different from that which was before the Deluge. And St. _Austin_

having applied this expresly to St. _Peter_’s Doctrine by way of

Commentary, it will free us from any Crime or Affectation of Singularity

in the Exposition we have given of that Place.

Venerable _Bede_ hath followed St. _Austin_’s Footsteps in this

Doctrine; for, interpreting St. _Peter_’s _original World_ (Αρχαῖος

Κόσμος) 2 _Pet._ ii. 5. he refers both that and this (_chap._ iii. 6.)

to the natural inanimate World, which he supposeth to have undergone a

Change at the Deluge. His Words are these, _Idem ipse mundus est_ (nempe

quoad materiam) _in quo nunc humanum genus habitat, quem inhabitaverunt

hi qui ante diluvium fuerunt, sed tamen rectè Originalis Mundus, quasi

alius dicitur; quia sicut in consequentibus hujus Epistolæ scriptum

continetur, Ille tunc mundus aquâ inundatus periit. Cælis videlicet qui

erant prius, id est, cunctis aëris hujus turbulenti spatiis, aquarum

accrescentiun altitudine consumptis, ac Terrâ in alteram faciem,

excedentibus aquis, immutatâ. Nam etsi montes aliqui atque convalles ab

initio facti creduntur, non tamen tanti quanti nunc in orbe cernuntur

universo. ’Tis the same World_ (namely, as to the Matter and Substance

of it) _which Mankind lives in now, and did live in before the Flood,

but yet that is truly called the ORIGINAL WORLD, being as it were

another from the present. For it is said in the Sequel of this Epistle,

that the World that was then, perished in the Deluge; namely, the

Regions of the Air were consumed by the Height and Excess of the Water;

and by the same Waters the Earth was changed into another Form or Face.

For although some Mountains and Valleys are thought to have been made

from the Beginning, yet not such great ones as now we see throughout the

whole Earth._

You see this Author does not only own a Change made at the Deluge, but

offers at a farther Explication wherein that Change consisted, _viz._

That the Mountains and Inequalities of the Earth were made greater than

they were before the Flood; and so he makes the Change, or the

Difference betwixt the two Worlds gradual, rather than specifical, if I

may so term it. But we cannot wonder at that, if he had no Principles to

carry it farther, or to make any other Sort of Change intelligible to

him. _Bede_ [_De 6 dier. creat._] also pursues the same Sense and Notion

in his Interpretation of that _Fountain_, _Gen._ ii. 5. that watered the

Face of the Earth before the Flood. And many other Transcribers of

Antiquity have recorded this Tradition concerning a Difference, gradual

or specifical, both in the ante-diluvian Heavens (_Gloss. Ordin. Gen._

ix. _de Iride. Lyran. ibid. Hist. Scholast._ _c. 35. Rab. Maurus &

Gloss. Inter. Gen._ ii. 5, 6. _Alcuin. Quæst. in Gen. inter._ 135.) and

in the ante-diluvian Earth, as the same Authors witness in other Places:

As _Hist. Schol. c. 34. Gloss. Ord. in Gen._ vii. _Alcuin. Inter. 118,

&c._ Not to Instance those that tell us the Properties of the

ante-diluvian World under the Name and Notion of _Paradise_.

Thus much concerning this remarkable Place in St. _Peter_, and the true

Exposition of it; which I have the more largely insisted upon, because I

look upon this Place as the chief Repository of that great natural

Mystery, which in Scripture is communicated to us concerning the triple

State or Revolution of the World. And of those Men that are so

scrupulous to admit the Theory we have propos’d, I would willingly know,

whether they believe the Apostle in what he says concerning the _new

Heavens_ and the _new Earth to come_? ver. 13. and if they do, why they

should not believe him as much concerning the _old Heavens_ and the _old

Earth_ past? _ver._ 5, and 6. which he mentions as formally, and

describes more distinctly than the other. But if they believe neither

past nor to come, in a natural Sense, but an unchangeable State of

Nature from the Creation to its Annihilation, I leave them then to their

Fellow-Eternalists in the Text, and to the Character or Censure the

Apostle gives them, Κατὰ τὰς ἴδιας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι, Men that

go by their own private Humour and Passions, and prefer that to all

other Evidence.

They deserve this Censure, I am sure, if they do not only disbelieve,

but also scoff, at this Prophetick and Apostolick Doctrine concerning

the Vicissitudes of Nature and a triple World. The Apostle in this

Discourse does formally distinguish three Worlds (for ’tis well known

that the _Hebrews_ have no Word to signify the natural World, but use

that Periphrasis, _the Heavens_ and _the Earth_) and upon each of them

engraves a Name and Title that bears a Note of Distinction in it: He

calls them the _old Heavens and Earth_, the _present Heavens and Earth_,

and the _new Heavens and Earth_. ’Tis true, these three are one, as to

Matter and Substance; but they must differ as to Form and Properties;

otherwise what is the Ground of this Distinction and of these three

different Appellations? Suppose the _Jews_ had expected _Ezekiel_’s

Temple for the third, and last, and most perfect; and that in the Time

of the second Temple they had spoke of them with this Distinction, or

under these different Names, the _old Temple_, the _present Temple_, and

the _new Temple_ we expect; would any have understood those three of one

and the same Temple; never demolish’d, never chang’d, never rebuilt;

always the same, both as to Materials and Form? No, doubtless, but of

three several Temples succeeding one another. And have we not the same

Reason to understand this Temple of the World, whereof St. _Peter_

speaks, to be three-fold in Succession; seeing he does as plainly

distinguish it into the _old_ Heavens and Earth, the _present_ Heavens

and Earth? and the _new_ Heavens and Earth. And I do the more willingly

use this Comparison of the Temple, because it hath been thought an

Emblem of the outward World.

