This Chapter is concerning _Paradise_; but our Author fairly baulks all
the Difficulties in that Doctrine, and contents himself with a few
Generals, which every body knows. The Doctrine of Paradise consists
chiefly of two Parts; the Site or Place of it; and the State or
Properties of it. As to the first, if the Exceptor would have confuted
the Theory, he should have let down the Conclusions that are advanc’d by
the Theory, (_Eng. Theor._ _Book._ 2. _c._ 7.) concerning the Place of
Paradise, which are these; first, the Place of Paradise cannot be
determin’d by Scripture only. Neither the Word _Mekeddem_, (_Gen._ ii.
8.) nor the four Rivers mentioned there, make the Place of it
defineable. Secondly, The Place of Paradise cannot be determin’d by the
Theory. Seeing then neither Scripture, nor Reason determine the Place of
Paradise, if we will determine it, it must be by Antiquity. And if we
appeal to Antiquity in this Case, we shall find, First, That it was not
in _Mesopotamia_. Secondly, That according to the Plurality of Votes,
both amongst the Heathen and Christian Authors, it was plac’d in the
other Hemisphere. And this is all the Theory says upon that Point. As
you may see, _Eng. Theor_ _Book_ 2. _ch._ 7. and _Lat. Theor._ _Edit._
2. _p._ 194. and _p._ 214, 215. Wherefore if the Animadverter would
undertake to confute the Theory in this Point, he should have confuted
those four Particulars. But he slips over these, _p._ 265. and gives us
only a Paraphrase upon Verses in the second and third _Chapters_ of
_Genesis_, which says little to this Purpose, and yet more than it
proves.
In the second Place, as to the State and Properties of Paradise, or the
ante-diluvian World; _the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians_ is the Thing
he insists upon. But this he handles so loosely, _p._ 273. that in the
Conclusion of his Discourse, one cannot tell whether he affirms it, or
denies it. This sceptical Humour of the Exceptor hath been taken notice
of before, and ’tis continued in this Chapter, where there is little or
nothing positively determin’d. The Theorist, on the contrary, expressly
affirms the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, and gives these Reasons for
his Assertion. First, Because all the Lives, and all the Generations
recorded in Scripture, before the Flood, from Father to Son, in a Line
of sixteen hundred Years, are longeval: Of six, seven, eight, nine
hundred Years a-piece. Secondly, Antiquity, both _Greek_ and _Barbarian_
have attested the same thing, and recorded the Tradition; see the Table
of both. Thirdly, The Generations recorded in Scripture after the Flood,
as they exceed the Term of succeeding Ages, _Eng. Theor._ _p._ 204. so
they decline by degrees from the ante-diluvian Longevity. Lastly,
_Jacob_ complains of the Shortness of his Life, and lowness of his Days,
in Comparison of his Forefathers, when he had liv’d one hundred and
thirty Years; _Gen._ xlvii. 9. which had been a groundless Complaint, if
his Ancestors had not lived much longer.
These two last Reasons the Exceptor has not thought fit to take notice
of. And, in Answer to the two former, he hath only the usual
Subterfuges: As, that the long Lives of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs was
a Thing extraordinary and providential, confin’d to their Persons; not
of a general Extent, nor according to the Course of Nature. But how does
this appear? It must be made out, either by Scripture or Reason.
Scripture makes no Distinction, nor Exception of Persons in this Case;
all, whereof it hath left any Account, as to Term of Life, are declar’d
to have liv’d several hundred of Years. And why should we not conclude
the same Thing concerning the rest? Then as to Reason, you cannot
suppose Longevity, in that World, against Reason or Nature, unless you
first suppose the Form and Constitution of that World to have been the
same with the present: Which is to beg the Question. Admitting that Form
and Constitution of the first Heavens and Earth, which the Theory hath
given, Longevity will be a natural Consequence of it. _Theor._ _Book_ 2.
_ch._ 3, _&_ 4. And having such a Course of Nature laid before us, as
agrees with the Reports of Scripture, and with general Tradition, why
should we quit that, to comply with an imaginary Presumption; that these
were miraculously preserv’d, and all the rest were short-liv’d? I know
he pretends, p. 277. we may as well conclude all Men were Giants in
those Days, because _Moses_ says, _There were Giants upon the Earth in
those Days_, Gen. vi. 4. as conclude that all Men were long liv’d in
those Days, because _Moses_ mentions some that were so. There had been
some Pretence for this, if _Moses_ had made a Distinction of two Races
of Men in the first World, long Livers and short Livers; as he hath
distinguish’d the Giant from the common Race of Mankind: Or, as he hath
said in one Case, _There were Giants on the Earth in those Days_; so if
he had said in the other, _There were long Livers upon the Earth in
those Days_, and upon that, had given us a List of the long-liv’d
Patriarchs: This indeed would have made the Cases pretty parallel. But,
on the contrary, _Moses_ makes no such Distinction of long-living and
short-living Races, before the Flood; nor yet notes it as a Mark of
divine Favour, or extraordinary Benediction upon those Persons that
liv’d so long. Therefore, not to suppose it general to Mankind at that
Time, is a groundless Restriction, which is neither founded upon
Scripture nor Reason.
