This Chapter is concerning that grand Property of the ante-diluvian
Earth, _a perpetual Equinox_, or a right Position to the Sun. This
perpetual Equinox the Exceptor will by no means admit. But I’m afraid he
mistakes the Notion: For as he explains it in the two first Sections of
this Chapter, he seems to have a false Idea of the whole Matter. He
thinks, I perceive, that when the Earth chang’d its Situation, it was
translated from the Equator into the Ecliptick: And that before that
Change in the ante-diluvian State, it moved directly under the Equator.
For these are his Words, _p._ 158. So _that in her annual Motion about
the Sun_, namely, the Earth, before that Change, _she was carried
directly under the Equinoctial, without any Manner of Obliquity in her
Site, or Declination towards either of the Tropicks in her Course; and
therefore could never cut the Equinoctial, by passing (as now she is
presumed to do) from one Tropick to the other_. By which Words, you see,
he imagines that the Earth mov’d perpetually under the Equator, when it
had a perpetual Equinox. And when it came out of that State, into this
wherein it is now, it did not only change its Position, and the Posture
of its Axis, but was also really translated from one Part of the Heavens
into another, namely, from under the Equator to the Ecliptick, and so
took another Road in its annual Course about the Sun. This is a great
Mistake: And I cannot blame him, if he was so averse to admit this
Change, seeing it lay so cross in his Imagination. For what Pullies or
Leavers should we employ to remove the Earth out of the Equator into the
Ecliptick? _Archimedes_ pretended, if he had Ground to plant his Engines
upon, that he would move the Earth out of its Place; but that it was
done before, I never knew, nor heard of: And if the Exceptor had
consider’d what is said in the Theory upon that Occasion, _Lat. Theor.
li._ 2. _c._ 4. he might easily have prevented his Mistake. But we shall
meet with the same Error again in another Place. Let us consider now,
what Arguments he uses against this Change.
He says, _p._ 159. _If there had been such a Change_, either Providence,
or Mankind, would have preserv’d the Memory of it. How far the Memory of
it hath been preserv’d, we shall see hereafter. In the mean Time, we
will give him Instances of other Things to reflect upon, that are lost
out of Memory, unless he be the happy Man that shall retrieve them. The
_Age of the World_ hath been preserv’d, either by the Memory of Man, or
by the Care of Providence. And was not that both a Thing of Importance,
and of easy Preservation? _Noah_ could not but know the Age of the
World, for he was contemporary with five or six Generations, that were
contemporary with _Adam_. And knowing the Age of the World himself, he
could not easily forbear, one would think, to tell it to his Sons and
Posterity. But, to this Day, we do not know what the true Age of the
World is. There are three Bibles, if I may so say, or three
_Pentateuchs_, the _Hebrew_, _Samaritan_, and _Greek:_ Which do all
differ very considerably in their Accounts, concerning the Age of the
World: And the most learned Men are not yet able to determine with
Certainty, which of the three Accounts is most authentick. Then, what
think you of the Place of _Paradise_? How well is the Memory or
Knowledge of that preserv’d? Could _Noah_ be ignorant of it? And was it
not a fit Subject to discourse of, and entertain his Sons and Nephews,
and by them to communicate it to Posterity? Yet we seek it still in
vain. The _Jews_ were as much at a Loss as we are: _p._ 263, 264, 265.
and the Christian Fathers, you think, were out in their Opinions, both
about the Place and Conditions of it: Neither do you venture to
determine them your self: So that Paradise is lost in a Manner out of
the World. What Wonder then if this single Property of it be lost? If
the Exceptor had well consider’d (_Eng. Theor._ _p._ 400, 401.) what the
Theorist has said concerning the providential Conduct of Knowledge in
the World, this Doubt or Objection might have been spar’d.