I know we are naturally averse to entertain any Thing that is

inconsistent with the general Frame and Texture of our own Thoughts;

that’s to begin the World again; and we often reject such things without

Examination. Neither do I wonder that the generality of Interpreters

beat down the Apostle’s Words and Sense to their own Notions; they had

no other Grounds to go upon, and Men are not willing, especially in

natural and comprehensible things, to put such a Meaning upon Scripture,

as is unintelligible to themselves; they rather venture to offer a

little Violence to the Words, that they may pitch the Sense at such a

convenient Height, as their Principles will reach to: And therefore

though some of our modern Interpreters, whom I mention’d before, have

been sensible of the natural Tendency of this Discourse of St.

_Peter_’s, and have much ado to bear off the Force of the Words, so as

not to acknowledge that they import a real Diversity betwixt the two

Worlds spoken of; yet having no Principles to guide or support them in

following that Tract, they are forc’d to stop or divert another way.

’Tis like entring into the Mouth of a Cave, we are not willing to

venture farther than the Light goes: Nor are they much to blame for

this, the Fault is only in those Persons that continue wilfully in their

Darkness; and when they cannot otherwise resist the Light, shut their

Eyes against it, or turn their Head another Way.—But I am afraid I have

staid too long upon this Argument; not for my own sake, but to satisfy

others.

You may please to remember that all that I have said hitherto, belongs

only to the first Head: To prove a _Diversity in general_ betwixt the

ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present; not expressing what

their particular Form was. And this general Diversity may be argued also

by Observations taken from _Moses_ his History of the World, before and

after the Flood: From the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians; the Rainbow

appearing after the Deluge; and the breaking open an Abyss capable to

overflow the Earth. The Heavens that had no Rain-bow, and under whose

benign and steady Influence, Men liv’d seven, eight, nine hundred Years

and upwards, [See _Theor. Book_ ii. _ch._ 5.] must have been of a

different Aspect and Constitution from the present Heavens: And that

Earth that had such an Abyss, that the Disruption of it made an

universal Deluge, must have been of another Form than the present Earth;

and those that will not admit a Diversity in the two Worlds, are bound

to give us an intelligible Account of these Phænomena: How they could

possibly be in Heavens and Earth, like the present? Or if they were

there once, why they do not continue so still, if Nature be the same?

We need say no more, as to the ante-diluvian Heavens; but as to the

Earth, we must now, according to the second part of the first Head,

enquire, if that _particular Form_, which we have assign’d it before the

Flood, be agreeable to Scripture. You know how we have described the

Form and Situation of that Earth; namely, that it was built over the

Abyss, as a regular Orb, covering and incompassing the Waters round

about, and founded, as it were, upon them. There are many Passages of

Scripture that favour this Description; some more expresly, others upon

a due Explication. To this purpose there are two express Texts in the

_Psalms_; as _Psal._ xxiv. 1, 2. _The Earth is the Lord’s, and the

Fulness thereof; the habitable World, and they that dwell therein. FOR

he has founded it upon the[10] Sea, and established it upon the Floods_.

An Earth founded upon the Seas, and establish’d upon the Waters, is not

this Earth we have describ’d? The first Earth, as it came from the Hands

of its Maker? Where can we now find in Nature such an Earth, as the Seas

and the Water for its Foundation? Neither is this Text without a second,

as a Fellow Witness to confirm the same Truth; for in _Psal._ cxxxvi.

_ver._ 4, 5, 6. we read to the same Effect, in these Words, _To him who

alone does great Wonders; to him that by Wisdom made the Heavens; to him

that stretched out the Earth above the Waters_. We can hardly express

that Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, in Words more determinate than

these are: Let us then, in the same Simplicity of Heart, follow the

Words of Scripture; seeing this literal Sense is not repugnant to

Nature, but, on the contrary, agreeable to it upon the strictest

Examination. And we cannot, without some Violence, turn the Words to any

other Sense. What tolerable Interpretation can these admit of, if we do

not allow the Earth once to have encompass’d and over-spread the Face of

the Waters? To be _founded_ upon the Waters, to be _establish’d_ upon

the Waters, to be _extended_ upon the Waters, what rational or

satisfactory Account can be given of these Phrases and Expressions from

any thing we find in the present Situation of the Earth? Or how can they

be verified concerning it? Consult Interpreters, antient or modern, upon

these two Places; see if they answer your Expectation, or answer the

natural Importance of the Words, unless they acknowledge another Form of

the Earth, than the present. Because a Rock hangs its Nose over the Sea,

must the Body of the Earth be said to be _stretched over the Waters_?

Or, because there are Waters in some subterraneous Cavities, is the

Earth therefore _founded upon the Seas_? Yet such lame Explications as

these you will meet with; and while we have no better Light, we must

content our selves with them; but when an Explication is offer’d, that

answers the Propriety, Force and Extent of the Words, to reject it, only

because it is not fitted to our former Opinions, or because we did not

first think of it, is to take an ill Method in expounding Scripture.

