This Chapter is about the Places of Scripture, alledg’d in Confirmation
of the Theory: And chiefly concerning that remarkable Discourse in St.
_Peter_, 2 _Epist._ iii. which treats of the Difference of the
Ante-diluvian World, and the present World. That Discourse is so fully
explain’d in the _Review of the Theory_, that I think it is plac’d
beyond all Exception. And the Animadverter here makes his Exception only
against the first Words, _ver._ 5. Λανσθάνει γὰρ αὐτοῦς τοῦτο θέλοντας,
which we thus render, _For this they willingly are ignorant of._ But he
generally renders it, _wilfully ignorant of_, and lays a great Stress
upon that word _wilfully_. But if he quarrel with the _English_
Translation, in this particular, he must also fault the _Vulgate_, and
_Beza_, and all others that I have yet met withal. And it had been very
proper for him, in this Case, to have given us some Instances or Proofs,
out of Scripture or _Greek_ Authors, where this Phrase signifies a
_wilful and obstinate Ignorance_. He says it must have been a wilful
Ignorance, otherwise it was not blameable: Whereas St. _Peter_ gives it
a sharp Reproof. I answer, There are many Kinds and Degrees of blameable
Ignorance; a contented Ignorance, an Ignorance from Prejudices, from
Non-attendance, and want of due Examination. These are all blameable in
some Degree, and all deserve some Reproof; but it was not their
Ignorance that St. _Peter_ chiefly reproves, but their deriding and
_scoffing_ at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour, and the
Conflagration of the World. And therefore he calls them, _Scoffers,
walking after their own Lusts_.
But the Exceptor seems at length inclinable to render the forementioned
Words thus, _p._ 137. _They are willingly mindless or forgetful._ And I
believe the Translation would be proper enough. And what gentler Reproof
can one give, than to say, you are _willing to forget_ such an Argument,
or such a Consideration; which implies little more than Non-attention,
or an Inclination of the Will towards the contrary Opinion? We cannot
tell what Evidence, or what Traditions they might have then concerning
the Deluge, but we know they had the History of it by _Moses_, and all
the Marks in Nature, that we have now, of such a Dissolution. And they,
that pretended to philosophize upon the Works of Nature, and the
Immutability of them, might very well deserve that modest Rebuke, that
they were _willing to forget_ the first Heavens and first Earth, and the
Destruction of them at the Deluge, when they talk’d of an immutable
State of Nature.
Neither is there any Thing in all this, contrary to what the Theorist
had said, _Theor._ _c._ 1. concerning the ancient Philosophers: That
none of them ever invented or demonstrated from the Causes, the true
State of the first Earth. This must be granted; but it is one Thing to
demonstrate from the Causes, or by way of Theory, and another Thing to
know at large: Whether by Scripture, Tradition, or Collection from
Effects. The Mutability and Changes of the World, which these
Pseudo-Christians would not allow of, was a knowable Thing, taking all
the Means which they might and ought to have attended to: At least,
before they should have proceeded so far as to reject the Christian
Doctrine concerning the future Changes of the World, with Scorn and
Derision. Which is the very Thing the Apostle so much censor’d them for.
So much for what is said by the Exceptor concerning this place of St.
_Peter_. To all the rest he gives an easy Answer, (in the Contents of
this Chapter) _viz._, That they are _figurative, and so not
argumentative_. The Places of Scripture upon which the Theory depends,
are fixed distinctly and in order, in the REVIEW: And, to avoid
Repetitions, we must sometimes refer to that, _Review_, p. 371, 372.
particularly, as to two remarkable Places, _Psal._ xxiv. 2. and _Psal._
cxxxvi. 6. concerning the _Foundation and Extension of the Earth upon
the Seas_. Which the Exceptor quickly dispatches by the Help of a
_Particle_ and a _Figure_. על.