After a long Excursion, little to the Purpose, but to shew his Reading,
_p._ 166. he tells us next, that Scripture does not favour this Notion
of a perpetual Equinox before the Flood: And cites _Gen._ viii. 22.
which the Theorist had cited as a Place that did suggest to us that
Vicissitude of Seasons that was established after the Flood. The Words
indeed are not so determinate in themselves, but that they may be
understood, either of the Restoration of a former Order in the Seasons
of the Year, or of the Establishment of a new one. And in whether Sense
they are to be taken, is to be determin’d by collateral Reasons and
Considerations. Such the Theorist had set down, to make it probable,
that they ought to be understood as a Declaration of such an Order of
the Seasons of the Year, as was brought in at that Time, and was to
continue to the End of the World. The Exceptor hath not thought fit to
take notice of, or refute those Reasons, and therefore they stand good,
as formerly. Besides, the Exceptor must remember, that this Text stands
betwixt two remarkable Phænomena, the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians in
the old World, and the Appearance of the Rainbow in the new. Both which
were Marks of a different State of Nature in the two Worlds.
He further excepts, _p._ 168. against that perpetual Equinox before the
Flood, for another Scripture-reason: _viz._ Because the Earth was curst
before that Time, and consequently, he says, had not a perpetual
Equinox. But if that Curse was supernatural, it might have its Effect in
any Position of the Earth. For God can make a Land barren, if he think
fit, in spite of the Course of Nature. And so he also must suppose it to
have been in this Case. For, upon all Suppositions, whether of a
perpetual Equinox, or no, the Earth is granted to have been very
fruitful at first: And so would have continued, if that Curse had not
interven’d.
Lastly, He makes that an Argument, _p._ 169. that the Air was cold and
intemperate in Paradise, and consequently no constant Equinox, _because_
Adam _and_ Eve _made themselves Aprons to cover their Nakedness_. So, he
confesses, Interpreters generally understand, that it was to _cover
their Nakedness_. But he will not allow that to be the true Sense, but
says those Fig-Leaves were to keep them warm. And the other
Interpretation of _covering their Nakedness_, he will not admit, for
three Reasons: First, because the Scripture, as he pretends, does not
declare it so. See, pray, _Gen._ iii. 7. Secondly, _What Shame_, says
he, _need there have been betwixt Husband and Wife_? Thirdly, _If it was
Modesty; when they were innocent, they should have been more modest._
Some Arguments answer themselves, and I do not think these deserve a
Confutation. But, he says, _p._ 170. however God made them _Coats of
Skins_ afterwards, and that was to be a _Defence against Cold._ He must
tell us in what Climate he supposes Paradise to have stood: And which
way, and how far _Adam_ and _Eve_ were banish’d from it. When those
Things are determin’d, we shall know what to judge of this Argument, and
of _Coats of Skins_.
After _Lastly_, I expected no more: But he hath two or three Reasons
after the _Last_. As first, he says, _p._ 171. upon our Hypothesis, one
Hemisphere of the Globe must have been unpeopled: Because the torrid
Zone was unpassable. And was not the Ocean as unpassable, upon your
Hypothesis? How got they into _America_? And not only into _America_,
but into all the Islands of the Earth, that are remote from Continents?
Will you not allow us one Miracle, for your many? I’m sure the Theorist
never excluded the Ministry of Angels; and they could as easily carry
them thorough the torrid Zone, as over the Ocean. But secondly, he says,
There could be no Rains to make the Flood, if there was a perpetual
Equinox. Were not those Rains, that made the Flood, extraordinary, and
out of the Course of Nature? You would give one angry Words that should
deny it. Besides, the _Flood-Gates of Heaven_ were open’d when the
_great Deep_ was broken up, (_Gen._ vii. 11.) and no Wonder the
Disruption of the Earth should cause some extraordinary Commotions in
the Air, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 135. and either compress the Vapours, or
stop their usual Course towards the Poles, and draw them down in Streams
upon several Parts of the Earth. But the Exceptor says, this could not
be, because the Theorist makes the Rains fall before the Disruption of
the Abyss. But he does not suppose the _Cataracts of Heaven_ to have
been open’d before, which made the grand Rains. And how unfairly that
Passage of the Theory is represented, we shall see hereafter in the
fourteenth Chapter.