This _Foundation_ or _Establishment_ of the Earth upon the Seas, this

_Extention_ of it above the Waters, relates plainly to the Body, or

whole Circuit of the Earth, not to Parcels and Particles of it; as

appears from the Occasion, and its being join’d with the Heavens, the

other Part of the World. Besides, _David_ is speaking of the Origin of

the World, and of the divine Power and Wisdom in the Constitution and

Situation of our Earth; and these Attributes do not appear from the

Holes of the Earth, and broken Rocks, which have rather the Face of a

Ruin, than of Wisdom; but in that wonderful Libration and Expansion of

the first Earth over the Face of the Waters, sustained by its own

Proportions, and the Hand of his Providence.

These two Places in the _Psalms_ being duly consider’d, we shall more

easily understand a third Place, to the same effect, in the _Proverbs_;

delivered by _WISDOM_, concerning the Origin of the World, and the Form

of the first Earth, in these Words, _Chapter_ viii. 27. _When he

prepared the Heavens I was there, when HE SET an Orb or Sphere upon the

Face of the Abyss._ We render it, when we set a Compass upon the Face of

the Abyss; but if we have rightly interpreted the Prophet _David_, ’tis

plain enough what Compass is here to be understood; not an imaginary

Circle, (for why should that be thought one of the wonderful Works of

God?) but that exterior Orb of the Earth that was set upon the Waters:

That was the Master-piece of the divine Art in framing of the first

Earth, and therefore very fit to be taken Notice of by _Wisdom_. And

upon this Occasion, I desire you to reflect upon St. _Peter_’s

Expression, concerning the first Earth, and to compare it with

_Solomon_’s, to see if they do not answer one another. St. _Peter_ calls

it, γῆ καθεστῶσα δὶ ὕδάτων, _an Earth consisting, standing_, or

_sustained by the Waters_. And _Solomon_ calls it חונ על בני תהום _An

Orb drawn upon the Face of the Abyss._ And St. _Peter_ says, that was

done τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, by the _Wisdom of God_; which is the same Λόγος

or _Wisdom_, that here declares her self to have been present at this

Work. Add now to these two Places, the two foremention’d out of the

_Psalmist_; _An Earth founded upon the Sea_, (Psal. xxiv. 2.) and an

_Earth stretched out above the Waters_; (_Psal._ cxxxvi. 6.) Can any

Body doubt or question; but all these four Texts refer to the same

Thing? And seeing St. _Peter_’s Description refers certainly to the

ante-diluvian Earth, they must all refer to it; and do all as certainly

and evidently agree with our Theory concerning the Form and Situation of

it.

The pendulous Form and Posture of that first Earth being prov’d from

these four Places, ’tis more easy and emphatical to interpret in this

Sense that Passage in _Job ch._ xxvi. 7. _He stretcheth out the North

over the Tohu_, (for so it is in the Original) _and hangeth the Earth

upon nothing._ And this strange Foundation or no Foundation of the

exterior Earth seems to be the Ground of those noble Questions propos’d

to _Job_ by God Almighty, _chap._ xxxviii. _Where wast thou, when I laid

the Foundations of the Earth? Declare if thou hast understanding,

whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastned, and who laid the

Corner-Stone?_ There was neither Foundation, nor Corner-Stone, in that

piece of Architecture; and that was it which made the Art and Wonder of

it. But I have spoken more largely to these Places in the Theory it

self, _Book_ i. _p._ 119. And if the four Texts before mention’d be

consider’d without Prejudice, I think there are few Matters of natural

Speculation that can be so well prov’d out of Scripture, as the Form

which we have given to the ante-diluvian Earth.

But yet it may be thought a just, if not a necessary Appendix to this

Discourse, concerning the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth, to give an

Account also of the _ante-diluvian Abyss_, and the Situation of it

according to Scripture; for the Relation which these two have to one

another, will be a farther Means to discover, if we have rightly

determined the Form of that Earth. The _Abyss_ or _Tehom Rabbah_ is a

Scripture Notion, and the Word is not us’d, that I know of, in that

distinct and peculiar Sense in Heathen Authors. ’Tis plain that in

Scripture it is not always taken for the Sea (as _Gen._ i. 2. and vii.

11. and xlix. 25. _Deut._ xxxiii. 13. _Job_ xxviii. 14. and xxxviii. 16.

_Psal._ xxxiii. 7. and lxxi. 20. and lxxviii. 15. and cxxxv. 6. _Apoc_.

xx. 1, 3.) but for some other Mass of Waters, or subterraneous

Store-house. And this being observ’d, we may easily discover the Nature,

and set down the History of the Scripture-Abyss.

The Mother-Abyss is no doubt that in the Beginning of _Genesis_, _v._ 2.

which had nothing but Darkness upon the Face of it, or a thick

caliginous Air. The next News we hear of this Abyss is at the Deluge,

(_Gen._ vii. 11.) where ’tis said to be broke open, and the Waters of it

to have drowned the World. It seems then, this Abyss was clos’d up some

Time betwixt the Creation and the Deluge, and had got another Cover than

that of Darkness. And if we will believe _Wisdom_, (_Prov._ viii. 27.)

who was there present at the Formation of the Earth, an _Orb was set

upon the Face of the Abyss_, at the Beginning of the World.