The next he proceeds to, is, _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. _He gathereth the Waters
of the Sea, as in a Bag: He layeth up the Abyss in Store-Houses._ But,
he says, it should be render’d, as _on an Heap_: Which is the _English_
Translation. Whether the Authorities produced, in this case, by the
Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 117. or by the Exceptor, are more
considerable, I leave the Reader to judge. But, however, he cites
another place, _Psal._ lxxviii. 13. where the same Word is us’d and
apply’d to the Red Sea, which could not be enclos’d as in a Bag. Take
whether Translation you please for this second place; it is no Prejudice
to the Theory, if you render it _on an Heap_: For it was a Thing done by
Miracle. But the other Place speaks of the ordinary Posture and
Constitution of the Waters, which is not _on an Heap_, but in a Level or
spherical Convexity with the rest of the Earth. This Reason the
Animadverter was not pleas’d to take notice of, tho’ it be intimated in
that same Place of the Theory which he quotes, _p._ 86. But that which I
might complain of most, is his unfair Citation of the next Paragraph of
the Theory, _Excep._ _p._ 140. which he applies peculiarly to this Text
of _Psal._ xxxiii. 7. whereas it belongs to all the Texts alledg’d out
of the _Psalms_, and is a modest Reflection upon the Explication of
them, as the Reader may plainly see, if he please to look the Theory,
and compare it with his Citation.
The next Place he attacks, is, _Job_ xxvi. 7. _He stretches the North
over the Tohu_, or, as we render it, _over the empty Places: And hangeth
the Earth upon nothing_. Here he says, _p._ 141. _Job_ did either
accommodate himself to the Vulgar, or else was a perfect _Platonist._
Methinks _Plato_ should rather be a _Jobist_, if you would have them to
imitate one another. Then he makes an Objection, and answers it himself:
concluding, however, that _Job_ could not but mean this of the present
Earth, because in the next Verse he mentions _Clouds_. But how does it
appear, that every Thing that _Job_ mentions in that Chapter, refers to
the same time?
The next Place, is, _Job_ xxxviii. 4, 5, 6. _Where wast thou when I laid
the Foundations of the Earth?_ &c. These eloquent Expostulations of the
Almighty, he applies all to the present Form of the Earth: Where he
says, there are the _Embossings of Mountains, the Enamelling of lesser
Seas, the open Work of the vast Ocean, and the fret Work of Rocks_, &c.
These make a great Noise, but they might all be apply’d to the Ruins of
an old Bridge, fallen into the Water. Then he makes a large Harangue in
Commendation of Mountains, and of the present Form of the Earth: Which,
if you please, you may compare with the tenth _Chapter_ of the _Latin
Theory_, and then make your Judgment upon both.
But it is not enough for the Exceptor to admire the Beauty of Mountains,
but he, _p._ 146. will make the Theorist to do so too, because he hath
exprest himself much pleas’d with the Sight of them. Can we be pleas’d
with nothing in an Object but the Beauty of it? Does not the Theorist
say there, in the very Words cited by the Exceptor, _Sæpe loci ipsius
insolentia & spectaculorum novitas delectat magis quam venustas in rebus
notis & communibus._ We are pleas’d in looking upon the Ruins of a
_Roman_ Amphitheatre, or a triumphal Arch, tho’ time have defac’d its
Beauty. A Man may be pleas’d in looking upon a Monster, will you
conclude therefore that he takes it for a Beauty? There are many Things
in Objects, besides Beauty, that may please; but he that hath not Sense
and Judgment enough to see the Difference of those Cases, and whence the
Pleasures arise, it would be very tedious to beat it into him by
Multitude of Words.
After his Commendation of Mountains, he falls upon the Commendation of
Rain: Making those Countries, that enjoy it, to be better water’d than
by Rivers; and consequently the present Earth better than that
paradisaical Earth describ’d by the Theorist. And in this he says, he
follows the Rule of Scripture, for these are his Words, p. 148, _And
that these Rules, whereby we measure the Usefulness of this Earth, and
shew it to be more excellent than that of the Theory, are the most true
and proper Rules, is manifest from God’s making use of the same, in a
Case not unlike: For he, comparing_ Ægypt _and_ Palestine, _prefers the
latter before the former; because in_ Ægypt _the Seed sown was_ watered
with the Foot, as a Garden of Herbs; _but Palestine was_ a Land of Hills
and Valleys, and drank Water of the Rain of Heaven, _Deut._ xi. 10, 11.