Lastly, He concludes all with this Remark, _p._ 176. That all sorts of
Authors have disputed in what Season of the Year the Deluge came, and in
what Season of the Year the World began: Therefore they thought there
were then different Seasons of the Year. These Disputes, he confesses,
did _manifestly proceed from Inadvertency_, or something worse: Because
there could not be any one Season throughout all the Earth at once. He
might have added, unless upon the Supposition of the Theory, which makes
an universal Equinox at that Time. And why may not that have given
Occasion to the general Belief, _That the World begun in the Spring_?
And when the true Reason of the Tradition was lost, they fell into those
impertinent Questions, _In what Season of the Year the World began_. But
however, we do not depend upon the Belief, either of the Antients or the
Moderns, as to the Generality: For we know they had other Notions of
these Things than what the Theory proposes; otherwise it would have been
a needless Work. But notwithstanding the general Error, that Providence
did preserve some Traditions and Testimonies, concerning that ancient
Truth, we shall see in the next following Discourse.
So much for Scripture and Reasons. He now comes to examine Authorities:
Namely, such Testimonies as are alledg’d by the Theorist, to shew that
there was a Tradition among the Antients, of _a Change that had been, as
to the Position of the Earth_: And consequently, as to the Form and
Seasons of the Year. The first Testimony that he excepts against, is,
that of _Diogenes_ and _Anaxagoras_; who witness plainly, _p._ 177. That
there had been an _Inclination_ of the Earth, or a Change of Posture,
since it was form’d and inhabited. But the Exceptor says, they have not
assign’d a true _final Cause_, nor such as agrees with the Theory. The
second Testimony, is, that of _Empedocles_, p. 178. which he excepts
against, because he hath not given a good _efficient Cause_ of that
Change. The third Witness is _Leucippus_; against whom he makes the same
Exception, _p._ 179. that he doth not assign the Causes a-right. The
fourth Witness, is _Democritus_; whom he, _p._ 180. quarrels with upon
the same Account. But is this a fair hearing of Witnesses? Or are these
just and legal Grounds of rejecting their Testimony, as to matter of
Fact, because they are unskilful in giving the Causes and Reasons of
that matter of Fact? That is not requir’d in Witnesses: And they are
often impertinent when they attempt to do it. The Theorist does not cite
these Authors to learn of them the Causes, either efficient or final, of
that _Inclination_, or Change of Posture in the Earth, but only matter
of Fact: To let you see, that according to their Testimony, there was a
Tradition in that Time, which they took for true, concerning a Change
made in the Posture of the Earth. And this is all we require from them.
If you pretend to invalidate their Testimony, because they do not
philosophize well about that Change; that’s as if you should deny that
there was such a War as the _Peloponnesian_ War, because the Historian
hath not assigned the true Causes and Reasons of it: Or as if a Man
should give you the History of a Comet, that appear’d in such a Year,
was of such a Form, and took such a Course in the Heavens; and you
should deny there was any such Comet, because the same Author had not
given a good Account of the Generation of that Comet, nor of the Causes
of its Form and Motion. The Exceptions made against the Testimonies of
these Philosophers, seem to me to be no less injudicious.
After these Testimonies, he _p._ 181. makes three or four Remarks or
Reflections upon them. But they all concern, either the Time of this
Change, or the Causes of it. Neither of which the Theorist either
engag’d or intended to prove from these Witnesses.