That these three Places refer to the same Abyss, I think, cannot be

questioned by any that will compare them and consider them. That of the

Deluge, _Moses_ calls there _Tehom-Rabbah_, the great _Abyss_; and can

there be any greater than the forementioned Mother-Abyss? And _WISDOM_,

in that Place in the _Proverbs_, useth the same Phrase and Words with

_Moses_, _Gen._ i. 2. על פני תהום _upon the Face of the Deep_, or of the

_Abyss_; changing _Darkness_ for that _Orb_ of the exterior Earth, which

was made afterwards to inclose it. And in this Sort it lay, and under

this Cover, when the _Psalmist_ speaks of it in these Words, _Psal._

xxxiii. 7. _He gathereth the Waters of the Sea, as in a[11] Bag; he

layeth up the Abyss in Store-houses._ Lastly, we may observe, that ’twas

this Mother-Abyss, whose Womb was burst at the Deluge, when the Sea was

born, and broke forth as if it had issued out of a Womb; as God

expresseth it to _Job_, _ch._ xxxviii. 8. in which Place the _Chaldee_

Paraphrase reads it, when it broke forth, _coming out of the Abyss_.

Which Disruption at the Deluge seems also to be alluded to _Job_ xii.

14, 15. and more plainly, _Prov._ iii. 20. _by his Knowledge the Abysses

are broken up_.

Thus you have already a three-fold State of the Abyss, which makes a

short History of it; first, _open_, at the Beginning; then _covered_

till the Deluge; then _broke open_ again, as it is at present. And we

pursue the History of it no farther; but we are told, _Apoc._ xx. 3.

That it shall be shut up again, and the great Dragon in it, for a

thousand Years. In the mean time we may observe from this Form and

Posture of the ante-diluvian Abyss, how suitable it is and coherent with

that Form of the ante-diluvian Earth which St. _Peter_ and the

_Psalmist_ had described, _sustained by the Waters_; _founded upon the

Waters_; _stretched above the Waters_; for if it was the Cover of this

Abyss (and it had some Cover that was broke at the Deluge) it was spread

as a Crust of Ice upon the Face of those Waters, and so made an _Orbis

Terrarum_, an habitable Sphere of Earth about the Abyss.

So much for the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth and Abyss; which as they

aptly correspond to one another, so, you see, our Theory answers, and is

adjusted to both; and, I think, so fitly, that we have no reason

hitherto to be displeased with the Success we have had in the

Examination of it, according to Scripture. We have dispatch’d the two

main Points in Question, first, to prove a Diversity in general betwixt

the two natural Worlds, or betwixt the Heavens and the Earth before and

after the Flood. Secondly, to prove wherein this Diversity consisted; or

that the particular Form of the ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth was such

according to Scripture, as we have describ’d it in the Theory. You’ll

say, then the Work is done; what needs more, all the rest follows of

Course? For if the ante-diluvian Earth had such a Form as we have

propos’d and prov’d it to have had, there could be no Deluge in it but

by a Dissolution of its Parts and exterior Frame: And a Deluge so made,

would not be in the Nature of a Standing-Pool, but of a violent

Agitation and Commotion of the Waters. This is true; these Parts of the

Theory are so cemented, that you must grant all, if you grant any.

However we will try, if even these two Particulars also may be prov’d

out of Scripture; that is, if there be any Marks or Memorandums left

there by the Spirit of God, of such a Fraction or Dissolution of the

Earth at the Deluge; and also such Characters of the Deluge it self, as

shew it to have been by a Fluctuation and impetuous Commotion of the

Waters.

To proceed then; that there was a Fraction or Dissolution of the Earth

at the Deluge, the History of it by _Moses_ gives us the first Account,

seeing he tells us, as the principal Cause of the Flood, that the

Fountains of the _great Abyss_ were _cloven_ or _burst asunder_; and

upon this Disruption the Waters gush’d out from the Bowels of the Earth,

as from the widen’d Mouths of so many Fountains. I do not take

_Fountains_ there to signify any more than Sources or Stores of Water;

noting also this Manner of their Eruption from below, or out of the

Ground, as Fountains do. Accordingly in the _Proverbs_, (_chap._ iii.

20.) ’tis only said, the _Abysses were broken open_. I do not doubt, but

this refers to the Deluge, as _Bede_, and others understand it; the very

Word being us’d here, both in the _Hebrew_ and Septuagint, נבקעו

ἐῤῤάγησαν that express the Disruption of the Abyss at the Deluge.

And this breaking up of the Earth at that Time, is elegantly exprest in

_Job_, by the bursting of the Womb of Nature, when the Sea was first

brought to Light; _ch._ xxxviii. when after many Pangs and Throws and

Dilacerations of her Body, Nature was delivered of a Burthen, which she

had born in her Womb sixteen hundred Years.