Let this rest a while: In the mean time let us take notice how unluckily
it falls out for the Observator, that a Country that had no Rain, should
be compared in Scripture, or join’d in Privilege, with Paradise it self,
and the Garden of God. For so is this very _Ægypt_, _Gen._ xiii. 10,
tho’ it had no Rain, but was water’d by Rivers. The Words of Scripture
are these. _And Lot lifted up his Eyes, and beheld all the Plain of
Jordan, that it was well-watered every where (before the Lord destroyed
Sodom and Gomorrah) even as the Garden of the Lord, like the Land of
Ægypt._ The Plain of _Jordan_ you see is commended for its Fruitfulness,
and being well watered: And as the height of its Commendation, it is
compar’d with _Ægypt_, and with the _Paradise of God_. Now in _Ægypt_ we
know there was little or no Rain: And we read of none in Paradise: But
they were both water’d by Rivers. Therefore the greatest Commendation of
a Land, for Pleasure and Fertility, according to Scripture, is its being
well water’d with Rivers: Which makes it like a Paradise. Surely then
you cannot blame the Theorist, having this Authority besides all other
Reasons, for making the _paradisaical Earth_ to have been thus water’d.
Now let the Exceptor consider how he will interpret and apply his place
in _Deuteronomy_, and make it consistent with this _Genesis_. Till I see
a better Interpretation, I like this very well, tho’ quite contrary to
his: Namely, _That_ they were not to expect such a Land as _Ægypt_, that
was a Plain naturally fruitful, as being well water’d; but the Land they
were to possess, depended upon the Benediction of Heaven: And therefore
they might expect more or less Fertility, according as they kept God’s
Commandments. And so much for those two Texts of Scripture.
Lastly, The Exceptor, _p._ 149. in the Conclusion of his Discourse about
that place in _Job_, makes a Reflection upon the Impropriety of those
Expressions made in _Job_, about _Foundations_ and _Corner-stones_, if
they be apply’d to the first Earth describ’d by the Theorist. But this
seems to me an Elegancy in that Discourse, which he makes a Fault:
Whether it be understood as an Allusion only to our manner of Building,
by deep Foundations, and strong Corner-stones: Or an ironical
Interrogation, as it seems to me; implying, that there was no Foundation
(strictly so call’d) nor Corner-stone, in that great Work, tho’ we
cannot build a Cottage or little Bridge, without such Preparations.
He proceeds then to the following Verses in that thirty-eighth Chapter.
_Who shut up the Sea with Doors, when it broke forth as if it had issued
out of a Womb?_ This the Theorist understands of the _Disruption_ of the
_Abyss_ at the Deluge, when the Sea broke forth out of the Womb of the
Earth: Or out of that subterraneous Cavity, where it was enclosed as in
a Womb. ’Tis plainly imply’d in the Words of the Text, that the Sea was
shut up in some _Womb_, before it broke forth. I desire therefore to
know in what _Womb_ that was. You will find Interpreters much at a loss
to give a fair Answer to that Question: What was that enclos’d State of
the Sea? And what Place, or Part of Nature, was that Receptacle where it
lay? But the Exceptor hath found out a new Answer. He says, it was that
_Womb_ of Non-entity. These are his Words, _It just then_ (at its
Creation) _gushed out of the Womb of Nothing, into Existence_. This is a
subtle and far-fetch’d Notion. Methinks the _Womb of Nothing_, is
much-what the same as _no Womb_. And so this is no Answer. But however
let us consider how far it would suit this Case, if it was admitted. If
you understand the _Womb of Non-entity_, _Gen._ i. 2. the Sea broke out
of that Womb the first Day, and had no Bars or Doors set to it, but
flow’d over all the Earth without Check or Control. Therefore that could
not be the Time or State here spoken of. And to refer that Restraint, or
those Bars and Doors, to another Time, which are spoken of here in the
same Verse, would be very inexcusable in the Exceptor: _p._ 150. seeing
he will not allow the Theorist to suppose those Things that are spoken
of in different Verses, to be understood of different Times. To
conclude, this metaphysical Notion of the _Womb of Nothing_, is
altogether impertinent, at least in this Case: For the Text is plainly
speaking of Things local and corporeal, and this Prison of the Sea must
be understood as such.