There is still one Testimony behind, which the Exceptor hath separated
from the rest, that he might encounter it singly. ’Tis another Passage
from _Anaxagoras_, which both notes this _Inclination_, and the Posture
of the Heavens and Earth before that Inclination. But here the Exceptor
quarrels, first, with the word θολοειδῶς: Because _Ambrosius_ the Monk,
would have it to be θολερπῶς, but without the Authority of any
Manuscript: And, as _Casaubon_ says, _malè_. Then, he says,
_Aldobrandinus_ translates it _turbulentè_, but gives no Reason for that
Translation, in his Notes. Therefore he cannot rest in this, but in the
third Place, he gives another Sense to Φορὰ Θολοειδής. And if that will
not please you, he hath still a fourth Answer in reserve. I do not like
when a Man shifts Answer so often; ’tis a sign he has no great
Confidence in any one. But let us have his fourth Answer. ’Tis this,
That _Anaxagoras_ was a kind of heterodox Philosopher, and what he says
is not much to be heeded. These are the Words of the Exceptor, p. 184.
_If this will not satisfy, I have one Thing more to offer. Grant that_
Anaxagoras _should mean that very Declination, which the Theory would
have him, yet this truly would contribute little towards the Proof of
the Thing. For he was a Man as like to be heterodox; as like to broach
and maintain false and groundless Opinions, as any of the learned
Antients._ Had he made this Exception against this Witness at first, it
might have sav’d both himself and us a great deal of Pains. For we do
allow, if you can prove a Witness to be _persona infamis_, or _non
compos mentis_, ’tis sufficient to invalidate his Testimony.
But this is a rude and groundless Censure; shall that famous
_Anaxagoras_, that was call’d _MENS_, κατὶ ἐοχὴν, not be thought so much
as _mentis compos_; nor have Credit enough for an honest Witness? I am
apt to think, from those Sentences, and those Remains we have left of
him, that there was not a more considerable Man amongst the Antients,
for Nobleness of Mind and natural Knowledge. I could bring the
Testimonies of many antient Authors, and of many Christian Fathers, to
clear his Reputation, and place it above Envy. ’Tis generally
acknowledg’d, that he first introduc’d an intellectual Principle, in the
Formation of the Universe, to dispose and order confus’d Matter. And
accordingly _Eusebius_ gives him this fair Character, _Præp. Evan. l._
10. _c. ult. p._ 504. _Col._ δὴ πρῶτος διήρθρωσε, &c. _He first
rectified the Doctrine of Principles: For he did not only discourse
about the Matter or Substance of the Universe, as other Philosophers:
But also of the Cause and Principle of its Motion._ And the same Author,
in his fourteenth Book, _ch._ 14. _p._ 750. repeats and enlarges this
Character.
I wonder the Exceptor, of all Men, should lessen the Name of
_Anaxagoras_. For, besides his Orthodoxy as to the intellectual World;
he was one that establish’d the Notion of _Vortices_, in the Corporeal.
As you may see in _Clem. Alexandrinus_, _Strom._ 2. _p._ 364. and in
_Plato’s Phædo Phæd._ _p._ 99. And tho’ the _Father_, and _Socrates_,
(who never was a Friend to natural Philosophy) both blame him for it,
yet the Exceptor, who is deservedly pleas’d with that system of
_Vortices_, ought to have shew’d him some Favour and Esteem, for the
Sake of this Doctrine. Lastly, as to his moral Temper, his Contempt of
the World, and his Love of Contemplation; you may have many Instances of
it in the short Story of his Life in _Laertius_. And I shall always
remember that excellent Saying of his in _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _Strom.