These three Places I take to be Memorials and Proofs of the Disruption

of the Earth, or of the Abyss, at the universal Deluge. And to these we

may add more out of the Prophets, _Job_, and the _Psalms_, by Way of

Allusion commonly to the State of Nature at that Time. The Prophet

_Isaiah_, in describing the future Destruction of the World, _chap._

xxiv. 18, 19. seems plainly to allude and have respect to the past

Destruction of it at the Deluge; as appears by that leading Expression,

_the Windows from on high are open_, ארבות סמיום נפתחו θυρίδες ἐκ τῷ

οὐρανῶ ἠνεώχθησαν, taken manifestly from _Gen._ vii. 11. Then see how

the Description goes on; _the Windows from on high are open, and the

Foundations of the Earth do shake, the Earth is utterly broken down, the

Earth is quite dissolved, the Earth is exceedingly moved_. Here are

Concussions, and Fractions, and Dissolutions, as there were in the

mundane Earthquake and Deluge; which we had exprest before only by

_breaking open the Abyss_. By the Foundations of the Earth here and

elsewhere, I perceive many understand the Center; so by _moving_ or

_shaking_ the Foundations, or putting them out of Course, must be

understood a displacing of the Center; which was really done at the

deluge, as we have shewn in its proper Place, _Theor._ _Book_ ii.

_Chap._ 3. If we therefore remember, that there was both a Dislocation,

as I may so say, and a Fraction in the Body of the Earth, by that great

Fall; a Dislocation as to the Center, and a Fraction as to the Surface

and exterior Region, it will truly answer to all those Expressions in

the Prophet, that seem so strange and extraordinary. ’Tis true, this

Place of the Prophet respects also and foretels the future Destruction

of the World; but that being by Fire, when the _Elements shall melt with

fervent Heat, and the Earth with the Works therein shall be burnt up_,

these Expressions of _Fractions and Concussions_, seem to be taken

originally from the Manner of the World’s first distruction, and to be

transferr’d, by way of Application, to represent and signify the second

Destruction of it, though, it may be, not with the same Exactness and

Propriety.

There are several other Places that refer to the Dissolution and

Subversion of the Earth at the Deluge, _Amos_ ix. 5, 6. _The Lord of

Hosts is he, that toucheth the Earth, and it shall melt, or be

dissolv’d.——and it shall rise up wholly like a Flood, and shall be

drowned as by the Flood of Ægypt._ By _this_ and by _the next verse_ the

Prophet seems to allude to the Deluge, and to the Dissolution of the

Earth that was then. This in _Job_ seems to be called _breaking down the

Earth, and overturning the Earth_, chap. xii. 14, 15. _Behold he

breaketh down and it cannot be built again, He shutteth upon Man, and

there can be no opening. Behold, he with-holdeth the Waters, and they

dry up; also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the Earth:_ Which

Place you may see paraphras’d, _Theo._ _Book_ i. _p._ 124, 125. We have

already cited, and shall hereafter cite, other Places out of _Job_; and

as that ancient Author (who is thought to have liv’d before the

_Judaical_ Oeconomy, and nearer to _Noah_ than _Moses_) seems to have

had the _Præcepta Noachidarum_, so also he seems to have had the

_Dogmata Noachidarum_; which were deliver’d by _Noah_ to his Children

and Posterity, concerning the Mysteries of natural Providence, the

Origin and Fate of the World, the Deluge and ante-diluvian State, _&c._

and accordingly we find many Strictures of these Doctrines in the Book

of _Job_. Lastly, In the _Psalms_ there are Texts that mention the

_shaking of the Earth_, and the _Foundations_ of the World, in reference

to the Flood, if we judge aright; whereof we will speak under the next

Head, _concerning_ the raging of the Waters in the Deluge.

These Places of Scripture may be noted, as left us to be Remembrancers

of that general Ruin and Disruption of the Earth at the Time of the

Deluge. But I know it will be said of them, that they are not strict

Proofs, but Allusions only: Be it so; yet what is the Ground of those

Allusions? Something must be alluded, and something that hath past in

Nature, and that is recorded in Sacred History; and what is that, unless

it be the universal Deluge, and that Change and Disturbance that was

then in all Nature? If others say, that these and such like Places are

to be understood morally and allegorically, I do not envy them their

Interpretation; but when Nature and Reason will bear a literal Sense,

the Rule is, that we should not recede from the Letter. But I leave

these Things to every one’s Thoughts; which the more calm they are, and

the more impartial, the more easily they will feel the Impressions of

Truth: In the mean Time, I proceed to the last particular mention’d,

_The Form of the Deluge it self_.

This we suppose to have been, not in the Way of a standing Pool, the

Waters making an equal Surface, and an equal Height every where; but

that the extream Height of the Waters was made by the extream Agitation

of them; caus’d by the Weight and Force of great Masses or Regions of

Earth falling at once into the Abyss; by which Means, as the Waters in

some Places were press’d out, and thrown at an excessive Height into the

Air, so they would also in certain Places gape, and lay bare even the

Bottom of the Abyss; which would look as an open Grave ready to swallow

up the Earth, and all it bore. Whilst the Ark, in the mean time, falling

and rising by these Gulphs and Precipices, sometimes above Water, and

sometimes under, was a true Type of the State of the Church in this

World: And to this Time and State _David_ alludes in the Name of the

Church, _Psalm._ xlii. 7. _Abyss calls unto Abyss at the Noise of thy

Cataracts or Water-Spouts; all thy Water and Billows have gone over me._

And again, _Psal._ xlvi. 2, 3. in the Name of the Church, _Therefore

will not we fear tho’ the Earth be removed, and tho’ the Mountains be

carried into the midst of the Seas. The Waters thereof roar and are

troubled, the Mountains shake with the swelling thereof._

But there is no Description more remarkable or more eloquent, than of

that Scene of Things represented, _Psalm._ xviii. 7, 8, 9, _&c._ which

still alludes, in my Opinion, to the Deluge-Scene, and in the Name of

the Church. We will set down the Words at large.