He proceeds now to the last Place alleg’d, _Prov._ viii. 27, 28. _When
he prepared the Heavens, I was there: When he set a Compass upon the
Face of the Deep._ The word חוג which we tender _Compass_, he says,
signifies no more than the Rotundity or spherical Figure of the Abyss.
And so the Sense will run thus, _When God set a Rotundity_, or
_spherical Figure, upon the Face of the Abyss_. But whereas the Word may
as well signify a _Sphere_ or _Orb_, the Theorist thinks it more
reasonable that it should be so translated: And so the Sentence would
run thus, _When God set an Orb upon the Face of the Deep._ And this
Discourse of _Solomon_’s, referring to the Beginning of the World, he
thinks it rational to understand it of the _first habitable Earth_:
Which is really an _Orb set over the Face of the Deep_.
One cannot swear for the Signification of a Word in every particular
Place, where it occurs: But when there are two Senses whereof it is
capable, and the one is much more important than the other, it is a fair
Presumption to take it in the more important Sense; especially in such a
Place, and upon such an Occasion, where the great Works of the Divine
Wisdom and Power are celebrated: As they are here by _Solomon_. And it
cannot be deny’d, that our Sense of the Words is more important than the
other: For of what Consequence is it to say, _God made the Body of the
Abyss_ round. Every one knows, that Fluids of their own accord run into
that Figure. So as that would be a small Remark upon a great Occasion.
The Construction of this Orb we speak of, minds me of an Injustice which
the Exceptor hath done the Theory, in the precedent Part of this
Chapter, by a false Accusation. For he says, the Theory makes the
Construction of the first Earth to have been _merely mechanical_. At
least, his Words seem to signify as much, which are these, _p._ 143.
_And so its Formation_, speaking of the first Earth, _had been merely
mechanical, as the Theory makes it_. That the Construction was not
merely mechanical, in the Opinion of the Theorist, you may see, _Eng.
Theor._ _p._ 88. which, because we have cited it before, we will not
here repeat. The Theorist might also complain, that the Exceptor cites
the first Edition of the Theory for such Things as are left out in the
second: Which yet was printed a Twelvemonth before his Animadversions.
And therefore in Fairness he ought always to have consulted the last
Edition, and last Sense of the Author, before he had censured him, or
his Work. But this unfair Method, it seems, pleas’d his Humour better:
_p._ 81. _p._ 100, last Part, as you may see in this Chapter, _p._ 154.
_p._ 227, 228. _p._ 244. and in several other Places; where Passages are
cited and insisted upon, that are no where to be found in the second
Edition. Not to mention his defective Citations, omitting that Part that
qualifies the Sentence, as _p._ 99. last Citation, and elsewhere, _p._
279, 280. _p._ 288. I make this Note, that the Reader may judge, how
well this answers that _Sincerity_, with which he profest he would
examine this Work: _Only as a Friend and Servant to Truth. And therefore
with such Candor, Meekness, and Modesty, as becomes one who assumes and
glories in so fair a Character_, _p._ 43.
The rest of this Chapter is a general Censure of Citations out of
Scripture, that are only tropical or figurative Schemes of Speech. These
must be made so indeed, if our Sense of them be not allow’d. But what
Necessity is there of a figurative interpretation of all these Texts?
The Rule we go by, and I think all good Interpreters, is this, that we
are not to leave the literal Sense, unless there be a Necessity, from
the Subject-Matter. And there is no such Necessity in this Case, upon
our Hypothesis: For it suits with the literal Sense. And ’tis to beg the
Question, to say, the literal Sense is not to be admitted, because it
complies too much with the Theory. But as for that Text of his own,
which he instances in, _The Pillars of the Earth tremble_, that cannot
be understood (by the same Rule) of Pillars _literally_; because there
are no such Pillars of the Earth, upon any Hypothesis.