p._ 416. Τὴν θεωρίαν τοῦ βίου τέλος εἶναι, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης
ἐλευθερίαν. _That the End of Life is Contemplation; and that Liberty,
that accompanies it, or flows from it._
But we are not to imagine, that all the Opinions of the ancient
Philosophers, are truly convey’d or represented to us. Neither can we,
in Reason or Justice, believe that they could be guilty of such absurd
Notions, as are sometimes fathered upon them. The Exceptor instances in
an extravagant Assertion, (as the Story is told to us) ascrib’d to
_Anaxagoras_, of a _Stone that fell from the Sun_. This cannot be
literally true, nor literally the Opinion of _Anaxagoras_, if he
believed _Vortice_; therefore methinks so witty a Man as the Exceptor,
and so well versed in the modern Philosophy, should rather interpret
this of the Incrustation of a fix’d Star, and its Descent into the lower
World: That a Star fell from the etherial Regions, and became an opake
and terrestrial Body: Especially seeing _Diogenes_, as he says, supposes
it a Star. Some Things were ænigmatically spoken at first: And some
Things afterwards so much corrupted, in passing through unskilful Hands,
that we should be very injurious to the Memory of those great Men, if we
should suppose every Thing to have come so crudely from them, as it is
now delivered to us. And as to this Philosopher in particular; as the
_Ionick_ Physiology, in my Opinion, was the most considerable amongst
the Antients; so there was none, of that Order, more considerable than
_Anaxagoras_. Whom, tho’ you should suppose extravagant, _quoad hoc_,
that it would not invalidate his Testimony in other Things.
Upon the whole Matter, let us now sum up the Evidence, and see what it
will amount to. Here are five or six Testimonies of considerable
Philosophers: _Anaxagoras_, _Diogenes_, _Empedocles_, _Leucippus_ and
_Democritus_. To which he might have added _Plato_, both in his
_Politicus_ and _Phædo_, _Li._ 2. _c._ 10. _p._ 274. if he had pleased
to have look’d into the second Edition of the _Latin_ Theory. These
Philosophers do all make mention of a Change that hath been in the
Posture of the Earth and the Heavens. And tho’ they differ in assigning
Causes, or other Circumstances, yet they all agree as to Matter of Fact;
that there was such a Thing, or, at least, a Tradition of such a Thing.
And this is all that the Defendant desir’d or intended to prove from
them, as Witnesses in this Cause.
To these _Philosophers_, he might have added the Testimonies of the
_Poets_, who may be admitted as Witnesses of a Tradition, though it be
further questioned, whether that Tradition be true or false. These
Poets, when they speak of a _Golden Age_, or the _Reign of Saturn_, tell
us of a _perpetual Spring_, or a Year without Change of Seasons. This is
expresly said by _Ovid_, _Ver erat æternum_, &c. And upon the Expiration
of the Golden Age, he says;
_Jupiter Antiqui contraxit tempora Veris,
Perque Hyemes, Æstusque, & inæquales Autumnos,
Et breve Ver, spatiis exegit quatuer annum._
_Ovid_ liv’d in the Time of our Saviour. And the Tradition, it seems,
was then a-foot, and very express too. _Plato_, who was much more
antient, hath said the same Thing in his _Politicus_, concerning the
_Reign of Saturn_. And if we may have any Regard to _Mythology_, (vid.
_Theor. Lat._ _li._ 2. _c._ 10. _in fine_.) and make _Janus_ the same
with _Noah_, which is now an Opinion generally received, that Power,
that is given him by the Antients, of _changing Times and Seasons_,
cannot be better expounded, than by that great Change of Time, and of
the Seasons of the Year, that happened in the Days of _Noah_. Neither
must we count it a mere Fable, what is said by the Antients, concerning
the Inhabitability of the _Torrid Zone_: And yet that never was, if the
Earth was never in any other Posture, than what it is in now.
Lastly, as the Philosophers and Poets are Witnesses of this Tradition,
so many of the Christian Fathers have given such a Character of
_Paradice_, as cannot be understood upon any other Supposition, than of
a _perpetual Equinox_. This _Card. Bellarmine_[17] hath noted to our
Hands; and also observ’d, that there could not be a perpetual Equinox in
the Countries of _Asia_, nor indeed in any topical Paradise, (unless it
stood in the middle of the Torrid Zone) _nisi alius tunc fuerit cursus
solis, quam nunc est_; _unless the Course of the Sun_, or, which is all
one, the Posture of the Earth, _was otherwise at that Time than what it
is now_: Which is a true Observation. The _Jewish_ Doctors also, as well
as the Christian, seem to go upon the same Supposition, when they place
Paradise under the Equinoctial; see _Eng. Theor._ p. 351. Because they
suppos’d it certain, as _Eben Ezra_ tells us, that the Days and Nights
were always equal in Paradise.