Ver. 6. _In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cryed unto my

God; He heard my Voice out of his Temple, and my Cry came before him

into his Ears._

7. _Then the Earth shook and trembled, the Foundations also of the

Hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth._

8. _There went up a Smoak from his Nostrils, and Fire out of his

Mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it._

9. _He bowed the Heavens also and came down, and Darkness was under

his Feet._

10. _And he rode upon a Cherub and did fly, he did fly upon the

Wings of the Wind._

11. _He made Darkness his secret Place; his Pavilion round about him

was dark Waters and thick Clouds of the Sky._

12. _At the Brightness before him the thick Clouds passed, Hail and

Coals of Fire._

13. _The Lord also thunder’d in the Heavens, and the Highest gave

his Voice, Hail and Coals of Fire._

14. _Yea, he sent out his Arrows, and scattered them; and he shot

out Lightnings and discomfited them._

15. _Then the Channels of Waters were seen, and the Foundations of

the World were discovered; at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of

the Breath of thy Nostrils._

_He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of great Waters._

מים רבים

This is a rough, I think, Draught of the Face of the Heavens and the

Earth at the Deluge, as the last Verses do intimate; and ’tis apply’d to

express the Dangers and Deliverances of the Church: The Expressions are

so far too high to be apply’d to _David_ in his Person, and to his

Deliverance from _Saul_; no such Agonies or Disorders of Nature as are

here instanc’d, were made in _David_’s Time, or upon his Account; but

’tis a Scheme of the Church, and of her Fate, particularly, as

represented by the Ark, in that dismal Distress, when all Nature was in

Confusion. And though there may be some Things here intermixt to make up

the Scene, that are not so close to the Subject as the rest, or that

they may be refer’d to the future Destruction of the World; yet that is

not unusual, nor amiss, in such Descriptions, if the great Strokes be

fit and rightly placed. That there was Smoak, and Fire, and Water, and

Thunder, and Darkness, and Winds, and Earthquakes, at the Deluge, we

cannot doubt, if we consider the Circumstances of it: Waters dash’d and

broken made a Smoak and Darkness, and no Hurricane could be so violent

as the Motions of the Air at that Time: Then the Earth was torn in

pieces, and its Foundations shaken. And as to Thunder and Lightning, the

Encounters and Collisions of the mighty Waves, and the Cracks of a

falling World, would make Flashes and Noises, far greater and more

terrible, than any that can come from Vapours and Clouds. There was an

universal[12] Tempest, a Conflict and Clashing of all the Elements; and

_David_ seems to have represented it so; with God Almighty in the midst

of it, ruling them all.

But I am apt to think, some will say, all this is Poetical in the

Prophet, and these are hyperbolical and figurative Expressions, from

which we cannot make any Inference, as to the Deluge and the natural

World: ’Tis true, those that have no Idea of the Deluge, that will

answer to such a Scene of things, as is here represented, must give such

a slight Account of this _Psalm_. But on the other hand, if we have

already an Idea of the Deluge, that is rational, and also consonant to

Scripture upon other Proofs, and the Description here made by the

Prophet answer to that Idea, whether then is it not more reasonable to

think, that it stands upon that Ground, than to think it a mere Fancy

and poetical Scene of Things? This is the true State of the Case, and

that which we must judge of. Methinks ’tis very harsh to suppose all

this a bare Fiction, grounded upon no matter of Fact, upon no sacred

Story, upon no Appearance of God in Nature. If you say it hath a moral

Signification, so let it have, we do not destroy that: It hath

reference, no doubt, to the Dangers and Deliverances of the Church; but

the Question is, whether the Words and natural Sense be a Fancy only, a

Bundle of random Hyperboles? or, whether they relate to the History of

the Deluge, and the State of the Ark there representing the Church? This

makes the Sense doubly rich, Historically and Morally; and grounds it

upon Scripture and Reason, as well as upon Fancy.

That violent Eruption of the Sea out of the Womb of the Earth, which

_Job_ speaks of, is, in my Judgment, another Description of the Deluge;

’tis _ch._ xxxviii. 8, 9, 10, 11. _Who shut up the Sea with Doors, when

it broke forth, as if it had issued out of a womb; when I made the Cloud

the Garment thereof, and thick Darkness a swadling Band for it. And

broke up for it my decreed Place.——Hitherto shalt thou come_, &c. Here

you may see the Birth and Nativity of the Sea, or of _Oceanus_,

describ’d[13], how he broke out of the Womb, and what his first Garment

and Swadling-Cloaths were; namely, Clouds and thick Darkness. This

cannot refer to any thing, that I know of, but to the Face of Nature at

the Deluge; when the Sea was born, and wrapt up in Clouds and broken

Waves, and a dark impenetrable Mist round the Body of the Earth. And

this seems to be the very same, that _David_ had express’d in his

Description of the Deluge, _Psal._ xviii. 11. _He made Darkness his

secret Place, his Pavilion round about him were dark Waters and thick

Clouds of the Skies._ For this was truly the Face of the World in the

Time of the Flood, tho’ we little reflect upon it. And this dark

Confusion every where, above and below, arose from the violent and

confus’d Motion of the Abyss; which was dash’d in pieces by the falling

Earth; and flew into the Air in misty Drops, as Dust flies up in a great

Ruin. [See _Theor._ _Book_ i. _p._ 136.]