As to the second Argument for ante-diluvian Longevity, taken from
Tradition and the Testimony of the Antients, he objects, _p._ 276, 277.
that _Josephus_ does not seem to be firm in that Opinion himself. But
what then? The Theorist lays no Stress upon _Josephus_’s single Opinion,
but refers to the Testimonies of those Authors, whether _Greeks_, or
such as have given on Account of the _Ægyptian_, _Chaldean_, and
_Phœnician_ Antiquities: Which are call’d in by _Josephus_, as Witnesses
of this Truth or Tradition, concerning the long Lives of the first Men.
And at last, the Exceptor seems content, this Tradition should be
admitted, _p._ 278. seeing the _Authors are too many, or too
considerable, to have their Testimonies question’d or rejected_. But
then he will make a further Question, _Why_ there should not also be a
Tradition concerning the _perpetual Equinox_, or _perpetual Spring_,
upon which this Longevity depended? But this Question is fully answer’d,
and the Tradition fully made out before, in the eighth Chapter, which I
need not here repeat. In like manner, all the secondary Questions, which
he then mentions, depending upon, and being included in this first,
receive their Resolution from it. For when a perpetual Equinox is once
truly stated, there is no Difficulty concerning the rest.
After these Contests about Traditions, he hath one or two _Reasons_
against this _ante-diluvian Longevity_, p. 279, 280. First, because the
Earth, by this Means, would have been over-stock’d with People before
the Time of the Deluge. Secondly, They should all have been of the same
Longevity before the Flood. Neither of these, me-thinks, have any
Strength in them. As to the first, That Earth was much more capacious
than this is, where the Sea takes away half of its Surface, and renders
it uninhabitable. And whereas he suggests, as a Recompence, _ibid._
_That Mountains_ have more Surface and Capacity than Plains; that’s
true, but they are also less habitable, by Reason of their Barrenness
and Ruggedness. Who can believe that there are as many People in
_Wales_, as in other Parts of _England_, upon the same Compass of level
Ground? Or no more in _Holland_, than upon a like Number of Acres upon
the _Alps_ or _Pyreneans_? There would be room enough for twice as many
People as there are in the World, and twice as many Animals, if there
was Food enough to nourish them. But here I have two things to complain
of, as foul Play: First, the Exceptor cites the Theory partially.
Secondly, he does not mark the Place whence he takes that Citation; as
if it was on purpose to hide his Partiality. The Words he cites are
these: _If we allow the first Couple, at the end of one hundred Years,
or of the first Century, to have left ten Pair of Breeders, which is an
easy Supposition, there would arise from these in fifteen hundred Years,
a greater Number than the Earth was capable of; allowing every Pair to
multiply in the same decuple Proportion the first Pair did_, Eng. Theor.
p. 32. Here the Exceptor stops, and makes this Inference; that upon an
_easy Supposition_, which the Theorist makes and allows, the Earth would
have been over-stock’d in fifteen hundred Years. This is an _easy
Supposition_ for the _first Century_, as the Theorist put it; but it
would be a very uneasy one for the following Centuries, when they came
to be at any considerable Distance from the Beginning. And therefore the
Theorist tells you, in that very Page, _The same Measure cannot run
equally through all the Ages._ And in his Calculation you see, after the
first Century, he hath taken only a _quadruple Proportion for the
Increase of Mankind_. As judging that a _moderate and reasonable Measure
betwixt the highest and the lowest_. This the Exceptor might easily have
observ’d, _ibid._ and as easily avoided this Misapplication of the Words
of the Theorist.
His second Reason against the ante-diluvian Longevity is slighter than
the first, _p._ 280. For he pretends that all Ante-diluvians, upon that
Supposition, should have been equally long-liv’d. You may as well say,
that all the Children of the same Parents, and that live in the same
Place, should now be equally long-liv’d; the external World being the
same to them all. But, besides Accidents, their _Stamina_ and
Constitutions might then be of a different Strength, as well as now;
tho’ they were born of the same Parents, and liv’d in the same Air.
Lastly, he moves a Difficulty about the Multiplication of Animals in the
first World, _p._ 281. that they would have been too numerous before the
Flood. I can say nothing to that, nor he neither, upon good Grounds:
Unless we knew what Species of Animals were then made, and in what
Degrees they multiplied. The Theorist always supposes a divine
Providence to superintend, proportion, and determine, both the Number
and Food of Animals upon the Earth; suitably to the Constitution and
Circumstances of every World. And seeing that Earth was no less under
the Care and Direction of Providence, than the present, we may conclude
that due Measures were taken for adjusting the Numbers and Food of
Animals in such manner, as neither to be a Burden to one another, nor to
Man.