We have now done with the Examination of Witnesses: _Philosophers_,
_Poets_, _Jews_, and _Christians_. From all these we collect, that there
was an Opinion, or Tradition, amongst the Antients, of a Change made in
the State of the natural World, as to the Diversity of Seasons in the
Year: And that this did arise from the Change of the Posture of the
Earth. Whether this Opinion, or this Tradition, was _de jure_, as well
as _de facto_, is a Question of another Nature, that did not lie before
us at present. But the Thing that was only in Debate in this Chapter,
was matter of Fact, which I think we have sufficiently prov’d.
In the Close of this Chapter, the Exceptor makes two Queries: Still by
way of Objection to the ante-diluvian Equinox. The first is this, p.
185. _Supposing an Equinox in the Beginning of the World, would it (in
Likelyhood) have continued to the Flood._ If you grant the first Part, I
believe few will scruple the second. For why should we suppose a Change
before there appear any Cause for it? He says, the Waters might possibly
have weigh’d more towards one Pole, than towards another. But why the
Waters more than the Air? The Waters were not more rarified towards one
Pole than towards another, no more than the Air was: For which the
Exceptor, _p._ 180. had justly blam’d _Leucippus_ before. But however,
_says he_, that Earth would be very unstable, because, in Process of
Time, there would be an empty Space betwixt the exterior Region of the
Earth, and the Abyss below. But that empty Space would be fill’d with
such gross Vapours, that it would be little purer than Water: And would
stick to the Earth much closer than its Atmosphere that is carried about
with it. We have no Reason to change the Posture of the Earth, till we
see some antecedent Change that may be a Cause of it. And we see not any
till the Earth broke. But then indeed, whether its Posture depended
barely upon its _Æquilibrium_, or upon its _Magnetism_, either, or both
of them, when its Parts were thrown into another Situation, might be
changed. For the Parts of a Ruin seldom lie in the same Libration the
Fabrick stood in. And as to the Magnetism of the Earth, that would
change, according as the Parts and Regions of the Earth changed their
Situation.
The second Query is this, granting there was such an Equinox in the
first World, _p._ 187. _Would not the natural World, towards the latter
End of that World, have been longer, than in the former Periods of the
same?_ Suppose this was true, which yet we have no Reason to believe,
that the Days were longer towards the Flood, than towards the beginning
of the World; why is this contrary to Scripture? He tells you how, in
these Words, _p._ 188. _That the Days just before the Flood were of no
unusual Length, is evident in the very Story of the Flood; the Duration
of which we find computed by Months, consisting of thirty Days a-piece._
Whereas _had Days been grown longer, fewer of them would have made a
Month_. This is a mere Paralogism, or a mere Blunder. For if thirty Days
were to go to a Month, whether the Days were longer or shorter, there
must be thirty of them; and the Scripture does not determine the Length
of the Days. If thirty Circumgyrations of the Earth makes a Month,
whether these Circumgyrations are slow or swift, thirty are still
thirty. But I suppose that which he would have said and which he had
confusedly in his Mind, was this, that the _Month_ would have been
longer at the Flood than it was before. _Longer_, I say, as to extent of
Time, or Duration in general, but not as to number of Days. And you
could not cut off a slip of one Day, and tack it to the next, through
the intermediate Night, to make an Abridgment for the Whole. Therefore
this Objection is grounded upon a Mistake, and ill Reasoning, which is
now sufficiently detected.
Footnote 17:
_De Grat. prim. tm. c. 12._
_Accedit adbat, quad Paradisus ita deferiditus à Sinsto_ Basilio_, in
I. ’to de Paradiso; à_ Joan. Damasceno,_ Libre secundo, de fide,
capit; à Sano_ Augustino _Libre decim: quarto et cevit ete Dei, capit.
10. Ab A, A & Claud. Ma._