But I am afraid, we have stay’d too long upon this Particular, _The Form

of the Deluge_; seeing ’tis but a Corollary from the precedent Article

about the Dissolution of the Earth. However, Time is not ill spent about

any thing that relates to natural Providence, whereof the two most

signal Instances in our sacred Writings, are, the _Deluge_ and the

_Conflagration_. And seeing _Job_ and _David_ do often reflect upon the

Works of God in the external Creation, and upon the Administrations of

Providence, it cannot be imagin’d, that they should never reflect upon

the Deluge; the most remarkable Change of Nature that ever hath been,

and the most remarkable Judgment upon Mankind. And if they have

reflected upon it any where, ’tis, I think, in those Places and those

Instances, which I have noted; and if those Places do relate to the

Deluge, they are not capable, in my Judgment, of any fairer or more

natural Interpretation, than that which we have given them; which you

see, how much it favours and confirms our Theory.

I have now finished the Heads I undertook to prove, that I might shew

our Theory to agree with Scripture in these three principal Points;

first, in that it supposeth a Diversity and Difference betwixt the

ante-diluvian Heavens and Earth, and the present Heavens and Earth:

Secondly, in assigning the particular Form of the ante-diluvian Earth

and Abyss; Thirdly, in explaining the Deluge by a Dissolution of that

Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss. How far I have succeeded in this

Attempt, as to others, I cannot tell; but I am sure I have convinced my

self, and am satisfied that my Thoughts, in that Theory, have run in the

same Tract with the Holy Writings, with the true Intent and Spirit of

them. There are some Persons that are wilfully ignorant in certain

things, and others that are willing to be ignorant, as the Apostle

phraseth it; speaking of those Eternalists that denied the Doctrine of

the Change and Revolutions of the natural World: And ’tis not to be

expected but there are many still of the same Humour, and therefore may

be called _willingly ignorant_; that is, they will not use that Pains

and Attention that is necessary for the Examination of such a Doctrine,

nor Impartiality in judging after Examination; they greedily lay hold on

all Evidence on one side, and willingly forget, or slightly pass over,

all Evidence for the other. This, I think, is the Character of those

that are _willingly ignorant_; for I do not take it to be so deep as a

downright wilful Ignorance, where they are plainly conscious to

themselves of that Wilfulness: but where an insensible Mixture of human

Passions inclines them one Way, and makes them averse to the other; and

in that Method draws on all the Consequences of a willing _Ignorance_.

There remains still, as I remember, one Proposition that I am bound to

make good; I said, at first, that our Hypothesis concerning the Deluge

was more agreeable not only to Scripture in general, but also to the

particular History of the Flood left us by _Moses_; I say, more

agreeable to it than any other Hypothesis, that hath yet been propos’d.

This may be made good in a few Words; for in _Moses_’s History of the

Deluge, there are two principal Points, the Extent of the Deluge, and

the Causes of it; and in both these we do fully agree with that sacred

Author. _As to the Extent of it_, he makes the Deluge universal; _All

the high Hills under the whole Heaven were cover’d fifteen Cubits

upwards._ We also make it universal, over the Face of the whole Earth;

and in such a Manner as must needs raise the Waters above the Top of the

highest Hills every where. As _to the Causes of it_, _Moses_ makes them

to be the Disruption of the _Abyss_, and the _Rains_, and no more; and

in this also we exactly agree with him; we know no other Causes, nor

pretend to any other but those two. Distinguishing therefore _Moses_ his

Narration as to the Substance and Circumstances of it, it must be

allowed that these two Points make the Substance of it, and that an

Hypothesis that differs from it in either of these two, differs from it

more than ours; which, at the worst, can but differ in Matter of

Circumstance. Now seeing the great Difficulty about the Deluge is the

Quantity of Water required for it, there have been two Explications

proposed, besides ours, to remove or satisfy this Difficulty; one

whereof makes the Deluge not to have been universal, or to have reach’d

only _Judea_ and some neighbouring Countries, and therefore less Water

would suffice; the other owning the Deluge to be universal, supplies it

self with Water from the divine Omnipotency, and says _new_ Waters were

created then for the nonce, and again annihilated, when the Deluge was

to cease. Both these Explications, you see, (and I know no more of Note

that are not obnoxious to the same Exceptions) differ from _Moses_ in

the Substance, or in one of the two substantial Points, and consequently

more than ours doth. The first changeth the Flood into a kind of

National Inundation; and the second assigns other Causes of it than

_Moses_ had assign’d; And as they both differ apparently from the

_Mosaical_ History, so you may see them refuted upon other Grounds also,

in the third Chapter of the first Book of the _Theory_.

This may be sufficient as to the History of the Flood by _Moses_: But

possibly it may be said, the principal Objection will arise from _Moses_

his six Days Creation in the first Chapter of _Genesis_; where another

sort of Earth, than what we have form’d from the Chaos, is represented

to us; namely, a terraqueous Globe such as our Earth is at present. ’Tis

indeed very apparent, that _Moses_ hath accommodated his six Days

Creation to the present Form of the Earth, or to that which was before

the Eyes of the People, when he wrote. But it is a great Question

whether that was ever intended for a true Physical Account of the Origin

of the Earth; or whether _Moses_ did either Philosophize or Astronomize

in that Description. The antient fathers, when they answer the Heathens,

and the Adversaries of Christianity, do generally deny it; as I am ready

to make good upon another Occasion. And the Thing it self bears in it

evident Marks of an Accommodation and Condescension to the vulgar

Notions concerning the Form of the World: Those that think otherwise,

and would make it literally and physically true in all the Parts of it,

I desire them, without entring upon the strict Merits of the Cause, to

determine these Preliminaries. First, whether the whole Universe rise

from a terrestrial Chaos? Secondly, what System of a World this six Days

Creation proceeds upon; whether it supposes the Earth, or the Sun, for

the Center? Thirdly, whether the Sun and fix’d Stars are of a later

Date, and a later Birth, than this Globe of Earth? And lastly, where is

the Region of the Super-celestial Waters? When they have determin’d

these Fundamentals, we will proceed to other Observations upon the six

Days Work, which will farther assure us, that ’tis a Narration suited to

the Capacity of the People, and not to the strict and physical Nature of

Things. Besides, we are to remember, that _Moses_ must be so interpreted

in the first Chapter of _Genesis_, as not to interfere with himself in

other Parts of his History; nor to interfere with St. _Peter_, or the

Prophet _David_, or any other sacred Authors, when they treat of the

same Matter. Nor lastly, so, as to be repugnant to clear and uncontested

Science. For, in things that concern the natural World, that must always

be consulted.

With these Precautions, let them try if they can reduce that Narrative

of the Origin of the World, to physical Truth; so as to be consistent,

both with Nature, and with Divine Revelation every where. It is easily

reconcileable to both, if we suppose it wrote in a vulgar Style, and to

the Conceptions of the People; and we cannot deny that a vulgar Style is

often made use of in the holy Writings. How freely and unconcernedly

does Scripture speak of God Almighty, according to the Opinions of the

Vulgar? Of his _Passions_, _local Motions_, _Parts and Members of his

Body_: Which all are things that do not belong, or are not compatible

with the Divine Nature, according to Truth and Science. And if this

Liberty be taken, as to God himself, much more may it be taken as to his

Works. And accordingly we see, what Motion the Scripture gives to the

Sun; what Figure to the Earth; what Figure to the Heavens: All according

to the Appearance of Sense and popular Credulity without any Remorse for

having transgressed the Rules of intellectual Truth.

This vulgar Style of Scripture, in describing the Nature of Things, hath

been often mistaken for the real Sense, and so become a Stumbling-Block

in the Way of Truth. Thus the _Anthropomorphites_ of old contended for

the human Shape of God, from the Letter of Scripture, and brought many

express Texts for their purpose; but sound Reason, at length, got the

upper hand of literal Authority. Then several of the Christian Fathers

contended, that there were no _Antipodes_; and made that Doctrine

irreconcilable to Scripture; But this also, after a while, went off, and

yeilded to Reason and Experience. Then, the Motion of the Earth must by

no means be allow’d, as being contrary to Scripture; for so it is

indeed, according to the Letter and vulgar Style. But all intelligent

Persons see thorough this Argument, and depend upon it no more in this

Case, than in the former. Lastly, the Original of the Earth from a

Chaos, drawn according to the Rules of Phisiology, will not be admitted;

because it does not agree with the Scheme of the six Days Creation. But

why may not this be wrote in a vulgar Style, as well as the rest?

Certainly there can be nothing more like a vulgar Style, than to set God

to _work by the Day_, and in six Days to finish his Task; as he is there

represented. We may therefore probably hope that all these Disguises of

Truth will at length fall off, and that we shall see God and his Works

in a pure and naked Light.

Thus I have finished what I had to say in Confirmation of this Theory

from Scripture; I mean of the former Part of it, which depends chiefly

upon the Deluge, and the ante-diluvian Earth. When you have collated the

Places of Scripture, on either side, and laid them in the Balance, to be

weigh’d one against another; if you do but find them equal, or near to

an equal Poise, you know in whether Scale the natural Reasons are to be

laid; and of what Weight they ought to be in an Argument of this kind.

There is a great Difference betwixt Scripture with Philosophy on its

side, and Scripture with Philosophy against it, when the Question is

concerning the natural World: And this is our Case; which I now leave to

the Consideration of the unprejudic’d Reader, and proceed to the Proof

of the second Part of the Theory.

The latter Part consists of the _Conflagration of the World_, and the

_new Heavens_ and _new Earth_; and seeing there is no Dispute concerning

the former of these two, our Task will now lie in a little Compass;

being only this, to prove that there will be new Heavens, and a new

Earth, after the Conflagration. This, to my Mind, is sufficiently done

already, in the first, second and third Chapters of the ivth book, both

from Scripture and Antiquity, whether Sacred or Prophane; and therefore,

at present, we will only make a short and easy Review of

Scripture-Testimonies, with design chiefly to obviate and disappoint the

Evasions of such, as would beat down solid Texts into thin Metaphors and

Allegories.

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.